Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 43 (Thursday, March 13, 2008)

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 43 (Thursday, March 13, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H1627-H1659]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1036 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. 312.

{time} 1150

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. 312) revising the congressional
budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2008,
establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government
for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels
for fiscal years 2010 through 2013, with Mr. Pastor (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 12, 2008, 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. 312

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

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2009.

(a) Declaration.--The Congress determines and declares that
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008
is revised and replaced and that this is the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2009, including
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2010 through
2013.
(b) Table of Contents.--
Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2009.

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--RESERVE FUNDS

Sec. 301. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for SCHIP legislation.
Sec. 302. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for veterans and servicemembers.
Sec. 303. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for education benefits for
servicemembers, veterans, and their families.
Sec. 304. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for infrastructure investment.
Sec. 305. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for renewable energy and energy
efficiency.
Sec. 306. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for middle-income tax relief and
economic equity.
Sec. 307. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for reform of the alternative
minimum tax.
Sec. 308. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for higher education.
Sec. 309. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for affordable housing.
Sec. 310. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for medicare improvements.
Sec. 311. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for health care quality,
effectiveness, and efficiency.
Sec. 312. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for Medicaid and other programs.
Sec. 313. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for trade adjustment assistance
and unemployment insurance modernization.
Sec. 314. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for county payments legislation.
Sec. 315. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for San Joaquin River
restoration and Navajo Nation water rights settlements.
Sec. 316. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the National Park Centennial
Fund.
Sec. 317. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for child support enforcement.

TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 401. Program integrity initiatives.
Sec. 402. Oversight of government performance.
Sec. 403. Point of order against advance appropriations.
Sec. 404. Overseas deployments and emergency needs.
Sec. 405. Budgetary treatment of certain discretionary administrative
expenses.
Sec. 406. Application and effect of changes in allocations and
aggregates.
Sec. 407. Adjustments to reflect changes in concepts and definitions.
Sec. 408. Exercise of rulemaking powers.

TITLE V--POLICY

Sec. 501. Policy on middle-income tax relief.
Sec. 502. Policy on defense priorities.

TITLE VI--SENSE OF THE HOUSE

Sec. 601. Sense of the House on the Innovation Agenda and America
Competes Act.
Sec. 602. Sense of the House on servicemembers' and veterans' health
care and other priorities.
Sec. 603. Sense of the House on homeland security.
Sec. 604. Sense of the House regarding long-term fiscal reform.
Sec. 605. Sense of the House regarding waste, fraud, and abuse.
Sec. 606. Sense of the House regarding extension of the statutory pay-
as-you-go rule.
Sec. 607. Sense of the House on long-term budgeting.
Sec. 608. Sense of the House regarding the need to maintain and build
upon efforts to fight hunger.
Sec. 609. Sense of the House regarding affordable health coverage.
Sec. 610. Sense of the House regarding pay parity.
Sec. 611. Sense of the House regarding subprime lending and
foreclosures.
Sec. 612. Sense of House regarding the importance of child support
enforcement.

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 2013:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:

[[Page H1628]]

Fiscal year 2008: $1,879,540,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,027,124,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,205,864,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,442,025,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,669,315,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,771,740,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be adjusted are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $0.
Fiscal year 2009: -$70,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $23,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $14,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $16,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $17,000,000,000.
(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: $2,556,254,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,529,246,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,564,161,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,698,039,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,740,065,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,866,862,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $2,462,616,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,563,380,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,622,295,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,716,979,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,728,965,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,857,394,000,000.
(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: $583,076,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $536,256,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $416,431,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $274,954,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $59,650,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $85,654,000,000.
(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 2008: $9,567,484,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $10,199,551,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $10,724,264,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $11,103,954,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $11,295,107,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $11,495,218,000,000.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $5,396,807,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $5,753,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $5,981,334,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $6,047,654,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $5,885,687,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $5,744,120,000,000.

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 2013 for each major functional category are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $590,686,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $576,173,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $542,497,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $573,362,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $550,414,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $560,726,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $557,026,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $560,099,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $565,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $556,699,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $576,223,000,000.
(B) Outlays, 568,829,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $32,648,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,843,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $37,111,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,702,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $38,516,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,918,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $39,433,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,679,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $40,247,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,154,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $40,677,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,346,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $27,407,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,456,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $29,934,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $31,165,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,604,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $32,474,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,201,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $33,853,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,564,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $35,298,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,477,000,000.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $3,548,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,681,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $4,674,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,192,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $4,645,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,878,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $4,712,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,371,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $4,803,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,738,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $4,895,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,020,000,000.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $32,560,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,440,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $38,651,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,576,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $33,782,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,192,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $34,670,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,420,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $35,568,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,745,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $36,490,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,299,000,000.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $22,456,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,528,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $21,529,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,279,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $21,719,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,680,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $21,891,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,876,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $22,263,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,435,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $22,621,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,816,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $11,216,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,381,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $9,560,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,722,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $13,887,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,835,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $8,998,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,193,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $9,246,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,735,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $9,642,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,648,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $79,794,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $77,795,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $73,444,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $80,443,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $77,507,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $83,861,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $78,534,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $86,062,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $79,485,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $88,134,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $80,478,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $90,443,000,000.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $20,029,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,819,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $14,553,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,251,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $14,826,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,816,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $15,134,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,874,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $15,450,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,817,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $15,755,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,561,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $90,077,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $90,729,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $95,235,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $90,947,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $102,594,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $98,345,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $105,612,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $103,135,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $107,828,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $104,397,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $101,690,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $103,490,000,000.

[[Page H1629]]

(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $285,101,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $286,688,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $306,795,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $305,334,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $323,767,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $324,138,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $344,749,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $343,718,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $367,766,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $366,312,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $393,085,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $391,326,000,000.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $390,458,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $390,454,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $420,191,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $419,974,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $445,225,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $445,349,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $494,370,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $494,193,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $491,353,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $491,110,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $552,389,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $552,503,000,000.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $389,865,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $394,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $411,699,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $414,032,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $417,519,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $418,617,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $426,924,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $427,541,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $412,355,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $412,831,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $427,988,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $427,703,000,000.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $19,378,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,378,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $21,308,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,308,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $23,794,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,794,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $27,330,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,330,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $30,342,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,342,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $33,162,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,162,000,000.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $86,365,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $83,551,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $93,268,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $92,443,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $96,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $95,710,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $101,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $101,475,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $99,115,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $98,271,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $105,094,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $104,266,000,000.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $46,237,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,282,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $48,104,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,936,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $49,101,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $49,602,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $50,338,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $50,596,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $51,622,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $51,501,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $52,967,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $52,542,000,000.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $56,407,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $56,920,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $23,520,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,890,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $19,961,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,987,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $20,611,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,496,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $21,319,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,332,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $22,007,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,787,000,000.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $349,296,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $349,296,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $334,233,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $334,233,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $370,534,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $370,534,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $406,997,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $406,997,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $427,954,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $427,954,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $436,292,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $436,292,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $1,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $531,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $307,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, -$150,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$53,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, -$200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$164,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, -$200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$178,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, -$200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$200,000,000.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, -$86,330,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$86,330,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, -$67,060,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$67,060,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, -$70,645,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$70,645,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, -$73,364,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$73,364,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, -$76,104,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$76,104,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, -$79,691,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$79,691,000,000.
(21) Overseas Deployments and Other Activities (970):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $108,056,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,901,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $70,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $74,809,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $47,407,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $18,251,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $5,176,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $1,775,000,000.

TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

(a) Changes in Mandatory Spending.--Not later than
September 12, 2008, the House Committee on Ways and Means
shall report a reconciliation bill making changes in laws
within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending
by $750,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2008 through
2013.
(b) Changes in Revenue.--Not later than July 15, 2008, the
House Committee on Ways and Means shall report a
reconciliation bill making changes in laws within its
jurisdiction that will reduce total revenues by
$70,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2009 and will increase total
revenues by $70,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years
2010 through 2013.
(c) Adjustments to Allocations and Aggregates.--
(1) Upon the reporting to the House of any bill that has
complied with reconciliation instructions, the chairman of
the Committee on the Budget may file with the House
appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised functional
levels and aggregates.
(2) Upon the submission to the House of any conference
report recommending a reconciliation bill in which a
committee has complied with its reconciliation instructions,
the chairman of the Committee on the Budget 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--RESERVE FUNDS

SEC. 301. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR SCHIP LEGISLATION.

In the House, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference
report, which contains matter within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce that expands coverage and
improves children's

[[Page H1630]]

health through the State Childrens 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) and that increases new budget authority that will
result in no more than $50,000,000,000 in outlays in fiscal
years 2008 through 2013, and others which contain offsets so
designated for the purpose of this section within the
jurisdiction of another committee or committees, if the
combined changes would not increase the deficit or decrease
the surplus for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2013
or for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2018.

SEC. 302. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR VETERANS AND
SERVICEMEMBERS.

In the House, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that--
(1) enhances medical care for wounded or disabled military
personnel or veterans;
(2) maintains affordable health care for military retirees
and veterans;
(3) improves disability benefits or evaluations for wounded
or disabled military personnel or veterans, including
measures to expedite the claims process;
(4) expands eligibility to permit additional disabled
military retirees to receive both disability compensation and
retired pay;
(5) eliminates the offset between Survivor Benefit Plan
annuities and veterans' dependency and indemnity
compensation; or
(6) provides or increases benefits for Filipino veterans of
World War II or their survivors and dependents;

by the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would
not increase the deficit or decrease the surplus for the
period of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or for the period of
fiscal years 2008 through 2018.

SEC. 303. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR EDUCATION BENEFITS
FOR SERVICEMEMBERS, VETERANS, AND THEIR
FAMILIES.

In the House, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that enhances education
benefits or assistance for servicemembers (including Active
Duty, National Guard, and Reserve), veterans, or their
spouses, survivors, or dependents by the amounts provided in
such measure if such measure would not increase the deficit
or decrease the surplus for the period of fiscal years 2008
through 2013 or for the period of fiscal years 2008 through
2018.

SEC. 304. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR INFRASTRUCTURE
INVESTMENT.

In the House, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that provides for increased
investment in infrastructure projects by the amounts provided
in such measure if such measure would not increase the
deficit or decrease the surplus for the period of fiscal
years 2008 through 2013 or for the period of fiscal years
2008 through 2018.

SEC. 305. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY
AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY.

In the House, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that provides tax incentives
for or otherwise encourages the production of renewable
energy or increased energy efficiency; encourages investment
in emerging energy or vehicle technologies or carbon capture
and sequestration; provides for reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions; or facilitates the training of workers for these
industries (``green collar jobs'') by the amounts provided in
such measure if such measure would not increase the deficit
or decrease the surplus for the period of fiscal years 2008
through 2013 or for the period of fiscal years 2008 through
2018.

SEC. 306. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR MIDDLE-INCOME TAX
RELIEF AND ECONOMIC EQUITY.

In the House, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that provides for tax relief
for middle-income families and taxpayers or 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, 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 small business expensing, extension of the
deduction for State and local sales taxes, and a tax credit
for school construction bonds, by the amounts provided in
such measure if such measure would not increase the deficit
or decrease the surplus for the period of fiscal years 2008
through 2013 or for the period of fiscal years 2008 through
2018.

SEC. 307. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR REFORM OF THE
ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX.

In the House, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report 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 by
the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would
not increase the deficit or decrease the surplus for the
period of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or for the period of
fiscal years 2008 through 2018.

SEC. 308. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR HIGHER EDUCATION.

In the House, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that makes college more
affordable or accessible through reforms to the Higher
Education Act of 1965 or other legislation by the amounts
provided in such measure if such measure would not increase
the deficit or decrease the surplus for the period of fiscal
years 2008 through 2013 or for the period of fiscal years
2008 through 2018.

SEC. 309. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING.

In the House, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that provides for an
affordable housing fund, offset by reforming the regulation
of certain government-sponsored enterprises, by the amounts
provided in such measure if such measure would not increase
the deficit or decrease the surplus for the period of fiscal
years 2008 through 2013 or for the period of fiscal years
2008 through 2018.

SEC. 310. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR MEDICARE
IMPROVEMENTS.

In the House, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report 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, by the amounts provided in such
measure if such measure would not increase the deficit or
decrease the surplus for the period of fiscal years 2008
through 2013 or for the period of fiscal years 2008 through
2018.

SEC. 311. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR HEALTH CARE
QUALITY, EFFECTIVENESS, AND EFFICIENCY.

In the House, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that--
(1) provides incentives or other support for adoption of
modern information technology, including electronic
prescribing, to improve quality and protect privacy in health
care;
(2) establishes a new Federal or public-private initiative
for research on the comparative effectiveness of different
medical interventions; or
(3) provides parity between health insurance coverage of
mental health benefits and benefits for medical and surgical
services, including parity in public programs;

SEC. 312. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR MEDICAID AND OTHER
PROGRAMS.

(a) Regulations and Administrative Actions.--In the House,
the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise the
allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this
resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report that prevents or delays the implementation
or administration of regulations or other administrative
actions that would affect the Medicaid, SCHIP, or other
programs by the amounts provided in such measure if such
measure would not increase the deficit or decrease the
surplus for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or
for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2018.
(b) Transitional Medical Assistance and Qualifying
Individuals.--In the House, the chairman of the Committee on
the Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other
appropriate levels in this resolution for any bill, joint
resolution, amendment, or conference report that extends the
transitional medical assistance program or the qualifying
individuals program, which are included in title XIX of the
Social Security Act, by the amounts provided in such measure
if such measure would not increase the deficit or decrease
the surplus for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2013
or for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2018.

