Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman from California.

Mr. Garamendi has been as faithful in bringing before the American people the concept of the Make It in America agenda. And, of course, the gentlelady from Illinois pointed out that it means two things: that we're going to succeed. We're going to grab opportunity. We're going to expand our quality of life. We're going to make it, in other words. And we're going to make it in America. We're going to manufacture it in America. We're going to grow it in America, and we're going to sell it here and across the world.

We can compete with anybody in the world, frankly, given the proper environment. And I have talked to numerous members of the corporate community. I have talked to labor. I have talked to the National Association of Manufacturers. And we are going to pursue this Make It in America agenda because Americans know that we need to be focused on jobs, on expanding opportunity and providing for good wages and good benefits for working American families so they can provide a good life for themselves and their families; and, as a consequence of doing so, will create communities and States and a Nation which will be and will continue to be the envy of the world.

Democrats believe, Mr. Garamendi, that when more products are made in

America, more families will be able to make it in America, as I said. That's why we've worked hard since the last Congress to advance the Make It in America agenda--nobody has worked harder than you have to do that--a legislative agenda that helps create conditions for American companies to stay here, innovate here, and create jobs here. When more products are made in America, more families have access to well-paying middle class jobs. And when more products are made in America, we are able to turn expertise in manufacturing them into the new products and new industries of the future.

``Make It in America'' is about creating middle class opportunity and about keeping America's innovators here and keeping our innovative edge.

Mr. Grove, who founded Intel, made the observation that the problem that we have in America today is we are still the inventive center of the world. We're still the innovative and development center of the world. But too often what we're doing is taking the products that we've invented, innovated, and developed and taking them to scale overseas. His proposition is--and I think Andy Grove is absolutely right on this--if you continue to do that, the inventors, innovators, and developers will move to where the product is being taken to scale.

The president of Dow recently wrote a book--by the way, in January, the publishers named it--and the name of that book is ``Make It in America.'' As a matter of fact, I think I am going to get copies of that book for all our Members.

So far, President Obama has signed seven Make It in America pieces of legislation that we passed last year. They speed up the patent process for inventors; help small businesses with loans and tax cuts that enable them to innovate, grow, and create new jobs; and strengthen science, technology, engineering, and math education, much of which is on your poster there.

One thing I would add that I'd say to my friend is, and I'm not sure where you want to add it, but regulatory policy is going to be critical. And what I have said is that in the last administration the financial community got way out of hand. Why? We took the referee off the field.

We need to put the referee back on the field but make sure the referee doesn't get in the way of the game being played within the rules. And that's of a critical nature.

Some people want to take the referee off the field and forget about the environment. Some people want to take the referee off the field and forget about fair wages. Some people want to take the referee off the field and not worry about a safe working place.

All of those things are important, but it's important to make sure that, within the rules--and we can do so profitably in America. I've talked to Alan Mulally at Ford. Whirlpool has brought enterprises back from offshore. GE has brought enterprises up. They still have a lot offshore, but they brought some back.

And the proof of the pudding is foreign manufacturers have come to the United States and are exporting their cars to other places. They're selling them here but exporting, which shows, clearly, that you can make it in America and do so profitably.

In the weeks to come we will be proposing more ``Make It in America'' legislation. And we hope that it will win support of both sides of the aisle. This is not a partisan agenda. There's not a Republican who doesn't want to make sure Americans make it in America.

But we haven't, frankly, in the first 3 months of this session, and we're about to leave. But there's nothing on the schedule that's focused on jobs. So we will have taken up January, February, and March, and not focused on jobs.

As a matter of fact, as the gentleman knows, the only thing we have done is pass H.R. 1, which, Mr. Zandi, John McCain's advisor, says will cost us 700,000 jobs.

So I'm hopeful that we can pursue, in a bipartisan basis, the Make It in America agenda, expand our manufacturing capability, grow those jobs that pay well, and provide good benefits, and make America the kind of country it has been, is now, and we want to be in the future.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for focusing America's attention on this critical agenda.

These are, of course, the ones that we have already passed and that have been signed into law. But you have a very important piece of legislation.

I thank the gentleman. I thank you for yielding again, but simply to say I thank you for your leadership. You have been one of the most faithful, effective, and articulate spokespersons for an agenda for middle and working class Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Dr. Fayaz Shawl, who has been widely recognized as one of the world's foremost interventional cardiologists. He currently serves as Director of Interventional Cardiology at Washington Adventist Hospital in Takoma Park, Maryland, and as Professor and Director of Interventional Cardiovascular Medicine at the George Washington University School of Medicine in Washington,

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put this important piece on early-childhood education into the Congressional Record. Its author is Jack Bailer, an outstanding Maryland educator and President of the Judith P. Hoyer Foundation, which promotes early-childhood education for Maryland's at-risk children.

We Must Not Leave Them Wanting

By Jack Bailer

``For Want of a Nail'' is a proverbial verse showing that

actions--or inactions--which may seem insignificant can often

have significant consequences:

For want of a nail, the shoe was lost.

For want of a shoe, the horse was lost.

For want of a horse, the rider was lost.

For want of a rider, the battle was lost.

For want of a battle, the kingdom was lost.

And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

I suggest we could draw a strong parallel between the nail

in the verse and a young child's having (or not having) the

benefit of one or two years' participation in an early

childhood (pre-kindergarten) education program.

Two examples of such programs would be ``Head Start'' and

Maryland's 25 ``Judy Hoyer Family Education Centers,'' aka

``Judy Centers.'' The Judy Centers offer early education for

children from birth through five years of age. They also

arrange for many other services to be provided to these

children and their families--either located on site year-

round, or brought in on a visiting basis as needed.

The primary candidates for these programs are three- and

four-year-old children who are in home environments often

referred to as ``economically and/or culturally

disadvantaged.'' This includes those who get little or no

exposure to learning about the world around them, as well as

those families where little or no English is spoken.

Lacking experience in an early learning program, these

children will enter kindergarten with a very low level of

``readiness to learn.''

You may ask, what is the difference between ``readiness to

learn'' and actual learning? Sesame Street provides many

examples throughout its episodes. Here are just two:

When Grover gets out of breath repeatedly running back and

forth from off in the distance yelling ``This is far,'' to

face-in-the-camera panting ``This is NEAR,'' the child viewer

learns the concept of Near vs. Far.

When we see one of their spots with the song, ``One of

these things is not like the others; three of these things

are kind of the same,'' the child learns the concept of Same

vs. Different.

If you'd like more examples, ask any early childhood

education professional and they'll give you many, all falling

under one or more of seven domains: Social Personal;

Language; Mathematical Thinking; Physical Development;

Scientific Thinking; Social Studies; The Arts.

For a child who has not had the pre-kindergarten

opportunity to achieve a ``readiness to learn'' so essential

for a successful K-12 experience, the sequence of

consequences could look something like this:

Grades K-3: For want of having acquired few if any

readiness-to-learn experiences prior to kindergarten, a child

doesn't get the full value of what the teacher is saying. And

often neither the child nor the teacher realizes that a point

made by the teacher is missed because the child is lacking

the benefit of an earlier learning experience.

Grades 4-6: For want of the cumulative effects of full

value of instruction because of a weaker K-3 foundation,

student progress during this period is further diminished--

especially in reading comprehension.

Grades 7-8: For want of reading skills which even approach

grade level, in the face of an increased need to be able to

read to learn, the student slips further behind.

