Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning-hour debate.

I thank my friend for yielding, and I thank the ranking Republican for his comments. I thank Mr. Cohen for his leadership on this issue.

``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.''

So spoke our Founding Fathers. Our Founding Fathers spoke, however, without a clear understanding of the impact of their words. Even as great as our Founding Fathers were, they did not live out the promise of those words in this land. Some were slave owners. Clearly, the contradiction between our words and the actions of our day-to-day lives were a contradiction from our stated values to our practices.

Martin Luther King, Jr., called America's attention to that paradox, to that contradiction, to that schizophrenic life that we had led. Martin Luther King, Jr., had a lieutenant who was a giant of a leader in his own right, and we are honored to serve with him; in my view, the most historic figure that serves among the 535 of us who have been given the privilege to represent our people and defend the Constitution and protect and preserve our democracy. John Lewis is a giant among us; a quiet, self-effacing, humble giant, but a giant nonetheless.

Forty-five years ago, civil rights activists attempted to march from Selma to Montgomery to demand that their Governor honor their right to vote and their God-given equality. Remember Jefferson's words, that our rights are not given by the majority. They are not given by Congress. They are not even given by the Constitution. They are given to us by a power higher than us. That is the glory of America, that every individual is an important being, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.

The world knows what happened to those marchers; how they were stopped by State troopers at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, how they were savagely beaten with nightsticks, and how this 23-year-old giant, whose name was then not known, this young man from Troy, Alabama, John Lewis, who was helping to lead the march from the front with Hosea Williams, was beaten to the ground and took life-threatening injuries.

Today, as a Member of Congress, John Lewis still bears those scars, but he does not bear resentment. What a lesson for all of us who suffer the verbal slings and arrows almost daily in this public profession which we pursue.

But John Lewis took more than rhetorical slings and arrows. He was beaten, subjected to hate, spit upon, subjected to prejudice and division and segregation and rejection. But still, Christ-like, John Lewis, following Gandhi's example, turned the other cheek and said, I seek justice, and I will continue to seek justice for myself and for others, no matter the opposition.

I will not do so violently. I will not do so by assaulting those who assault me. But I will appeal to the conscience of the Nation. I will appeal to the promise in our declaration, in our Constitution, and in the principles for which this Nation stands. And it was a powerful appeal.

This weekend, I and others--Mr. Cao was with us--were privileged to walk with that giant of a man, John Lewis, across that bridge. It is a bridge across a river, but it is also a bridge to brotherhood; a bridge to a realization of America's promise; a bridge to a better America; a bridge to a better country; a bridge, as my friend and brother John Lewis would say, to the beloved community; a bridge, then, over troubled waters, who have to some degree been stilled, but not silenced.

There is still prejudice in this land. There is still division in this land. There is still not the reconciliation that America still strives for. And that is why I return almost every year with my friend John Lewis to walk over that bridge, to remind myself--and I have taken my granddaughter to remind her as well--that although the mission of Martin Luther King, Jr., was extraordinarily successful, and the mission of John Lewis, which continues to this day, has been successful, it is not over. The mission and the commitment must continue. That is what we must remember on this anniversary of March 7, 1965, when a group of our fellow citizens peacefully walked to register to vote. Is there any more sacred right in a democracy than that--the ability to express your opinion, unbowed by government or unbowed or dissuaded by threats? That was John Lewis's mission then. He was so successful. But the mission is not over. And as we vote on this resolution, we ought to all commit ourselves to walking with the wind of justice, of which John Lewis spoke, of which he has written. But, much more importantly, the life that he has led teaches us the power of conscience, the power of peacefully standing up for the rights of which Jefferson spoke: the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

God has blessed America through the life of John Lewis and so many others whose courage and convictions have made us better. Support this resolution. But, more than that, live out its promise for all of our citizens.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution, which would urge the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, in my opinion, at great cost to America's security and, indeed, the Afghan people. But I want to rise as well to thank my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), with whom I work closely. This issue needs to be debated. This issue needs to be raised. The American people have a right to have us debate this issue.

Their young men and young women are in harm's way. They are in harm's way at our insistence, or at least at our sufferance. So it is right to have this debate. And while I disagree with the gentleman from Ohio, I appreciate the fact that he provides this opportunity to discuss this very, very important issue.

Madam Speaker, after years in which Afghanistan was a secondary concern, in my view, President Obama has set our policy on a new course which is already showing significant results. I believe that this is not the time to change that policy.

There is vast agreement that an indefinite presence in Afghanistan or Iraq is unacceptable. In Iraq we have reached the transition point of handing over responsibility to the central Government to take care of its own people. We see positive signs, such as the recent Iraq election in which 62 percent of the voters turned out in the face of terrorist violence. Was it perfect? It was not. Are there concerns yet about who could run and who could not? There are, appropriate concerns. But nevertheless, we see progress.

Given the increasing stability of the Iraq Government, President Obama is proceeding with responsible troop withdrawals. Today, 96,000 American troops remain, down from 140,000 troops, and calculated and careful drawdowns continue. All American combat troops are set to leave Iraq by the end of August.

At the same time, the President conducted a comprehensive reevaluation of our Afghanistan policy, one in which all viewpoints were heard. Some thought it took too long; some of us believed it was a careful, thoughtful, and correct attention to an important decision.

The Obama administration came to the conclusion that a failed Afghanistan was the launching pad for terrorist attacks that killed thousands of Americans as well as a source of regional instability, and that a newly failed Afghan state could pose the same danger again. That is why we, in a bipartisan way, authorized troops to go to Afghanistan about a decade ago. That is why the President committed to a strategy of troop increases, not as an open-ended commitment, but as part of a limited strategy of counterinsurgency with withdrawals set to begin in the summer of 2011.

This is not a war we fight alone. Our allies understand that the threat of terrorism affects us all and have pitched in accordingly. Since the President's December 1 speech announcing his new policy, we have seen a sharp increase in international cooperation with our allies, pledging approximately 10,000 additional troops and more military trainees.