SEC. 313. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR TRADE ADJUSTMENT
ASSISTANCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
MODERNIZATION.

[[Page H1631]]

that reauthorizes the trade adjustment assistance program to
better meet the challenges of globalization or modernizes the
unemployment insurance system to improve access to needed
benefits by the amounts provided in such measure if such
measure would not increase the deficit or decrease the
surplus for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or
for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2018.

SEC. 314. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR COUNTY PAYMENTS
LEGISLATION.

In the House, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that provides for the
reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and Community
Self Determination Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-393) or makes
changes to the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act of 1976 (Public
Law 94-565) by the amounts provided in such measure if such
measure would not increase the deficit or decrease the
surplus for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or
for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2018.

SEC. 315. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
RESTORATION AND NAVAJO NATION WATER RIGHTS
SETTLEMENTS.

In the House, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that would fulfill the
purposes of the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act
or implement a Navajo Nation water rights settlement as
authorized by the Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water
Projects Act by the amounts provided in such measure if such
measure would not increase the deficit or decrease the
surplus for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or
for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2018.

SEC. 316. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE NATIONAL PARK
CENTENNIAL FUND.

In the House, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that provides for the
establishment of the National Parks Centennial Fund by the
amounts provided in such measure for that purpose if such
measure would not increase the deficit or decrease the
surplus for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or
for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2018

SEC. 317. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR CHILD SUPPORT
ENFORCEMENT.

In the House, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that improves Federal child
support collection efforts or results in more collected child
support reaching families by the amounts provided in such
measure if such measure would not increase the deficit or
decrease the surplus for the period of fiscal years 2008
through 2013 or for the period of fiscal years 2008 through
2018.

TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 401. PROGRAM INTEGRITY INITIATIVES.

(a) Adjustments to Discretionary Spending Limits.--
(1) Continuing disability reviews and supplemental security
income redeterminations.--In the House, prior to
consideration of a bill or joint resolution making
appropriations for fiscal year 2009 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 $240,000,000, and the amount is
designated for continuing disability reviews and Supplemental
Security Income redeterminations for the Social Security
Administration, the allocation to the Committee on
Appropriations shall be increased by the amount of the
additional budget authority and outlays resulting from that
budget authority for fiscal year 2009.
(2) Internal revenue service tax compliance.--In the House,
prior to consideration of a bill or joint resolution making
appropriations for fiscal year 2009 that appropriates
$6,997,000,000 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 $490,000,000, and the amount is
designated to improve compliance with the provisions of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the allocation to the
Committee on Appropriations shall be increased by the amount
of the additional budget authority and outlays resulting from
that budget authority for fiscal year 2009.
(3) Health care fraud and abuse control program.--In the
House, prior to consideration of a bill or joint resolution
making appropriations for fiscal year 2009 that appropriates
up to $198,000,000 and the amount is designated to the health
care fraud and abuse control program at the Department of
Health and Human Services, the allocation to the Committee on
Appropriations shall be increased by the amount of additional
budget authority and outlays resulting from that budget
authority for fiscal year 2009.
(4) Unemployment insurance program integrity activities.--
In the House, prior to consideration of a bill or joint
resolution making appropriations for fiscal year 2009 that
appropriates $10,000,000 for in-person reemployment and
eligibility assessments and 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 in-person reemployment and eligibility
assessments and unemployment insurance improper payment
reviews for the Department of Labor, the allocation to the
Committee on Appropriations shall be increased by the amount
of additional budget authority and outlays resulting from
that budget authority for fiscal year 2009.
(b) Procedure for Adjustments.--
(1) In general.--In the House, prior to consideration of a
bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report, the
chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall make the
adjustments set forth in subsection (a) for the incremental
new budget authority in that measure and the outlays
resulting from that budget authority if that measure meets
the requirements set forth in subsection (a), except that no
adjustment shall be made for provisions exempted for the
purposes of titles III and IV of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 under section 404 of this resolution.
(2) Matters to be adjusted.--The adjustments referred to in
paragraph (1) are to be made to--
(A) 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
(B) the budgetary aggregates as set forth in this
resolution.

SEC. 402. 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. 403. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST 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 or a conference report thereon, may not provide for
advance appropriations.
(b) Exceptions.--In the House, an advance appropriation may
be provided for fiscal year 2010 for programs, projects,
activities, or accounts identified in the report to accompany
this resolution or the joint explanatory statement of
managers to accompany this resolution under the heading
``Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations'' in an
aggregate amount not to exceed $27,558,000,000 in new budget
authority, and for 2011, accounts separately identified under
the same heading.
(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 2009 that first becomes
available for any fiscal year after 2009.

SEC. 404. OVERSEAS DEPLOYMENTS AND EMERGENCY NEEDS.

(a) Overseas Deployments and Related Activities.--In the
House, if any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report 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 and outlays
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, if any bill, joint
resolution, amendment, or conference report makes
appropriations for discretionary amounts, and such amounts
are designated as necessary to meet emergency needs, then the
new budget authority and outlays resulting therefrom shall
not count for the purposes of titles III and IV of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

SEC. 405. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF CERTAIN DISCRETIONARY
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

(a) In General.--In the House, notwithstanding section
302(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, section
13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and section 4001
of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, 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 and of the Postal Service.
(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 off-
budget discretionary amounts.

SEC. 406. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS
AND AGGREGATES.

(a) Application.--Any adjustments of allocations and
aggregates made pursuant to this resolution shall--

[[Page H1632]]

(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.--In the House, 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. 407. ADJUSTMENTS TO REFLECT CHANGES IN CONCEPTS AND
DEFINITIONS.

In the House, upon the enactment of any bill or joint
resolution providing for a change in concepts or definitions,
the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may 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. 408. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

The House 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 these rules shall supersede other rules of the
House only to the extent that they are inconsistent with
other such rules of the House; 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 V--POLICY

SEC. 501. POLICY ON MIDDLE-INCOME TAX RELIEF.

It is the policy of this resolution to--
(1) minimize fiscal burdens on middle-income families and
their children and grandchildren;
(2) 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; and
(3) support extension of middle-income tax relief and
enhanced economic equity through policies such as--
(A) extension of the child tax credit;
(B) extension of marriage penalty relief;
(C) extension of the 10 percent individual income tax
bracket;
(D) elimination of estate taxes on all but a minute
fraction of estates by reforming and substantially increasing
the unified tax credit;
(E) extension of the research and experimentation tax
credit;
(F) extension of the deduction for State and local sales
taxes;
(G) extension of the deduction for small business
expensing; and
(H) enactment of a tax credit for school construction
bonds.

This resolution assumes that 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. 502. POLICY ON DEFENSE PRIORITIES.

It is the policy of this resolution that--
(1) the Administration's budget requests should comply with
section 1008, Public Law 109-364, the John Warner National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, and the
Administration should no longer attempt to fund overseas
military operations through emergency supplemental
appropriations requests;
(2) the Department of Defense should exclude nonwar
requirements from its funding requests for Iraq and
Afghanistan;
(3) implementing the recommendation of the National
Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
(commonly referred to as the 9/11 Commission) to adequately
fund cooperative threat reduction and nuclear
nonproliferation programs (securing ``loose nukes'') is a
high priority and should receive far greater emphasis than
the President's budget provides;
(4) readiness of our troops, particularly the National
Guard and Reserve, is a high priority, and that greater
emphasis needs to be placed on mitigating equipment and
training shortfalls;
(5) TRICARE fees for military retirees under the age of 65
should not be increased as the President's budget proposes;
(6) military pay and benefits should be enhanced to improve
the quality of life of military personnel;
(7) improving military health care services continues to be
a high priority and adequate funding to ensure quality health
care for returning combat veterans should be provided;
(8) higher priority defense needs could be addressed by
funding missile defense at an adequate but lower level, not
providing funding for development of space-based missile
defense interceptors, and by restraining excessive cost and
schedule growth in defense research, development and
procurement programs;
(9) the Department of Defense should reassess current
defense plans to ensure that weapons developed to counter
cold war-era threats are not redundant and are applicable to
21st century threats;
(10) sufficient resources should be provided for the
Department of Defense to do an aggressive job of addressing
as many as possible of the 1,260 unimplemented
recommendations made by the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) over the last 7 years to improve practices at the
Department of Defense, including investigation of the
billions of dollars of obligations, disbursements and
overcharges for which the Department of Defense cannot
account;
(11) savings from the actions recommended in paragraphs (8)
and (10) of this section should be used to fund the
priorities identified in paragraphs (3) through (7);
(12) the Department of Defense report to Congress on its
assessment of cold war weapons and progress on implementing
GAO recommendations as outlined in paragraphs (9) and (10) by
a time determined by the appropriate authorizing committees;
and
(13) the GAO report to the appropriate congressional
committees by the end of the 110th Congress regarding the
Department of Defense's progress in implementing its audit
recommendations.

TITLE VI--SENSE OF THE HOUSE

SEC. 601. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON THE INNOVATION AGENDA AND
AMERICA COMPETES ACT.

It is the sense of the House that--
(1) the House should provide sufficient funding so that our
Nation may continue to be the world leader in education,
innovation and economic growth;
(2) last year, Congress passed and the President signed the
America COMPETES Act, bipartisan legislation designed to
ensure that American students, teachers, businesses, and
workers are prepared to continue leading the world in
innovation, research, and technology well into the future;
(3) this resolution supports the efforts authorized in the
America COMPETES Act, providing substantially increased
funding above the President's requested level for 2009, and
increased amounts after 2009 in Function 250 (General
Science, Space and Technology) and Function 270 (Energy);
(4) 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),
and Function 370 (Commerce and Housing Credit), all of which
receive more funding than the President's budget provides;
(5) because America's greatest resource for innovation
resides within classrooms across the country, the increased
funding provided in this resolution will support initiatives
within the America COMPETES Act to educate tens of thousands
of new scientists, engineers, and mathematicians, and place
highly qualified teachers in math and science K-12
classrooms; and
(6) because independent scientific research provides the
foundation for innovation and future technologies, this
resolution will keep us on the path toward doubling funding
for the National Science Foundation, basic research in the
physical sciences, and collaborative research partnerships,
and toward achieving energy independence through the
development of clean and sustainable alternative energy
technologies.

SEC. 602. 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--they
have served well and honorably and have made significant
sacrifices for this Nation;
(2) this resolution provides $48,150,000,000 in
discretionary budget authority for 2009 for Function 700
(Veterans Benefits and Services), including veterans' health
care, which is $4,888,000,000 more than the 2008 level,
$3,602,000,000 more than the Congressional Budget Office's
baseline level for 2009, and $3,232,000,000 more than the
President's budget for 2009; and also provides more
discretionary budget authority than the President's budget in
every year after 2009;
(3) this resolution provides funding to continue addressing
problems such as those identified at Walter Reed Army Medical
Center to improve military and veterans' health care
facilities and services;
(4) this resolution assumes the rejection of the health
care enrollment fees and pharmaceutical 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
injury; 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. 603. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON HOMELAND SECURITY.

It is the sense of the House that--

[[Page H1633]]

(1) this resolution assumes additional homeland security
funding above the President's requested level for 2009 and
every subsequent year;
(2) this resolution assumes funding above the President's
requested level for 2009, 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, train and support
first responders (including enhancing interoperable
communications and emergency management), strengthen border
patrol, and increase the preparedness of the public health
system.

SEC. 604. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING LONG-TERM FISCAL
REFORM.

It is the sense of the House that--
(1) both the Government Accountability Office and the
Congressional Budget Office have warned that the Federal
budget is on an unsustainable path of rising deficits and
debt;
(2) using recent trend data and reasonable policy
assumptions, CBO has projected that the gap between spending
and revenues over the next 75 years will reach 6.9 percent of
GDP;
(3) publicly held debt will rise from 36 percent today to
400 percent of GDP by the decade beginning in 2050 under
CBO's alternative policy scenario;
(4) the most significant factor affecting the long-term
Federal fiscal landscape is the expectation that total public
and private health spending will continue to grow faster than
the economy;
(5) the House calls upon governmental and nongovernmental
experts to develop specific options to reform the health care
system and control costs, that further research and analysis
on topics including comparative effectiveness, health
information technology, preventative care, and provider
incentives is needed, and that of critical importance is the
development of a consensus on the appropriate methods for
estimating the budgetary impact and health outcome effects of
these proposals; and
(6) immediate policy action is needed to address the long-
term fiscal challenges facing the United States, including
the rising costs of entitlements, in a manner that is
fiscally responsible, equitable, and lasting, and that also
honors commitments made to beneficiaries, and that such
action should be bipartisan, bicameral, involve both
legislative and executive branch participants, as well as
public participation, and be conducted in a manner that
ensures full, fair, and timely Congressional consideration.

SEC. 605. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING WASTE, FRAUD, AND
ABUSE.

It is the sense of the House that--
(1) all committees should examine programs within their
jurisdiction to identify wasteful and fraudulent spending;
(2) title IV of this resolution includes cap adjustments to
provide appropriations for agencies that control programs
that accounted for a significant share of improper payments
reported by Federal agencies: Social Security Administration
Continuing Disability Reviews, the Medicare/Medicaid Health
Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program, and Unemployment
Insurance Program Integrity;
(3) title IV also includes a cap adjustment for the
Internal Revenue Services for tax compliance efforts to close
the $300,000,000,000 tax gap;
(4) the resolution's deficit-neutral reserve funds require
authorizing committees to cut lower priority and wasteful
spending to accommodate any new high-priority entitlement
benefits; and
(5) title IV 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. 606. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING EXTENSION OF THE
STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO RULE.

