Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I support the point of order that the gentleman has raised against the rule, and I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for raising that point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and to the proposed cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in the underlying farm bill.

In the wealthiest nation in human history, it is simply unconscionable that every American cannot afford life's basic necessities. SNAP helps millions of Americans living in poverty put food on the table. Eighty percent of the households receiving SNAP earn below the Federal poverty level, making it a vital form of assistance for million of working families.

Yesterday, I proudly joined a group of my Democratic colleagues in taking the SNAP challenge, a commitment to living on no more than $4.50 in daily food costs. Mr. Speaker, every Member of Congress should experience what it's like to subsist on such a paltry sum and should understand how the decisions we make affect the lives of hardworking Americans.

When we take food off the plates of hungry children, we have a moral obligation to fully comprehend the consequences of those actions. Under this bill, 2 million people will lose their eligibility, and many more will see reduced nutritional assistance.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule, and I encourage Members to vote against these unnecessary and harmful cuts. We can do better. We can put that funding back into this farm bill and make it a bill that we can all support.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

While I fully understand and appreciate the gentleman from Colorado's intention, I must strongly disagree with his amendment, specifically its choice of offset. Cutting our future to pay for the present is the very definition of penny-wise and pound-foolish. This amendment would have a severe negative impact on small businesses in the defense industry.

The Rapid Innovation Fund was created by the Armed Services Committee. It is a fully competitive program to facilitate the rapid insertion of innovative small business technologies and processes into military systems or programs that meet critical national security needs of the warfighter. Projects are under way now, and just yesterday the pre-notification for the FY 13 process was released.

The Rapid Innovation Fund process contributes to the cost savings of the services' training activities. In fact, the Navy added cost reduction as a critical focus area in its FY 12 Rapid Innovation Fund broad agency announcement. Several of the selected RIF projects actually seek to reduce O&M costs, to include the cost of training. According to the Department:

RIF has a high return on investment while providing a venue

for the timely, innovative solutions from small businesses to

our near-term challenges.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, while I rise in opposition to this rule, I want to express my strong support for the underlying bill, H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act.

This legislation is not perfect; however, it ensures support for our men and women in uniform who sacrifice so much on our behalf, and includes provisions that are crucial to our military's future capabilities in this fiscally constrained environment.

Now, among other things, it fully supports the President's request for the peerless Virginia-class submarines, as well as critical future enablers such as the Ohio Class Replacement and the Virginia Payload Module.

It also includes the Oversight of Sensitive Military Operations Act which, for the first time, requires prompt notification to the defense committees of any overseas lethal or capture operations outside of Afghanistan, including those conducted with unmanned aerial vehicles.

Furthermore, I'm pleased that this measure begins to tackle the epidemic of sexual assault in our military. Our people in uniform need to know that they are protected from and against sexual assault, and God forbid if there is a sexual assault that occurs, that the perpetrator is held accountable.

While far more must be done, there are important first steps in this bill that are worthy of our strong support.

Mr. Speaker, I'm also proud to work closely with Chairman Mac Thornberry, both in this bill and in numerous other provisions which fall under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities. Together, we have worked hard to increase resources for our Special Operations Forces, who are helping us confront shifting threats and unconventional battlefields, and to support our efforts in the cybersecurity realm.

There are many other positive steps with regard to cyber in this legislation, including incentivizing new cybersecurity standards, ensuring U.S. Cyber Command has the proper authorities and the personnel in coordinating cybersecurity efforts with related disciplines.

However, the reality is that our Nation's cybersecurity challenges cannot simply be handed over to the Department of Defense. With the vast majority of our critical infrastructure in private hands, we absolutely must require minimum standards for their owners and operators. It is way past time for Congress to move aggressively to partner with the private sector and address what I believe is our greatest national security vulnerability.

Meanwhile, though I applaud DHS's efforts to coordinate the various approaches to cybersecurity found across

the Federal Government, I continue to believe that there must be an office within the White House with the policy and budgetary authority to enforce appropriate actions across the whole government. I'm disappointed the procedural and jurisdictional issues precluded offering such an amendment to the NDAA, but I am going to continue to work with my colleagues to enact what I believe to be a crucial provision.