Grades 9-10: For want of reading and learning skills which

would make school interesting and satisfying, the student

becomes increasingly disconnected from class work and school

in general. The student shows up less and less frequently,

and even then it is more to be around their friends than to

go to class.

Grades 11-12: For want of any further interest in or hope

of ever catching up, the student drops out, drifts for a

while, maybe works at a menial job, and/or ends up in the

criminal justice system.

This discouraging sequence is not an exaggeration.

Longitudinal studies have been done--the most notable being

the Chicago school system study. That study tracked two

groups of students for over 20 years. One group had a strong

beginning with the benefit of a pre-kindergarten readiness-

to-learn experience. The other group did not.

By the time both groups were well beyond high school age,

nearly all of those in the group with early childhood

education were clearly on their way to living successful,

productive lives. Sadly, most of those in the other group

were not.

As for societal and budgetary impacts, one study showed

that, for every one dollar spent on pre-kindergarten

preparation for learning, seven dollars are saved on

government spending for public safety, the justice system,

and the prison system.

In the years ahead we will continue to face tough choices

among priorities competing for limited public funds. I

believe that over-arching all of these is the critical need

to give every young child a preparation for learning upon

which to grow intellectually for the rest of their lives.

Among the benefits we get are: A more highly skilled work

force; A highly employable work force; An increase in workers

contributing to the tax base; A decreasing percentage of our

population who fall into the justice system; A higher quality

of life for all.

What can you do to make a difference?

Contact your local school board members and superintendent

and urge them to fully fund early childhood (pre-

kindergarten) education for all children in your jurisdiction

who need it.

Insist that the system determine how many children in your

district currently need to be in a readiness-to-learn

environment--but are not.

Continue following up to see that, using these data, the

school system creates and implements an action plan to

reallocate funds as necessary, and to deal with staffing,

space, and other issues to get all those children into the

system by opening of school next year, or the following year

at the latest.

Clearly the increased funding for this will be a challenge.

Nevertheless, if our nation is to survive and thrive, we

simply must do this. We must not leave behind a single child

who may have succeeded in life, but for want of an early

childhood education which got them ready to learn. We must

not risk the loss of our nation, for want of giving this our

most urgent attention.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the majority leader, to inquire about the schedule for the week to come.

I thank the gentleman for that information.

He mentioned the CR, the continuing resolution, the continuing authorization to operate government, which I understand will be for a 3-week period.

Can the gentleman tell us what will be in that continuing resolution at this point in time?

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Now, it's my understanding we are not scheduled, according to his announcement, to meet next Friday.

Is that accurate?

And I take it the gentleman is reasonably certain, obviously we don't know what the other body will do, but in light of the fact that that CR will be offered next Tuesday, the gentleman's presumption is that, in fact, we will be out sometime on Thursday.

I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman and I have had this discussion, and I think we both agree that continuing to fund government on either a 2-week or 3-week cycle is not what we ought to be doing. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, a number of economists have indicated that if, in fact, we

proceed to funding levels that reflect H.R. 1, which is my assumption of what will happen according to what the gentleman has told me and, I think, said publicly, the funding levels that are included in H.R. 1 on a week-to-week basis, which leads me to believe that if we are having a 3-week extension will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $6 billion in additional reductions.

Would that be accurate?

I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I would observe to him that with respect to H.R. 1, numerous economists have indicated, including Mark Zandi, who was, of course, one of the principal advisers to John McCain when he ran for President, Chairman Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, Goldman Sachs, Moody's, and others, that the just rejected H.R. 1, if adopted, would lead to the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, in one analyst's point of view, over 800,000 jobs.

In fact, of course, three Republicans voted against H.R. 1 in the Senate, and one of those who voted for H.R. 1 in the Senate said this, Mr. Speaker: Let me be clear that I strongly oppose some of the proposed cuts in the House-passed bill--that was H.R. 1--particularly the drastic cuts that would disproportionately affect low-income families and seniors. Making such deep and immediate cuts to critical low-income heating assistance, weatherization, and Head Start programs in the middle of the fiscal year would cause serious problems for those who rely on these programs. That was Senator Collins, a Republican from Maine, when the bill was on the floor.

So let me ask the gentleman, do we have a plan to proceed so that we can, A, retreat from the uncertainty that we keep creating by these 2 weeks? I know that he and I agreed that this is not the way to proceed, but does the gentleman have a plan, A, to move forward so that we can fund government through September 30, complete funding for this fiscal year, and turn our attention and focus on what I know the gentleman knows the Appropriations Committee is now focusing on, the fiscal year 2012 appropriations and spending plan.

Does the gentleman have in mind when we might get to a plan to fund the balance of government, not on 2- or 3-week cycles but between now and September 30?

I thank the gentleman for his response, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I understand the gentleman's issue with respect to the President. Both the gentleman and I understand and agree that the Constitution, in article I, gives to the House of Representatives of the United States and the Senate the responsibility to raise and spend moneys, so that this is a primary responsibility of the legislative department of government, which he and I have the privilege of serving in. While I understand that the gentleman is accurate, both alternatives were defeated in the United States Senate.

The President put an offer on the table in his 2011 budget. We then, in December, froze spending at 2010 levels, which was $41 billion less than the President's offer which he put on the table.

We have now had two additional offers put on the table. The next offer was, of course, included in H.R. 1. That passed this House but did not pass the Senate.

The Senate, however, did put an offer on the table, as the gentleman pointed out, cutting an additional $10 billion above the $41 billion, or $6 billion above the $4 billion that was included in the short-term CR which expires on March 18.

What I ask the gentleman again is, does the gentleman now propose, and will the gentleman and his side of the aisle be proposing, a counteroffer, as I said last week, or is the gentleman's position you are staying, as I seemed to hear you say, at the $100 billion figure that was included in H.R. 1, which implies that unless there is an agreement to your figure, that we will have to shut down government or agree to your figure.

I want to make sure that I understand your thoughts on that.

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his answer. I think I did not receive an answer in terms of whether or not the gentleman is saying it's either $100 billion or nothing, and that there will be no counteroffer to the offer that is on the table, either from the President or, more accurately at this point in time, in terms of the timing from the Senate, which got us to $51 billion in cuts, which, although the gentleman would like to say it's between zero and $60 billion, the gentleman in his Pledge to America said he was going to cut $100 billion. The reason he got to $100 billion was he counted the $41 billion cut from the President's initial offer of 2011 spending.

What has happened, since the gentleman and his party made that offer, Mr. Speaker, is that, in fact, $41 billion of that $100 billion was accepted in the CR that was passed which expired 2 weeks ago.

Since that time, we've put from the Senate's perspective an additional $10 billion on the table to get us to $51 billion. The way I calculate it, that is more than halfway from the gentleman's offer, not of $60 billion in his Pledge to America but $100 billion. And the way he got to $100 billion is the $41 billion that we already cut in the first CR, the additional $10 billion is now $51 billion. I say to the gentleman, we've come halfway, a little more than halfway. And we are now asking the gentleman, is he going to have a counteroffer for us that we can consider from our offer of $51 billion which we believe is more than halfway?

I will tell you further, Mr. Leader, that it is my staff's belief, and I could be corrected on this, that the offer that is on the table represents the single largest cut from one year to the next since I have been in the Congress of the United States, which is largely under Republican Presidents.

