Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, Washington has a dangerous spending problem that poses grave risk to future American prosperity. The only way we can start producing results for the people again is to transform the culture of spending in this town into a culture of savings.

Over at least the past two years, the House did not cut spending on one single occasion. Those days are over. Under our majority, government will learn to do more with less.

We may not eliminate the entire deficit overnight, but this House will fight to make tangible progress by cutting unnecessary spending and needless regulation, and growing jobs and the economy. We call it cut and grow.

It is in this light that we will bring spending back down to 2008 levels, and bring to the floor a spending cut each and every week. Two weeks ago, we sent a clear signal of fiscal discipline by trimming our own congressional budgets by 5 percent. This week, we have brought to the floor a spending cut picked by the public through our YouCut program begun last year. This reduction would eliminate mandatory printing of bills and resolutions by the Government Printing Office for the use of Members of the House of Representatives and Senate. In the digital age, there's no reason we can't save taxpayer dollars by forcing congressional offices to receive bills and resolutions through the Internet.

This legislation is a small but still important and largely symbolic step towards getting spending under control. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 400th anniversary of Henrico County, Virginia. The Citie of Henricus was established by Sir Thomas Dale in September 1611 and was named in honor of Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales. Later in 1634, Henrico was designated as one of Virginia's first eight counties and at the time it included the counties of Albemarle, Amherst, Appomattox, Buckingham, Chesterfield, Cumberland, Fluvanna, Goochland, Nelson and Powhatan and the cities of Charlottesville, Colonial Heights and Richmond.

Henrico County was home to pioneer African-American educator and humanitarian Virginia Randolph, who founded the first public school vocational education program in the nation. She was born to former slaves and opened the Old Mountain Road School in 1892. The Virginia E. Randolph Community High School and the Virginia Randolph Special Education Center School, named in honor of Virginia Randolph, are located in Henrico County.

Today Henrico County is situated in Central Virginia and includes a third of the Richmond metropolitan area. Business in Henrico continues to thrive while local attractions and historical sites attract residents and visitors to the county. In 1927, Henrico County was honored when Charles A. Lindbergh landed the Spirit of St. Louis at the grand opening of Byrd Field. This airport, now known as the Richmond International Airport, serves more than 3.5 million travelers annually. The Richmond International Raceway, RIR, America's Premier Short Track, is also located in Henrico. Each year RIR hosts both the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series and NASCAR Nationwide Series.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating the citizens of Henrico as they celebrate the county's anniversary and wishing them the best for their continued growth and success.

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, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate and noon for legislative business. The House will recess no later than 5 p.m. to allow a security sweep of the House Chamber prior to the President's State of the Union address. The House will meet again at approximately 8:35 p.m. in a joint session with the Senate for the purpose of receiving an address from the President of the United States.

On Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business.

During the week, the House will consider at least one bill under suspension of the rules, which will be announced by close of business tomorrow. In addition, we will consider H. Res. 38, a resolution reducing non-security spending to fiscal year 2008 levels or Less, and a bill of the public's choosing--via the

YouCut program--to reduce Federal spending and the deficit by terminating taxpayer financing of Presidential election campaigns and party conventions; saving taxpayers $520 million in mandatory spending according to CBO's estimate last year.

First of all, I thank the gentleman for his kind statements regarding the expressions of grief and support that I think all Members of this body have expressed to Gabby Giffords, her family, and her staff. Our thoughts and prayers remain with all of them, and certainly to the victims and their families. And certainly they all know that we are thinking of them.

Mr. Speaker, as far as the schedule is concerned, if you will recall, the commitment on our schedule was the finishing time would be 3 p.m. on the last day we are here. We specifically had indicated that January is going to be a little different and an exception due to the organizing processes, State of the Union, et cetera. The expectation is to begin that in February, as was originally expressed; although, we do intend to try to be as expeditious as possible on Wednesday. The exact timing of our departure and finishing up depends on the actual rule coming from the Rules Committee, including the amendment debate and the structure for the Presidential election fund bill. We expect an announcement by the Rules Committee chairman later today on that.

The gentleman understands, as the Rules Committee chairman presides over the Rules Committee and entertains the submission of amendments. As to exactly, I can't answer that right now, and that will be determined by the Rules Committee.