It is the sense of the House that to reduce the deficit,
Congress should extend the PAYGO rules originally enacted in
the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.

SEC. 607. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON LONG-TERM BUDGETING.

It is the sense of the 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 Governments net
operating cost, financial position, and long-term
liabilities.

SEC. 608. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE NEED TO MAINTAIN
AND BUILD UPON EFFORTS TO FIGHT HUNGER.

It is the sense of the House that--
(1) 35.5 million Americans (12.6 million of them children)
are food insecure--uncertain of having, or unable to acquire,
enough food, and that 11.1 million Americans are hungry
because of lack of food;
(2) despite the critical contributions of the Department of
Agriculture nutrition programs (particularly the food stamp
program), which significantly reduced payment error rates
while providing help to partially mitigate the effects of
rising poverty and unemployment, significant need remains,
even among families that receive food stamps;
(3) nearly 25 million people, including more than nine
million children and nearly three million seniors, sought
emergency food assistance from food pantries, soup kitchens,
shelters, and local charities last year;
(4) legislation that passed the House with bipartisan
support was an appropriate first step toward ensuring that
nutrition assistance keeps up with inflation and rising food
prices; and
(5) Department of Agriculture programs that help us fight
hunger should be maintained and that the House should
continue to seize opportunities to reach Americans in need
and to fight hunger.

SEC. 609. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING AFFORDABLE HEALTH
COVERAGE.

It is the sense of the House that--
(1) nearly 47 million Americans, including nine million
children, lack health insurance;
(2) people without health insurance are more likely to
experience problems getting medical care and to be
hospitalized for avoidable health problems;
(3) most Americans receive health coverage through their
employers, and a major issue facing all employers is the
rising cost of health insurance;
(4) small businesses, which have generated most of the new
jobs annually over the last decade, have an especially
difficult time affording health coverage, because of higher
administrative costs and fewer people over whom to spread the
risk of catastrophic costs;
(5) 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; and
(6) 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 circumstances
affecting employees 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 by promoting improvements in
disease management and disease prevention.

SEC. 610. 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. 611. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING SUBPRIME LENDING AND
FORECLOSURES.

It is the sense of the House that--
(1) over the last six months, the Nation has experienced a
significant increase in the number of homeowners facing the
risk of foreclosure with estimates of as many as 2.8 million
subprime and other distressed borrowers facing the loss of
their homes over the next five years;
(2) the rise in foreclosures not only has an immediate,
devastating impact on homeowners and their families, but it
also has ripple effects--
(A) local communities experiencing high levels of
foreclosures experience deterioration as a result of the
large number of vacant foreclosed and abandoned homes;
(B) rising foreclosure rates can accelerate drops in home
prices, affecting all homeowners; and
(C) home mortgage default and foreclosure rates increase
risk for lenders, further restricting the availability of
credit, which can in turn slow economic growth; and
(3) the rise in foreclosures is not only a crisis for
subprime borrowers, but a larger problem for communities as a
whole, and considering the multi-layered effects of
increasing foreclosures, the House should consider steps to
address this complex problem.

SEC. 612. SENSE OF 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.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the concurrent resolution is in
order except the amendments printed in House Report 110-548. 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 amendment.

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 110-548.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

[[Page H1634]]

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 2009.

The Congress determines and declares that the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2009, including
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2010 through
2013.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of
fiscal years 2009 through 2013:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2009: $2,113,137,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,333,975,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,520,860,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,736,299,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,838,866,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be adjusted are as follows:
Fiscal year 2009: $16,013,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $151,111,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $92,835,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $82,984,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $84,126,000,000.
(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 2009: $2,597,686,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,630,042,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,761,520,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,802,739,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,929,212,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2009: $2,596,055,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,680,087,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,777,894,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,790,731,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,919,409,000,000.
(4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget)
are as follows:
Fiscal year 2009: $482,918,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $346,112,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $257,034,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $54,432,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $80,543,000,000.
(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 2009: $10,146,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $10,601,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $10,963,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $11,149,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $11,344,000,000.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2009: $5,701,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $5,858,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $5,907,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $5,740,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $5,593,000,000.

SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years
2009 through 2013 for each major functional category are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $542,497,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $573,362,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $550,414,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $560,726,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $557,026,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $560,099,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $565,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $556,699,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $576,223,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $568,829,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $40,506,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,529,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $41,911,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,535,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $42,828,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,665,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $43,642,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,307,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $44,072,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,672,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $30,049,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,761,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $31,280,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,704,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $32,589,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,312,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $33,968,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,677,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $35,413,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,591,000,000.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $5,374,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,423,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $5,345,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,354,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $5,412,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,983,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $5,503,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,370,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $5,595,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,684,000,000.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $41,428,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,340,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $36,559,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,557,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $37,447,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,030,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $38,345,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,424,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $39,267,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,038,000,000.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $22,094,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,726,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $22,284,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,226,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $22,456,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,436,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $22,828,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,995,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $23,186,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,376,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $11,022,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,913,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $15,349,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,245,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $10,460,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,617,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $10,708,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,188,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $11,104,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,110,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $74,619,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $81,067,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $78,682,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $84,845,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $79,709,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $87,159,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $80,660,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $89,274,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $81,653,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $91,609,000,000.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $16,546,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,684,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $16,819,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,720,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $17,127,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,392,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $17,443,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,669,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $17,748,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,507,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $115,485,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $96,894,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $122,844,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $118,545,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $125,862,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $123,385,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $128,078,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $124,647,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $121,940,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $123,740,000,000.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $323,727,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $310,812,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $340,699,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $337,134,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $361,681,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $359,998,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $384,698,000,000.

[[Page H1635]]

(B) Outlays, $383,092,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $410,017,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $408,170,000,000.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $420,691,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $420,420,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $445,725,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $445,825,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $494,870,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $494,693,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $491,853,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $491,610,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $552,889,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $553,003,000,000.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $419,956,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $420,166,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $425,776,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $426,298,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $435,181,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $435,414,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $420,612,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $421,056,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $436,245,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $435,944,000,000.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $21,308,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,308,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $23,794,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,794,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $27,330,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,330,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $30,342,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,342,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $33,162,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,162,000,000.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $97,404,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $96,269,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $100,136,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $99,789,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $105,936,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $105,581,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $103,251,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $102,386,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $109,230,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $108,398,000,000.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $52,104,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $52,184,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $53,101,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $53,336,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $54,338,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $54,526,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $55,622,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $55,474,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $56,967,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $56,542,000,000.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $24,020,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,328,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $20,461,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,469,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $21,111,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,985,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $21,819,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,827,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $22,507,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,283,000,000.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $333,566,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $333,566,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $367,308,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $367,308,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $401,371,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $401,371,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $421,521,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $421,521,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $429,535,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $429,535,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $2,350,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,554,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $2,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,915,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $2,150,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,031,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $2,150,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,101,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $2,150,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,132,000,000.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, -$67,060,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$67,060,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, -$70,645,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$70,645,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, -$73,364,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$73,364,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, -$76,104,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$76,104,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, -$79,691,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$79,691,000,000.
(21) Overseas Deployments and Other Activities (970):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $70,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $74,809,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $47,407,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $18,251,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $5,176,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $1,775,000,000.

TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 201. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE REPORT TO CONGRESS.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) between 2001 and 2007, GAO provided the Department of
Defense with 2864 recommendations, many related to improving
their business practices and, to date, the Department of
Defense has implemented 1389 recommendations and closed 215
recommendations without implementation; and
(2) the GAO estimates that the 1389 implemented
recommendations have yielded the Department of Defense a
savings of $63.7 billion between fiscal years 2001 and 2007.
(b) Assumption; Report.--
(1) Assumption.--This resolution assumes $300,000,000 to be
used by the Department of Defense to implement the remaining
1260 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.

SEC. 202. REDEPLOYMENT.

It is the sense of the Congress that--
(1) the war in Iraq should end as safely and quickly as
practicable and our troops should be brought home;
(2) the performance of United States military personnel in
Iraq and Afghanistan should be commended, their courage and
sacrifice have been exceptional, and when they come home,
their service should be recognized appropriately; and
(3) the purpose of funds made available by this Act should
be to transition the mission of United States Armed Forces in
Iraq and undertake their redeployment, and not to extend or
prolong the war and occupation.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1036, the
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) and a Member opposed each
will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, at this time, the Congressional Black
Caucus will present our 2009 budget for the fiscal year: Tough Choices,
Right Priorities.
The Federal budget is $3.1 trillion. Of these four main entitlements:
Medicare, programs for over 40 million Americans, disabled children,
low-income; Medicaid, 40 million children, low-income, disabled;
Medicare, 44 million seniors' health program; and veterans, who have
worked to build our country's security over these many years.
The budget we have before us invests in American families. It invests
in our children, in our families, and it secures us at the same time.
There is no tax increase in this budget. And you will hear over and
over from the other side that we're increasing taxes. We are not. We
are rolling back those permanent tax cuts, for any American citizen who
earns over $200,000 will have the regular tax procedure. What we're
rolling back and increasing the revenue so that we invest in America's
families are incomes over $200,000, that we might ensure all of
America's children, that we might invest and save Medicare, as well as
Medicaid.
We will increase the funding for No Child Left Behind, our premier
education program that has never been properly funded. Education is the
equalizer. America now falls behind the major nations of the world
because our education system is crumbling, and our Congressional Black
Caucus budget invests in education. We also offer money

[[Page H1636]]

in our Justice Department for having safer communities across America.
We will present to you our 2009 Congressional Black Caucus budget. It
is fair, it reduces the deficit, and it invests in America's children
and in America's families.
It is my opportunity, as we move on and present the various Members
who will speak, that we will show you that this budget is a budget that
America needs: tough choices, right priorities.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition
to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. First of all, let me commend the
gentlelady from Michigan and the other colleagues for bringing forth an
alternative budget. As a member of the Budget Committee for the past 6
years, I know how difficult it is to put together a budget of this
magnitude. It takes a lot of work and a lot of dedication, so I commend
my colleagues for doing this.
This is a true substitute budget, Mr. Chairman. It highlights the
stark differences between the Democrats' priorities and the Republican
priorities. And yes, it does increase taxes by actually more than $1.1
trillion. I think that bears repeating. It increases taxes by more than
$1.1 trillion over the next 5 years. This includes actually $427
billion in increases on top of the $683 billion in the underlying
Democratic budget.
The differences between the Republican budget priorities and those of
my Democrat friends, frankly, are rather clear. They're crystal clear.
The Democratic budget that came to the floor yesterday will raise taxes
by $683 billion over the next 5 years. Apparently, however, some of my
Democratic friends think that that increase is still not enough, so
this substitute raises taxes by, as I said before, $1.1 trillion over
the next 5 years. Now, however, Mr. Chairman, the Republican substitute
that will be offered later today does not raise a single penny in
taxes. It contains absolutely no tax increases.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to take some time to discuss frankly the
underlying Democratic budget.
Last year, the Democratic budget promised to raise taxes by $217
billion, and a lot of us were shocked because that was such a huge tax
increase. A lot of us thought that was a lot of money. But this year
they offer a newer and, frankly, bolder, more dramatic budget and more
dramatic tax increase than last year. The underlying Democratic budget
raises taxes by over $683 billion over 5 years. It sets up years and
years of even higher spending and higher taxes.
Mr. Chairman, at last week's committee markup, the Budget Committee
that I am privileged to serve on, a number of my Republican colleagues
and I offered several amendments to extend the widely popular middle
class tax provisions. And we're going to hear that this budget and the
underlying Democratic budget only raises taxes on the wealthy. Well, we
had that debate also in the Budget Committee. So, we offered some
amendments to see if, in fact, that maybe they had just made a mistake.
And yet, not one of these commonsense tax relief amendments were
adopted. Every single Democrat on the committee voted against these
amendments.
And I want to talk about what those amendments are, because, again,
we're going to hear time and time again, oh, that's tax cuts for the
wealthy. Let's talk about the specifics of the amendments that were
voted down, that did not receive one single Democratic vote in the
committee.
They voted against extending the $1,000 child tax credit. You know, I
don't know, maybe it's different in the rest of the country, but in
Florida, not only the wealthy have children. And they voted against
that, against extending the $1,000 child tax credit. And that's raising
taxes on families with children by $51 billion.
They voted against extending the marginal tax rates for all Americans
and, thus, increasing taxes by $326 billion. They voted against, Mr.
Chairman, eliminating the death tax. Now, I thought we could at least
all agree that there should be, as a friend of mine here once said on
the floor, ``no taxation without respiration,'' but no, they voted
against eliminating the death tax, increasing taxes again by 181
additional dollars.
They voted against extending tax relief for married couples,
increasing taxes by $25 billion on married couples.