Finally, I want to thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith, as well as Chairman Thornberry and all of my colleagues on the committee, but most especially the tireless HASC, for all of their efforts, which have been really Herculean in bringing this bill to the process of where we are today.

I certainly urge my colleagues to support the National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank Congressman Grijalva, the

ranking member of the subcommittee, for yielding and for his outstanding work in support of this legislation. Let me also thank Chairman Hastings, as well as the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Bishop, and your hardworking staff for working to bring this bill through the committee and to the floor today.

I would also like to thank my good friend from Connecticut, Congressman Courtney, who has been an outstanding partner in this effort as well. And, of course, our State partners, including the Wood- Pawcatuck Watershed Association, Save the Bay, the Nature Conservancy, the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, and the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. Their collaboration really has been instrumental in bringing this legislation to fruition.

As a Nation, we are, of course, privileged to have access to a diverse system of wilderness areas--from remote expanses of our country to backyard wildernesses closer to home. The Wood-Pawcatuck Watershed is such a place. Its rivers are within a 45-minute drive of every Rhode Islander, easily accessible for family outings and school field trips. Passage of the Wood-Pawcatuck Watershed Protection Act will allow for a study of segments of the Beaver, Chipuxet, Queen, Wood, and Pawcatuck Rivers in Rhode Island and Connecticut for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Rhode Island and Connecticut have long been outstanding stewards of these rivers, and I hope passage and completion of this study will affirm what we Rhode Islanders already know--that the Pawcatuck and its tributaries possess outstanding recreational, natural, and historical qualities that make them worthy of the designation of Wild and Scenic Rivers. The people of Rhode Island and Connecticut have long enjoyed the recreational and scenic wealth of the Wood-Pawcatuck, and we are eager to share this natural treasure with the rest of New England and the Nation.

The Wood-Pawcatuck watershed offers exceptional trout fishing, canoeing, photography, and bird watching, with adjacent hiking and camping for our sportsmen. These rivers are not only an important part of our national heritage, they are also a critical part of our tourism industry and the economy. Accordingly, the study will fully engage with local government, landowners, and businesses to recognize the existing commercial and recreational activities on or adjacent to the watershed.

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act offers the best guarantee that the Wood-Pawcatuck will be here for future generations to enjoy, and passage of this study is an important first step along that path. The rivers of the Wood-Pawcatuck watershed contain outstanding recreational, scenic, and natural heritage qualities that would be an excellent addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this bill.

Again, I want to thank all those involved in helping to bring this bill to the floor.

Madam Chair, on rollcall vote No. 199, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment Offered by Mr. Moran

Mr. Speaker. I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1911, the Making College More Expensive Act. This misguided bill would actually increase the cost of student loans and make it harder for graduates to escape the crushing burden of college debt.

It is a matter of critical national interest that we ensure our colleges and universities are turning out a well-educated, highly- qualified workforce. Unfortunately, the ever-increasing cost of tuition is creating a permanently indebted generation of graduates who are too often paying off crippling debt instead of building fulfilling careers that will increase their financial mobility and our country's economic competitiveness.

We should be working together to solve this looming crisis. Regrettably, this partisan measure makes college more expensive by tying student loan interest rates to the 10-year Treasury note, plus an additional 2.5 to 4.5 percent, and prevents students from locking in a fixed rate. Since these rates will reset every year, by the time next year's freshmen graduate, they will be paying more than double today's current rate for subsidized Stafford loans. The Congressional Budget Office estimates this will produce an extra $3.4 billion in federal revenue, meaning the government will be profiting off the extra debt students incur. I find this completely unacceptable.

That is why I am a cosponsor of a bill, introduced by Congressman Joe Courtney, to extend the current rate of 3.4 percent on Stafford loans for an additional two years. Rather than waging another partisan fight on a bill that will not pass the Senate and the President is prepared to veto, we should consider legislation that has a real chance of becoming law and that will provide real relief to students and their families. What we have before us today is a bait-and-switch scheme, promising benefits that cannot be realized for another four years and that can in no way be guaranteed.

As part of the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, we should take on student loans as part of a comprehensive effort to address student debt, college affordability and the financial aid system as a whole. We can take advantage of today's historically low rates without making empty promises to college students.

