Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. 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?

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. 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. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. 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?

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

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

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

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

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. 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. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. But we ought to also be humbled by the fact that during the 30 years that I have been in office, for 20 of those years the Republicans have been in charge of the executive department of government. Just recently they were in charge, as a matter of fact, from 2001 to 2008, when we saw the deepest recession start and flourish and continue into this next administration since the Great Depression. So let none of us on this floor point the finger at one another. The American people want to see solutions, not angry rhetoric. The American people want to see this economy grow and create the jobs that they need. All of us ought to be committed to that objective, and we ought to project to the American people that we are prepared to come together and work together and legislate together to achieve that end. As I said, I will vote for this resolution, but the hard work is ahead of us.

Mr. HOYER. Frankly, the adoption of this resolution could have been, as I am sure most of us on this floor know, probably been done by unanimous consent, because what it calls for is our responsibility and is absolutely essential if we are going to create the kind of environment to grow this economy, create the kinds of jobs and be competitive in international markets. I again thank my friend for yielding the time, and I urge the adoption of this resolution.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that comment. I know the gentleman will be brief today. But I do want to ask a question with reference to the 302(a) allocations, 302(b) allocations that the Appropriations Committee dealt with and then dealt with a product consistent with those numbers. It is my understanding that that has now changed or is expected to change in terms of the 302(b) allocation numbers and that they are being modified; am I correct? As I understand it, they have not been modified in the Appropriations Committee and will not be subject to a vote in the Appropriations Committee, and that that number out of the Appropriations Committee may not be the number that will be reported out to the floor next week. Is that correct?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that answer. Will there be another markup of the Appropriations Committee to attain that number?