To be clear, once the House adopts the resolution next week, the resolution will then instruct Chairman Ryan to cap non- security discretionary spending for the remainder of fiscal year 2011 at fiscal year 2008 levels. That is the purpose of our adopting the resolution, acting as the House as a whole, instructing Chairman Ryan to cap non-security discretionary spending at 2008 levels for the remainder of this fiscal year.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I'd say to the gentleman, I know he shares with me the realization that people across this country--families, businesses--are having to face some tough choices. We started this Congress, I think, together, committed to demonstrating that we are willing to make those tough choices--thus, the resolution for next week.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman that the resolution provides for the capping of spending levels at '08 levels.

The gentleman also knows that the Speaker has been very consistent in his statements, saying that we are going to have an open rule process when it comes to spending bills. In fact, that is what we said during the last campaign season in the Pledge to America.

So, in working with that commitment as well as the language of this resolution, the budget chairman, Mr. Ryan, will be instructed to enter into the Record a cap of spending levels for the remainder of the fiscal year to be placed at 2008 levels.

I would say to the gentleman I disagree with that characterization of the language ``or less,'' and would just say that, again, the Speaker is committed to an open process on spending bills. I assume that we will see coming to the floor every attempt and effort to try and maintain some sense that this Congress is going to be a cut- and-grow Congress and that we are about trying to find savings everywhere we can so that we can get this country back onto a trajectory of fiscal sustainability.

So I say to the gentleman, no, this is not something that we intend to be meaningless, that we are serious. The cap is consistent with our commitment to the people of this country that the levels of spending for the remainder of the fiscal year will not exceed 2008. It is our hope that we can continue to find additional savings so that, yes, we could even find ourselves below '08 levels; but the cap is 2008 levels.

Mr. Speaker, I will just respond to the gentleman by saying we are in the position we are in because the majority that he participated in in the last Congress failed to live up to its obligation in passing a budget and in even passing any appropriations bills short of a continuing resolution. That's why we are here today, because there is a mess that has been created from the last majority, and we are trying to clean that up.

We have committed to a transparent and open process; and I have said to the gentleman that, when the CR comes to the floor, we will see Members on both sides of the aisle have an opportunity to amend the continuing resolution according to the way they think that we ought to be saving taxpayer dollars.

So, again, I disagree with the gentleman's assertion that somehow there is a lack of transparency here. We have said all along the cap on our spending will be at 2008 levels for the remainder of the fiscal year. If this House works its will and if Members on either side are able to gain the majority of votes in this House to achieve even more spending below the 2008 levels, then that will be the will of this House.

Again, the gentleman understands well why we are where we are, and we look forward to working together to go and produce a spending resolution here that begins to address the mess that was left before.

The budget directive is 2008 levels or less. As the gentleman well knows, the intention is to allow the Appropriations Committee to do its work, to report a resolution to the floor. The body will work its will according to the insistence of the majority and the Speaker that we have an open process on spending bills.

It is our hope that we can work to achieve even greater savings for the taxpayers of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, first of all, as far as the $520 million--not $52 million--is concerned, as he knows that is mandatory spending, that is not discretionary spending, and would be different and apart from the commitment that we just spoke about at '08 levels.

I would also say to the gentleman that we will be glad to have hearings once committees are organized. As the gentleman knows, it's been a little bit slow in upstart just given the transition of leadership, et cetera. We are waiting for your side in some instances. But we hear from committee chairmen things are working well, so we hope that committees will be up and organized to have hearings.

But in order for us to deliver on our commitment that we are going to bring up a spending cut bill every week, this body will be considering a bill providing for cutting the Presidential election fund that has been in existence for some time. As the gentleman well knows, this tends to be of some controversy in some quarters. There are those who believe that this is an attempt to drive this country towards a public finance system for campaigns. Obviously there are those in this country who believe that's what should happen. But knowing full well the controversy, I'm sure we will have a robust debate. And I am looking forward, Mr. Speaker, to as many cuts to this fund as the gentleman's side may offer and look forward to a robust debate on the issue.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman again, yes, it is our intention to have a full and open debate on all of these issues. As the gentleman recalls, this process began last June, or in the spring or so, that we said we were going to redirect the focus to make sure that we are in line with the will of the people, and that is trying to do everything we can to remind all of us of the import of cutting spending, and therefore this process begins. But yes, to the gentleman's question about hearings, we welcome that and would expect that.