Madam Speaker, today I rise in strong support of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and against the proposed $20 billion cut in SNAP funding under the House Republican farm bill.

Coming on the heels of a sequester-induced reduction, SNAP beneficiaries continue to feel the pain and the cruel pinch of this Congress' misguided priorities.

SNAP, better known as food stamps, helps millions of Americans living in poverty put food on the table. That may very well be the difference between a child or a family going hungry or not. In the wealthiest nation in human history, it is unconscionable that every American cannot afford life's basic necessities.

Eighty percent, Madam Speaker, of the households receiving SNAP earn below the Federal poverty line. That translates into millions of working families. With these cuts, make no mistake about it, millions will go hungry and be forced to make decisions between food and other vital needs that nobody should ever have to confront.

Madam Speaker, we can do better. I call on my colleagues to reject these cuts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1406, the so-called ``Working Families Flexibility Act.''

This bill, which might more accurately be titled the ``More Work, Less Pay Act,'' would undermine the right to overtime pay and further weaken worker protections. Instead of actual money, employers would be authorized to provide compensatory time off at a rate of 1.5 hours per hour of overtime worked.

While this might sound like a good deal in theory, it's a raw deal in practice. First, it could end up denying countless workers the opportunity to earn extra money they may desperately need to pay their mortgage, cover medical bills, or provide a good education for their children. Just as unfairly, there is no guarantee that a worker will be able to take off the comp time they accrue. This bill would allow employers to claim that a request for time off--time that the employee has worked extra hours to earn--is ``unduly disruptive,'' and the request would be denied without any follow-up. We all know that you can't plan for medical emergencies and sometimes parent-teacher conferences don't fit easily into the workday. But unless your employer agrees to allow you to use the comp time you've earned, you're out of luck.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) implemented the 40-hour work week to allow workers time to be with their families; and to increase demand for workers when a firm has larger workloads. This bill would effectively put an end to the 40-hour work week without any guarantee of proper compensation for extra time worked, and would strip employees of the flexibility to meet workplace and family needs.

Instead of making life more difficult for hard-working American families, we should be considering legislation to establish a fair minimum wage, equal pay for women, or the Healthy Families Act, which makes earned paid sick days available to millions of workers.

American workers deserve better than this misleading and misguided bill, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Foster Care Month and on behalf of the foster youth across this country.

I'd like to commend Representatives Karen Bass, Tom Marino, Jim McDermott, and Michele Bachmann for their leadership of the bipartisan Foster Youth Caucus and for their work on this important issue.

Foster youth are some of the most at-risk children in our society. They are often the victims of abuse or neglect, and too many face trials and tribulations beyond their years.

So much of what we take for granted--a stable home, living with our siblings or returning to the same school year after year--are constant obstacles for these children.

However, the month of May and, in fact, every day should serve as a reminder of the opportunities that we all have to make a positive difference in their lives.

Growing up, my parents welcomed many foster children into our family and provided them with a loving, stable and nurturing environment.

Mr. Speaker, these children belong to all of us, and we are all responsible for them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deep disappointment that Congress has wasted yet another opportunity to be rid of sequestration for FY13. The most important action we can take to provide for the long term health of our nation is getting people back to work, and ensuring that those who are employed, stay employed. This cannot happen with sequestration in force, yet House Republicans continue to risk our delicate economic recovery by allowing this disastrous policy to continue. Since April of 2011, we have cut $2.4 trillion from the budget over the next ten years--with nearly three dollars in spending cuts for every dollar of revenue.

In February, Democrats introduced legislation, which I cosponsored, to avert sequestration in a balanced way, through closing tax loopholes and targeted spending cuts. Ever since, Democrats have tried to bring this proposal up for a vote, with Republican leadership blocking every attempt.

Every day, I hear stories from Rhode Islanders about the effects of sequestration on their lives and livelihoods. Some consequences, like flight delays, are more visible than others. But the impacts are just as real, and often much more devastating, for the laid-off workers whose extended unemployment insurance has been reduced, for our kids who won't get a spot in Head Start, for the low-income families who may lose their housing vouchers, for the seniors who won't be receiving Meals on Wheels, and for our teachers who may lose their jobs. Piecemeal legislation--and playing favorites--is not the answer. We cannot simply react to the loudest voices or the most well connected; sequestration is damaging to every segment of our community.