Our new Afghan strategy has already seen real success in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, which demonstrates that this resolution is especially ill-timed. Among the highlights of that success have been the capture of Mullah Baradar, the second-highest ranking member of the Taliban and most significant Taliban capture since the beginning of the war, and Mullah Abdul Kabir, a senior Taliban leader. Both were captured in Pakistan, which illustrates increased cooperation from the Pakistan Government, thanks in large part to the administration's careful diplomacy.

As The Washington Post put it on February 23, ``Pakistani security forces have long supported or turned a blind eye to Afghan Taliban members seeking sanctuary in Pakistan. The recent arrests seem to mark a change in that attitude.'' Clearly, success in Afghanistan will be posited on the success of those in Pakistan to act against sanctuaries. At the same time, the leadership of al Qaeda and Taliban has been severely damaged through strikes in Pakistan. And the new counterinsurgency strategy has been put to work in Marjah, an important district in Helmand province, where American, coalition, and Afghan troops have worked and fought successfully together to strengthen the central Government against Taliban fighters.

Let me say, the gentleman has made some comments about the Afghan central Government. All of us share the gentleman's concerns about the central Government. These are concerns that are properly raised and need to be addressed. However, there is no doubt that years of war against the Taliban and terrorists have imposed a heavy cost on the Afghan people. Despite those heavy costs, the Afghan people support the coalition's continued presence in their country, perhaps because they know that reprisals from an unchecked Taliban would be fierce and unforgiving. In fact, our failure to follow through when the Soviets withdrew resulted, very frankly, in the Taliban's presence.

According to a recent poll conducted by the BBC, ABC, and German television, 68 percent of Afghans want American troops to stay in their country and 56 percent of Afghans believe their country is headed in the right direction, compared to just 30 percent last spring. Just since last spring, we have seen almost a doubling of the view that Afghanistan is heading in the right direction on behalf of Afghan citizens.

Madam Speaker, there is no question that our strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan has suffered from neglect, poor planning, and minimal diplomacy, but passing this resolution would show that we've learned the wrong lessons from those years of relative neglect. Abandoning Afghanistan just when a new strategy and new leadership has begun to bear fruit I think would be a mistake. And although I appreciate the gentleman's leadership and incisive analysis, which bears listening to, on this issue we disagree.

I would urge, therefore, my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the resolution before us.

Mr. Speaker, entering its 23rd decade, the U.S. Census is the longest-running national census in the world. Our founders wrote it into the Constitution, because taking a fair count is an essential part of fair government. A comprehensive, accurate Census helps ensure that our common resources are distributed where they are most needed, so that our communities can get the roads, schools, and police protection that they need. There's nothing partisan about that goal.

Unfortunately, some groups have set out to deceive Americans by disguising their own private mailings as Census documents. This month, Americans have received envelopes marked ``Census'' and ``official document,'' when the papers inside are nothing of the kind--and sometimes even political fundraising appeals. Groups that send out such mailings are taking advantage of the Census to unfairly promote their own interests. And even worse, they are interfering with a fair and accurate Census by possibly depressing the response. According to Barbara Everitt Bryant, a former Republican appointee to head the U.S. Census Bureau, ``those who respond may feel they have been good citizens and already answered the census when their real questionnaires arrive next month.''

To stop that kind of cynical manipulation, I urge my colleagues to support the Prevent Deceptive Census Look Alike Mailings Act. It would require any mailing with an envelope marked ``Census'' to clearly indicate the sender, reducing the possibility of deception; it would also trigger an existing legal requirement that the mailing include a disclaimer stating that it is not affiliated with the U.S. Census. This bill won't prevent any organization from using the word ``Census''--but it will stop private organizations from disguising themselves as the federal government.

This bill is an important way to ensure an unbiased count of all Americans, and I strongly support its passage.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the lifetime accomplishments of my good friend, Ms. Elizabeth (Liz) Smith, who retired last week from the American Federation of Teachers, AFT.

Bringing opportunity and respect to working men and women across America was the driving force in Liz's more than 4 decades of public service. And this commitment never waned. Workers fighting for fair wages, high-quality healthcare and a secure retirement always had a strong ally in Liz Smith. She fought for them every day.

Liz began her professional career working for two of my colleagues in the House of Representatives. She served as chief of staff to Representative James O'Hara of Michigan, and later as legislative director to Representative Dale Kildee of Michigan; both benefited greatly from her energy and commitment. In those positions, Liz worked tirelessly to ensure that the voices of constituents were heard in

Washington and that the federal government responded to their needs.

Deciding to leave the Congress she loved was a tough choice for Liz. But it was a natural progression to join the labor movement. She knew that her next assignment as legislative and political director at the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union was in keeping with her values and unwavering commitment to the men and women of the American labor movement. In this position, Liz worked with passion and moved with dispatch to ensure that the interests of the country's clothing and textile workers were fully represented not only before the U.S. Congress and Executive Branch, but internationally as well.

In 1995, Liz accepted a position as political director at the American Federation of Teachers in what would become the final and perhaps most important stop in her accomplished career. During her 15 years there, Liz's work on behalf of the more than 1.4 million members of the AFT included many accomplishments and milestones. She carried with her an intimate knowledge of the important work performed by AFT members and an ability to advance with unmatched skill and grace the causes she cared about most.

Liz is a true leader, always doing the right thing in a manner that is respectful of others and in turn earning others' respect. She is a wonderful woman and will be missed dearly by all of us who have had the pleasure of working with her. I wish Liz all the best in the years to come.

Madam Speaker, last year, President Obama and the 111th Congress took their oaths of office as America faced the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Since then, our work has been defined by our response to the crisis--by the overriding job of getting Americans back to work.

Of course, the most important step toward putting Americans back to work has been the Recovery Act. It cut taxes for small businesses and 95% of families, started thousands of job-creating projects across America, provided emergency assistance to those hit hardest by the recession, saved states from laying off teachers, firefighters, and police officers, and more. And despite the efforts of some partisan critics to call it a failure--even as many of those same critics eagerly take credit for the funds it has provided for their districts-- the Recovery Act is working.

The Recovery Act created some 2 million jobs. And since President Obama took office, job losses are down 90%. Our economy is growing again: in the most recent quarter, it grew by 5.9%, the fastest rate in six years, and the second straight quarter of growth under President Obama.