{time} 1200

And, again, I don't know, maybe Florida is different; but at least in
the State of Florida not only the wealthy get married. That is a tax
increase on every married couple in the entire country.
They voted against extending the 10 percent tax bracket for the very-
low-income taxpayers. That's correct: we will hear time and time again,
no, we only want to raise taxes on the wealthy. Yes, but then why did
they vote against extending the 10 percent tax bracket for the very-
low-income taxpayers?
Again, extending the State and local sales deduction for States like
Florida, Nevada, and Texas, where people should be able to deduct what
they pay in sales taxes because we don't have an income tax, which is
deductible in other States, this provision expires this year. But the
Democratic budget rejected this deduction, increasing taxes on
Floridians and others right away.
My friends on the other side of the aisle claim they support tax
relief, and they'll say it time and time again; but, frankly, their
actions just don't match their rhetoric.
Those amendments were defeated in committee just a few days ago.
Those amendments which are not tax cuts for the wealthy, as we're going
to hear, no. They were for middle-class American families in the United
States, and they voted against every single one of those amendments.
And, again, every single one of them our colleagues on the Democratic
side voted against those tax cuts for middle America, for American
families, for small businesses, et cetera. Again, not one single
Democrat voted for these tax cuts for the middle class.
But these tax provisions affect real people, Mr. Chairman, real
American families, workers, and small business owners. Let's take a
look at what these tax increases mean. Again, these are real numbers.
This is not theory. This is not rhetoric:
A family of four with $50,000 in annual income, not wealthy people
but a family of four with $50,000 in annual income, would see its tax
bill increase by $2,100. That's $2,100 in tax increases in 2011 as a
result of the Democrats' budget. That's a 191 percent increase in their
Federal taxes.
Forty-eight million married couples will see their tax bills rise by
an average of $3,000; 12 million single women with dependents will face
a tax increase of nearly $1,100; 18 million seniors, seniors, will see
a tax increase of more than $2,100 in the year 2011; 27 million small
business owners, Mr. Chairman, which are the backbone of our economy,
which are the job creators in our economy, will see their tax bills
increase by over $4,000. More than six million taxpayers who previously
had no Federal income tax liability will become subject to the
individual income tax in 2011. Again, these are low-income Americans,
because, again, unfortunately, the 10 percent bracket has gone away,
and also their child deduction will go away.
These are just a few examples, not rhetoric, concrete specific
examples of how this amendment and the underlying bill will affect
hardworking American families, the American taxpayer.
With this budget, 116 million American taxpayers will see their tax
increase by an average of $1,800 in the year 2011. That's actually the
underlying bill. With this amendment it would be even higher than that.
I often hear my Democratic friends say that a budget sets priorities.
And it's obvious that this budget and this amendment to the budget set
priorities. And what are those? More runaway spending and much higher
taxes. That's what this budget offers and what this amendment offers.
More of the same, just more taxes, more spending, more taxes, more
spending, and no reform.
Some people, I guess, believe in this budget, and this amendment
shows that some people believe that the Federal Government just doesn't
have enough money and that the people

[[Page H1637]]

have too much money in their wallets; so the Federal Government needs
to take it from them because we can do a better job here. The
bureaucracy and those smart men and women in Congress, we know much
better how to spend people's money than they do.
But, Mr. Chairman, wait. Like those TV commercials: but wait, there's
even more. This budget does absolutely nothing to address the huge
entitlements, the crisis that our Nation faces. As entitlement programs
continue to grow, this underlying budget contains no instructions to
reform them so that we will be able to keep them so that they can
continue to serve the people that they are serving and they will not
bankrupt those programs and also not bankrupt the country.
Again, the truth is, Mr. Chairman, that Medicare and Medicaid are
both growing at more than 7 percent a year. Social Security is growing
at 7 percent per year. These huge growth rates are, unfortunately,
unsustainable for our economy, for those programs, for our fiscal
future. We must tackle this crisis. We must reform them to save those
programs and also to make sure that we save the fiscal situation in
this country. And if we don't, if we put it off for another 5 years, as
this amendment does and as the underlying budget does, it will just
make the situation worse. We have to act on that now.
Mr. Chairman, this substitute budget and the underlying Democratic
budgets are both deeply flawed. They both raise taxes on hardworking
Americans to a level that we have never seen. We know what higher taxes
will do. It will kill job creation. I mean, we all agreed to that. When
we wanted to make sure that we avoided a recession, what did this
Congress do on a bipartisan level? We cut taxes because we know that
cutting taxes, on a bipartisan level we know, that helps economic
growth. But yet this amendment and the underlying budget will increase
taxes on the American people without precedent, at levels that,
frankly, have no precedent. And this is just more of the same.
And for those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully request
that we vote down this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to yield 4 minutes to the
chairperson of our House Congressional Black Caucus Budget Task Force,
as well as a proud member of the House Democratic Budget Committee, the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership in
the Congressional Black Caucus.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin the discussion on the budget with
where we are. And I'd like to use charts because a lot of rhetoric goes
back and forth.
This is a statement of where we are right now. You will see the
budget deficit year by year was improved in the 8 years of Democratic
leadership on the budget and in the last few years has totally
collapsed. It has collapsed to the point where we had a surplus
projected, a 5- or 10-year surplus of $5.5 trillion, a surplus
projected for those 10 years starting in 2001. Those 10 years look like
they're going to come in at a $3 trillion deficit. That's an $8.8
trillion deterioration. That's an average of over $800 billion a year
deterioration in the budget.
We didn't create any jobs during this time. This job performance
under this administration is the worst since Herbert Hoover. You can
say what you want, but that's just the arithmetic fact.
The Congressional Black Caucus is dealing with this budget
responsibly. We, first of all, repeal the tax cuts that put us into the
ditch to begin with. You can call that process whatever you want. You
can rant and rave, but the fact is we are repealing all of those tax
cuts that got us in the ditch, except those tax cuts that primarily
affect that portion of your income under $200,000. Under $200,000 those
tax cuts are protected. Those tax cuts that primarily affect your
income over $200,000, those are the ones that we are repealing. We are
able to, with that money, balance the budget and to go into surplus.
The red is the President's budget, which is significantly worse than
the Congressional Black Caucus every year. The Congressional Black
Caucus has a lower deficit in the first 3 years and a higher surplus in
the next 3 years than either the President's budget or the Democratic
budget. We are so responsible, in fact, that we save interest on the
national debt. Cumulative compared to the President we save $23 billion
in the fifth year alone, $48 billion saved in interest over the 5 years
compared to the President's budget.
We are also able to spend on our priorities. Education, compared to
the President's budget, $160 billion more on education, particularly No
Child Left Behind; $119 billion more in health care, particularly
children's health that the President vetoed. Veterans benefits, $60
billion over the President's budget. We're not charging our veterans
fees for the services that they desperately need. And justice programs,
prevention programs, afterschool programs, and Second Chance Programs
to make our communities safer, almost $35 billion extra.
This budget is responsible. It invests in our priorities, and it is
much more fiscally responsible than the President's budget.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would
like to recognize, frankly, one of the most talented and one of the
most knowledgeable Members in the United States Congress on fiscal
matters, that is, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), for 5 minutes.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
First off, Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the gentlewoman
from Michigan and the gentleman from Virginia. The gentleman from
Virginia is a knowledgeable man who's very sincere, who understands the
budget process, and I want to congratulate you for bringing a budget to
the floor. It's not easy to write a budget resolution, and it's
important to bring a budget to the floor that reflects your priorities.
So first of all, to the CBC, I simply want to congratulate you and your
staff for doing this because that's how a debate works here. It's not
enough just to criticize; it's important to propose things.
Now for the criticizing part. I simply want to talk about the
underlying Democratic Party budget. And there was a debate yesterday
about this for a number of hours, whether there's a tax increase in the
Democrats' budget or not.
Well, when we hear the Democrat chairman say that they are balancing
the budget, that is what their budget does. It is certified by the
Congressional Budget Office as actually achieving balance. So we need
to accept the fact that their budget does balance.
There's only one reason, there's only one way that it balances. It
does so by passing the largest tax increase in American history.
Now, here's what they do with their budget: this red line, which is
what we call the Congressional Budget Office baseline, that is the line
they use to show that they are achieving a balanced budget. The green
line here says here's what the line would be if you don't raise taxes,
if you keep the marriage penalty repealed, if you don't raise the child
tax credit, and so on. This is the difference between the two budgets.
So when we hear our friends on the other side of the aisle say, We're
balancing the budget and we're not raising taxes, they can't have it
both ways. It's simply not correct. It's simply untrue. You can't, on
the one hand, say you're balancing the budget, which by very definition
requires by their math you raise taxes in order to achieve balance, and
then not say you're raising taxes.
The question is this: What taxes are we talking about? Are these
taxes that just hit wealthy people? No. Everybody who pays income tax
rates will see a giant tax increase. All income tax rates will be
increased under the Democratic budget. The per child tax credit will
get cut in half, from $1,000 per child to $500 per child. That means
every family in America will see a $500 per child tax increase. The
marriage penalty will come back in full force. That hits people, on
average, $1,400 for married couples. Capital gains and dividends tax,
which is the tax on our pensions and our 401(k)s, that goes on. And the
death tax comes back in full force.
The question before us now, Mr. Chairman, is this: We are almost
going

[[Page H1638]]

into a recession. We are clearly in an economic downturn. Is this the
time for a tax increase? I think the answer is no.
The other question is this: We have high prices. It costs a lot to
fill the gas tank today. It costs a lot to send kids to school. It
costs a lot of money for health insurance. Where I come from in
Wisconsin, it costs a lot to heat your home. So the real question for
this Congress here and for the American people is, Can you afford the
Democrats' tax hike? Can you afford the massive tax increases? We are
paying higher prices for everything in America today. Our paychecks for
working men and women in America aren't going as far as they used to
go. So at this time can we afford this tax increase?
We think there's a better way. And in 2 hours we will be showing the
American people the better way we think we ought to go, and that is
let's balance the budget, but let's do it not by raising taxes but by
controlling spending.
The big problem I also see with the Democratic budget in addition to
that it has the largest tax increase in history is that it doesn't
think there is any waste in Washington.

{time} 1215

They believe we should keep earmarking this place. They believe there
is no room to find waste, fraud, abuse and inefficiencies in
government. We disagree. We think that there is waste in Washington. We
think that there is fraud in the way our taxpayer dollars are being
spent. And we think we ought to say this earmark system is coming
unglued.
This earmarking system needs to be cleaned up. All this pork, 11,000
pieces of which left this Congress last year, to the tune of $14.9
billion. Let's say stop it for this year and let's clean it up. Let's
have a bipartisan commission, clean up the way Congress porks this
place up. Save that money. Reduce the deficit. Make sure we don't raise
taxes and clean up the way Congress spends taxpayer dollars.
By simply saying no to pork this year and banking that savings in
this budget, we can make sure that that per child tax credit stays. We
can make sure that people don't pay higher taxes by virtue of simply
being married.
Those are the choices we have before us today. We in the Republican
budget say no more pork. Let's protect paychecks, and let's make sure
we are not taxing people for having children or for getting married.
That's the values we have in our budget. And we think we can go
farther and say, let's reform government. Let's reform spending. Let's
clean it up. Let's not raise taxes.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
gentleman from Virginia be permitted to control the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
First of all, the gentleman indicated that we have nothing in there
for waste, fraud and abuse. In fact, we spend $300 million in the
Defense Department budget to make sure that they follow through on the
GAO recommendations to reduce fraud, waste and abuse.
Furthermore, we protect all of those tax cuts for that portion of the
taxpayers' income under $200,000. It is just the tax cuts over $200,000
that primarily got us in the ditch.
At this point, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from
the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
Congressional Black Caucus alternative budget which exercises fiscal
and moral responsibility. And I thank Chairwoman Kilpatrick and
Congressman Scott for their leadership.
The President's budget contains disastrous cuts which the base
Democratic budget goes a long way to restoring. But people who have
been left out of the health, education and the economic mainstream need
more to ensure the equality, fairness and justice which our country has
promised.
The CBC budget does this while balancing the budget and bringing back
a surplus. Our budget will strengthen our Nation's overwhelmed and
under-resourced health care system, extend the Children's Health
Insurance Program, strengthen Medicaid and Medicare, save and expand
programs to build the diverse work force we need, and increase health
information technology.
We fund more vital services for people with HIV/AIDS, increase
funding to our National Center and rural, infant, mental health and
other critically needed programs.
Very importantly, for the first time, the CBC budget creates a Health
Equity Fund, a bold but long overdue step that would fund the Health
Equity and Accountability Act of 2007 and begin to eliminate the health
disparities that claim the lives of 100,000 African Americans and other
people of color every year. And we do this by providing tax relief
where it is needed, recalibrating taxes so that they are fair, and we
put that money where it is needed most.
Mr. Chairman and colleagues, the time is now to pass a budget that
balances tough decisions with fiscal and moral responsibility and
reflects the needs of all Americans and not just a privileged few.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in full support of the Congressional Black
Caucus' alternative budget--Tough Choices--Right Priorities: Exercising
Fiscal and Moral Responsibility. Thank you, Chairwoman Kilpatrick and
Congressman Scott, for your leadership.
The President's budget contains disastrous cuts which make it
blatantly clear that his priorities are out of sync with African-
Americans and all Americans.
The base Democratic budget is a good budget. It goes a long way to
restoring the cuts and eliminations the President proposes, but people
who have for so long been left behind and left out of the health care
mainstream and others, need more to ensure the equality, fairness, and
justice which this country promises to all.
The CBC alternative budget provides additional critical funding to
health, education, crime prevention, economic opportunity and more,
this while still maintaining sound fiscal policy, providing moral
leadership while balancing the budget and bringing back a surplus in
five years.
As a physician and as the chair of the CBC Health Braintrust, I want
to focus on the health care fixes the CBC budget provides.
The CBC budget alternative will strengthen our Nation's overwhelmed
and under-resourced health care system, champions critically important
health care needs, and fills the gaps in health care access and quality
that detrimentally affect our Nation's health care providers, and the
overall health care system. It expands the State Children's Health
Insurance Program to insure the majority of the Nation's 9 million
uninsured children and strengthens Medicaid and Medicare. It also saves
title VII programs to build the diverse workforce we need; it
implements health information technology to improve continuity and
safety of care.
We fund the Ryan White Program including ADAP, National Minority AIDS
Education and Training Centers, and the other vital services for
persons with HIV/AIDS; increase funding to the National Center on
Minority Health and Health Disparities at NIH and save rural, infant,
mental health and other critically needed health programs that the
President wants to terminate.
Mr. Chairman, very importantly, for the first time, the CBC budget
creates a health equity fund. It is a bold but long overdue step that
would finally put our money where our mouth is and finally fund the
Health Equity and Accountability Act of 2007 and begin to eliminate the
health disparities that literally claim the lives of 100,000 African-
Americans and other people of color every single year--bringing
wellness within the reach of millions of innocent, hard-working
Americans who are now in poorer health, un- and under-insured, and more
likely to become disabled or die prematurely from preventable causes
during what ought to be their most productive years.
Mr. Chairman and colleagues, the time has come for us--as lawmakers--
to pass a budget that delicately balances tough decisions with fiscal
and, more important, moral responsibility in a manner that reflects the
needs of all Americans and not just a privileged few.
The alternative CBC budget does just that and I encourage all of my
colleagues to support it.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30
seconds.
I want everybody to kind of listen to this debate, to just listen to
see where you hear one reduction in this amendment or in the underlying
budget, one reduction in Federal spending, one reduction in waste, one
cut in waste, one program that is eliminated, one thing in the Federal
Government that should get a little bit less money. Please listen to
that, and what you will hear is