Mr. Speaker, I would begin by saying to the gentleman, as he knows, it's unclear when the Federal Government will actually hit the debt ceiling, and we will be closely monitoring that date. But before we reach that date, it is very, very important that we prove that this Congress is willing to cut spending. And the House, as the discussion today indicates, will be taking those necessary steps each week that we are here, leading up to an eventual vote. In fact, I would call on the leader on the other side of the Capitol, Mr. Reid, to follow suit.

The continuing resolution vote gives us the first real opportunity to demonstrate our commitment to cutting spending. The debt limit will be another opportunity for this Congress to cut spending. And as I think the gentleman knows, I have said repeatedly that we will not accept an increase in the debt limit without serious spending cuts and reforms, and I look forward to joining with the gentleman debate on this House floor. Hopefully we can have the Senate join us, as well as the President, towards that end.

I would say to the gentleman this: We have been charged with an obligation by the people of this country to get our fiscal house in order. We intend to be very deliberate and focused on cutting spending while making sure we are doing all we can to grow the economy and the private-sector jobs. It is our intent to prove that this House and this Congress--hopefully Leader Reid will follow suit--will deliver on that commitment.

The public, as the gentleman knows all too well, is tired of business as usual. They don't want to see this country continue to incur debt as it has in the past without some indication that things are changing, without some indication that serious spending cuts have been implemented and reforms effected, and that will be our intent.

I would say to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that the vote on the debt limit comes within the context of our demonstrating a commitment to cut spending, to effect reforms. And the President as well as the gentleman's side here in this House have said both that they would like to see and join us in cutting spending. This debt-limit vote comes in the context of all that we are going to be able to do over the next several months. And we've got to be demonstrating that or frankly the public will not want us to accept any notion that we're going to continue business as usual unless we've demonstrated that things are changing. That's why I continue to say to the gentleman that we will not accept an increase in the debt limit without serious spending cuts and reforms.

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

Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Buerkle).

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the secretary of the Republican Conference, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Speaker, we have five remaining speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Republican Conference, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the majority whip, the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

I yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, America did not become great by accident. We are a great country because we continue to strive toward the protection and expansion of individual liberties in a way that people cannot find anywhere else in the world. Our system of free enterprise inspires people to pursue opportunity, to take responsibility for their lives, and to achieve success. Yet for the past 2 years, Congress and the administration have pushed an agenda that moves America in the opposite direction by eroding individual freedoms.

It is part of a philosophy premised upon government siphoning more money, control, and power out of the private sector. And the health care bill we seek to repeal today is the tip of the spear.

Mr. Speaker, let's make something clear: Both parties care deeply about health care. Likewise, Republicans have rejected the status quo. We simply disagree with our counterparts on the other side of the aisle that excessive government regulation and sweeping mandates on individuals and businesses are the right way to go about effecting the reforms that Americans want.

The construct of this bill is fundamentally unworkable. Instead of preserving the doctor-patient relationship, this legislation we seek to repeal is rooted in having Federal bureaucrats come between patients and their doctors, limiting choices.

If you go back to the health care debate last Congress, the President, then-Speaker Pelosi, and then-Leader Reid often spoke of two goals: one, we should strive to lower costs; and, two, if Americans liked the health insurance coverage they had, they should be able to keep it.

Mr. Speaker, we believe in the aftermath of this bill's passage these goals have not and cannot be met. Therefore, doesn't it stand to reason that we must repeal this bill and begin an honest debate about a better way forward? Of all the most disingenuous myths in this town, perhaps the biggest is the notion that repealing the health care bill will increase the deficit. Let's remember here, we are adding an open-ended entitlement. The new law is riddled with budget gimmicks that double- count savings, offset 6 years of benefits with 10 years of tax increases, and rely on cuts to Medicare and tax increases to fund a new entitlement.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office works hard to provide accurate accounting; but it is only able to score the legislation put in front of them, even if it includes budget gimmicks and fiscal shell games designed to hide its true cost. The reality is this trillion- dollar new government entitlement will lead to a one-size-fits-all cure and put our country and our States on a path to bankruptcy. At a time when we need to do everything in our power to encourage job creation, the health care bill hangs around the necks of businesses and serves as a barrier to job creation.