All of that is real progress for our economy--but it is not yet success. In recession after recession, employment has been the last sign of growth to turn around. Far too many Americans remain unemployed through no fault of their own, caught in the effects of an economic collapse they did not create. For working families, few challenges are more trying than unemployment, especially unemployment that grinds on for month after month. For Washington, few challenges demand our action more urgently.

That's why I urge my colleagues to pass this bill--a clear, focused effort at putting Americans back to work. It provides strong incentives for businesses to start hiring again. They include a tax exemption that will eliminate businesses' 2010 payroll taxes for every unemployed worker hired. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reports that such tax credits are one of the most effective ways of creating jobs: ``Providing tax credits for increases in payrolls would increase both output and employment.'' Businesses will also receive further tax credits for keeping new employees on the payroll for the next year. And small businesses will be able to take advantage of tax incentives to finance their expansion.

This bill also extends the highway programs that have created jobs for so many Americans, while bringing our vital infrastructure up to par with the rest of the world's. This bill will mean billions more invested in job-creating highway projects, which will save one million jobs. It will ensure that states direct some of their transportation investment to minority-owned contractors. And it will make it easier for states and local communities to finance their own job-creating projects by selling Build America Bonds.

Finally, I want to point out that this bill is paid for--that it fully complies with both the House PAYGO rule and statutory PAYGO, which are so important to restoring our budget to balance. In fact, this bill fixes a minor PAYGO violation in the Senate bill--and that extra effort shows how serious the House is about paying for what our country buys.

Unemployment demands action from Congress. And this bill is a part of that effort to create jobs, which began with the Recovery Act and will continue with a wide range of creative policies in the weeks ahead. This bill is not the first step, and it will not be the last; but it is an essential step toward getting America back to work.

I thank the Republican whip for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday the House is not in session. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. And on Friday, if needed, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of suspension bills will be announced by close of business tomorrow, as is the custom.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, we will consider H. Con. Res. 248, the Afghanistan war powers resolution introduced by Mr. Kucinich, and we will also consider H. Res. 1031, impeaching G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, for high crimes and misdemeanors. It is also possible there will be further action on the jobs agenda, which depends on what the Senate or the House has coming out of committee or out of the Senate.

We believe that the number one priority for us is to continue to grow the economy so that we will create jobs in this economy. As the gentleman knows, my perception is we have gone from losing an average of 726,000 jobs in the last 3 months of the Bush administration, to the last 3 months of losing, on average, 35,000 jobs. That is 95 percent in the right direction, but we need to continue to create jobs.

As you know in the bill that was just passed, which was passed in a bipartisan fashion in the Senate and to some degree here, we are trying to encourage the hiring of those who are unemployed through giving tax credits, and also tried to spur investment by giving businesses the right to write off items. We also ensure the continuation of the Highway Act; and in addition to that, as you know, we provided for a less expensive way for communities to expand public works and hire people to do that, public buildings and construction of public facilities.

So when I say the agenda, that was obviously a part of the agenda. We still are very concerned about lending, capital being available to small, particularly, but medium-sized businesses as well. The Senate is considering a jobs bill now, as you know, with a number of component parts. So when I talk about the jobs agenda, I am talking about ways and means and efforts to grow the economy and create jobs.

Would the gentleman yield?

Just for accuracy, it's my understanding that the resolution that the gentleman from Ohio has introduced is by December 31, I believe, not 30 days. And I yield back.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As the gentleman knows, I've expressed support for the policy being pursued by President Obama, and I certainly intend to continue to support that policy. The resolution is not consistent with that. So I think the gentleman is not going to be surprised at my expectation that this will be a bipartisan vote--perhaps on both sides of the proposition, yea and nay, but I certainly think it's going to be a bipartisan vote.

I believe the President's policy that he has articulated is a thoughtful, measured policy. And very frankly, I think he has done what perhaps we should have been doing for some period of time, focused on where terrorism was organized against the United States to ensure that we eliminate al Qaeda and prevent the Taliban from resurgence and reestablishing a base wherefrom terrorists might attack us. I think that is an appropriate policy that the President is pursuing, and I would hope that the House would support that policy on both sides of the aisle.

We hope that the budget resolution will come to the floor--and we're working on that--by the end of the month before we leave for the Easter break.

As you can well imagine, given the fiscal situation that confronts us, that's a very difficult document to put together. But Mr. Spratt is working very hard at that with the committee. I know Mr. Ryan, I'm sure, the ranking member, is also working hard on that. I am hopeful that we will be in a position to bring that to the floor before the Easter break.

It is the President's hope and our hope that that will be the case. As you know, the President has expressed that objective, and we have said that would be our objective as well.

As you know, we have been working on this issue for well over a year. We passed a bill many months ago; the Senate passed a bill over 2 months ago. Many of us have been working on that bill. As you know, we had a very substantial--historic, really, in many respects--discussion with the President at Blair House last week. I understand the President has incorporated a number of ideas that he felt were good ideas that Republicans put on the table at that meeting.

My expectation is we will be moving on this bill in the near future. And what I mean by that is, again, hopefully, that we would be able to consider this prior to the April break, the Easter break.

Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As the gentleman knows, we provided for reconciliation in the budget resolution that was adopted last year, so that is available to us. That has been used 22 times, as the gentleman knows, since 1980; 16 of those times it was used when your party was in the majority. You utilized that to do what the American people think is usually the case: we pass things by majority vote, up or down, and the majority rules. Now, here, of course, when the majority rules, it really does represent a majority of the country. In the Senate, of course, even when a majority votes, it doesn't necessarily represent a majority of the people of the country because obviously every State, no matter how large or small, is represented.

But having said that, we believe that the Republicans, when you used it for a tax bill or welfare or other very important pieces of legislation--the tax bill obviously having trillions of dollars of economic impact on the economy--you felt that that process of passing it by a majority vote in the United States Senate made sense. We share your view.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Let me repeat, his 180 was incorporated as a way to go forward last year when we adopted the budget almost 1 year ago. So this is nothing new for the gentleman.

