Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 55 (Thursday, March 29, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 55 (Thursday, March 29, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H3283-H3338]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cohen). Pursuant to House Resolution 275
and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 99.

{time} 1015

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 99) revising the congressional
budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2007,
establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government
for fiscal year 2008, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels
for fiscal years 2009 through 2012, with Mrs. Tauscher (Acting
Chairman) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on
Wednesday, March 28, 2007, all time for general debate had expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the concurrent resolution is considered read
for amendment under the 5-minute rule.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:

H. Con. Res. 99

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring),

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2008.

(a) Declaration.--The Congress determines and declares that
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2007
is revised and replaced and that this is the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008, including
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2009 through
2012.
(b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts.
Sec. 102. Major functional categories.

TITLE II--RESERVE FUNDS

Sec. 201. Reserve fund for the State Children's Health Insurance
Program.
Sec. 202. Reserve fund for reform of the alternative minimum tax.
Sec. 203. Reserve fund to provide for middle-income tax relief and
economic equity.
Sec. 204. Reserve fund for agriculture.
Sec. 205. Reserve fund for higher education.
Sec. 206. Reserve fund for improvements in medicare.
Sec. 207. Reserve fund for creating long-term energy alternatives.
Sec. 208. Reserve fund for affordable housing.
Sec. 209. Reserve fund for equitable benefits for Filipino veterans of
World War II.
Sec. 210. Reserve fund for Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act reauthorization.
Sec. 211. Reserve fund for receipts from the Bonneville Power
Administration.
Sec. 212. Reserve fund for Transitional Medical Assistance.

TITLE III--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 301. Program integrity initiatives.
Sec. 302. Advance appropriations.
Sec. 303. Overseas deployments and emergency needs.
Sec. 304. Application and effect of changes in allocations and
aggregates.
Sec. 305. Adjustments to reflect changes in concepts and definitions.
Sec. 306. Compliance with section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act
of 1990.
Sec. 307. Exercise of rulemaking powers.

TITLE IV--POLICY

Sec. 401. Policy on middle-income tax relief.
Sec. 402. Policy on defense priorities.
Sec. 403. Policy on college affordability.

TITLE V--SENSE OF THE HOUSE

Sec. 501. Sense of the House on servicemembers' and veterans' health
care and other priorities.
Sec. 502. Sense of the House on the Innovation Agenda: A commitment to
competitiveness to keep America #1.
Sec. 503. Sense of the House on homeland security.
Sec. 504. Sense of the House regarding the ongoing need to respond to
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Sec. 505. Sense of the House regarding long-term sustainability of
entitlements.
Sec. 506. Sense of the House regarding the need to maintain and build
upon efforts to fight hunger.
Sec. 507. Sense of the House regarding affordable health coverage.
Sec. 508. Sense of the House regarding extension of the statutory pay-
as-you-go rule.
Sec. 509. Sense of the House on long-term budgeting.
Sec. 510. Sense of the House regarding pay parity.
Sec. 511. Sense of the House regarding waste, fraud, and abuse.
Sec. 512. Sense of the House regarding the importance of child support
enforcement.
Sec. 513. Sense of the House on State veterans cemeteries.

TITLE VI--RECONCILIATION

Sec. 601. Reconciliation.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of
fiscal years 2007 through 2012:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2007: $1,904,706,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $2,050,797,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,106,926,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,163,721,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,394,551,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,597,096,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be adjusted are as follows:
Fiscal year 2007: $0.
Fiscal year 2008: $0.
Fiscal year 2009: $0.
Fiscal year 2010: $0.
Fiscal year 2011: $0.
Fiscal year 2012: $0.
(2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new
budget authority are as follows:
Fiscal year 2007: $2,380,614,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $2,495,291,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,516,301,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,569,952,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,684,936,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,716,188,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2007: $2,300,065,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $2,465,888,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,565,305,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,600,718,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,691,358,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,700,809,000,000.
(4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget)
are as follows:
Fiscal year 2007: -$395,359,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: -$415,091,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: -$458,379,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: -$436,997,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: -$296,807,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: -$103,713,000,000.
(5) Debt subject to limit.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate
levels of the debt subject to limit are as follows:
Fiscal year 2007: $8,927,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $9,461,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $10,036,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $10,591,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $11,001,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $11,231,000,000,000.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2007: $5,042,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $5,269,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $5,524,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $5,743,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $5,805,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $5,663,000,000,000.

SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years
2007 through 2012 for each major functional category are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $525,797,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $534,270,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $506,995,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $514,401,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $534,705,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $524,384,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $545,171,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $536,433,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $550,944,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $547,624,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $559,799,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $548,169,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $28,795,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,308,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $34,675,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,096,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:

[[Page H3284]]

(A) New budget authority, $35,428,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,557,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $35,623,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,687,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $36,083,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,006,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $36,530,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,613,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $25,079,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,516,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $27,611,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,472,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $28,641,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,411,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $29,844,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,485,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $31,103,00,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,089,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $32,438,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,367,000,000.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $2,943,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,369,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $3,240,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,092,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $3,051,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,454,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $3,136,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,641,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $3,228,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,697,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $3,307,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,997,000,000.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $31,332,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,919,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $32,813,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,864,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $33,529,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,332,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $34,483,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,574,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $35,152,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,952,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $36,194,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,543,000,000.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $21,471,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,738,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $20,381,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,549,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $20,933,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,059,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $21,138,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,112,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $21,156,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,436,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $21,402,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,863,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $5,515,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$3,522,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $9,158,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,985,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $9,973,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $996,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $13,775,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,460,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $8,822,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,931,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $8,822,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,097,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $81,282,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $74,739,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $82,657,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $80,802,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $76,343,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $83,948,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $77,261,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $86,127,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $78,289,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $87,018,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $79,169,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $88,761,000,000.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $15,717,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,281,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $15,032,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,017,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $13,928,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,474,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $14,129,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,220,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $14,328,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,649,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $14,528,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,131,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $92,780,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $92,224,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $92,461,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $91,119,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $96,810,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $93,978,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $98,333,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $96,041,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $98,409,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $97,276,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $98,654,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $96,909,000,000.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $267,892,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $268,197,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $286,767,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $286,261,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $307,842,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $305,984,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $325,885,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $325,716,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $347,621,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $346,553,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $370,780,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $369,739,000,000.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $365,152,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $370,180,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $389,586,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $389,696,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $416,731,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $416,382,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $442,369,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $442,589,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $489,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $489,109,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $468,828,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $486,440,000,000.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $360,365,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $364,204,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $379,927,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $383,546,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $391,073,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $393,458,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $401,429,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $402,422,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $417,016,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $416,907,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $402,874,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $402,130,000,000.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $19,089,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,089,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $19,644,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,644,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $21,518,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,518,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $23,701,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,701,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $27,009,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,009,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $29,898,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,898,000,000.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $73,896,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $72,342,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $85,192,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $82,772,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $87,787,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $87,681,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $90,414,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $89,710,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $96,033,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $95,410,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $93,325,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $92,599,000,000.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2007:

[[Page H3285]]

(A) New budget authority, $45,504,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,659,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $46,940,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,155,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $46,111,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,311,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $47,168,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,504,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $48,379,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $48,164,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $49,610,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $49,207,000,000.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $18,193,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,574,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $18,614,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,998,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $19,264,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,328,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $19,886,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,765,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $20,647,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,370,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $21,359,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,193,000,000.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $344,431,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $344,431,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $369,454,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $369,454,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $389,194,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $389,194,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $413,140,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $413,140,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $431,192,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $431,192,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $442,528,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $442,528,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $785,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $755,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $30,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $0.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $0.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $0.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $0.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, -$69,714,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$69,714,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, -$70,979,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$70,979,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, -$66,560,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$66,569,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, -$66,933,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$66,933,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, -$69,575,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$69,595,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, -$71,857,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$71,860,000,000.
(21) Overseas Deployments and Other Activities (970):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $124,310,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,506,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $145,163,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $114,914,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $109,425,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $42,324,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $13,561,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $4,485,000,000.

TITLE II--RESERVE FUNDS

SEC. 201. RESERVE FUND FOR THE STATE CHILDREN'S HEALTH
INSURANCE PROGRAM.

In the House, with respect to a bill or a joint resolution
(or an amendment to or a conference report submitted on such
a bill or joint resolution) reported from the Committee on
Energy and Commerce that increases new budget authority that
would result in no more than $50,000,000,000 in outlays for
fiscal years 2008 through 2012 for expanding coverage and
improving children's health through the State Children's
Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) under title XXI of the
Social Security Act and the program under title XIX of such
Act (commonly known as medicaid), the chairman of the
Committee on Budget may make the appropriate adjustments in
allocations of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in
budget authority and outlays of other committees as may be
necessary pursuant to such adjustment for the Committee on
Energy andCommerce, and budgetary aggregates, but only to the
extent that such bill or joint resolution (as amended, in the
case of an amendment) in the form placed before the House by
the Committee on Rules would not increase the deficit or
decrease the surplus for the period of fiscal years 2007
through 2012 and the period of fiscal years 2007 through
2017. The adjustments may be made whenever a rule providing
for consideration of such a bill or joint resolution is
filed, such a bill or joint resolution is placed on any
calendar, or an amendment is offered or considered as adopted
or a conference report is submitted on such a bill or joint
resolution.

SEC. 202. RESERVE FUND FOR REFORM OF THE ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM
TAX.

In the House, with respect to any bill or joint resolution
(or an amendment thereto or conference report thereon) that
provides for reform of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by
reducing the tax burden of the alternative minimum tax on
middle-income families, the chairman of the Committee on the
Budget may make the appropriate adjustments in allocations of
a committee or committees and budgetary aggregates, but only
to the extent that such bills or joint resolutions (as
amended, in the case of an amendment) in the form placed
before the House by the Committee on Rules would not increase
the deficit or decrease the surplus for the period of fiscal
years 2007 through 2012 and the period of fiscal years 2007
through 2017. The adjustments may be made whenever a rule
providing for consideration of such bills or joint
resolutions is filed, such bills or joint resolutions are
placed on any calendar, or an amendment is offered or
considered as adopted or a conference report is submitted on
such bills or joint resolutions.

SEC. 203. RESERVE FUND TO PROVIDE FOR MIDDLE-INCOME TAX
RELIEF AND ECONOMIC EQUITY.

In the House, with respect to any bill or joint resolution
(or an amendment thereto or conference report thereon) that
provides for tax relief for middle-income families and
taxpayers and enhanced economic equity, such as extension of
the child tax credit, extension of marriage penalty relief,
extension of the 10 percent individual income tax bracket,
modification of the Alternative Minimum Tax, elimination of
estate taxes on all but a minute fraction of estates by
reforming and substantially increasing the unified credit,
extension of the research and experimentation tax credit,
extension of the deduction for State and local sales taxes,
and a tax credit for school construction bonds, the chairman
of the Committee on the Budget may make the appropriate
adjustments in allocations of a committee or committees and
budgetary aggregates, but only to the extent that such bills
or joint resolutions (as amended, in the case of an
amendment) in the form placed before the House by the
Committee on Rules would not increase the deficit or decrease
the surplus for the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2012
and the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2017. The
adjustments may be made whenever a rule providing for
consideration of such bills or joint resolutions are filed,
such bills or joint resolutions are placed on any calendar,
or an amendment is offered or considered as adopted or a
conference report is submitted on such bills or joint
resolutions.

SEC. 204. RESERVE FUND FOR AGRICULTURE.

In the House, with respect to a bill or a joint resolution
(or an amendment thereto or conference report thereon) that
provides for the reauthorization of the programs of the Food
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 or prior Acts,
authorizes similar programs, or both, that increases new
budget authority by no more than $20,000,000,000 for the
period of fiscal years 2007 through 2012, the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget may make the appropriate adjustments
in allocations of a committee or committees and budgetary
aggregates, but only to the extent that such bill or joint
resolution (as amended, in the case of an amendment) in the
form placed before the House by the Committee on Rules would
not increase the deficit or decrease the surplus for the
period of fiscal years 2007 through 2012 and the period of
fiscal years 2007 through 2017. The adjustments may be made
whenever a rule providing for consideration of such a bill or
joint resolution is filed, such a bill or joint resolution is
placed on any calendar, or an amendment is offered or
considered as adopted or a conference report is submitted on
such a bill or joint resolution.

SEC. 205. RESERVE FUND FOR HIGHER EDUCATION.

In the House, with respect to a bill or a joint resolution
(or an amendment thereto or conference report thereon) that
makes college more affordable through reforms to the Higher
Education Act of 1965, the chairman of the Committee on the
Budget may make the appropriate adjustments in allocations of
a committee or committees and budgetary aggregates, but only
to the extent that such bill or joint resolution (as amended,
in the case of an amendment) in the form placed before the
House by the Committee on Rules would not increase the
deficit or decrease the surplus for the period of fiscal
years 2007 through 2012 and the period of fiscal years 2007
through 2017. The adjustments may be made whenever a rule
providing for consideration of such a bill or joint
resolution is

[[Page H3286]]

filed, such a bill or joint resolution is placed on any
calendar, or an amendment is offered or considered as adopted
or a conference report is submitted on such a bill or joint
resolution.

SEC. 206. RESERVE FUND FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN MEDICARE.

In the House, with respect to a bill or a joint resolution
(or an amendment thereto or conference report thereon) that
improves the medicare program for beneficiaries and protects
access to care, through measures such as increasing the
reimbursement rate for physicians while protecting
beneficiaries from associated premium increases and making
improvements to the prescription drug program under part D,
the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may make the
appropriate adjustments in allocations of a committee or
committees and budgetary aggregates, but only to the extent
that such bill or joint resolution (as amended, in the case
of an amendment) in the form placed before the House by the
Committee on Rules would not increase the deficit or decrease
the surplus for the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2012
and the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2017. The
adjustments may be made whenever a rule providing for
consideration of such a bill or joint resolution is filed,
such a bill or joint resolution is placed on any calendar, or
an amendment is offered or considered as adopted or a
conference report is submitted on such a bill or joint
resolution.

SEC. 207. RESERVE FUND FOR CREATING LONG-TERM ENERGY
ALTERNATIVES.

In the House, with respect to a bill or a joint resolution
(or an amendment thereto or conference report thereon) that
fulfills the purposes of section 301(a) of H.R. 6, the Clean
Energy Act of 2007:
(1) The chairman of the Committee on Budget may make the
appropriate adjustments in allocations of a committee or
committees and budgetary aggregates, but only to the extent
that such bill or joint resolution (as amended, in the case
of an amendment) would not increase the deficit or decrease
the surplus for the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2012
and the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2017. The
adjustments made under this paragraph may be made whenever a
rule is filed for a bill or joint resolution that attributes
the offsets included in H.R. 6 to the bill or joint
resolution.
(2) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget may make
appropriate adjustments to the allocations provided for under
section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to the
Committee on Appropriations to the extent a bill or joint
resolution in the form placed before the House by the
Committee on Rules provides budget authority for purposes set
forth in section 301(a) of H.R. 6 in excess of the amounts
provided for those purposes in fiscal year 2007. Any
adjustments made under this paragraph shall not include
revenues attributable to changes in the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 and shall not exceed the receipts estimated by the
Congressional Budget Office that are attributable to H.R. 6
for the year in which the adjustments are made.

SEC. 208. RESERVE FUND FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

In the House, with respect to a bill or a joint resolution
(or an amendment thereto or conference report thereon) that
provides for an affordable housing fund, offset by reforming
the regulation of certain government-sponsored enterprises,
the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may make the
appropriate adjustments in allocations of a committee or
committees and budgetary aggregates, but only to the extent
that such bill or joint resolution (as amended, in the case
of an amendment) in the form placed before the House by the
Committee on Rules would not increase the deficit or decrease
the surplus for the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2012
and the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2017. The
adjustments may be made whenever a rule providing for
consideration of such a bill or joint resolution is filed,
such a bill or joint resolution is placed on any calendar, or
an amendment is offered or considered as adopted or a
conference report is submitted on such a bill or joint
resolution.

SEC. 209. RESERVE FUND FOR EQUITABLE BENEFITS FOR FILIPINO
VETERANS OF WORLD WAR II.

In the House, with respect to a bill or a joint resolution
(or an amendment thereto or conference report thereon) that
would provide for or increase benefits to Filipino veterans
of World War II, their survivors and dependents, the chairman
of the Committee on the Budget may make the appropriate
adjustments in allocations of a committee or committees and
budgetary aggregates, but only to the extent that such bill
or joint resolution (as amended, in the case of an amendment)
in the form placed before the House by the Committee on Rules
would not increase the deficit or decrease the surplus for
the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2012 and the period
of fiscal years 2007 through 2017. The adjustments may be
made whenever a rule providing for consideration of such a
bill or joint resolution is filed, such a bill or joint
resolution is placed on any calendar, or an amendment is
offered or considered as adopted or a conference report is
submitted on such a bill or joint resolution.

SEC. 210. RESERVE FUND FOR SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY
SELF-DETERMINATION ACT REAUTHORIZATION.

In the House, with respect to a bill or a joint resolution
(or an amendment thereto or conference report thereon) that
provides for the reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools
and Community Self-Determination Act (Public Law 106-393),
the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may make the
appropriate adjustments in allocations of a committee or
committees and budgetary aggregates, but only to the extent
that such bill or joint resolution (as amended, in the case
of an amendment) in the form placed before the House by the
Committee on Rules would not increase the deficit or decrease
the surplus for the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2012
and the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2017. The
adjustments may be made whenever a rule providing for
consideration of such a bill or joint resolution is filed,
such a bill or joint resolution is placed on any calendar, or
an amendment is offered or considered as adopted or a
conference report is submitted on such a bill or joint
resolution.

SEC. 211. RESERVE FUND FOR RECEIPTS FROM THE BONNEVILLE POWER
ADMINISTRATION.

In the House, with respect to a bill or a joint resolution
(or an amendment thereto or conference report thereon) that
prohibits the Bonneville Power Administration from making
early payments on its Federal Bond Debt to the Department of
the Treasury, the chairman of the Committee on Budget may
make the appropriate adjustments in allocations of a
committee or committees and budgetary aggregates, but only to
the extent that such bill or joint resolution (as amended, in
the case of an amendment) in the form placed before the House
by the Committee on Rules would not increase the deficit or
decrease the surplus for the period of fiscal years 2007
through 2012 and the period of fiscal years 2007 through
2017. The adjustments may be made whenever a rule providing
for consideration of such a bill or joint resolution is
filed, such a bill or joint resolution is placed on any
calendar, or an amendment is offered or considered as adopted
or a conference report is submitted on such a bill or joint
resolution.

SEC. 212. RESERVE FUND FOR TRANSITIONAL MEDICAL ASSISTANCE.

In the House, with respect to a bill or a joint resolution
(or an amendment thereto or conference report thereon) that
extends the Transitional Medical Assistance program, included
in title 19 of the Social Security Act, through fiscal year
2008, the chairman of the Committee on Budget may make the
appropriate adjustments in allocations of a committee or
committees and budgetary aggregates, but only to the extent
that such bill or joint resolution (as amended, in the case
of an amendment) in the form placed before the House by the
Committee on Rules would not increase the deficit or decrease
the surplus for the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2012
and the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2017. The
adjustments may be made whenever a rule providing for
consideration of such a bill or joint resolution is filed,
such a bill or joint resolution is placed on any calendar, or
an amendment is offered or considered as adopted or a
conference report is submitted on such a bill or joint
resolution.

TITLE III--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 301. PROGRAM INTEGRITY INITIATIVES.

(a) Adjustments to Discretionary Spending Limits.--
(1) Continuing disability reviews and supplemental security
income redeterminations.--If a bill or joint resolution is
reported making appropriations for fiscal year 2008 that
appropriates $264,000,000 for continuing disability reviews
and Supplemental Security Income redeterminations for the
Social Security Administration, and provides an additional
appropriation of up to $213,000,000 and the amount is
designated for continuing disability reviews and Supplemental
Security Income redeterminations for the Social Security
Administration, then the allocation to the House Committee on
Appropriations shall be increased by the amount of the
additional budget authority and outlays flowing from that
budget authority for fiscal year 2008.
(2) Internal revenue service tax compliance.--If a bill or
joint resolution is reported making appropriations for fiscal
year 2008 that appropriates up to $6,822,000,000 to the
Internal Revenue Service and the amount is designated to
improve compliance with the provisions of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 and provides an additional appropriation
of up to $406,000,000, and the amount is designated to
improve compliance with the provisions of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, then the allocation to the House
Committee on Appropriations shall be increased by the amount
of the additional budget authority and outlays flowing from
that budget authority for fiscal year 2008.
(3) Healthcare fraud and abuse control program.--If a bill
or joint resolution is reported making appropriations for
fiscal year 2008 that appropriates up to $183,000,000 and the
amount is designated to the healthcare fraud and abuse
control program at the Department of Health and Human
Services, then the allocation to the House Committee on
Appropriations shall be increased by the amount of additional
budget authority and outlays flowing from that budget
authority for fiscal year 2008.
(4) Unemployment insurance improper payments.--If a bill or
joint resolution is reported making appropriations for fiscal
year

[[Page H3287]]

2008 that appropriates $10,000,000 for unemployment insurance
improper payment reviews for the Department of Labor, and
provides an additional appropriation of up to $40,000,000 and
the amount is designated for unemployment insurance improper
payment reviews for the Department of Labor, then the
allocation to the House Committee on Appropriations shall be
increased by the amount of the additional budget authority
and outlays flowing from that budget authority for fiscal
year 2008.
(b) Procedure for Adjustments.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Chairman.--After the reporting of a bill or joint
resolution, or the offering of an amendment thereto or the
submission of a conference report thereon, the chairman of
the Committee on the Budget shall make the adjustments set
forth in subparagraph (B) for the incremental new budget
authority in that measure (if that measure meets the
requirements set forth in paragraph (2)) and the outlays
flowing from that budget authority.
(B) Matters to be adjusted.--The adjustments referred to in
subparagraph (A) are to be made to--
(i) the allocations made pursuant to the appropriate
concurrent resolution on the budget pursuant to section
302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974; and
(ii) the budgetary aggregates as set forth in this
resolution.
(c) Oversight of Government Performance.--In the House, all
committees are directed to review programs within their
jurisdiction to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in program
spending, giving particular scrutiny to issues raised by
Government Accountability Office reports. Based on these
oversight efforts and committee performance reviews of
programs within their jurisdiction, committees are directed
to include recommendations for improved governmental
performance in their annual views and estimates reports
required under section 301(d) of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 to the Committee on the Budget.

SEC. 302. ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) In General.--In the House, except as provided in
subsection (b), a bill or joint resolution making a general
appropriation or continuing appropriation, or an amendment
thereto may not provide for advance appropriations.
(b) Advance Appropriation.--In the House, an advance
appropriation may be provided for fiscal year 2009 or 2010
for programs, projects, activities, or accounts identified in
the joint explanatory statement of managers accompanying this
resolution under the heading ``Accounts Identified for
Advance Appropriations'' in an aggregate amount not to exceed
$25,558,000,000 in new budget authority.
(c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance
appropriation'' means any new discretionary budget authority
provided in a bill or joint resolution making general
appropriations or any new discretionary budget authority
provided in a bill or joint resolution continuing
appropriations for fiscal year 2008 that first becomes
available for any fiscal year after 2008.

SEC. 303. OVERSEAS DEPLOYMENTS AND EMERGENCY NEEDS.

(a) Overseas Deployments and Related Activities.--In the
House, any bill or joint resolution or amendment offered or
considered as adopted or a conference report thereon, that
makes appropriations for fiscal year 2008 or fiscal year 2009
for overseas deployments and related activities, and such
amounts are so designated pursuant to this subsection, then
new budget authority, outlays or receipts resulting therefrom
shall not count for the purposes of titles III and IV of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(b) Emergency Needs.--In the House, any bill or joint
resolution, or amendment offered or considered as adopted or
conference report thereon, that makes appropriations for
nondefense discretionary amounts, and such amounts are
designated as necessary to meet emergency needs, then the new
budget authority, outlays, or receipts resulting therefrom
shall not be counted for the purposes of titles III and IV of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

SEC. 304. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS
AND AGGREGATES.

(a) Application.--Any adjustments of allocations and
aggregates made pursuant to this resolution shall--
(1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
(2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
(3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as
practicable.
(b) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised
allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments
shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates contained in
this resolution.
(c) Committee on the Budget Determinations.--For purposes
of this resolution, the levels of new budget authority,
outlays, direct spending, new entitlement authority,
revenues, deficits, and surpluses for a fiscal year or period
of fiscal years shall be determined on the basis of estimates
made by the Committee on the Budget.

SEC. 305. ADJUSTMENTS TO REFLECT CHANGES IN CONCEPTS AND
DEFINITIONS.

Upon the enactment of a bill or joint resolution providing
for a change in concepts or definitions, the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget shall make adjustments to the levels
and allocations in this resolution in accordance with section
251(b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985 (as in effect on September 30, 2002).

SEC. 306. COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 13301 OF THE BUDGET
ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1990.

(a) In General.--In the House and the Senate,
notwithstanding section 302(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 and section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act
of 1990, the joint explanatory statement accompanying the
conference report on any concurrent resolution on the budget
shall include in its allocation under section 302(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to the Committee on
Appropriations amounts for the discretionary administrative
expenses of the Social Security Administration.
(b) Special Rule.--In the House, for purposes of applying
section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974,
estimates of the level of total new budget authority and
total outlays provided by a measure shall include any
discretionary amounts provided for the Social Security
Administration.

SEC. 307. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

Congress adopts the provisions of this title--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House and
as such they shall be considered as part of the rules of the
House, and such rules shall supersede other rules only to the
extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
the House to change those rules at any time, in the same
manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any other
rule of the House.

TITLE IV--POLICY

SEC. 401. POLICY ON MIDDLE-INCOME TAX RELIEF.

It is the policy of this resolution to minimize fiscal
burdens on middle-income families and their children and
grandchildren. It is the policy of this resolution to provide
immediate relief for the tens of millions of middle-income
households who would otherwise be subject to the Alternative
Minimum Tax (AMT) under current law in the context of
permanent, revenue-neutral AMT reform. Furthermore, it is the
policy of this resolution to support extension of middle-
income tax relief and enhanced economic equity through
policies such as--
(1) extension of the child tax credit;
(2) extension of marriage penalty relief;
(3) extension of the 10 percent individual income tax
bracket;
(4) elimination of estate taxes on all but a minute
fraction of estates by reforming and substantially increasing
the unified tax credit;
(5) extension of the research and experimentation tax
credit;
(6) extension of the deduction for State and local sales
taxes;
(7) extension of the deduction for small business
expensing; and
(8) enactment of a tax credit for school construction
bonds.
This resolution assumes the cost of enacting such policies is
offset by reforms within the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
that promote a fairer distribution of taxes across families
and generations, economic efficiency, higher rates of tax
compliance to close the ``tax gap'', and reduced taxpayer
burdens through tax simplification.

SEC. 402. POLICY ON DEFENSE PRIORITIES.

It is the policy of this resolution that--
(1) recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist
Attacks Upon the United States (commonly referred to as the
9/11 Commission) to fund cooperative threat reduction and
nuclear nonproliferation programs at a level commensurate
with the risk is a high priority, and the President's budget
should have requested sufficient funding for these programs;
(2) ensuring that the TRICARE fees for military retirees
under the age of 65 remain at current levels;
(3) funds be provided for increasing pay to ensure
retention of experienced personnel and for improving military
benefits in general;
(4) the Missile Defense Agency should be funded at an
adequate but lower level and the elimination of space-based
interceptor development will ensure a more prudent
acquisition strategy, yet still support a robust ballistic
missile defense program;
(5) satellite research, development, and procurement be
funded at a level below the amount requested for fiscal year
2008, which amounts to a 26 percent increase above the
current level, but at a level sufficient to develop new
satellite technologies while ensuring a more prudent
acquisition strategy;
(6) sufficient resources be provided to implement
Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommendations, such
as improving financial management and contracting practices
at the Department of Defense (DOD), and that substantial
savings should result from the identification of billions of
dollars of obligations and disbursements and Government
overcharges for which the Department of Defense cannot
account;
(7) that the Department of Defense should do a more careful
job of addressing the 1,378 Government Accountability Office
recommendations made to the Department of Defense and its
components over the last six years that have yet to be
implemented,

[[Page H3288]]

which could produce billions of dollars in savings; and
(8) accruing all savings from the actions recommended in
paragraphs (4) through (7) should be used to fund higher
priorities within Function 050 (Defense), and especially
those high priorities identified in paragraphs (1) through
(3) and to help fund recommendations of the bipartisan
``Walter Reed Commission'' (the President's Commission on
Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors) and other
United States Government investigations into military
healthcare facilities and services.

SEC. 403. POLICY ON COLLEGE AFFORDABILITY.

It is the policy of this resolution that the reconciliation
directive to the Committee on Education and Labor shall not
be construed to reduce any assistance that makes college more
affordable for students, including but not limited to
assistance to student aid programs run by nonprofit state
agencies.

TITLE V--SENSE OF THE HOUSE

SEC. 501. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON SERVICEMEMBERS' AND VETERANS'
HEALTH CARE AND OTHER PRIORITIES.

It is the sense of the House that--
(1) the House supports excellent health care for current
and former members of the United States Armed Services, who
have served well and honorably and have made significant
sacrifices for this Nation;
(2) this resolution provides $43,055,000,000 in
discretionary budget authority for 2008 for Function 700
(Veterans Benefits and Services), including veterans' health
care, which is $6,598,000,000 more than the 2007 level,
$5,404,000,000 more than the Congressional Budget Office's
baseline level for 2008, and $3,506,000,000 more than the
President's budget for 2008;
(3) this resolution provides funding to implement, in part,
recommendations of the bi-partisan ``Walter Reed Commission''
(the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning
Wounded Warriors) and other United States Government
investigations into military and veterans health care
facilities and services;
(4) this resolution assumes the rejection of the enrollment
fees and co-payment increases in the President's budget;
(5) this resolution provides additional funding above the
President's inadequate budget levels for the Department of
Veterans Affairs to research and treat veterans' mental
health, post-traumatic stress disorder, and traumatic brain
and spinal cord injuries; and
(6) this resolution provides additional funding above the
President's inadequate budget levels for the Department of
Veterans Affairs to improve the speed and accuracy of its
processing of disability compensation claims, including
funding to hire additional personnel above the President's
requested level.

SEC. 502. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON THE INNOVATION AGENDA: A
COMMITMENT TO COMPETITIVENESS TO KEEP AMERICA
#1.

(a) It is the sense of the House to provide sufficient
funding that our Nation may continue to be the world leader
in education, innovation and economic growth. This resolution
provides $450,000,000 above the President's requested level
for 2008, and additional amounts in subsequent years in
Function 250 (General Science, Space and Technology) and
Function 270 (Energy). Additional increases for scientific
research and education are included in Function 500
(Education, Employment, Training, and Social Services),
Function 550 (Health), Function 300 (Environment and Natural
Resources), Function 350 (Agriculture), Function 400
(Transportation), and Function 370 (Commerce and Housing
Credit), all of which receive more funding than the President
requested.
(b) America's greatest resource for innovation resides
within classrooms across the country. The increased funding
provided in this resolution will support important
initiatives to educate 100,000 new scientists, engineers, and
mathematicians, and place highly qualified teachers in math
and science K-12 classrooms.
(c) Independent scientific research provides the foundation
for innovation and future technologies. This resolution will
put us on the path toward doubling funding for the National
Science Foundation, basic research in the physical sciences
across all agencies, and collaborative research partnerships;
and toward achieving energy independence through the
development of clean and sustainable alternative energy
technologies.

SEC. 503. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON HOMELAND SECURITY.

It is the sense of the House that--
(1) this resolution assumes additional homeland security
funding above the President's requested level for 2008 and
every subsequent year;
(2) this resolution assumes funding above the President's
requested level for 2008, and additional amounts in
subsequent years, in the four budget functions: Function 400
(Transportation), Function 450 (Community and Regional
Development), Function 550 (Health), and Function 750
(Administration of Justice) that fund most nondefense
homeland security activities; and
(3) the homeland security funding provided in this
resolution will help to strengthen the security of our
Nation's transportation system, particularly our ports where
significant security shortfalls still exist and foreign
ports, by expanding efforts to identify and scan all high-
risk United States-bound cargo, equip first responders,
strengthen border patrol, and increase the preparedness of
the public health system.

SEC. 504. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE ONGOING NEED TO
RESPOND TO HURRICANES KATRINA AND RITA.

It is the sense of the House that:
(1) Critical needs in the Gulf Coast region should be
addressed without further delay. The budget resolution
creates a reserve fund that would allow for affordable
housing that may be used to focus on areas devastated by
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, as well as new funding for
additional recovery priorities.
(2) Additional oversight and investigation is needed to
ensure that recovery efforts are on track, develop
legislation to reform the contracting process, and better
prepare for future disasters. Those efforts should be made in
close consultation with residents of affected areas. The
budget resolution provides additional 2007 funding for the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, some of which may be
used for this purpose.

SEC. 505. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING LONG-TERM
SUSTAINABILITY OF ENTITLEMENTS.

(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) The aging of the United States population is going to
put unprecedented pressure on the Nation's retirement and
health care systems.
(2) The long-term strength of social security would be
improved through a fiscally responsible policy of reducing
the deficit and paying down the debt that has accumulated
since 2001, thus reducing debt service payments and freeing
up billions of dollars that can be dedicated to meeting
social security's obligations.
(3) A policy of reducing and eventually eliminating the
deficit and paying down the debt is a key factor in improving
the long-term strength of the economy as a whole, because a
lower debt burden frees up resources for productive
investments that will result in higher economic growth,
provide a higher standard of living for future generations,
and enhance the Nation's ability to meet its commitments to
its senior citizens.
(4) The most significant factor affecting the Nation's
entitlement programs is the rapid increase in health care
costs. The projected increasing costs of medicare and
medicaid are not unique to these programs but rather are part
of a pattern of rising costs for the health sector as a
whole.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that
the growing cost of entitlements should be addressed in a way
that is fiscally responsible and promotes economic growth,
that addresses the causes of cost growth in the broader
health care system, and that protects beneficiaries without
leaving a legacy of debt to future generations.

SEC. 506. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE NEED TO MAINTAIN
AND BUILD UPON EFFORTS TO FIGHT HUNGER.

(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) More than 35 million individuals (12.4 million of them
children) are food insecure, uncertain of having, or unable
to acquire enough food. 10.8 million Americans are hungry
because of lack of food.
(2) Despite the critical contributions of the Department of
Agriculture nutrition programs and particularly the food
stamp program that significantly reduced payment error rates
while increasing enrollment to partially mitigate the impact
of recent increases in the poverty rate, significant need
remains.
(3) Nearly 25 million people, including nine million
children and three million seniors, sought emergency food
assistance from food pantries, soup kitchens, shelters, and
local charities last year.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that
the Department of Agriculture programs that help fight hunger
should be maintained and that the House should seize
opportunities to enhance those programs to reach people in
need and to fight hunger.

SEC. 507. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING AFFORDABLE HEALTH
COVERAGE.

(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) More than 46 million Americans, including nine million
children, lack health insurance. People without health
insurance are more likely to experience problems getting
medical care and to be hospitalized for avoidable health
problems.
(2) Most Americans receive health coverage through their
employers. A major issue facing all employers is the rising
cost of health insurance. Small businesses, which have
generated most of the new jobs annually over the last decade,
have an especially difficult time affording health coverage,
due to higher administrative costs and fewer people over whom
to spread the risk of catastrophic costs. Because it is
especially costly for small businesses to provide health
coverage, their employees make up a large proportion of the
nation's uninsured individuals.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that
legislation consistent with the pay-as-you-go principle
should be adopted that makes health insurance more affordable
and accessible, with attention to the special needs of small
businesses, and that lowers costs and improves the quality of
health care by encouraging integration of health information
technology tools into the practice of medicine, and promoting
improvements in disease management and disease prevention.

[[Page H3289]]

SEC. 508. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING EXTENSION OF THE
STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO RULE.

It is the sense of the House that in order to reduce the
deficit Congress should extend PAYGO in its original form in
the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.

SEC. 509. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON LONG-TERM BUDGETING.

It is the sense of Congress that the determination of the
congressional budget for the United States Government and the
President's budget request should include consideration of
the Financial Report of the United States Government,
especially its information regarding the Government's net
operating cost, financial position, and long-term
liabilities.

SEC. 510. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING PAY PARITY.

It is the sense of the House that rates of compensation for
civilian employees of the United States should be adjusted at
the same time, and in the same proportion, as are rates of
compensation for members of the uniformed services.

SEC. 511. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING WASTE, FRAUD, AND
ABUSE.

It is the sense of the House that all committees should
examine programs within their jurisdiction to identify
wasteful and fraudulent spending. To this end, section 301 of
this resolution includes cap adjustments to provide
appropriations for three programs that accounted for a
significant share of improper payments reported by Federal
agencies in 2006: Social Security Administration Continuing
Disability Reviews, the Medicare/Medicaid Health Care Fraud
and Abuse Control Program, and Unemployment Insurance.
Section 301 also includes a cap adjustment for the Internal
Revenue Services for tax compliance efforts to close the
$300,000,000,000 tax gap. In addition, the resolution's
deficit-neutral reserve funds require authorizing committees
to cut lower priority and wasteful spending to accommodate
new high-priority entitlement benefits. Finally, section 301
of the resolution directs all committees to review the
performance of programs within their jurisdiction and report
recommendations annually to the Committee on the Budget as
part of the views and estimates process required by section
301(d) of the Congressional Budget Act.

SEC. 512. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE IMPORTANCE OF
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT.

It is the sense of the House that--
(1) additional legislative action is needed to ensure that
States have the necessary resources to collect all child
support that is owed to families and to allow them to pass
100 percent of support on to families without financial
penalty; and
(2) when 100 percent of child support payments are passed
to the child, rather than administrative expenses, program
integrity is improved and child support participation
increases.

SEC. 513. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON STATE VETERANS CEMETERIES.

It is the sense of the House that the Federal Government
should pay the plot allowance for the interment in a State
veterans cemetery of any spouse or eligible child of a
veteran, consistent with the pay-as-you-go principle.

TITLE VI--RECONCILIATION

SEC. 601. RECONCILIATION.

(a) Instructions.--The House Committee on Education and
Labor shall report changes in laws to reduce the deficit by
$75,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2012.
(b) Mandatory Savings.--Not later than September 10, 2007,
the House Committee on Education and Labor shall submit its
recommendations to the House of Representatives.
(c) Submission of Revised Allocations.--Upon the submission
to the House of a reconciliation bill or conference report
thereon, that complies with this reconciliation instruction,
the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may file with the
House appropriately revised allocations and budgetary
aggregates. Such revisions shall be considered to be the
allocations and aggregates established by the concurrent
resolution on the budget pursuant to section 301 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the concurrent resolution is in
order except the amendments printed in House Report 110-79. Each
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may
be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the
report, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question.

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 1 Offered By Ms. Kilpatrick

The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in House Report 110-79, which is debatable for 40 minutes.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 1 offered by
Ms. Kilpatrick:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2008.

The Congress declares that the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2008 is hereby established and that
the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2009
through 2012 are set forth.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of
fiscal years 2008 through 2012:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $2,125,897,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,195,626,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,257,721,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,434,651,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,618,596,000,000.00.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be reduced are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $75,100,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009: $88,700,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010: $94,000,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011: $40,100,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2012: $21,500,000,000.00.
(2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new
budget authority are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $2,563,074,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,569,841,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,612,809,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,719,483,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,746,964,000,000.00.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $2,503,314,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,620,443,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,647,959,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,730,582,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,734,344,000,000.00.
(4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget)
are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $-377,417,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009: $-424,817,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010: $-390,237,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011: $-295,931,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2012: $-115,749,000,000.00.
(5) Debt subject to limit.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate
levels of the public debt are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $9,423,000,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009: $9,965,000,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010: $10,473,000,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011: $10,882,000,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2012: $11,124,000,000,000.00.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $5,231,000,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009: $5,452,000,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010: $5,625,000,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011: $5,686,000,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2012: $5,556,000,000,000.00.

SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years
2008 through 2012 for each major functional category are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $506,955,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $514,401,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $534,705,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $524,384,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $545,171,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $536,433,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $550,944,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $547,624,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $559,799,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $548,169,000,000.00.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $37,745,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $34,785,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $37,577,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $34,660,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $37,127,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $34,466,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $37,136,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $34,405,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $37,267,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $34,592,000,000.00.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $27,772,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $26,561,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $28,754,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $28,521,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $29,923,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $29,578,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $31,158,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $30,162,000,000.00.

[[Page H3290]]

Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $32,477,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $31,418,000,000.00.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $3,494,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $1,194,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $3,229,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $1,627,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $3,260,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $1,800,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $3,315,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $1,821,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $3,368,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $2,084,000,000.00.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $33,895,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $35,459,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $34,286,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $36,073,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $35,013,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $36,201,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $35,180,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $36,256,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $36,214,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $36,653,000,000.00.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $20,945,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $19,972,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $21,328,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $20,496,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $21,414,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $20,418,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $21,349,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $20,650,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $21,537,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $21,013,000,000.00.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $10,610,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $3,074,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $10,989,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $2,121,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $14,486,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $4,248,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $9,320,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $2,482,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $9,171,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $1,483,000,000.00.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $83,657,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $81,202,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $77,043,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $84,628,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $77,751,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $86,753,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $78,632,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $87,506,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $79,409,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $89,103,000,000.00.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $17,166,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $22,551,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $15,422,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $21,488,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $15,175,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $20,463,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $15,060,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $18,946,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $15,040,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $16,039,000,000.00.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $121,203,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $101,179,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $121,552,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $119,883,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $120,276,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $120,003,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $117,706,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $118,433,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $116,785,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $115,930,000,000.00.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $302,810,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $298,678,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $322,072,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $320,093,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $338,846,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $339,499,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $359,694,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $359,503,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $382,231,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $381,804,000,000.00.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $389,886,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $389,996,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $417,031,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $416,682,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $442,669,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $442,889,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $489,400,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $489,409,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $487,128,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $486,740,000,000.00.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $384,558,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $387,232,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $394,570,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $397,238,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $404,132,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $405,323,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $419,163,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $419,193,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $404,632,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $403,985,000,000.00.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $19,644,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $19,644,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $21,518,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $21,518,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $23,701,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $23,701,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $27,009,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $27,009,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $29,898,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $29,898,000,000.00.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $88,602,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $85,330,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $90,174,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $90,324,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $92,085,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $91,560,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $97,203,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $96,705,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $94,144,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $93,505,000,000.00.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $49,267,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $47,900,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $47,740,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $49,114,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $48,308,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $48,766,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $49,177,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $49,048,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $50,169,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $49,826,000,000.00.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $19,114,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $19,373,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $19,614,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $19,716,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $20,131,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $20,036,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $20,819,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $20,560,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $21,479,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $21,326,000,000.00.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $368,582,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $368,582,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $386,707,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $386,707,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $408,810,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $408,810,000,000.00.