Mr. Speaker, if we want to deliver real results, the right way to go about health care reform is to lower costs and improve access. That is why, after the House passes this repeal of ObamaCare, we will begin a two-step process of: first, conducting oversight of the law and the impact it has had on our economy and our health care system; and, two, beginning work on a new vision to improve health care without bankrupting our country and taking away the health care that most Americans want and like.

This majority is dedicated to achieving results for the American people. As we have said before, Mr. Speaker, we are a cut-and-grow Congress. We will cut spending and job-destroying regulation and grow private-sector jobs and the economy. Repealing last year's health care law is a critical step. Mr. Speaker, we can do better, we will do better, and I urge my colleagues to support repeal.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation, and I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in beginning to respond to the minority's motion to recommit, all I can say is this is an attempt to derail the repeal of the ObamaCare bill--without question.

The positing of this motion to recommit and the substance of that recommit is also inexplicable if one could be deemed to be offering a legitimate policy proposal. The notion that somehow the repeal position that the majority has taken and that, frankly, the majority of the American people desire is somehow connected with denying a better way forward, again, is inexplicable. I think, again, Mr. Speaker, I would say it is not a serious attempt to add towards how we get to a better way in health care.

Now, the question before this body is simple: Do you support the new health care law? Yes or no.

The motion to recommit is simply an effort to protect ObamaCare from being repealed, period.

If you think the new health care law will improve how health care is delivered in the U.S., then support the motion to recommit.

But if you believe, as most Americans do, that the new health care law will put America on the wrong path--that the open-ended entitlement design of the new law will contribute to putting us on a path to bankruptcy, that the policies in the law will deny patients access to the care that they want and need, if you believe that the new law will increase health care costs, not lower them, and that the new law is generating great uncertainty for our businesses, is hurting our economy and

that the new law is unconstitutional--then vote against the motion to recommit.

Voting against the motion to recommit is a vote to repeal the health care law, and I urge its defeat.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it shall be in order at any time on the legislative day of January 12, 2011, to consider in the House without intervention of any point of order a resolution relating to recent events in Tucson, Arizona, if offered by the Speaker or his designee;

such resolution shall be debatable for 6 hours equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader or their respective designees; and

the previous question shall be considered as ordered on such resolution and any preamble thereto to final adoption without intervening motion.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, this week, most Members of the House will gather briefly here in Washington, but our hearts and spirits will be in Arizona. The unspeakable tragedy in Tucson last Saturday came as a complete shock, casting a pall over the entire Nation.

With this resolution, we join 300 million Americans and millions of others around the world in showing our solidarity with Congresswoman Giffords and the rest of the victims. Gabby serves Arizona's Eighth District with distinction and thoughtful leadership, and we are all praying for her speedy recovery.

Saturday's cowardly crime was more than just an attack on dozens of innocent Americans at a grocery store. It was an attack on the very essence of democracy and representative government--an assault on the open exchange of ideas between legislators and the people to whom they are accountable.

This resolution honors the memory of Christina Taylor Green, Dorothy Morris, Judge John Roll, Phyllis Schneck, Dorwan Stoddard, and Gabriel Zimmerman. The slain represent a broad cross-section of the American public--young and old; men, women and child; friends, brothers, sisters, and children. They will be missed but not forgotten.

This inexplicable crime reminds us that there is evil in the world. Yet, as we look for light in a thicket of darkness, our Nation has drawn inspiration from the bravery and quick thinking displayed by the heroes on the scene. Were it not for their efforts, there likely would have been many more victims.

The outpouring of support, prayer, and solidarity also reminds us that America is a country of compassion, community, and empathy. We will stand with the victims and their families, and pray and mourn with them as they cope with this horrific tragedy.

Madam Speaker, I also want to offer my thoughts of comfort to Gabby Giffords' staff and want them to know that our hearts hang heavy, and our thoughts and prayers are with them as they try and persevere through this very difficult time.