I am heartened to see that after months of denying the consequences of sequestration, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have finally woken up to the real, damaging effects to our constituents and to our economy. But we seek public office to represent the interests of all of our constituents, and to give a voice to those who can't always speak for themselves. We cannot afford any more carve-outs--there are too many in our communities whose problems are just as great, but whose voices don't carry as far. I urge my Republican colleagues to join us in finding a comprehensive solution to sequestration so that all of those who are suffering under this policy will know they have been heard.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong support of H.R. 624, and I do thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Ruppersberger for their commitment to a bipartisan and inclusive process on a very, very challenging issue.

We know with certainty that cybersecurity threats that we face are real, and they are increasing both in number and sophistication every day. Congress may not have acted last year, but those who would use cyberspace for nefarious purposes certainly did, and they continue to steal intellectual property, identities, funds from bank accounts, and sensitive security information.

I know full well that this is not a perfect bill, such is the nature of the legislative process. But we need the authority that CISPA provides to allow the voluntary sharing of cybersecurity threat information.

Improvements, I should point out, have been made over last year's bill. Several amendments have already been adopted to alleviate many privacy concerns, and more may be adopted before we are done. I welcome such progress. This bill is an important step, but information-sharing is only one portion of the broader cybersecurity debate.

I have long maintained that we must also work to ensure the creation of minimum standards for critical infrastructure; the education of a strong and vibrant future cybersecurity workforce; and effective Federal and military cyber structure, including a Senate-confirmed cybersecurity director with real authority, including comprehensive budgetary authority; and the coordination of research and development on cybersecurity across the Nation.

Together with the President's recent executive order, I believe CISPA and the bills this House approved yesterday are a very promising beginning, but there is obviously much more to be done.

Again, I want to thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Ruppersberger for their efforts. I commend them on a collaborative approach to a very important issue, and I ask my colleagues to support this important measure.

Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment, No. 35, listed as No. 4 in the rule.

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

My amendment ensures that utility districts are not unnecessarily and unintentionally limited from protecting their own information and ultimately will lead to a broader and more effective information sharing structure, leading to better cybersecurity across all critical infrastructure. Specifically, the amendment replaces the word ``local,'' which is typically interpreted to mean city, town, and county by the courts.

Such a definition, I believe, could potentially leave out special districts that provide utility services, like the Salt River Project, the Central Arizona Project, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and other smaller special districts.

My amendment, Madam Chair, which is supported by the American Public Power Association, changes the bill to read, ``political subdivision,'' allowing more utilities to receive the protections built into our bill. In doing so, it also makes the language consistent with the preemption provision in the bill.

If not amended, this legislation could subject utility districts to additional requirements if they share threat information, effectively creating a deterrent to participation--precisely what we want to avoid. We know that myriad threats are arrayed against the networks that run our critical infrastructure, and we must ensure that the utilities, which are the front lines in the cybersecurity fight, are properly protected.

I have long advocated for minimum standards for utilities, but absent such standards, I believe that we have to make sure that as many utilities as possible have access to the best possible information to defend their networks and are able to share information about the attacks that they experience.

This is an important bill overall. I really do want to applaud, again, Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Ruppersberger for their outstanding work on the underlying bill.

Obviously, the challenges of the threats that we face in cyberspace are growing exponentially every day. It seems like there's not a week that goes by that you don't hear of a new major attack on the critical infrastructure or, in particular, our banking system or major corporations with intellectual property theft, and obviously we have got to take action and do so now. Failure to do so would be a great abdication of our responsibility.

I'm disappointed the bill didn't pass last year. I know how hard the chairman and ranking member worked on this legislation, but clearly our adversaries, or enemies, have not taken a hiatus. They are actively engaged in cyber attacks or threats of intellectual property or identity theft, and the list goes on and on.

The underlying bill is a major step forward in protecting our cyber networks, allowing classified information to be shared with the private sector, allowing threat information to be shared back with the government to give broader situation awareness, as well as information sharing between both in the private sector among companies.