[[Page H3291]]

Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $425,770,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $425,770,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $437,358,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $437,358,000,000.00.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $2,985,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $2,269,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $2,090,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $2,313,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $1,463,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $1,619,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $1,024,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $1,134,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $717,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $793,000,000.00.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $-70,979,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $-70,979,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $-66,560,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $-66,569,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $-66,933,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $-66,933,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $-69,575,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $-69,595,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $-71,857,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $-71,860,000,000.00.
(21) Overseas Deployments and Other Activities (970):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $145,163,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $114,914,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $109,425,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $00.00.
(B) Outlays, $42,324,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $00.00.
(B) Outlays, $13,561,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $00.00.
(B) Outlays, $4,485,000,000.00.

TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 201. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE REPORT TO CONGRESS.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--_
(1) between 2001 and 2006, GAO provided the Department of
Defense with 2544 recommendations, many related to improving
their business practices and, to date, the Department of
Defense has implemented 1014 recommendations and closed 152
recommendations without implementation; and
(2) the GAO estimates that the 1014 implemented
recommendations have yielded the Department of Defense a
savings of $52.7 billion between fiscal years 2001 and 2006.
(b) Assumption; Report.--
(1) Assumption.--This resolution assumes $300,000,000 to be
used by the Department of Defense to implement the remaining
1378 recommendations of the Government Accountability Office.
(2) Report.--The Secretary of Defense should submit a
report to Congress within 90 days that demonstrates how each
such recommendation will be implemented, and, in the case of
any such recommendation that cannot be implemented, a
detailed reason for such inability to implement such
recommendation.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick)
and a Member opposed each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Madam Chairman, at this time we are very happy to present our
Congressional Black Caucus budget for 2008. Our budget is balanced. It
takes us to surplus in 5 years. It reduces the deficit, and it invests
in America's families.
We are happy today to present to you a budget. The full budget is
$2.9 trillion. That would be $3 trillion if it were rounded off.
The Ways and Means Committee that handles the entitlements will
handle Medicare for over 44 million seniors' health insurance; Medicaid
for over 45 million disabled, low-income seniors' programs; and our
veterans programs. Our Appropriations Committee will handle $930
billion of those dollars in our 2008 discussions on this budget.
I am happy to present to you a balanced budget from the Congressional
Black Caucus that takes care of our veterans, that invests in the war,
that makes sure that our seniors are taken care of, and that our
children and their SCHIP program for children's health care is fully
funded so that all children in America can have an adequate health care
system.
Madam Chairman, the Congressional Black Caucus budget is a good
budget. I would urge our colleagues to accept it, to vote for the CBC
budget.
Madam Chairman, I am proud that Congress is considering an amendment
that I, along with my colleague Robert Scott from Virginia, am
introducing that will change course, confront crises, and continue the
legacy of not only the Congressional Black Caucus, but of America. This
budget changes our fiscal course from a sea of debt, deficit and
despair to financial stability and responsibility. The Kilpatrick/Scott
amendment confronts the crises faced by our senior citizens who will
not have enough money to heat their homes in the winter or cool them in
the summer; it will confront the crises faced by our veterans and those
wounded warriors who do not have adequate health care, mental health
treatment, or physical therapy; the Kilpatrick/Scott amendment to the
budget continues the legacy of this Nation's historic mission of caring
for the least of our sisters and brothers.
As the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, and as an
appropriator, I know that the American people demanded a change last
year. Rounding out for even numbers, we have a $2.9 trillion dollar
budget. Six hundred billion of that spending will go to defense. A
little more than 300 hundred billion will go to the people. We can do
better. The Kilpatrick/Scott amendment will do just that. It ensures
that our Nation is safe; it takes care of all Americans; and it gets
America on the path to fiscal stability.
The Kilpatrick/Scott amendment is fiscally responsible.
The Kilpatrick/Scott amendment eliminates tax cuts for the top two
income brackets. Studies show that 99.7 percent of the benefits of the
tax cuts go to those households with incomes over $200,000, 86 percent
go to households with incomes above $500,000, and 65 percent go to
households with incomes above $1 million. The CBC budget would rescind
those tax cuts and restore the more fiscally responsible tax rates that
were in place in 2001 and throughout much of the economic boom of the
1990s. This results in $90.6 billion over 5 years for the American
people.
The Kilpatrick/Scott amendment eliminates the capital gains and
dividend tax cuts. Again, 70 percent of the benefits of these tax cuts
go to households with more than $200,000 in income. This results in $98
billion over 5 years for the American people. The bill applies more
than $6 billion to reduce the deficit created by these unfair tax cuts
and the war.
The Kilpatrick/Scott amendment, for fiscal years 2008-2012, has a
total deficit that is $339 billion less than the President's budget and
$107 billion less than that of the House Committee on the Budget. These
are savings that not only reduce our debt to foreign nations, but
allows more money to be used to the needs of the American people.
The Kilpatrick/Scott amendment protects Social Security.
The Congressional Black Caucus strongly opposes private accounts.
Privatizing what is arguably the most successful social insurance
program in the world would only divert resources from the Social
Security Trust Fund and generate trillions of dollars in new debt over
the next few decades. Furthermore, the Congressional Black Caucus is
strongly opposed to the use of the Social Security surplus to finance
the deficit in the rest of the budget. The Kilpatrick/Scott amendment
protects Social Security by opposing the use of the Social Security
surplus to finance the deficit in the budget.
The Kilpatrick/Scott amendment fights for our warriors at home and
abroad.
The amendment also reallocates $300 million in savings in the
Department of Defense, using recommendations from the General
Accounting Office. These savings will be used to implement the GAO's
recommendations for: health facility renovation upgrades at bases;
mental health services for post traumatic stress disease; public school
Initiatives, aka the Troops to Teachers initiative; cancer research;
tuberous sclerosis research; and Parkinson's disease research.
The Kilpatrick/Scott amendment will take care of our veterans, by
fully funding the construction of new and improved VA hospitals,
providing more funds for more VA workers, and the local clinic
initiative for non-urban areas. It is simply shameful that those who
have volunteered or were drafted to fight for this country cannot have
the best in health care our country has to offer.
The Kilpatrick/Scott amendment improves the international stature of
America.
Our reputation as an international savior has taken a significant hit
over the past 6 years. The Kilpatrick/Scott amendment addresses our
stature and improves our relationship with our global partners. As you
know, the Congressional Black Caucus has focused on issues of interest
on the continent of Africa. The fact

[[Page H3292]]

that we have not addressed the issues of Darfur, global AIDS,
tuberculosis and malaria is a shame on America and the Congress. The
Kilpatrick/Scott amendment addresses these challenges with more than $3
billion going to the Darfur Initiative; the Global Fund to Fight AIDS,
Tuberculosis and Malaria; Child Survival and Health, and International
Family Planning Programs.

Darfur Initiative..........................................+$50,000,000
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria......+1,000,000,000
HIV/AIDS--Latin America and the Caribbean...................+50,000,000
Child survival and health................................+1,040,000,000
Migration and refugee assistance............................+80,000,000
Contributions to international peacekeeping................+600,000,000
International family planning programs.....................+100,000,000
UNFPA.......................................................+50,000,000

The Kilpatrick/Scott amendment helps all Americans.
Social needs have taken a back seat to tax cuts and this war for far
too long. Among other things, the CBC amendment will fully fund the
Community Development Block Grant at $1.5 billion; provide $1 billion
for the construction of new and technologically advanced elementary and
secondary schools; fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act, the first
time in that program's history that it will be fully funded. This full
level of funding will include the complete funding of the science and
math program, a program that trains teachers in math and science, and
emphasizes math and science in our Nation's elementary, secondary and
high schools. The amendment fully funds the Pell grant program, the
SCHIP health care program for poor and low income children, the
Women's, Infants and Children's--WIC--program, Head Start and the Food
Stamp program.
For a balanced budget; for funds that will address the needs of our
Nation's wounded warriors from wars in the past, present and future;
for fiscal responsibility and accountability; for the protection of our
Nation's children, safety and seniors, a responsible vote is a vote for
the Kilpatrick/Scott amendment on the budget.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for
20 minutes.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chairman, at this time I would like to
address why we are here today. We are here to balance the budget, and
what is very good about this debate we are having here today is we are
talking about not if we should balance the budget; we are talking about
how to balance the budget.
So for that point we have come to a good part of this debate, where I
believe, based on the numbers I have seen, all of these amendments we
are going to experience today and the base Democrat budget balances by
2012. That is a good start. So now we here in Congress are agreeing,
let us balance the budget. That is good.
The question then becomes how do we balance the budget. This is where
there are enormous differences between the two parties.
The three budgets on the other side of the aisle, the Progressive
budget, the Congressional Black Caucus budget and the base Democrat
budget, all have one big thing in common: they raise taxes. They raise
a lot of taxes, anywhere from $400 billion to $1 trillion just over the
next 5 years.
What kind of taxes are we talking about? Well, let's look at the tax
relief that occurred. In 2003, if you take a look at what happened to
our country in 2001 with 9/11, with the Enron scandals, with the dot-
com bubble bursting, the fact that we went to war and we went into a
recession, we lost a lot of jobs. We were losing over 100,000 jobs a
month at that time. We went into a recession. Three years of revenues
declined. We had a big deficit. So while revenues went down because
people lost jobs, we went into deficit and spending went up.
Why? Because we had unemployment. We had programs to help people who
lost their jobs. We had war costs, and so what ended up happening was
we needed to get people back to work. We needed to get this economy
growing again.
So what did we do? At that time, we were in the majority. We decided
we needed a package of reforms, of tax cuts to get the economy growing
again, to get people working again. So we cut taxes on families, cut
taxes on small businesses, cut taxes on business investment.
What happened? 7.6 million new jobs were created since those tax cuts
in 2003. We went from growing our economy at an anemic 1.1 percent
prior to the tax cuts to growing our economy at an average of 3.5
percent. We went to creating about 160,000 jobs per month since those
tax cuts.
What also happened? Revenues went up. Revenues went up for double
digits the 2 years following. This year so far the revenues are up
about 10 percent. So revenues came in, why? Because we actually cut
taxes. We have lower tax rates, but we have higher revenues because
people went back to work. People went to work, to jobs and paid more
taxes.
What happened? The deficit went as high as $412 billion. Now it is as
low as $176 billion. I would like to say that it is because we did a
great job on controlling spending. No, that is not the case. The reason
the deficit for the most part went down is because revenues went up,
because the economy grew, people went back to work, paid their taxes.
So, Madam Chairman, we do not have a revenue problem in Washington.
Revenues are coming in fast. We have a spending problem in Washington,
and this is the difference between our philosophies, our budgets.
We believe that the money people make really is their money, not the
government's money. We believe that when someone starts a business,
when someone goes to work, that is the fruit of their own labor and
they ought to keep more of their hard-earned money, because at the end
of the day, if government takes more money out of the person's
paycheck, you are taking more freedom out of their lives. If you take
more money out of a family budget, you are taking more freedom away
from that family. That is the difference.
We believe that people ought to keep more of what they earn. We
believe that small businesses, which are the engine of economic growth
in this society, which create all these jobs, should not be taxed at
tax rates higher than large corporations, but that is what will happen
if any of these three budgets pass, if the Progressive budget, the
Congressional Black Caucus budget, or the Democrat budget passes.
We believe that we need to focus on spending and not on raising
taxes, because more important than that, I want to show you one chart,
Madam Chairman. If you take a look at these revenue lines, even if we
take the low line, the blue line, that is the line of revenues coming
in if we don't raise taxes. That is the line the Republicans are using
for our budget, and we balance our budget by controlling spending
instead of raising taxes, and we control spending to the point where we
stop the raid on the Social Security trust fund and we pay down $100
billion in debt in the fifth year alone.
The red line, not much higher, but the red line says, let's raise
taxes by $400 billion. That is the smallest of the tax increases we are
looking at of these budgets today. That still shows, but it is a lot
lower than the green line, the spending line.
Spending is the problem. If we do nothing to control spending, by the
time my children are my age, the Federal Government will double in size
simply by growing on the current path that it is on.
This has to be dealt with, Madam Chairman. This has to be dealt with,
and no matter how much you propose to raise taxes, no matter how much
you want to raise taxes on small businesses, take away the per-child
tax credit, bring back the marriage penalty, reinstate the death tax,
raise taxes on businesses and capital investment and seniors and
dividends and capital gains, no matter how much you want to raise taxes
here, if you pass one of these other three budgets, we still will not
have enough to meet the spending line, the spending appetite, the
spending trajectory of this Federal Government. That has to be dealt
with.
Why does that have to be dealt with? Because we do not want to pass
onto our children and our grandchildren a mountain of debt. The debt
has increased. Sadly, over the last 8 years, it went up $3 trillion. I
think you are going to hear that from other people. I have got news for
you, Madam Chairman, just Social Security alone by doing nothing to
address this program

[[Page H3293]]

over the next 5 years, that debt will go up by $3 trillion.
Medicare, if we do not address Medicare's growth, if we do not reform
and maintain and save Medicare, the debt to just Medicare will go up
almost $20 trillion over the next 5 years by doing nothing.
So, Madam Chairman, let's not raise taxes. Let's work on spending,
and let's reform these programs.
I want to reserve the balance of my time, but I want to say one thing
before I do, and that is these three programs which we commonly refer
to as our entitlements are the most important domestic programs in the
Federal Government. Medicare helps people who are an older age get
health care. Medicaid helps people who are low income get health care.
Really, really important missions, Madam Chairman. And Social Security
helps provide people with retirement security.
These programs are too important to let slip into bankruptcy. These
programs are too important to go for five more years without any
reforms designed to extend their solvency and make them work better and
be more responsive to the needs of the American people.
I think that is where we should place our efforts.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, the Congressional Black Caucus does
not raise taxes, the budget does not, and it protects Social Security
and will not privatize it.
I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Scott), the chairperson of our Congressional Black Caucus.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Michigan
for her leadership in the Congressional Black Caucus.
We first need to start off with the Congressional Black Caucus of
where we are. We were in a ditch in 1993 and Democratic policies dug us
out of the ditch, and Republican policies put us right back into the
ditch. This is where we are, and this is what we are trying to dig
ourselves out of.
Now, we have gotten in this ditch. We just need to respond a little
bit. We heard that we created all these jobs. Go back, this
administration, count them up, add them, subtract them, add them up,
tied for worst job performance since Herbert Hoover. This is what they
are bragging about.
They talk about economic growth. The Dow Jones Industrial Average for
the last 4-year increments, this administration's 6 years has not done
what anybody since 1980 has been able to do in 4 years.
They talk about increased revenues: you cut taxes, you increase
revenues. Since 1960, only 2 years did we not set a brand-new revenue
record, and then we set a new record the following year until we get to
this policy. We have gone 6 consecutive years without new record
revenues, three consecutive years in decline. That has never happened
since they started keeping records in 1934.
What we do is we repeal part of what got us in the mess. This is one
of the tax cuts we repeal, and you want to look and see, we call it tax
cuts for the wealthy. They get mad, but this is who gets $20 billion in
tax cuts that we repeal: over $1 million, $200,000 to $1 million,
$100,000 to $200,000, under that zero. This is what you get. This is
one of those that we repeal. We are able, after we repeal that, we use
part of it for fiscal responsibility.
The Congressional Black Caucus deficit is better than the President's
deficit every year. We balance and go into surplus in the fifth year.
In the fifth year, we save $14 billion in interest alone compared to
the President.
Now, we use the rest of that money to address our priorities: health
care that we hear about, education, veterans, justice, making our
communities safer, diplomacy.
Madam Chairman, just to close, let's see what we would have to do to
go from the Congressional Black Caucus' responsible budget to the
President's budget. We would have to cut $150 billion out of education.
We would have to cut $100 billion out of child care, eliminating the
promised health care for all children, putting 9 million children out
in the street without any health care. We would have to whack $42
million out of the veterans' budget and many other priorities that we
are going to describe in a few minutes.

{time} 1030

Then we would have to borrow $339 billion, mostly from foreign
countries, in order to fund tax cuts that primarily benefit that
portion of a family's income over $200,000, that portion of the income
under $200,000 virtually unaffected. To fund the tax cuts that put us
in the mess that we are in, we would have to cut education, health
care, veterans, other things, and then borrow $339 billion from foreign
countries. That is a bad choice.
Fiscally responsible and address our priorities, that is the
Congressional Black Caucus budget. We are proud of it and would hope
that you would support it.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
May I inquire about the time allotment remaining between the two
parties.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 12 minutes
remaining. The gentlewoman from Michigan has 15\1/2\ minutes.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, at this time, I would like to yield 2
minutes to the medical doctor in our caucus, the gentlewoman from the
Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Chairman, unlike the Ryan budget, which cuts
just about every important health program and would hurt working
families, we have a good budget in the Democratic base budget. But
because it does not restore funding drained from this country's needs
to provide tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, it can't go far enough
to meet the needs of the poor, rural families, African Americans and
other people of color which have been neglected for far too long.
After the war and tax cuts have created huge deficits and
unprecedented debt, after corporations and the rich have gotten theirs,
the neediest in this country are being told to wait. We are not willing
to wait any more for a decent education for our children, for quality
health care, for adequate housing, for communities with clean air and
housing, or for jobs.
That is why the CBC budget is so important. With the additional
funding, it creates the environment for healthier families, for
healthier communities and for a healthier nation. We invest
significantly more in health care for children and pregnant women, for
mental care and substance abuse, for the training of minority and other
professionals, to end the AIDS epidemic in our own country and abroad
and for research and community health centers. We help our sickest
communities to help themselves with health empowerment zones and
provide a health equity fund that would close the deficits that would
allow over 100,000 people of color to die, who should not, every year
in this, the richest country in the world. It still balances the budget
by 2012 and creates a $141 billion surplus.
Vote for a stronger, a better America. Vote for the CBC budget.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, this is an important moment for
our time of fiscal responsibility in America. I would like to read from
a few quotes. We have had great hearings in the Budget Committee. I
want to compliment the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for
holding great hearings. In all of these hearings, we had fiscal experts
coming to testify from both parties, from nonpartisan organizations
like the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability
Office, from the Federal Reserve.
I would like to read a few quotes about the fiscal condition that is
staring us in the face that this budget should be addressing today.
On the urgency of entitlement reform, we had Ben Bernanke, the
chairman of the Federal Reserve, come in and say, ``Without early and
meaningful action to address entitlements, the U.S. economy could be
seriously weakened, with future generations bearing much of the cost.''
Then we had the Comptroller General, Mr. Walker, on 60 Minutes say,
``Health care is the number one fiscal challenge for the Federal and
State governments. If there is one thing that

[[Page H3294]]

can bankrupt America, it is health care. We need dramatic and
fundamental health care reforms.'' That's at a hearing.
On 60 Minutes, he said, ``The rising cost of government entitlements
is a fiscal cancer that threatens catastrophic consequences for our
country and could bankrupt America.''
Here is what Mr. Walker is talking about. If you take a look at this
chart, it shows you that, consistently, our government has been taxing
the American economy at about 18 percent of our gross domestic product.
What that means is, basically, since about 1960, to finance our Federal
government, we have had to tax the American economy, families,
businesses, all those things, at about 18 percent of our economic
output. It has been remarkably consistent.
Because of the unsustainable growth of government spending programs,
of our entitlement programs, they are growing at such a quick pace that
by the time my 5-, 3-, and 2-year-olds are in my age bracket, they will
have to tax the American economy at 40 percent just to pay the bills.
Let me put it another way around. We have very important programs. We
call them our entitlement programs. They meet critical missions of the
Federal Government. When they were set up, they made sense at the time
the way they were financed. They were called pay-as-you-go. Current
workers pay taxes, particularly payroll taxes, to pay the benefits for
current retirees, for current beneficiaries. It worked fine for many
years.
Not now, though. Because as the baby boomers begin to retire, which
begins next year, we will double the amount of retirees in this
country; and we will only increase the amount of workers coming to this
country by 17 percent. For all of those who had kids during that baby
boom generation, they had a lot of kids; and it was wonderful. Our
birth rates went up. But, since then, we haven't had as many kids.
Heck, in my own hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin, where I come from
an Irish Catholic family, I had 65 cousins in just Janesville,
Wisconsin. But I am a Generation Xer; and at my family level, we didn't
have as many kids. That is what is happening across the world and
across the country.
Why am I saying all of this? What did it mean? It means that these
programs are going to double the amount of consumers to the programs
and not double the amount of payers into the programs.
We have to reform these programs. We have to make them work better,
and we have got to prevent our kids from having their taxes doubled.
That is what this is about at the end of the day, Madam Chair. It is
about our children and our grandchildren.
Now, this seems to be a cliche thing that everybody says when they
get up to a microphone. But, quite honestly, if we don't get a handle
on our fiscal situation, if we don't recognize the fact that if all you
do is raise taxes to balance the budget in 2012, you are going to go
right back into deficit soon thereafter if we don't control spending,
if we don't reform government, if we don't fix our entitlement perhaps.
If we don't do this, the debt we have today will pale, pale in
comparison to the debt we are going to be passing on to our children
and our grandchildren.
We have new economic challenges and threats unlike any we have ever
seen before in this country. We don't have oceans that separate us
anymore. We have broadband, Internet, digital technology. We have to
compete with workers on a daily basis from countries like China and
India overnight.
We have real economic challenges facing us, and we can't survive and
thrive in this era of globalization. We can't continue to be America's
economic superpower, the world's economic superpower, if we are going
to double the taxes on future generations.
You can't tax your way into prosperity. We already today tax our
businesses, our capital, more than any other country in the
industrialized world except for one, Japan. They just finished two
decades of recession.
We have got to wise up to the fact that we have to be lean and mean
and compete with China and India and these other countries. We have got
to make sure that the way we run our health care system works for
patients, that the way we have our entitlement benefits gives us income
security, retirement security, health security. We have got to make
sure that it doesn't do it in such a way that it literally doubles the
entire tax burden on the American economy, on the American family. If
we do that, we will push more jobs overseas. We will lose our standard
of living, the great gift of America of a generation to the next.
The legacy of the American Dream is that each generation bequeaths
unto the next a higher and better standard of living. That is exactly
what my parents and grandparents told me. We are at risk of severing
that tie. We are at risk of discontinuing that legacy of giving our
kids and our grandkids a better standard of living, a better economy,
things better off than when we found them.
Budgets matter, and the budget that we have before us today, whether
it's the CBC budget, the Progressive budget or the Democrat budget,
raises taxes by anywhere from $400 billion to $1 trillion over the next
4 years and does absolutely nothing, nothing, nothing to control
spending, to reform government, to prevent this mountain of debt going
onto our children's backs.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chair, I yield myself 20 seconds.
The Congressional Black Caucus does not raise taxes. I would like to
remind the gentleman that if it were not for the permanent tax cuts for
1 percent of the wealthiest and the cost of this ill-advised war, we
could fund all the major programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the Congresswoman from Dallas,
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Let me thank our chairwoman of
the Congressional Black Caucus, Ms. Kilpatrick, and Mr. Scott, our
colleagues, for their unwavering support for the development of the CBC
alternative budget that encompasses progressive and visionary funding
motivated by principle and compassion.
I also would like to thank all of the members of the CBC and their
staffs for helping to complete this very important task. I appreciate
and applaud their efforts on issues important to all of us.
Madam Chairman, the CBC alternative budget understands that our
Nation's transportation system is the backbone of our economy and our
way of life. We could not afford to shortchange our transportation
system, nor ignore the need for greater competitiveness in science and
technology.
As a senior member of the Science Committee, I feel the CBC budget
supports these initiatives to invest in our children's future, our
future, our Nation's future. Federal entitlements such as NASA and the
National Science Foundation need funding to inspire today's youth so
that we can have a future in research and competitiveness. The science
budget funds our scientific and engineering workforce, supports teacher
enrichment programs and helps inspire future generations of
researchers.
Our Nation's future depends more and more on the quality of our
innovative ideas. The fruits of these investments meet vital national
needs and improve the quality of life for all Americans. The CBC
alternative budget also provides funding for the minority health
initiatives, health insurance for the uninsured, child nutrition
programs, job creation programs, the SBA, and the extension of
unemployment insurance benefits and the elimination of the disabled
veterans tax.
I urge my colleagues to support this budget, and don't listen to the
rhetoric of taxes being raised. We have different priorities.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, how much time do I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining. The
gentlewoman from Michigan has 11\3/4\ minutes.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes at this time to
the Congresswoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)

[[Page H3295]]

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairwoman, let me thank the
chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, Carolyn Kilpatrick, and
Mr. Bobby Scott for joining with us as the Congressional Black Caucus
so that we could really emphasize what compassion and the American
dream is all about and equate it to the Congressional Black Caucus
budget that really responds to the tragedy that has occurred under this
administration.
The surplus, as you can see, that we had in 2000 under the Bush
administration declines $8.4 trillion. That is what we attack.
In fact, the Congressional Black Caucus budget reduces the deficit
$107 billion less of a deficit than even the Democratic budget and $339
billion less cumulative deficit than the President's budget. In fact,
we saved some $18.3 billion less in interest than the Democratic budget
and $27.7 billion in interest than the President's budget. We take this
deficit and turn it around. We save the country this enormous burden
that they have with respect to the deficit and the interest.
In addition, as you can see, interest payments on the debt weren't
the priority under this President's budget and under this
administration. They have gotten completely out of control. That is why
we are feeling the pinch, and the Congressional Black Caucus budget
responds to that immediately.
Now, let me talk specifically about what we do, why we represent the
American dream, why we focus on real compassion, and we do it in a
fiscally secure and responsible manner.
We look at this map, we will see the numbers of children that are
uninsured in America. Some of the States that we would think are
prosperous States, such as Florida and Texas, the President's own
State, my State, has over 12% and going as high as 40 percent of the
children are uninsured; California, 12 percent or more are uninsured.
Vote for the Compassionate Budget and for the CBC budget and vote for
the Democratic Budget that strongly represents the needs of Americans.

{time} 1045

Numbers of us in these different colors here, 8 to 12 percent are
uninsured.
The Congressional Black Caucus budget is compassionate. Why? Because
we provide resources for housing. We provide resources for
transportation. We don't leave any firefighter or law enforcement
officers behind. And we ensure homeland security.
But we are the compassionate budget. We are the American Dream. We
ensure that children, who are our precious resources, have the ability
to get complete children's health insurance.
I ask my colleagues to support a budget that ensures compassion and
the American Dream and believes in eliminating the deficit. Vote for
the Congressional Black Caucus Budget.
Madam Chairwoman, I rise to support H. Con. Res. 99, the
Congressional Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2008. But more than
that, I rise to welcome a new day. For the past six years, the federal
budgets put forward by the Bush Administration and the Republican
Congress have cut funds for critical American priorities and,
incredibly, turned a $5.4 trillion surplus into a $8.8 trillion deficit
over the same period. Starting today, the new Democratic majority in
the House leads America in a new fiscal direction. And we do it without
raising taxes. In fact, Madam Chairwoman, thanks to the treatment and
applicability of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) called for in the
budget resolution, 19 million Americans will pay less in taxes that
they otherwise would. This week we will pass a fiscally responsible
budget with the right priorities for the American people, present and
future.
For that, I wish to thank the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr.
Spratt, a man of uncommon grace and mastery of budgetary arcane. I wish
to thank our great Speaker, Ms. Pelosi, for never letting us forget
that we are here for one reason only, and that is to address the real
needs and priorities of real Americans confronting the real problems of
their real lives in the real world. Finally, let me thank the
remarkable leadership team which has worked long, hard, and tireless to
keep us informed, cooperative, and united in our resolve to do the
necessary work to America better.
Madam Chairwoman, H. Con. Res. 99, better reflects the priorities and
values of the American people. After all, a budget is much more than a
balance sheet, an income statement, a financial scorecard. Rather, it
the expression in fiscal terms of who we are and what we believe. In
short, a budget is a financial reflection of our national character.
And as it is by a person's character that you know her, so too it is
with a nation. Look at a nation's budget and you will see how it treats
its children in the dawn of life; its elderly in the twilight of life;
its poor and disabled and helpless in the shadows of life; and the
earth, the sustainer of life. Look closely at the choices it makes
regarding the neediest and most vulnerable of its people, and you will
know the true character of a nation.
Madam Chairwoman, America and the world can be proud of the choices
we make in this budget resolution. Unlike the budgets of the last six
years, the budget brought to the floor by the new House majority
reflects the best angels of our nature. As I discuss in more detail, H.
Con. Res. 99 expands health care for our children. It provides our
soldiers and veterans with the care worthy of their sacrifice; it is
faithful to President Lincoln's injunction ``to care for him who has
borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan.'' This budget
resolution supports education for a 21st century workforce and a
growing economy. It invests in renewable energy for an energy
independent America that faces up to the challenge of global warming.
Equally important, Madam Chairwoman, the majority's budget resolution
represents a return to fiscal responsibility and budgetary
accountability. I am proud to support a budget that reflects the care
and fidelity of a wise steward of the taxpayers' hard-earned money. The
American people can be assured that the new majority in Congress will
not be profligate with the public treasury.
The new Democratic-led Congress has instituted ``pay as you go'' or
``PAYGO'' budgeting, requiring that new spending be offset, which in
the 1990s helped turn deficits to surpluses. We have also reformed the
earmark process, cutting in half the number of budget ``earmarks'' for
specific Member projects, requiring transparency in the process, and
exposing such earmarks as the infamous ``Bridge to Nowhere.''
Madam Chairwoman, nothing engenders more public cynicism than the
shameful conduct of some to avoid paying taxes legitimately owed. The
overwhelming majority of Americans obey the law, play by the rules, pay
their taxes, and work to improve their communities. There is, however,
a small but significant percentage of Americans and corporations that
do not. That is going to end. In this budget, we invest in an increased
effort to make sure that taxpayers pay the taxes they owe. The Internal
Revenue Service has estimated that the tax gap--the amount of taxes
owed under current law but not collected--has ballooned to $345 billion
since 2001. This has left middle-class families picking up the tab for
those who refuse to obey the law. It is shocking to think, Madam
Chairwoman, that amount of taxes owed by these scofflaws approximates
the costs Americans have paid to date to finance the Iraq War.

The new Democratic-led Congress also will save millions by investing
in efforts to identify and eliminate wasteful spending and improve
government efficiency in Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment
insurance. Every dollar invested in conducting Social Security ongoing
disability reviews results in $10 of savings. The savings could total
$3 billion.
Madam Chairwowan, this budget resolution correctly assumes that
substantial savings can be realized from more vigorous efforts by the
Defense Department (with increased Congressional oversight) to root out
fraud, abuse, and wasteful spending. It is totally unacceptable that
unlike the typical taxpayer, small business, or large corporation, the
Defense Department still cannot pass a standard audit. The Pentagon
cannot adequately track what it owns or spends. We just know that it's
a lot. Defense auditors estimate that more than one of six dollars they
have audited for Iraq is suspect, including $2.7 billion in sole-
source, single-bidder contracts.
The American people can have confidence that lax financial controls
and fiscal mismanagement are a thing of the past now that Democrats are
the majority party in Congress. Under this budget resolution, House
Committees will conduct performance reviews to make sure that
government programs are working as intended. We will work to eliminate
unnecessary and wasteful spending. We know that oversight and financial
controls work. Similar efforts produced 385 recommendations for smarter
ways to improve government services, saving billions during the Clinton
Administration.
Madam Chairwoman, the new House majority pledged that we would work
together to restore our economic health, reclaim our leadership
position in the world, advance our national security, and invest in the
future. We promised to restore fiscal responsibility and began by
instituting tough pay-as-you-go rules. And we have been delivering.
For example, in the first 100 hours of the 110th Congress, we passed
with bipartisan support procedures imposing discipline and transparency
in congressional spending. With

[[Page H3296]]

bipartisan support, we also passed legislation to implement
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, increased the minimum wage,
paved the way for lower prescription drug costs, cut student loan
costs, and redirected oil subsidies towards investments in renewable
energy. We did all of this while maintaining our commitment to fiscal
discipline.
The 2008 budget resolution advances these priorities. The budget
balances in 2012 while accommodating additional tax relief for millions
of middle-income families. It allocates funding for national priorities
like children's health care and education. It begins to reverse six
years of disinvestment in education, infrastructure, and innovation.
The budget resolution is the crucial next step to realizing the
initiatives we have developed to move the country forward and to set us
on a course to build the future we want for our children and
grandchildren.
And, as I have stated, it does all this without raising taxes.
Madam Chairwoman, discretionary spending, or the amount available to
be allocated through the annual appropriations process, accounts for
about one-third of all federal spending. The budget resolution provides
the Appropriations Committee with $954.9 billion in discretionary
budget authority in FY 2008, $22.1 billion more than the
administration's request as re-estimated by the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO). The Appropriations Committee will subdivide this amount
(known as a 302(a) allocation) among the various appropriations bills.
In addition to the $954.9 billion in regular FY 2008 appropriations,
the resolution assumes $145.2 billion in emergency appropriations for
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for FY 2008, as requested by the
administration. When this emergency funding is added to the $954.9
billion in regular appropriations, a total of $1.1 trillion in
discretionary spending could be available in FY 2008 under the
resolution. I think it important that the American people know where
and how their money will be spent.

Defense Appropriations

The resolution calls for defense discretionary budget authority or
appropriations at the levels recommended by the Administration for
fiscal years 2008 through 2012. Thus, the resolution calls for defense
appropriations of $503.8 billion in FY 2008, $531.6 billion in FY 2009,
$542.0 billion in FY 2010, $548.0 billion in FY 2011, and $566.9
billion in FY 2012. The totals include funding for the Defense
Department as well as nuclear-weapons-related activity in the Energy
Department.

The resolution also assumes $145.2 billion in emergency funds in FY
2008--that would not count against the cap on discretionary spending--
for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as recommended by the
administration. When added to the $503.8 billion in regular defense
appropriations, total defense spending under the resolution would be
$649 billion in FY 2008. Like the Administration, the resolution
assumes $50 billion for these wars in FY 2009.
While the resolution assumes the same total amount of spending for
defense as the Administration recommends, it does not propose to spend
the funds the same way. Specifically, the resolution assumes that
nuclear non-proliferation programs will be given a greater priority and
higher funding than the administration proposes.
Madam Chairwoman, in our resolution health care for active duty
forces is a very high priority, as will be caring for those who return
wounded from combat. Specifically, the resolution rejects the
administration's proposals for increased fees for Tricare, the military
health program, and calls for a substantial increase in the veterans'
health care system.
The resolution assumes continued funding of missile defense and
satellite procurement programs, but at a lower level than proposed by
the administration. The budget resolution recognizes the need for the
Defense Department to root out wasteful spending with far more
diligence, noting that the Defense Department has awarded contracts for
its foreign deployments that have been grossly more wasteful than
domestic contracts, especially in Iraq.

Non-Defense Discretionary Spending

The resolution calls for a non-defense discretionary budget authority
of $451.1 billion in FY 2008, which is $22 billion (5 percent) more
than the Administration's request. This includes an additional $2
billion in advance FY 2009 appropriations that would be available for
appropriation in FY 2008, resulting in a total non-defense
discretionary total of $453.1 billion, $24 billion more than the
administration's request. This non-defense discretionary total includes
funding for international affairs programs as well as for domestic.
The resolution's FY 2008 level for non-defense discretionary spending
is about $10 billion more than the FY 2007 level, adjusted for
inflation. For fiscal years 2009 through 2012, the level of non-defense
discretionary spending generally increases at the rate of inflation.

Education, Training, Employment & Social Services

Funding for education, training, employment and social services
programs has lagged during the past six years, so the resolution
attempts to compensate by increasing such funding by 11 percent ($82.3
billion in FY 2008) over the president's budget.
Madam Chairwoman, we reject the president's proposed cuts to
education programs, including rejection of his proposals to eliminate
many education programs. We also reject the president's proposed steep
cuts in job training and social service programs, including the
Community Services Block Grant and the Social Services Block Grant.
The increased spending can and should be used for several purposes,
including Head Start, Title I Compensatory Education program, and job
training and national service programs. It could also be used to
increase the federal share of the cost for educating handicapped
children, and to help improve access to colleges, and broadening access
to Hispanic Serving and Historically Black Colleges and Universities.

Health

The resolution proposes $54.2 billion in budget authority in FY 2008
for discretionary health programs, and higher levels of spending for
these programs in each of the four succeeding years. By FY 2012,
funding for these programs under the measure would increase to $58.9
billion. The FY 2008 discretionary level for this function is $2
billion (4 percent) more than recommended by the president.
Discretionary health spending does not include the federal
government's main health care spending programs, such as Medicaid and
Medicare, both of which are mandatory spending programs.

Veterans' Benefits and Services

The resolution calls for the budget authority of $43.1 billion in FY
2008 for discretionary veterans' programs, which consist mainly of
veterans' health programs--$3.5 billion (9 percent) more than the
president's request. The resolution calls for increased funding
for these veterans' programs in each of the succeeding four years. By
FY 2012, funding for these veterans' programs would reach $48.3
billion.

The resolution rejects the president's proposals to increase
enrollment fees in veterans health care programs and rejects his
proposals to increase co-payments. The resolution assumes funding to
implement the recommendations of the bipartisan ``Walter Reed
Commission'' as well as the recommendations of other investigations
into military and veterans' health care facilities and services.
The increases above the president's proposed level would address
veterans' mental health, post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic
brain injury, and spinal cord injury. Additional funding could also be
used to reduce the backlog of disability claims.

Low-Income Programs

Madam Chairwoman, other reason I support this resolution is that it
provides $52 billion, nearly $3 billion (6 percent) more than the
president recommends, for low-income programs, including unemployment
compensation, low-income housing assistance (including Section 8
housing), food and nutrition assistance (including food stamps and
school lunch subsidies), and other income-security programs.

Transportation

The resolution provides $25.4 billion, an increase of $2.1 billion
over the president's budget, for transportation funding, which includes
non-homeland-security funds for the Federal Highway Administration; the
Federal Transit Administration; Amtrak; highway, motor-carrier and
rail-safety programs; the Federal Aviation Administration; the
aeronautical activities of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA); the Coast Guard; and the Maritime
Administration.
The resolution provides full funding of the highway, safety, and
transit programs authorized by the 2005 surface transportation law
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
legacy for Users. We also maintain Amtrak, provide for additional
funding for grants to airports and reject the president's proposed cuts
to aviation programs in NASA.

Community and Regional Development

The community and regional development function includes programs
that provide federal funding for economic and community development in
both urban and rural areas, including Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG) and the non-power-related activities of the Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA).
The measure proposes to spend $13.7 billion in budget authority in FY
2008 on community and regional development programs, with increases of
$200 million in each succeeding year, reaching $14.5 billion in FY
2012.
The FY 2008 funding level for discretionary programs in this function
is $2.7 billion (24 percent) more than the president's request. The
measure rejects the president's proposed cuts to the CDBG program. It
assumes additional funding for this program as well as for rural
development and disaster preparedness programs.

Natural Resources and Environment

The resolution calls for $31.4 billion in discretionary budget
authority in FY 2008 for natural resources and environmental programs,

[[Page H3297]]

$2.6 billion (9 percent) more than the president's request. The
resolution rejects the president's proposed cuts to the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, Fish and Wildlife Service's wildlife refuge system,
the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) grants to state sand tribe
for water and aid quality and other EPA programs. The resolution
accommodates the president's proposed increases in funding to National
Park operations and maintenance.

Energy

The budget resolution provides for funding civilian energy and
environmental programs of the Energy Department, the Rural Utilities
Service of the Agriculture Department, the TVA, the U.S. Enrichment
Corporation, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. It does not include the Energy Department's
national security (nuclear weapons) activities of the National Nuclear
Security Administration or its basic research and science activities.
The resolution provides $4.6 billion in funding for discretionary
energy programs in FY 2008, about $300 million (7 percent) more than
the president's request. The resolution generally calls for spending
between $4.6 billion and $4.8 billion in each year covered by the
resolution.

International Affairs

The international affairs function includes international development
and humanitarian assistance, international security assistance, the
conduct of foreign affairs, foreign information and exchange
activities, and international financial programs. Major agencies in
this function include the State and Treasury departments, the U.S.
Agency for International Development, and the Millennium Challenge
Corporation which administers special assistance to developing
countries that meet certain political and economic standards set by the
U.S. government.

For international affairs, the resolution calls for $35.3 billion in
discretionary budget authority in FY 2008, $2 billion more than the
amount needed to maintain purchasing power at the FY 2007 level.
Compared to the president's request, the resolution provides $1.2
billion less than the request. The resolution assumes the president's
request for overseas military deployments and the Emergency Plan for
AIDS Relief, which includes the Global HIV/AIDS Initiative. The
committee report also notes the importance of adequate funding for U.S.
development assistance.
The resolution assumes full funding to continue the U.S. agreements
with Israel and Egypt made in 1998 on military financing and economic
support. The measure also assumes additional funding for the McGovern-
Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program.