We obviously are prepared to agree and have agreed on very substantial restraints in spending, cutting spending, trying to get a handle on this deficit. As you know, I'm concerned about the fact that in the rule we adopted on the first day of the session that you provided for $4.7 trillion in additional tax expenditures, if you will, tax cuts, cutting of revenue, that is projected currently by CBO which will lead to $4.7 trillion of additional spending, while you have proposed a trillion dollars of cuts, leaving a net appreciation of the deficit of $3.7 trillion, increased deficit that is in fact planned for under your rule.

All I am asking for now is, do you have and will you have a counteroffer to our $51 billion offer so that we can then try to move on and reach compromise? If it is simply, no, we want $100 billion or nothing, then we'll have to make a decision, as I have told the gentleman, on our side of the aisle: What do we do at that point in time? We obviously have the majority in the Senate and we have the President of the United States, the American people have elected. And as Newt Gingrich, your former Speaker, our former Speaker, said in 1998, we have to reach agreement. And the way you reach agreement is to get offers back and forth. We think we have an offer on the table and we'd like to hear your counteroffer.

I yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, I did not say it was the largest cut that had ever been proposed in Congress. I said it is the largest cut from one year to the other, from the previous year's spending. And it is $13.6 billion, I believe. Seventeen billion. My staffer, who's brilliant, much more brilliant than I am, reminds me that I am----

Right. Both of us do.

I want to clarify so the public understands as well when they hear us, what we're talking about cutting from is 14 percent of the budget, the discretionary, non-defense, non-security, part of the budget. So let me focus on that. And when I speak of the cut, and it is $17 billion in non-security, that from year to year, since I've been here since 1981, is the largest single cut in non-defense, non-security discretionary spending from one year to the other. Yes, it is. And that's in a very small 14 percent slice of the budget. Frankly, the discussions we have had to date ignore the other 81, 82, 83 percent of the budget. Obviously interest rates are not subject to being reduced. We need to pay our debt.

So I just want to clarify, A, that I am speaking of the discretionary part of the budget, non-defense, non-security; and, yes, from year to year it is in fact what's sitting on the table as an offer to you the largest cut we've had in non-defense, non-security discretionary spending in the last 30 years.

I thank my friend.

Let me make a point here, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, the gentleman continues to take the position until we get to 100, there is no credible counteroffer. Two billion a week.

The gentleman served with a very conservative Member, also a great Member of this Congress, a guy named Joe Scarborough. Most of America knows Joe Scarborough. Let me give a quote from Joe Scarborough:

``There are elements of the GOP spending plan that cause me great concern. The belief of some on the right that America can balance the budget by cutting education, infrastructure, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and home heating assistance for the poor is tantamount to budgetary witchcraft.''

That's not a Democrat. That's Joe Scarborough, conservative Member from northern Florida, with whom I served. Now a lot of people see him on Morning Joe every day. The fact of the matter is that's what he said. Now we're looking for a counteroffer, because we don't agree with some of H.R. 1, as you well know. As a matter of fact, every conservative Democrat, every liberal Democrat and everybody in between voted ``no'' on H.R. 1, as did three of your Republicans over there and Susan Collins, who voted for it, said she didn't like the elements in it.

So what I am saying to my friend, very sincerely, is, he can preach all he wants about we need to cut spending. We agree with that. And the issue is where you cut it from. What impact does it have? Does it sustain the economy or does it deflate the economy? Does it create jobs or does it lose jobs? Does it help people who need help or does it abandon people who need help? That's the issue.

And what I am saying to my friend with all due respect is, we have made

an offer. The gentleman wants to talk about the President. Article I of the Constitution says we need to do this. This is our responsibility. The people elected us to do it. And the people elected us to reach agreement.

And how do you reach agreement? This is what I want. This is what you want. We have come up. We have moved; pretty substantially. We think it was appropriate to move. Now we are asking you, are you prepared to move from the position you have taken consistently at your figure, which a lot of your folks think has problems in its constituent parts?

I'm asking you, and I can't get an answer, and you apparently are not going to make a counteroffer as to, okay, we took 100, we passed it, couldn't pass the Senate, you offered something in return. And what I mean by ``you,'' the Senate didn't pass it. The gentleman is absolutely correct. But we Democrats have made the offer here and there of the $51 billion. The President has indicated he could sign that. He said that publicly.

Now, that's our offer sitting on the table. My suspicion is you've rejected that offer. And if you have rejected it, what is your counteroffer? That is my question.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

As I understand what the gentleman is saying, if the Senate can't get 60 votes--which, of course, we have seen the gridlock for a long period of time where the Senate can't get 60 votes--that we're not going to go anywhere from the offer that he's made to pass something that can, in fact, garner 60 votes in the Senate.

I regret that the Senate, frankly, didn't get 60 votes for our offer. And he is correct that he got a few more votes for H.R. 1 than was gotten for the Senate majority leader's counteroffer. But the fact of the matter is this is really an issue between the Republicans and the Democrats.

Senator McConnell has said, as I know the majority leader says, we'll pass what the House passes. That's what he said. Now, if that's the case, then we need to pass something that can garner 60 votes over there. We know that H.R. 1 couldn't get 60 votes. We know that Senator Reid's proposal couldn't get 60 votes.

And if we're going to move this government forward and not fund it on 2-week cycles--and Senator McCain has said that funding the Defense Department on 2-week or 3-week cycles is undermining our national security. So there is no disagreement that doing things 2 weeks at a time does not make sense. And if the gentleman's view is simply you will not make some offer that we think--and we can have a discussion about trying to come to agreement on that--that we can get 60 votes for in the Senate and we're going to fund it on 2-week cycles, I say to my friend, that's going to be damaging to the economy, create great uncertainty, and undermine our national security. And I would hope that the gentleman would see fit to determine where we can meet somewhere in the middle.

We think we've come 51 percent of the way towards your hundred. Towards your hundred. You keep talking about 60. That was not your pledge. Your pledge was 100. And the way you got to 100 was to count the 41. We've done that. We've done another 10. So we've come, we think, 51 percent of the way. You don't count it that way, and we understand that. But whatever way we come, we need to move on.

You won the majority. God bless you. I'm sorry about that, but I live with it, and there it is. You have the majority. And with the majority, you have the responsibility to see if we can move this country forward. That's what Newt Gingrich said. And you can't be the perfectionist caucus, as he referred to, of sticking just at a number that doesn't have the votes in the United States Senate.

And if we're going to be on this 2-week cycle, I will tell my friend, you may keep passing these 2 weeks at a time. None of us want to shut down government. But I will tell you that while I and my colleagues, some of my colleagues, may vote to do this one more time, for me, it's the last time. We need to have a plan to fund this government for the balance of the fiscal year to September 30. It is irresponsible for us not to have that. And just each of us sticking to our number, you sticking to your number, and just pointing fingers at one another saying ``the Senate can't get 60 votes for anything we propose'' will not serve our country or our people.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Washington State for focusing America on what the issues are before us.

In recent weeks I have come to the floor to argue that the Republican spending plan does two extremely harmful things: It weakens our economy and fails to seriously reduce our debt.

Democrats agree that cutting spending is part of the solution to our difficult problems that confront us. But we also believe that cuts should be smart and targeted, not reckless.

Rather than cutting investments in growth--at the same time our international competitors are ramping up theirs--Democrats support the Make It In America agenda, a plan to invest in innovation, manufacturing jobs, and middle class opportunity. That's what the President talked about in his State of the Union, and he was right.