I told the gentleman his party has used this procedure 16 times out of 22 times that it has been used, which means your party has used it two-thirds of the time--over two-thirds of the time--that it's been employed. As a matter of fact, Judd Gregg, a Member of your party, a leader of the Budget Committee on your side, was chairman of the Budget Committee, now ranking member, when an objection was raised on that-- we're using quotes--when an objection was raised to that said, as he turned to the Democratic side, ``What's wrong with a majority vote? I thought a majority vote was what should prevail.'' That was Judd Gregg of your party. I think it's ironic when we're saying, okay, you think a majority vote is good, we'll take a majority vote.

Now, the President's quote is a demonstration that we all say things that, unfortunately, then don't become reality. Well, I will tell you the reason they don't become reality is because, as Jim DeMint said, I think many of your party hope this is President Obama's Waterloo. That's a direct quote--you used quotes--from Mr. DeMint.

Your belief is, in my view--I do not attribute it to you--but my belief is, as Mr. Gingrich pointed out over and over again, if we fail, you win. The problem is if we fail, we believe the American people lose, and we think that is not fair.

I want to use one more quote and then I will cease and yield back to you. October of 2008, Presidential campaign debate, national television, John McCain, your candidate, said, ``I want to see a plan that gives all Americans, all families availability of affordable health care.'' That was a quote that Senator McCain, your candidate for President, made just a few months ago. It was almost exactly what Mr. Obama said. So, from my perception, there was a consensus with respect to where we needed to go.

As a matter of fact, I think almost every Member on this floor believes that we need to reform the health care system. We've had a very vigorous debate, a very open debate, a very transparent debate over 1 year now on how this ought to be done. We have disagreement, and that is the nature of democracy. But if a majority of the representatives in this body and the majority of the representatives in the other body believe a policy ought to be adopted, then, frankly, that is the way our system should work.

There is nothing in the Constitution, as the gentleman well knows, about having--except for some rare instances--a supermajority, and certainly none on policy. There are on confirmations and overriding a President's veto, but other than that, the perception is the majority vote rules.

So it's a procedure that you used, and it's a procedure that we anticipated last March. We hoped that wouldn't be the case. Very frankly, we would hope that we could work in a bipartisan way to effect this end that at this point hasn't been possible, and Senator McConnell has made it pretty clear that he has no intention of participating in that kind of effort.

I yield back to my friend.

Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We are still discussing exactly what procedure will be employed to effect a majority vote in both Houses and send something to the President in the same form, so I can't specifically answer that question at this particular time.

But let me say to the gentleman, he mentioned the forum we went to, and Republicans did put ideas on the table. We thought they were constructive. As a matter of fact, as you may recall, I responded to Senator Coburn, who is also a medical doctor, when we mentioned about fraud, waste and abuse. As you know, there is substantial investment in both the House bill and the Senate bill to eliminating fraud, waste and abuse. Senator Coburn observed he thought there was a lot of money that could be saved there. We think that is the case as well, so we have provided to go after that.

We also, I think, agree that reform ought to be based on a private, market-based system. As the gentleman knows, the exchanges that are set up both in the House bill and the Senate bill, they differ; but they are both based on private sector competition by private insurance companies.

We talked about wellness programs. Dr. Coburn also talked about that as did others. I think Dr. Boustany, Congressman Boustany, also talked about that.

We have a very substantial investment in wellness and, as Dr. Coburn pointed out, in practices that give cooperative care and are not reimbursed piecemeal but are reimbursed by the quality of care that is given, by the outcomes that are given as opposed to simply being process-oriented.

We also agree, I think, Mr. Cantor, on mechanisms to have competition across State lines. We believe the exchanges do that, but we also believe there is room for discussion in looking at how we might do that in other ways as well. So we think that that's an idea, and the pooling with respect to small businesses so they can create large groups so that they can have better competitive advantages. We believe that, when we put small businesses into the exchange, that's exactly what we give them.

For instance, in a large group, as all of us know and as we have in the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan, we don't have preexisting conditions, because we are a large group. Most large groups don't. In the legislation you offered as a substitute to ours, of course, you did not cover preexisting conditions. Your legislation provided for about 3 million people having greater access to the system; ours for about 30 million. So, while we agree that we ought to have people have access, frankly, we believe that what we have proposed provides greater access.

Insurance pooling to acquire health insurance at lower prices, it seems to me we agreed on that as an objective. You disagree with the way we have done it in terms of our exchanges, which is, of course, what the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan is that you and I participate in. It's a large exchange with many different insurers. In our area, we have about 25 or 26 different options that we can choose from. For the most part, they're private sector. As a matter of fact, for all parts, they're private sector to choose from.

So, yes, we have differences, but as I've told you before, I'm still prepared to discuss with you and to work with you on suggestions you have that get us to an objective that we think is appropriate.

Let me just lastly, in closing, say a recent polling shows a majority wants to keep working. You indicate, as you do on a regular basis, that there are polls that show people are against this bill. My view is what they are really against is this confrontation and contention regarding these bills, which is, of course, why the President said he thought having 60 percent would give a greater level of confidence. I agree with that. I would hope that we would have created that kind of consensus.

I want to read to you: 63 percent in a Washington poll said that we ought to pass comprehensive health reform; 57 percent in a Kaiser Family Foundation poll. February 22, 2010, Kaiser poll also finds overwhelming support for key elements of the reforms in our bill; 76 percent support reforming the way health insurance works in our bill; 71 percent support creating a health insurance exchange, which is in our bill; and 70 percent support expanding high-risk insurance pools.

So, when you go to the individual elements of our bill, we find very significant support for those individual elements, I tell my friend. I continue to look forward to working with my friend to reach common ground.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Friday, March 5, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday next for morning-hour debate.

I thank the Republican whip for yielding.

On Monday, the House is not in session. On Tuesday the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday, no votes are expected in the House.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business today. In addition, we will consider H.R. 4247, Keeping All Students Safe Act, and further action on the jobs agenda.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would expect a number of items, certainly the jobs agenda, which will be fulsome and we will be pursuing over the next months. Small business growth, tax cuts to spur growth and jobs will certainly be on the agenda in the coming weeks, in addition to addressing health care and the 2011 budget.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Well, the gentleman and I had the opportunity, a historic opportunity, I might say, to participate in an extraordinary event in the history, perhaps, of our country. I'm not sure that I can cite another instance certainly in my career when a President has spent a whole day sitting with the legislative branch, the leadership both of the Republican and Democratic Parties in the Senate and the House and also of the committee Chairs. I think that was an unprecedented meeting. I thought it was an extraordinarily good meeting for the American public as I thought it was a good meeting for all of us who participated.