Science, Space and Technology

The function contains general science funding, including the budgets
for the National Science Foundation and the fundamental science
programs of the Energy Department, and programs at NASA, except for
aviation programs.
The resolution calls for $27.5 billion in budget authority in FY 2008
for discretionary science, space and technology programs, about $200
million more than the president's request. The resolution projects
gradually increasing levels of discretionary funding for these
programs, reaching $32.3 billion in FY 2012.
For all 5 years covered by the resolution, the space funding is
higher than the president's recommendations and the levels required to
maintain purchasing power at the previous year's level.

Administration of Justice

For federal judicial and law enforcement activities, the measure
calls for $44.7 billion in discretionary budget authority in FY 2008--
$1 billion (2 percent) more than the president's request. The
resolution calls for increases in each of the succeeding 4 years,
reaching $49.3 billion in FY 2012.
The resolution rejects the president's proposals to cut local law
enforcement and first responders programs, including his proposed cuts
to the Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants program. Increases
above the president's requested level could also be used to fund
recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission.

CONCLUSION

Madam Chairwoman, correcting the fiscal course of the country cannot
be achieved overnight. The fiscal outlook we are confronting has
deteriorated dramatically over the past 6 years. In 2001, the
Administration inherited a projected 10-year (2002-2011) budget surplus
of $5.6 trillion. Within 2 years, that surplus was gone and the United
States began accumulating a mountain of national debt, adding $2.8
trillion to our federal debt burden since 2001. Most of this debt has
been purchased by foreign investors, making the U.S. economy more
susceptible to economic and political pressure from abroad.
Madam Chairwoman, we have a responsibility to clean up the fiscal
mess that we have inherited. The choice to live beyond our means comes
at the expense of our children and grandchildren who will have to pay
off that debt. Deficits also hurt economic growth by depressing
national saving, generating less capital for investment for the future.
This leads to lower productivity and wages.
The President's budget continues the fiscal approach that has brought
us large deficits and growing debt. By contrast, our budget resolution
takes the necessary steps toward eliminating our long-term budget
deficit by adhering to the pay-as-you-go principle.
But a balanced budget must be accompanied by balanced priorities.
While regaining control over our economic future is critical, we must
do so within the context of honoring our obligations. This budget is a
critical first step toward fulfilling our commitments to the American
people. We will balance the budget. We will be fiscally responsible. We
will defend our country. We will put children and families first. We
will grow the economy. We will cherish and protect our environment. We
will conduct the Nation's affairs in an accountable and efficient
manner.
Madam Chairwoman, last November the American people entrusted us with
the responsibility of leading our country in a new direction. The part
we have charted in this budget resolution will lead to a brighter
future for children and better America for generations to come. It
reflects very well on our national character. For all these reasons, I
stand in strong support of H. Con. Res. 99. I urge all members to
support the resolution.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, I would now like to yield 2\1/2\
minutes to our first Vice Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, the
gentlewoman from Oakland, California, Congresswoman Lee.
Ms. LEE. Madam Chairman, first let me thank our chairwoman of the
Congressional Black Caucus for her tremendous leadership on this issue
and so many other issues. And I want to salute you, Congresswoman
Kilpatrick and Congressman Bobby Scott, for your hard work, your
diligent work in putting forth a budget that we can all be proud of.
And also I want to thank our staffs for their dedication and their
expertise in putting this together.
A budget is a road map that identifies and invests in the critical
priorities of a Nation, and I am pleased to say that this budget does
exactly that.
For example, this budget takes the very important step, and this is
important, to address the waste, fraud and abuse at the Department of
Defense by urging the implementation of GAO's recommendations to the
Department of Defense. By incorporating just a fraction of GAO's
suggestions, DOD, for example, has saved over $52 billion over the last
few years. Imagine how much more could be saved by fully implementing
these recommendations which are included in the Congressional Black
Caucus budget.
While addressing critical reforms at the Defense Department, this
will go a long way also in shoring up our national security. I am
pleased to say that this budget shows an understanding that really the
Republicans have never shown during their years in power, namely, that
domestic security is national security.
This budget invests in our communities. It invests in our health
care. It invests in our future. It helps to lift the 37 million people
living in poverty into a standard of living which each and every
American deserves, living in the wealthiest and most powerful country
in the world.
It puts $1.5 billion into HOPE VI, into public housing and homeless
assistance programs. It allocates another $1.5 billion to the Community
Development Block Grants and brownfields redevelopment. These are all
critical plus-ups that strengthen and add value to our communities and
provide that national security and economic security of our people.
This balanced budget also adds over $1.3 billion to the Ryan White
CARE Act and the Minority AIDS initiative, and $10 billion into
children's health to ensure that no child is without health care in
this country.
Madam Chairman, this takes a good budget, our Democratic budget, and
makes it simply much better. This budget is balanced. It is fair, it
truly is a moral document, which budgets should be.
So, Madam Chair and Mr. Scott, I want to thank you for giving our
country really a moral document.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, I would like to yield myself 2
minutes.
This bill does not raise taxes. This bill does rescind the permanent
tax cut

[[Page H3298]]

for the 1 percent of the wealthiest Americans and then reinvests that
money into American families.
This bill balances the budget. We reduce the deficit that the other
party got us in over the last decade, the highest budget deficit in the
history of our country.
This budget takes care of our troops, protects Americans. This budget
is fiscally responsible. We make sure, in our budget, that we invest in
health care for all the children of America. We also take care of those
seniors who find themselves in need of adequate health care. Yes, and
we fund and make sure Medicare, the health insurance for 44 million
seniors, and Medicaid, programs for low-income and disabled Americans,
are taken care of.
Have we spent too much? No, we haven't. Is the budget in balance?
Yes, it is. We want to make sure in our Congressional Black Caucus
budget that we are leaders. We come here as 43 Members of Congress
representing 26 States and 40 million Americans. Ten of our Members
have districts that are not majority African Americans. We represent
Asian Americans, Latino Americans, European Americans, Indian
Americans.
We are the conscience of the Congress. We bring to you a budget that,
we believe, is balanced. It is the best budget, and we ask for your
support.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, I reserve the right to close, and
I think that they still have more speakers, so I will just reserve my
time.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, I would like to yield the balance of
our time to the gentleman from Virginia, Congressman Bobby Scott, the
chairperson of the Congressional Black Caucus budget, the gentleman who
has worked tirelessly with our staff, with the Members, is a member of
the House Budget Committee, and knows the needs of our country.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chairman, we need to review, again,
where we are, because we have heard lectures about fiscal
responsibility, and this chart shows where we are in fiscal
responsibility, way down in the ditch.
In fact, in 2001, we were on a trajectory to pay off the entire
national debt by 2013.
The gentleman from Wisconsin had a chart that showed that by 2040 we
would almost have enough money to pay interest on the national debt and
a little bit of Social Security, and that was it. Well, the main change
in that was interest on the national debt. There would be zero interest
on the national debt if we hadn't gotten into this mess.
In fact, at this point, the gentleman talked about what he called
entitlement reform. For those that aren't aware what entitlement reform
means, that means cutting Social Security.
Well, in 2001, we had a 10-year surplus of $5.5 trillion. We needed
$4 trillion at that point to make sure that we had enough money to pay
Social Security for the next 75 years without cutting benefits. So we
had entitlement reform covered.
The gentleman mentioned jobs that have been created: remind him,
worst job performance since Herbert Hoover. The gentleman mentioned
economic development: worst Dow performance in a quarter of a century.
The gentleman mentioned all these revenues we have gotten: worst
revenue performance in the history of recordkeeping back to 1934.
We repeal some of the policies, some of the policies that got us in
the mess to begin with. This is one of the tax cuts that got us in the
problem, and you can see who gets the benefits. But not only do we
eliminate some of the tax cuts that put us in the mess, we are fiscally
responsible. We use that to improve the deficit. Our deficit has
improved, over the Democratic budget, $100 billion, over the
President's budget, $300 billion.
And, finally, we saved so much that we saved interest on the national
debt, $14 billion in the last year of the budget. And we are able to
fund children's health care, enough money in our budget to fund health
care for all children in America, enough in our budget to fund $158
billion more on education than the President's budget.
$158 billion. If you have a city, 300,000, $158 billion is enough for
$158 million in additional funding for education over 5 years. Imagine
what your city could do with $158 million.
We have enough for veterans, $42 billion more than the President's
budget. We make sure that our cities and communities are secure with
investments in gang prevention, juvenile justice, COPS and other
programs in the justice area. We help our communities with community
development grants, billions of dollars. Diplomacy.
That is a compassionate budget. It is compassionate, but it is also
fiscally responsible.
Madam Chairman, we have a budget that gets us out of the mess that we
got into. It compassionately invests in our priorities. It is a proud
budget.
On behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus, I ask for your support
for the Congressional Black Caucus budget. I thank the gentlelady from
Michigan for her leadership on this budget and particularly her
leadership in the Congressional Black Caucus.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, I will address the House for the
remainder of my time from the well.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, I wish to compliment the
Congressional Black Caucus with their budget today because they are
bringing a serious budget to the floor. They are bringing a budget that
does achieve balance. They are bringing a budget that reflects their
philosophies and their policies, and that is important. I commend the
Black Caucus under the leadership of Ms. Kilpatrick for that.
This is what we do. We come to the floor with our budgets to
encapsulate our priorities and what are the visions we have for the
future of our country.
This budget does raise taxes. You simply can't get around the fact
that it calls for $711.9 billion in additional tax revenues over the
next 5 years to make the budget balance. But that is fine.
I wish to talk, at this time, about the underlying Democrat budget.
And let me just quote from The Washington Post this morning. The
article in The Washington Post this morning, in talking about the
Democrat budget says: ``And while the House Democrats say they want to
preserve key parts of Bush's signature tax cuts, they project a surplus
in 2012 only by assuming that all of these tax cuts expire on schedule
in 2010.''
Now, we understand that people say, on the other side of the aisle,
they don't want to raise taxes. I hear those words. I even hear that
they say they have these sort of mythical reserve funds, which is
really nothing more than a wish list.
So we had all these votes in the Budget Committee. We said, okay, if
you really don't want to raise these taxes, then let's put it into the
budget. Let's make it clear. Let's put it into the numbers of the
budget so that we clearly can tell the American people we are not going
to raise your taxes.
So we had a whole series of votes in the Budget Committee to amend
the budget to make sure taxes weren't being raised. We had an amendment
to make sure that we didn't increase marginal tax rates. We had an
amendment to make sure we didn't eliminate the $1,000 per-child tax
credit. We had an amendment to make sure we didn't eliminate marriage
tax penalty relief. We had an amendment to make sure we didn't
eliminate the capital gains and dividends tax relief. We had an
amendment to make sure we didn't eliminate the State and local sales
tax relief which applies to States like Texas and Tennessee and
Florida. We had an amendment to make sure we didn't bring back the
death tax. Amendment after amendment after amendment, which would have
made this clear and simple that we weren't going to raise taxes was
defeated, every single one of them, by party-line votes. The Democrats
defeated every single amendment in attempts to stop these tax increases
from coming into this budget.
Now, let's take a look at what kind of tax increases we are talking
about. The Democrat budget only reaches balance because of this. This
is how their budget achieves balance.

{time} 1100

They have $32.5 billion in higher taxes coming from higher tax rates
on dividends and capital gains. They have $40 billion in higher
revenues because they cut in half the per child tax credit. They bring
back the marriage tax

[[Page H3299]]

penalty, which makes people pay taxes simply because they are married.
They get $91 billion in extra tax revenues by bringing the death tax
back in full force, and they gain another $78 billion by taking away
the lower 10 percent bracket for low-income Americans. They bring into
the government an extra $104 billion by raising all other marginal tax
rates, and that is also the tax rate that small businesses pay.
So small businesses, which are the engine of economic growth of
America, and most jobs come from small businesses, under their plan
small businesses will pay a tax rate at about 40 percent, when we are
going to actually be giving a tax rate to the largest companies in
America, IBM, Exxon, Microsoft, at 35 percent.
This is how their budget balances: Raise taxes on businesses, raise
taxes on small businesses, raise taxes on investment in seniors'
pension funds, raise taxes on people with children, raise taxes on
people who get married, raise taxes on people who die, and raise taxes
on low-income Americans. That is the only way, the only reason, the
only ability that the Democrat budgets actually achieve balance.
We can do better, Madam Chairman, and the reason we can do better is
because we have to attack out-of-control spending.
Washington does not have a revenue problem, Madam Chairman. Money is
coming in as fast as it ever has. Money is going out too fast. Both
parties are to blame for this. I am not going to be here and
sanctimoniously say that our party has been wonderful on spending. No,
we have not. What I am saying is we have to agree spending is out of
control. That is the problem. Let's control spending.
The budget we are bringing to the floor later on does just that. We
give the tools to get rid of pork. We give the tools to let the
American people see exactly how their tax dollars are being spent. We
bring more accountability and transparency to the Federal budget
process. We reform our entitlement programs so we can extend their
solvency, so we can make sure that people can better count on Medicare
and Medicaid. These are the things that we have got to do so we don't
crank up our debt, raise our taxes, and put a huge burden on our
children and grandchildren.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of
the Congressional Black Caucus Alternative Budget offered today. The
CBC budget will change a 6 year Republican policy that I call Reverse
Robin Hood, stealing from the poor to give to the rich.
You might ask why the Democratic Budget, which I support, needs
improvement. The Democratic Budget needs improvement because when
America has a cold, African-Americans have pneumonia. The CBC budget
reverses the deep cuts that have been made in the programs that serve
the neediest Americans.
Over a 5 year period, compared to the President's budget the CBC
spends: $158 billion more on education, training, employment and social
services; $101 billion more on healthcare; $19 billion more on
community and regional development; $42 billion more on veterans
benefits and services; $12 billion more on administration of justice;
$21 billion more on homeland security; and $5.8 billion more on
international affairs.
Even after funding these priorities, the CBC alternative budget still
manages to balance the budget in Fiscal Year 2012 and in fact, creates
a surplus of $141 billion.
As an African American woman who represents one of the poorest
districts in the state of Florida, I am proud to say that the
Congressional Black Caucus's Budget demonstrates that fiscal
responsibility and spending on programs that are important to the
African-American people are not mutually exclusive. I encourage all my
colleagues to support the CBC Budget.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the
CBC budget and feel extremely proud to do so. This budget raises
revenue by rescinding the tax cuts for the top two income tax rates. It
rescinds the capital gains and divided tax cuts, eliminates the phase
out and repeal of PEP (personal exemption phase out) and PEASE, (which
makes more wealthy income subject to taxation). It eliminates corporate
tax incentives for offshoring jobs, closes corporate tax loopholes,
abusive tax shelters and methods of tax avoidance and closes the tax
gap. The CBC budget is balanced in FY12 and in fact creates a surplus
of $141 billion dollars.
The CBC Budget provides adequate resources to deal with the shortage
of nurses in this country by providing training resources, it protects
Hospital Graduate Medical Education and increases funding for the
National Family Caregivers Support Services Program by $8 million
dollars. The CBC budget shifts some of the resource allocation from the
military industrial complex, to domestic spending to deal more
appropriately and realistically with domestic needs. It is a rational,
logical common-sense budget which prioritizes peace and economic
development rather than war and military action.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Tauscher). All time for debate on the
amendment has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 115,
noes 312, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 209]

AYES--115

Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carson
Castor
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Delahunt
Dingell
Doyle
Ellison
Engel
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinchey
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Langevin
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Markey
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Miller (NC)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Sires
Solis
Stark
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--312

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Gene
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hinojosa
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Kagen
Keller
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)

[[Page H3300]]

Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Neugebauer
Nunes
Ortiz
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Loretta
Saxton
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Udall (NM)
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--11

Davis, Jo Ann
Faleomavaega
Hobson
Kanjorski
Lampson
McCrery
Millender-McDonald
Murtha
Slaughter
Visclosky
Watt

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 2 minutes
remain in this vote.

{time} 1129

Messrs. Altmire, Petri, Young of Alaska, Stupak and Cuellar and Mrs.
Gillibrand changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. Rodriguez, Becerra, Rush, Serrano, Hinchey, Crowley and
Rothman changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 209, had I been
present, I would have voted ``aye.''

{time} 1130

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 2 Offered by Ms. Woolsey

The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 110-79, which is debatable for 40 minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment made in order by the
rule.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 2 offered by
Ms. Woolsey:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2008.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of
fiscal years 2008 through 2017:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $2,150,937,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,222,766,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,310,761,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,540,991,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,644,436,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,734,699,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $2,865,665,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $3,006,549,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $3,156,674,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $3,317,482,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be increased are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $100,140,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $115,840,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $147,040,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $146,440,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $47,340,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $27,640,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $27,440,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $27,140,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $27,140,000,000
Fiscal year 2017: $27,140,000,000.
(2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new
budget authority are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $2,353,935,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,442,610,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,535,026,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,652,452,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,717,674,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,828,667,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $2,937,865,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $3,055,071,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $3,217,325,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $3,322,445,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $2,402,616,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,465,058,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,538,061,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,646,858,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,697,966,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,810,051,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $2,918,322,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $3,034,657,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $3,202,993,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $3,303,257,000,000.
(4) Deficits or surpluses (on-budget).--For purposes of the
enforcement of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits
(on-budget) are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $-251,678,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $-242,291,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $-227,299,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $-105,868,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $-53,530,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $-75,352,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $-52,656,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $-28,107,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $-46,320,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $14,224,000,000.
(5) Debt subject to limit.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate
levels of the public debt are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $9,295,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $9,654,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $10,000,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $10,219,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $10,399,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $10,599,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $10,778,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $10,934,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $11,102,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $11,209,000,000,000.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $5,104,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $5,142,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $5,152,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $5,023,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $4,831,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $4,653,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $4,448,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $4,215,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $4,000,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $3,727,000,000,000.

SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years
2008 through 2017 for each major functional category are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $398,744,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $493,286,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $409,871,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $446,218,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $421,524,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $430,322,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $433,189,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $435,605,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $445,237,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $435,975,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $457,936,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $451,495,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $470,915,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $464,070,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $484,527,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $477,291,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $497,989,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $495,508,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $512,131,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $504,943,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $53,558,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $45,562,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $54,617,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $49,046,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $55,138,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $50,298,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $55,936,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $51,663,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $56,714,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $53,721,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $57,548,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $54,368,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $58,435,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $55,018,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $59,261,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $55,822,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $60,033,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $56,603,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $60,898,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $57,403,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):

[[Page H3301]]

Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $25,619,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,449,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $26,126,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,764,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $26,656,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,764,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $27,192,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,669,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $27,732,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,182,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $28,298,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,731,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $28,868,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,291,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $29,468,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,871,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $30,047,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,453,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $30,654,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,045,000,000.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $32,126,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,764,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $31,937,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,691,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $32,022,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,250,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $32,114,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,583,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $32,193,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,883,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $32,288,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,858,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $32,381,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,182,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $32,479,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,417,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $32,573,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,532,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $32,679,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,649,000,000.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $32,713,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,681,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $33,429,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,798,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $34,383,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,769,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $35,052,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,963,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $36,094,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,443,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $37,066,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,441,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $38,147,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,536,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $38,843,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,189,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $41,159,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,481,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $43,384,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,664,000,000.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $20,481,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,047,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $21,033,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,146,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $21,238,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,207,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $21,256,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,534,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $21,502,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,963,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $21,843,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,341,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $22,323,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,813,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $21,855,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,376,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $22,478,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,959,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $23,072,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,478,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $8,847,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,836,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $8,652,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $189,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $8,616,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $222,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $8,641,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $8,822,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $557,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $8,952,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $563,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $9,002,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $358,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $9,226,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $264,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $9,271,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $14,397,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,090,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $92,701,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $85,871,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $84,918,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $91,260,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $85,736,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $93,558,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $86,664,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $94,170,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $87,544,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $95,773,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $88,465,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $97,245,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $89,401,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $99,052,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $90,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $101,080,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $91,406,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $103,132,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $92,440,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $105,218,000,000.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $18,792,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,590,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $17,755,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,471,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $18,028,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,599,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $18,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,218,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $18,571,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,455,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $18,854,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,519,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $19,141,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,344,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $19,441,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,626,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $19,730,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,927,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $20,029,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,230,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $114,824,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $102,279,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $118,436,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $112,310,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $122,096,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $117,654,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $124,407,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $121,544,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $127,025,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $123,668,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $129,926,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $126,517,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $133,423,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $129,974,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $137,070,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $133,574,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $140,884,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $137,381,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $144,874,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $141,298,000,000.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $310,767,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $305,039,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $331,814,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $328,766,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $349,838,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $349,457,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $311,549,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $370,401,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:

[[Page H3302]]

(A) New budget authority, $394,682,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $393,687,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $405,069,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $403,648,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $432,515,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $430,676,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $462,190,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $459,904,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $494,433,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $491,703,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $534,065,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $531,073,000,000.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $389,566,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $389,685,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $416,710,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $416,364,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $442,347,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $442,569,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $489,077,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $489,087,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $486,804,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $486,417,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $540,509,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $540,743,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $578,438,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $578,437,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $621,256,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $620,761,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $697,785,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $698,014,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $729,187,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $729,166,000,000.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $384,578,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $388,437,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $397,573,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $399,481,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $408,429,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $409,273,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $424,216,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $424,074,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $410,474,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $409,717,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $426,369,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $425,129,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $438,065,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $436,839,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $449,761,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $448,287,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $466,647,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $465,168,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $473,677,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $471,998,000,000.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $19,644,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,644,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $21,518,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,518,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $23,701,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,701,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $27,009,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,009,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $29,898,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,898,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $32,656,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,656,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $35,652,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,652,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $38,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $42,535,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $42,535,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $46,483,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,483,000,000.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $90,207,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $90,887,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $91,641,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $91,619,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $93,063,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $93,024,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $97,416,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $97,409,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $128,472,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $128,297,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $132,946,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $132,770,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $134,557,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $134,405,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $136,261,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $136,087,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $141,593,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $141,562,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $140,005,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $140,030,000,000.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $46,220,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,091,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $45,797,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,024,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $46,968,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,258,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $48,179,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,941,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $49,410,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $48,998,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $50,659,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $50,142,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $51,959,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $51,440,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $56,434,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $55,893,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $58,153,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $57,619,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $59,826,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $59,276,000,000.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $19,126,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,058,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $19,776,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,752,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $20,398,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,292,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $21,159,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,890,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $21,871,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,706,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $22,578,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,177,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $23,299,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,888,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $23,885,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,498,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $24,638,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,418,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $25,415,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,984,000,000.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $365,581,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $365,581,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $376,713,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $376,713,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $390,894,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $390,894,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $399,750,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $399,750,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $405,529,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $405,529,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $411,266,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $411,266,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $418,293,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $418,293,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $424,021,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $424,021,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $429,637,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $429,637,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $432,297,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $432,297,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $820,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $808,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $854,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $852,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $884,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $883,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $921,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $921,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $957,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $957,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $996,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $996,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $1,033,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,033,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $1,075,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,075,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $1,115,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,115,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $1,160,000,000.

[[Page H3303]]

(B) Outlays, $1,160,000,000.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $-70,979,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-70,979,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $-66,560,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-66,569,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $-66,933,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-66,933,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $-69,575,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-69,595,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $71,857,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-71,860,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $-75,557,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-75,555,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $-77,982,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-77,979,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $-81,282,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-81,279,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $-84,781,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-84,780,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $-94,228,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-94,228,000,000.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey)
and a Member opposed each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
It is really important that Americans hear every side of the budget
argument. That is why I am proud to rise today to bring before the
House the Congressional Progressive peace and security budget
alternative.
The peace and security budget balances by the year 2010, which is 2
years ahead of the Democratic budget, 2 years ahead of the Republican
substitute, and light years ahead of the administration's budget, a
budget that doesn't balance anywhere in a 10-year horizon.
This chart, Madam Chairman, shows the Progressive budget, it shows
the Congressional House budget, and it shows the President's budget.
Very clear, indeed. This is about domestic spending, and we will get to
that later.
Now, let's look at exactly what happens when we meet our deficit and
when we go into balance.
This is the Progressive budget. This is the President's budget. Here
we are. Here he is. We are light years ahead of the President's budget,
and 2 years ahead of the Democratic budget.
The peace and security budget cuts defense spending by $108 billion
below the President's budget, all the while keeping America safe.
Actually, the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget spends $395
billion on defense. That is a lot of money. At the same time, the CPC
alternative increases domestic discretionary spending to $483 billion,
and this is this chart. Our spending is $89 billion over the President,
$58 billion over the Democrats, and if you can believe this, it is $33
billion more than the social justice groups have been asking for.
So here you are. We have the President's budget spending on domestic
funding, we have the Democrats, and we have the Progressive Caucus.
How do we get there? It's not as hard as you may think. You can vest
in domestic programs if you aren't spending precious tax dollars on a
misguided occupation of another nation. Because of this, we assume an
end to the occupation of Iraq by the end of 2007. This will save us
hundreds of billions of dollars in the next year alone.
We also roll back the Bush tax cuts for the top 1 percent of income
earners. That's people who make over $1 million a year. And we target
waste, fraud and abuse at the Department of Defense, including savings
of $60 billion a year by eliminating and reducing Cold War era relics
that are still being produced in this country. With these savings, we
are able to put money where it is most needed.
The peace and security budget keeps its promise to a strong public
education by fully funding No Child Left Behind, title I, which would
expand services about $30 billion a year, and it also fully funds our
commitment to special education, to IDEA.
Our substitute moves us closer to the promise of a universal health
care system by putting $75 billion over 5 years into SCHIP to cover all
eligible children.
We support a leaner, smarter and more effective national security
program by investing in emphasizing greater diplomacy and less combat.
Our budget makes the veterans health care an entitlement, including
mental health services.
The progressive budget invests $30 billion a year over 10 years to
completely transform our energy policy to ensure that our children and
our grandchildren will have clean and renewable energy sources.
And, finally, we increase spending for domestic priorities like HIV/
AIDS, section 8 housing, and Community Development Block Grants.
Madam Chairman, it is time we stand up and challenge what is possible
in a Federal budget. The alternative prepared and brought here today by
the Congressional Progressive Caucus does that and does it boldly. It
puts money where we need it, it cuts programs that have for so long
been sacred cows, and it says to our country, we want to take your tax
dollars and invest them in the people of this Nation.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 20
minutes.
Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chairman, we have three different versions of essentially the
same Democrat budget that is being presented today. They are all
fiscally irresponsible. They all promote the Federal budget over the
family budget. They all compromise the future of our children and
grandchildren.
Let me tell you, Madam Chair, what they have in common. Each one
would represent the single largest tax increase in the history of the
United States of America.
Now this particular chart, Madam Chairman, because I didn't have the
numbers available in the Progressive budget, shows what the Democrat
Conference budget would do: Almost $400 billion of new taxes on working
families; single largest tax increase in America's history. What did
the Democrats do last time they were in power, Madam Chair? Well, that
was back in 1993. And guess what? They gave us the single largest tax
increase in America's history. This particular version of the Democrat
budget, see that red there? I would have to have another chart to
represent that tax increase because I believe they actually double what
the Democrat Conference budget is doing.
And, Madam Chairman, people need to know that every time you are
increasing the Federal budget, you are decreasing some family budget.
Some hardworking family in America is trying to make ends meet. Many of
those families are in my district, the Fifth Congressional District of
Texas.
I heard from one of those families recently. I heard from Linda, I
will use her first name, in Roulette, Texas. And she writes:
``Dear Congressman, that tax increase would mean the difference of
whether my daughter and her husband would be able to purchase a car or
not. For my husband and I, it helps us to continue for his radiation
treatments for his prostate cancer. It allows us to continue to provide
in-home assistance for my elderly parents, one who has Parkinson's and
one who has dementia. Please allow us to retain this money for our
needs. Please don't allow our government to take additional tax dollars
from us. Please allow us to decide how this money will be spent.''
Madam Chairman, again, when they take money to fuel the Federal
budget, to fuel the Federal bureaucracy, they are taking money away
from hardworking families. They need that money for their educational
needs, for their health care needs, for their housing needs.
When is it that you ever have enough of the taxpayers' money? Already
in Washington we are spending over $23,000 per American household for
the first time in American history since World War II. We must protect
the family budget from the Federal budget and prevent this single
largest tax increase in American history from being imposed on
hardworking American families.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman

[[Page H3304]]

from California, Barbara Lee, the co-Chair of the Progressive Caucus.
Ms. LEE. Madam Chairman, first, I would like to thank my friend and
colleague, our co-Chair of the Progressive Caucus, Congresswoman
Woolsey, for her leadership on this issue and so many issues that
relate to peace and security.
Also to our executive director, Mr. Goold, for all of your hard work
and all of our staff. You all have done a phenomenal job in putting
this together.
As I said with regard to the Congressional Black Caucus budget, a
budget is a moral document. It defines what we as a community, as a
Nation, as a society hold as sacred. That is why I am pleased that this
Progressive Caucus budget also is a reflection of our values and our
priorities.
There are several key elements in this budget I would like to focus
on, especially five main items.
First, this budget will save up to $623 billion over the next 10
years by ending the occupation of Iraq and bringing our troops home
starting at the end of the year. The costs are simply untenable. CRS
estimates that we will have spent over a half trillion dollars by the
end of fiscal 08 on this unnecessary occupation of Iraq. This rate of
expenditure, not to mention the cost in lives and cost to our
international stability and credibility, is simply untenable.
Next, this budget takes steps at reducing our bloated military budget
without compromising, actually, in fact, it enhances our national
security. It accounts for eliminating obsolete Cold War era weapon
systems and saves $600 billion over the next 10 years.
Additionally, this budget would save tens of billions of dollars over
the next 10 years by implementing recommendations by the Government
Accountability Office, which they have actually made, to eliminate
waste, fraud and abuse at the Department of Defense, which our
taxpayers should not allow to occur any longer.
This budget increases funding for critical components to help rebuild
our communities, including those ravaged by Hurricane Katrina. For
example, our budget increases funding to the Community Development
Block Grants to $4.1 billion in 2008, whereas the President has
repeatedly targeted this program for cuts.
This budget also invests an additional $1.6 billion per year in
section 8 housing vouchers to ensure decent and affordable housing for
all of those who need housing assistance.
Fourth, this budget contributes to our national security interests by
doing more to meet the growing humanitarian needs throughout the world,
especially with regard to increasing our contribution to the Global
Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. We increased this by
$100 billion.
Also, let's just say our Nation's security is predicated on a strong
and healthy domestic population. It is critically important to
adequately fund prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS in the United
States.
The statistics, as it relates to HIV/AIDS here in America, are
staggering. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention,
racial and ethnic minorities represent 71 percent of new AIDS cases and
64 percent of Americans living with HIV/AIDS. African Americans
represent 50 percent of new AIDS cases, although only 12 percent of our
population. Latinos account for 19 percent of new AIDS cases, although
14 percent of the population.
I urge our colleagues to support this budget. It clearly is a budget
that is fiscally responsible and is a moral document.
Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, at this time, I would like to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

{time} 1145

Mr. HERGER. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the
alternative budget before us now and the Democrat budget. The Democrat
majority party seems intent on raising taxes and increasing spending.
American families, seniors, and small businesses would all experience
major tax hikes. Virtually no American would be spared.
The budget before us ignores the benefits of the tax relief passed
since 2001. This tax relief has spurred economic growth and created
literally millions of new jobs. Meanwhile, tax revenue to the Federal
Treasury is surging, helping to reduce the deficit. Their budget also
ignores the out-of-control growth in entitlement spending. This is
deeply irresponsible. The tax-tax/spend-spend philosophy supported by
my friends across the aisle is bad economics and bad for the American
people. Vote ``no.''
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California, the Chair of the Veterans' Committee, Bob Filner.
Mr. FILNER. I thank the gentlelady, and I thank the leadership of Ms.
Woolsey and Ms. Lee of the Progressive Caucus.
Madam Chair, I rise this morning as the Chair of the House Veterans'
Affairs Committee in proud support of the Progressive Caucus budget.
Other budgets fund the war; this budget funds the warrior. I am going
to repeat that: Other budgets fund the war; this budget funds the
warrior.
Most of us in the Progressive Caucus are against the war in Iraq, but
we are united in our view that when these young men and women come home
and all the other young men and women who came home in the past, that
they get all the care, the support, the honor, the dignity, the love
that a grateful Nation can bestow.
We are united in saying we will honor those who come home. They have
done everything we have asked, they have been brave and courageous,
they have had incredible wounds both physically and mentally, and we
are going to give them the care, love, respect, and honor that they
deserve.
This is the only budget before us today that says we will have what
is called ``mandatory funding'' of veterans health care. Mandatory
funding means we don't have to wait 5 months like the Republicans did
last year when they didn't fund the Veterans Administration for the
first 5 months of the fiscal year. Assured funding, mandatory funding,
means that they will be funded on the first day of the fiscal year, and
they will get automatic funding that doesn't have to go through a
political fight.
We have a President that says support the troops, support the troops,
support the troops. The speakers on the other side say support the
troops, support the troops, support the troops. But when they get home,
who is supporting them? Who is supporting these brave young men and
women when they come back? We saw what happened at Walter Reed. We saw
what happened to Bob Woodruff when he had traumatic brain injury--and
those who were less fortunate than he didn't get the treatment they
needed. We heard about the young marine who went to a Minnesota
hospital saying he had PTSD and was thinking about committing suicide,
and they said he was number 28 on the waiting list, come back in a
month. He went home and he committed suicide. That is not a Veterans
Administration, that is not a country that is welcoming its troops
home. It is time that we fund the warrior and not just the war. Vote
for the Progressive Caucus budget.
Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, the Republican budget allocates more to
veterans than the Democrat Conference budget.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise
today in opposition to the Progressive Caucus budget.
This debate today could be described as a debate about the good, the
bad, and the ugly. A kinder way you could describe it is the
responsible, the irresponsible, and the reckless.
We are going to have the House Republican budget brought forward on
this floor today, brought forward by our chairman, Mr. Ryan, a
responsible budget, a good budget, a budget that comes to balance in 5
years without raising taxes and tries to address the challenge that we
face in the category of entitlements.
We have the Democrat leadership budget that is going to be brought
forward, a budget that has the biggest tax increase in our Nation's
history, and a budget, I might add, that not only includes significant
increases in spending, but as well makes no effort to deal with the
challenge of entitlements. I will just quote from the chairman of the
Federal Reserve, Chairman Bernanke, who said, ``Without early

[[Page H3305]]

and meaningful action to address entitlements, the U.S. economy could
be seriously weakened, with future generations bearing much of the
cost.''
Now, the budget alternative that we have right now in front of us I
would describe as the ugly or the reckless or the completely
irresponsible, because not only does it include the biggest tax
increase in our Nation's history and significant increases in spending;
it runs up entitlement spending even further. And the part that I think
is the most egregious, it actually calls the effort of our brave women
and men fighting in Afghanistan, fighting in Iraq to establish a beacon
of liberty in that dark area of the world, it calls that effort the
single largest waste of taxpayers' money and the biggest current drain
on the U.S. Treasury today.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this alternative budget and
vote ``yes'' on the Republican budget.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to bring to the gentleman from Florida's attention that
his budget actually cuts Medicare and Medicaid by $250 billion, taking
almost $98 billion out of Energy and Commerce and $154 billion out of
Ways and Means.
And then when he speaks about veterans and what our budget does or
does not do in supporting veterans, I would like to remind him that the
Progressive Caucus budget makes veterans' health care, including mental
health, an entitlement. It no longer throws veterans out there to be
debated every year, whether they deserve what we know we have promised
them and they more than deserve.
At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California,
Hilda Solis, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the
Environmental and Hazmat Subcommittee.
Ms. SOLIS. I thank the gentlewoman from California and my colleagues
of the Progressive Caucus.
Madam Chair, I rise today in support of this budget resolution. And
as you know, Members, this budget marks a new direction for our
country. It reflects the values of millions of hardworking people
across the country. And I am proud that this budget rejects the
President's cuts to core public health and environmental programs.
These core programs include Superfund programs, land and water
conservation funds, drinking water State revolving funds, State and
tribal assistance grants, Leaking Underground Storage Tank programs,
environmental justice programs, and brownfield programs.
Under the misguided priorities of the Bush administration, funding
for these programs at the EPA, if you didn't know this, have been
dramatically cut back by 22 percent, and our communities continue to
suffer. Under the President's fiscal year 2008 budget, States will have
lost over $1 billion in Federal funds since 2004 and may be forced to
lay off numerous staff, leave vacancies unfilled, shut down existing
air monitors, or otherwise curtail monitoring programs. Regional or
contract personnel are making judgments about water safety systems
despite not even being qualified. And environmental justice, those
programs are on the chopping block right now. Two-thirds of already
overburdened cities that are working to create economic opportunities
by revitalizing formerly blighted communities in our country known as
the brownfields programs have not received sufficient funding.
Our budget, this budget, rejects these cuts by appropriating $31.4
billion for these programs, $2.6 billion over the President's budget.
This is a down payment so that we can begin to reinvest in our
neighborhoods and communities, and we are doing it without raising
taxes for the middle class. I am proud that this budget will help
improve health care for all our families, secure education, address
global warming issues, and keep our promise to our Nation's veterans. I
strongly urge my colleagues to support the health, well-being, and
economic security of all working families in our country, and I support
this budget.
Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to a coauthor of the
American Taxpayer Bill of Rights, the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs.
Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding.
You know, it is so interesting as we always debate these budgets. It
seems that the liberal elites always think they are smarter than
everybody else in America, and that they need to have the authority to
come down here and decide how our communities are going to spend their
money, how families are going to spend their money, because government
never gets enough of your money. That is one thing you can count on.
They want government to have it all.
Well, let me tell you, I have got a little box in my office on my
desk; it is a tax box. And if you don't think you are paying enough,
come to 509 Cannon, write out how much you want to give the government,
and stick it in there. There is nothing that is stopping you. But the
Democrat budget increases taxes on Tennesseans $2,611 a year. The
Progressive budget is going to increase it about $6,000 a year. They
just can't get enough of the taxpayers' money.
And the fact that they would cut military spending and call it the
single largest waste, you know what, Madam Chair, if it were not for
the brave men and women in the U.S. military, there would be no need
for us because we would not be a free, secure Nation. We are free. We
remain free because we are ever vigilant. That is the cost of freedom.
And to deny what they need and to say it is a waste, I am very sorry to
see that. And at the same time, to increase domestic spending with new
programs when our friends across the aisle have repeatedly said they
were going to cut it out, they were going to cut programs, they were
going to cut spending, that is unfortunate.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Illinois, Jan Schakowsky, who is a valued progressive voice in this
Congress and a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the
Global Warming Select Committee.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, budget resolutions give us the
opportunity to debate national priorities, the vision that we have not
just for the next 5 years, but for our future. And nothing is more
important for that future than providing opportunities for our
children.
Over the past weeks, many of my constituents have called and written
to ask that we reject the President's budget priorities, particularly
in the area of children's health. Nine million children are uninsured.
Every 46 seconds, a baby is born without health coverage. In the
richest country in the history of the world, every day children are
forced to go without the medical care that they need. The President's
budget doesn't solve this crisis. It doesn't even come close.
The President wants to cut Medicaid, and his budget provides $7
billion less than what is needed just to maintain current caseloads in
the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Shortfalls would
continue. States would have to put more children on waiting lists.
Benefits would be reduced.
The Progressive Caucus believes that no child should be forced to
stand in a long line when it comes to health care. Our budget provides
enough funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program to cover
every eligible child. Our budget truly puts children first. Like the
Spratt budget, which provides an additional $50 billion in SCHIP money,
we are setting the priorities that will keep American children healthy
and make our country strong.
The Republicans care about families all right, rich families. And
they care about children. It just doesn't happen to be the children of
ordinary working families in this country. The Progressive Caucus
budget does take care of those families.