Unfortunately, the consensus that the Republican spending plan will halt our economic recovery and cost jobs is widespread and nonpartisan.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, appointed by President Bush, tells us that the plan will cost ``a couple of hundred thousand'' jobs. Macroeconomic advisers tell us that the Republican plan will wipe out approximately 450,000 jobs. Moody's Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi, who advised Senator McCain in his Presidential campaign, tells us that it will cost up to 700,000 jobs. The Economic Policy Institute puts the number at 800,000 jobs. Whatever the precise number, it is a large number of jobs that will be lost if we pass the Republicans' budget solutions.

What they want to do, as the gentleman from Washington State said, this is all exempt. This is security. These are all mandatory expenditures. This small slice of the budget, about $460 billion, the Republicans want to cut by 22 percent, give or take a percentage point. So they are holding harmless almost all of 85 to 86 percent of the money that we spent and say we're simply going to cut from education, from health care, from children, from community development--projects-- the guts of what makes our communities have a better quality. At the same time, I have argued the Republican spending plan barely puts a dent in our budget deficit.

It's reasonable to ask how can this plan have such severe consequences for our economy, yet so little impact on our fiscal predicament? This chart helps us answer the question. All of the proposed cuts, all of the cuts, come from this small slice of the budget, the category of our budget called ``non-security discretionary spending.''

But non-security discretionary spending, the gentleman from Washington State said 12 percent. We have here 14 percent. It's in that neighborhood depending upon exactly what you include as security or non-security. When you attempt to find $100 billion in savings and when you insist on getting these savings from 14 percent of the budget, you have to cut very deeply into absolutely essential projects and programs for our people.

You have to cut billions in funding into new medical cures and energy technologies. You have to kick 200,000-plus children off of Head Start. You even have to cut port and transit security by two-thirds. Hear that again. They're cutting port and transit security by two-thirds while they're holding terrorism hearings.

The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, a Republican, said those cuts were ``too dangerous.'' As David Brooks recently argued, Congress should ``never cut without an evaluation process.'' But instead, legislators--he referred to the Republican initiatives-- ``are simply cutting on the basis of what's politically easy and what vaguely seems expendable.''

It may be possible to portray taking on 14 percent of the budget as fiscally responsible, but only because doing so exploits Americans' misunderstanding of the budget. A recent poll shows that 63 percent of Americans think we spend more on defense and foreign aid than we do on Medicare and Social Security--all the blue, all the green, and then the yellow, that small sliver--which, by the way, includes discretionary foreign policy expenditures.

Mr. Speaker, I urge our citizens to look at the consequences of these cuts and look at the small sliver that the Republicans are focusing themselves on and you and me on. We need to see the whole picture if we're going to come to grips with the challenge that confronts us.

When another poll asked Americans how much we spend on foreign aid, the average estimate was 27 percent--when the right answer is about 1 percent.

It is entirely out of step with fiscal reality to attempt to tackle our deficit while ignoring 86 percent of the budget.

``Fiscal responsibility'' is not synonymous with ``cutting non- security discretionary spending.''

In truth, fiscal responsibility is much more difficult than that.

As former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough put it this week, ``The belief of some on the right that America can balance the budget by cutting education, infrastructure, the corporation for public broadcasting, and home heating assistance to the poor is tantamount to budgetary witchcraft.''

We have to start doing more.

We have to address the Defense spending that takes up more than a quarter of our budget. We have to make hard choices that can keep our entitlements strong for generations to come.

And, with tax revenues at a 60-year low, we have to pass deficit- reducing tax reform.

Unless we're willing to take on that hard work, on a bipartisan basis, none of us deserve to call ourselves fiscally responsible.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the majority leader, to ask about the schedule for the coming week.

I thank the gentleman for that information. He mentions that we will be considering some bills under suspension, as is normal, and two bills, H.R. 836 and H.R. 830, presumably under a rule.

I ask the gentleman, will those be open rules? And before I yield to him for his response, I want to say that I want to congratulate the gentleman on

the process that we considered H.R. 1. While those of us on this side did not ultimately support H.R. 1, I know that the Speaker and the leader are both pleased with the openness and transparency of the process. There was a preprinting requirement, of course, so it wasn't a totally open rule in that sense. But does the gentleman expect there to be open rules on H.R. 836 and H.R. 830?

I thank the gentleman. Can I inquire is an open process, is that somewhat of a nuance of an open rule?

I thank the gentleman. Let me say to the gentleman in terms of a constructive discussion that we might have, and I happen to believe that the preprinting requirement is a positive requirement in that it gives notice to people. One of the things, as we know, that it requires, however, is the printing of amendments prior to the time you know the status of the bill at the time you might offer the amendment. I suggest that perhaps we have discussions about how to take into consideration the process where you preprint an amendment, prior to getting to your amendment something is changed by a previous amendment that might require a modification of your amendment in terms of an understanding on both sides that perhaps we would accommodate, either by unanimous consent or some other process, that change.

I thank the gentleman.

The current CR, as the gentleman knows, expires March 18 that we passed earlier this week, the Senate passed, the President has now signed. Can I ask the gentleman his thoughts on going forward what we might be expecting with respect to funding government from March 19 through September 30 for the balance of the fiscal year?

I thank the gentleman for his response. I might want to pursue that response just a little bit, however.

The Pledge to America, as I understand it, said that you were going to cut $100 billion; is that accurate?

And H.R. 1, as I understand it, is scored at $102 billion or thereabouts; is that accurate?

I thank the gentleman for explaining my proposition, but if I might clarify a little more, what the gentleman has said, the way you get to $100 billion is counting that $41 billion that you say is the status quo and adding $60 billion, or $61 billion to it, to get to $102 billion, or a little short of that. My point clearly is that the gentleman and his side of the aisle have clearly counted the $41 billion that he says is the status quo.

The reason he has done so is because, he said, during the course of the campaign, and others said during the course of the campaign, they were to cut $100 billion. In fact, as I recall, the Speaker and yourself and other leaders made the point during the course of your initial consideration and the offer that was initially made to your conference, that, in fact, the $41 billion was, in fact, a cut from the President's request of $41 billion.

We agree with that, but we now believe that your side is saying, oh, no, that doesn't count, notwithstanding the fact it is $41 billion less than the President requested and you counted that $41 billion less as part of the $100 billion you represented was part of the cuts that you had said you were going to make and that you, in fact, made.

So my point is, as the gentleman has pointed out, that your $60 billion, by your side's argument of cutting $100 billion, only gets to $100 billion because you are counting the $41 billion, which we have cut. Now I say that for this reason: You made the $100 billion pledge prior to December. You made it prior to the election. Then we, in fact, cut from the figure you were using as the base, the 2011 base of the President's request, we cut $41 billion by freezing at 2010 levels.

Now, very frankly, my point to you is, as I am sure you know, that we have already come $41 billion, which means 41 percent of the way to where you wanted to get. We continue to want to discuss this matter. Hopefully we can move together and come to a compromise figure.

I know the gentleman has not served on the Appropriations Committee. He serves on the tax writing committee. But in the Appropriations Committee, we found an ability to come together and make agreement. I am hopeful that we can do the same. But I think it unfair and incorrect, frankly, not to count $41 billion because we are now starting at 2010 levels as opposed to the level that you started at and we started at, which was the President's 2011 request, and both of us have come that $41 billion, and the issue is how much further we are going to go.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

I ask the gentleman, might I advise the leader on the other side of the Capitol that there is, in fact, a willingness on your side to compromise between zero and 100?