[[Page H1639]]

just the opposite. More spending. More spending. More spending, more
Federal programs, and not one reduction.
Is the Federal Government so efficient there is nothing that can be
reduced? I don't think so.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank
Chairwoman Kilpatrick, the Congressional Black Caucus and my colleague,
Congressman Scott from Virginia, for their leadership and unwavering
support for the development of this alternative budget.
The CBC alternative budget is filled with progressive and visionary
funding that is motivated by principle and compassion. It is a budget
that voices the concerns and needs of the poor, the children, and the
elderly that have been so easily set aside by this current
administration.
The CBC alternative budget understands that our Nation's
transportation system is the backbone of our economy and our way of
life, neither of which we cannot afford to shortchange.
Funding included in the CBC budget also supports great
competitiveness in science and technology. As a senior member of the
House Science Committee, I feel it is important to invest in our
children's futures, which is also an investment in our own future.
Provisions for the science and technology fields will address access
to higher education, enrichment programs in the STEM fields, and spur
critical research and development to meet the needs of this country.
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 programs and
services crucial to the American people, rather than continuing to
provide tax breaks for those who least need it.
By repealing several of the tax cuts implemented under the current
administration, the CBC budget provides robust funding for much-needed
programs and services. Such programs include health care for uninsured
children, education, and job training programs, an expanded GI Bill for
post-9/11 veterans, as well as increases in benefits and services,
juvenile justice prevention and intervention programs, community and
regional development, public housing, the Army Corps of Engineers, and
homeland security needs.
Mr. Chairman, we are in a position to provide funding for long-
neglected programs and to advance on our promise for progress.
The CBC alternative understands that our Nation's transportation
system is the backbone of our economy and our way of life, neither of
which we can afford to shortchange.
Funding included in the CBC budget also supports greater
competitiveness in science and technology. As a senior Member of the
House Science Committee, I feel it is important to invest in our
children's futures. Provisions for the science and technology fields
will address access to higher education, enrichment programs in STEM
fields, and spur critical research and development to meet the needs of
our country.
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.
I ask, Mr. Chairman, that Members of this body listen to their
conscience.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I reserve my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlelady from California, Ms. Maxine Waters.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Mr. Scott for the
tremendous effort that he has put forward to help develop this CBC
alternative budget.
We have before us perhaps the most important piece of legislation
that we will vote on all year; the budget resolution that sets forth
the priorities this House will pursue for the remainder of the year.
I am very pleased to join with my colleagues in the Congressional
Black Caucus to present an alternative budget, a budget that is wise,
prudent, responsible and balanced. I have many concerns, deep concerns
with health care, education, criminal justice elements of the
resolution. But I think I want to focus my time on housing and
community development, given my position as the chair of the
subcommittee that bears that name.
We have all witnessed the instability of our economy in the face of
turmoil directly resulting from the housing and mortgage market.
Incredibly, at a time when we should be focusing more resources on this
area, the President's budget slashes programs that provide housing and
supportive services to our country's poorest disabled and elderly
households. It starves the local housing authorities of funds they need
to sustain and modernize public housing stock, and once again seeks to
cripple the Community Development Block Grant program.
Specifically, the President's budget reduces funding for HUD 202
supportive housing for the elderly by 27 percent. If enacted, this cut
would leave funding for this program at a level 40 percent below its
fiscal year 2001 appropriations. The CBC adds $300 million to the
President's request to rectify this cut.
There are a number of other cuts, but let me draw your attention to
the proposed elimination of the HOPE VI program, which the House of
Representatives recently voted to reauthorize on a bipartisan vote of
271-130. The CBC budget adds $1 billion to restore this program.
Let me also bring to your attention a cut in the Community
Development Block Grant program of $657 million and a zeroing out of
the section 108 Loan Guarantee program. If enacted, the President's
budget would culminate a multi-year attack on CDBG that could put the
program at a funding level of about one-half of its appropriation in
fiscal year 2001.
I ask support of the CBC budget. I believe that all of America would
be served well by this budget.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from California, Ms. Barbara Lee.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank my colleague from Virginia for
his leadership. Also I want to thank the chairwoman of the
Congressional Black Caucus, Congresswoman Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick,
for her leadership and all of our staff for their very diligent work in
putting together this fiscally and morally responsible budget.
This budget rejects the President's budget and his attack on working
families, minority communities and many of our most vulnerable
populations like seniors and low-income individuals. Instead it,
invests in the right priorities for our Nation.
It calls for the implementation of GAO's recommendation to cut waste,
fraud and abuse at the Defense Department. We have witnessed billions
and billions of dollars disappear, lost or misspent through companies
such as Halliburton or Blackwater. We have found, and the GAO has
found, that there is at least now a savings of $63.7 billion between
fiscal year 2001 and 2007. We want them to complete their audit, and
this budget will allow them to do that so we can realize these savings
and invest in our communities, in our families and in our children.
This budget also recognizes that domestic security enhances national
security. It makes critical investments to build housing and to
strengthen our communities. It fully funds SCHIP and increases funding
to fight HIV/AIDS. It expands education and job training programs and
rebuilds schools destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.
In short, the Congressional Black Caucus budget is fiscally and it is
morally responsible. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Let me just highlight the HIV/AIDS budget. We have not received the
type of increases for the minority AIDS initiative that our communities
need so desperately. The HIV/AIDS pandemic is wreaking havoc on the
African American and now unfortunately the Latino communities in our
country. And so this bill funds the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program in a
way that it should be funded, but it also funds the minority AIDS
initiative in the manner that it should be funded.
Also let me just say we have seen such massive cuts in programs for
education, such as for our historically black colleges and
universities. This budget makes sure that our historically black
colleges and universities

[[Page H1640]]

receive the type of funding they need to educate our young people.
Also it is important to recognize the Congressional Black Caucus
understands that our children need health care this, and this budget
provides the funding through SCHIP for health care for our children,
our most precious resources, who are our future. And it is a shame and
disgrace that we haven't been able to do what we needed to do.
So I thank the gentleman from Virginia for making sure this budget is
fiscally and morally responsible.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30
seconds.
I think if you ask the American taxpayer if it helps our domestic
security to increase their taxes by $1.1 trillion over the next 5 years
like this amendment does, they would probably tell you that no, and
that frankly, it puts their domestic security in great jeopardy, or the
$683 billion in tax increases in the underlying Democratic budget. I
think obviously the answer would be the same.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to
remind the public of where we are and how we got in the ditch, and
these taxes they are talking about is just repealing what got us into
the ditch.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Thank you, Member Scott, and I thank you for
the stellar job that you have done on this budget. I thank Chairwoman
Kilpatrick for what she has done as well.
The Members on the other side talk about control spending. I think we
need to give some indication of what ``control spending'' is. Control
spending occurs when you spend $144 billion per year on war and you cut
Medicaid by $500 billion over 10 years.

{time} 1230

Control spending is spending $12 billion a month on war, and you are
cutting Medicaid by $100 billion over 10 years.
Control spending means that you can't fully fund health care,
education, first responders and infrastructure repair; but you can
spend $243,550 per minute on war.
It is time for us to assess our priorities. If we can spend $395
million per day on war, then we can spend $32 million to fully fund
FHIP, the Federal initiative to make sure that we end discrimination in
housing. We can fund it for 1 year for $32 million. It has been cut. In
2006 we had 27,000 housing discrimination complaints; 18,000 were
resolved. The administration is presently requesting $26 million in
2008. That is a 15 percent cut, given that $6 million of it will go
toward a study.
FHIP is a way to end discrimination in housing. We have to have the
will to fund it. If we fund FHIP, we can end housing discrimination.
The Fair Housing Initiative Program deserves to be funded, and let's
control spending in some other areas and take care of home.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Virginia. I rise in favor of the CBC alternative budget.
Mr. Chairman, a nation is judged by how it treats its most
vulnerable; and during the last 7 years, families have experienced a
decline in their income, increased hunger, skyrocketing home heating
costs, and higher taxes. This has had a devastating impact on children,
families, and our seniors; and that is why our CBC budget assumes
extension of these family-friendly tax cuts, but just not extending the
tax cuts, for example, for corporate offshoring of jobs.
The CBC budget goes above and beyond the President's budget request.
Yes, we are spending. We are spending to reinvest in the future of
America's children by providing increased funding for the State Child
Health Insurance Program, the Low Income Heating and Energy Assistance
Program, the child welfare services, the Child Care and Development
Block Grants, the Community Supplemental Food Program, child nutrition
programs, and Child Support Enforcement to address the problem of the
13 million children who live in poverty.
The CBC budget also recognizes the importance of fueling the global
economy by providing increased funding for educational programs like
TRIO and Head Start, and fully funds No Child Left Behind.
The CBC program also increases funding for Pell Grants and Perkins
loans to ensure that young people will continue to have the opportunity
to get a college education and, again, support America's aspiration to
stay ahead in the global economy.
Last week, a government report revealed that employers made their
deepest cut in staffing in almost 5 years in the month of February. The
report showed that there was a net loss of 63,000 jobs, according to
the Labor Department. The CBC budget acknowledges the importance of job
training programs by providing increased funding for programs under the
Workforce Investment Act.
Along with laying a strong foundation for children, families and
seniors and workers, the CBC budget also takes care of our Nation's
veterans by providing increased funding for post-traumatic stress
disorder and mental health services. It is imperative that we provide
veterans with the necessary resources to guarantee excellent health
care for these courageous men and women.
Most importantly, the Congressional Black Caucus alternative budget
applies over $16 billion to reduce the egregious Federal deficit.
I want to thank my colleagues, and particularly the gentleman from
Virginia who worked on this budget.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1
minute.
As you have heard, yes, we have heard time and time again this
amendment does, and the underlying budget does, increase spending. And
how do they pay for the increased spending? Well, $1.1 trillion over
the next 5 years in increased taxes. Let me repeat that: $1.1 trillion
in increased taxes. Including who? Who would get taxed? Well, everybody
would get a tax increase, including, for example, reducing the child
tax credit in half; including raising taxes by not extending the 10
percent tax bracket for the very-low-income taxpayers of this country;
including not extending the tax relief for married couples.
This $1.1 trillion in increased taxes would hit every American, every
small business, every family, every taxpayer.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself an additional 30
seconds to remind the public that we are in the ditch. We are repealing
what got us in the ditch; but we are protecting those tax cuts, many of
which were just mentioned, those that affect that portion of your
income under $200,000. But the alternative is to stay in the ditch.
We have a problem in that we have got Social Security we are going to
end up having to pay in a few years. We have got more money coming in
in Social Security than going out now. That is going to change in 2018,
and we are not setting aside any money for that. We have a credible
plan to get us out of the ditch by repealing what got us into the
ditch.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman
from Virginia for the leadership of the Budget Committee and the CBC
budget effort that he has led continuously, and Congresswoman
Kilpatrick, the chairperson of the Congressional Black Caucus.
It is important to note that I think Americans are tired of the ``I's
and me's'' budget, and that is the budget of this administration, a lot
of ``I's,'' a lot of ``me's,'' but never a lot of ``we's.''
I think it is evident that this budget, the Congressional Black
Caucus budget, reflects some of the startling facts that Americans are
facing. First, the loss of 63,000 jobs in the last month under this
administration, the categorizing of this administration as second only
to former President Hoover in having the worst economy in the Nation's
history. And, of course, if you just go out and talk to Mr. and Mrs.
Smith or Mr. and Mrs. Gonzalez or many others, they will tell you that
a recession is on the way.