{time} 1200

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Campbell), the chairman of the Budget and Spending
Task Force of the Republican Study Committee and the coauthor of the
American Taxpayer Bill of Rights.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman
from Texas for yielding.
You know, I would like to give some credit to my colleague from
California, the author of this particular budget. It raises taxes; it
raises taxes a whole, whole bunch.
But the lady from California, my colleague, stood up here and
admitted

[[Page H3306]]

that. She said, yeah, we're raising taxes in this budget. That's what
we're doing.
Raising taxes is a legitimate policy decision. It is something, Madam
Chair, that people can make a decision to do. And in all three
Democratic budgets, the authors have made the decision to raise taxes.
They have made the decision to raise taxes. But in this budget, the
people behind this are standing up here and are proud about it. We
admit it, we're proud of it, and that's what we're doing. They are
standing behind that policy decision to raise taxes. They are raising
taxes on almost everyone, and they are proud to do that.
I think it is not a particularly good policy decision, but it is a
legitimate one. They are raising taxes in all three of these budgets
anywhere from $3,000 per taxpayer to $7,500 per taxpayer per year. It
is a legitimate policy decision. I think it happens to be not a
particularly good one, but at least they are standing up and saying,
that's what we want to do, and that's what we're going to do, and
that's how we're going to raise the budget.
Democrats have put together these three budgets that are raising
taxes. Be proud that you are raising taxes if that's what you want to
do, because that's what you're doing. Be proud of it. Stand behind it.
Don't pretend like you're not doing it.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, I would like first to yield for a unanimous
consent request to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the
Democratic budget resolution.
The best word to describe this budget is ``balanced.''
First, it balances our Nation's books by bringing our country back to
surplus by 2012, thanks in large part to the PAYGO rules this Chamber
passed as part of our fiscal responsibility package.
This budget also balances our Nation's many priorities by providing
adequate funding for our defense and homeland security, while also
paying much-needed attention to our deserving domestic priorities and
social programs.
This budget proves that Democrats pay more than lip service to our
Nation's veterans by providing $6.6 billion over last year's funding
for veterans' services.
As a member of Energy and Commerce, I would like to thank the Budget
Committee for including a $50 billion reserve fund for the expansion of
the S-CHIP program.
Of course, we understand that our reauthorization bill will be
subject to PAYGO rules, but this reserve fund is an important first
step in increasing access to health care for the nearly 6 million
children who are eligible for S-CHIP but not enrolled.
I applaud the Budget Committee for rejecting the administration's
cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.
I also appreciate the budget's refusal to incorporate the
administration's cuts to LIHEAP, which should be further expanded to
ensure that millions of low-income folks in southern States receive the
assistance they need to cool their homes during the oppressive summer
months.
What a difference a year makes, Madam Chair, and I am proud to
support Chairman Spratt and this budget, which strikes the right
balance between investing in the American people and their future and
keeping our fiscal houses in order.
I urge my colleagues to support this budget.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Rush from
Illinois, a leader on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. RUSH. Madam Chair, I want to thank the gentlewoman from
California and the other gentlewoman from California for their stellar
and steadfast leadership on these and other matters that the American
people are facing.
Madam Chair, as a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and
both the Congressional Black Caucus and the Progressive Caucus, I am
pleased to come to the floor in support of three budget alternatives
that reflect the Democratic priorities and values.
Today, I want to highlight the value added to the Democratic budget
by the two alternatives and thank my colleagues who supported the CBC
budget alternative. The CBC and Progressive budget alternatives offer
to the American people and to this Congress rational budgets that are
fiscally sound and morally responsible.
The Congressional Black Caucus and Progressive Caucus alternative
budgets invest Federal resources in programs that benefit the
constituencies of all the Members of this House: education, health
care, economic opportunity, retirement security, and homeland security.
The CBC and Progressive alternative budgets make these investments
while reducing the Federal deficit, which has spiraled out of control
and out of sight over the last 6 years of Republican rule.
The CBC and Progressive Caucus alternatives make necessary
investments in minority health care and for community health centers
that provide critical health services to urban-based congressional
districts like mine, and rural-based congressional districts as well,
and investment in the care and treatment of victims of HIV and AIDS.
The CBC and Progressive Caucus alternatives invests in our Nation's
veterans by restoring the cuts the President's budget proposed in the
veterans health care and veterans benefits.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the
American people and in support of the CBC and Progressive Caucus
alternative budgets.
As a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and both the
Congressional Black Caucus and the Progressive Caucus, I am pleased to
come to the floor in support of three budget alternatives that reflect
the Democratic priorities and values.
For the first time in more than 13 years, the Budget Committee's
resolution fulfills many of the critical commitments that Democrats
made to the American people in the last election: that we would reduce
the Federal deficit and make investments in the key domestic programs
that are so important to our constituents, and I will be proud to
support it. Today, I want to highlight the value added to the
Democratic budget by the two alternatives.
The CBC and Progressive Caucus alternatives offer to the American
people and to this Congress rational budgets that are fiscally sound
and morally responsible. The CBC and Progressive Caucus alternative
budgets invest Federal resources in the programs that benefit the
constituencies of all of the Members of this House: education, health
care, economic opportunity, retirement security and homeland security.
The CBC and Progressive Caucus alternative budgets makes these
investments while reducing the Federal deficit--which has spiraled out
of control and out of sight over the last 6 years.
The Congressional Black Caucus and Progressive budget alternatives
focus on addressing the disparities that exist in America's communities
and invest in the future of this Nation by fully funding the No Child
Left Behind Act, expanding the Head Start programs, and funding the
SCHIP program so that every uninsured child can have access to medical
care. The CBC alternative also provides needed funds to rebuild schools
and colleges damaged by Hurricane Katrina.
The CBC and Progressive Caucus alternatives make necessary
investments in minority health and for Community Health Centers that
provide critical health services to urban-based congressional districts
like mine and rural-based congressional districts as well, and
investments in the care and treatment of the victims of HIV and AIDS.
The CBC and Progressive Caucus alternatives invest in our Nation's
veterans by restoring the cuts the President's budget proposed in
veterans' health care and benefits. To meet these critical needs of
America and its citizens, the CBC and Progressive alternatives repeal
some of the tax cuts to the two top income brackets. Even after funding
our domestic priorities, both of these alternatives achieve significant
deficit reduction.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the
American people and in support of the CBC and Progressive Caucus
alternatives.
Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Conaway).
(Mr. CONAWAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Chair, I want to speak against this Progressive
Caucus budget in the strongest terms available.
Over the last couple of weeks, I have somewhat tongue in cheek talked
about when the Defeat in Iraq Caucus and when the Defeat in Afghanistan
Caucus get their way that it won't be long before they declare a defeat
dividend.
As you recall in the 1990s when the Soviet Union failed, this Chamber
and others declared a peace dividend. They took money that would have
otherwise

[[Page H3307]]

supported our troops in the fight and spent it somewhere else.
I thought it would take until the defeat actually occurred, but I
come today and find that the Progressive Caucus has already declared a
$781 billion defeat dividend.
We have men and women in harm's way right now giving their lives for
this country. Whether you agree with it or not, that is what they are
doing. Where was this group last week when they said let's keep them in
the fight for 17 more months? Why did you stand up and say that was
okay and yet call what they are doing the single largest waste of
taxpayer money in American history? You cannot have it both ways.
Vote your convictions. Get them out of Iraq now. That is a legitimate
position to defend. But to say we are going to keep them there for 17
more months, strip them of $781 billion in flak jackets and up-armored
Humvees and all of the things you would take away from them is simply
unfair and unconscionable.
I encourage my fellow colleagues to vote against this Progressive
Caucus budget over and over. This is wrongheaded. It is not the way to
lead this country. It sends a terrible message to our soldiers in the
Armed Forces who are fighting this fight on our behalf.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, how much time do we have on both sides?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California has 2 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 8 minutes.
Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, of all of the budgets before Congress, this
one hits the taxpayers the hardest.
Over 5 years, the Progressive Caucus budget will raise taxes by
$949.3 billion. Over 10 years, the Progressive Caucus budget will raise
taxes by $2.4 trillion. Over the next 10 years, they will essentially
double the budget.
There is nothing progressive about Democrats raising taxes. That has
been their only fiscal strategy over the last 70 years. This budget
spends $643 billion over 5 years and new entitlement spending over and
above what the President has asked.
It also spends far less when it comes to military spending on our
national defense. It drastically cuts military spending by $781 billion
over 5 years. This is unconscionable.
Beyond that, it says that Iraq and Afghanistan and our global war
against Islamic extremists is the largest single waste of U.S. taxpayer
money. That is coming from their budget. Their budget assumes a dream
world where we are not fighting a global war on terror. It is the
ostrich approach, where you stick your head in the sand and hope
everything goes away. It is ridiculous, and it is not safe for the
American people.
Alternatively, the Republican budget that we propose here today takes
Social Security off-budget, stops the raid on Social Security, and
achieves balance while not raising taxes. It is a huge difference
between what Republicans are proposing and the liberal left of the
Democrat Caucus is proposing here on the House floor.
Beyond that, what the Democrats are saying with their full budget on
the floor, as well as this Progressive Caucus budget, that they are
going to punt on entitlement reform. Every known economist says we must
reform entitlements. I oppose this budget.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, who has the right to close?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas has the right to close.
Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, in that case, I am very honored at this
time to yield 4 minutes to the author of the Republican budget that
will balance the budget, preserve the Social Security surplus without
raising taxes, the ranking member on the Budget Committee, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want
to thank the gentleman from Texas for his wonderful expertise on budget
issues. He has been a leader on this issue.
I also want to compliment the Progressive Caucus for coming to the
floor with an earnest budget and for putting a budget together. These
are not easy things to do. The Progressives have put together a budget
that embodies their philosophies, their opinions, and I think that is
good.
I completely disagree with the direction of the budget, deep cuts to
defense, incredible increases in spending across the board, and a $949
billion tax increase. I think it is the wrong recipe for our economy,
but I compliment the Progressives for bringing a budget to the floor
that actually achieves balance, albeit by raising taxes.
Madam Chair, I want to give a little foreshadowing of our next
budget. You are going to hear the word ``cut'' and the words ``drastic
cuts'' and things like that. I think we are going to hear that from the
other side of the aisle because they propose to control no spending.
Those chose to cut nothing, not even controlling the growth of
spending. Rather, they choose to raise taxes.
On Medicaid, our budget will propose, yes, to increase spending,
albeit not as fast as it is going right now. This will extend the
solvency of Medicaid. We propose to increase spending even faster than
medical inflation.
What about Medicare? Again, our red line below the blue line, we
propose to increase Medicare spending and reform the program.
What will our budget achieve? It will achieve savings that will
extend the life and solvency of Medicare.
What does the Democrat budget achieve? An exacerbation of the
problem.
Here is what our budget proposes to do on all entitlements. I don't
even know if the viewer can see the difference between the blue line,
which is the current trajectory of entitlement spending, and the red
line.
We propose to increase entitlement spending each year at 4.1 percent
a year, instead of 4.7 percent a year. Is that a drastic cut? Is that a
terrible, awful cut to programs? Let me repeat it one more time. We are
increasing entitlement spending 4.1 percent a year, instead of 4.7
percent. That is above inflation.
Here is the legacy of the Democrat budget. Right now, today,
according to the Government Accountability Office, the current unfunded
liability of Medicare and Social Security is $37 trillion. That will go
to $62 trillion of money that we would have to set aside today to make
these programs work for the next two generations, my generation and my
children's generation, by 2012. By doing nothing to save Medicare,
Medicaid and Social Security, the Democratic budget is actually
increasing the liability of these programs. The Democrat budget is
making matters worse by postponing the necessary reforms that must
occur.
But there is one thing the Democrat budget does, and it was very well
described in the Washington Post this morning. Let me quote: ``While
the House Democrats say they want to preserve key parts of Bush's
signature tax cuts, they project a surplus in 2012 only by assuming
that all of these tax cuts expire on schedule in 2010.'' That means cap
gains, dividends, income tax rates, per child tax credit, marriage tax
penalty, all of those tax cuts go away.
Let me make it very clear. We use the Congressional Budget Office by
law to develop our budgets, and this red line shows you that, in 2010,
tax cuts go away, taxes increase, and revenues go up. That is the line
that the Democrats are writing their budget based on. Their budget
requires, assumes, legislates, needs these tax increases for them to
balance the budget.
The green line is the line we use to write our budget. We balance the
budget without raising taxes, and they raise taxes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, I would like to know how many more speakers
they have on the Republican side?
Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, I will close for our side as I
understand I have the right to close.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee), the co-Chair of the Progressive Caucus.
Ms. LEE. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
I want to reiterate the point that this Progressive Caucus makes, and
that is that our domestic security here in our own country is an
integral part of our national security.

[[Page H3308]]

We have added $4.8 billion to our COPS program for local law
enforcement efforts. We have provided additional funds for gang
violence prevention efforts; and, also, we have provided additional
funding for job training and after-school programs. In many of our
communities, our young African American boys and Latino young boys are
dropping out of schools in unbelievable numbers.

{time} 1215

We need a strong, robust after-school program with tutoring, and our
Progressive Caucus provides for that.
The American taxpayers are compassionate people. They want to see
their tax dollars spent to eliminate poverty, to provide health care,
for energy independence, to educate our children. The Progressive
Caucus budget does just that. It is a document that reflects the
morality of this country, the ethics of this country, and I am proud to
support it.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Madam Chairman, this budget, the Progressive Caucus budget, proves
without a doubt you can keep our Nation safe while investing needed
necessary funds for domestic programs and you can do it and balance the
budget at the same time. Our budget balances before the Democratic
budget, before the Republican budget, and the President's budget does
not ever balance, it appears.
We can do that, and at the same time we fully fund title I of No
Child Left Behind, our investment and our promise to IDEA. We make
veterans health care an entitlement.
Madam Chairman, it is time we stand up to the challenge that is
possible in a Federal budget. This alternative provides that challenge
to the Democrats and Republicans of the House of Representatives.
Please vote for this Congressional Progressive budget.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time is remaining
on our side.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. There are 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Madam Chair, all of the Democrats' budgets are breathtakingly bad and
fiscally irresponsible for what they do. They impose the single largest
tax increase in American history on hardworking American families. They
each represent the highest level of spending in the history of our
Nation at a time when we are taking $23,000 away, spending $23,000 per
family for only the first time since World War II.
But as breathtakingly bad as they are for what they do, they are even
worse for what they do not do because, Madam Chair, they are absolutely
stone cold silent on the number one fiscal issue facing this Nation,
facing the next generation, and that is, reforming entitlement
spending, which will plunge the next generation into trillions and
trillions of dollars of debt.
Don't take my word for it. Take the word of the Comptroller General,
the chief fiduciary officer of the United States of America, who has
said that we are on the verge of being the first generation to leave
the next generation with a lower standard of living. I mean, think
about that, Madam Chair, because we are spending so much of the
people's money that these programs that have been vital to people for
generations will go away. If you do not reform Medicare and Social
Security and Medicaid, they will not be here for the next generation.
Madam Chair, as the father of a 5-year-old daughter and a 3-year-old
son, I cannot sit idly by and let that happen. We must keep faith with
prior generations by keeping faith with future generations.
Let's reform entitlement spending. Let's give the next generation
more opportunity and more freedoms. Vote down this Democrat budget.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of
The Congressional Progressive Caucus Fiscal Year 2008-17 ``Peace &
Security'' Budget Alternative. The American people spoke loud and clear
last November. They wanted change, accountability, and a new course of
action. This budget is a direct answer to the demands of the American
people and steers us in a new direction. With this budget we can usher
in a new era of fiscal responsibility that this current administration
has failed to adhere to. The budget is morally sound, as it redirects
funding to domestic spending programs that benefit the American middle
class, the backbone of our great Nation. Most importantly this budget
meets our moral obligation to all of our veterans. This budget ends the
war and brings our troops home and moves this country toward an agenda
of peace and security.
The news of the horrible living conditions at Walter Reed Army
Medical Center raised our national consciousness regarding the need to
do more--much more--for wounded and injured service members and to
upgrade the administrative systems that support them. Simply put, this
budget treats the heroic young men and women who sacrifice life and
limb with the respect and dignity they deserve. This budget guarantees
full funding for health care (including mental health care) for all
veterans. The Progressive Caucus budget makes veterans' health care a
new federal entitlement. It will require the U.S. Secretary of the
Treasury to make mandatory appropriations for VA health care based upon
the following formula: the amount of funds available for VA medical
care in FY2008 would equal 130 percent of the total obligations made by
the VA for medical care programs in FY2005.
Let us send the right message to our young men and women returning
home from Iraq and Afghanistan. They deserve better, we owe it to them,
and we have a duty to answer the will of the American people.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of
the Progressive Caucus budget and I do so for a number of good reasons.
First off, all budgets are a way of assessing need and determining
priorities and when one takes a serious look at the Progressive Caucus
budget it:
(1) Projects complete U.S. military redeployment out of Iraq during
2007, saving at least $187 billion dollars over the next 2 years.
(2) You should not spend money if you do not have it, therefore the
Progressive Caucus budget repeals the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest
1 percent of taxpayers due to expire in 2010 saving at least $348
billion dollars.
(3) It fully funds NCLB and IDEA and improves teacher corp and job
training.
(4) It adequately funds Medicare and Medicaid so that more Americans
can have access to affordable quality healthcare.
(5) This budget helps to rebuild America's communities by
substantially increasing funding for community development block
grants, community policing, and clean up of underground storage tanks.
Madam Chairman, this is a budget I can take home to any constituent
and they will say, right on.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, looking beyond all the rhetoric for a
moment, we have a responsibility here as the elected stewards of the
people's treasury to deliver a budget that honors our values and keeps
our promises--and the proposal put together by my good friend from
Wisconsin, Mr. Ryan, does exactly that.
Sadly, the Democrat majority has squandered its first opportunity in
over a decade to set our fiscal priorities.
Despite the pledges of fiscal responsibility that echoed through this
chamber at the start of this Congress, it did not take long for the
heirs of tax-and-spend liberalism to return to their roots.
Just a few weeks into the new Congress, the majority took a victory
lap for passing an omnibus spending bill that contained about $500
million in hidden earmarks.
And then last week, they patted themselves on the back for loading up
an emergency troop funding bill with enough pork barrel projects to
make Donald Trump blush.
And if it was not enough to use our young men and women in combat as
oxen to carry that wagon load of pork across the President's desk, this
budget will saddle their generation with a greater tax burden to bear
and unbearable choices to make.
The Democrat budget takes the tax hammer to 115 million Americans--
from married couples and families with children to senior citizens and
small business owners.
We have got millions of Floridians filing their 2006 tax returns
right now--these are folks still in need of significant property tax
relief. And I am going to head down there soon and let them know that
they better start getting their ducks in a row because not too long
from now, the new Democrat Congress will slam them with an average tax
increase of $3,039.
The proposal put together by Mr. Ryan protects caps gains and
dividend tax relief, maintains the new, low 10-percent tax bracket,
takes any marriage penalty rollback off the table, and keeps the death
tax in the ground--where it belongs.
In addition, Mr. Ryan's proposal exerts discipline on the government
spending machine--so we can have a ba1anced budget and a smaller,
smarter, more efficient government that can deliver much-needed reforms
on the fly.

[[Page H3309]]

And look, you can support the Democrat budget and spend all the
taxpayer money you want on new programs, but if the generational crisis
of runaway entitlement spending that looms over the horizon is not
sufficiently addressed, we will not be able to have any of them--not a
one.
The Congressional Budget Office has told us that if we do not
implement significant entitlement reforms, then our shared goal of
balancing the budget in the next 5 years is nothing more than a pipe
dream.
If we wish to continue keeping the promises our government has made,
but do not act soon, then we will have a choice to make: either raise
taxes every year until they are nearly 60 percent higher than they are
today or eliminate every single government program except Medicare,
Medicaid, and Social Security by 2045.
This is a coming crisis, and appallingly, it is one born of our
indecision.
That's why I applaud Mr. Ryan for putting together a proposal that
reforms our largest and least sustainable entitlement programs,
achieving $279 billion in savings over 5 years.
That is a far cry from the budget resolution Democrats are putting
forward today, which does not make a single courageous choice--it is an
incubator of gimmicks and schemes designed to pass the buck to future
Congresses and the bucket to tomorrow's taxpayers.
There is no fiscal responsibility to be found in a budget that makes
our children foot the bill for our inability to make tough choices.
The sound fiscal blueprint laid out by Mr. Ryan shows that we can
have a budget that holds us accountable for the choices that need to be
made to ensure lasting prosperity for future generations.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my concern with
certain provisions of the Republican Budget Substitute Amendment
offered by Representative Ryan. I strongly support the tax provisions
included in the Ryan Amendment. Republican tax relief has led to
unprecedented economic growth and dropped the unemployment rate. More
importantly, tax relief gives back to Americans their own money. The
robust economic growth in this Nation over the past few years is proof
that individual Americans use and invest their dollars much more wisely
than the Federal Government does. I am pleased that the Ryan Amendment
makes the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 permanent and recognizes the
reality of our Nation's fiscal situation by addressing the out-of-
control growth of entitlement spending.
However, I want to make clear my views regarding certain budget
process reforms included in the Ryan amendment. I am strongly opposed
to giving any U.S. President the power to use a line item veto. Our
Founding Fathers wisely attempted to curtail the power of each branch
of the Federal Government by instituting a system of checks and
balances. Granting the President additional power to veto specific
portions of a bill instead of the bill as a whole cedes too much
authority to the executive branch and could lead to unfair and
unilateral power. I am very disappointed that the Ryan Amendment
includes a provision granting the President this unconstitutional
power.
While I strongly oppose the line-item veto provision and other
attempts to reduce Congress's constitutional power of the purse
included in the Ryan Amendment, it is clear to me that this proposal is
preferable to an alternative that raises taxes by an average of $2,597
for each of my constituents.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my objections
to the budget put forward by the new majority in the Congress. Their
budget proposes the largest tax increase in American history and it
presses the accelerator on government spending.
What Washington has is not a revenue problem, but a spending problem.
Revenues from taxes flowing into the U.S. Treasury have been flowing at
record levels. Even when you factor in the $1 trillion dollar tax
relief that was enacted by President Bush and a Republican Congress,
the taxes that came into the Treasury in 2006 were exactly what the
Congressional Budget Office projected they would be back in March
2000--nearly 9 months before President Bush proposed such tax relief.
Clearly, Washington's problem is not a revenue problem. Washington has
a spending problem.
Yet the Democrat budget plan fails to recognize this and instead they
choose more taxes and more spending. They fail to extend important tax
relief that has given Americans more control over their lives and
businesses. It will put the breaks on the economic expansion that has
put the United States in the enviable position of having the most
vibrant and growing economy over the last 4 years. We have led the
developed world in the creation of new jobs over the past 4 years--
creating 7.6 million new jobs for Americans.
Not only does the Democrat budget impose the largest tax increase in
our Nation's history, but it also puts spending on an upward trajectory
that will further imperil our children's future, saddling them with
even more debt. Not only does the Democrat budget fail to address the
growth of entitlement spending that is imperiling our children's
future, but also it makes the problem worse by putting off needed
changes and by increasing domestic discretionary spending at a rate
that exceeds the rate of inflation.
With regard to tax increases, Democrats had a time during the House
Budget Committee meeting to adopt amendments protecting the tax relief
that Americans are enjoying today. The Democrats voted lock step
against each and every amendment that would have protected the tax
relief that Americans are currently enjoying and that is spurring our
economy.
Don't take my word for it, just look at the Washington Post. They sum
it up in today's paper:

``Democrats say they want to preserve key parts of Bush's
signature tax cuts, they project a surplus in 2012 only by
assuming that all of the cuts expire on schedule in 2010.''
``But the [Democrat budget] proposal, set for a vote today,
requires either that millions of middle-class families be hit
with higher taxes next spring or that somebody else pay an
extra $50 billion. . . . That stark choice is the result of
the inexorable expansion of the alternative minimum tax, a
parallel tax structure that adds $6,800, on average, to a
family's tax bill. Next month, an estimated 4.2 million
Americans will pay the tax. Next spring, that number will
balloon to 23 million unless Congress takes action.

Sadly, the Democrat's budget has no plan for addressing the
Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Someone will face a $50 billion tax
increase under the Democrats budget--we will have to see who is next on
their hit list as they have already taken aim to repeal most all of the
tax relief provided to Americans since 2001. Just what tax increases
are already in store for Americans?
The Florida sales tax deduction is repealed in this budget.
Floridians will be hit harder than most Americans by the Democrats tax
plan, as Floridians will no longer be afforded the opportunity to
deduct sales taxes. While resident's of states that have a state income
tax can deduct those costs from their taxes, Floridians have no such
deduction, so I was pleased when we were finally able to give
Floridians equal treatment by allowing a sales tax deduction--about
$650 dollars for a family of 5 earning $40,000 per year. The Democrat
bill repeals this tax deduction.
Taxes on dividends will increase. This will hit senior citizens the
hardest as they often rely on safe and secure investments to supplement
their Social Security benefits in their golden years.
The child tax credit is cut in half falling from $1,000 per child to
$500 per child as if the cost of raising and caring for children is
going down.
Democrats resurrect the marriage tax penalty forcing married couples
to pay more in taxes that those living together out of wedlock.
The death tax will be resurrected making it difficult for mom and pop
businesses to be handed down to their children.
Marginal tax rates will increase for all Americans. The lowest wage
income tax payers will see their tax bill increase by 50 percent,
paying a 15 percent tax rate rather than a 10 percent tax rate.
Capital gains tax rates will be raised significantly. For any student
of the recent economic growth in our Nation knows that the capital
gains tax cuts have been a significant driver of economic growth in the
U.S. over the past 4 years. And, the stimulative effect that the cut in
capitals gains has had on our economy has actually resulted in more
revenue flowing into the U.S. Treasury than would have flowed with out
the cut in capital gains taxes. Raising these taxes, as the Democrats
are doing will put the breaks on our economy and slow economic growth.
If there is any doubt about where the heart of the Democrat party in
Congress lies on taxes and spending, only consider the votes that we
just held. Over half of the Democrats in the House of Representatives
just voted for the substitute budget offered by Representative
Kilpatrick. That budget proposal raised taxes by more than $919
billion--more than 2 times the amount in the underlying Democrat
budget. This is not really surprising given that the underlying
Democrat budget is still $200 billion below the amount of increased
taxes they will need to carry out their spending plans in their budget.
So, Americans should be prepared, this proposed $400 billion budget
that the Democrats are poised to approve today is just the opening
shot. More tax hikes are in store.
I would like to briefly address the spending side of the Democrat
budget. Their budget favors higher spending. They put both entitlement
spending and spending through annual appropriations bills (known as
discretionary spending) on a path to receive automatic increases each
and every year.

[[Page H3310]]

Earlier this year, the Medicare Board of Trustees issued their report
on the financial status of Medicare. They stated that Medicare will go
bankrupt in a couple of years. Yet, rather that seeking to address this
issue, the Democrats simply ignore the realities and pretend that this
problem does not exist. It is irresponsible for the Democrats to simply
stick their head in the sand and pretend that Medicare will not run out
of money, but that is the path they have chosen--their budget does
nothing to address this looming bankruptcy. I believe our seniors
deserve better. If we simply allowed entitlement programs to grow at
4.1 percent a year rather than the 4.7 percent a year proposed in the
Democrats budget, we could save Medicare and Social Security for future
generations.
Their PAYGO rules continue not only to favor automatic increases in
spending and higher taxes, but they also allow them to spend now and
pay for the spending later. By spending now, they also increase the
baseline budget so that it is easier to continue increased spending in
future years.
The Democrat budget also eliminates the domestic emergency reserve
fund contained in the current law, and provides no criteria for
domestic emergency spending--which is exempt from budget disciplines.
Absent a reserve fund, Democrats are destined to repeat in 2008, what
they just did this month--designate another $28 billion in ``emergency
spending'' bypassing all of the budgetary discipline rules. If there is
any doubt about the Democrats' lack of budgetary discipline the fact
that the majority of their caucus just voted for substitute budgets
that increase taxes by between $950 and $717 billion. That is more than
twice the tax increase in their base bill. And on the spending side,
these alternative budgets would have increased spending by hundreds of
billions of dollars more.
Another unrealistic assumption in the Democrat budget plan is their
assumption that they will receive over $392.5 billion in new tax
revenue that they will be able to use for spending and reducing the
deficit by closing the mystical tax gap. Yet The Commissioner of the
Internal Revenue Service has testified the IRS could collect, at best,
about $20 billion of these taxes 5 years after implementing specific
policies recommended in the President's budget.
The Democrats remove the firewall between defense and non-defense
spending enabling them to cut the defense spending further and spend
the money on other programs.
If there was ever any doubt about that Congressional Democrats are
the party of ``Tax and Spend'' those doubts are put to bed today, as
they have come out in spades for both.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for Mr.
Ryan's budget alternative. While I maintain that we could have done a
better job balancing the budget in a shorter timeframe, it is a good
first step in tackling runaway entitlement spending.
This debate is more that just a debate about numbers. It is a debate
about who we are as Americans, what we believe and hold sacred, and
what we want the future to hold for our children. It is also about how
Congress spends hard working taxpayer's dollars.
Democrats and Republicans differ philosophically on these issues.
John Locke, who inspired our Founding Fathers, wrote that one of the
ends of political society is the preservation of one's property.
The Democrat budget violates this principle by redistributing your
hard earned tax dollars to their favorite projects. They spend at a
deficit rate, running up your national credit card, and the taxpayers
end up getting the bill.
The big spending Pelosi budget maintains that more government is
better government. In fact, if the Pelosi budget were a McDonald's
combo meal, the Democrats would be saying--Super size me! And they are
sticking you with the bill for their lunch. To protect taxpayers we
need self-control and moderation. The Pelosi budget does nothing to
curb the appetite for bigger government or trim Federal spending. True
courage is taking a tough stand and choosing to cut spending.
I believe in limited government, not a government without limits on
runaway spending and high taxes. I believe increased taxation chips
away at our freedom to spend or save our own money.
As a small businessman who built his business from the ground up, I
know that it is individuals who put their hard work and innovation to
the test--not government.
I believe that the best way to balance the budget is to control
spending--not to raise taxes. This Pelosi budget marks the largest tax
increase in American history--raising taxes on the hard working
American taxpayer by $400 billion. Each of my constituents in Iowa will
have to pay an additional $2,777.00 annually in taxes.
One in five Americans has little to no personal property or savings.
Additional taxation hurts American families who are trying to save for
their retirement and children's education, to purchase a home, or to
purchase a car. The Pelosi budget eliminates the 10 percent bracket
that helps millions of low-income workers. Raising taxes on capital
gains and dividends discourages investment and savings. Families will
suffer from the Pelosi budget slashing the child tax credit in half and
reinstating the marriage penalty.
We are told that when we die that ``you can't take it with you.''
This is true, but we all hope that we can pass on our nest eggs to our
children without penalty. The Pelosi budget allows the elimination of
the death tax in 2010 to expire.
We must keep American business competitive in the face of economic
pressure from countries like China and India. Democrats, especially the
gentlelady from Northwestern Ohio, like to keep a corporate casualty
list of jobs lost, in the United States. They mention Hershey, Hoover,
Stanley, Champion, Ford, Chrysler, Huffy, Zebco, Levis and Maytag, as
companies who have shipped thousands of U.S. jobs to other countries.
Some of these companies could no longer compete globally and were
eventually bought out or shut down.
The Pelosi budget will accelerate this process and will burden
American businesses, which employ and create new jobs for American
workers. It will usher in the largest tax hike in history. It will
raise taxes on our small businesses and the manufacturers making it
that much harder for them to compete in the world economy. Our
businesses already pay the second highest tax rates in the entire
world.
Mr. Chairman, I implore my colleagues to stop this runaway spending,
financed by a massive tax hike on American taxpayers. Let us turn
around the ship and head for dry land. This Pelosi budget is a sinking
ship, full of spending loopholes and budget gimmicks. I have no problem
with Captain Pelosi going down with the ship--just do not take America
down in the process.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on the amendment has
expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the
last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman is
recognized.
There was no objection.
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Chairman, today this new Congress will put
America's fiscal house in order. It will do so by presenting and voting
on the Democratic budget as designed by Mr. Spratt, the chairman of the
Budget Committee, and the House Democrats. I wish that it were coming
to the floor with bipartisan support in the Congress. I know it has
bipartisan support in the country.
I commend Mr. Spratt for his exceptional leadership in bringing to
the floor a budget for the future, a budget that will initiate an era
of accountability in government spending and in government
accountability on our priorities. It is a budget that will come to
balance in both the spending and also in terms of its priorities.
This putting our house in order is necessary because for the last 6
years the Bush administration and the Republicans in Congress have
increased spending while giving tax cuts to the wealthiest few in our
country, leaving our country awash in red ink, mortgaging our
children's future. It is just not right.
When President Bush took office, he inherited a budget situation
because of the PAYGO principles adopted by the Clinton administration
with the Democrats in the Congress. Because of those principles, the
last four Clinton budgets were budgets in surplus. Because of those
PAYGO principles, coming out of the Clinton years, we were on a
trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus, $5.6 trillion in surplus on our
way to ridding ourselves of the national debt.
Because of the irresponsible budgeting of the Republicans in Congress
and in the White House, we are now on a trajectory of $3 trillion in
deficit, a swing of approximately $9 trillion. This is historic, and,
again, it is wrong. It is wrong for our children. It mortgages their
future. It is wrong for our economy.
The fiscal unaccountability will be corrected today with the passage
of this budget, and I commend Chairman

[[Page H3311]]

Spratt and the Democrats on the committee for taking us to this place.
Just imagine, we were on our way to ridding ourselves of the national
debt. We are now on our way to increasing it.
The budget put forth by the chairman is one that honors our
responsibilities to the American people. A budget should be a statement
of our national values. Our Federal budget should reflect what is
important to us as a Nation. That is how we should allocate our
resources. We should do it in an ethical way and a fiscally sound way
and the most honest and open way. And we must do it always with an eye
to the future, and that is what this budget does.
It honors our responsibility first and foremost to protect the
American people, and that is why it has the endorsement of almost every
veterans group, and they are actively supporting this legislation and
advocating a ``yes'' vote.
It honors our commitment to grow our economy, to create good paying
jobs for the future by investing in innovation, and that is why it has
the support of the Council of Competitiveness and almost any entity
that is geared to the future, to innovation and to make keeping America
number one.
It honors our commitment to our children, how they are cared for,
with their health care, with their education and the economic strengths
of their families. That is why it has the support of so many
organizations, religious organizations, who see a budget as a moral
document.
It honors our commitment to preserve our planet for the future, and
that is why it has the support right to left, Democratic and
Republican, nonpartisan, nonconflict, any entity that you can name
involved in preserving our planet, in energy independence and
respecting God's creation, which nature is, honoring our commitment to
nature and to the future, preserving the planet. This budget does that.
Again, it does it all in a fiscally sound way. No new deficit
spending; pay-as-you-go.
Think about what was inherited by this Congress. Think about what was
inherited by this Congress 6 years ago and the President, $5.6 trillion
in surplus, now we are $3 trillion in a trajectory of deficit. It is
just not right. We can reverse it today.
Again, the support outside this Congress indicates that the American
people are so far ahead of the Congress of the United States when they
think about our values and how our budget should reflect those values,
about accountability and how responsible we should be for the
taxpayers' dollars and about the future.
So I urge my colleagues to support the Spratt House Democratic
budget. To vote ``aye'' on that is a vote for the future. It is a vote
for a new era of accountability. It is a vote for a moral statement, a
statement of our national values. I thank Mr. Spratt for his
leadership.

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 2 Offered by Ms. Woolsey

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the
unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) on which
further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by
voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 81,
noes 340, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 16, as follows:

[Roll No. 210]

AYES--81

Abercrombie
Baldwin
Becerra
Blumenauer
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carson
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cummings
Davis (IL)
Delahunt
Doyle
Ellison
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kilpatrick
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lynch
Markey
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Miller, George
Moore (WI)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Olver
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Price (NC)
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schakowsky
Serrano
Slaughter
Solis
Stark
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Velazquez
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wynn

NOES--340

Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Gene
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Kagen
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Obey
Ortiz
Pascrell
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Kucinich

NOT VOTING--16

Boyda (KS)
Cardoza
Davis, Jo Ann
Faleomavaega
Hooley
Hunter
Kanjorski
Lampson
Lewis (CA)
Millender-McDonald
Moran (VA)
Oberstar
Pomeroy
Rangel
Smith (TX)
Watt

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are
2 minutes remaining in this vote.

[[Page H3312]]

{time} 1249

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Mr. BOOZMAN and Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. POMEROY. Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 210, I was unavoidably
detained on an important constituent matter and arrived at the House
floor after the time for voting had expired. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 210, I missed
this vote because I was meeting with constituents from Kansas. I
arrived moments after the vote was closed. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``no.''
Ms. HOOLEY. Madam Chairman, on rollcall 210, on House Concurrent
Resolution 99, on the budget for the fiscal year 2008, had I been
present I would have voted ``no.''

=========================== NOTE ===========================

March 29, 2007--On Page H3312 the following appeared: Ms.
HOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, on

The online version should be corrected to read: Ms. HOOLEY.
Madam Chairman, on

========================= END NOTE =========================

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 3 Offered by Mr. Ryan of
Wisconsin

The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Thompson of California). It is now in order
to consider amendment No. 3 printed in House Report 110-79, which is
debatable for 40 minutes.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 3 offered by
Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2008.

(a) Declaration.--The Congress declares that the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008 is hereby
established and that the appropriate budgetary levels for
fiscal years 2009 through 2012 are set forth.
(b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts.
Sec. 102. Major functional categories.

TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

Sec. 201. Reconciliation in the House of Representatives.

TITLE III--POLICY STATEMENTS

Sec. 301. Policy of the United States Congress on taxation.
Sec. 302. Policy of the United States Congress on entitlement spending.

TITLE IV--GENERAL BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 401. Restrictions on advance appropriations.
Sec. 402. Contingency operations related to the global war on terrorism
and for unanticipated defense needs.
Sec. 403. Application and effect of changes in allocations and
aggregates.
Sec. 404. Adjustments to reflect changes in concepts and definitions.
Sec. 405. Compliance with section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act
of 1990.
Sec. 406. Exercise of rulemaking powers.
Sec. 407. Adjustments for tax legislation.
Sec. 408. Repeal of the Gephardt rule.
Sec. 409. Budget compliance statements.
Sec. 410. Cost estimates for conference reports and unreported
measures.
Sec. 411. Roll call votes for new spending.
Sec. 412. Budget process reform.
Sec. 413. Treasury Department study and report.
Sec. 414. Assistance by Federal agencies to standing committees of the
Senate and the House of Representatives.
Sec. 415. Budgetary treatment of the National Flood Insurance Program.

TITLE V--EMERGENCY RESERVE FUND

Sec. 501. Nondefense reserve fund for emergencies.
Sec. 502. Emergency criteria.
Sec. 503. Development of guidelines for application of emergency
definition.
Sec. 504. Committee notification of emergency legislation.
Sec. 505. Up-to-date tabulations.

TITLE VI--LEGISLATIVE LINE ITEM VETO AUTHORITY

Sec. 601. Presidential recommendations.
Sec. 602. Procedures in United States Congress.
Sec. 603. Identification of targeted tax benefits.
Sec. 604. Additional matters.
Sec. 605. Expiration.
Sec. 606. Sense of Congress on deferral authority.
Sec. 607. Sense of Congress on abuse of proposed cancellations.

TITLE VII--EARMARK TRANSPARENCY

Sec. 701. Prohibition on obligation of funds for earmarks included only
in congressional reports.
Sec. 702. Definitions.

TITLE VIII--PAY-AS-YOU-GO.

Sec. 801. Pay-as-you-go point of order.

TITLE IX--DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

Sec. 901. Discretionary spending limits in the House.

TITLE X--SENSES OF CONGRESS

Sec. 1001. Sense of the House regarding the importance of child support
enforcement.
Sec. 1002. Sense of the House on State veterans cemetaries.
Sec. 1003. Sense of Congress on health insurance reform.
Sec. 1004. Sense of the House on the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of
fiscal years 2008 through 2012:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $2,002,088,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,097,634,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,148,718,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,244,002,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,374,337,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be decreased are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $48,912,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $9,366,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $15,282,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $150,998,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $222,663,000,000.
(2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new
budget authority are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $2,452,253,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,432,323,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,464,843,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,575,993,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,613,919,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $2,427,922,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,484,251,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,468,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,529,608,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,530,737,000,000.
(4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget)
are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $425,834,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $386,617,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $319,682,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $285,609,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $156,400,000,000.
(5) Debt subject to limit.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate
levels of the public debt are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $9,476,349,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $9,979,952,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $10,418,522,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $10,820,002,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $11,105,786,000,000.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $5,284,759,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $5,467,610,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $5,570,986,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $5,624,371,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $5,537,610,000,000.

SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years
2008 through 2012 for each major functional category are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $648,770,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $617,792,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $584,705,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $626,892,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $550,790,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $561,384,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $564,117,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $536,057,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $579,375,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $525,407,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $31,989,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,637,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $32,387,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,263,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $32,199,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,873,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $32,268,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,679,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $32,336,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,774,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $27,461,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,413,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $25,083,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,674,000,000.

[[Page H3313]]

Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $25,083,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,531,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $25,083,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,915,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $25,083,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,894,000,000.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $1,513,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $488,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $2,751,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,258,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $2,754,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,340,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $2,748,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,294,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $2,726,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,499,000,000.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $30,564,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $30,425,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,411,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $29,958,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,754,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $29,365,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,129,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $29,250,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,890,000,000.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $20,330,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,401,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $20,183,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,412,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $19,988,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,120,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $19,502,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,876,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $19,099,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,645,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $8,127,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,237,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $8,020,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-413,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $7,731,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-638,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $7,486,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-1,105,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $7,384,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-845,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $79,363,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $79,252,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $73,326,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $80,458,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $73,419,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $80,553,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $73,445,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $79,371,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $73,441,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $79,041,000,000.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $13,376,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,123,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $11,020,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,179,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $10,930,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,106,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $10,968,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,695,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $11,052,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,306,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $84,465,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $84,263,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $87,802,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $86,146,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $88,652,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $86,697,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $87,541,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $86,709,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $87,560,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $85,480,000,000.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $276,635,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $277,551,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $289,549,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $289,960,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $301,940,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $302,472,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $316,550,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $317,366,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $332,483,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $334,000,000,000.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $379,676,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $379,821,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $398,904,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $398,592,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $414,261,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $414,518,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $450,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $450,147,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $436,189,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $435,845,000,000.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $376,258,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $381,323,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $383,853,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $383,617,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $392,348,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $391,046,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $406,091,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $403,954,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $405,114,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $402,614,000,000.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $19,644,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,644,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $21,518,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,518,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $23,701,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,701,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $27,009,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,009,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $29,898,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,898,000,000.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $84,493,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $84,512,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $89,019,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $89,033,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $92,397,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $90.798,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $98,286,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $96,779,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $96,528,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $94,838,000,000.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $45,765,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,432,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $45,471,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,631,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $45,742,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,466,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $45,995,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,323,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $46,198,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,166,000,000.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $17,873,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,353,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $17,844,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,013,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $20,270,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,262,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $17,801,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,649,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $18,264,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,230,000,000.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $370,521,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $370,421,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $388,836,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $387,436,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $410,258,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $405,258,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $431,411,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $421,411,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $450,561,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $434,561,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $6,439,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,544,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $-11,795,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-6,242,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $-5,709,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-6,972,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $-150,000,000.

[[Page H3314]]

(B) Outlays, $-3,007,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $4,167,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,286,000,000.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $-71,009,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-71,009,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $-66,578,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-66,587,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $-71,869,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-71,869,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $-69,623,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-69,643,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $-72,789,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-72,792,000,000.

TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

(a) Submission To Provide for the Reform of Mandatory
Spending.--(1) Not later than June 8, 2007, the House
committees named in paragraph (2) shall submit their
recommendations to the House Committee on the Budget. After
receiving those recommendations, the House Committee on the
Budget shall report to the House a reconciliation bill
carrying out all such recommendations without substantive
revision.
(2) Instructions.--
(A) Committee on agriculture.--The House Committee on
Agriculture shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending by
$452,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, $3,277,000,000 for fiscal
year 2012, and $9,849,000,000 for the period of fiscal years
2008 through 2012.
(B) Committee on armed services.--The House Committee on
Armed Services shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending by
$50,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, $100,000,000 for fiscal
year 2012, and $410,000,000 for the period of fiscal years
2008 through 2012.
(C) Committee on education and labor.--The House Committee
on Education and Labor shall report changes in laws within
its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending by
$3,456,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, $400,000,000 for fiscal
year 2012, and $4,906,000,000 for the period of fiscal years
2008 through 2012.
(D) Committee on energy and commerce.--The House Committee
on Energy and Commerce shall report changes in laws within
its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending by
$8,344,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, $30,602,000,000 for
fiscal year 2012, and $97,359,000,000 for the period of
fiscal years 2008 through 2012.
(E) Committee on financial services.--The House Committee
on Financial Services shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending by
$00,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, $140,000,000 for fiscal
year 2012, and $400,000,000 for the period of fiscal years
2008 through 2012.
(F) Committee on foreign relations.--The House Committee
on Foreign Relations shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending by
$20,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, $90,000,000 for fiscal year
2012, and $250,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2008
through 2012.
(G) Committee on the judiciary.--The House Committee on
the Judiciary shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending by
$265,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, $1,010,000,000 for fiscal
year 2012, and $3,515,000,000 for the period of fiscal years
2008 through 2012.
(H) Committee on natural resources.--The House Committee
on Natural Resources shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending by
$1,507,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, $535,000,000 for fiscal
year 2012, and $4,647,000,000 for the period of fiscal years
2008 through 2012.
(I) Committee on transportation and infrastructure.--The
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure shall
report changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to
reduce direct spending by $460,000,000 for fiscal year 2008,
$1,063,000,000 for fiscal year 2012, and $4,272,000,000 for
the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2012.
(J) Committee on ways and means.--The House Committee on
Ways and Means shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending by
$10,109,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, $41,543,000,000 for
fiscal year 2012, and $153,122,000,000 for the period of
fiscal years 2008 through 2012, sufficient to reduce revenues
by not more than $48,912,000,000 for fiscal year 2008 and by
not more than $447,221,000,000 for the period of fiscal years
2008 through 2012.
(b) Submission of Revised Allocations.--(1) Upon the
submission to the Committee on the Budget of the House of a
recommendation that has complied with its reconciliation
instructions solely by virtue of section 310(c) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the chairman of that
committee may file with the House appropriately revised
allocations under section 302(a) of such Act and revised
functional levels and aggregates.
(2) Upon the submission to the House of a conference
report recommending a reconciliation bill or resolution in
which a committee has complied with its reconciliation
instructions solely by virtue of this section, the chairman
of the Committee on the Budget of the House may file with the
House appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a)
of such Act and revised functional levels and aggregates.
(3) Allocations and aggregates revised pursuant to this
subsection shall be considered to be allocations and
aggregates established by the concurrent resolution on the
budget pursuant to section 301 of such Act.

TITLE III--POLICY STATEMENTS

SEC. 301. POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS ON TAXATION.

The United States Congress reaffirms the statement of
principle that the Federal Government should not raise taxes
on American families or reverse the policies that have led to
strong growth in the United States economy, and instead
should move towards balancing the budget by reigning in the
Federal Government's spending; it is further the policy
assumption underlying this resolution that the tax relief
enacted in 2001 and 2003 should be continued.

SEC. 302. POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS ON ENTITLEMENT
SPENDING.

(a) Findings.--
(1) Entitlement growth is unsustainable. Entitlements are
currently growing at 6 percent per yearsignificantly faster
than our entire economy, and more than twice the rate of
inflation.
(2) Entitlements currently consume more than half of the
entire Federal budget. If simply left on ``auto-pilot''
(assuming no new entitlement spending or benefits):
(A) By 2015 in less than a decade
(B) By 2040 social security, medicare, and medicaid alone
will consume 20 percent of our economy
(C) By 2040 Americans will have to pay twice the current
rate of taxes
(3) Entitlements must be reformed to survive with the
retirement of the baby boomers, the situation will only get
worse, making the necessary reforms more sudden and severe.
(4) Entitlements aren't all that's at risk. If left
unreformed, these programs will also impose a crushing burden
on both the budget and the economy. Our now strong economy,
which has created millions of jobs and been the key factor in
reducing the deficit. Entitlements will eventually crowd out
all other priorities such as education, veterans, science,
agriculture, environment, even defense and homeland security.
(5) The rising costs of government entitlements are a
``fiscal cancer'' that threaten ``catastrophic consequences
for our country'' and could ``bankrupt America'' said
America's chief accountant, U.S. Comptroller General David
Walker.
(6) Without ``early and meaningful action'' to address the
rapid growth of entitlements, ``the U.S. economy could be
seriously weakened, with future generations bearing much of
the cost'' warned Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke.
(7) Spending is the problem. Massive Tax Hikes are Not the
Solution. Even if taxes are raised to balance the budget in
the short term, entitlements would quickly drive the Federal
Government back into deficit.
(8) The U.S. Comptroller General testified that the United
States Government ``cannot grow [its] way out of this
problem; eliminating earmarks will not solve the problem;
wiping out fraud, waste, and abuse will not solve the
problem; ending the war or cutting way back on defense will
not solve the problem''.
(9) The budget must drive entitlement reform. Entitlement
programs are well-intended, and provide a critical safety net
for millions of Americans, but their costs are out of
control, and growing worse every yeartypically without
regular reform or congressional oversight. Congress must use
the budget process to promote reforms that will make these
programs better, more efficient, and more sustainable for the
long term.
(b) Policy on Entitlements.--It is the policy of this
resolution that Congress must immediately address the out-of-
control growth of entitlement spending that may do
substantial harm to the United States economy and hurt the
standard of living of future generations. Furthermore,
Congress must also commit itself to consider during this
fiscal year fundamental reform packages to secure the long-
term solvency of medicare, medicaid and social security.

SEC. 303. BONNEVILLE POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATION.

It is the policy of this resolution that it does not
specifically assume any savings from the President's proposal
related to the Bonneville Power Marketing Administrations and
the Energy and Commerce Committee will determine its own
policies subject to the applicable numerical allocation
limits and reconciliation directives.

TITLE IV--GENERAL BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 401. RESTRICTIONS ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) In General.--(1) In the House, except as provided in
subsection (b), an advance appropriation may not be reported
in a bill or joint resolution making a general appropriation
or continuing appropriation, and may not be in order as an
amendment thereto.
(2) Managers on the part of the House may not agree to a
Senate amendment that would violate paragraph (1) unless
specific authority to agree to the amendment first is given
by the House by a separate vote with respect thereto.
(b) Advance Appropriation.--In the House, an advance
appropriation may be provided for the fiscal years 2009 and
2010 for

[[Page H3315]]

programs, projects, activities, or accounts identified in the
joint explanatory statement of managers accompanying this
resolution under the heading ``Accounts Identified for
Advance Appropriations'' in an aggregate amount not to exceed
$23,565,000,000 in new budget authority in each year.
(c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance
appropriation'' means any new budget authority provided in a
bill or joint resolution making general appropriations or any
new budget authority provided in a bill or joint resolution
making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2008 that
first becomes available for any fiscal year after 2008.

SEC. 402. CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS RELATED TO THE GLOBAL WAR ON
TERRORISM AND FOR UNANTICIPATED DEFENSE NEEDS.

(a) Exemption of Contingency Operations Related to the
Global War on Terrorism and for Unanticipated Defense
Needs.--In the House, if any bill or joint resolution is
reported, or an amendment is offered thereto or a conference
report is filed thereon, that makes appropriations for fiscal
year 2008 for contingency operations directly related to the
global war on terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-
related operations, then the new budget authority, new
entitlement authority, outlays, or receipts resulting
therefrom shall not count for purposes of titles III or IV of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(b) Current Level.--Amounts included in this resolution for
the purpose set forth in this section shall be considered to
be current law for purposes of the preparation of the current
level of budget authority and outlays and the appropriate
levels shall be adjusted upon the enactment of such bill.

SEC. 403. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS
AND AGGREGATES.

(a) Application.--Any adjustments of allocations and
aggregates made pursuant to this resolution shall
(1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
(2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
(3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as
practicable.
(b) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised
allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments
shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates contained in
this resolution.
(c) Budget Committee Determinations.--For purposes of this
resolution_
(1) the levels of new budget authority, outlays, direct
spending, new entitlement authority, revenues, deficits, and
surpluses for a fiscal year or period of fiscal years shall
be determined on the basis of estimates made by the
appropriate Committee on the Budget; and
(2) such chairman may make any other necessary adjustments
to such levels to reflect the timing of responses to
reconciliation directives pursuant to section 201 of this
resolution.

SEC. 404. ADJUSTMENTS TO REFLECT CHANGES IN CONCEPTS AND
DEFINITIONS.

Upon the enactment of a bill or joint resolution providing
for a change in concepts or definitions, the appropriate
chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall make
adjustments to the levels and allocations in this resolution
in accordance with section 251(b) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (as in effect prior to
September 30, 2002).

SEC. 405. COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 13301 OF THE BUDGET
ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1990.

SEC. 406. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

Congress adopts the provisions of this title--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate
and the House, respectively, and as such they shall be
considered as part of the rules of each House, or of that
House to which they specifically apply, and such rules shall
supersede other rules only to the extent that they are
inconsistent therewith; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
either House to change those rules (so far as they relate to
that House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same
extent as in the case of any other rule of that House.

SEC. 407. ADJUSTMENTS FOR TAX LEGISLATION.

In the House, if the Committee on Ways and Means reports a
bill or joint resolution, or an amendment is offered thereto
or a conference report is submitted thereon, that amends the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by extending the expiration
dates for Federal tax policies that expired during fiscal
year 2008 or that expire during the period of fiscal years
2008 through 2012, then the chairman of the Committee on the
Budget may make appropriate adjustments in the allocations
and aggregates of budget authority, outlays, and revenue set
forth in this resolution to reflect the budgetary effects of
such legislation, but only to the extent the adjustments
would not cause the level of revenue to be less than the
level of revenue provided for in this resolution for the
period of fiscal years 2008 through 2012 and would not cause
the deficit to exceed the appropriate level of deficits
provided for in this resolution for the period of fiscal
years 2008 through 2012.

SEC. 408. REPEAL OF THE GEPHARDT RULE.

With respect to the adoption by the Congress of a
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008, the
clerk of the House shall not prepare an engrossment of a
joint resolution increasing or decreasing, as the case may
be, the statutory limit on the public debt.

SEC. 409. BUDGET COMPLIANCE STATEMENTS.

Each report of a committee on a public bill or public joint
resolution shall contain a budget compliance statement
prepared by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, if
timely submitted prior to the filing of the report, which
shall include assessment by such chairman as to whether the
bill or joint resolution complies with the requirements of
sections 302, 303, 306, 311, and 401 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.

SEC. 410. COST ESTIMATES FOR CONFERENCE REPORTS AND
UNREPORTED MEASURES.

It shall not be in order to consider a conference report or
an unreported bill or joint resolution unless an estimate of
costs as described in clause 3(d)(2) of Rule XIII has been
printed in the Congressional Record at least one day before
its consideration.

SEC. 411. ROLL CALL VOTES FOR NEW SPENDING.

The yeas and nays shall be considered as ordered when the
Speaker puts the question on passage of a bill or joint
resolution, or on adoption of a conference report, for which
the chairman of the Budget Committee has advised the Speaker
that such bill, joint resolution or conference report
authorizes or provides new budget authority of not less than
$50,000,000. The Speaker may not entertain a unanimous
consent request or motion to suspend this section.

SEC. 412. BUDGET PROCESS REFORM.

Before September 30, 2007, the chairman or ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Budget of the House of
Representatives shall introduce, and the committee shall
conduct hearings on, budget reform legislation that includes
the following provisions:
(1) Statutory discretionary spending limits.
(2) Provisions to slow the growth of entitlement spending
by requiring offsets for new benefits, and examining programs
with annual increases higher than the rate of inflation.
(3) Presidential legislative line item veto authority that
preserves Congress' constitutional power of the purse by
requiring an expedited up or down vote on the President's
proposals.
(4) Enforcement tools that restrict the definition of
``emergency'' so that emergency supplemental appropriation
bills include only needs that are sudden, urgent, unforeseen,
unpredictable, unanticipated, and temporary in nature.
(5) Accrual accounting of the Government's long-term
obligations.
(6) Periodic reporting from the Government Accountability
Office that examine the causes of long-term deficits and
present options to reduce these deficits.
(7) Annual audit summaries from the Federal Accounting
Standards Advisory Board for all departments of the
Government that represent more than 20 percent of
discretionary spending, with recommendations on how to
improve the quality of financial information available to
Congress.

SEC. 413. TREASURY DEPARTMENT STUDY AND REPORT.

(a) Request.--Not later than June 1, 2007, the chairman or
ranking member of the Committee on the Budget of the House of
Representatives shall submit a request to the Secretary of
the Treasury for a study of the impact of the current United
States tort system on global competition and gross domestic
product (GDP) growth.
(b) Submission of Study.--The results of the study
described in subsection (a) shall be submitted by the
Secretary of the Treasury to the Committee on the Budget of
the House of Representatives not later than September 30,
2007.

SEC. 414. ASSISTANCE BY FEDERAL AGENCIES TO STANDING
COMMITTEES OF THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.

(a) Information Regarding Agency Appropriations Requests.--
To assist each standing committee of the House of
Representatives and the Senate in carrying out its
responsibilities, the chairman of each authorizing committee
of the House and Senate shall request the head of each
Federal agency which administers the laws or parts of laws
under the jurisdiction of such committee, to provide to such
committee such studies, information, analyses, reports, and
assistance.
(b) Information Regarding Agency Program Administration.--
To assist each standing committee of the House of
Representatives and the Senate in carrying out its
responsibilities, the chairman of each authorizing committee
of the House and Senate shall request of the head of any
agency under

[[Page H3316]]

his committee's jurisdiction, to furnish to such committee
documentation, containing information received, compiled, or
maintained by the agency as part of the operation or
administration of a program, or specifically compiled
pursuant to a request in support of a review of a program, as
may be requested by the chairman and ranking minority member
of such committee.
(c) Summaries by Comptroller General.--Within thirty days
after the receipt of a request from a chairman and ranking
minority member of a standing committee having jurisdiction
over a program being reviewed and studied by such committee
under this section, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall furnish to such committee summaries of any
audits or reviews of such program which the Comptroller
General has completed during the preceding six years.
(d) Congressional Assistance.--Consistent with their duties
and functions under law, the Comptroller General of the
United States, the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office, and the Director of the Congressional Research
Service shall continue to furnish (consistent with
established protocols) to each standing committee of the
House of Representatives or the Senate such information,
studies, analyses, and reports as the chairman and ranking
minority member may request to assist the committee in
conducting reviews and studies of programs under this
section.

SEC. 415. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE
PROGRAM.

(a) Treatment.--For purposes of the allocations and
aggregates in this resolution, the reconciliation directives
established by this resolution, and for any other purpose
under titles III and IV of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, the budgetary effects of any bill or joint resolution,
amendment thereto, or conference report thereon, or any
recommendations submitted pursuant to section 201 that
includes the reforms set forth in subsection (b) shall be
scored without regard to the obligations resulting from the
enactment of Public Law 109-208. Such estimate shall assume
the liquidating of the National Flood Insurance Fund's
remaining contractual obligations resulting from claims made
as a result of floods that occurred in 2005.
(b) Legislation.--The legislation referred to in subsection
(a) shall--
(1) establish more actuarially sound rates on policies
issued by the National Flood Insurance Program; and
(2) end flood insurance subsidies on pre-FIRM structures
not used as primary residences.

TITLE V--EMERGENCY RESERVE FUND

SEC. 501. NONDEFENSE RESERVE FUND FOR EMERGENCIES.

(a) Nondefense Set Aside.--
(1) Discretionary set aside fund.--In the House and except
as provided by subsection (b), if a bill or joint resolution
is reported, or an amendment is offered thereto (or
considered as adopted) or a conference report is filed
thereon, that provides new discretionary budget authority
(and outlays flowing therefrom), and such provision is
designated as an emergency pursuant to this section, the
chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall make
adjustments to the allocations and aggregates set forth in
this resolution up to the amount of such provisions if the
requirements set forth in section 504 are met, but the sum of
all adjustments made under this paragraph shall not exceed
$6,450,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
(2) Other adjustments.--In the House, if a bill or joint
resolution is reported or a conference report is filed
thereon, and a direct spending or receipt provision included
therein is designated as an emergency pursuant to this
paragraph, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may
make adjustments to the allocations and aggregates set forth
in this resolution.
(b) Additional Adjustment Procedures.--In the House, before
any adjustment is made pursuant to this section for any bill,
joint resolution, or conference report that designates a
provision an emergency, the enactment of which would cause
the total amount of the set aside fund set forth in
subsection (a)(1) for fiscal year 2008 to be exceeded:
(1) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall
convene a meeting of that committee, where it shall be in
order, subject to the terms set forth in this section, for
one motion described in paragraph (2) to be made to authorize
the chairman to make adjustments above the maximum amount of
adjustments set forth in subsection (a). If the Chairman does
not call such a meeting within 24 hours of a committee
reporting such a measure, any member of the Committee may
call such a meeting.
(2) The motion referred to in paragraph (1) shall be in the
following form: ``I move that the chairman of the Committee
on the Budget be authorized to adjust the allocations and
aggregates set forth in the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2008 by the following amount: $_____
for fiscal year 2008.'', with the blank being filled in with
amount determined by the chairman of the Committee on the
Budget. For any measure referred to in subsection (a)(1),
such amount shall not exceed the total amount for fiscal year
2008 designated as an emergency in excess of the applicable
amount remaining in the set aside fund.
(3) The motion set forth in paragraph (2) shall be open for
debate and amendment, but any amendment offered thereto is
only in order if limited to changing an amount in the motion.
(4) Except as provided by paragraph (5), the chairman of
the Committee on the Budget may not make any adjustments
under subsection (a) or subsection (b) unless or until the
committee filing a report or joint statement of managers on a
conference report on a measure including an emergency
designation fulfills the terms set forth in section 504.
(5) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall make
any adjustments he deems necessary under this section if he
determines the enactment of the provision or provisions
designated as an emergency is essential to respond to an
urgent and imminent need, the chairman determines the
exceptional circumstances referred to in rule 3 of the rules
of the committee are met and the committee cannot convene to
consider the motion referred to in this section in a timely
fashion.
(c) Application of Adjustments.--The adjustments made
pursuant to subsection (a) or (b) shall
(1) apply while that bill, joint resolution, conference
report or amendment is under consideration;
(2) take effect upon the enactment of that legislation; and
(3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as
practicable.

SEC. 502. EMERGENCY CRITERIA.

As used in this title:
(1) The term ``emergency'' means a situation that--
(A) requires new budget authority and outlays (or new
budget authority and the outlays flowing therefrom) for the
prevention or mitigation of, or response to, loss of life or
property, or a threat to national security; and
(B) is unanticipated.
(2) The term ``unanticipated'' means that the underlying
situation is--
(A) Sudden, which means quickly coming into being or not
building up over time;
(B) Urgent, which means a pressing and compelling need
requiring immediate action;
(C) Unforeseen, which means not predicted or anticipated as
an emerging need; and
(D) Temporary, which means not of a permanent duration.

SEC. 503. DEVELOPMENT OF GUIDELINES FOR APPLICATION OF
EMERGENCY DEFINITION.

In the House, as soon as practicable after the adoption of
this resolution, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
shall, after consultation with the chairmen of the applicable
committees, the Ranking Member of the Committee on the
Budget, and the Director of the Congressional Budget Office,
prepare additional guidelines for application of the
definition of an emergency and shall issue a committee print
from the Committee on the Budget for this purpose.

SEC. 504. COMMITTEE NOTIFICATION OF EMERGENCY LEGISLATION.

(a) Committee Notification.--Whenever a committee of the
House (including a committee of conference) reports any bill
or joint resolution that includes a provision designated as
an emergency pursuant to this title, the report accompanying
that bill or joint resolution (or the joint explanatory
statement of managers in the case of a conference report on
any such bill or joint resolution) shall identify all
provisions that provide amounts designated as an emergency
and shall provide an explanation of the manner in which the
provision meets the criteria set forth in section 502.
(b) Congressional Record.--If such a measure is to be
considered by the House without being reported by the
committee of jurisdiction, then the committee shall cause the
explanation to be published in the Congressional Record as
soon as practicable.

SEC. 505. UP-TO-DATE TABULATIONS.

The Committee on the Budget of the House shall publish in
the Congressional Record up-to-date tabulations of amounts
remaining in the set aside fund set forth in section 501, or
authorized in excess thereof, as soon as practicable after
the enactment of such amounts designated as emergencies.

TITLE VI--LEGISLATIVE LINE ITEM VETO AUTHORITY

SEC. 601. PRESIDENTIAL RECOMMENDATIONS.

(a) Proposed Cancellations.--If, within 45 calendar days
after the enactment of any bill or joint resolution providing
any discretionary budget authority, item of direct spending,
limited tariff benefit, or targeted tax benefit, the
President proposes, in the manner provided in subsection (b),
the cancellation of any dollar amount of such discretionary
budget authority, item of direct spending, or targeted tax
benefit, such recommendation shall be introduced as a
freestanding measure consistent with the terms of this title
and shall be eligible for the expedited procedures set forth
herein. If the 45 calendar-day period expires during a period
where either House of Congress stands adjourned sine die at
the end of a Congress or for a period greater than 45
calendar days, the President may propose a cancellation under
this section and transmit a special message under subsection
(b) on the first calendar day of session following such a
period of adjournment.
(b) Transmittal of Special Message.--
(1) Special message.--
(A) Contents of special message.--Each special message
shall specify, with respect to the discretionary budget
authority, items of direct spending proposed, limited tariff
benefits, or targeted tax benefits to be canceled--

[[Page H3317]]

(i) the dollar amount of discretionary budget authority,
the specific item of direct spending (that OMB, after
consultation with CBO, estimates to increase budget authority
or outlays as required by section 1017(9)), the limited
tariff benefit, or the targeted tax benefit that the
President proposes be canceled;
(ii) any account, department, or establishment of the
Government to which such discretionary budget authority is
available for obligation, and the specific project or
governmental functions involved;
(iii) the reasons why such discretionary budget authority,
item of direct spending, limited tariff benefit, or targeted
tax benefit should be canceled;
(iv) to the maximum extent practicable, the estimated
fiscal, economic, and budgetary effect (including the effect
on outlays and receipts in each fiscal year) of the proposed
cancellation;
(v) to the maximum extent practicable, all facts,
circumstances, and considerations relating to or bearing upon
the proposed cancellation and the decision to propose the
cancellation, and the estimated effect of the proposed
cancellation upon the objects, purposes, or programs for
which the discretionary budget authority, item of direct
spending, limited tariff benefit, or the targeted tax benefit
is provided;
(vi) a numbered list of cancellations to be included in an
approval bill that, if enacted, would cancel discretionary
budget authority, items of direct spending, limited tariff
benefit, or targeted tax benefits proposed in that special
message; and
(vii) if the special message is transmitted subsequent to
or at the same time as another special message, a detailed
explanation why the proposed cancellations are not
substantially similar to any other proposed cancellation in
such other message.
(C) Duplicative proposals prohibited.--The President may
not propose to cancel the same or substantially similar
discretionary budget authority, item of direct spending,
limited tariff benefit, or targeted tax benefit more than one
time under this Act.
(D) Maximum number of special messages.--The President may
not transmit to the Congress more than 5 special messages
under this subsection related to any bill or joint resolution
described in subsection (a), but may transmit not more than
10 special messages for any omnibus budget reconciliation or
appropriation measure.
(2) Enactment of approval bill.--
(A) Deficit reduction.--Amounts of budget authority, items
of direct spending, limited tariff benefit, or targeted tax
benefits which are canceled pursuant to enactment of a bill
as provided under this section shall be dedicated only to
reducing the deficit or increasing the surplus.
(B) Adjustment of levels in the concurrent resolution on
the budget.--Not later than 5 days after the date of
enactment of an approval bill as provided under this section,
the chairs of the Committees on the Budget of the Senate and
the House of Representatives shall revise allocations and
aggregates and other appropriate levels under the appropriate
concurrent resolution on the budget to reflect the
cancellation, and the applicable committees shall report
revised suballocations pursuant to section 302(b), as
appropriate.
(C) Trust funds and special funds.--Notwithstanding
subparagraph (A), nothing in this title shall be construed to
require or allow the deposit of amounts derived from a trust
fund or special fund which are canceled pursuant to enactment
of a bill as provided under this section to any other fund.

SEC. 602. PROCEDURES IN UNITED STATES CONGRESS.

(a) Expedited Consideration.--
(1) In general.--The majority leader or minority leader of
each House or his designee shall (by request) introduce an
approval bill as defined in section 1017 not later than the
third day of session of that House after the date of receipt
of a special message transmitted to the Congress under
section 1011(b). If the bill is not introduced as provided in
the preceding sentence in either House, then, on the fourth
day of session of that House after the date of receipt of the
special message, any Member of that House may introduce the
bill.
(2) Consideration in the house of representatives.--
(A) Referral and reporting.--Any committee of the House of
Representatives to which an approval bill is referred shall
report it to the House without amendment not later than the
seventh legislative day after the date of its introduction.
If a committee fails to report the bill within that period or
the House has adopted a concurrent resolution providing for
adjournment sine die at the end of a Congress, such committee
shall be automatically discharged from further consideration
of the bill and it shall be placed on the appropriate
calendar.
(B) Proceeding to consideration.--After an approval bill is
reported by or discharged from committee or the House has
adopted a concurrent resolution providing for adjournment
sine die at the end of a Congress, it shall be in order to
move to proceed to consider the approval bill in the House.
Such a motion shall be in order only at a time designated by
the Speaker in the legislative schedule within two
legislative days after the day on which the proponent
announces his intention to offer the motion. Such a motion
shall not be in order after the House has disposed of a
motion to proceed with respect to that special message. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
motion to its adoption without intervening motion. A motion
to reconsider the vote by which the motion is disposed of
shall not be in order.
(C) Consideration.--The approval bill shall be considered
as read. All points of order against an approval bill and
against its consideration are waived. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on an approval bill to its
passage without intervening motion except five hours of
debate equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent and one motion to limit debate on the bill. A motion
to reconsider the vote on passage of the bill shall not be in
order.
(D) Senate bill.--An approval bill received from the Senate
shall not be referred to committee.
(3) Consideration in the senate.--
(A) Motion to proceed to consideration.--A motion to
proceed to the consideration of a bill under this subsection
in the Senate shall not be debatable. It shall not be in
order to move to reconsider the vote by which the motion to
proceed is agreed to or disagreed to.
(B) Limits on debate.--Debate in the Senate on a bill under
this subsection, and all debatable motions and appeals in
connection therewith (including debate pursuant to
subparagraph (D)), shall not exceed 10 hours, equally divided
and controlled in the usual form.
(C) Appeals.--Debate in the Senate on any debatable motion
or appeal in connection with a bill under this subsection
shall be limited to not more than 1 hour, to be equally
divided and controlled in the usual form.
(D) Motion to limit debate.--A motion in the Senate to
further limit debate on a bill under this subsection is not
debatable.
(E) Motion to recommit.--A motion to recommit a bill under
this subsection is not in order.
(F) Consideration of the house bill.--
(i) In general.--If the Senate has received the House
companion bill to the bill introduced in the Senate prior to
the vote required under paragraph (1)(C), then the Senate may
consider, and the vote under paragraph (1)(C) may occur on,
the House companion bill.
(ii) Procedures after vote on senate bill.--If the Senate
votes, pursuant to paragraph (1)(C), on the bill introduced
in the Senate, then immediately following that vote, or upon
receipt of the House companion bill, the House bill shall be
deemed to be considered, read the third time, and the vote on
passage of the Senate bill shall be considered to be the vote
on the bill received from the House.
(b) Amendments Prohibited.--No amendment to, or motion to
strike a provision from, a bill considered under this section
shall be in order in either the Senate or the House of
Representatives.

SEC. 603. IDENTIFICATION OF TARGETED TAX BENEFITS.

(a) Statement.--The chairman of the Committee on Ways and
Means of the House of Representatives and the chairman of the
Committee on Finance of the Senate acting jointly (hereafter
in this subsection referred to as ``the chairmen'' shall
review any revenue or reconciliation bill or joint resolution
which includes any amendment to the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 that is being prepared for filing by a committee of
conference of the two Houses, and shall identify whether such
bill or joint resolution contains any targeted tax benefits.
The chairmen shall provide to the committee of conference a
statement identifying any such targeted tax benefits or
declaring that the bill or joint resolution does not contain
any targeted tax benefits. Any such statement shall be made
available to any Member of Congress by the chairmen
immediately upon request.
(b) Statement Included in Legislation.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other rule of the
House of Representatives or any rule or precedent of the
Senate, any revenue or reconciliation bill or joint
resolution which includes any amendment to the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 reported by a committee of conference of
the two Houses may include, as a separate section of such
bill or joint resolution, the information contained in the
statement of the chairmen, but only in the manner set forth
in paragraph (2).
(2) Applicability.--The separate section permitted under
subparagraph (A) shall read as follows: ``Section 1021 of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
shall ______ apply to ______,______,000,000'', with the blank
spaces being filled in with--
(A) in any case in which the chairmen identify targeted tax
benefits in the statement required under subsection (a), the
word ``only'' in the first blank space and a list of all of
the specific provisions of the bill or joint resolution in
the second blank space; or
(B) in any case in which the chairmen declare that there
are no targeted tax benefits in the statement required under
subsection (a), the word ``not'' in the first blank space and
the phrase ``any provision of this Act'' in the second blank
space.
(c) Identification in Revenue Estimate.--With respect to
any revenue or reconciliation bill or joint resolution with
respect to which the chairmen provide a statement under
subsection (a), the Joint Committee on Taxation shall--
(1) in the case of a statement described in subsection
(b)(2)(A), list the targeted tax benefits in any revenue
estimate prepared by

[[Page H3318]]

the Joint Committee on Taxation for any conference report
which accompanies such bill or joint resolution, or
(2) in the case of a statement described in section
13(b)(2)(B), indicate in such revenue estimate that no
provision in such bill or joint resolution has been
identified as a targeted tax benefit.
(d) President's Authority.--If any revenue or
reconciliation bill or joint resolution is signed into law--
(1) with a separate section described in subsection (b)(2),
then the President may use the authority granted in this
section only with respect to any targeted tax benefit in that
law, if any, identified in such separate section; or
(2) without a separate section described in subsection
(b)(2), then the President may use the authority granted in
this section with respect to any targeted tax benefit in that
law.

SEC. 604. ADDITIONAL MATTERS.

(a) Definitions.--
(1) Appropriation law.--The term ``appropriation law''
means an Act referred to in section 105 of title I, United
States Code, including any general or special appropriation
Act, or any Act making supplemental, deficiency, or
continuing appropriations, that has been signed into law
pursuant to Article I, section 7, of the Constitution of the
United States.
(2) Approval bill.--The term ``approval bill'' means a bill
or joint resolution which only approves proposed
cancellations of dollar amounts of discretionary budget
authority, items of new direct spending, limited tariff
benefits, or targeted tax benefits in a special message
transmitted by the President under this part and--
(A) the title of which is as follows: ``A bill approving
the proposed cancellations transmitted by the President on
____'', the blank space being filled in with the date of
transmission of the relevant special message and the public
law number to which the message relates;
(B) which does not have a preamble; and
(C) which provides only the following after the enacting
clause: That the Congress approves of proposed cancellations
____, the blank space being filled in with a list of the
cancellations contained in the President's special message,
as transmitted by the President in a special message on ____,
the blank space being filled in with the appropriate date,
regarding ____, the blank space being filled in with the
Public Law number to which the special message relates;
(D) which only includes proposed cancellations that are
estimated by CBO to meet the definition of discretionary
budgetary authority or items of direct spending, or limited
tariff benefits, or that are identified as targeted tax
benefits pursuant to section 1014;
(E) if any proposed cancellation other than discretionary
budget authority or targeted tax benefits is estimated by CBO
to not meet the definition of item of direct spending, then
the approval bill shall include at the end: The President
shall cease the suspension of the implementation of the
following under section 1013 of the Legislative Line Item
Veto Act of 2006: ____, the blank space being filled in with
the list of such proposed cancellations; and
(F) if no CBO estimate is available, then the entire list
of legislative provisions proposed by the President is
inserted in the second blank space in subparagraph (C).
(3) Calendar day.--The term ``calendar day'' means a
standard 24-hour period beginning at midnight.
(4) Cancel or cancellation.--The terms ``cancel'' or
``cancellation'' means to prevent--
(A) budget authority from having legal force or effect;
(B) in the case of entitlement authority, to prevent the
specific legal obligation of the United States from having
legal force or effect;
(C) in the case of the food stamp program, to prevent the
specific provision of law that provides such benefit from
having legal force or effect; or
(D) a limited tariff benefit from having legal force or
effect, and to make any necessary, conforming statutory
change to ensure that such limited tariff benefit is not
implemented; or
(E) a targeted tax benefit from having legal force or
effect, and to make any necessary, conforming statutory
change to ensure that such targeted tax benefit is not
implemented and that any budgetary resources are
appropriately canceled.
(5) CBO.--The term ``CBO'' means the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office.
(6) Direct spending.--The term ``direct spending'' means--
(A) budget authority provided by law (other than an
appropriation law);
(B) entitlement authority; and
(C) the food stamp program.
(7) Dollar amount of discretionary budget authority.--(A)
Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the term ``dollar
amount of discretionary budget authority'' means the entire
dollar amount of budget authority--
(i) specified in an appropriation law, or the entire dollar
amount of budget authority or obligation limitation required
to be allocated by a specific proviso in an appropriation law
for which a specific dollar figure was not included;
(ii) represented separately in any table, chart, or
explanatory text included in the statement of managers or the
governing committee report accompanying such law;
(iii) required to be allocated for a specific program,
project, or activity in a law (other than an appropriation
law) that mandates the expenditure of budget authority from
accounts, programs, projects, or activities for which budget
authority is provided in an appropriation law;
(iv) represented by the product of the estimated
procurement cost and the total quantity of items specified in
an appropriation law or included in the statement of managers
or the governing committee report accompanying such law; or
(v) represented by the product of the estimated procurement
cost and the total quantity of items required to be provided
in a law (other than an appropriation law) that mandates the
expenditure of budget authority from accounts, programs,
projects, or activities for which budget authority is
provided in an appropriation law.
(B) The term ``dollar amount of discretionary budget
authority'' does not include--
(i) direct spending;
(ii) budget authority in an appropriation law which funds
direct spending provided for in other law;
(iii) any existing budget authority canceled in an
appropriation law; or
(iv) any restriction, condition, or limitation in an
appropriation law or the accompanying statement of managers
or committee reports on the expenditure of budget authority
for an account, program, project, or activity, or on
activities involving such expenditure.
(8) Item of direct spending.--The term ``item of direct
spending'' means any provision of law that results in an
increase in budget authority or outlays for direct spending
relative to the most recent levels calculated consistent with
the methodology used to calculate a baseline under section
257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
of 1985 and included with a budget submission under section
1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, in the first year or
the 5-year period for which the item is effective. However,
such item does not include an extension or reauthorization of
existing direct spending, but instead only refers to
provisions of law that increase such direct spending.
(9) Limited tariff benefit.--The term ``limited tariff
benefit'' means any provision of law that modifies the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States in a manner
that benefits 10 or fewer entities (as defined in paragraph
(12)(B)).
(10) OMB.--The term ``OMB'' means the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget.
(11) Omnibus reconciliation or appropriation measure.--The
term ``omnibus reconciliation'' or ``appropriation measure''
means--
(A) in the case of a reconciliation bill, any such bill
that is reported to its House by the Committee on the Budget;
or
(B) in the case of an appropriation measure, any such
measure that provides appropriations for programs, projects,
or activities falling within 2 or more section 302(b)
suballocations.
(12) Targeted tax benefit.--
(A) The ``term targeted tax benefit'' means any revenue-
losing provision that provides a Federal tax deduction,
credit, exclusion, or preference to ten or fewer
beneficiaries (determined with respect to either present law
or any provision of which the provision is a part) under the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in any year for which the
provision is in effect;
(B) For purposes of subparagraph (a).--
(i) all businesses and associations that are members of the
same controlled group of corporations (as defined in section
1563(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) shall be
treated as a single beneficiary;
(ii) all shareholders, partners, members, or beneficiaries
of a corporation, partnership, association, or trust or
estate, respectively, shall be treated as a single
beneficiary;
(iii) all employees of an employer shall be treated as a
single beneficiary;
(iv) all qualified plans of an employer shall be treated as
a single beneficiary;
(v) all beneficiaries of a qualified plan shall be treated
as a single beneficiary;
(vi) all contributors to a charitable organization shall be
treated as a single beneficiary;
(vii) all holders of the same bond issue shall be treated
as a single beneficiary; and
(viii) if a corporation, partnership, association, trust or
estate is the beneficiary of a provision, the shareholders of
the corporation, the partners of the partnership, the members
of the association, or the beneficiaries of the trust or
estate shall not also be treated as beneficiaries of such
provision;
(C) For the purpose of this paragraph, the term ``revenue-
losing provision'' means any provision that is estimated to
result in a reduction in federal tax revenues (determined
with respect to either present law or any provision of which
the provision is a part) for any one of the two following
periods--
(i) the first fiscal year for which the provision is
effective; or
(ii) the period of the 5 fiscal years beginning with the
first fiscal year for which the provision is effective;
(D) the ``term targeted tax benefit'' does not include any
provision which applies uniformly to an entire industry; and
(E) the terms used in this paragraph shall have the same
meaning as those terms have generally in the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, unless otherwise expressly provided.

[[Page H3319]]

SEC. 605. EXPIRATION.

This title shall have no force or effect on or after
October 1, 2012.

SEC. 606. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON DEFERRAL AUTHORITY.

It is the sense of Congress that legislation providing the
authority to temporarily defer spending on proposed
rescissions should be enacted.

SEC. 607. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON ABUSE OF PROPOSED
CANCELLATIONS.

It is the sense of Congress that no President or any
executive branch official should condition the inclusion or
exclusion or threaten to condition the inclusion or exclusion
of any proposed cancellation in any special message under
this title upon any vote cast or to be cast by any Member of
either House of Congress.

TITLE VII--EARMARK TRANSPARENCY

SEC. 701. PROHIBITION ON OBLIGATION OF FUNDS FOR EARMARKS
INCLUDED ONLY IN CONGRESSIONAL REPORTS.

(a) Requirement That Earmarks Must Be in Legislative
Text.--Notwithstanding any other rule of the House, in
addition to the requirements set forth in clause 9 of rule
XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, it shall
not be in order to consider any bill, joint resolution,
amendment thereto, or conference report thereon, unless the
list of congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, and
limited tariff benefits, required by clause 9(a)of rule XXI
are also set forth in the text of such measure.
(b) Availability on the Internet.--Notwithstanding any
other rule of the House, in addition to the requirements set
forth in clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, it shall not be in order to consider any
bill, joint resolution, or conference report thereon, unless
the lists required by paragraphs (1), (2), and (4) of clause
9 of rule XXI are made available on the Internet in a
searchable format to the general public for at least 48 hours
before consideration.

SEC. 702. DEFINITIONS.

(a) Congressional Earmark.--The term ``congressional
earmark'' means a provision or report language included
primarily at the request of a Member, Delegate, Resident
Commissioner, or Senator providing, authorizing or
recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget
authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for
a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or
other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a
specific State, locality or Congressional district, other
than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or
competitive award process.
(b) Limited Benefits.--
(1) Limited tariff benefit.--The term ``limited tariff
benefit'' means any provision of law that modifies the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States in a manner
that benefits 10 or fewer entities (as defined in paragraph
(12)(B)).
(2) Limited tax benefit.--(A) The term ``limited tax
benefit'' means any revenue-losing provision that provides a
Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion, or preference to
ten or fewer beneficiaries (determined with respect to either
present law or any provision of which the provision is a
part) under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in any year for
which the provision is in effect;
(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A)--
(i) all businesses and associations that are members of the
same controlled group of corporations (as defined in section
1563(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) shall be
treated as a single beneficiary;
(ii) all shareholders, partners, members, or beneficiaries
of a corporation, partnership, association, or trust or
estate, respectively, shall be treated as a single
beneficiary;
(iii) all employees of an employer shall be treated as a
single beneficiary;
(iv) all qualified plans of an employer shall be treated as
a single beneficiary;
(v) all beneficiaries of a qualified plan shall be treated
as a single beneficiary;
(vi) all contributors to a charitable organization shall be
treated as a single beneficiary;
(vii) all holders of the same bond issue shall be treated
as a single beneficiary; and
(viii) if a corporation, partnership, association, trust or
estate is the beneficiary of a provision, the shareholders of
the corporation, the partners of the partnership, the members
of the association, or the beneficiaries of the trust or
estate shall not also be treated as beneficiaries of such
provision;
(C) For the purpose of this paragraph, the term ``revenue-
losing provision'' means any provision that is estimated to
result in a reduction in federal tax revenues (determined
with respect to either present law or any provision of which
the provision is a part) for any one of the two following
periods--
(i) the first fiscal year for which the provision is
effective; or
(ii) the period of the 5 fiscal years beginning with the
first fiscal year for which the provision is effective;
(D) the term ``limited tax benefit'' does not include any
provision which applies uniformly to an entire industry; and
(E) the terms used in this paragraph shall have the same
meaning as those terms have generally in the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, unless otherwise expressly provided.
(c) Special Rule.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
the Rules of the House, the definitions set forth in this
section shall apply for congressional earmarks, limited
tariff benefits, and limited tax benefits.