I would also like to add my thanks to the brave law enforcement that has helped our Nation over the last several days and every day--the law enforcement under the directorship of Director Mueller of the FBI, the local law enforcement in Arizona and, from our perspective, most especially, the Capitol Police, the Office of the Sergeant at Arms and the Sergeant at Arms, himself--for the tremendous job that they are undergoing each and every minute as we try and cope with this tragedy.

Madam Speaker, this resolution affirms the point all of us want to make. Our hearts are heavy. We mourn with the victims, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 32.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie).

Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).

Madam Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

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

Madam Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).

Madam Speaker, it is now my honor to yield 3 minutes to the majority whip, the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy).

Madam Speaker, it is now my honor to yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Republican Conference, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, it is now my honor to yield 2 minutes to the chief deputy whip on the Republican side of the aisle, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Madam Speaker, it's now my honor to yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for those kind remarks. I want to also reiterate my pleasure of being able to develop a positive working relationship with him, understanding full well there will be disagreements, but there is probably a lot more that we can agree on, and I look forward to exploring those avenues. I want to congratulate him on his election to the position of Democratic whip, and I look forward to working in this relationship. I know that these roles have been reversed now in these colloquies, so I look forward to that as well.

Madam Speaker, on Monday, the House is not in session. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. On Thursday and Friday, the House will not be in session to accommodate the Republican retreat.

On Tuesday, we will consider at least one bill under suspension of the rules, which will be announced later today. We will also begin consideration of H.R. 2, the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act. I expect the House to complete debate on H.R. 2 Wednesday afternoon.

Also, on Wednesday, Madam Speaker, the House will consider H. Res. 9, instructing certain committees to report legislation replacing the job- killing health care law.

I would ask the gentleman to repeat the question.

I would say to the gentleman, Madam Speaker, that it is our intention to conclude by 7 p.m. on Wednesday.

As to the inquiry about openness and the ability for Members to have time to read the bills as well as for the public to realize its right to know, we on our side believe in making sure there is that adequate time, and we posted on Monday legislation coming to the floor for this week and next. So I would say to the gentleman from Maryland, Madam Speaker, that it is our intention to uphold our commitment to the 3-day rule to allow for the public's right to know, as well as Members themselves to understand, what it is we're voting for.

As to the gentleman's comments regarding the up-or-down vote on ObamaCare repeal, if the gentleman has looked at the postings online, he will know that the repeal resolution is a page and a half. This is a repeal of a bill that was the subject of significant legislative time and other over the course of the last 2 years. It is clear that the public has litigated and, in essence, has decided its position on that bill, given the results of November's election.

It comes down to whether you are for ObamaCare or you are against it. That is what the vote is.

Again, a page and a half is what the bill is, so we have committed to continuing in the vein of an open process when it comes to trying to get it right as far as replacing the health care status quo. We have committed and the Speaker has committed to making sure that our committees will go through regular order. Members of the minority and majority will have ample time to engage and participate in the discussions around what type of health care Americans deserve and what type of health care they want, which is how we will proceed when it comes to the so-called ``replacement'' resolution and its implementation.

I would also point out to the gentleman from Maryland that the Rules Committee has accepted the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Utah as far as a suggestion that he had regarding the SGR formula and the reimbursements for physicians under the Medicare program.

Again, we are trying to work in a fashion that is as open and as inclusive as we can. As the Speaker said in his remarks--and he was correct--we had no open rules under the last Congress. We intend for that not to be the case here. I know that the gentleman joins me in the desire for us to be able to work together, and we believe that that will provide the best way forward for that.

As to the gentleman's question about the remainder of January, Madam Speaker, we intend to focus on the theme of this Congress, which is ``cut and grow.'' We are going to be talking about ways to cut spending. We are going to live up to our commitment to bring a spending cut bill to the floor each and every week, Madam Speaker.

We also intend to focus on what it is that is impeding job growth in the economy, and we will be asking our committees to begin focusing on regulations that are being promulgated and pursued throughout the administration and its agencies that are precluding job growth. It is our hope, though, Madam Speaker, that these committees--our committees--will be fully organized by the end of the month so we can begin a process of regular order.

I thank the Democratic whip.