So, again, the underlying bill is a major step forward. I believe this amendment that I'm offering makes the bill even better for making sure that broader utilities are included in allowing for information sharing.

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).

Madam Chair, before I close, I just wanted to thank, again, the chairman and the ranking member for their comments, but, more importantly, their extraordinary collaborative work in trying to protect our Nation's cybersecurity. The work that they did in putting this legislation together, it is a real service to the country what you have done, and I am grateful to have played a part in it with you, and thank you for your friendship.

With that, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Before I begin, let me just say that my heart goes out to all those who lost their lives and were injured in the terrorist attack at the Boston Marathon yesterday. My thoughts and prayers are with them and their families, and we pray for a quick recovery for all of those who were hurt. And our thoughts and prayers are with everyone in Boston at this difficult time.

I also would like to take a minute just to comment on and to lend my support to the previous bill that was just debated, H.R. 1163, the FISMA reform bill that was before the House, vitally important for updating our reporting of cybersecurity incidents and other issues relating to enhancing our cybersecurity. And I commend Chairman Issa for his leadership on that, as well as others on the committee who are supporting that bill.

But, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise as a supporter and cosponsor of the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act, offered by my good friend and colleague, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, as well as the cochair, along with me, on the Cybersecurity Caucus, Chairman McCaul.

Mr. Speaker, it seems that every week we read about a new cyber attack taking place. Last month, the Mandiant Report detailed a campaign of espionage against hundreds of corporations around the world. The New York Times and other media companies have also been victims of recent attacks; and we saw in South Korea last month the financial and communications sectors can clearly be vulnerable to these pernicious attacks as well.

Mr. Speaker, the cyber threat is real. Protecting our networks is a complex task that we, in Congress, need to focus more on and address. Chairman McCaul and I served together on the CSIS Commission on Cybersecurity for the 44th Presidency, and I am happy to report that the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act builds on the important work that we did there.

As we are constantly reminded, today's threat may not be tomorrow's, due to the prodigious rate of technological innovation. This bill before us today encourages coordination between Federal agencies tasked with cyber research and development and requires them to develop a strategic plan for R&D activities.

Success in this area demands a skilled cyber workforce, something that we currently lack. This bill takes an important first step in correcting our course by reauthorizing NSF graduate fellowships in cybersecurity and requiring the President to issue a report addressing our critical cyber workforce shortage.

So, Mr. Speaker, with that, let me again thank the gentleman from Texas for his outstanding leadership on this issue. He's been a visionary on working to protect our Nation's cybersecurity, and I greatly appreciate his efforts and that of many others. I look forward to continuing to work with him, and I'm pleased to support this bipartisan piece of legislation.

I also recognize Mr. Lipinski and his leadership on this issue as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1120, the ironically and unfortunately-named ``Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act.'' The National Labor Relations Board is a crucial federal agency, mediating disputes between workers and employers, upholding labor laws, and ensuring the integrity of union elections. This bill would undermine the NLRB's authority and lead to an unstable labor-management relationship for the foreseeable future.

Under H.R. 1120, countless labor cases would go unheard, decisions would be unenforceable, violations of workers' rights would go unpunished, and union elections could not be certified. All current unfair labor practice proceedings in the country could be brought to a standstill. Instead of removing uncertainty, this bill would in fact do just the opposite.

Not only would this bill hamstring the NLRB in fulfilling its duties, but it increases the chances of labor strikes. Without a functioning board, wronged workers would have nowhere to turn for the enforcement of their rights under the law. There would be no one to enforce reinstatement orders for workers who were wrongfully terminated, and businesses would lose a forum to address disputes. Without the guarantee of the NLRB's protections, workers will be more likely to strike to seek redress of grievances.

We are told this bill is necessary to enforce the decision in Noel Canning v. NLRB, which invalidated recent recess appointments to the Board. This partisan decision, which runs contrary to mountains of legal precedent, has already been appealed to the Supreme Court. I recall that we opened this Congress with a reading of the Constitution. I hope my colleagues have taken to heart the Separation of Powers enshrined therein, and will allow the judicial branch to work through this issue. Should the ultimate decision run contrary to the will of the House, I have no doubt we will be able to revisit the topic then.