TITLE VIII--PAY-AS-YOU-GO.

SEC. 801. PAY-AS-YOU-GO POINT OF ORDER.

(a) Point of Order.--
(1) In general.--It shall not be in order in the House or
the Senate to consider any direct spending legislation,
excluding the impact of any revenue provisions, that would
increase the on-budget deficit or cause an on-budget deficit
for any 1 of 4 applicable time periods as measured in
paragraphs (5) and (6).
(2) Applicable time periods.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term ``applicable time period'' means any 1
of the 4 following periods:
(A) The current fiscal year.
(B) The budget year.
(C) The period of the 5 fiscal years following the current
fiscal year.
(D) The period of the 5 fiscal years following the 5 fiscal
years referred to in subparagraph (C).
(3) Direct spending legislation.--For purposes of this
subsection and except as provided in paragraph (4), the term
``direct spending legislation'' means any bill, joint
resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that
affects direct spending as that term is defined by, and
interpreted for purposes of, the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
(4) Baseline.--Estimates prepared pursuant to this
subsection shall--
(A) use the most recent baseline estimates supplied by the
Congressional Budget Office consistent with section 257 of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985
used in considering a concurrent resolution on the budget; or
(B) after the beginning of a new calendar year and before
consideration of a concurrent resolution on the budget, the
most recent baseline estimates supplied by the Congressional
Budget Office consistent with section 257 of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
(5) Prior surplus.--If direct spending or revenue
legislation increases the on-budget deficit or causes an on-
budget deficit when taken individually, it must also increase
the on-budget deficit or cause an on-budget deficit when
taken together with all direct spending and revenue
legislation enacted since the beginning of the calendar year
not accounted for in the baseline under paragraph (5)(A),
except that direct spending or revenue effects resulting in
net deficit reduction enacted in any bill pursuant to a
reconciliation instruction since the beginning of that same
calendar year shall never be made available on the pay-as-
you-go ledger and shall be dedicated only for deficit
reduction.
(b) Determination of Budget Levels.--For purposes of this
section, the levels of new budget authority, outlays, and
revenues for a fiscal year shall be determined on the basis
of estimates made by the Committees on the Budget.
(c) Point of Order Protection in the House.--In the House,
it shall not be in order to consider a rule or order that
waives the application of subsection (a). As disposition of a
point of order under this paragraph, the Chair shall put the
question of consideration with respect to the rule or order
that waives the application of subsection (a). The question
of consideration shall be debatable for 10 minutes by the
Member initiating the point of order and for 10 minutes by an
opponent, but shall otherwise be decided without intervening
motion except one that the House adjourn.

TITLE IX--DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

SEC. 901. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS IN THE HOUSE.

(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the House
to consider any bill or joint resolution, or amendment
thereto, that provides new budget authority that would cause
the discretionary spending limits to be exceeded for any
fiscal year.
(b) Discretionary Spending Limits.--In the House and as
used in this section, the term ``discretionary spending
limit'' means--
(1) with respect to fiscal year 2008, for the discretionary
category: $1,079,593,000,000 in new budget authority and
$1,127,623,000,000 in outlays;
(2) with respect to fiscal year 2009, for the discretionary
category: $1,004,865,000,000 in new budget authority and
$1,121,730,000,000 in outlays;
(3) with respect to fiscal year 2010, for the discretionary
category: $977,058,000,000 in new budget authority and
$1,050,106,000,000 in outlays;
as adjusted in conformance with subsection (c).
(c) Adjustments.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Chairman.--After the reporting of a bill or joint
resolution, the offering of an amendment thereto, or the
submission of a conference report thereon, the chairman of
the Committee on the Budget may make the adjustments set
forth in subparagraph (B) for the amount of new budget
authority in that measure (if that measure meets the
requirements set forth in paragraph (2)) and the outlays
flowing from that budget authority. The chairman of the
Committee on the Budget may also make appropriate adjustments
for the reserve funds set forth in this resolution.
(B) Matters to be adjusted.--The adjustments referred to in
subparagraph (A) are to be made to--
(i) the discretionary spending limits, if any, set forth in
the appropriate concurrent resolution on the budget;

[[Page H3320]]

(ii) the allocations made pursuant to the appropriate
concurrent resolution on the budget pursuant to section
302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974; and
(iii) the budgetary aggregates as set forth in the
appropriate concurrent resolution on the budget.
(2) Amounts of adjustments.--The adjustment referred to in
paragraph (1) shall be an amount provided and designated as
an emergency requirement;
(3) Application of adjustments.--The adjustments made for
legislation pursuant to paragraph (1) shall--
(A) apply while that legislation is under consideration;
(B) take effect upon the enactment of that legislation; and
(C) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as
practicable.
(4) Application of this section.--The provisions of this
section shall apply to legislation providing new budget
authority for fiscal years 2008 through 2010.
(d) Enforcement in the House of Representatives.--
(1) Waiver protection.--It shall not be in order in the
House of Representatives to consider a rule or order that
waives the application of this section.
(2) Consideration in the house.--
(A) This subsection shall apply only to the House of
Representatives.
(B) In order to be cognizable by the Chair, a point of
order under this section must specify the precise language on
which it is premised.
(C) As disposition of points of order under this section,
the Chair shall put the question of consideration with
respect to the proposition that is the subject of the points
of order.
(D) A question of consideration under this section shall be
debatable for 10 minutes by each Member initiating a point of
order and for 10 minutes by an opponent on each point of
order, but shall otherwise be decided without intervening
motion except one that the House adjourn or that the
Committee of the Whole rise, as the case may be.
(E) The disposition of the question of consideration under
this subsection with respect to a bill or joint resolution
shall be considered also to determine the question of
consideration under this subsection with respect to an
amendment made in order as original text.
(3) Extension of spending limits.--It shall not be in order
in the House of Representatives to consider a concurrent
resolution on the budget as described in section 301 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 unless such resolution
incudes discretionary spending limits that are in the same
amounts or less than those included in this section.

TITLE X--SENSES OF CONGRESS

SEC. 1001. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE IMPORTANCE OF
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT.

It is the Sense of the House that additional legislative
action is needed to ensure that states have the necessary
resources to collect all child support that is owed to
families and to allow them to pass 100 percent of support on
to families without financial penalty. It is further the
Sense of the House that when 100 percent of child support
payments are passed on to the child, rather than
administrative expenses, program integrity is improved and
child support participation increases.

SEC. 1002. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON STATE VETERANS CEMETARIES.

It is the sense of the House that the Federal Government
should pay the plot allowance for the internment in a State
veterans cemetery of any spouse or eligible child of a
veteran, consistent with the pay-as-you-go principle.

SEC. 1003. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM.

It is the sense of the Congress that legislation should be
considered that does the following:
(1) Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow individual
taxpayers a refundable tax credit for health insurance costs
paid for the benefit of the taxpayer, the taxpayer's spouse,
and dependents.
(2) Requires business taxpayers who receive payments for
certain employee health insurance coverage to file
informational returns.
(3) Directs the Secretary of the Treasury to make advance
payments of health insurance tax credit amounts to health
insurance providers.
(4) Limits the tax exclusion for employer-provided health
care coverage.

SEC. 1004. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF
1986.

(a) Sense of Congress on the Termination of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.--No tax shall be imposed by the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986--
(1) for any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2010;
and
(2) in the case of any tax not imposed on the basis of a
taxable year, on any taxable event or for any period after
December 31, 2010.
(b) Exception.--It is further the sense of the House of
Representatives that legislation enacted pursuant to
subsection (a) shall not apply to taxes imposed by--
(1) chapter 2 of such Code (relating to tax on self-
employment income);
(2) chapter 21 of such Code (relating to Federal Insurance
Contributions Act); and
(3) chapter 22 of such Code (relating to Railroad
Retirement Tax Act).
(c) Structure of a New Federal Tax System.--Congress
declares that any new Federal tax system should be a simple
and fair system that--
(1) applies a low rate to all Americans;
(2) provides tax relief for working Americans;
(3) protects the rights of taxpayers and reduces tax
collection abuses;
(4) eliminates the bias against savings and investment;
(5) promotes economic growth and job creation; and
(6) does not penalize marriage or families.
(d) Timing of Implementation.--In order to ensure an easy
transition and effective implementation, the Congress hereby
declares that any new Federal tax system should be approved
by Congress in its final form no later than July 4, 2010.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and a
Member opposed each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, we are coming to the end of 2
days of debate on how to organize our Nation's finances; how do we want
to prepare the budget for the next 5 years for our country.
This is a big debate. It is a debate that really underscores the
different philosophies between our two parties.
The Democrats have chosen the path of higher spending and a lot
higher taxes. The three Democrat budgets we had before us here on the
floor today, one raised taxes by $400 billion, another raised taxes by
$711 billion and a third one raised taxes by $949 billion.
The last tax increase we had was the last time the Democrats had the
majority, and that was a $241 billion tax increase. Now, 3 months into
their new majority, they are proposing anywhere from a $400 billion to
a $1 trillion tax increase.
We don't believe that we should take more money out of the pockets of
hardworking Americans. We don't believe we should tax, tax, tax and
then tax more the American economy and the American family and the
American workers.
We believe Washington has a spending problem, and that is why we are
proposing to control spending, and that is how we achieve the balanced
budget. Not only do we achieve a balanced budget, but we stop the raid
of the Social Security trust fund and pay down $100 billion in debt in
the fifth year of our budget.
Now, here is the difference. The blue line is our line, the revenue
line, where we keep the tax cuts intact. The red line is the line where
the Democrats raise the taxes. The green line is the current trajectory
of spending.
We have to control spending if we are going to ever fully balance the
budget. Even if we accept the Democrats' tax increases, the balance
they achieve in 5 years will only last for a couple of short years
because we will go right back into deficits if we do nothing to control
spending.
Now, you are going to hear a lot of words about our budget in the
next few minutes. Cut this, cut that, we are savaging this, we are
taking a chain saw to that. We are pitting Medicare and Medicaid.
Let's be really clear. Medicare, spending goes up every year from
here to the next to the next. Medicaid spending under our budget will
go up faster than health care inflation. But we are going to reform the
program so that it works better, doesn't cost as much, and extends its
solvency so that it is there for people.
Medicare. Are we cutting Medicare? No, we are not cutting Medicare.
We are growing Medicare. We are growing Medicare, not as fast as it is
currently scheduled to grow because we are reforming Medicare. And what
do we do? We extend the solvency of Medicare.
Overall, if you take a look at the difference in spending we propose
over the next 5 years, on entitlement spending we propose growing,
increasing, adding entitlement spending at 4.1 percent a year for the
next 5 years, instead of 4.7 percent a year.
Now, at the end of the day, it is about how we get our fiscal house
in order. Here is the devastation of the Democrat budget. And I am just
going to pick one program.
Medicare, the unfunded liability of Medicare is $32 trillion. $32
trillion is how much money we would have to set aside today in current
dollars to make sure that Medicare is there for my children when they
receive Medicare.

[[Page H3321]]

Under the Democrat budget, the Medicare unfunded liability will go to
$52 trillion. That means doing nothing to reform Medicare. Doing
nothing to reform Medicare at all will actually lead to adding a huge
debt onto the problem. It will mean that our children and grandchildren
will have another $22 trillion in debt thrown onto them if we decide
not to do a thing for the next 5 years to reform our entitlement
programs. But that, in fact, is what the Democrat budget does.
The actual household burden today on Medicare is $282,400. That is
what we would have to set aside today, per household, to make sure
Medicare is there for my children when they retire. If we do nothing
for the next 5 years, as the Democrats propose, that goes up to almost
$476,000 a household.
We have got to fix these programs. We have got to reform these
programs. We have got to reform them so that they work better. They
were written in the 1960s. We are now in the 21st century. We can make
these programs work better. We can better meet the mission of Medicare,
Medicaid and Social Security, income security, health security; and we
can do it without bankrupting our children.
The problem is, we can't put our heads in the sand for 5 years and do
nothing. That is what the Democrat budget proposes to do. Absolutely no
savings, no spending control, no reform.
We have to reform these programs, Mr. Chairman, because if we don't,
our debt gets higher. We go back into deficits, and there isn't another
tax you can raise to get out of that hole.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized
for 20 minutes.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).
Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you very much, Mr. Spratt, for yielding me the
time. And I want to thank you for putting together one of the most
responsible documents that I have seen in my almost 15 years here in
the House of Representatives.
This Democrat budget is a giant step in the right direction. This
budget lowers taxes on middle-class families. It does not contain one
penny of new taxes. Instead, our budget explicitly provides middle-
income tax credits, including the marriage penalty, child tax credit,
the 10 percent bracket, and the deduction for State and local taxes.
This House budget provides immediate relief for 23 million middle-
income families who would otherwise be subjected to the alternative
minimum tax and provides for a permanent fix.
I will tell you what I am particularly appreciative of in this
budget. This budget responds to the ongoing recovery for the people of
the gulf coast region here in our country. It creates a reserve fund of
$3.4 billion and provides an additional $1 billion that could be used
to meet urgent recovery needs.
This budget maintains the President's tax cuts for 2008, for 2009 and
for 2010; and it says, explicitly, that we can extend tax cuts beyond
the sunset that the Republicans put in for 2010. But if we extend these
tax cuts, we must subject these tax cuts to the same PAYGO rules that
we subject new programs to. So there is no cut here. There is
responsibility here. And I thank John Spratt for meeting that
responsibility.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Mr. Chair, I would like to yield
2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California, a member of
the Budget Committee, Mr. Lungren.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong
support of the Republican substitute. There is a clear difference
between the two proposals on the table.

{time} 1300

The Democratic plan, despite the protestations of its proponents,
does, in fact, contain the largest tax increase in American history. We
have heard time and again their referring to the language that is in
their bill which talks about tax cuts. But I would suggest their tax
cut promises are written with invisible ink. They talk about how they
want to do it, but there is no means by the way they will do it. And
they also promise to have a balanced budget and yet, without the tax
increases inherent in their proposal, they cannot reach it. We have no
tax increases, period. None in this budget.
In the Democratic budget, they include a $22 billion increase in
nondefense spending above the President's request, on top of the $22
billion of unrequested spending in the supplemental and $6 billion in
the omnibus.
Our budget includes a freeze on nondefense, nonsecurity spending,
while providing additional funds for veterans, for the war on
terrorism, for Community Development Block Grants, for NIH, and Science
and Technology.
In entitlements, they criticize us for attempting to look at
entitlements and to bring across savings. We admit we attempt to do
that, because we recognize the obligation we have as stewards of the
people's money and stewards of the future of our children and
grandchildren.
So come out here and criticize us for attempting to look at these
entitlement programs to begin, just to begin, to get the courage to
deal with what we know we have to deal with.
Now, our budgets can either be made so flimsy that they will fly away
in the wind, or they can actually have some weight to them so that we
begin the tough process, and it is a tough process, of dealing with
reform of entitlements so that we do the job that is expected of us by
our constituents and, more importantly, by our children and our
grandchildren.
I rise in strong support of this substitute by the Republicans.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, to talk just a bit about what is truly
contained in this budget resolution, the devastating cuts it imposes on
sensitive areas, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Dicks, the chairman of the
Interior Subcommittee of Appropriations.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
legislation, which, thankfully, reverses years of decline in Federal
Government spending on environmental programs. John Spratt has made
wise decisions on Function 300.
Last month, I testified before the Budget Committee, urging increased
spending on these important programs. The chairman said he would
consider my request, and he is a man of his word. I am pleased to say
that the programs included in Function 300 will be funded at a level
$2.6 billion, or 9 percent above what the President requested in his
budget, and $15.7 billion between 2008 and 2012.
This budget resolution rejects the President's proposal to further
cut the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Fish and Wildlife Service
Refuge Program, and EPA's Clean Water Assistance Program. In addition,
the budget resolution accepts the best idea in the President's budget,
and that is to increase funding for the national parks. The Ryan
amendment in 2008 would cut $1.5 billion below current services and
$4.6 billion between 2008 and 2012.
Many of the numbers contained in the President's budget were bleak.
The President proposed a budget for these programs which was $2.8
billion less than what is required to maintain current levels of
service. For example, funding for EPA faced a reduction of $508
million, the Forest Service down $343 million. The funding for the Park
Service would have been reduced by $237 million. And, worse, the
President's proposed cuts after 7 years of steady decline are severe.
The Interior Department has been cut by 16 percent, EPA by 29 percent,
the Forest Service by a whopping 35 percent. These cuts have evidently
led to declines in services for visitors to our parks, refuges, and
forests and to dramatic reductions in assistance to State and local
communities for environmental and conservation activities.
I urge you to vote against the Ryan amendment and vote for the Spratt
budget if you care about the environment of our country.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to
yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee,
Mr. McCrery of Louisiana.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, unlike the budget put forward by the
Democratic majority, the Republican alternative offered by Mr. Ryan
avoids the largest tax increase in our Nation's history and begins to
deal with the long-term problem of growing entitlements.

[[Page H3322]]

This chart here gives us an idea of the difference in the scenarios
between the Republican budget, this line for tax revenues; and the
Democratic budget, this top line for revenues. If you look at it in
terms of the percentage of GDP consumed by Federal revenues, you should
know that this year Federal revenues constitute about 18.6 percent of
GDP. Under the Republican budget alternative, the bottom line, that
stays about the same. About 10 years from now, it is approximately the
same percent of GDP. But the Democratic budget, this top line, that
figure is going to go up to over 20 percent of GDP, over 20 percent.
Only once since 1962 has Federal revenues constituted that high a
percentage of our GDP. Our economy is certain to drag under the weight
of those kinds of tax increases.
And the worst will be yet to come, because the Democrats' budget
ignores demographic reality and offers no reform of entitlements, no
savings from entitlements. In 2009, the Social Security surplus will
begin to decline. In 2017, we will have to pay out more money in Social
Security benefits than we take in in taxes. The problem gets worse
after that with more baby boomers in retirement, fewer workers to
support them; and the difficulties facing Social Security are
relatively manageable compared to those facing Medicare and Medicaid.
I shouldn't need to reiterate these facts. Everyone in this House
should be familiar with them, but somehow the Democrats, budget ignores
those facts completely.
The Republican budget would freeze nondefense discretionary and
reform entitlements. Please reject the Democratic budget and support
the Ryan budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Boyd).
Mr. BOYD of Florida. I thank my friend Mr. Spratt for yielding.
I rise today, Mr. Chairman, in strong support for the Democratic
budget resolution.
Mr. Chairman, the Blue Dogs didn't submit our own budget this year
because the Democratic budget under Chairman Spratt's leadership
includes many of the priorities that we advocate for and Mr. Spratt put
into the bill.
First, it adheres strictly to PAYGO rules, and this is the biggest
difference between this budget and the failed budgets of the past 6
years. Our budgets put an end to new deficit spending. PAYGO has a
proven record of success. It was instrumental in the return of budget
surpluses during the 1990s. It has worked in the past, and it will work
again. And this Congress let PAYGO expire in 2002.
Secondly, the Democratic budget will reach a glide path to balance by
2012, and it does so without using budgeting gimmickry or tricks.
You have heard a lot from the other side criticizing our budget and
talking about debt, but let me tell you something. The Republicans in
the past have refused to adopt PAYGO rules, and spending has
skyrocketed under their leadership. They financed their plan by
borrowing $3 trillion over the last 6 years from countries like China,
and many times in the past the appropriations bills have not been
enacted and we have had to do omnibus bills. Eighty percent of those
were not enacted last year.
In short, Mr. Chairman, we have to return to fiscal sanity. We have
created a mess in the last 6 years, and it is going to take this
Congress working hard together in a bipartisan way to come up with a
plan that will put us back on a glide path to balance. Mr. Spratt's
bill, the budget resolution, which we have a chance to vote on today,
is the best start for us to return to that path; and I want to applaud
him for his resolution and ask for your support for that resolution.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Sutton).
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Spratt for his leadership
and for yielding me this time.
As the only freshman Democrat on the Budget Committee, I rise to urge
my fellow freshmen and all of my colleagues to support the Democratic
budget.
Mr. Chairman, last November, the American people made it clear that
they are ready for a government that will be fiscally responsible. This
Nation spoke loud and clear when they elected us and put a new party in
power in Congress. They are asking for responsibility and a new
direction in our fiscal priorities. Education, health care, the care of
our children and our seniors and our veterans, these are issues that
Americans care about.
Our budget restores common sense to our national spending and sanity
to our national priorities. It restores the President's attempt to cut
children's health care programs and community block grants. It puts
forth the single largest increase in veteran spending in our Nation's
history and not a moment too soon. It funds math and science programs
for our kids, programs like Head Start and Pell grants that provide
access to education that so many of our children need. And this budget
concerns itself with the need to create jobs and build a bright
economic future. It restores funding for job training programs, and it
does so while adhering to the PAYGO rules.
It has been a long 6 years for this Nation. Just 6 years ago, we were
looking at a projected $5.6 trillion surplus. That has collapsed into a
$9 trillion deficit. Every American in this country owes $29,000 worth
of debt.
Under Republican leadership, the budget became woefully out of
balance fiscally and out of balance with the priorities of the American
people. The people elected us to take this country in a new direction.
This budget will do so, and it will do so in a fiscally responsible
manner.
Mr. Chairman, it is time for Congress to be accountable to the
American people again.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, budgets are about values and vision. Where your
treasure is, the Bible says, there also is your heart. But if you cut
through all of the arcane detail, all the numbers, it is hard to find
the heart in the Ryan resolution.
Buried in this budget resolution, if you dig deep enough, are some
enormous cuts exceeding anything that has ever been proposed, much less
passed, in the past, particularly with respect to health care, in which
people are totally dependent. These cuts are so extreme, so deep that
they go to the reality of this whole resolution. It turns on these
cuts, and the real question is whether or not they are politically or
practically possible.
These cuts are dictated by an extraordinary process called
reconciliation. Here is what the cuts amount to: Our committee, the
Budget Committee, if this resolution were adopted, would be dictating
to the Energy and Commerce Committee, with jurisdiction over Medicare
and Medicaid, cuts of $97 billion over the next 5 years.
With respect to Medicare, this committee, if this resolution were
adopted, would direct that the Ways and Means Committee go back to
Medicare and cut another $153 billion out of Medicare or, if they
couldn't get that much out of Medicare, cut it out of the safety net
programs that are in the province of the Ways and Means Committee,
shredding the safety net for SSI, for TANF, and other programs.
Altogether, the cuts in the health care entitlements in this
resolution come to $266 billion. And not just the health care
entitlements are in jeopardy.

{time} 1315

Education and labor, $4.9 billion. Where does that come from? Student
loans, Pell Grants.
Natural resources. You heard Mr. Dicks a moment ago. Where does that
come from? Clean water, Environmental Protection Agency, conservation.
$22 billion less than we provide over 5 years.
Education, $46 million over 5 years for Function 500 less than we
provide. There is a huge difference.
But it also goes to the veracity, the practical reality of this
resolution, and begs the question: If cuts of this enormity have never
been proposed before, why do we believe that they would be enacted now?
Instead, we have a sneaking suspicion that when all of these cuts are
put together, we are going to be right back where we have been for the
last 6

[[Page H3323]]

years, that is, deeper in deficit. That is because in addition to
making spending cuts that total $278 billion, the same reconciliation
instructions call for tax cuts, tax decreases, of $447 billion; and
when you net the spending cuts against the tax cuts, you get an impact
of $168.5 billion on the deficit. It makes it worse.
If this budget resolution would come back to the House as a
concurrent budget resolution with these provisions, we would invoke the
rule we passed on the House floor to the effect that you cannot abuse
the process of reconciliation and use it for the purpose of worsening
the deficit. It can only be used to improve the deficit, to use these
extraordinary powers to improve the deficit.
That is why we say the Ryan resolution should be defeated. We think
it is a sham. We don't think it will achieve its stated purposes. We
think it will put us right back on this track of debt accumulation in
which we have seen $3.1 trillion added to the national debt over the
last 6 years.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I have always believed that government should live
within its means. No one was a harsher critic of runaway Federal
spending under Republican control than me. When our majority faltered,
I said we didn't just lose our majority, we lost our way. But thanks to
the leadership of the gentleman from Wisconsin, this Republican
substitute budget alternative should be entitled ``Lessons Learned.''
The contrast between the Democrat plan and the Republican plan is
startling. Under the Republican budget alternatives, no tax increases,
period; a courageous freeze on non-defense/non-security spending; $279
billion in savings through commonsense reform of entitlements; and real
budget process reform.
The contrast? The Democrat budget allows for the largest tax increase
in American history. It includes $22 billion in increases in non-
defense spending and completely ignores budget process reform or the
looming entitlement crisis that our Nation faces.
Mr. Chairman, the voters spoke last fall. Democrats promised voters a
return to fiscal discipline and reform. But this budget proves only one
party got the message.
I urge my colleagues to reject the Democrat majority's effort to
return us to the tax-and-spend policies of the past and vote ``yes'' on
the Republican substitute budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member of
our leadership, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, in listening to the debate, I can't help but think
about 5\1/2\ years ago and the 9/11 attacks and the simultaneous
bursting of the technology bubble here in this country. It was the Bush
tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 that provided a desperately needed shot in
the arm, lifting us from our malaise and dispelling fears that the
economy was sliding irrevocably into recession. But, today, after years
of steady economic growth marked by a surging stock market, low
inflation and low unemployment, a deflated housing market has shaken
confidence in this economy.
With the tax cuts set to expire in 2010, the last thing investors and
the American people need right now is the largest tax hike in the
history of our country, and that is the reality they are smart enough
to see, despite claims on the other side of the aisle otherwise.
The real difference between the Ryan budget and that of the majority
is whether you believe that tax cuts expiring is a tax hike. I do, and
I think the American families who will bear the brunt of a $400 billion
tax increase will likewise.
In my State of Virginia, the effects are particularly acute, with
taxpayers on average facing $3,120 in additional taxes each year.
Around the country, 45 million families with children will be hit by an
average tax increase of $2,864. Again, this is because the majority
does not agree that expiring tax cuts are a tax hike. I do.
Instead of choking our economy, we need to make the tax cuts
permanent. If we let the Democratic tax hike genie out of the bottle,
it is going to be awfully hard to put it back in.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I speak on every one of these budgets; and because I
have been here a long time, I know the history of these budgets going
back a quarter of a century. I sometimes believe the talking points on
the other side of the aisle are written by Lewis Carroll, the author,
of course, of that famous book which had as its theme saying one thing
and meaning another: ``black was white,'' ``up was down,'' et cetera,
et cetera.
I have listened since 1981 to the economic observations of such
people like Phil Gramm, such people like Dick Armey, an economist, the
majority leader of your party, and I think to myself how confused the
American public must be when the assertions are made, an article by
Dave Stockman in today's paper, you may have seen. David Broder wrote
an article about that. Mr. Stockman is in a little bit of trouble with
assertions that things that he said were true were in fact not true. In
fact, David Stockman admitted that in 1983 what he said was true was
not true; what he said they thought, they did not think.
The American public needs to place it in that context.
I have heard a lot, I say to my friend from Missouri, over the last
few hours about debates about we are going to make these tax cuts
permanent, and we are not.
Now, I am sure the American public knows that the President for the
last 6 years has been a Republican. I am sure they know that the
leadership in the House for the past 6 years has been Republican, and I
am sure they know that the leadership in the Senate has been
Republican. And guess what? Never did you make those tax cuts
permanent. Why not? Because you wanted to play fiscal games. That is
why not.
You wanted to count your out-years as looking better than they did.
Why are you having a $274 billion tax increase in this bill? How do I
say that? Because you are not fixing the AMT. Why aren't you fixing it?
Because it is STI, your ``stealth tax increase.'' You liked SDI. This
is STI, a stealth tax increase, where you say one year we are going to
fix it, but, guess what, for the next 4 years we will get that
additional tax revenue. A stealth tax increase.
There are no tax increases in this bill. In fact, it provides for tax
cuts for the middle class. But they have to be paid for.
George Bush I and Dick Gephardt, the leader of this House, came
together and said, ladies and gentlemen, we have to have fiscal
responsibility, and we are going to do it. And the way we are going to
do it is we are going to have PAYGO. We are going to pay for what we
buy. George Bush signed that. And guess what? The Republican side of
the aisle excoriated the President of the United States, George Bush,
for entering into an agreement that ultimately would bring us
surpluses.
I have also listened to these debates and have seen some very
earnest, very intelligent, very articulate young men. Mr. Ryan is the
third in a series of those earnest, intelligent, energetic, articulate
young men, who talk about their vision for America, talk about where
they want to take America.
Mr. Ryan puts up the children. Now, unlike Mr. Ryan, who I think has
children, I have children, I have got grandchildren, and, as some
people know, I have a great-granddaughter. And I am very concerned
about all of those children whose taxes you have raised almost every
year you have been in charge that I have been here, starting in 1981.
And you raised their taxes by not paying for what you buy.
You talk about cutting spending, I tell my friend.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, isn't the gentleman supposed to
address the Chair, not specific Members?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair would ask the Members to address
remarks to the Chair, rather than to others in the second person.

[[Page H3324]]

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell my friend that there
are more ways to skin a cat than one.
I tell the Chair that I have heard the argument of these earnest
young men who have all stood on this floor. David Stockman at the age
of 34 telling the country as director of OMB how we were going to
balance the budget, how Ronald Reagan said we are going to balance the
budget. Ronald Reagan ran over $1 trillion in deficits over his 8
years. Over $1 trillion in deficits.
There is one person in America who can stop spending in its tracks,
only one, and that is the President of the United States. Ronald Reagan
ran $1 trillion in deficits, actually $1.4 trillion. George Bush I in
just 4 years ran $1 trillion in deficits. And this President in the 6
years he has been President has run over $1.6 trillion in deficits.
$4.1 trillion of deficits during the Reagan administration, the Bush I
administration and the Bush II administration.
Now, I tell the Chairman that my friend does not seem to be paying
attention to these dramatic figures. But ladies and gentlemen of this
House, I hope you are, and I hope all of our constituents are listening
as well, because the rhetoric on this floor is cheap, but the
performance is not.
During those 18 years of Republican leadership of this country, we
ran $4.2 trillion in deficits. During the 8 years that Bill Clinton was
President, we had a $62.9 billion surplus. The only President in the
lifetime, I tell the Chairman, of my young friend from Wisconsin that
that has been accomplished, notwithstanding Mr. Stockman or Mr. Kasich
or Mr. Nussle, who all said they wanted to balance the budget, and
none, none, none of them did it. None of them did it.
Now, we adopted a program in 1993, and I heard the same rhetoric, I
tell my friends on this side of the aisle, that I am hearing today, the
same rhetoric. Dick Armey not only was the majority leader of the
Republican House, it wasn't a Republican House then, but he was also an
economist, and an economist still. And Mr. Armey told the President of
the United States, if we adopt this program, we are going to have deep
debt, high unemployment and annual deficits.

{time} 1330

That was the representation I tell my friends on this floor. Those
representations were all wrong. That's why when we listen to debate on
this floor today we see a balanced budget, a responsible budget that
invests in our future.
Mr. Chairman, if I were speaking directly to him, I would tell my
young friend, I have heard about these cuts that you talk about, for a
quarter of a century I have heard about these cuts. Why is it that you
spent more money as a party with the President with control of the
Senate, control of the House by a factor of two, twice as much spending
rise under the Bush Administration than under the Clinton
Administration. Why is that?
Why do you come here and crow about cutting spending when you doubled
the rate of growth when you controlled everything? That's what the
American public needs to judge.
Now, I had some prepared comments here, and I apologize to my good
friend who spent so much time doing this. But, ladies and gentlemen,
Lewis Carroll is not writing this budget. Alice is not going to have to
live under this budget. My children, my grandchildren, my great
grandchildren and, more importantly, my country, are going to have to
live under this budget.
We didn't adopt a budget last year. We didn't adopt appropriation
bills last year. We didn't do any of the fiscal business that we should
have done last year. Why? Because your party could not agree with one
another. So you had no fiscal program. Your fiscal program was spending
more money.
I hope that this House, for the first time in 6 years, adopts a
responsible budget that will move us towards balance. It won't get
there overnight. And when I say that, it is not empty rhetoric, because
when we, in 1993, passed that program, we took this country for 4
straight years out of deficit.
Now, I know you will say, ``Well, we Republicans took over in 1995.''
And my response to that, of course, is, you didn't have the presidency.
When you had it all, why couldn't you do it? When you had the
presidency, when you had the Senate, when you had the House, tell me
why you couldn't do it.
I will tell you why. Because it was the President of the United
States who said this is the way we are going to do it or I am going to
veto it. This President can veto it, and we won't be able to override
his veto. I understand that. He is in charge. That's why we have these
deficits, because he has not vetoed one spending bill. He vetoed one
bill, embryonic stem cell research. Not one spending bill. Every nickel
that has been spent in this country has been spent under the signature
of George Bush, the President of the United States, every nickel.
So I ask my friends, vote for a responsible budget. Move us, as we
did during the 1990s, 4 years out of debt, 4 years into surplus, the
first time that had happened, and left you folks that took over with a
$5.6 trillion surplus that you have squandered into a $3 trillion
deficit. And, yes, 9/11 had an impact on that. And your tax cut, we had
a very shallow recovery. You know that. Every economist says that. And
a relatively shallow downturn in the economy.
This budget offered by Mr. Spratt is a responsible budget that
provides for tax cuts for the middle class, provides for investment in
education and competitiveness of our country, provides for investment
in our veterans, provides for investment in defense, using the same
number that the President gave us so that we can keep America strong.
Mr. Spratt, I thank you. I thank the members of your committee for
having the courage and the wisdom and the fiscal soundness to come
forth with this budget. It is worthy of support of every Member of this
Congress.
I urge this House to adopt this budget this day.
Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to our republican colleagues, let
me say that to hear them talk about fiscal responsibility is nothing
less than surreal.
In this debate on the fiscal 2008 budget, many numbers have been
used.
But only two are really relevant on the issue of fiscal
responsibility, and the Republican Party's lack thereof--$5.6 trillion
and more than $3 trillion.
When President Bush took office, he and the then-Republican
majorities in Congress inherited a projected 10-year budget surplus of
$5.6 trillion.
The President proclaimed: ``we can proceed with tax relief without
fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens.''
He promised that he would pay down the national debt, and some in the
administration even worried publicly about paying down the debt too
fast.
Well, as we have learned, the President's projections were
unequivocally wrong and worries about paying down the debt were
completely misplaced.
Over the last 6 years, the President and Republicans in Congress--
after enacting the most reckless fiscal policies in American history--
have turned a projected surplus of $5.6 trillion into record budget
deficits and additional debt of more than $3 trillion.
In fact, the amount of foreign-held debt has more than doubled under
the Bush administration--from about $1 trillion in 2001 to $2.1
trillion today.
And, interest payments on the national debt have increased from $206
billion in 2001 to a projected $256 billion under the President's
budget for fiscal 2008--consuming more than 20 percent of all
individual income taxes.
Let me say, too, that until the American people spoke last November
and elected Democratic majorities in Congress, the President never--not
once--budgeted the costs of the on-going war in Iraq, which today stand
at more than $400 billion, with another $100 billion being considered.
Thus today, Mr. Chairman, with this budget written and offered by
Chairman Spratt, House Democrats will take our Nation in a new
direction and begin to clean up the fiscal train wreck left by
Republicans.
Our budget is a statement of our values and priorities, demonstrating
our unwavering commitment to defend our Nation, grow our economy,
protect our children and strengthen families, preserve our plant, and
ensure that the Federal Government is accountable and efficient.
First, this fiscally responsible Democratic budget will bring the
Federal budget back to balance by 2012. Over the next 5 years, the
cumulative deficit in our budget is $234 billion lower than the
President's budget.
Our budget strictly adheres to the pay-as-you-go budget rules that
were reinstated in January by the new majority, and which Republicans
allowed to expire in 2002. The Concord Coalition even says this budget
is ``a successful first test of how seriously they [House

[[Page H3325]]

Democrats] plan to abide by [the PAYGO] rule.''
Furthermore, this Democratic budget invests in our priorities without
increasing the deficit. It provides for a robust defense, boosting
Homeland Security funding and providing $3.5 billion more for veterans'
services than the President's request for 2008.
It also makes critical investments in education, children's health
care, transportation infrastructure, and alternative energy research
and development--while rejecting the President's request to cut Head
Start, LIHEAP, COPS and First-Responder programs, and community
development block grants.
And, our budget accommodates immediate relief for the tens of
millions of middle-income households which would otherwise be subject
to the alternative minimum tax--while calling for the extension of
middle-class tax cuts that are not due to expire until December 31,
2010.
This is a budget that we can be proud of. And, it stands in stark
contrast to the extraordinarily irresponsible policies of the last six
years.
I urge all of my colleagues: vote for fiscal responsibility and a
bright future for our children. Vote for the budget that reflects our
values and meets the needs of the American people. Vote for this
Democratic budget.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much
time is remaining on each side.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Both sides have 7\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 10 seconds, as I
yield to our minority leader, simply to say the gentleman from Maryland
comes from a State which under their budget will see an average
household tax increase of $3,238 per household. This will affect
2,259,000 Maryland taxpayers.
At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Missouri, the minority whip (Mr. Blunt).
Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I'm confident that my 3 minutes will go quicker than my
good friend's 1 minute just did.
I don't hardly know how to respond to what I just heard on the floor
from my good friend from Maryland. Whenever we had budget chairmen in
those years when we balanced the budget, apparently there is no credit
given for that. Mr. Kasich did draft a budget that balanced; certainly
Mr. Nussle did; certainly there was a precedent.
And I agree with my friend when he said 9/11 did have an impact. 9/11
did have an impact. The defense cost after 9/11 had an impact. The cost
after 9/11 of homeland security had an impact. The flat economy coming
out of 2000 had an impact and our tax policies had an impact. In fact,
in 2005, the largest increase in revenue in the history of the Federal
Government, 14.5 percent in 2005, because our tax policies worked and
produced more than a shallow recovery.
Permanent tax cuts? We would like to see permanent tax cuts, but, as
my good friend and others know, unless you have 60 people on the other
side of the building in the 100-Member Senate, you can't have permanent
tax cuts.
We have extended these tax cuts in a way that has extended our
economy, extended our growth, increased our global competition in the
marketplace. Mr. Ryan's alternative continues to do those things. The
overall budget that we are talking about today as the underlying budget
doesn't do that.
Our friends on the other side, in fact, my very good friend from
Maryland just said that they aren't increasing taxes, they are just
letting current tax policies expire. When you make the same income and
your taxes go up, that explanation rings pretty hollow. Your taxes
increase as this budget anticipates they would.
And then they say that many of these tax increases don't occur until
the third year of this budget, so you're not going to see an immediate
tax increase. But of course you're going to see an immediate increase
in the spending of the money that those new tax revenues provide. Those
tax increases do happen to start for some American families as early as
the 1st of January, next year.
Take, for example, the line in the Tax Code allowing many of our
Nation's veterans and warfighters to collect the earned income tax
credit. This budget anticipates that when that expires on December 31,
2007, it does not come back as part of the Tax Code, and the money that
is produced by that tax increase is part of what this budget spends.
The majority's budget renews the death tax. The majority's budget
renews the marriage penalty that we have eliminated, and 48 million
couples in 2011 would pay $2,900 more every year in Washington taxes
than they did the year before.
For that and many other reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge that we stick
with the policies that have grown our economy, that let us compete,
that appreciate families and support this alternative.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the minority whip
for his comments.
And, yes, in the nineties we did balance the budget. I would just
remind him, and I don't want to start my speech this way, but the first
budget you proposed led to a government shutdown. It was President
Clinton that led the way to a balanced budget and a surplus.
Now I want to thank you. Some of my colleagues have criticized you. I
want to thank you. I want to thank you because to govern is to choose.
We have two clear choices here, and there is no doubt about it.
President Kennedy once said, ``to govern is to choose.''
We're offering a new direction. You are offering the status quo.
There is no doubt about it. Because you have given us, and nobody has
really quite said thank you enough to your $4 trillion of new debt, and
you need to be appreciated for it. Because, as I've always said, if
there is one thing you can say about George Bush and the Republicans
when it comes to the economy, we will forever be in your debt. And that
is the one thing that is absolutely clear about your stewardship with
this economy.
Four trillion dollars, the largest accumulation of debt in the
shortest period of time in American history. Don't look at your shoes
when I'm saying it now, because you know that is your legacy.
Now, what are the priorities and the differences?
In Medicaid and Medicare, let's just take a look at health care,
number one economic issue for the American people. You cut $250 billion
for Medicare and Medicaid. Democrats double the size of the children's
health care program in this country. Two choices: Status quo, a new
direction.
You cut $5 billion from college assistance for people who are trying
to achieve the American dream. We expand college assistance by $3.5
billion.
You have made a decision to make cuts in other areas like
agriculture. We make sure that our farmers have a future where their
children can inherit the farm and have a future in rural America.
The choices are clear. We have a balanced budget that is balanced
with our priorities. You maintain an economic strategy that adds to the
Nation's debt as you have in past years.
Every year of our budget, the deficit declines. Every year under our
budget, 5 years in a row, the budget deficit declines until it reaches
balance and eventually a surplus. Every year. You achieve your goals by
cutting $250 billion from health care assistance, Medicare and
Medicaid.