I think what the public saw was each side thoughtfully and clearly, from an informed basis, expressing their view as to what was needed and how to get to where we wanted to go. It also indicated, I think, to the American public legitimate differences of opinion on the ways and means, if you will, of effecting health care reform, which obviously the overwhelming numbers of the American public believe is necessary. As I quoted, as you recall, both President Obama and Presidential candidate McCain in the debate in October of 2008 both said that health care reform was necessary, and Presidential candidate McCain indicated that he thought we needed a program that covered all Americans with affordable health care.

Now, that's the context in which we're going to move forward. I thought it was a productive, positive opportunity for us and, as I said, the American public. We are moving forward. The President indicated we'd be moving forward. The President, as you point out, I don't think he has a bill yet, but he's put language of the 11-page document you've seen and that was referenced at the meeting--he's put that on the table. It is obviously an attempt to reach agreement between the Senate-passed bill and the House-passed bill, which, although this was not a conference in the classic sense of a conference, in many ways it was, I suppose, a superconference in that rarely is the President in the room, but obviously Republicans and Democrats were in the room and had their time to discuss the President's proposals, trying to resolve differences between the two Houses. Certainly it's going to be taken into consideration over the next few days, I would think, to see whether or not there can be a resolution.

In addition to that, I tell my friend honestly that we went through a number of aspects of the health care bill in which I think we found common ground, and many of us said that. I think some of us were surprised that some Members were as focused as we think we are on certain items.

First of all, I think there was agreement on principle, if not on application of that principle, and that was that the solution is to be found in the delivery of health care through the private sector. And, in fact, both bills in the Senate and the House provide for private sector insurance companies to be involved and to be the insurers and to be the agents for financing health care insurance for Americans.

In addition, Dr. Coburn was very clear that he thought we needed to focus on wellness, on prevention. There are, in both bills, substantial provisions which deal with that, with wellness and prevention, best practices, with innovation, with efficiencies in the delivery of health care, health information technology, other issues.

In addition, he spoke of eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse. As you recall,

and both of us listened to him, he made the point that he thought 1 in 3 health care dollars were not spent on the delivery of health care. Now, they weren't all waste, fraud, and abuse. We know that there are very substantial administrative costs in health care. And as I responded to Senator Coburn, there are very substantial provisions related to waste, fraud, and abuse in both bills and in the President's suggestion.

In addition, the purchasing of policies of insurance across State lines was discussed by both sides. I think the President indicated, I think, we can reach agreement on that. I hope we do. And insurance pooling to acquire health insurance at lower prices was also discussed, not only with respect to small business, but, obviously, we discussed it with individuals who do not have availability to group policies.

The answer, therefore, to your question is we certainly hope we can move forward. We hope we can reach some areas of agreement.

I want to tell you very frankly, I don't think we have any intention of starting over with a clean slate, as you requested. I want to be honest with the gentleman. Literally thousands and thousands of hours have gone into countless hearings participated in by both of our parties, countless markups, public markups with amendments offered both in the House and the Senate. But that does not mean that these are set in stone. Therefore, the answer to your question is I continue to be interested in your thoughts, but if the thoughts are simply to, as Mr. Boehner indicated, scrap it, and Mr. Alexander said that as well, I frankly don't think that's a very productive direction to go in given the complexity and challenge that confronts us.

There was a lot of discussion about polling data in yesterday's meeting. In point of fact, we believe that the polling data does indicate that Americans are not happy with this bill. In my view, in part they're not happy because they've seen it be the center point of confrontation, controversy, and, from my perspective, a lot of misinformation.

But having said that, I think every poll seems to reflect that when you ask them about component parts, do they believe that preexisting conditions ought not to be a disabling factor in the receipt of insurance, a very high percentage of the American public says, yes, they think that ought to be not a factor. Do they think that there ought to be lifetime caps? They think no. If they have insurance, they want to keep it, and if they get really sick, they want to make sure their insurance compensates them for that. They also want to make sure that they are not bankrupted in a year that they have a very serious illness because the insurance company has capped what they can get in any one year.

So there seems to be, on the individual items, pretty high support-- and when I say ``pretty high,'' high 50s, 60s, and sometimes in the low 70s--of various component parts of the bill. I think if we can respond to that which the public is for and listen to the public, I think we can have some success. And we look forward to working with you over the next few weeks to see if we can come to agreement. The President made it very clear that he wants to do that. I reiterate we want to do it.

But the President also made it clear, if we can't do it, then we're going to proceed, and that's what he told the American people he was going to do. And, very frankly, he was elected handily just a little over a year ago, and he said what he wanted to do was a health care plan which would provide access for Americans to affordable quality health care. And, in fact, that's what John McCain said in that debate in October of 2008 when they were both debating each other. That was not a contentious issue. They had differences of how to get there, but covering all Americans with affordable, quality health care was not one of the contentious issues.

I know that was a long answer, but I wanted to place it in context for my friend so that productively we can work on what has passed the House, passed the Senate, and if we can make changes that would lead you or members of your party to support legislation, then I think we can have a productive discussion about that. On the other hand, frankly, if it's simply scrap all the work you've done or we're not going to play, then I think we won't have much progress.

It is my position, in the Republican tradition of using reconciliation for very major pieces of legislation, all of your tax bills in 2001 and 2003; as a matter of fact, reconciliation has been used 22 times since 1980. Sixteen of those times it was used by the Republican Party when you were in charge. Apparently you thought that was a procedure that was appropriate to pass. As a matter of fact, Judd Gregg, when he was criticizing us for criticizing reconciliation, said, ``What is wrong with a majority vote?'' We think there is nothing wrong with a majority vote.

There is a filibuster in the Senate. That is under their rules. I think those rules are impeding the work of the American people. But be that as it may, they are the rules. There is also a rule that provides for consideration of legislation through a process that is called reconciliation, a fancy name for simply saying there are things that are important, you can put them on the table, you can pass them in a time frame. But, as Americans would expect, a majority of the representatives of the American people have to vote for it. So I am not going to take that off the table.