I yield to the gentleman.

If that's the status quo, then I suggest to the gentleman he is not going to get to $100 billion, which he represented and his side represents they want to get to. We will see whether or not they are prepared to do that. But I will tell my friend, if that's the position, then I think we will not be able to reach agreement because there appears to be no ability to compromise in that context.

The gentleman counted the $41 billion during the course of the campaign. The gentleman counted that $41 billion when he made a representation to his caucus as to why you were offering a $32 billion cut because, together, given the fact that it was halfway through the year, that that would, in fact, be tantamount to. But again, in each one of those instances, the gentleman counted the $41 billion. He is now saying, oh, no, that is the status quo.

Does the gentleman know of any budget that President Bush signed in '01, '02, '03, '04, '05, and '06 that maintained either the status quo or cut below the so-called status quo, when your side was in charge of both the House and the Senate and the Presidency?

I thank the gentleman.

I would simply suggest to the gentleman and hope that we can work together, as the gentleman suggests, come to resolution for the balance of the fiscal year.

The gentleman has made a number of comments in the past, with which I agree, that uncertainty undermines the economy. A quote that the gentleman said on the floor last year: Working families and businesses remain gripped by economic uncertainty, and to this day Washington has only made the problem worse. If we want to cut into the 9.8 percent unemployment, Mr. Chairman, we have to instill confidence in the economy and begin to foster an environment for job creation.

I suggest to the gentleman we will not do that until we come to an agreement. Both sides need to work toward that end. I agree with the gentleman on that. I am hopeful that the Senate will, in fact, make a suggestion in the near term; I mean, hopefully, in hours and a few days rather than weeks.

The 18th will be on us, as you know, very soon. If we don't reach an agreement by next Thursday, in my opinion, we will not be able to get the paperwork done to get a bill ready to pass by Friday the 18th, 2 weeks from tomorrow.

I think that will be unfortunate and will lead to uncertainty and disruption, both in the public sector and in the private sector.

Let me ask you one more question on the issue of compromises. Assuming the Senate makes an offer and assuming it passes an offer or reaches an agreement, when it comes back, will there be any hearings on the proposed cuts and the ramifications of those cuts?

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for that answer.

The reason I ask that question, however, I don't know whether the gentleman had an opportunity to read a column in The New York Times by David Brooks, a relatively conservative columnist in The New York Times, as the gentleman knows, in which he wrote a column called, ``The New Normal,'' and in paragraph 4 in which he stated, ``In Washington, the Republicans who designed the cuts''--which are included in H.R. 1-- ``for this fiscal year seemed to have done no serious policy evaluation.''

He goes on about four paragraphs later to say, referring to his austerity principle--there are three austerity principles that he propounds. He said, ``Never cut without an evaluation process.''

I think that we need cuts. I've said that. The gentleman said that. We are proceeding. In fact, we have done some of those and we have agreement on some of those, as the gentleman knows. But there were no hearings. That's why Mr. Brooks says that they seem to have done no serious policy evaluation of those cuts. That's why I asked that question. But I understand the gentleman's answer.

I will bring this to a close. We have some concerns by the fact that a number of economists, a large number of economists, have expressed concern about the economic ramifications of some of the cuts and the magnitude of the cuts that are included.

As you know, Ben Bernanke indicated that this spending plan could cost a couple of hundred thousand jobs, a number he called ``not trivial.'' And according to Goldman Sachs, we might adversely affect GDP by 1.5 to 2 percentage points in the second and third quarters compared with current law or as the gentleman refers to, the status quo.

I ask the gentleman: Is that of concern to you or do you believe that those evaluations are incorrect?

I thank the gentleman for his comment.

And certainly, I agree with him that we need to deal with the deficit. As the gentleman knows, I've been pretty vocal about that and indicated that we need to look at the whole spectrum of spending. Focusing on 14 percent of the budget will not get us there. I think the gentleman probably agrees with that proposition. I know the chairman of the Budget Committee agrees with that proposition. I may not agree with the chairman of the Budget Committee on how he wants to get there, but I think we do agree that we have to look at all of the spending that we do, and that bringing down the deficit is of critical consequence.

Let me say to the gentleman, however, when he speaks about jobs, as he knows, we lost 3.8 million jobs in 2008, the last year of the Bush administration. The last year of the Obama administration, the last 12 months, we have gained 1.1 million private sector jobs. So when the gentleman says that the Recovery Act did not have the effect that the administration hoped for, he is correct. We went up above the 8 percent unemployment. But the gentleman, I'm sure, knows that during the last 12 months we have gained jobs on an average of 569,000 over the last 5 months, so half a million jobs.

Is that enough? It's not. Frankly, we are going to have to be at 300,000 or 400,000 per month to overcome the number of jobs that were lost prior to or during the recession which started, of course, in 2007.

So I want to agree with the gentleman and hope that we can work together on looking at the entire challenge that confronts us in bringing this deficit down. But I tell my friend to continually focus, as the gentleman has been doing in this colloquy and in other colloquies, on simply the discretionary spending, non-defense and non- security spending, while we certainly need to cut fraud, waste, and abuse, cut duplication and make government simpler and more accessible and more cost effective for the American people, we also need to be, as you said, honest with the American people that if you cut out every penny of the portion of the budget at which you are looking, we will not solve the deficit problem.

So I say to my friend, I will look forward to working with him. Our side looks forward to working with him and his side. I have had discussions--I see Mr. Dreier on the floor. We need to work together on this issue because the gentleman is correct; it is a critical area.

Unless the gentleman wants more time, I will yield back.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

Just in concluding on that, the administration did, of course, appoint a commission, Mr. Bowles and Senator Simpson, which did, in fact, look at the spectrum of spending and made some very substantive recommendations. The administration has commended those recommendations to us for consideration.

But the administration also said that we need to make sure that we invest in growing our economy if we expect to bring the deficit down, investing in the education of our children, investing in our infrastructure, investing in innovation and invention. I agree with the administration on that. I think we need to be very careful that we pay attention to both the investments and to the reduction of the deficits.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Pat Kelly, one of the longest-serving employees in the history of the House of Representatives. Pat retired yesterday after more than 53 years of outstanding public service.

Pat comes from a family that has always placed a high premium on public service. Her father, Edward, was a New York City Court justice; her mother, Edna, was a Member of the House of Representatives. Even further back, Pat can trace her family's history of service to a grandfather who was appointed Postmaster of Brooklyn, New York, by President Woodrow Wilson.

In her decades in the House, Pat worked as a research assistant, a legislative assistant for three Members of Congress and the House Rules Committee, and the Editor of the House Daily Digest. Pat served in that most recent role from 1999 to her retirement. She has seen more than half a century of history being made first-hand--and more importantly, she has helped shaped that history, through her diligence, hard work, and deep experience. For more than 53 years, Pat Kelly made herself indispensable to the House, and she will be greatly missed.