Point of Order

Mr. GOHMERT. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. GOHMERT. We would ask for the regular order that the rules be
followed and comments be directed to the Chairman instead of directed
to individual Members and people in the body.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair would ask Members to address their
remarks to the Chair rather than to others in the second person.
The gentleman from Illinois may proceed.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have left?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois has 10 seconds
remaining.
Mr. EMANUEL. Roosevelt once said, ``We have nothing to fear but fear
itself,'' and you have taken that and turned it on its head and said,
``all we have to offer is fear.''
This is a new direction versus a status quo budget. There are clear

[[Page H3326]]

choices, and I am glad that we balance the budget.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, as I yield to my friend from
Michigan, I will note that Illinois taxpayers will pay $3,282 higher
every year. That hits 4,731,000 Illinois taxpayers budgets under their
budget.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. McCOTTER. Very quickly. Through the Chairman, I would like to
remind my friends that all spending bills originate in the House, not
in the executive branch of Congress; and that a lot of those
appropriation bills looked certainly bipartisan at the time.
What we have here in front of us is a clear choice, a choice to move
America forward, as we have tried to do, or a choice to move America in
a new direction, backwards.
We are going back to the 1970s. As a child of the 1970s in the Carter
administration, I remember how we gutted defense, I remember how our
Nation had no intelligence worth anything. And I look back to the
Clinton era and I see how the budget deficit that we now have
accumulated in a time of war was necessitated by the reduction in our
military, the gutting of our intelligence network, the inability to
defend America's basic needs. The rush to free trade, which was signed
by the Clinton administration, and now the bill came home to roost on
the watch of George Bush and the American people on September 11, 2001.
It is a history lesson that I hope was not lost upon the America
people.
Finally, to quote Lewis Carroll, as one of his admirers, ``Living is
easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.''
It is time for America to be wide awake to the choice in front of
them, and let us come back and move America forward.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas, a member of the Ways and Means Committee (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. This debate underscores the genuine change, the new
direction that we are charting here in Washington. We are beginning to
rein in these endless Republican deficits. The old Republican way of
budgeting doesn't just crunch numbers, it crunches people. We are
concerned not only about the fiscal deficit but the ``opportunity
deficit'' that occurs in communities across this country when all the
members of the community are unable to contribute their full God-given
potential, when young people are unable to pursue higher education,
when families are denied health care, when veterans are denied the
services that they have earned.

{time} 1345

There are two fundamental ways in which the Democratic approach to
tax relief differs from our Republican colleagues. First, we believe it
is possible to target tax relief to working, middle-class families
without letting the super-rich piggyback along and claim most of the
benefits.
Second, we say if tax relief is worth having, then pay for it.
Instead of going to our grandchildren and borrowing from our
grandchildren, we say go to the Grand Caymens. How about going to all
those giant corporations that have dodged their fair share of taxes by
going offshore and asking them to bear a little of the burden of our
national security? So we provide the tax relief that our middle-class
families need, but we do it in a fiscally responsible way.
Some people have imaginary friends. These Republicans have imaginary
demons about what might eventually happen with taxes. This budget is a
welcome return to reality, fiscal reality, and responsibility.
To those who are at home and are trying to determine who is right
about these Republican claims of the demon of tax relief, I think we
need only turn to a bipartisan group like the Concord Coalition, which
looked at the budget, having no axe to grind except an axe used for
cutting to achieve fiscal responsibility, and it said no tax increase
will result from this budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Our Republican friends have no credibility on fiscal
affairs. They had three times to take a bite at the tax cut apple in
2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. They ducked solving the looming AMT crisis,
instead implementing a grab bag of tax benefits for the most well off.
Now this budget puts at the top of their list more tax cuts, $1
trillion for the top 1 percent, financed by cuts in Medicare, Medicaid,
the environment, and education. When they had their hands on all the
levers of power, they couldn't even pass a budget. They left unpassed
11 of the 13 appropriations bills.
I strongly suggest rejection of their misguided fanciful approach and
support for the majority resolution.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of
the time.
Here it comes, Mr. Chairman, the closing of this debate. We have
heard it all. We have heard the quotes: these cuts are so deep, so
extreme about the Republican budget.
Well, let's just see how deep and extreme these cuts are. Instead of
spending over the next 5 years $14.976 trillion, our budget proposes
$14.928 trillion over the next 5 years. Instead of growing entitlement
spending at 4.7 percent a year, we will grow it at 4.1 percent a year.
What do we accomplish with this? What do we do with that? We balance
the budget without raising taxes. We stop the raid on the Social
Security trust fund and we pay down debt. That is what we accomplish
with our budget.
What do the Democrats accomplish? No matter how they spin it, no
matter how they duck it, no matter how they hide, they are raising
taxes. Don't ask me. Just look at The Washington Post that said: ``And
while the House Democrats say they want to preserve key parts of Bush's
signature tax cuts, they project a surplus by 2012 only by assuming
that all of these tax cuts go away.''
Meet the new Democrat majority, Mr. Chairman, the same as the old
Democrat majority. And the last time they had the majority in 1993,
what did they do? They passed the largest tax increase in American
history, $241 billion. Now, 3\1/2\ months into the new majority, what
are they planning to do? Passing the largest tax increase in American
history, about $400 billion. Is that to control spending or something
like that? No. They are engaging on a gorge of new spending. $50
billion is already being thrown out the door just this year, and it is
not even April into their new majority.
Mr. Chairman, this is a direction. This is a choice between two
visions. Do we or do we not let people keep more of their own hard-
earned money? Or do we just keep taxing them more and more and more and
spending more and more and more? That is the choice.
We believe in the people. We believe people should keep more of their
own money. We believe people should keep their child tax credit. We
don't want to tax people for being married. We believe small businesses
should be taxed no more than large corporations. We believe seniors
ought to be able to enjoy their retirement savings. We believe in
preserving, saving, and enhancing our entitlement programs by extending
their solvency.
What are they going to do? They are hastening the demise of our
entitlements, they are accelerating the bankruptcy of these programs,
and they are giving us the largest tax increase in American history.
Like it or not, the numbers are clear. You can reserve fund
everything you want, you can put any wish list you want in a piece of
legislation, but numbers don't lie. And the numbers are crystal clear
and they tell the truth: this budget, the Democrat budget, gives us the
largest tax increase in American history, and the Republican budget
keeps taxes low, and it balances the budget by controlling spending and
it stops the raid on the Social Security trust fund and it pays down
debt.
Pass the Republican budget. Defeat the Democrat budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, here is the Ryan resolution on the back of
an envelope: look at what it does for reconciliation, because it does
it elsewhere within the budget proposal.
Mr. Ryan proposes crippling, emasculating Medicare and Medicaid
totaling over $250 billion, $278 billion altogether in hypothetical,
wholly impractical, and unlikely cuts. But what is the net effect?
Because at the same time and in the same bill he lowers taxes, has a
tax cut of $447 billion. The net effect is an

[[Page H3327]]

increase to the deficit of $168 billion. That is why we have with this
kind of arithmetic, why they have added $3.1 trillion to the debt of
the United States.
Alternatively, we offer the base budget, the Spratt resolution, the
Democratic resolution. It moves to balance by 2012, it leaves in place
all of the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003. They will be in place in
2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010; and it leaves until the future the
decisions as to whether or not and to what extent to renew these tax
cuts when they expire, not because of this resolution but because of
the way you wrote them, in the year 2010.
We fully fund defense. We don't have a lot of left over, but we
husband our resources to do more for education, more for science and
innovation, more for veterans health care, and more for SCHIP which
barely ranks an honorable mention in their budget. It is the
centerpiece of our effort this year to see that more American children
will be covered by the program known as the Children's Health Insurance
Program.
Otherwise, we restrain spending, and throughout our budget
resolution, we apply religiously the rule we adopted this January, the
rule of pay-as-you-go. So that for every mandatory spending increase we
make possible, we provide that it has to be offset by mandatory
spending cuts elsewhere.
We protect the tax cuts, as I say. We present a good budget
resolution. I say vote for the Spratt resolution. Vote for the
Democratic resolution, and vote resoundingly ``no'' on the Ryan
resolution.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on the amendment has
expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 160,
noes 268, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 211]

AYES--160

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Ehlers
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Upton
Walberg
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--268

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reichert
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--10

Davis, Jo Ann
Duncan
Faleomavaega
Jefferson
Kanjorski
Lampson
Lewis (CA)
Lynch
Millender-McDonald
Watt

{time} 1416

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin and Mr. PORTER changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
Mr. NEUGEBAUER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for the Fiscal
Year 2008 Budget Resolution, H. Con. Res. 99. For far too long, the
former Republican leadership in Congress and the Bush Administration
were complacent in allowing poor public policy and misguided spending
priorities to become a driving force behind mounting Federal deficits
and an ever increasing national debt. Additionally, trillions of
dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy and billions of dollars for a
deteriorating war in Iraq have resulted in the President proposing
repeated cuts to vital domestic priorities such as healthcare,
education, and the environment.
Today, the House of Representatives is finally considering a budget
that meets the social and economic needs of the American people, while
taking the necessary steps toward addressing the mounting fiscal
hurdles facing the Federal Government.
Our Nation has been in a budgetary crisis for too long. According to
the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimates, President Bush
inherited an estimated 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion when he
arrived in office. Today, that same 10-year period (2002-2011) is
projected to show a budget deficit of $3 trillion under the President's
policies. The Democratic Budget Resolution will set the country's
finances back on track by balancing the budget by 2012, and it does
this without sacrificing programs vital to our national security, our
economy, and most importantly to the social welfare of the American
people.
This budget will provide the largest veterans' healthcare spending
increase in our Nation's history, ensuring that the 1,788,496 veterans
in Florida receive care worthy of their sacrifice. It will facilitate
significant increases in healthcare funding to expand access to
Florida's 733,000 uninsured children, and makes a firm commitment to
support education and affordable housing programs. It

[[Page H3328]]

also promotes environmental protection and conservation, and
accommodates important energy legislation aimed at investment in
renewable resources that will move our country toward energy
independence.
This budget resolution restores the fiscal responsibility and
accountability that the American people deserve and reflects the values
and priorities that the American people expect. It is time to put this
country's finances back on track and truly invest in America's
prosperity. I urge my colleague to support passage of this important
resolution.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, today the House will consider H. Con. Res.
99, the House Budget Resolution. I rise in support of this budget
resolution because it fulfills the pledge Democrats made when we
regained the majority. I am pleased to say that the Democrats have
delivered on their word--the proposed Democratic plan will balance the
budget in 5 years, while ensuring that critical programs are fully
funded and that the programs dearest to our families are fully funded.
The Democratic budget will expand health care for our children; provide
our soldiers and veterans with care worthy of their sacrifice; support
education for a 21st century workforce and a growing economy; invest in
renewable energy; and restore fiscal responsibility to the budget
process.
When President Bush was elected, he inherited a budget surplus of
$5.6 trillion. Yet by the end of his first term, the Bush
Administration turned this surplus into a deficit of nearly $3
trillion. Instead of addressing this deficit, the President's budget
increases our deficit by $507 billion over the next 5 years. In
comparison, the Democratic budget will lower the deficit by $234
billion over the next 5 years using the newly resurrected pay-as-you-go
rules.
We will also work to lower the deficit by putting an end to wasteful
government spending through increased oversight over our government
agencies, starting with the Defense Department. To date the Defense
Department continues to fail a standard audit that tracks what it
spends or owns in the annual budget. It is estimated by Defense
auditors that one of every six dollars spent for Iraq is suspect--
including $2.7 billion Halliburton has received in contracts. This
budget resolution proposes to restore government program performance
reviews instituted under the Clinton Administration, which produced 285
recommendations to improve government services.
I know that many back home are skeptical about whether this will help
the working families in Michigan. Michigan has a troubled economy; its
unemployment rate is 6.9 percent and family incomes have dropped $7,989
since 2000, while health care and energy costs continue to rise. Yet
the President's budget proposes to eliminate $205 million in funding
for job training and employment services in our state. This is funding
that Michigan desperately needs to keep our workforce competitive.
One of the first steps we can take to repair our economy is to invest
in our future workforce. Our budget meets the goals of the Democratic
Innovation Agenda by providing an additional $2 billion for federal
science and technology programs, putting us on the road to doubling
funding for the National Science Foundation. These investments are
necessary to maintain America's global competitiveness, particularly in
the areas of technology, energy and innovation.
We are going to make sure that our children receive the best
education possible; our budget provides $8 billion more in 2008 and
over 11 percent more over the next 5 years for education and training
programs. Under the President's budget, more than 120,000 children in
Michigan would go without promised help in reading and math. Head
Start--a vital program for more than 35,000 Michigan children--would be
cut by the President by 1.5 percent. These programs provide critical
services for nearly 1.8 million children enrolled in Michigan public
schools.

The Democratic budget also supports middle-class tax cuts, which will
put money back in the wallets of our families where it belongs. It will
also protect middle-income families from a tax increase by setting up a
reserve fund for a long-term fix for the alternative minimum tax, AMT.
In 2004, 69,000 Michigan families were subject to the AMT and if this
system is not adjusted for inflation, an estimated 507,000 families in
Michigan will have to pay it in 2007. Without this fix, the President's
budget would increase middle-income taxes by $230 billion. I know many
are wondering how we will actually pay for the middle-class tax cut. We
will pay for this by eliminating tax loopholes and closing the tax gap
to make sure that those who are cheating the system pay up and those
who are honest are rewarded.
In recent months, energy costs have skyrocketed, literally leaving
many Michigan families in the cold. Gasoline prices in Michigan have
increased 79 percent, up $1.12 a gallon since 2001. While the President
travels the country promoting his renewable energy programs, his budget
proposes holding funding for renewable energy and energy efficiency
programs at the 2001 funding level, and cutting the Low-Income Home
Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, by 18 percent. It is obvious that we
need to end America's addiction to foreign oil and begin to invest in
renewable energy sources here at home. The Democratic budget rejects
the proposed cut to LIHEAP and will create a reserve fund that will
redirect oil subsidies to invest $14 billion over the next 10 years in
clean, renewable alternative energy and energy efficiency programs.
This investment will promote new technologies to lower energy costs and
relieve families of this immense burden.
The Democratic budget rejects the President's proposal to cut the
Community Development Block Grant program, and actually provides the
first increase in funding for the Community Development Block Grant
program. This program provides crucial funding to assist nearly 1,200
States and local governments with job creation, economic development
and affordable housing efforts.
Not only does this budget recognize the needs of working families, it
will also recognize the needs of our veterans. It is clear from the
recent events at Walter Reed Army Medical Center that Congress needs to
closely examine the health care that veterans are receiving. Veterans
have sacrificed too much to come home to run-down health care
facilities. We will make sure that our veterans will always have the
best care available by providing the largest increase ever to the
veterans' health care budget--$3.5 billion this year and $32 billion
over the next 5 years. These resources are critical to help repair VA
health care facilities, to increase and improve disability claims
processing and to invest in mental health care and treatment for
traumatic brain injury. Michigan is home to 836,948 veterans, 42,451 of
whom recently returned from Afghanistan and Iraq. We need to let our
soldiers know that they will not be forgotten after their service is
completed.
The Democratic budget will ensure that our soldiers have the
resources they need in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that our first
responders and law enforcement officers here at home are equipped with
what they need to protect our country. Under the administration's
proposed budget, Michigan would be hit with a 52-percent cut in the
State Homeland Security Grant Program and the Law Enforcement Terrorist
Prevention Program would be eliminated completely. The President needs
to heed his own advice and fully fund these programs to ensure the
safety and security of our communities. The Democratic budget will
increase homeland security funding by six percent, ensuring that our
first responder and terrorism prevention programs have the resources
they need.
After 6 years of irresponsible fiscal budgets and empty promises,
today's resolution will take the first step to finally balancing our
budget and delivering critical funding to programs that need it the
most. I support this resolution and I urge my colleagues to vote yes on
H. Con. Res. 99.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support
of H. Con. Res. 99, the Fiscal Year 2008 Congressional Budget proposed
by my esteemed colleague from South Carolina, the Chairman of the House
Budget Committee John Spratt. I would specifically like to commend the
hard work and expertise of my colleagues of the House Committee on the
Budget that has brought forward this budget that prioritizes education,
the environment, agriculture, health care, and positive international
relations for the future of our Nation.
I never forget in my work within the walls of this House that I am my
brother's keeper. To this end, I am willing to contribute financially
what is necessary to complete that task. All citizens of America must
take ownership of the vital services, which require Federal funding to
maintain.
Mr. Chairman, every day in the House Rules Committee, Members of
Congress on both sides of the aisle propose legislation that has
financial implications. I hear about necessary programs for veterans
affairs, education, alternative energy development, health care, and
every other possible issue, all of which cost money to implement.
Interestingly, though not surprisingly, no one ever comes to Committee
talking about giving money back to pay for their requests. You see, it
costs money to provide the necessary services and infrastructure to our
constituents. But it is clear that Republican opponents of Chairman
Spratt's budget are not willing to pay.
The Fiscal Year 2008 Democratic budget is fiscally responsible in its
projections for revenue generation and ability to pay for necessary
services for our constituents. While we may have inherited an economic
mess from the former Republican majority, this budget will repair the
damage inflicted to our economy and provide for a budget surplus by
2012. It is fiscally sound and domestically and internationally
responsible.
Mr. Chairman, the House today has an opportunity to consider an
alternative budget offered by the Congressional Black Caucus.

[[Page H3329]]

While I wholeheartedly support the budget prepared by Chairman Spratt,
I would also like to express strong support for the Congressional Black
Caucus Alternative Budget brought forth by my friend Congressman Bobby
Scott of Virginia. I commend Congressman Scott and my colleagues of the
Congressional Black Caucus for their work on this budget.
The Congressional Black Caucus Alternative Budget meets a stringent
test of fiscal responsibility by providing for a budget surplus of $141
billion in Fiscal Year 2012 while funding even more national
priorities. More specifically, under Function 300: Natural Resources
and the Environment, this budget allocates over $1 billion more than
Chairman Spratt's budget for Hurricane Katrina recovery, environmental
justice, and national parks. Another key feature of this budget is that
it funds the State Children's Health Insurance Program at a level that
will provide insurance for every uninsured child in America.
Mr. Chairman, I could speak for quite some time about the phenomenal
features of the Congressional Black Caucus Alternative Budget. I hope
that all of my colleagues in this Congress recognize its innovation and
merit as another possible means to overcome the budgetary challenges
that were exacerbated by the former Republican majority. Both the
Democratic and Congressional Black Caucus budgets are common sense
solutions to the difficult financial situation with which we have been
forced to deal. I urge my colleagues to support both plans.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 99,
a budget resolution providing a number of common sense solutions to the
budget crisis created by 12 years of Republican fiscal mismanagement.
I was here in 1993 when President Clinton and Congressional Democrats
passed our budget resolution. And this year reminds me of 1993. We are
hearing exactly the same complaints about this budget as we did that
year. And we all know what happened when we passed our budget back
then.
The Democrats helped create the longest economic expansion in our
Nation's history. We balanced the budget after years of Republican
Presidents had pushed us deeper and deeper into debt. We helped create
more wealth than had ever been created in America. We created the
largest surpluses in history. And we did this without a single
Republican supporting our budget.
In fact, the minute the Republicans got back into power, they wiped
out the surpluses we gave them, and began drowning us in debt. They
took the economic expansion we gave them, and drove us into recession.
Mr. Chairman, once again we are faced with red ink as far as the eye
can see. We have a debt of almost $9 trillion, and the Republicans have
abdicated any attempt to solve this.
The budget resolution we have introduced incorporates the pay-as-you-
go rule that was one of the first acts of the new Democratic Congress.
We are also increasing funding for veterans in order to fulfill the
promises we made to them long ago. Our budget provides $3.5 billion
more than the President's budget for veterans' health care, and $6.6
billion more than was provided in the 2007 budget. This is the largest
funding increase for veterans in our Nation's history. We are also
providing $50 over the next five years to cover millions of uninsured
children.
I strongly support the Democratic budget resolution. It will help put
our fiscal house back in order, without relying on the massive middle
class tax increase that the President's budget includes. I would
encourage my colleagues to support this budget as well.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Fiscal Year
2008 Budget resolution.
I rise in support of this budget because I believe that it truly
addresses the needs of all Americans, while restoring fiscal
responsibility and accountability. Last year, Democrats pledged to move
the country in a new direction and this budget is one more step in
fulfilling that commitment. Republicans' irresponsible economic
policies of the past six years have left a debt burden of $29,099 for a
typical middle-income family of four in Rhode Island. This budget
begins to reverse harmful cuts, restores critical domestic programs,
and better reflects the priorities of all Americans by strengthening
our national defense and investing in future generations.
This budget provides for the largest veterans' budget increase in
American history, which will directly bolster healthcare services for
91,160 veterans in Rhode Island. It is also critical for the 4,082
brave Rhode Islanders, who have served their country in Afghanistan and
Iraq since September 2001, many of whom will need VA health care
services.
In 2004, 13,000 Rhode Island families were subject to the alternative
minimum tax--and if nothing is done to fix the system, an estimated
98,000 families here in Rhode Island will be subject to the AMT in
2007. This budget supports middle-class tax cuts and protects middle-
income families from a tax increase by setting up a reserve fund for a
long-term fix for the alternative minimum tax.
In Rhode Island, there are 100,000 small businesses that serve as the
engine of the economy. This budget rejects the President's proposal to
cut the Small Business Administration by 26 percent from last year's
request and 56 percent from 2001. It also rejects the President's cuts
that eliminate $11,429,000 in funding for job training and employment
services in Rhode Island. These investments to a growing economy for
America's families are needed as family income in Rhode Island has only
increased $574 since 2000 and health care and energy prices continue to
climb.
In Rhode Island, 20,260 of our children do not have health insurance.
This budget helps these children by increasing funding for State
Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)--reducing the number of
uninsured kids across America by millions. This budget also rejects the
Administration's proposal to cut Medicare funding by $170,154,922 for
Rhode Island hospitals, skilled nursing facilities and home health care
providers--because those proposals would make health care less
accessible and less affordable for many Rhode Islanders.
The House budget provides substantially more funding for Rhode
Island's 159,600 children enrolled in public elementary, middle and
high schools--providing nearly $8 billion more in 2008 and 11 percent
more over the next five years for education and training programs than
requested by the President. This will increase resources for No Child
Left Behind, special education and Head Start--rejecting harsh cuts and
under funding for these critical education programs included in the
President's budget.
Gas prices have increased by $1.11 in Rhode Island since January
2001, an increase of approximately 73 percent. The Democratic House
budget invests in renewable energy and energy efficiency to reduce our
dependence on foreign oil, reduce global warming, and promote new
technologies that can create American jobs. It will also restore
funding for Rhode Island environmental programs cut by the President's
budget--including $2,654,000 in Clean Water revolving loan funds that
help Rhode Island improve wastewater treatment. Mr. Chairman, this
budget is a critical step in a new direction. Today, for the first time
in many years, this House will pass a budget that truly represents the
priorities of the American people.
Mr. HALL of New York. Mr. Chairman, today it was with great
reluctance that I cast my vote against the Woolsey substitute budget
amendment. I say it was with great reluctance because the progressive
budget put forth by the amendment contained a great many individual
provisions that I strongly support.
I strongly applaud the inclusion of full funding for No Child Left
Behind in the amendment, and believe that we as a Congress must
continue to work toward that goal. For too long, the Republican
majority and President Bush have forced local communities to bear the
brunt of No Child Left Behind's mandates without sufficient Federal
support. For the sake of our children, our schools, and our communities
we need to rectify this.
Likewise, I admire, respect, and support the amendment's commitment
to full, guaranteed funding for veterans' healthcare. As the ongoing
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan create a new generation of veterans with
critical new healthcare needs, we must make sure that the VA healthcare
system will be able to accommodate them while caring for veterans from
previous generations. As a member of the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, I remain committed to making sure that the VA can honor the
sacred pact we make with our soldiers; that if they fight to defend our
Nation, our Nation will make sure they have the care they need.
There are other highly commendable provisions in the amendment,
including the repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent
of Americans, tax cuts which I believe have helped to put us on the
path to fiscal ruin without providing one bit of support for working
families. The proposal also includes much-needed provisions to crack
down on corporate welfare and a commitment to expand health coverage to
all Americans.
I support these provisions, and it is my deep and abiding hope that
they will be brought to the floor of this Chamber individually to be
considered and adopted by the House. However, the option to consider
them as such was not available today.
The previous majority left this House, and this Nation, with an
astounding fiscal train wreck, and in order to restore budgetary
balance we must make difficult decisions. I am also concerned that
although there are many laudable goals included in the substitute
amendment, it failed to reform the Alternative Minimum Tax, which
unintentionally and unnecessarily burdens a tremendous number of the
residents of the Hudson Valley.

[[Page H3330]]

The underlying budget resolution, for which I cast my vote, contains
strong funding increases for many of the programs I have discussed,
balances the budget, and provides vital AMT relief. In light of the
fiscal challenges created by previous Congresses, I believe that the
underlying budget represents a strong, responsible step forward and is
deserving of support.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, today I voted for both the
Congressional Black Caucus and the Progressive Caucus alternatives to
the budget resolution, in addition to voting for the House Democratic
Budget resolution. I believe all three of these proposals have a great
deal of merit.
The Congressional Black Caucus's alternative provides high levels of
funding for important national health initiatives, including increasing
funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program by $10
billion and increasing funding for veteran's benefits and services by
$3.4 billion over the amounts provided by the House Democratic
resolution. Importantly, the Congressional Black Caucus's alternative
provides an increase over the House Democratic resolution in foreign
aid spending by an additional $3.1 billion--providing much needed funds
to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. The Progressive Caucus's
alternative also showcased wise policy choices; it also would have
provided increased funding for the State Children's Health Insurance
Program and would have invested in America's future by funding
educational opportunities, job training programs, and the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act. In addition, the Progressive Caucus's
alternative reflected one of my highest priorities, which was to strip
funding from obsolete Cold War era weapons programs that divert
precious resources away from America's actual security interests, and
its budget projections assumed a complete withdrawal from the Iraqi
Civil War.
I was also proud to help craft and vote for the House Democratic
Budget resolution, however, because it provides for increased veterans
benefits and services, increased educational benefits, increased
environmental initiatives, and leads to a budget surplus by 2012. In
sum, it represents a reasonable balance of opportunities and it does so
within our means--unlike the Republican proposals. A critical aspect of
the House Democratic Budget resolution is its provisioning of reserve
funds that enable this Congress to begin repairing the damage done by
the Republicans to our Nation's fiscal stability by fixing the
alternative minimum tax--a ``stealth tax'' on millions of middle class
taxpayers--and preserving tax cuts for the middle class. I voted to
express my support for the ideas contained in Congressional Black
Caucus's and the Progressive Caucus's budgets, but I also voted to
support the House Democratic Budget resolution because it provides a
reasoned blueprint for the fiscal decisions facing this country.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, the FY 2008 budget is a monument to
irresponsibility and profligacy. It shows that Congress remains
oblivious to the economic troubles facing the Nation, and that
political expediency trumps all common sense in Washington. To the
extent that proponents and supporters of these unsustainable budget
increases continue to win reelection, it also shows that many Americans
unfortunately continue to believe government can provide them with a
free lunch.
To summarize, Congress proposes spending roughly $3 trillion in 2008.
When I first came to Congress in 1976, the Federal Government spent
only about $300 billion. So spending has increased tenfold in 30 years,
and tripled just since 1990.
About one-third of this $3 trillion is so-called discretionary
spending; the remaining two-thirds is deemed ``mandatory'' entitlement
spending, which means mostly Social Security and Medicare. I am sure
many American voters would be shocked to know their elected
representatives essentially have no say over two-thirds of the Federal
budget, but that is indeed the case.
The most disturbing problem with the budget is the utter lack of
concern for the coming entitlement meltdown. The official national debt
figure, now approaching $9 trillion, reflects only what the Federal
Government owes in current debts on money already borrowed. It does not
reflect what the Federal Government has promised to pay millions of
Americans in entitlement benefits down the road. Those future
obligations put our real debt figure at roughly 50 trillion dollars--a
staggering sum that is about as large as the total household net worth
of the entire United States. Your share of this 50 trillion amounts to
about $175,000.
For those who thought a Democratic Congress would end the war in
Iraq, think again: their new budget proposes supplemental funds
totaling about $150 billion in 2008 and $50 billion in 2009 for Iraq.
This is in addition to the ordinary Department of Defense budget of
more than $500 billion, which the Democrats propose increasing each
year just like the Republicans.
The substitute Republican budget is not much better: while it does
call for freezing some discretionary spending next year, it increases
military spending to make up the difference. The bottom line is that
both the Democratic and Republican budget proposals call for more total
spending in 2008 than 2007.
My message to my colleagues is simple: If you claim to support
smaller government, don't introduce budgets that increase spending over
the previous year. Can any fiscal conservative in Congress honestly
believe that overall federal spending cannot be cut 25 percent? We
could cut spending by two-thirds and still have a Federal Government as
large as it was in 1990.
Congressional budgets essentially are meaningless documents, with no
force of law beyond the coming fiscal year. Thus budget projections are
nothing more than political posturing, designed to justify deficit
spending in the near term by promising fiscal restraint in the future.
But the time for thrift never seems to arrive: there is always some new
domestic or foreign emergency that requires more spending than
projected.
Nobody in Washington will look back 5 years from now and exclaim,
``Gee whiz, back in 2007 we promised to balance the budget by 2012, so
I guess we better stick to that pledge and stop spending so much this
year.'' The only certainty when it comes to Federal budgets is that
Congress will spend every penny budgeted and more during the fiscal
year in question. All projections about revenues, tax rates, and
spending in the future are nothing more than empty promises. Congress
will pay no attention whatsoever to the 2008 budget in coming years.
We should not let the debate over numbers distract us from the
fundamental yet unspoken issues inherent in any budget proposal: What
is the proper role for government in our society? Are the programs,
agencies, and departments funded in the budget proposal constitutional?
Are they effective? Could they operate with a smaller budget? Would the
public even notice if certain items were eliminated altogether? These
are the kinds of questions the American people should ask, even if
Congress lacks the courage to apply any principles whatsoever to the
budget process.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the
Republican budget alternative and in strong support of the Democratic
budget.
I applaud my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for bringing
forward a budget alternative, which is no small feat, so we can have a
thorough debate about our Nation's priorities.
I would also like to add that I support their commitment to reforming
mandatory spending programs. It is a significant problem on the horizon
that Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, former Fed Chairman Greenspan,
the Comptroller General, and others have forewarned us about. While I
support their concept of reigning in mandatory spending, I suspect we
differ in how to go about that.
What bothers me more about this process is not that we have
disagreements, because we are going to have disagreements on where we
spend the money and who pays for it. Those are legitimate arguments
that should be vigorously debated. But the rhetoric that we use that
surrounds it I think is unfair on both sides of the aisle.
I was not here in 2001, but I voted for about half of the 2003 tax
cuts because I thought it was the right policy for this country.
However, I did not agree with other budget policies. I don't believe
that Republican budgets addressed critical health care and education
priorities, or met the needs of our veterans. And the policies added
staggering amounts to our Nation's debt. Regardless of how we got here,
I think we ought to not fool ourselves about where we actually are.
This is a train wreck that we find ourselves in, that the former
Republican majority could not right. It was such a train wreck that
Republicans could not pass a budget and could not finish the
appropriations process last year. Democrats had to do a continuing
resolution when we assumed the majority this year to clean up the mess
that was left behind.
According to the Bush Administration's own numbers, the policies of
President Bush and the Republican Congress put us on pace to increase
the federal debt by well over $4 trillion by 2008. By comparison, it
took the first 41 presidents combined to accumulate a total of $4
trillion in debt.
The debt and deficits we have racked up are not sustainable over
time. They undermine America's economic strength by driving up interest
rates and reducing investment. They force us to become increasingly
beholden to foreign nations, as three-fourths of all new federal
borrowing has come from foreign investors such as China and Japan. And
they mortgage our children's future, forcing them to pay back the
mountains of debt we are incurring today. We should be investing in our
children's future, not borrowing from it.
We have a responsibility to begin cleaning up the fiscal mess that we
inherited. The

[[Page H3331]]

Democratic budget does just that and promises a new direction for our
country. What we are trying to do with the Democratic budget is to take
tow trucks to this train wreck and pull those cars off the track. Then,
somehow, we have got to straighten out the track. It is going to be a
lot of tough work and a lot of hammering on those tracks to get them
back in line. And then we have got to set those railcars back up on the
railroad track and somehow get this train moving again.
Correcting the fiscal course of our country cannot be achieved
overnight, but I believe that this budget is a good first step. It
addresses our Nation's priorities. It institutes tough spending control
measures and fiscal discipline. It provides for responsible tax relief.
And it brings our budget back to balance within five years.
The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Spratt, should be commended
for helping to right this train. The budget may not be perfect, but he
deserves a tremendous amount of credit for what he has done and the
Blue Dog Coalition certainly appreciates his efforts. We think we are
headed in the right direction and are on the right track.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, today we are living up to the promise we
made at the beginning of the new Congress to bring discipline to the
federal budget.
By passing this Resolution, we will take an important step toward
balancing our nation's budget, begin generating a budget surplus by
2012, and provide resources for critical undertakings in our country.
It's been a long time since we've talked about budget surpluses. Back
in 2001, a $5.6 trillion surplus was projected by 2011. In two short
years, that surplus disappeared and instead $2.8 trillion was added to
the national debt. It now stands today at more than $8.8 trillion.
Today we're turning the corner by upholding the principle of pay-as-
you-go. Any new spending has to be offset by cuts to other parts of the
budget and new tax cuts must be paid for.
This budget addresses several important national priorities: It
provides relief to the middle-class from the Alternative Minimum Tax
(AMT) which is causing an increasing number of Americans to absorb a
higher tax burden, as well as imposing an enormous paperwork burden on
taxpayers who must determine whether or not they have to pay this tax.
In my Congressional District, 11 percent of taxpayers are subject to
the AMT. On average, they pay $8,000 in additional taxes each year
because of it. This budget allows for the extension of expiring middle-
class tax provisions, including the child tax credit, marriage penalty
relief, the 10-percent bracket, and the deduction for state and local
sales taxes; it provides up to $50 billion to expand the State
Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to cover a million more
uninsured children in our country.
Because we're committed to fiscal responsibility, each of these
priorities will be paid for.
The budget also provides funding for priorities that have been
neglected for too long: it provides $3 billion in additional funding
for education, including the No Child Left Behind Act and the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; it provides funding for
the victims and communities devastated by Hurricane Katrina; it
provides $5.4 billion for health care for veterans.
This Budget Resolution provides funding to carry forward the
Innovation Agenda that House Democrats under Speaker Pelosi developed
last year, a commitment to keep America #1 competitively by making
major investments in education and research, and the Resolution
delivers on this commitment: it puts us on the path toward doubling the
funding for the National Science Foundation and basic research in the
physical sciences; it supports important initiatives to educate 100,000
new scientists, engineers, and mathematicians and to ensure that highly
qualified teachers are instructing elementary and secondary school
students in science and math.
This budget is supported by a wide-array of scientists and
innovators, including:
American Electronics Association (AeA)
American Chemical Society (ACS)
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
Association of American Universities (AAU)
Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA)
Council on Competitiveness
Electronics Industry Association (EIA)
Information Technology Industry Council (ITI)
Information Technology Association of America (ITAA)
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
National Venture Capital Association (NVCA)
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
(NASULGC)
Science Coalition
Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International (SEMI)
TechNet.
Technology CEO Council
Mr. Chairman, I know it is not easy to create a budget that satisfies
every need, but for the first time in years we have a budget that
acknowledges fiscal realities and addresses our national priorities in
a balanced and responsible manner. It is a worthy statement of our
national values, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to rise in strong
support of H. Con. Res. 99, the House Budget Resolution for fiscal year
2008. This bill proves that a responsible budget can both reflect the
values of our country and ensure the growth of our economy.
For all too long the voice of the American people has not been heard
in this Congress. Today, I am proud to say that the new Democratic-led
Congress is listening and we are delivering. We have brought a budget
to the floor that begins to reverse six years of harmful cuts and
reckless fiscal policy, and invests in the Nation's future. This budget
supports programs that help more working families help themselves. It
keeps our promises to our children, seniors, and veterans.
Unlike the Administration's budget, this carefully crafted budget
brings down the deficit by $234 billion over the next 5 years and
balances it by 2012. It supports middle-class tax cuts and sets up a
reserve fund for a long-term fix for the AMT--a tax that will effect
over 580,000 Connecticut families in 2007. The bill also creates a
reserve fund of up to $14 billion over 10 years for investments in
clean, renewable alternative energy that is paid for by redirecting oil
company subsidies.
This budget refuses to leave children behind--it provides $7.9
billion more in funding for education, which means more funding for No
Child Left Behind, special education, and aid to help students afford
college. The bill also includes a $50 billion reserve fund to expand
the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, to cover the more
than 9 million children without health insurance, including the nearly
73,000 uninsured children in Connecticut. In addition, this budget
ensures veterans receive the care that is worthy of their sacrifice. It
provides $3.5 billion more this year to provide quality health care for
veterans, repair VA health care facilities, and improve the accuracy
and time of processing disability claims.
Our budget rejects the President's proposed cuts to Medicare and
homeland security grants. Our budget refuses to increase the deficit.
Our budget refuses to ``stay the course'' of the Bush Administration.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting
the underlying bill, a budget that reflects the values and priorities
of the American people.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, while I agree with many of the priorities
in H. Con. Res. 99, the concurrent budget resolution for FY-08,
unfortunately, I cannot support it.
I have serious concerns about increasing government spending and
cannot support a budget that allows key tax cuts to expire.
I am also concerned about the partisanship that I have seen leading
up to this vote.
Last fall, voters in my district told me they wanted to change the
tone in Washington. They wanted Congress to ratchet down the rhetoric,
and start working together to find sensible solutions to our common
problems.
That included our nation's financial mess.
The current mess affects us all. Not just Democrats, and not just
Republicans.
Sadly, listening to this week's budget debate, you would never know
it.
I refuse to believe we cannot find a third way, a bipartisan way, to
incorporate good ideas from both sides of the aisle.
It seems to me tax cuts should be a good place to start. Most of us
support tax cuts for middle income families.
In my view, this should include reduced estate taxes and reduced
capital gains.
It is true that, once upon a time, stock ownership was the province
of the rich. But today, with the proliferation of 401(k)s and mutual
funds, nearly half of all Americans own stock.
As stock ownership has grown mainstream, it has become increasingly
important to keep capital gains low.
This and other tax cuts are scheduled to expire in 2010, and despite
what some are saying, today's budget does, in fact, maintain them until
that time.
What today's budget does not do, and what I hope future budgets will
do, is find a way to extend these cuts beyond 2010.
Obviously, this is easier said than done, especially if we are
serious about reducing the deficit. But I believe that, unless we make
this a priority now, it will become that much harder to accomplish in
the future.
I applaud today's budget for its commitment to education,
transportation, and veterans. These are critical priorities, which have
been short-changed in the recent past, and they deserve our utmost
attention. In the rush to make improvements, however, we need to

[[Page H3332]]

make sure we are getting the most out of what we are already spending.
Voters have a right to expect accountability. I encourage all my
colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to ask tough questions as they
review current Federal programs.
Working together, I know we can support our Nation's priorities and
get our fiscal house in order.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res.
99.
For the last 6 years we have been swimming in serious red ink. Deep
red ink. Thanks to President Bush and the Republicans in Congress we
have added almost three trillion dollars to our Nation's debt. This red
ink also seemed to be without end. In the past the other side of the
aisle put forward budgets that did not reflect a serious commitment to
responsible fiscal policy. Those budgets also failed to reflect the
priorities of the American people.
Well, Mr. Chairman, Congress is under new management. That new
management has produced a budget for the House to consider about which
the American people can be proud.
The Democratic budget is fiscally responsible. It reimposes pay-as-
you-go (PAYGO) budgeting principles and achieves balance in 2012. At
the same time, this budget puts our priorities in the proper order.
For example, it provides tax relief to those who it needs it most--
the middle-class. This tax relief includes the extension of certain tax
breaks, such as the child tax credit, and reform of the Alternative
Minimum Tax (AMT).
This budget also increases spending on the things that matter most to
the American people, such as our children, education, health care, and
veterans. Today we will be providing for a $50 billion increase in
funds to provide health insurance to millions of more uninsured kids.
Education, training, and related programs will receive three billion
more than current levels and almost eight billion more than requested
by the President. Funding for veterans' health care services is
increased by 14.4 percent.
I am proud to support this budget. It reflects a responsible fiscal
position and puts our limited resources towards programs and policies
that are important to this nation. I encourage all of my colleagues to
vote in favor of H. Con. Res. 99.
Mr. SALI. Mr. Chairman, today Members of Congress faced two budget
resolutions. The choice is a clear one between bigger, more expensive
and more intrusive government versus fiscal discipline based on key
priorities.
Now, fiscal discipline is hard, which is why it is not always
popular. It is easy for some to vote to increase government spending,
but ultimately someone must pay for it. It is common to hear about the
``government'' doing this project or that project. We hear a lot about
the ``government'' spending money, but we must not allow the idea of
``government'' doing something to lead us to forget that, ultimately,
``We the People'' are the ones who have to pay for what government
does. The nineteenth century economist Frederic Bastiat once said that
``government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to
live at the expense of everybody else.''
Although the Federal Government is not known for its fiscal
discipline, we are now facing a budget that exceeds even the most
fevered imaginings of history's biggest spenders. It would enact the
largest tax increase in history--an almost $400 billion increase.
This is one path, and it is the one down which the new Majority
proposes to take us. We also had the opportunity to take another path,
a roadway to a balanced budget without raising taxes on working
Americans.
The choice is clear. The Democratic budget would do serious harm to
Idahoans, their families and their businesses. The Democratic budget
would: Raise taxes on 436,000 Idahoans who benefit from the current 10
percent tax bracket; force 176,000 married couples in Idaho to pay for
an increase in the marriage tax penalty; force 133,000 Idahoans with
children to pay higher taxes because of the expiration of the current
child tax credit; and raise tax rates on capital gains and dividends
for 74,000 Idaho investors, including Idaho senior citizens.
The Democrats are demanding that hardworking Idahoans further
subsidize the already bulging government coffers. More than that, the
reckless increases in entitlement spending included in their bill would
require that generations to come pay for our present unwillingness to
make tough decisions.
As many know but few heed, the explosive rate of entitlement spending
is simply not sustainable. If the current rate of federal entitlement
spending remains unabated, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will
consume 20 percent of the Nation's economy annually by 2040. If trends
continue, entitlements will take up over 60 percent of the entire
Federal budget in less than a decade. Our Nation is one of great
prosperity, but no nation can expect to maintain economic and political
greatness by feeding government programs at the expense of working
families.
Few will be untouched by this vicious money-grab. Seniors, married
couples, parents, small business owners, lower-income earners--all will
be forced to turn over more of their earnings to the Federal
Government.
In contrast, I support the Republican-offered substitute budget. The
Republican budget reaches a balanced budget by 2012, but retains the
important tax cuts adopted in 2001 and 2003. The Republican budget does
not arbitrarily raise the 10 percent bracket to 15 percent; it
preserves the current 10 percent rate. Lower-income earners need that
money more than the government does. The Republican budget: Stops
raiding the Social Security surplus; reins-in unsustainable, runaway
entitlement spending by slowing the rate of annual entitlement spending
growth, thereby saving money for the taxpayers; prepares for the future
by budgeting in advance for national emergencies and crises; refines
and strengthens the so-called ``pay as you go'' (PAYGO) rules to
require that spending increases be offset with spending reductions
instead of increasing taxes; caps discretionary spending through 2010
so Congress cannot simply throw more money at problems that require
real solutions.
In short, we in Congress are accountable to our constituents. We must
remember that real people and their livelihoods are at stake back home.
If we wish to help those back in our districts, we must bear in mind
that we do not have all the answers here in Washington. Congress did
not earn the money that we took in taxes. It was hard-working Americans
that earned it. If we fail to make the direly-needed tough choices
about runaway spending, we are merely fostering a tax-and-spend culture
that demands our constituents make pay a greater sacrifice in their
earnings.
This is an unacceptable demand to make. Thankfully, the President has
said he would veto the Democratic bill. Yet unless Congress begins to
take seriously the need for economic growth, tax reduction for families
and balancing the Federal budget, relying on the nation's Chief
Executive to exercise his veto pen is like depending on a child to put
his finger in the leak of a dyke. It will only work for a short time.
We've got to do better, soon.
Mr. Ortiz. Mr. Chairman, Federal budgets reflect our values as a
nation. This Nation has rejected passing the monumental debt run up by
this administration and past congresses on to their children. We are
bringing a new fiscal direction to our budgeting process.
Correcting the fiscal course of the country will not be easy, or
fast. We did it before, but success only comes with the hard work of
passing budget and appropriations bills every year . . . unlike the way
past Congresses did it: not paying the bills, running up huge waves of
debt in the form of higher taxes on our children. We're about to start
doing this right.
Our fiscal outlook deteriorated dramatically over the past 6 years.
In 2001, the administration inherited a projected 10-year (2002-2011)
budget surplus of $5.6 trillion. After paying for tax cuts for the
richest among us, that surplus was gone. Between that and the 9-11
attacks, the United States accumulated a mountain of debt, adding $2.8
trillion to our Federal debt burden since 2001. Most of this debt has
been purchased by foreign investors, making the U.S. economy more
vulnerable to economic and political instability and political pressure
from abroad.
Deficits matter. It is our moral responsibility to start cleaning up
the fiscal chaos wrought by the last Congresses and the President.
Living beyond our means comes at a cost to our children and
grandchildren who will have to pay off that debt. The irresponsible
economic policies of the past 6 years have left a debt burden of
$29,075 for a typical middle-income family of four in Texas.
Deficits also hurt economic growth by slowing down national savings,
which leaves us less to invest in our future. That means lower
productivity and wages for future workers. The President's budget
continued the fiscal approach that has brought us large deficits and
growing debt.
This budget is in sharp contrast to the trend of spending our
children's money like mad. Today's budget takes the necessary steps to
eliminate our long-term budget deficit by adhering to the pay-as-you-go
principle, just as families at kitchen tables do every day across the
country.
A balanced budget must include balanced priorities. For the first
time in 6 years, the congressional budget resolution will balance the
Federal budget--in 2012--while also defending our country, delivering
critical services to children and families, caring for our veterans,
educating our children, and growing the U.S. economy.
The 2008 budget is the blueprint for the new direction we are taking
the American people. It provides greater deficit reduction than the
administration in the first 5 years, leading to a budget surplus in
2012 . . . we pay for the budget as we go, not as we hope we'll have a
windfall of money . . .