But it has been the President's expression, my expression, the Speaker's expression, the Majority Leader of the Senate's expression we would prefer not to use that, not because we think it is a wrong procedure, but because we would like to create a broader consensus if we can.

But I will tell my friend, I think he to some degree misquoted me, I think you could draw that inference, the American people don't like the bill because of what surrounds it. When you ask them about the internals of the legislation, as I said, they respond positively to it.

And I will tell my friend about polls. A lot of expression about polls yesterday in our meeting. My friend will recall that we considered expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program. You will recall President Bush vetoed that program. You will recall that I stood on this floor and said, ``Do you understand 72 percent of Americans are for expanding SCHIP?'' Notwithstanding that, we couldn't get sufficient votes from your side of the aisle to override the President's veto, notwithstanding the fact that 72 percent of the American people thought children in the richest country on the face

of the earth ought to be covered, ought to be healthy, ought to be included in our health care system. So you saw it differently. I understand that. You used your judgment.

I frankly think that the American people want us to do what we are trying to do. They want to make sure we do it right and don't undermine the security they now have. And that is our intent as well.

I think the same letter was sent to both of us, and I was yielding to the Speaker to respond. But I will respond here. I think that is a good idea.

Let me talk to the Speaker about it and see what schedule, and we will talk to you about it. But I think certainly jobs is an absolutely critical objective of ours this year, as you know, as it was last year.

The good news, as you know, is that CBO says that over a million jobs were created in the last quarter, or retained in the last quarter as a result of the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. As the gentleman also knows, in the last quarter, the last 3 months of the Bush administration, we lost on average per month 726,000 jobs. As the gentleman also knows, on average over the last 3 months we have lost 35,000 jobs. That is extraordinary. That is 5 percent of what we lost the last 3 months just a year ago. So that is progress. We are moving forward, but that is not success. Success will be, as you and I both know, when we are adding jobs, when we are creating jobs.

Unfortunately, over the last 8 years we have had the lowest job production in this country than we have had since Herbert Hoover. As a result, we are very much down in terms of supply of jobs for people who are out of jobs and need jobs to support themselves and their family.

I want to also say, I want to thank the gentleman and his colleagues on his side of the aisle for their positive participation yesterday, positive in the sense that yes, we didn't agree, but nobody expected there to be agreement down there, that everybody was all of a sudden going to change their perspective of how you get to where we all want to get. But I thought the American people, as I said, had an opportunity to see some serious people who had differences of opinion discuss them in a civil and, I thought, productive manner. I think that is a good civics opportunity for the American people.

Very frankly, we ought to do more of that. Because, unfortunately, all too often they see us on the floor not on the uncontentious, which we do pretty much working together, but they see us on the contentious, where tempers can get pretty hot, and the American public draws the inference that that's all we do. They don't like it, and I don't blame them. I know you and I don't like it either.

I want to thank you and your colleagues for your participation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday next for morning-hour debate.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of this Intelligence Authorization bill, which authorizes the tools America needs to detect and combat its greatest threats, including what President Obama called ``a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.''

In the past weeks, we've seen a great deal of evidence that policies adopted by President Obama and Democrats are working to keep Americans safer. In Pakistan, the government is cooperating for the first time in the arrest of top Taliban leaders, including second-in-command Abdul Ghani Baradar and Abdul Kabir, a member of the senior leadership. At home, Najibullah Zazi has just pled guilty in federal court for attempting to bomb New York City's subway, and the Christmas Day bomber is giving us timely intelligence.

This bill continues the policies that are working and strengthens America's intelligence collection. It significantly increases funding for human intelligence, a resource that is irreplaceable in disrupting terrorist networks. To ensure the broad reach of our intelligence community, it makes important investments in language training and scholarships, so that our personnel will have the resources to infiltrate networks and intercept communications around the world. It also strengthens our defenses against the emerging threats of cyberterrorism and cyberwarfare, which, if unchecked, could have a crippling effect on our military and economy. And this legislation makes an important contribution to America's nuclear non-proliferation efforts by requiring reports on the nuclear intentions and capabilities of Iran, Syria, and North Korea, as well as on the worldwide black market in materials that could contribute to nuclear weapons.

At the same time as it strengthens our intelligence capabilities, this authorization bill also ensures that they receive reasonable and responsible oversight to protect Americans' rights. It creates an independent inspector general with responsibility for the entire intelligence community; protects the Intelligence Committees' access, through the Government Accountability Office, to the information it needs to conduct proper oversight of intelligence activities; and requires that the CIA Inspector General audit each covert action at least once every three years. To prevent the abuse of detainees that weakens our moral case to the world without making Americans safer, this bill also prohibits private contractors from interrogating detainees in CIA custody. Finally, this bill, like the recently-passed Defense Authorization bill, prevents the release or transfer of Guantanamo detainees until the president provides a plan for dealing with those detainees and mitigating any risk their release or transfer might cause.

Madam Chair, the Founders spoke of providing ``for the common defense'' not only because we face common threats, but because the work of overcoming them must be common to all of us. That work is far too important to be subjected to fear-mongering or the demands of the political cycle. That doesn't obligate all of my colleagues to vote for this bill, though I hope they will; but it does oblige us to conduct this debate, today and in the days to come, with the respect and responsibility that our common defense from common danger demands.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, there are times when we have the opportunity to witness a particular historical event. We are about to do that now. The gentleman from Michigan, my dear friend, Dale Kildee, is the epitome of gentleman. I don't think there is a person in this House that doesn't think that Dale Kildee is a thoughtful, considerate, compassionate gentleman, a person who cares deeply about his country, cares deeply about the Page program to which he has devoted so much of his talents, and cares about each one of us.

None of us are objective in talking about Dale Kildee because he is such a decent, wonderful, good human being. He is also an extraordinarily faithful Member of this House.

I am going to yield to Mr. Dingell, the Dean of the House, at this point as we are about to witness Mr. Kildee casting his 20,000th vote in the House of Representatives.

I certainly yield to the gentlelady from Michigan.

I thank the gentlelady for her comments.