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the gentleman from North Carolina for the remarks he just made. He is a Republican and I am a Democrat, but I will tell you this: We are friends, and we work together. And he is one of the most conscientious Members of this House, who follows his conscience and his moral values in making decisions. He gave a very moving and important speech on the floor today. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Jones, from North Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, when I come to the floor to speak about our country's recent fiscal history, I am often told there is no point in looking back. But Majority Leader Cantor got it entirely right when he wrote this: ``The future will not be won by repeating the mistakes of the past.'' The future will not be won by repeating the mistakes of the past. Unfortunately, however, we are proceeding on a path that shows little inclination to live by those words.

Once again, our Republican colleagues are using the language of fiscal responsibility, but pursuing policies of fiscal irresponsibility. Our colleagues across the aisle trumpet the $100 billion in domestic discretionary spending they voted to cut from our budget. However, their actions belie those words. Their very first action in this new Congress was to approve policies, a rule package, that would provide for borrowing an additional $5 trillion, unpaid for. Their budget policy would give us the worst of both worlds.

On the one hand, they failed to take on the real fiscal challenges. And, very frankly, there is blame to share across this Chamber, Republicans and Democrats, for failing to take on those challenges. But the policies they're pursuing would even make our situation worse. On the other hand, the cuts they do make are taken out of vital investments that would grow our economy and create jobs. As I will mention later on, some 700,000 to 800,000 jobs over the next 18 months, it is projected, would be cost by the adoption of their policies. This combination is not new. It is a repeat of Republican fiscal policy in the past.

Let's look at the evidence. First of all on deficits, what this chart shows is everything below this line is a deficit. Everything above this line is a surplus. Obviously, what you want is the deficit going down into surplus. What you don't want is going from surplus into deficit. You will notice that the Reagan administration, Reagan-Bush, are noted in this first red quadrant, and the Clinton administration going from deep debt to surplus, then the Bush administration going from surplus into deep debt. And the Obama administration trying to get out of the extraordinarily tanking, receding economic status, invested in bringing us out, and now we see us coming out.

It shows how the fiscally responsible policies adopted under President Clinton took us into surplus. It unfortunately shows that when we reversed those policies in 2001, we then went back into deep deficits. We all know how those predictions that Republicans made when we adopted this economic program, for which none of the Republicans in the House or the Senate voted for, they said economic catastrophe would occur. That was their analysis. That was their economic prediction. In fact, exactly the opposite happened, and we created 22 million new jobs for Americans. This deficit chart also shows how our record surplus was squandered during the Bush administration.

The second chart I want to show you talks about government spending. We have to cut spending. We all know that. We all talk about it. But let's look at who actually did cut government spending.

Again, government spending was up and down, but at a rate higher than it was under the Clinton administration where spending, as a percentage of our gross domestic product, almost without exception, went down. So when we talk about spending, we have a record of restraining and cutting spending. In fact, that was a partnership, frankly, because Republicans agreed to make compromises with the Democratic President.

However, when they controlled the Presidency, the House, and the Senate, you will see that spending went up sharply once again. Again we see government spending as a percentage of the economy rising under President Bush, and after the emergency measures needed to respond to the recession, starting to come down after the recession was ameliorated.

Real median wages. I want to show this chart as well. Because, after all, these are nice statistics, but what does it do for people? What is the impact on them? Real median wages sort of stuck. And I will end with this and complete the rest of my statement later, Mr. Speaker. But you will see that median wages under President Clinton's administration went up, and then they were flat. And they are going up again now under President Obama. Too slowly to be sure.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue these remarks, because if we do not learn from the past, if we repeat the failed policies of yesterday, our people will not be well served.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I have now heard and watched on television and I have been on the floor with two members from Georgia, both of whom are brand new to this body who were talking about the history. Well, I want to tell my friend from Georgia a little bit of history. I have been here 30 years. I have served some 20 of those years under Republican Presidents. Every one of them has run a deficit of $100 billion or more. In fact, during that cumulative period of 30 years, notwithstanding the Obama administration, and I will discuss that in a second, Mr. Reagan, Mr. Bush I, and Mr. Bush II ran deficits of over $6 trillion that they signed the bills to spend. Over $6 trillion. Bill Clinton was President for 8 years. The last 4 years, we didn't raise the debt at all, unlike every one of the Republican administrations, where we raised it on a regular basis. Not at all during the last administration, the last 4 years of Mr. Clinton's administration, and he ran--the only President in your lifetime, and very frankly mine, and I may be twice as old as you are--a $62.9 billion surplus. Look it up. No argument.

But let me say something. Irrespective of who is responsible, we are responsible for fixing it. Republicans and Democrats. The American people know that we have a crisis confronting us. They know there is no option other than to deal with this realistically. I would call everybody's attention in this body--Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservatives--to an article written by David Brooks today in The New York Times. Read it. Read it. David Brooks is a conservative columnist of the New York Times. We all ought to read this and take it to heart. I called it to my caucus' attention this morning.

Our deep debt is a serious danger to our economy, to our future, and our children's opportunities. The American people want us to bring the debt down. They said so very loudly. And I doubt there is a Member who disagrees.

Democrats believe that spending cuts are part of the solution. Let there be no mistake. We need to cut spending, but we also believe that those cuts must be smart and targeted, not pegged to an arbitrary number.

One of your staffers, when you put the Pledge to America, came forth with a figure of $100 billion. That's a nice round figure; $100 billion sounds good. It's good PR. It's good spin--$100 billion. Read David Brooks. No analysis was given to that figure. No hearings were held on that figure. Nobody could testify on the cuts that were proposed to reach that figure.

We have to cut the spending. We can do without some spending, not the vital investments, however, that are helping to grow our economy, that are helping our private sector innovate and creating the jobs of the future.

During the Clinton administration, I will tell my young friend from Georgia there were 22 million new jobs. During the Bush administration, we lost 8 million jobs. A 30 million job turnaround. That's why there was so much spending of which Mr. Rogers spoke. And $700 billion of that, of course, was asked for by the Bush Presidency, Secretary Paulson and Mr. Bernanke, so that we didn't fall into a depression for the first time since Herbert Hoover. This President has been trying to bring us out and, frankly, is succeeding.

Unfortunately, Republicans passed a spending bill full of shortsighted and indiscriminate cuts. Do we need cuts? Yes. Do we need shortsighted and indiscriminate cuts? No. Just over a week ago, you would cut billions in energy and medical research, kick 200,000 children out of Head Start, make college more expensive, and stop 21st- century infrastructure projects in 40 States. That's what Mr. Zandi is talking about. That's what Goldman Sachs is talking about. Cuts like these could cripple America's competitiveness and job growth.

According to Moody's Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi, who advised Senator McCain's Presidential campaign, Republicans' cuts would cost America a total of 700,000 jobs. The Economic Policy Institute puts it at 800,000.

Rather than such job-destroying policies, both of us, both parties, need to come together and reason together. Frankly, the American public doesn't care who works with whom. They just want it to work. This is no way to fund the largest enterprise in the world--on 14-day cycles. The gentleman criticized us for doing it, and we should have been criticized.

Let me tell my friend what he didn't mention: One of the reasons we did it was that we couldn't get 60 votes in the United States Senate in order to move a bill forward.

Keeping our government running is vital to our economy. None of us should want to shut down the government. It is also vital to the millions who rely on government every day. The sooner we can agree on a long-term package of smart cuts, not reckless, arbitrary, job- destroying cuts, the sooner we can stop funding the government in disruptive 2-week increments. The gentleman was correct that we ought not to do that. We need to pass a 7-month funding so that government and all who rely on the government, who work for the government, and who have contracts with the government can rely on some certainty.