[[Page H1641]]

This budget acknowledges the needs of our Nation. It provides the
honor to our veterans by increasing that budget for health care,
benefits and educational opportunities $60.9 billion. Today we honored
the wounded warriors. We spoke to some of them, who said that we are
now being assessed for our benefits.
This is what this budget does: it provides more dollars for Community
Development Block Grants going into our community for nutrition
programs and housing programs by $27.4 billion. I can tell you that the
City of Houston has 1,500 senior citizens on a waiting list to rehab
their homes that need this budget.
In addition, this administration has had the worst civil rights
enforcement ever in the history of the United States. This budget ups
the President's budget by $200 million to help those who have been
discriminated against.
As you can see, this tells you about the income of Americans under
this administration. It is now minus. Minus. Americans are losing
money. They are now losing income. We are now in the red. Americans are
struggling. If you listen to the Nation's reports about foreclosures,
you will find out that Americans are losing their homes by the
hundreds. You will find out that the foreclosure market is stalled to
the extent that so many people are losing their homes and not trying to
regain them. What does that mean? People are out in the streets looking
for housing.
Let me applaud Mr. Scott and the CBC budget team for recognizing the
concept of competitiveness. For in addition to reflecting the need for
increased science activity, I am very glad that they have added moneys
to aeronautics. They have likewise put in a $175 million plus-up on
aeronautics research.
Right now as we stand here today, Endeavor is making its way to the
international space station. It is there now putting forward
outstanding research that will bring about jobs. And that is
maintained.
Let me also thank them in my concluding remarks to recognize that we
must continue to provide for the soldiers, but we want those troops
home. We have in this budget language that suggests that any dollars
given to the administration must be used to redeploy our troops home.
These are the same troops in Iraq and Afghanistan who have been
redeployed once, twice, three times, four times. Their families are
suffering. This bill provides us with an outlet for these returning
soldiers by increasing the educational budget and providing, of course,
more for health care, and, yes, fighting the international drudge of
HIV/AIDS.
So I am grateful for a budget that does not stand on I's and me's. It
stands on the we's and the us of America. It gives the Americans, Mr.
and Mrs. America, the opportunity to dig out of a hole, to stand above
this terrible income gap, and to be able to stand again in a great
Nation.
This is a great budget. I ask my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Congressional Black Caucus
(CBC) Budget Substitute for the Fiscal Year Budget for 2009, introduced
by my distinguished colleague from Michigan, Representative Carolyn
Cheeks Kilpatrick and my colleague from Virginia, Representative Robert
C. ``Bobby'' Scott.
While I support the Budget as put forth by our majority on the Budget
Committee. I believe there is more that needs to be done when this
country is on the verge of a recession, the housing market is at one of
its worst points in history, and we have a growing population of
uninsured Americans.

CBC Budget Rescinds Tax Cuts

The CBC budget rescinds tax cuts for the top two income tax rates and
rescinds capital gains and dividend tax cuts in addition to closing
other loopholes. By rescinding these tax cuts, the CBC budget fully
funds No Child Left behind (NCLB), the State Children's Health
Insurance Program (SCHIP), and it provides additional funding for the
fight against global AIDS, Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
and higher education among other items.

Balances the Budget

Even after funding these priorities, the CBC alternative budget still
manages to balance the budget after FY12 and in fact creates a surplus
of $141 billion. The Democratic budget is also in surplus in FY12, but
does not fund the priorities of the American people at the same levels
as the CBC budget. In comparison, the President's budget deficit in the
FY12 is -31 billion.
Moreover, in FY08-FY12, the CBC budget's total cumulative deficit is
$107 billion better than the Democratic budget and $339 billion better
than the President's budget. As a result, over the next five years, the
CBC budget saves $18.3 billion on interest on the national debt
compared to the Democratic budget and 27.7 billion compared to the
Presidents budget.
The bottom line is that the CBC budget chooses programs important to
the American people over tax cuts for those who need it least. At the
same time, it reduces the deficit and reaches a surplus in FY 2012.

Advancing the Priorities of the American People

We must not only be economically healthy, but assist in balancing it
with the health, education, and security of our citizens. The CBC
budget will advance the priorities of the American people by:
Covering all eligible children with health insurance through funding
SCHIP, with $119.3 billion more than the President's budget and $84.6
billion more than the Democratic budget to help one of our most
vulnerable populations--children;
Ensuring No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has increased funding for Head
Start programs, IDEA, college access programs, college loan programs
and job training with $162.7 billion more than the President's budget
and $101.2 billion more than the Democratic budget;
Honoring our veterans by increasing funding for health care, benefits
and educational opportunities with $60.9 billion more than the
President's budget, and $17.7 billion than the Democratic budget;
Making more local communities with support through increases to
Community Development Block Grants, nutrition programs and housIng
programs with $27.4 billion more than the President's budget and $20
billion more than the Democratic budget; and

Contributing to the global community by investing in child survival
and, health, international family planning and the global effort to
fight AIDS with $11.5 billion more than the President's budget and
$16.9 billion more on international affairs than the Democratic budget.

Health Initiatives

The CBC budget under the Health Function 550 included a program that
I continually push for increased funding, and that is the Juvenile
Diabetes Research Foundation. Hope for juvenile diabetes cure lies in
research. Real progress is being made, thanks largely to government
funding of the Special Diabetes Program. However without the renewal of
the program, federal support for Type I Diabetes will be reduced by 35
percent
The health and health care spending in the CBC budget alternative is
the fiscally, socially and morally appropriate and responsible response
to the President's FY 09 healthcare budget proposal, which showcases
grave cuts to every office and agency, as well as to every program that
is integrally important to efforts to eliminate health disparities and
improve the health, well being and life opportunities of all Americans.
The CBC budget alternative, unlike the President's FY 09 budget,
strengthens our nation's overwhelmed and under-resourced health care
system, champions the critically important health care needs of health
care seekers, and fills the gaps in health care access and quality that
detrimentally affect our nation's health care providers and the overall
health care system.
The CBC budget alternative makes a more than $174 billion additional
investment in the health, health care, well being and thus life
opportunities of not only African Americans, but all Americans.
Additionally, the budget makes this very wise investment as it
generates monies to reduce the nation's deficit.
The CBC budget alternative strengthens and expands the State
Children's Health Insurance Program to ensure that the majority of the
nation's 9 million uninsured children have access to health care. This
is of particular relevance to the CBC because a disproportionate number
of the 9 million uninsured children today are African American or
Hispanic. Without reliable access to quality health care, children are
in poorer health, are less productive in school and in their
communities, and are less likely to fulfill their life's potential.

Health Equity Fund

The CBC budget alternative creates the Health Equity Fund, which will
help ensure that this nation take a giant step forward in efforts to
reduce and eliminate all health disparities and achieve health equity.

Strengthens Medicare

The CBC budget alternative strengthens Medicare--a critically
important program that ensures that our nations' senior citizens, as
well as those living with disabilities, have access to the health care
services and treatments they need to live longer, healthier and fuller
lives.
The CBC budget alternative also: saves Title VII (health professions
training) programs, which are integral to strengthening and

[[Page H1642]]

expanding tomorrow's health care workforce; funds the Ryan White HIV/
AIDS Program in a manner that allows it to expand ADAP, the efforts of
National Minority AIDS Education Training Centers, and the other
important services and treatments offered to our most vulnerable with
HIV infection; funds the Minority AIDS Initiative in a manner that will
build the needed capacity in racial and ethnic minority communities
throughout the nation to respond and address HIV/AIDS;
It is our children that will bring forth a thriving future. We need
to invest in tomorrow by investing in them today. This starts with
their physical well-being. Children, who cannot see the doctor when
they are sick, research programs that are not adequately funded to find
a cure for diseases such as diabetes, hurt our future generations, and
not help lay a foundation for a bright future.

Education and African Americans in Texas

A quality education continues to be the best pathway to social and
economic mobility in this country. As a Member and Senior Whip of the
Congressional Black Caucus, I have consistently advocated for the
maintenance of Historically Black Colleges and Universities. This
budget provides greater funding to our nation's schools and colleges
than even our Democratic budget supplies.
For African Americans health and education concerns spill beyond
budgetary issues into the criminal justice consequences. In Texas, over
87,000 African-Americans are incarcerated compared to approximately
48,000 African-Americans attending college or university.
The disparity between the percentages of our youth in prison versus
the number of young people in college, particularly in the African-
American community, is disturbing to say the least. Higher education
continues to be one of the main pathways to social and economic
mobility, particularly in the African-American and Hispanic
communities.

The Republican Budget Substitute

Under the Republican Budget the national debt continues to explode.
The gross federal debt reached $9.0 trillion at the end of 2007. The
CBO projects that the debt will rise by a total of $3.9 trillion at the
end of 2008. This unprecedented rise in debt puts our President in the
history books. During the seven years of the current Administration,
the government has posted the highest deficits in this nation's
history. The President's 2009 Budget continues the failed policies that
brought us to this point.

CBC Budget Compared to the President's and Democratic Budgets

The CBC budget improves the deficit by $564 billion over the
President's budget and $152 billion over the Democratic budget.
The CBC budget saves on interest on the national debt $48.1 billion
compared to the President's budget, and $22.7 billion compared to the
Democratic budget.
The CBC budget spends more over five years on healthcare, veterans,
education and justice than either the President's budget or the
Democratic budget. The CBC budget also addresses the President's
shortfalls in funding critical Homeland Security programs such as the
Port Security Grant Program and grants for First Responders.

Port of Houston and Security Measures

Just yesterday, I had the pleasure of meeting with the Port Authority
of Houston. They were here to discuss their security measures but also
their need for continued federal dollars. The Bush Administration
claims they want to secure our nation but cuts funding in areas that
are important to our local security such as the ports in Houston,
Texas. The CBC seeks to cure that shortfall.

Pay-Go and Sunset Provisions

The President's budget and the Republican alternatives violate pay-go
and the fiscal responsibility that reconciliation is intended to
achieve, by proposing tax cuts that are not offset.
The sunsets for the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were part of the tax
legislation which Republicans voted for and passed. The expiration of
the tax cuts is their policy. The Democratic budgets actually calls for
the extension of many of these tax cuts, but responsibly requires that
tax cut extensions, like other policies, must be fiscally sound, and
not make the deficit worse.

Conclusion

This important piece of legislation gives us a budget that is
balanced fiscally and morally. It does not sacrifice the great many
programs and services that this nation needs for a War that the
President seems never to end.
Defense of our nation is important, however, we must not support only
one portion of the budget to the detriment of everything else. The CBC
budget makes tough choices that result in a fiscally and morally
responsible budget that will fund essential programs and services vital
to our communities and the American people as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Congressional Black
Caucus Budget Substitute for FY2009.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to
the ranking member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I don't know what kind of statistical contortion must have gone
through producing that last chart. We just finished 52 consecutive
months of job growth, the largest expansion in our Nation's history.
But more to the point is this issue of whether we are raising taxes
here or not, because we need to be honest with the American people. The
underlying Democratic budget, don't take my word for it, it raises
taxes. Take the Senate's word for it. Because just this morning on a
99-1 vote in the U.S. Senate, they rejected the logic of this budget.
They said we want to preserve the middle-class tax cuts, which they
define as the kid credit and the marriage penalty and 10 percent
bracket and some others. But they changed the budget by $341 billion to
prevent $341 billion of the $683 billion tax increase from taking
place.
So don't take my word for it, but the Democrats and the Republicans
in the Senate. All but one person said we should not raise taxes as
much as the House Democrats are raising taxes; let's raise taxes half
as much.
So the point is this: our friends on the other side of the aisle can
come up with reserve funds and senses of Congress and preferences and
hopes and dreams and aspirations. But what counts is what you put in
the budget. And if you are coming to the floor and saying you are
balancing the budget, by the way this budget is written, it only does
so by giving us the largest tax increase in American history. No sense
of Congress, no empty reserve fund can change that fact.
Don't listen to me. Listen to the fact that the Senate looked at this
same budget and said, that is not what we want to do. We want to
preserve some of these tax cuts, and they just voted 99-1 to do just
that. They decided to raise taxes half as much as the Democrats here in
the House are doing.
So what really matters are budgets, because that is the numbers. They
don't lie. This budget that we are voting on, this underlying budget,
gives us the largest tax increase in American history. Let me read a
few of them:
Some 116 million taxpayers will see an average tax increase of more
than $1,800 per year.
More than 6 million low-income individuals and couples who currently
pay no taxes will be no longer exempt.
A family of four earning $50,000 will see their taxes increase by
$2,100.
Approximately 48 million married couples will face an average tax
increase of $3,000 per year.
Low-income families with one or two children will no longer be
eligible for the refundable child tax credit.
Roughly 12 million single women with children will see their taxes
increase by $1,100 a year.
About 18 million seniors will be subjected to tax increases of more
than $2,100 a year.
Tax bills for an estimated 27 million small business owners will
increase by more than $4,000 each.
That is what the underlying Democratic budget does. It was rejected
in the Democratically controlled Senate. It ought to be rejected in
this House here today.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

{time} 1245

I want to thank the gentleman, Mr. Scott, for his leadership on the
CBC budget.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Congressional Black Caucus
alternative budget offered today. The CBC budget once again proposed to
change a 7-year Republican policy that I have called Reverse Robin
Hood, stealing from the poor to give tax breaks 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, the African American community has pneumonia. The
CBC budget reversed the deep cuts that have been made to the programs
that