I am pleased to yield to my good friend, the minority leader, Mr. Boehner.

I thank the dean.

And now, Dale, we will cease and desist as you cast your 20,000th vote. God bless you. You have served our country, your district, and all the Members as well as our pages, so well over those 34 years. Thank you. Godspeed.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The last time we voted on this issue, the floor was packed on both sides of the aisle. And I observed at that time that, and I repeat today, I really doubt that there are any of the 435 of us, Madam Speaker, who believe that this matter that is included in this rule ought to be defeated. I would hope that's the case.

The gentleman who represents the minority party on the Rules Committee has confronted this issue in the past. He confronted it in 2002. He confronted it in 2003. He confronted it in 2004 and again in 2005. On each of those occasions, he voted to increase the debt limit. His party was in charge. Unfortunately, my party voted against it at that point in time because we weren't in charge.

The point I make is that the American public too often believes that we do not do what we think is the responsible thing for our country but what we think is the right thing to do from the perspective of our party. They are not impressed by that kind of action. In fact, not only did Mr. Sessions vote to increase the debt limit on numerous occasions, many of us voted against it essentially for the same reasons, because we said the other party had incurred liabilities with which we did not agree. In fact, I'm sure all 435 of us could say we incurred certain liabilities in which we did not agree.

But the fact of the matter is that America, voting through its representatives in the House and in the Senate, incurred those liabilities. Creditors throughout the world relied on the fact that the United States of America, the world's wealthiest Nation, would, in fact, pay its bills.

I will say that in the future when this issue comes up, I will not repeat again the mistakes that I made in the past. I said that last time. And if it so happens at some time in the future the other party is in control and we come to the necessity of ensuring that America can pay its bills, it will be my intention to vote with the majority party to increase the debt limit--not because I want to see us deficit spend; I don't. I voted for constitutional amendments to balance the budget to constrain the spending of this body.

In a few minutes, I will speak strongly in favor of adopting statutory PAYGO, which is made in order by this rule. Statutory PAYGO will be a constraint on the spending that this Congress votes for, a restraint to bring in line spending on mandatory items with the revenues and abilities that we have.

And so I say to both sides of the aisle, this is not a vote about party. This is a vote about country. There is no one in this room, no one who has raised his or her hand to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States, not one of us who honestly can say that it is an alternative available to us to not ensure that America can pay its bills. That's what this is about.

That's why my friends on the Republican side, when you were in charge, you voted, in some cases almost to a person, almost unanimously, to increase the debt five times under President Bush.

Very frankly, I tell my friends on the Republican side, when President Bush was in office, we did the same thing you're going to do today. We pretended that somehow because we did not agree with the policies that had led us to the place where we had incurred those debts that somehow we would take no responsibility for paying those debts. Ladies and gentlemen, our creditors around the world on whom we are now relying in order to fund our government don't really care about our partisan politics. They do care, however, about the will that we have to meet our responsibilities to pay our bills and to meet our obligations to them.

Everybody understands that if we did not increase this debt limit, at some point in time, not too long thereafter, checks to Social Security recipients would have to stop, checks to veterans would have to stop, and checks to employees who work for the government would have to stop. No one thinks that's a rational alternative. We may think there ought to be less or more, but no one thinks that we ought to have none.

And so I say to my colleagues this is a vote for American responsibility, not Republican responsibility or Democratic responsibility, but for American responsibility.

Both of us--both of us have pursued politics in this matter. The American public is hopeful, as we all can see, that at some point in time we all realize that playing politics is not the policy that Americans want us to pursue. They want us to pursue the well-being of our country and of our citizens. We've incurred debts. We expect people to pay the debts they owe us, and they, in turn, expect the same. That's what this vote is about.

And so there are not a lot of Members on this floor. I hope a lot of Members, Madam Speaker, are watching, because I hope when they come to this floor to vote for this rule, which will deem the authorization of the ability of America to meet its responsibilities,

that they will vote for their country, for our citizens, and for our responsibility. It's the right thing to do.

Every one of us on each side of the aisle, Republican or Democratic, knows it's the right thing to do. Let's do the right thing. I urge support of this rule. I urge support of the statutory PAYGO provision made in order by this rule, which will say that, notwithstanding the fact that we have authorized additional debt, we are also, at the same time, going to constrain the incurring of additional debt beyond that which we are prepared to pay for. That's what families have to do. That's what we need to do.

Vote for this rule. It's the right thing to do.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1065, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 45) increasing the statutory limit on the public debt, with a Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

I thank the Speaker, and I yield myself 1 minute.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, as we have on numerous occasions, we just raised the liability, or the ability, of the United States to pay a substantial amount. What we are doing now that we have not done in the last decade is to adopt a fiscal constraint at the same time, a fiscal constraint to get us to wherever Americans want us to be, and that is to fiscal balance, to a fiscally responsible government and a fiscally responsible country to match the fiscal responsibility of most of our citizens.

The House has just voted that our country should pay the bills it already incurred. Those obligations, of course, come from actions America has already taken. Those actions cannot be changed, so it was necessary to pay the bill. But we can and must confront our record debt going forward. We can and must set a more responsible path fiscally for our country.

I yield myself 3 additional minutes.

A New York Times analysis found that 90 percent of our deficit is due to the policies of the previous administration, the extension of those policies, and the economic downturn. However we believe America got into this mess, this Congress can begin getting America out of it. That is why Congress must pass one of the most proven deficit cutting tools we know, statutory pay-as-you-go legislation or, as it is affectionately known, PAYGO.

Now, let me point out this chart to my right, your left. The deficits are when we did not have statutory PAYGO in effect. Now, when statutory PAYGO was put into effect in 1990, we still had deficits, but you can see that we started reducing those deficits almost on a straight line. And then in 1997 we went into surplus, fiscal year 1998, and we went into surplus for the next 4 years under PAYGO. Unfortunately, you will see that in 2001 it was decided that we would waive PAYGO, and then in 2003 it was decided by the then majority party that we would eliminate statutory PAYGO. And you can see the result. We returned to deep deficits.