You've talked a lot about certainty on your side of the aisle. You're absolutely right, we need certainty. The business community needs certainty. Individuals need certainty, and the government needs certainty.

Rather than passing 2-week continuing resolutions, I urge Republicans and Democrats to work together on a long-term solution--in this case, ``long term'' is 7 months--to reduce spending, to try to balance our budget, and to try to bring rationality to this process. We cannot, my friends on the Republican side of the aisle and

the Democratic side of the aisle, continue to look at 15 percent of the budget and expect us to get to where we need to be from where we now are.

I thank the gentleman from Washington State for yielding, and I thank the leader for her remarks.

Jane Harman and I have known each other for almost half a century. We in fact grew up together in many ways, became involved in public service, and I have seen her grow into one of the great leaders in this country on issues of national security.

National security is one of the most bipartisan issues with which we deal. Everyone knows that we swear an oath to defend the Constitution and laws of this Nation, and that we have a responsibility to ensure the safety of our country and the safety of our people. Few among us have taken more to heart that responsibility than Jane Harman of California.

Jane, of course, as all of you know, served on the Intelligence Committee. She served on the Intelligence Committee as ranking member for a long period of time. And if you ask the people in the intelligence community or in the defense community--and of course she served on the staff of the Department of Defense as well in a number of administrations--they will tell you that Jane Harman is as knowledgeable, as incisive, as thoughtful, as analytical as anybody with whom they have dealt in the Congress of the United States. We will be a lesser Congress for her leaving us and have less of an expertise, although many experts we still have.

Jane has been a voice to the American people on the focus that we have needed to keep our country safe and to confront those terrorists who would put us at risk.

Jane, we owe you a debt of gratitude, your constituents owe you a debt of gratitude, and your country owes you a debt of gratitude.

The sadness of your leaving is leavened somewhat by the fact that you will continue to be involved and your expertise will continue to be available in your new position as the leader of the Woodrow Wilson Center, a distinguished center of thought and focus on issues of international security and policy.

We thank you for your service. We wish you the very best. And we are so glad to know that you are just a few blocks down the road so that we will be able to call upon you to give your very thoughtful insights, analysis, and advice to the issues that confront this Nation and all of us, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, which, as you rightly point out, is not an issue of ideology but of practical safety for our citizens and Nation.

Thank you, dear friend. Thank you, dear colleague. Thank you, dear American leader.

I yield to my friend, the majority leader, to inform us of the planned schedule for the evening.

I thank the gentleman for that information. As I understand what the gentleman just said, we will probably have the next series of votes at approximately midnight.

Would the gentleman have in mind when the next series of votes would be after that?

I thank the gentleman for the information.

I will tell him that I believe, on my side, we have three, perhaps, four amendments--one we think is subject to a point of order. So we have three amendments left on this side. I'm not sure how many you will have on your side.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I don't hear objection on this side of the aisle.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Reclaiming my time, I will tell my friend, the majority leader, I still do not hear objection on our side.

Mr. Chair, our country is in deep fiscal trouble, and cutting wasteful or low-priority spending is part of getting back to fiscal balance. But there is nothing low-priority about the firefighters who protect our communities, our families, and our homes. It is another example of Republicans' short-sighted and reckless approach to cutting spending that they are willing to take 2,400 firefighters off of the streets by passing this spending bill. To prevent that blow to public safety, I support Rep. Pascrell's amendment, which would protect funding for the vital FIRE and SAFER grant programs.

FIRE and SAFER help fire departments across America recruit, train, and retain skilled firefighters, and help departments equip them with the up-to-date tools they need to protect property and save lives. These grant programs have helped our community firefighters afford protective equipment that helps them enter burning buildings, backup power generators that keep their stations running during emergencies, and full staffing, so that fire departments are not sitting empty or underprepared when disasters strike. In an independent study, the U.S. Fire Administration found that grants like these are making fire departments across the country more prepared for emergencies, and better equipped to do their job.

The Republican spending bill would not only cost us the jobs of thousands of public servants who risk their lives for our safety--it would put communities across the country at greater risk. I urge my colleagues to pass this amendment and restore these vital investments in public safety.

If our country continues on a course of fiscal irresponsibility and continues to pile debt on our children, we will all feel the consequences, no matter our party. It is vital that our two parties work together, Mr. Speaker, to put our fiscal house in order. So when I tell the House how disappointed I am in the proposal that is on the floor on spending for the rest of the fiscal year, I'm coming from a perspective of real worry about our debt, a defining challenge that must be seriously met. Sadly, that's not the seriousness we see in the Republicans' spending bills for the rest of this fiscal year.

Republicans began the new Congress by passing a rules package that paves the way to add nearly $5 trillion to the deficit. Why do I say that? Because the Republican rules provide for $4.7 trillion, to be exact, in additional spending that is not paid for over the next 10 years, while at the same time suggesting reductions in spending, which I think we need to effect. I may disagree with the specifics, but we need to effect reductions in spending. However, if you project $1 trillion in reduced spending and $5 trillion in additional unpaid-for expenditure, it doesn't take much of a mathematician to get you to $4 trillion of additional deficits. This is in the context of the $5 trillion they've authorized themselves to borrow from our children and in the context of the Republican record of fiscal irresponsibility in the past where, as I pointed out, every Republican administration with which I've served has run over a trillion dollars of deficit--$1.4 trillion for Mr. Reagan, about $1.1 trillion for the first President Bush, and $3.6 trillion or $3.7 trillion for the second President Bush--as contrasted with a $62.9 billion surplus under the Clinton administration.

Time and again, Republicans have used the rhetoric of spending cuts as a cover for massive borrowing, for record surplus to turn into record deficits--a $5.6 trillion projected surplus in 2001 turned into about a $5 trillion projected deficit in the following 8 years under President Bush--and for budgets that year after year did far more fiscal damage than they promised. This time, unfortunately, is no different.

But let's look at the actual cuts proposed in this spending bill. They're shortsighted and indiscriminate. Even as they fail to change our long-term fiscal picture for the better, these cuts recklessly damage programs essential to America's competitive edge. I agree that reducing spending is and must be a part of the fiscal solution, but let's reduce spending wisely instead of doing it in such a way that costs America jobs.

When we talk about cutting investments in education, in innovation, and in infrastructure, we are talking about cutting tomorrow's jobs, because those are exactly the investments that will build the technologies and industries of the future and help American workers stay competitive in a global economy. The Association of General Contractors said that just yesterday in USA Today.

The spending bill on the floor today would make it harder for deserving students to afford college, meaning a less educated, less competitive workforce. Every businessperson that I've talked to says that's not the way to go.

It would cut 20,000 researchers supported by the National Science Foundation and $2.5 billion in cancer and other disease research at the National Institutes of Health, meaning an America in danger of losing its place as the world's innovation leader. If we do that, we will not be the kind of country Americans want to be.

It would lead to the loss of 25,000 construction jobs and leave our air traffic control system stuck in the last century, meaning an America with an infrastructure falling further and further behind our competitors.

We need spending discipline. Everyone in America knows that, and everyone in this House knows that--but not at the cost of our future and our jobs. I suggest to you that the rules adopted in this House not only did not effect discipline; they ignored and threw out the door discipline, and said that they could borrow $4.7 trillion and not pay for it.