[[Page H1643]]

serve the neediest Americans. This year's Congressional Black Caucus
budget covers all eligible children with health care insurance through
funding for CHIP, $84 billion more than the Democratic budget and $119
billion more than the President's; ensures no child is left behind by
funding education and providing increased funding for Head Start,
college access programs, college loans, and job training programs, $101
billion more than the Democratic budget and $162 billion more than the
President's; honors our veterans by increasing funding for health care,
benefits, and educational opportunities, $17 billion more than the
Democratic budget and $60 billion over the President's budget; makes
local community more secure by fully funding justice, gang prevention,
and local law enforcement programs, as well as ensuring every voice
counts by funding the Help America Vote Act.
We talk about a stimulus, and the only stimulus is the investment in
our people, in education, in health care, in job training, so support
economic and fiscal recovery. Vote ``yes'' on the budget. I encourage
us to vote for the economic recovery by voting for the CBC budget.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I once again want to
commend our colleagues from the CBC. They have done a lot of work to
put this budget together. It is not an easy task to do. It takes a lot
of work, not only from the members, from their staffs, so I want to
commend them for putting together a work product that I know they spent
a lot of time and a lot of effort on, and they must be commended for
that.
Obviously, as you have heard today, we have some huge disagreements.
This amendment would raise taxes by more than $1.1 trillion, that's
trillion with a ``T,'' over the next 5 years.
It's $427 billion above and beyond the already $683 billion in tax
increases in the underlying Democratic budget that, frankly, was pretty
much just rejected in a very strong vote in the Senate, 99-1.
The reason there was a 99-1 vote was because the Senators on both
sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, do not want to support
eliminating all of these middle class tax cuts, the tax cuts on
families, the tax cuts per child, et cetera, et cetera, which is why
they rejected that and adopted an amendment to have half the size of
the tax increase that the underlying budget has. Half that size of an
increase in taxes is still way too high.
However, the underlying budget that the House is looking at, again,
would raise taxes on the American people by $683 billion over the next
5 years, and this amendment goes even further than that by increasing
taxes $1.1 trillion over the next 5 years.
For those reasons and many others, I respectfully would ask to vote
against this amendment. But I do want to end one more time by
commending the gentleman from Virginia and all his colleagues for doing
a lot of work and putting together a work program that requires a lot
of effort and a lot of work, even though, again, when it came out,
obviously it's a $1.1 trillion tax increase, which is why, among other
reasons, we cannot support it.
I would respectfully then ask my colleagues to vote against this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
I just want to make a couple of closing comments. First on defense,
the number on defense, we keep the same number on the defense budget.
However, we have different priorities. Those priorities will be debated
in a different forum.
The $70 billion for the war we restrict to redeployment. We want
those troops back as soon as practicable, consistent with our national
security interests.
On waste, fraud, and abuse, we just don't talk about waste, fraud,
and abuse. We spend $300 million to implement the GAO's studies and
recommendations for how you can reduce fraud, waste, and abuse in the
military. We make them spend the money to actually implement those
recommendations.
Our budget eliminates the fees and copays that the President's budget
has for our veterans. It is insulting to try to balance the budget on
the backs of our courageous veterans. We do have entitlement reform,
$150 billion in entitlement reform, by reducing the subsidies to
private corporations who provide Medicare Advantage. Those that
provide, those are the subsidies that you get nothing for. Medicare
could do it cheaper, $150 billion cheaper, and that's the reform that
we have.
A lot has been said about tax cuts. We repeal what got us in the
ditch. We protect those tax cuts that primarily affect that portion of
your income under $200,000.
In summary, this is where we are, back in the ditch. We repeal the
tax cuts that got us into the ditch. One of those tax cuts that we want
to repeal is a $20 billion tax cut referred to as PEP and Pease,
affecting personal exemptions and standard deductions. The only people
that get this essentially are millionaires. If you make over $1 million
you get this much tax cut; $200,000 to $1 million, you get that much
tax cut; $100,000 to $200,000 you don't need ink to draw the bar; and
$100,000, out of this $20 billion, you get, on average, zero. All of
those tax cuts, we have said, had the greatest expansion in recent
history.
Let's talk about the arithmetic. Arithmetic fact, worst job growth
since Herbert Hoover. Look at the job growth of all the Presidents down
to President Hoover; worst, this administration, and they are bragging
about it.
We have a responsible budget that reduces the deficit, goes into
surplus. It's a responsible budget that also funds many of our
priorities: education, health care, veterans, justice. It is a
responsible budget, and I would ask for the House to adopt this budget.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the CBC
FY09 alternative budget. I'm particularly excited today, because last
night the Second Chance Act of 2007, a bipartisan piece of legislation,
unanimously passed the Senate. I look forward to President Bush signing
the legislation and the appropriation of money in DOJ to fund vital
programs which the bill promotes.
Indeed, currently, the Administration FY09 budget proposes to: Merge
30 grant programs under State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance for
a reduction in funding of $1.008 billion; collapse 14 Community
Oriented Policing Services (COPS) for a reduction in funding of $587.2
million; consolidate Weed and Seed programs for a reduction in funding
of $32.1 million; collapse 7 juvenile justice grants into 1 grant
program for a reduction in funding of $198.5 million; and lastly, merge
current formula and discretionary grant programs into 1 program for a
reduction in funding of $120 million, for an overall collapse of 70 DOJ
programs into 5 programs and a reduction in funding totaling $1.5
billion.
These cuts come as America's prisons reach an alltime high and State
incarceration costs are bursting at the seams. According to the latest
study, between 1987 and 2007, States spent more than double on
corrections (+127 percent) while higher education spending has been
moderate (+21 percent).
It's with this in mind that I categorically support CBC's proposed
budget, which includes $4 billion dollars to these vital DOJ programs.
The CBC has made tough choices, established right priorities while
exercising fiscal and moral responsibility to reduce recidivism and
State incarceration costs.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of
the Congressional Black Caucus, CBC, Budget Substitute for the Fiscal
Year Budget for 2009, introduced by my distinguished colleague from
Michigan, Representative Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick and my colleague
from Virginia, Representative Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott.
While I support the Budget as put forth by our majority on the Budget
Committee, I believe there is more that needs to be done when this
country is on the verge of a recession, the housing market is at one of
its worst points in history, and we have a growing population of
uninsured Americans.

CBC Budget Rescinds Tax Cuts

The CBC budget rescinds tax cuts for the top two income tax rates and
rescinds capital gains and dividend tax cuts in addition to closing
other loopholes. By rescinding these tax cuts, the CBC budget fully
funds No Child Left Behind, NCLB, the State Children's Health Insurance
Program, SCHIP, and it provides additional funding for the fight
against global AIDS, Community Development Block Grants, CDBG, and
higher education, among other items.

Balances the Budget

[[Page H1644]]

levels as the CBC budget. In comparison, the President's budget deficit
in the FY12 is -31 billion.
Moreover, in FY08-FY12, the CBC budget's total cumulative deficit is
$107 billion better than the Democratic budget and $339 billion better
than the President's budget. As a result, over the next 5 years, the
CBC budget saves $18.3 billion on interest on the national debt
compared to the Democratic budget and $27.7 billion compared to the
President's budget.
The bottom line is that the CBC budget chooses programs important to
the American people over tax cuts for those who need it least. At the
same time, it reduces the deficit and reaches a surplus in FY 2012.

Advancing the Priorities of the American People

We must not only be economically healthy but assist in balancing it
with the health, education, and security of our citizens. The CBC
budget will advance the priorities of the American people by:
Covering all eligible children with health insurance through funding
SCHIP, with $119.3 billion more than the President's budget and $84.6
billion more than the Democratic budget to help one of our most
vulnerable populations--children;
Ensuring No Child Left Behind, NCLB, has increased funding for Head
Start programs, IDEA, college access programs, college loan programs
and job training with $162.7 billion more than the President's budget
and $101.2 billion more than the Democratic budget;
Honoring our veterans by increasing funding for health care, benefits
and educational opportunities with $60.9 billion more than the
President's budget, and $17.7 billion than the Democratic budget;
Making more local communities with support through increases to
Community Development Block Grants, nutrition programs and housing
programs with $27.4 billion more than the President's budget and $20
billion more than the Democratic budget; and
Contributing to the global community by investing in child survival
and health, international family planning and the global effort to
fight AIDS with $11.5 billion more than the President's budget and
$16.9 billion more on international affairs than the Democratic budget.

Health Initiatives

The CBC budget under the Health Function 550 included a program that
I continually push for increased funding, and that is the Juvenile
Diabetes Research Foundation. Hope for juvenile diabetes cure lies in
research. Real progress is being made, thanks largely to Government
funding of the Special Diabetes Program. However without the renewal of
the program, Federal support for Type I Diabetes will be reduced by 35
percent.
The health and health care spending in the CBC budget alternative is
the fiscally, socially and morally appropriate and responsible response
to the President's FY09 health care budget proposal, which showcases
grave cuts to every office and agency, as well as to every program that
is integrally important to efforts to eliminate health disparities and
improve the health, well-being and life opportunities of all Americans.
The CBC budget alternative, unlike the President's FY09 budget,
strengthens our Nation's overwhelmed and under-resourced health care
system, champions the critically important health care needs of health
care seekers, and fills the gaps in health care access and quality that
detrimentally affect our Nation's health care providers and the overall
health care system.
The CBC budget alternative makes a more than $174 billion additional
investment in the health, health care, well-being and thus life
opportunities of not only African-Americans, but all Americans.
Additionally, the budget makes this very wise investment as it
generates monies to reduce the Nation's deficit.
The CBC budget alternative strengthens and expands the State
Children's Health Insurance Program to ensure that the majority of the
Nation's 9 million uninsured children have access to health care. This
is of particular relevance to the CBC because a disproportionate number
of the 9 million uninsured children today are African-American or
Hispanic. Without reliable access to quality health care, children are
in poorer health, are less productive in school and in their
communities, and are less likely to fulfill their life's potential.

Health Equity Fund

The CBC budget alternative creates the Health Equity Fund, which will
help ensure that this Nation take a giant step forward in efforts to
reduce and eliminate all health disparities and achieve health equity.

Strengthens Medicare

The CBC budget alternative strengthens Medicare--a critically
important program that ensures that our Nation's senior citizens, as
well as those living with disabilities, have access to the health care
services and treatments they need to live longer, healthier and fuller
lives.
The CBC budget alternative also: saves Title VII (health professions
training) programs, which are integral to strengthening and expanding
tomorrow's health care workforce; funds the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program
in a manner that allows it to expand ADAP, the efforts of National
Minority AIDS Education Training Centers, and the other important
services and treatments offered to our most vulnerable with HIV
infection; funds the Minority AIDS Initiative in a manner that will
build the needed capacity in racial and ethnic minority communities
throughout the Nation to respond and address HIV/AIDS.
It is our children that will bring forth a thriving future. We need
to invest in tomorrow by investing in them today. This starts with
their physical well-being. Children who cannot see the doctor when they
are sick, research programs that are not adequately funded to find a
cure for diseases such as diabetes, hurt our future generations, and do
not help lay a foundation for a bright future.

Education and African-Americans in Texas

A quality education continues to be the best pathway to social and
economic mobility in this country. As a Member and Senior Whip of the
Congressional Black Caucus, I have consistently advocated for the
maintenance of Historically Black Colleges and Universities. This
budget provides greater funding to our Nation's schools and colleges
than even our Democratic budget supplies.
For African-Americans, health and education concerns spill beyond
budgetary issues into the criminal justice consequences. In Texas, over
87,000 African-Americans are incarcerated compared to approximately
48,000 African-Americans attending college or university. The disparity
between the percentages of our youth in prison versus the number of
young people in college, particularly in the African-American
community, is disturbing to say the least. Higher education continues
to be one of the main pathways to social and economic mobility,
particularly in the African-American and Hispanic communities.

The Republican Budget Substitute

Under the Republican Budget the national debt continues to explode.
The gross Federal debt reached $9.0 trillion at the end of 2007. The
CBO projects that the debt will rise by a total of $3.9 trillion at the
end of 2008. This unprecedented rise in debt puts our President in the
history books. During the 7 years of the current Administration, the
Government has posted the highest deficits in this Nation's history.
The President's 2009 Budget continues the failed policies that brought
us to this point.

CBC Budget Compared to the President's and Democratic Budgets

The CBC budget improves the deficit by $564 billion over the
President's budget and $152 billion over the Democratic budget.
The CBC budget saves on interest on the national debt $48.1 billion
compared to the President's budget, and $22.7 billion compared to the
Democratic budget.
The CBC budget spends more over 5 years on health care, veterans,
education, and justice than either the President's budget or the
Democratic budget. The CBC budget also addresses the President's
shortfalls in funding critical Homeland Security programs such as the
Port Security Grant Program and grants for First Responders.

Port of Houston and Security Measures

Just yesterday, I had the pleasure of meeting with the Port Authority
of Houston. They were here to discuss their security measures but also
their need for continued Federal dollars. The Bush administration
claims they want to secure our Nation but cuts funding in areas that
are important to our local security such as the ports in Houston,
Texas. The CBC seeks to cure that shortfall.

Administration of Justice

Under the proposed CBC budget, there is a greater emphasis on the
administration of justice and the protection of all Americans. The CBC
budget funds programs that the President's budget had severely reduced
or not funded at all. These programs must be funded. The CBC budget
funds the Justice Assistance Grant Program, Juvenile Justice Programs,
the Byrne Weed and Seed Program, Office of Violence Against Women, COPS
and JAG programs. All of these programs help keep American communities
safe and provide for greater law enforcement at the Federal, State, and
local enforcement levels. The CBC budget reinvests in DOJ Prisoner
Reentry Program. In addition, the CBC budget invests in our children by
requiring funding for Boys and Girls clubs. This investment in our
communities and in our children helps keep our youths safe and out of
the prison system.

General Sciences, Space and Technology

The CBC budget proposes to invest heavily in our Nation's development
in science, space, and technology. The CBC budget invests $31 million
in NASA educational programs and $8 million in HBCU-UP. The CBC budget
also invests in the NSF Education and Research Programs, with a special
emphasis on minority post doctorates. The CBC budget not only invests
in minorities, it also invests in women by

[[Page H1645]]

providing over $500,000 for Graduate Research Fellowships for Women in
Engineering and Computer Science.