So what we are voting on on the floor has demonstrably made a difference, has demonstrably helped America discipline its finances and bring surpluses. As I said, when George Bush took office from President Clinton, he, his administration, based upon the past record of the Clinton administration, said we had a $5.6 trillion surplus. Unfortunately, for the country, when President Bush left office we had an almost $8 trillion deficit confronting us.

PAYGO compels Congress to find savings for the money it spends, so it keeps our deficit from increasing. Under PAYGO we'll be required to find savings to balance any new tax cuts or entitlement spending, which makes this law essential, essential to the wise prioritization that responsible budgeting demands and, indeed, that our fellow citizens expect. As the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan fiscal responsibility group, put it, and I quote, ``PAYGO requires anyone proposing tax cuts or entitlement expansions to answer the question, How do you pay for it? Going through this process will force an explicit trade-off between spending, taxes and debt, which is exactly the priority-setting exercise that the budget process should and must facilitate.'' We all know that such deliberate priority-setting steps stops us from passing our bills on to our children.

I yield myself 2 additional minutes.

Under President Clinton, PAYGO helped turn record deficits into a $5.6 trillion projected surplus. We also know that PAYGO was disregarded, waived and finally allowed to expire under the last administration. And as I have pointed out on this chart, our deficits exploded and, indeed, our economy was hurt as well as those deficits exploded. Some argue that the PAYGO legislation on the floor today is too weak. But I'd point out that it brings our country more fiscal discipline than it has seen in nearly a decade.

The perfect ought not to be the enemy of the good. PAYGO can't get us out of our fiscal hole, but it can keep us from digging it deeper. When my Republican colleagues raise their concerns about our growing debt, I absolutely agree with them. They're right. All of us understand this debt is not sustainable. But it's not enough to complain about the debt; we have to do something about it. If my colleagues are sincere in their concerns, I hope they'll work with us to pass PAYGO and contribute to the bipartisan fiscal commission announced by President Obama. I hope you'll participate in that commission, helping us get our country to fiscal balance.

America's dangerous fiscal condition threatens our prosperity and our place in the world. If my colleagues will forgive a Democrat for paraphrasing Ronald Reagan, there are no easy answers to this mess, but there is a simple answer. The answer lies in recommitting ourselves to the principle that has served our prosperity so well in the past, the principle of responsibility. Ronald Reagan was right. Let us pass this legislation.

In closing, let me say, Madam Speaker, that so many people are responsible for this day; the Blue Dogs, I want to congratulate them. In a minute I'm going to yield to Allen Boyd who has led this effort on behalf of the Blue Dogs for such a long and successful time.

I yield myself 30 additional seconds.

I also want to congratulate an extraordinary individual who worked for an individual who's not on this floor, Charlie Stenholm, who deserves a portion of the credit this day for this legislation. And he was assisted, as I am now assisted, as all of the House is assisted, by an extraordinary member of our staff, Ed Lorenzen. Ed, I want to thank you personally for the extraordinary efforts you have made to get us to this day.

Madam Speaker, I designate Mr. Boyd of Florida to control the remainder of the time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. On Monday the House is not in session.

On Tuesday the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed, Mr. Speaker, until 6:30 p.m.

On Wednesday and Thursday the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business, and on Friday the House will be in pro forma session at 9 a.m. No votes are expected in the House on Friday. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business Friday. In addition, we will consider H.R. 4061, the Cybersecurity Enhancements Act of 2009. Also possible consideration of Senate amendments to H.J. Res. 45, to permit continued financing of government operations.

Well, as the gentleman probably knows, there are some 260 bills that we've sent from the House to the Senate and we look forward to them sending some of those back to us. And my expectation is they will. In addition to that, we are considering a number of pieces of legislation, but they are not yet ripe, and what I mean by that simply is the committee chairs have not signed off that they're ready to go, so we are still, frankly, working with the committees to see what legislation they will have ready to move forward. I know that wasn't very responsive, and I wish I had a more responsive answer but that's the accurate answer

It is possible, but, again, as the gentleman knows, given the differences between the two Houses, there's still ongoing discussions as to whether they can be resolved, and if they can't, what alternative steps should be taken. So it is possible

I thank the gentleman for his question. As you know, the President has not yet submitted his budget, so anticipating when we're going to pass it or bring his budget to the floor is a little premature. But I would certainly hope that we would bring it forward in the regular course of business. We're getting the budget significantly earlier this year. As you know, at the transition we get it later, as we did last year. But I expect to get it early. I think Mr. Spratt and Mr. Ryan will be working on the budget, and I expect it to come forward certainly either late in March, which is when I would expect it to come forward.

The Easter break, as you know, is the last week in March, first week in April, I believe, so I would be hopeful--let me make it clear: I'm not saying that's when it's going to happen, but I'd be hopeful we'd do it before we leave on the Easter break. And the second part of your question, which I think is the most important part of the question, because the other is speculative, I would expect the Congress to honor the President's suggestion of freeze with respect to the overall numbers on discretionary spending. But let me make an observation that I know you know, but I think it's important for us to remember that we have: There is no doubt the deficits that confront us are of very large proportions. It is, I think, a critical problem confronting our Nation, not just the Congress, but our Nation. It is an issue on which I think we need to focus and address.

I will tell my friend, as he knows, that with respect to the freeze, that deals with a relatively small portion of the budget, about 14 to 15 percent of the budget. As the gentleman knows, defense discretionary spending is not covered by the President's. As you know as well, because of Afghanistan and Iraq, expenditures on defense have escalated substantially. And as the gentleman knows as well, the other portion of the budget deals with entitlements and interest payments on the national debt. So that I would simply observe that if we're going to get a handle on the budget and spending, sometimes people view spending as only spending on discretionary nondefense amounts. That's not accurate. Every nickel that we apply to some objective that we have decided to apply it to is spending. And we're, frankly, going to have to look at the whole gamut of spending if we're going to get back to a fiscal balance, which I think is absolutely essential. I yield back.

Would the gentleman yield just for one minute?

I don't want to get into what we've been getting into, but simply to observe that as the gentleman knows when he uses the 60 some odd percent, much of that, a significant part of that spending, was specifically not included in the baseline, so that it will not be incorporated in the freeze. It will be a lower number than that because, although some of it was in the baseline, a significant portion of it, as the gentleman knows, was not in the baseline.