I can't sum up the central issue any better than Jack Lew, our Director of OMB, who said this: ``We must take care to avoid indiscriminate cuts in areas critical to long-term growth, like education, innovation, and infrastructure, cuts that would stifle the economy just as it begins to recover.'' Now, who was making a similar statement like that? Richard Trumka, the president of the AFL-CIO. Who was he doing it with? Mr. Tom Donohue, the president of the United States Chamber of Commerce. ``That, in turn, would deprive us of one of the most powerful drivers of deficit reduction, a growing economy,'' concluded Jack Lew.

The President's bipartisan fiscal commission agrees. It found that indiscriminate cuts to investments in growth would ``interfere with the ongoing economic recovery.'' Both commissions concluded that short-term substantial cuts in research, education, and innovation would be harmful to bringing this economy back to where we want it to be.

Therefore, I urge my Republicans friends: Listen to the economic and business leaders who understand the value of public investment, not as a replacement for the private sector, but in partnership with the private sector. That's the partnership that Democrats are striving for with our Make It in America agenda. ``Make it in America,'' of course, means two things:

Number one, you're going to make it. You're going to succeed. You're going to have the opportunity to get opportunities. Of course, ``make it in America'' also means that we are going to make ``it'' in America. We are going to manufacture and grow it in America and sell it here and around the world. The President wants to double our exports over the next 5 years. We can do that; we should do that, and Americans believe that, if we do that, we will remain the great economic engine that they believe our country needs to be.

We have a set of bills that helps create an environment for American companies to create jobs here and to manufacture more goods here in America so that more middle class families will be able to make it in America. Let's cut needless spending but preserve our investments in growth, and let's work together to build the bipartisan support that is essential to the hard choices our long-term fiscal problems demand.

I tell my friends on the other side of the aisle, when you look at your rules package and when you contemplate the fact that you have provided for an additional $4.7 trillion of spending without paying for it and at the same time you project a $100 billion cut per year over 10 years, $1 trillion, it is quite obvious that there is a $4 trillion hole that you have created.

Reforming the Tax Code to grow our economy and reduce the deficit is absolutely essential, in my view, eliminating wasteful defense spending that doesn't keep us safer, and keeping our entitlement programs solvent for generations to come.

Those are the challenges that both Republicans and Democrats need to face together: to cooperate, to make common cause, to make sure that our children and grandchildren inherit a fiscally sound Nation and not a Nation deeply mired in debt, not a Nation that has $4.7 trillion in expenditures without paying for them, as the Republican rules suggest.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would say to the previous speaker, my friend Mr. Pence, we did that. In 1993 we looked the fiscal posture of our country in the eye. We had sustained $1.4 trillion of deficit spending under Mr. Reagan and $1.1 trillion of deficit spending under Mr. Bush, and we put legislation on this floor and said we need to meet our fiscal responsibilities. Not a single member, unfortunately, of the Republican Party voted for that legislation. But over the next 8 years, we had a net surplus in this country; the only time in the lifetime of anybody in this body that that has happened. We did it working together.

Unfortunately, the last administration ran up $3.8 trillion of deficit, and we inherited an economy that was in substantial free fall. The President said that; Mr. Bernanke said that; Mr. Paulson said that. And so we adopted legislation that tried to stabilize that economy, and the good news is that we have. We haven't gotten to where we want to be. We want to create more jobs. As the President says, we want to invest in growing our economy and bringing jobs back.

There will be some very tough decisions we will have to make moving forward; and, frankly, as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee knows and as the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee knows, you will not get there focused simply on 14 percent of the budget. It will not happen, my friends.

You might want to delude yourself or delude our constituents and say that you can simply cut all 14 percent of non-defense discretionary spending, and you will still have an operating deficit this year if we cut out every nickel of discretionary spending.

That discretionary spending of course educates our children. It promotes our health. It promotes our commerce. It promotes building the economy. That's what this issue is about.

So I rise to say to all of us, all 435 of us, it will take courage, cooperation, and common sense to address the deficit situation that confronts us.

And it is a crisis. It must be met. We do not have an alternative. Because if we do not address it--all of you have heard about my three children, my three grandchildren, and my one great granddaughter. All of them will hold me and all of you responsible for the legacy of fiscal irresponsibility which we will leave them.

We now have bipartisan responsibility. You are in charge of this House; the Democrats are in charge of the Senate, and we have a President who is a Democrat. It is a perfect opportunity for us all to take responsibility and, yes, part of the blame, because the decisions we will have to make will be tough; they will be agonizing, and they will be wrenching. And people will say, We're not sure you should have done it.

If we do it together, we can do it. And we owe it to our country, our fellow citizens, and our children to do so.

Cutting spending is part of the solution to our deficit. But we also have to cut wisely, making the distinction between spending we can do without, and investments that are vital to our future growth.

But Republicans have brought to the floor a spending bill full of cuts that are short-sighted and indiscriminate. They endanger the investments we need to grow our economy and create jobs--to out-build, out-innovate, and out-educate our competitors. When we talk about cutting those investments, we are talking about cutting tomorrow's jobs.

I wish that my Republican colleagues would listen to the business leaders who understand the importance of thoughtful investment.

Listen to Tom Donohue of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO, who don't agree on very much: ``Whether it is building roads, bridges, high-speed broadband, energy systems and schools, these projects not only create jobs . . . they are an investment in building the modern infrastructure our country needs to compete.''

But the Republican spending bill would cancel 76 transportation projects in 40 States, and leave us with roads, bridges, and an air traffic control system stuck in the last century.

Listen to Marc Benioff, CEO of Salesforce.com: ``The number 1 thing the government needs to do is increase research funding.''

But the Republican spending bill would cut support for 20,000 researchers at the National Science Foundation, cut $1.4 billion of energy research, and cut $2.5 billion of medical research.

Listen to Bill Gates: ``If we don't start innovating in education to make it better and more accessible . . . our competitiveness will fall behind that of other countries.''

But the Republican spending bill would kick 200,000 children out of Head Start and make it harder for Americans to afford college.

By all means, let's take real action on the deficit--but not in a way that sacrifices America's competitive edge.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to support the intent of the Connolly Amendment which seeks to restore $150 million in dedicated Federal funding to ``America's Subway''--the Washington Metro--which is otherwise eliminated under the Republican Continuing Resolution.

The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) operates the country's second largest rail system. Every day, that system carries more than a million people--from the Federal employees who keep our government running, to the families from across the country who come to visit their nation's capital. Clearly, the system warrants a strong commitment from the Federal Government.

In 2009, we passed, and the President signed, legislation that provides $1.5 billion in Federal dedicated funding to WMATA over the next 10 years to help meet the capital and infrastructure needs of the 30-year old system. The first installment of this funding--which is being matched by the District of Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland--was appropriated in Fiscal 2010.

This investment is, first and foremost, being used to move forward with the implementation of the recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board following the horrific Red Line crash which tragically killed 9 people and injured many more. This includes the purchase of the new series 7000 rail cars to replace the oldest cars in the fleet. This funding will also enable Metro to rebuild its core infrastructure, replacing miles of track, switches and fasteners, maintenance work that will help to build a safer, more reliable system.

Eliminating this funding will cause the Federal Government to renege on its statutory commitment to the Metro system, endangers the local match, hampers the ability of Metro to make much needed safety and capital improvements, and puts at risk countless tourists and commuters who ride Metro every day. I urge my colleagues to restore this critical investment in the Washington Metro System.