Madam Speaker, I respond to his first question by saying that Washington doesn't have a revenue problem; it has a spending problem. We believe that it is better to allow folks to keep more of their hard- earned money so we can see a return to growth in our economy, and we are dedicated to making sure we deal with the spending problem here in Washington.

As I said before to the gentleman, we are intending and will bring to the floor each and every week a bill to cut spending. We are very focused, as you know, on bringing spending down to 2008 levels to make sure that we are abiding by our commitment to live according to the same rules that everyone else does. While businesses and families are living within their means and tightening their belts, there is no reason in the world that Washington can't as well. I am sure the gentleman agrees with me on that.

As for the issue surrounding the CBO, the issue that we have and the dispute we have is not with the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO score is what is put in front of them, and the reality is the ObamaCare bill, Madam Speaker, relied on smoke and mirrors and budgetary shell games in order to present the picture that it presents or alleges to represent.

Madam Speaker, there is nothing that has changed about the flawed assumptions underlying the old score of the ObamaCare bill. Only the dates have changed. These are the same gimmicks, producing more false deficit reduction and, in fact, real spending increases. In fact, as the gentleman

knows, Medicare's chief actuary says that the ObamaCare bill represents a maze of mandates, tax hikes, and subsidies that will push costs up. The bottom line, Madam Speaker, is we need to stop arguing about ``inside baseball'' budget gimmicks.

There's no question that a new, open-ended entitlement program will grow unsustainably fast, will drive costs up, and could potentially bankrupt this Federal Government, as well as our States.

You know, Madam Speaker, the gentleman and I have gone through these discussions for the last 2 years, and when we get into discussing the past, I normally posit a quote from Winston Churchill when he said, If we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall find we have lost the future.

And what my response is, Madam Speaker, we are looking to see that we do take the tough steps and cut spending. So I'm hopeful with all the renewed enthusiasm that all of us have gained after the election towards fiscal sanity that the gentleman and his caucus can join us and vote with us in terms of the spending cuts that we'll be bringing to the floor every week.

The gentleman speaks about revenues, and absolutely, as an ongoing concern, this government has to be concerned with that. But we first and foremost must understand--and I think both of us realize, Madam Speaker, that in order to have revenues, we've got to have a growing economy--and so there is balance, and that is where perhaps our two visions diverge, but it is my hope that we can work together by putting priorities in place, cutting spending, growing the economy. And that's the formula by which we will be operating, and I'm hopeful we can operate in that formula together.

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

Article I, section 2: ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States, and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature.

``No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of 25 years and been 7 years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

``The actual enumeration shall be made within 3 years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of 10 years, in such manner as they shall by law direct.''

I thank the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, our new majority will be a results-driven Congress with one clear goal: to create jobs and generate economic growth. Our defining principle will be ``cut-and-grow.'' Cut spending and job- killing regulations and grow jobs and the economy.

Our mission is urgent. For the economy to grow, families, businesses, and financial markets need to know that we are serious about cutting spending. If we don't act, the threat of future tax increases, inflation, and higher borrowing costs will continue to serve as an anchor on the economy.

Beginning the new Republican majority by cutting our own congressional operating budgets sends the right message. The days of families and small businesses tightening their belts while the Federal Government goes on a spending spree are over. This self-imposed 5- percent cut to our own House operating budgets will save American taxpayers more than $35 million immediately. I hope that Federal agencies across the spectrum will follow suit and find ways to cut their own budgets.

This legislation is a small, but significant, step toward promoting a culture of opportunity, responsibility, and success. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during the 112th Congress, the Speaker, majority leader and minority leader be authorized to accept resignations and to make appointments authorized by law or by the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during the 112th Congress, all Members be permitted to extend their remarks and to include extraneous material within the permitted limit in that section of the Record entitled ``Extensions of Remarks.''

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during the first session of the 112th Congress:

(1) on legislative days of Monday or Tuesday when the House convenes pursuant to House Resolution 10, the House shall convene 2 hours earlier than the time otherwise established by the resolution for the purpose of conducting morning-hour debate;

Madam Speaker, your committee appointed on the part of the House to join a like committee on the part of the Senate to notify the President of the United States that a quorum of each House has been assembled and is ready to receive any communication that he may be pleased to make has performed that duty.