[[Page H3333]]

I am particularly pleased at the matters affecting South Texas,
including:
The largest veterans' budget increase in American history--$3.5
billion more this year ($32 billion over the next 5 years) for
veterans' health care than the President's budget.
Greater investment in areas that deal with homeland security,
rejecting the cuts to vital first responder and terrorism prevention
programs included in the President's FY 2008 budget. Under the
President's budget, the State Homeland Security Grant Program--which
awarded $277,028,279 to Texas from 2003 to 2006--would be slashed by 52
percent. The Law Enforcement Terrorist Prevention Program (LETPP)--
which awarded $70,936,283 to Texas from 2004 to 2006--would be
eliminated.
Funds to begin implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations to
make Texas and our nation more secure.
Investments in a 21st Century Workforce for a growing economy and
protects middle-class taxpayers.
Increasing funding for State Children's Health Insurance Program
(SCHIP)--in Texas, where previous budget cuts left 1,366,710 children
without health insurance.
Rejecting the administration's proposal to cut Medicare funding by
$1,586,784,434 for Texas hospitals, skilled nursing facilities and home
health care providers.
Providing substantially more funding for Texas' 4,365,200 children
enrolled in public elementary, middle and high schools--providing
nearly $8 billion more in 2008 and 11 percent more over the next 5
years for education and training programs than requested by the
President.
Increasing resources for No Child Left Behind, special education and
Head Start--rejecting the harsh cuts and underfunding for these
critical education programs in the President's budget.
I urge my colleagues to adopt this budget, and begin a new era of
fiscal sanity and investment in our greatest resource--Americans.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H. Con.
Res. 99, the Budget Resolution for FY 2008. This measure will provide
robust funding for some of the most important programs to the American
people, while simultaneously maintaining our commitment to fiscal
discipline.
Last year, the Democrats promised to move the country in a new and
better direction. The budget before us today restores many of the
programs that the President proposed to cut, while allowing us to not
only balance our budget but return to surplus by 2012. I am pleased
that the Democratic budget meets our commitment to national defense and
supports those who have served our country by providing significant
increases for military and veterans' health care. We must not leave
behind those who have risked their lives in defense of our Nation, and
this budget includes $3.5 billion more than the President's to improve
care in the areas of mental health, post-traumatic stress disorder,
traumatic brain injury and spinal cord injury--areas of great concern
for our veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
As the Chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emerging
Threats, Cybersecurity and Science and Technology, I am proud to
support a budget that properly invests in our homeland security
initiatives. Unlike the President's proposal, we provide considerable
funding for programs important to state and local law enforcement in
Rhode Island, including the State Homeland Security Grant Program,
which awarded approximately $50 million to Rhode Island from 2003 to
2006, and the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, from which
Rhode Island received $11.5 million from 2004 to 2006. By passing the
Democratic budget, we can give first responders in Rhode Island the
tools they need to keep our citizens safe.
In addition, the new Democratic leadership has made implementing the
9/11 Commission recommendations a top priority for the 110th Congress.
This task was completed in the first 100 hours, and today we underscore
our commitment to those recommendations by providing sufficient funding
to carry them out.
The Democratic budget also meets our Nation's domestic priorities,
notably in the area of health care. While the President proposed to cut
children from the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, our
budget includes a $50 billion reserve fund to expand SCHIP to cover
more of the nine million children without health insurance in this
country. In Rhode Island's RIte Care program, federal SCHIP funds are
leveraged to provide health insurance to many children living in
families with at least one working parent or an income below 250
percent of the poverty level. RIte Care also covers certain pregnant
women and parents, providing peace of mind for families who would
otherwise face uncertainty about health care. Still, despite these
relatively generous eligibility policies, there are still 18,680
uninsured children in the state, or 6.6 percent of all Rhode Island
children, which is why additional support is needed to protect our most
vulnerable. The Democratic budget provides that support.
This budget will also increase funding for education, social
services, and job training programs by almost $8 billion over the 2008
program level in the President's budget, important steps that we must
take to reverse 6 years of harmful cuts. Pell Grants, which offer so
many American students the opportunity to access higher education, have
seen a significant decline in purchasing power in recent years. Under
this budget, we will raise the maximum Pell Grant to at least $4,600
and take significant steps toward making college a possibility for all
of our Nation's young people.
The budget we are considering today also restores critical community
development and social services programs that the President proposed to
cut. Community and regional development programs like the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) provide vital funding for economic and
community development in both urban and rural areas nationwide. This
proposal will also restore funding to the Low Income Home Energy
Assistance Program (LIHEAP) which helps lower-income families cope with
rising heating and cooling costs.
In another effort to lower energy costs and provide a new vision for
America's energy policy, the Democratic budget makes a major investment
in alternative and renewable energy research, which will move us closer
to energy independence and improve our environment. It includes an
additional $300 million this year for the Department of Energy, which
could be invested in renewable and alternative energy development and
energy efficiency initiatives. It also establishes a reserve fund that
could provide as much as $14 billion over 10 years to invest in clean
and renewable energy resources. Just as our Nation rallied around
President Kennedy's call to put a man on the moon, we must similarly
harness the creativity and expertise of our citizens and private
industry to develop new technologies and work toward energy
independence.
The Democratic budget also recognizes the importance of preserving
our environment and public lands for future generations by providing an
additional $2.6 billion for environmental programs--9 percent more than
the President's request. It also blocks the President's proposed cuts
to vital environmental programs such as the Land and Water Conservation
Fund, EPA clean water grants and our National Wildlife Refuge system.
Rhode Islanders have a long history of protecting our natural
resources, and I am pleased that this budget reflects those values.
Finally, this budget includes several greatly needed extensions of
tax provisions that will continue to help middle class families and
small businesses to prosper. The Democratic budget establishes a
reserve fund that will continue to provide tax cuts to millions of
working families nationwide, and it will reduce the burden of the
alternative minimum tax (AMT) that adversely affects thousands of Rhode
Islanders each year. Democrats are committed to reducing the increasing
tax burdens on middle-class Americans in a way that adheres to the
fiscally responsible pay-as-you-go rules adopted by this Congress.
For too long the American people have been forced to choose between
losing funding for vital domestic programs and running record deficits
that will ultimately be passed along for our children and grandchildren
to pay. Today, we finally have the opportunity to support a budget that
will fund programs thousands of Rhode Islanders rely upon, while
maintaining our commitment to fiscal responsibility. I urge my
colleagues to join me in voting yes on the Democratic budget
resolution.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, over the last 6 years, under one party
control we had the largest and fastest accumulation of national debt in
our Nation's history. The national debt skyrocketed to $8.8 trillion.
Today we have a budget that changes the failed policies of the past and
is, instead, a new direction to get the U.S. government back in the
black with surpluses like those the country enjoyed at the beginning of
this decade.
At the start of the 110th Congress, our party promised that when we
took over as the majority party we would get the fiscal books back in
order. This budget fulfills that promise by bringing the budget back to
surplus by 2012. It gets us there by strictly adhering to the pay-as-
you-go rules that was implemented at the beginning of this year.
Additionally, this budget contains tough program integrity measures to
crack down on wasteful spending, and it directs all committees to
review their programs to promote efficiency and eliminate unnecessary
spending.
This budget stands in stark contrast to the President's budget on
many fronts. As I previously stated, this budget reaches balance in
2012 and starts paying down our debt. The President's budget does
neither.

[[Page H3334]]

Budgets are all about priorities. This budget makes it clear that the
priorities of this Congress are the priorities of the American people.
Our budget provides for our national security, our veterans, our
children, and working families across America.
The budget framework contains the necessary resources to meet
critical threats to the Nation and to deliver excellent health care to
those who have served in the armed forces. Funding for veterans'
services is increased by $6.6 billion over the 2007 level, and by $3.5
billion above the President's request for 2008. This will cover the
Veterans Administration's (VA) increasing patient load and the cost of
forthcoming recommendations to improve health care facilities and
treatment for service members and veterans. It is the largest expansion
of veterans' healthcare funding since the creation of our VA system.
Most importantly, this budget reduces the deficit, which will
decrease our reliance on foreign investors to buy our debt. Since 2001,
foreign ownership of Treasury securities has more than doubled to $2.2
trillion, leaving our economy more vulnerable to foreign investment
decisions and instability. The more we rely on our global competitors
like China and India to finance our debt, the more vulnerable America's
economic well-being--now and in the future--becomes. As the father of
two little boys, I did not come to this Congress to leave a legacy of
debt for them or future generations to climb out of. Let us pass this
sensible, fiscally responsible budget that protects important American
values so that years from now, we can look back and say, yes, we had to
make some tough decisions, but they were the right decisions under the
right circumstances, and American families are the primary
beneficiaries as a result.
The Budget Resolution before us today makes the tough decisions to
get us back to surpluses, while offering an economic stimulus plan now
which is fair, quick, and responsible. It supports our troops, but it
also supports our Nation's veterans, our seniors, and our children's
education programs. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this common
sense fiscally responsible Budget Resolution.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, my opposition to this proposal is
clear and fundamental. It raises taxes. It is not fiscally responsible.
It does not protect Social Security, and it does not protect the
interests of families, who as the cornerstone of our society, deserve
to be the very first consideration in each of our legislative
decisions.
I am pleased to support Mr. Ryan, ranking member of the Budget
Committee, and my colleagues on the Republican Study Committee on the
conservative alternative to the budget blueprint before us today. I was
pleased to offer a tax cut amendment to this legislation that would
have extended the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 at least until 2012.
Unfortunately, the amendment was not accepted, but I rise today to say
that my opposition to H. Con. Res. 99 does not end with runaway taxes
and spending.
True, the proposal has excessive spending that mortgages our
children's future on government programs.
True, the proposal raises taxes on families and businesses,
reinstates the ``marriage penalty'', reincarnates the death tax, and
cuts the child tax credit in half.
True, these tax increases, the biggest in American history, will cost
the average Ohio family thousands of dollars in higher taxes.
But what is most troubling is that the entire budget is based on a
premise that is antithetical to what makes America great.
This budget postulates that economic security . . . a ``Great
Society'' if you will . . . is just another government program away.
It says that the tax cuts currently in place, which have led to
private sector growth with 7.6 million new jobs, 42 straight months of
uninterrupted economic growth, the Dow Jones Industrial Average above
12,000, record levels of investment, and record low unemployment . . .
tax cuts that have helped every American family regardless of income,
are better left to expire.
It says that the $392.5 billion of additional tax dollars Democrats
expect spend over the next 5 years are better spent on government
programs than in the pockets of American families. It says that what we
need is more government, not more jobs, not more economic growth, not
more money working its way through our private sector economy.
Just 3 months into this new majority, the tax man has come twice, and
he is coming again.
Mr. Chairman, April 15, the day American taxpayers love to hate, is
still 18 days away. But today, March 29th, is the day the American
taxpayer will come to fear.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on record tax hikes.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I support this budget resolution
because it will begin the process of changing our budgetary course.
For 6 years, the Administration and the Republican leadership
insisted on speeding ahead with misguided fiscal and economic policies.
Ignoring all warning lights, they plowed ahead, taking us from
projections of surpluses to the reality budgets deep in deficit and
heaping higher the mountain of debt that our children will have to
repay.
Many of us said it was urgent to stop persisting in that error and
voted for alternatives, including those proposed by the Blue Dog
Caucus.
But year after year our Republican colleagues insisted on taking
their marching orders from the White House, moving in lockstep to
endorse the Bush Administration's insistence that its economic and
fiscal policies must continue without change.
I admired their discipline, but I could not support their insistence
on driving us deeper into the swamp of fiscal irresponsibility that has
left a debt burden of $30,951 for a typical middle-income family of
four in Colorado.
And now, in this new Congress under new management, by passing this
budget resolution we can begin to undo the damage they have done.
The resolution is better in its fiscal responsibility and in its
priorities.
It follows the tough ``pay as you go'' budget rules to begin to
reverse the budget deficits and to put us onto the path to a balanced
budget. And under this plan, by 2012, domestic discretionary funding
would fall to the lowest level, as a share of the economy, in at least
a half century while spending as a percentage of GDP will be lower in
2012 than it has been in any budget adopted under President Bush--1
percent lower than it will be this year and lower than it has been in
any year since 2001.
At the same time it provides for continuing middle-class tax cuts and
reform of the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) to protect middle-income
families from a tax increase by default. This is important because
while in 2004 only 32,000 Colorado families were subject to the AMT, if
nothing is done, this year that number will rise to 234,000 families in
Colorado and hundreds of thousands more in other States.
As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I am particularly glad
to note that the budget resolution is also realistic and responsible
about the need to maintain our national defense and honor our promises
to our troops and veterans.
It provides for investing $507 billion for national defense and
another $145 billion for overseas deployment and other activities while
reordering defense priorities in order to make sufficient funds
available for nuclear non-proliferation programs, military health care,
and military pay raises and benefits.
I think ensuring the people who protect our country are provided for
is a significant part of meeting our national defense requirements. So,
I'm pleased that the resolution rejects increases in TRICARE fees for
military personnel under age 65.
And the budget committee worked with the chairman of our committee,
Representative Skelton, to assure that the resolution will allow
Congress to support the implementation of recommendations of the
Commission appointed to review conditions at Walter Reed and other
military health facilities--a provision that is so important for our
wounded warriors.
The resolution provides for a much-needed increase in veterans'
programs--for veterans health care, no less than $3.5 billion more this
year (and $32 billion over the next 5 years) than the President's
budget--to provide health care for new veterans, repair VA health care
facilities, make needed investments in veterans' mental health care and
traumatic brain injury, and speed up and improve the accuracy of
disability claims processing.
This is a priority for me, because it will help ensure that the
427,957 veterans in Colorado receive care worthy of their sacrifice. It
is also critical for the 17,419 Coloradans, who have served their
country in Afghanistan and Iraq since September 2001, many of whom will
need VA health care services.
The resolution also provides for increases homeland security and
rejects the cuts to vital first responder and terrorism prevention
programs that would happen if we adopted the President's budget for
fiscal 2008. I support that because following the President's budget
would mean reducing the State Homeland Security Grant Program--which
awarded $88,508,658 to Colorado from 2003 to 2006--would be slashed by
52 percent and the Law Enforcement Terrorist Prevention Program
(LETPP)--which awarded $22,392,512 to Colorado from 2004 to 2006--would
be eliminated.
And the resolution provides for beginning to implement the 9/11
Commission recommendations to make Colorado and our Nation more secure.
Similarly, the resolution recognizes the importance of research,
development, and education in keeping our economy strong and our
country secure.
It recognizes that scientific research provides the foundation for
innovation and our ability to compete with other countries by setting
us on a path toward doubling funding for

[[Page H3335]]

the National Science Foundation and research by other agencies while
increasing collaborative research-purpose partnerships.
As a member of the Science and Technology Committee and Chairman of
its Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, I am particularly supportive
of the resolution because it rejects the President's proposed cuts to
aviation programs within NASA in order to help ensure that such vital
programs as development of the next-generation management system for
air traffic can go forward.

Similarly, as one of the Chairs of the Renewable Energy and Energy
Efficiency Caucus, I welcome the resolution's declaration that
increased research and development of renewable and alternative energy
technologies ``needs to come soon and be substantial.'' I think that
sets exactly the right priority.
And I similarly welcome the resolution's allowing for additional
emphasis on science, technology, and mathematics (``STEM'') education
by increasing funding for National Science Foundation programs that
support training qualified teachers in these important areas.
The resolution recognizes the importance of investing in renewable
energy and energy efficiency to improve our security by lessening our
dependence on foreign oil as well as to reduce global warming and
promote new technologies that can create American jobs. So, it creates
a reserve fund that could target up to $14 billion over 10 years to
invest in clean, renewable alternative energy and energy efficiency
paid for by redirecting oil subsidies.
And it restores funding for environmental programs cut by the
President's budget--including $3,162,000 in Clean Water revolving loan
funds that help Colorado communities improve their wastewater treatment
facilities.
As for education, the resolution allows for substantially more
funding for helping Colorado's public elementary, middle and high
schools educate the 768,600 children now enrolled--nearly $8 billion
more in 2008 and 11 percent more over the next 5 years for education
and training programs than requested by the President.
This means more resources to implement the No Child Left Behind Act,
special education and Head Start. By contrast, if we followed the
President's budget, 31,296 Colorado children would not receive promised
help in reading and math and the Head Start program--which serves 9,820
Colorado children--would be cut by 1.5 percent below the 2007 level.
Small businesses are essential for Colorado's economy--and the
resolution rejects the President's proposal to cut the Small Business
Administration by 26 percent from last year's request and 56 percent
from 2000. It also recognizes the importance of job training for the
kind of high-skilled workforce we need to keep America competitive--
which is why it rejects the President's proposal to eliminate
$54,403,000 in funding for job training and employment services in
Colorado.

These investments to a growing economy for America's families are
needed because, according to the Census Bureau, family income in
Colorado has dropped by $4,041 since 2000, while health care and energy
prices are climbing. But still more is needed.
So, I am glad that the resolution provides for increasing funding for
State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)--to help cover the
176,230 of Colorado's children do not have health insurance. And I am
pleased that it also rejects the Administration's proposal to cut
Medicare funding by $261,719,066 for Colorado hospitals, skilled
nursing facilities and home health care providers--another misguided
proposal that would make health care less accessible and affordable for
many Coloradans.
Mr. Chairman, I can understand why the Bush Administration does not
like this resolution. After all, it rejects the Administration's
misguided priorities. But it's disappointing that so many of our
Republican colleagues still are so willing to unquestioningly follow
the president's lead. And, while I suppose it's to be expected, it's
particularly unfortunate that they have decided to attack this budget
resolution by resorting to recycling the old, tired--and false--claim
that it is ``the largest tax increase in history.''
The fact is that this is no tax increase in the resolution. It
assumes the same level of revenues between now and 2012 period as
projected by the Congressional Budget Office under its current-policy
baseline, which essentially assumes no change in current laws governing
taxes.
In other words, this resolution does not affect the top-heavy tax
cuts the Bush Administration and the Republican leadership pushed
through since 2001--they remain in place as they stand, which means
they will not expire for 4 years.
I did not vote for all of those tax cuts, but I did support some that
are most important for middle-income Coloradans. So, I am glad that the
resolution provides for extensions of those in 2011, including an
extension of the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, and the 10
percent individual income tax bracket.
And when the rest of the tax cuts come up for reconsideration,
Congress can and should consider whether to extend them, as they are
now or in modified form.
I support that approach, which is quite different from the
alternative approach taken by the Republican alternative, which insists
on locking in all of the Bush tax cuts--the ones I did not support as
well as those I did--and would put top priority on making them all
permanent.
There are some things in the Republican alternative that I do
support--including a constitutionally-sound line-item veto similar to
my Stimulating Leadership in Cutting Expenditures (``SLICE'')
legislation--but overall I think it is not a responsible approach and I
cannot support it, just as I cannot support the other alternatives that
go too far in the other direction by calling for large tax increases.
Unlike all those alternatives, the resolution developed by the Budget
Committee is the best balanced in its combination of fiscal
responsibility and refocusing priorities. I will support it and I urge
its approval by the House.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Democratic budget offered today. This budget is a stark contrast to the
President's budget which proves to be entirely insufficient in meeting
the needs of our Nation, and those of my constituents in the third
district of Florida. A budget is about priorities, and the President's
priorities are to ask our seniors, our students, our children, the
middle class, and the working poor, to make fiscal sacrifices, while
the rich count their money.
As an African-American woman who represents one of the poorest
districts in the state of Florida, I am proud to say that Democrats are
fighting for a budget that reflects the values of America's working
families. For the first time in 6 years, the congressional budget
resolution will deliver fiscal responsibility, economic prosperity, a
strong national defense, affordable health care and energy prices, and
strong public schools.
Let me give you some examples of the differences between the
President's budget and the Democratic budget:
The President's budget has deficits as far as the eye can see with an
increase of $507 billion over the next 5 years. The House Democratic
budget lowers the deficit in 2008 and balances the budget in 5 years.
The President's budget cuts vital health care programs even when
there are over 3 million Floridians without health insurance. The House
Democratic budget puts children and families first by providing $50
billion to expand children's health insurance and creates a reserve
fund that would allow Medicare improvements--such as increasing the
reimbursement rate for physicians and improving the Medicare
prescription drug program.
The President's budget fails to protect Americans here at home by
slashing funding for the COPS program by 94 percent. COPS is regarded
as an overwhelming success and has funded more than 118,400 police
officers and sheriffs deputies. The House Democratic budget provides
more homeland security dollars to fund the 9/11 Commission's
recommendations, reject the President's cuts to first responders, and
adequately address port security needs.
The President's budget forgets about the over 1.7 million veterans in
Florida by cutting funds for their healthcare in 2009 and 2010 and
imposing new health care fees on 1.3 million veterans. The House
Democratic budget meets previously unmet needs for veterans by
increasing funding for veterans' health care by $5.4 billion above
current services.
The President's budget gives no relief to Americans struggling with
high energy costs. Florida low-income energy assistance was slashed by
$6.5 million and gas prices have increased approximately 69 percent
since 2001. The House Democratic Budget expands renewable energy and
energy efficiency by stimulating the economy with investments in the
farm economy and in research to develop clean, sustainable energy
alternatives to help America achieve energy independence in 10 years.
The President's budget betrays Florida's children by underfunding the
No Child Left Behind Act for the 6th year. Nearly 160,000 children in
Florida will go without promised help in reading and math. The House
Democratic Budget has a $3 billion increase in funding for programs
like No Child Left Behind, special education and aid to help students
afford college.
In closing, I would like to reiterate that Democrats are committed to
a new direction for America in which the interests of hardworking
Florida families take priority over the special interests. This budget
delivers fiscal responsibility, economic prosperity, a strong national
defense, access to healthcare and high-quality public schools for the
people in my district and for Americans overall.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to H. Con. Res. 99, which
has been

[[Page H3336]]

called the single biggest tax increase in American history.
However, I rise today to express my extreme disappointment that the
majority decided to oppose debate on an amendment I offered to express
the sense of Congress that the money the Federal Government spends is
not the Government's, but rather the hard-earned dollars of the
American taxpayer. My amendment also declares that Congress has a duty
to guard against waste and excessive spending, that Congress should
balance the Federal budget, and that Congress should expeditiously pass
a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.
It is common sense to American families that they cannot spend more
than they have-- yet far too frequently, this fundamental principle has
been lost on a Federal Government that is too busy spending to pay
attention to the bottom line. Unless Congress is forced to balance the
Federal budget, it will always have the all-too-tempting option of
shirking this responsibility.
On the first day of this Congress, I introduced H.J. Res. 1, a
constitutional amendment requiring Congress to balance the budget,
which has garnered 159 bipartisan cosponsors. I hereby renew my call on
Congress to pass this crucial legislation, which also makes it harder
to raise taxes.
However, in the meantime, my simple amendment to the budget
resolution would have been the least we could do to show the American
people that Congress is committed to the same fiscal principles that
America's families face each day. It is very telling that the majority
thought it best to sweep this debate under the rug.
Regarding the merits of the underlying Democrat resolution, it
assumes the expiration of all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and adds
those revenues, some $392 billion, into the budget over time. At the
same time, they have chosen to increase discretionary spending. In
fact, under the Democrat budget, appropriated spending is projected to
increase faster than the rate of projected inflation. By increasing
taxes on the American people in order to fund their own priorities, the
Democrats assume that they know how to better spend the taxpayers'
hard-earned dollars.
For America's farmers and ranchers already facing increased input
costs, increased taxes would further add insult to injury. For many
farmers and ranchers, this budget appears to hold the key to bolstering
the budget for American agriculture. This bill purports to provide the
Agriculture Committee with an extra $20 billion, seemingly tucked away
in a ``reserve fund'' to be released at the discretion of the Budget
Committee chairman. Although they've made it sound like there's an
extra $20 billion just lying around waiting to be spent; this could not
be further from the truth.
The $20 billon is only available if it can be offset by cuts in other
spending or increased taxes. The Agriculture Committee, as well as
every other Congressional committee, already has the authority to spend
dollars created by offsets under existing rules.
This is either a poorly constructed hoax designed to create an
illusion of increased funding, or it is part of a broader plan to
continue to raise taxes to pay for increased program spending. In
either case, there is nothing about the Democrat budget that does
anything to relieve the budget crunch that farmers face in this farm
bill.
I urge my colleagues to see this budget for what it is and vote
``no.''
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Democrat budget
resolution. A majority of my colleagues on this side of the aisle have
rightly spoken against this budget because it includes the largest tax
increase in American history. And let there be no doubt: This tax
increase would destroy jobs, take more money from working families, and
bring our economic growth to a screeching halt.
However, I'd like to speak for a moment about a little-discussed
provision in this resolution that could have significant negative
consequences of its own. This resolution includes a reconciliation
instruction for the Education and Labor Committee to find $75 million
in savings from our mandatory programs. On its face, that seems
harmless, although I think we can all agree that $75 million is hardly
a serious effort at deficit reduction. After all, our committee is no
stranger to this effort, having saved taxpayers some $12 billion
through reconciliation in the last Congress while significantly
improving the student aid programs for all our students.
However, make no mistake, this instruction is not as innocent as it
looks. In fact, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee recently
called it a ``stalking horse for a significant expansion of spending.''
And he's absolutely correct. This small reconciliation instruction may
serve to have the largest impact on the Federal student loan program in
history.
Simply put, the majority is trying to take advantage of the
reconciliation process to jam through an expansion of the federally-run
Direct Loan program--knowing that strong opposition to the expansion of
this program would prohibit it from being successfully added to the
Higher Education Act if its reauthorization was proceeding through
regular order. The laundry list of reasons why giving the Direct Loan
program a leg-up on the traditional, private-run student loan program
would harm students and taxpayers alike is another discussion for
another day. But let there be no mistake: This budget would allow for
just that.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to amend the Senate Budget Committee
chairman's words slightly and call this reconciliation instruction a
``Trojan horse''--because if this largely unnoticed instruction
remained in place, the negative consequences on our student lending
system would be almost unimaginable. The Federal Government is not
meant to be a clearinghouse for college loans, and the Department of
Education's ability to manage the scant 20 percent of all loans
currently administered through the Direct Loan program is shaky, at
best.
Just think of what adding even more bureaucracy would do for the
students counting on good customer service and taxpayers counting on a
well-managed program. Once again, it's almost unimaginable. I urge my
colleagues to oppose the Democrat budget resolution and support the
Republican substitute.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my regret for missing
several recorded votes during consideration of the budget resolution
for fiscal year 2008. Unfortunately, I was called out of Washington to
deliver the eulogy for a close friend of mine and my father's, Ed
Bailey. Ed served the House of Representatives for 16 years as an aide
to my late father, and I am honored to be making these remarks. This
duty required that I leave for Knoxville prior to the final votes of
Thursday, March 29, 2007.
I would like the Record to reflect that had I been in Washington, I
would have supported the Republican Budget Substitute and opposed the
underlying text of H. Con. Res. 99.
The reason for these votes is simple. I am fiscally conservative. The
Democrat budget provides for tax hikes on Americans and America's
businesses in order to pay for more Government spending. Also, this
budget ignores the problems with our entitlement spending and defers
these burdens to later generations.
I support the Republican budget because it continues to give American
workers real tax benefits. It curbs out of control and inefficient
discretionary spending.
The Ryan substitute also tackles the massive problem of entitlement
spending and seeks to reform the Medicare and Medicaid systems. These
reforms are absolutely necessary to ensure that these valuable programs
are around for our children and their children.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Republican
budget substitute, which is the most fiscally responsible budget before
us today. It may not a perfect budget, but no real budget can be,
because we live in a world of unlimited wants and needs but of limited
resources.
I also want to take this opportunity to thank Ranking Member Paul
Ryan, my good friend and a fiscal conservative stalwart from Wisconsin,
who has truly helped lead the way not only on the Republican budget but
also on revealing the true effects of the Democrat budget and
substitutes.
Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget, unlike those offered by the
Democrats, does not, I'll repeat, the Republican budget does not raise
taxes.
I know these numbers have been cited many times over in this budget
debate, but it is important for the American people to fully understand
the impact of the new majority's budget policy on their pocketbooks.
Mr. Chairman, the Democrat committee-passed budget raises taxes by
almost $400 billion. The Congressional Black Caucus budget raises taxes
by $711 billion. The Progressive Caucus Budget raises taxes by almost
$950 billion.
Three Democrat budgets, three giant tax increases--and, since
baseball season is upon us, I'll say these three budgets sound like
strike one, strike two, and strike three--and you know how the rest
goes.
However, Mr. Chairman, my Democrat colleagues don't have to strike
out because they can vote for a budget that will balance in 5 years
without raising taxes; they can vote for the Republican alternative.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, a budget is a moral document that
demonstrates our values and priorities. I believe this budget by
Chairman John Spratt repesents values I can be proud of. This budget
funds education, healthcare, housing and development while brinnging
the budget back to surplus by 2012.
At a time when more than 10 percent of students drop out of high
school before graduating and only 4 out of 10 children eligible for
Head Start are able to participate, the budget reverses the
administration's policy of under-investing in education for our
children. The budget rejects the President's proposal to cut funding
for the Department of Education by

[[Page H3337]]

$1.5 billion below the 2007 enacted level and to eliminate 44 different
programs, and provides for substantial new investments to increase
funding for vital programs such as Head Start, special education--IDEA,
Title I and other programs under the No Child Left Behind Act. The bill
also provides for funding the increase in Pell Grants so that high
school students know that if they work hard, they can go to college.
The budget rejects the President's proposal to cut funding for the
Community Development Block Grant by $1.1 billion below last year's
level, and instead provides for the first CDBG increase since 2005. The
cut advocated by the President would endanger job creation, economic
development, and affordable housing efforts cutting CDBGs for nearly
1,200 State and local governments.
This budget rejects the President's proposal to cut the Child Care
Development Block Grant and the Social Services Block Grant by a total
of $520 million below the 2007 level. The President's budget would lead
to a decline in children receiving assistance so their parents can
work. Our budget would allow for the first increase in child care
funding since 2002.
Further, knowing that we now have more uninsured Americans than 6
years ago, this budget blocks the President's proposed cuts to Medicare
and Medicaid. These cuts would have made healthcare less affordable and
accessible for millions of Americans. Additionally, this budget ensures
that up to $50 billion over the next 5 years will be devoted to the
State Children's Health Insurance Program--SCHIP--to help cover
millions of uninsured children. New Jersey is a national leader in
covering children through the SCHIP program and this additional funding
is desperately needed to ensure our States' good work can continue.
This budget rejects the President's dangerous cuts to our Nation's
first responders. What sense would it make to cut the Local Law
Enforcement Terrorism Prevention program, firefighter assistance
grants, Byrne Justice Assistance grants, or the Community Oriented
Policing Services--COPS--program? Our budget stands up for first
responders and ensures that each of the programs receives appropriate
levels of funding.
Mr. Chairman, I commend Mr. Spratt for demonstrating that we can
provide for our Nation's defense in a responsible way--both fiscally
and from a policy standpoint. This budget will provide $507 billion in
base DOD budget authority, an $18 billion increase over the President's
request. This budget also emphasizes the right priorities for meeting
our security needs.

For example, this resolution opposes TRICARE fee increases and calls
for a substantial increase in the veterans' health care system. The
budget resolution notes the upcoming recommendations of the President's
Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors and other
Government investigations in connection with the substandard care at
Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and allows funds for action when those
recommendations are received. To help protect our Nation from a
terrorist-sponsored nuclear attack, non-proliferation programs, such as
the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, are given greater priority
and higher funding.
Mr. Chairman, this budget will also help us keep our promises to our
Nation's veterans. I'm pleased the committee has recommended raising
increased discretionary funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs,
from $36.5 billion to $43.1 billion--a $6.6 billion, 18.1 percent,
increase over fiscal year 2007, and a $3.5 billion increase, 8.9
percent, over the administration request for fiscal year 2008. This
budget provides a far more realistic spending plan than the President's
proposal. Our proposed increase in this area will help meet some
critical needs, including ensuring that medical inflation does not
erode VA's ability to deliver quality health care to our veterans.
In order to maintain American competitiveness, we must make
substantial investments in scientific research and education. The
budget provides funding for initiatives to educate new scientists,
engineers, and mathematicians in the next 4 years, and places more
highly-qualified teachers in math and science K-12 classrooms. It makes
critical investments in basic research, putting us on the path to
doubling funding for the National Science Foundation, and bolstering
investments in research and development throughout the budget. The
reestablishment of the Office of Technology Assessment is made possible
by Function 800, as is explicitly stated in the report language. The
Office of Technology Assessment, an important tool for Congress's roles
in fiscal planning, disaster mitigation, and oversight.
America's dependence on oil endangers our environment, our national
security, and our economy. A sustained investment in research and
development is crucial to creating cutting-edge technologies that allow
us to develop clean, sustainable energy alternatives and capitalize on
America's vast renewable natural resources. The budget provides
increased funding for basic and applied energy research, to help
America achieve energy independence in 10 years.
For the first time in 6 years, the budget resolution reflects a real
commitment to protecting our most valuable natural resources by
providing needed funding for our National Parks, the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, and the national wildlife refuge system. H. Con.
Res. 99 provides a total of $31.4 billion for environmental programs,
which is $2.6 billion more than the President's request. I have been an
advocate for the Land and Water Conservation Fund since I came to
Congress 8 years ago and I am pleased that we are finally at a place
where the budget includes adequate funding for both the State-side
grant program and the Federal program. LWCF and the Forest Legacy
program have done tremendous work in States across the country,
including New Jersey, to protect open space, restore wetlands, and
conserve forest lands. Why President Bush continues to turn a blind eye
to our growing environmental needs is beyond me. Finally, we have a
budget that realizes how important this investment is.

This budget achieves this without an increase in taxes. The budget
would accommodate immediate relief for the tens of millions of middle
income households who would otherwise be subject to the alternative
minimum tax (AMT) while supporting the efforts of the Committee on Ways
and Means to achieve permanent, revenue-neutral AMT reform. Unless the
AMT is reformed, 19 million additional families will have to pay higher
taxes in 2007. The budget would also accommodate extension of other
middle-income tax relief, consistent with the Pay-As-You-Go principle.
These tax cuts include: the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief,
the 10 percent bracket, and the deduction for State and local sales
taxes.
The past 6 years of fiscal irresponsibility have caused America's
national debt to increase 50 percent, to nearly $9 trillion, or $29,000
for every American. Our ability to invest in the Nation's shared
priorities is constrained by the cost of the debt run up over the last
6 years, when the administration and its partners in previous
Congresses turned the largest surplus in American history into a record
debt. About 75 percent of America's new debt has been borrowed from
foreign creditors such as China, making our fiscal integrity a matter
of national security. Over the last 6 years, President Bush has
borrowed more money from foreign nations than the previous 42 U.S.
Presidents combined.
Mr. Chairman, this budget restores the budget as a moral document
that I can support. It funds the House Democratic innovation
initiative, including commencing a doubling path for the National
Science Foundation and providing significant increases for elementary
and secondary math and science education. It accommodates a significant
increase to expand children's health insurance to cover millions of
uninsured children. It increases funding for veterans' health care and
services so that returning soldiers will receive the care to which they
are entitled. It accomplishes each of these goals without raising taxes
on American citizens. I ask my colleagues to vote for the Spratt
budget.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to revise and
extend my remarks.
Today, the House will consider a fiscally responsible budget which I
proudly support because it contains the right priorities for America's
families.
This budget strengthens our national defense and honors our promises
to California's brave troops and veterans. It provides the largest
increase for veterans' health care in the history of our country--
providing $3.5 billion more than the President's budget. This will help
to ensure that the 2,310,967 veterans in California receive care worthy
of their sacrifice.
This budget also puts children and families first. For example, in
California, 1,380,800 children do not have health insurance. It helps
these children by increasing funding for the State Children's Health
Insurance Program--SCHIP--reducing the number of uninsured children
across the county.
In addition, this budget also provides substantially more funding for
California's 6,518,000 children enrolled in public elementary, middle
and high schools--providing nearly $8 billion more in 2008 and 11
percent more over the next 5 years for education and training programs
than requested by the President. This will increase resources for No
Child Left Behind, special education and Head Start--rejecting harsh
cuts and underfunding for these critical education programs included in
the President's budget. Under the President's budget, 421,277
California children will go without promised help in reading and math
and Head Start--a vital program for 98,432 California children--is cut
by 1.5 percent below the 2007 level.

[[Page H3338]]

It also recognizes that the 3,575,200 small businesses in California
are the engine of the economy. To spur economic growth and support
small businesses, the budget rejects the President's proposal to cut
the Small Business Administration by 26 percent from last year's
request.
And it restores funding for environmental programs cut by the
President's budget--including restoring $28,270,000 in clean water
revolving loan funds in California that help improve wastewater
treatment.
Finally, this budget supports middle-class tax cuts and protects
middle-income families from a tax increase by setting up a reserve fund
for a long-term fix for the alternative minimum tax, AMT. In 2004,
606,000 California families were subject to the AMT--and if nothing is
done to fix the system, an estimated 4,434,000 families here in
California will be subject to the AMT in 2007.
In sum, this budget will restore fiscal responsibility and
accountability to Washington; strengthen our national defense; and
invest in the next generation and America's prosperity; and I urge my
colleagues to support it.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. There being no further amendments, under the
rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Weiner) having assumed the chair, Mr. Thompson, Acting Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the concurrent
resolution (H. Con. Res. 99) revising the congressional budget for the
United States Government for fiscal year 2007, establishing the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2008, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2009 through 2012, pursuant to House Resolution 275, he reported the
concurrent resolution back to the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the concurrent resolution.
Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216,
nays 210, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 212]

YEAS--216

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth

NAYS--210

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--7

Davis, Jo Ann
Duncan
Kanjorski
Lampson
Lewis (CA)
Millender-McDonald
Watt

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining.

{time} 1435

Mr. BOEHNER and Mr. HILL changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

____________________