If my colleagues across the aisle are truly interested in ensuring the integrity of the NLRB, they should urge their Senate colleagues to stop holding up these nominations and allow them an up or down vote.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by the clear bipartisan support in the Senate for a full and fair debate on meaningful ways to reduce gun violence in our country.

Having experienced a gun accident myself that left me paralyzed more than 30 years ago, I know firsthand that the answer to keeping people, especially our children, safe is not having more guns around our kids and our communities as the gun lobby has proposed.

I am hopeful that the Senate has heard the public outcry for real change with 90 percent of Americans favoring the basic step of universal background checks.

Forty percent of the gun sales in America occur at gun shows that require no background check at all. Let's close the gun show loophole and ensure that whenever a gun is bought or sold in this country, that there's a background check so we keep the guns out of the hands of criminals or those who have mental illness that is so severe that they would be a danger to themselves or their community.

As the Senate moves forward, I continue to urge Speaker Boehner to stop delaying full debate on the House floor on responsible gun safety legislation. The House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force has put forward a comprehensive set of proposals, and I welcome ideas from both parties.

What is inexcusable in the wake of so many gun tragedies is inaction. We cannot sit back and wait any longer.

Mr. Speaker, the most important action we can take to provide for the long term health and prosperity of our nation is getting people back to work, and ensuring that those who are employed, stay employed. This can only be done by enacting a budget that achieves fiscal balance without imperiling economic progress. Unfortunately, the Republican budget fails this most basic principle. It will cost nearly 2 million jobs next year alone, and that's on top of the 750,000 jobs that will be lost due to sequestration this year. In Rhode Island, we have finally started to recover from the Great Recession that began in 2008, and our unemployment rate has dropped below 10 percent for the first time since 2009. For five years, Rhode Islanders have held on by their teeth, and the Republican budget would undermine the important gains we have made.

The prosperity of our nation is predicated on a healthy middle class--both parties can at least agree on that. Yet the Republican budget would put our middle class families, the drivers of our economy, further in debt by shifting the burden of paying for tax breaks for the wealthy onto working Americans and their kids.

We have seen this budget before. It's the same plan Governor Romney ran and lost on in November; it's the same budget Chairman Ryan brought before us in 2012. It is a budget that works for the most privileged, at the expense of every day Americans. It raises taxes on working families by as much as $3,000, shifts costs to future seniors by turning Medicare into a ``premium support'' program, cuts state Medicaid funding for low income and disabled individuals, and doubles the cuts to programs that help our veterans find work, keep my constituent's homes heated, and save children from going hungry.

There's been no shortage of posturing on the budget, and a surplus of half-truths floating around. What's been in short supply, it seems to me, are the facts.

It is a fact that federal spending over the past three years has grown at its slowest pace since the Eisenhower administration. It is a fact that we have already cut $2.4 trillion from the budget over the next ten years--and the Democratic alternative budget would increase that reduction to over $4 trillion. It is a fact that we have cut nearly three dollars in spending for every dollar of revenue, greater than the ratio of cuts-to-revenue proposed in Simpson-Bowles. And according to the Congressional Budget Office, it is a fact that half of the projected budget deficit for 2013 is a result of automatic stabilizers, like unemployment insurance.

There's another important fact here that my Republican colleagues appear to be ignoring. They seem to think that if you reduce budgets for our schools, housing agencies, workforce training programs, veterans services, the Social Security Administration, and the FBI, the services these agencies provide to our communities won't diminish. Their workload certainly won't--in many cases it's on the rise--yet they will have fewer staff and fewer resources to serve our constituents and communities.

This is not a budget I can support in good conscience, and it is not a path that will lead to economic stability. Democrats have offered a fair and balanced approach that keeps the promises made to our seniors, preserves our

social safety net, and asks all Americans to pay their fair share in reducing the deficit. Rhode Islanders understand these choices, Americans understand these choices, and they responded loud and clear last November as to which direction they wanted our nation follow. The Republican budget is not what the American people voted for, this is not what Rhode Islanders want, and it is not what our children, our business owners, and our communities deserve.