Providing for Consideration of H.R. 38, Reducing Non-Security Spending to Fiscal Year 2008 Levels or Less

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed rule. So much for an open process, and so much for a free flow of ideas. I also rise in strong opposition to the underlying resolution.

Once again, the Republican majority is choosing to ignore the single most important issue facing the American people: jobs. My Republican friends have instead brought forth a resolution, H. Res. 38, that they tout as some sort of spending reduction measure. In fact, the resolution doesn't cut a single dollar--not one dime--from the Federal budget.

If this were a good-faith effort, there would be some numbers in this resolution. Instead, the resolution says that we should ``assume non-security spending at fiscal year 2008 levels or less'' without defining ``non-security'' spending or specifying exactly what those levels might be. In other words, Mr. Speaker, this is a budget resolution without any numbers, which is why it is so meaningless.

We are told that the numbers are on their way, that

the Congressional Budget Office will tell us on Wednesday of this week what the impact of this resolution would be if it were actually put into place. So why are we here today debating this issue? Why can't we wait until Wednesday when we have the numbers? The answer is as plain as the calendar on the wall: it's politics, pure and simple.

The Republican leadership has scheduled a vote on the resolution tomorrow just before President Obama addresses the Nation in his State of the Union Address. That way, they'll have a fresh set of talking points for their response to the President. They'll be able to say, ``Look how serious we are about cutting government funding,'' when, of course, they haven't cut anything.

Another problem with the resolution is that it reinforces the terrible precedent that the Republican majority established in their rules package at the beginning of this Congress. Under those rules, a single Member of Congress, the chairman of the Budget Committee, has the authority to determine spending levels for the government for the rest of the year.

Now, like all of my colleagues, I have a great deal of respect for the current chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan. But I strongly disagree with the notion that he and only he should determine something as fundamental as the budget of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, we have to vote in this House to change the name of a post office. But we can't have a vote on how much we should spend on education, on food safety, on infrastructure, on environmental cleanup, or on medical research? That's a far cry from the openness and transparency that my Republican friends promised.

Last week in the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment to this resolution that would have allowed the other 435 Members of the House the opportunity to vote on this critical issue. But my Republican colleagues defeated my amendment on a party-line vote.

And finally, Mr. Speaker, the resolution walls off defense spending from the budget axe. We hear all the time from my friends on the other side of the aisle that everything should be on the table. Why then would they take hundreds of billions of dollars of potential savings off the table right out of the gate? Even Speaker Boehner on a recent interview said, ``I believe there's room to find savings in the Department of Defense.'' Well, if that's true--and it most certainly is--then why does this resolution treat defense spending as sacred and untouchable?

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the Federal budget, the Republican majority is not off to a good start. Their rules package paved the way for them to add nearly $5 trillion to the deficit. Last week, they voted to repeal the health care law and add another $230 billion to the deficit. And now they are rushing a 1-page bill without a single number and without any specifics about how and where they want to cut.

What we are doing today, Mr. Speaker, is not real. There are no tough choices being made today. This is show business, and quite frankly, it diminishes the legislative process. The American people deserve much, much better. I urge my colleagues to reject this closed rule, and I urge them to reject the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, let me acknowledge the presence of my new colleague who is on the Rules Committee and simply say that, if this were a serious effort, there would be numbers in this bill. There are none. This is about issuing a press release after the State of the Union so that Republicans can have a talking point to go home with. This is not a serious effort. And if it were, there would be real numbers in there. If we were interested in rigorous debate, this would be an open rule.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the ranking member on the Budget Committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am glad my friends on the other side of the aisle are happy that they voted to repeal the affordable health care bill, but I will tell that you there are real people in this country who are benefiting from the real protections in the bill who are quite anxious about the fact that there are people who want to remove the protection, for example, that prohibits insurance companies from discriminating against people with preexisting conditions. There are parents who can keep their kids on their insurance until they are 26 who are not too happy about that repeal. There are senior citizens who are benefiting from the closing of the doughnut hole who are actually feeling some benefits from this health care bill. They're not too happy that the Republicans want to repeal all of that. And on top of that, the CBO said it adds considerably to our deficit.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments, although it has really nothing to do with the bill we're talking about here today. And our concern about this budget bill before us is that there's no number in it, and it essentially is a press release, I guess, to be able to talk about tomorrow after the State of the Union.

I also want to clarify what happened in the Rules Committee. I did offer an amendment that was rejected on party line that said that Members of Congress ought to have the ability to vote on this magic number that the chairman of the Budget Committee will come up with. That was rejected.

There was also an amendment offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida which would have allowed Mr. Van Hollen, who is our ranking member on the Budget Committee, a substitute. That was rejected. And there was also an amendment for an open rule so that we could have a free and open debate, and that was rejected. So there were amendments that were offered, and they were rejected.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, a ``no'' vote on the previous question will allow the House to consider an amendment exempting cuts in funding to the FBI's counterterrorism program, an amendment that will ensure we do not sacrifice our Nation's security in this post-9/11 world.

I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can ensure that we continue to protect this Nation from terrorism.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source