Energy

The CBC budget addresses the environment, energy, and natural
resources. The CBC budget provides for $250 million to the
weatherization assistance and it provides for $400 million for the
energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. These programs are of
particular interest to the people of Texas and I think it is necessary
for America to remain a vital, energy efficient country. With respect
to natural resources and the environment, the CBC budget provides $100
million for EPA funding and $1 billion for the HBCU Historic
Preservation Program.

Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services

The proposed CBC budget puts greater emphasis on education, training,
employment, and social services. These are critical to the needs of
Americans and minority populations in general.
The CBC budget provides funding for the No Child Left Behind Act.
Included in that act is funding for Title I, Safe and Drug Free
Schools, 21st Century Learning Centers, and Teacher Quality Programs.
We must continue to invest in our children because they represent the
future of America.
The CBC budget also recognizes that there must be investment in Head
Start, mentoring, and dropout prevention. The proposed CBC budget
provides $50 million to vocational programs and increases the funding
of HBCUs by $200 million. The CBC budget provides for $50 million in
investment in minority science and engineering improvement. The CBC
budget provides $2 million for Thurgood Marshall Legal Fund, which is a
very important measure for educating minority qualified minority
lawyers. In addition, the CBC budget invests in adult employment and
training activities.

Pay-Go and Sunset Provisions

Conclusion

This important piece of legislation gives us a budget that is
balanced fiscally and morally. It does not sacrifice the great many
programs and services that this Nation needs for a war that the
President seems never to end.
Defense of our Nation is important, however, we must not support only
one portion of the budget to the detriment of everything else. The CBC
budget makes tough choices that result in a fiscally and morally
responsible budget that will fund essential programs and services vital
to our communities and the American people as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Congressional Black
Caucus Budget Substitute for FY2009.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the
Congressional Black Caucus budget alternative.
Our friends on the other side of the aisle have criticized this
proposal because they say that it raises taxes and spending.
The fact is, our Republican colleagues have different priorities than
we do. In these perilous economic times, the Congressional Black Caucus
believes our priority should be to help those Americans who are losing
their jobs and their homes, who can't afford health care, higher
education, and job training, who have to decide between paying the gas
bill or paying for prescription drugs.
The Republicans want to know where the cuts are in the CBC budget.
Their budget slashes Medicare, Medicaid, the Low Income Heating and
Energy Assistance Program and countless other critical social service
programs. They think these programs are unnecessary; their priority is
to preserve the Bush tax cuts, more than 99 percent of which go to
people making more than $225,000 per year. More than 85 percent of the
money we lose due to these cuts goes to households with incomes above
$500,000 per year; 65 percent goes to households with incomes above $1
million. In fact, $51 billion next year alone will go to tax breaks for
millionaires.
By rescinding Bush's tax cuts, the Congressional Black Caucus
increases funding for needed social programs while reducing the deficit
even more than the Republicans do.
It would seem the Republicans' concern is not fiscal responsibility,
but preserving tax cuts for the rich, even if this grows the national
debt. And, of course, we aren't even discussing the President's war
today, which spends $12 billion dollars a month, more than most of
these social service programs spend in a year, or 5 years, or 10 years.
The debate today is clear. It's about priorities. We believe in keeping
working Americans in their homes; the Republicans want to make sure the
rich can stay in their mansions and yachts.
I want to draw particular attention to some of my personal priorities
within the CBC budget alternative. I am happy that the CBC accepted my
proposal to add $10 million to the National Health Service Corps to
help train the next generation of doctors to go into underserved
communities without being crippled by educational debt.
The CBC budget also includes several of my proposals to increase
funding for Department of Justice programs.
The highly successful COPS program focuses on local strategies to
fight crime and has been praised by federal, state, and local law
enforcement and political officials. The President's budget terminates
the COPS program. In contrast, the CBC fully funds COPS at $500 million
for FY 2009.
I also recommended, and the CBC budget includes, increased funding
for other vital local law enforcement programs, including Drug Courts
and the Byrne Justice Assistance Grants. In addition, we significantly
increase funding for programs serving juveniles who have entered our
justice system, in an effort to break the cycle of crime and violence
and to help these children to become productive members of our society.
It's about priorities, and the choice today is clear. Supporting the
CBC budget means prioritizing the basic needs of the American people.
Supporting the Republicans' proposal means continuing our current
course, where the rich keep getting richer, while the needs of the poor
and middle class are neglected.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. 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. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded
vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 126,
noes 292, not voting 16, as follows:

[Roll No. 137]

AYES--126

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Castor
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costello
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Delahunt
DeLauro
Doyle
Ellison
Emanuel
Engel
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kucinich
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Price (NC)
Richardson
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Solis
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wynn

NOES--292

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
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
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards

[[Page H1646]]

Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Gene
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Keller
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lampson
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
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
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
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
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--16

Bordallo
Boustany
Cubin
Davis (IL)
Hooley
Hunter
LaHood
Lewis (GA)
Oberstar
Rangel
Renzi
Rush
Space
Tancredo
Woolsey
Young (AK)

{time} 1316

Mr. ISRAEL changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. EMANUEL, CLEAVER, COHEN, PALLONE and Ms. KAPTUR changed their
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. SPACE. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained during rollcall
vote 137. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

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

The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 110-548.
Ms. LEE. 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. 2 offered by
Ms. Lee:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2009.

The Congress determines and declares that the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008 is revised and
replaced and that this is the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2009, including appropriate budgetary
levels for fiscal years 2010 through 2018.

SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of
fiscal years 2008 through 2018:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $1,895,099,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,133,180,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,325,649,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,531,506,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,671,192,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,772,290,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $2,958,205,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $3,077,843,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $3,229,982,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $3.392,139,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $3,565,088,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be adjusted are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $4,441,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $36,056,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $142,785,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $103,481,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $17,877,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $17,550,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $49,669,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $49,578,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $49,647,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $49,781,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $49,781,000,000.
(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: $2,673,946,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,616,978,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,715,278,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,867,630,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,931,558,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $3,115,760,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $3,254,760,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $3,391,086,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $3,574,696,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $3,696,318,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $3,804,202,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $2,555,301,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,633,489,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,742,901,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,868,360,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,906,718,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $3,098,022,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $3,237,564,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $3,369,163,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $3,556,338,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $3,672,919,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $3,784,879,000,000.
(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: $680,203,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $500,309,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $417,252,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $336,854,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $235,527,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $325,732,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $299,359,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $291,320,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $326,356,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $280,780,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $219,791,000,000.
(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 2008: $9,665,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $10,261,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $10,786,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $11,228,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $11,595,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $12,035,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $12,446,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $12,846,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $13,259,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $13,637,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $13,963,000,000,000.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $5,494,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $5,815,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $6,043,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $6,172,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $6,185,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $6,284,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $6,351,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $6,405,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $6,495,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $6,541,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $6,528,000,000,000.

SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

[[Page H1647]]

(B) Outlays, $32,843,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $78,708,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $58,091,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $80,799,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $69,354,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $82,696,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $75,316,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $84,581,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $78,716,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $86,082,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $82,004,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $88,183,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $83,742,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $90,302,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $85,752,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $92,503,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $87,813,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $94,708,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $89,907,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $96,989,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $91,849,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $27,407,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,456,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $27,934,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,645,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $28,472,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,507,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $29,071,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,297,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $29,679,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,917,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $30,290,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,026,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $30,930,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,417,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $31,576,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,991,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $32,255,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,754,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $32,933,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,288,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $33,645,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,956,000,000.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $3,548,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,681,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $33,874,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,831,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $33,832,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,716,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $33,880,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,901,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $33,950,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,073,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $34,022,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,681,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $33,989,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,695,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $345,096,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,850,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $34,203,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,917,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $34,318,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,019,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $34,443,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,167,000,000.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $45,960,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $42,952,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $46,290,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $45,834,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $47,182,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,922,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $48,070,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $48,656,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $48,968,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $49,384,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $49,890,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $50,111,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $44,106,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,623,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $45,045,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $45,838,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $47,484,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,643,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $49,976,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $49,972,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $52,998,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $51,603,000,000.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $22,456,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,528,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $21,529,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,279,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $21,719,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,680,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $21,891,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,876,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $22,263,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,435,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $22,621,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,816,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $23,003,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,180,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $22,278,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,483,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $22,605,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,754,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $23,102,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,136,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $23,445,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,443,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $11,216,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,381,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $9,899,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,998,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $13,887,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,886,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $8,998,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,197,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $9,246,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,742,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $9,642,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,651,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $9,742,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,366,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $9,677,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $985,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $9,360,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $442,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $19,282,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,249,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $14,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,138,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $98,594,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $87,772,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $97,798,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $98,321,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $86,607,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $97,871,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $90,527,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $98,670,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $95,470,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $103,030,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $99,456,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $108,070,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $94,588,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $107,880,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $97,628,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $109,579,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $100,659,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $112,823,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $103,685,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $116,645,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $95,302,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $119,603,000,000.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $20,029,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,819,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $20,178,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,473,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $20,470,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,372,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $20,804,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,173,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $21,149,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,076,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $21,483,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,109,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $21,843,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,045,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $22,202,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,368,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:

[[Page H1648]]

(A) New budget authority, $22,577,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,726,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $22,960,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $23,352,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,512,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $100,077,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $93,665,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $152,938,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $114,540,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $159,402,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $154,790,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $163,118,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $160,122,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $166,089,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $162,091,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $160,703,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $161,936,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $163,075,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $160,666,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $165,862,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $162,859,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $168,896,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $165,817,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $172,108,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $168,982,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $175,190,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $172,248,000,000.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $315,101,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $316,688,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $325,947,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $322,038,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $342,990,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $342,678,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $364,074,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $362,827,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $387,180,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $385,634,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $412,555,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $410,734,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $461,751,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $459,405,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $490,571,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $488,275,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $522,027,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $519,484,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $560,796,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $558,123,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $598,392,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $595,600,000,000.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $390,458,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $390,454,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $420,086,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $419,880,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $445,118,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $445,247,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $494,261,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $494,084,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $491,241,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $490,999,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $552,274,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $552,389,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $592,257,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $592,056,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $634,929,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $634,673,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $712,077,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $712,180,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $740,467,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $740,257,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $767,646,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $767,378,000,000.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $435,615,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $435,150,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $474,208,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $472,869,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $488,352,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $486,209,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $505,021,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $502,945,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $498,262,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $495,754,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $519,205,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $517,057,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $532,617,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $531,454,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $547,151,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $545,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $567,206,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $565,806,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $576,948,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $575,380,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $587,245,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $585,652,000,000.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $19,378,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,378,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $21,208,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,220,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $23,692,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,696,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $27,226,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,226,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $30,235,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,236,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $33,053,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,053,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $36,065,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,066,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $39,363,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,364,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $43,054,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,054,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $47,046,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,046,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $51,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $51,400,000,000.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $86,365,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $83,551,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $94,258,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $100,762,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $96,246,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $97,493,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $100,984,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $101,609,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $97,137,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $97,053,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $138,057,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $137,573,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $139,850,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $139,467,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $141,742,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $141,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $147,423,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $147,195,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $145,847,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $145,682,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $144,051,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $143,814,000,000.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $46,237,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,282,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $45,858,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $45,610,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $44,784,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,744,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $45,924,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,897,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $47,107,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,069,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $48,349,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,990,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $49,617,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $49,236,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $53,261,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $52,875,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $55,606,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $55,180,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $57,212,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $56,799,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $58,887,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $58,413,000,000.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $56,407,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $56,920,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $23,841,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,171,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $20,273,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,289,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $21,159,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,008,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $21,853,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,856,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:

[[Page H1649]]

(A) New budget authority, $22,527,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,301,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $23,285,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,044,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $23,728,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,650,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $24,430,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,444,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $25,115,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,867,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $25,848,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,566,000,000.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $350,038,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $350,038,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $336,143,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $336,143,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $372,731,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $372,731,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $411,018,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $411,018,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $437,665,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $437,665,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $456,148,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $456,148,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $478,881,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $478,881,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $499,189,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $499,189,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $517,770,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $517,770,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $533,414,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $533,414,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $548,262,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $548,262,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $108,056,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,901,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $5,760,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,491,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $0,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,291,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $0,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,032,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $0,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,302,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $0,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,478,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $0,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $805,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $0,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $445,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $0,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $327,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $0,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $302,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $0,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $177,000,000.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $-86,330,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-86,330,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $-67,060,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-67,060,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $-70,645,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-70,645,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $-73,364,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-73,364,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $-76,104,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-76,104,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $-79,691,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-76,691,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $-82,234,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-82,234,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $-85,193,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-85,193,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $-88,338,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-88,338,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $-96,941,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-96,941,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $-101,681,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-101,681,000,000.
(21) Overseas Deployments and Other Activities (970):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $___,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $___,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $___,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $___,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $___,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $___,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $___,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $___,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $___,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $___,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $___,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $___,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $___,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $___,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $___,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $___,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $___,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $___,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $___,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $___,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $___,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $___,000,000.

SEC. 4.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1036, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and a Member opposed each will
control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Along with my colleague from California, Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey,
I cochair the Congressional Progressive Caucus. And let me just take a
moment to acknowledge our cochair, Congresswoman Woolsey, whose hard
work, whose brilliant intellect, and whose soaring spirit really is
with us today, even though she's at home recuperating very well from
back surgery. She'll be back very soon to continue to fight to bring
our young men and women home from Iraq.
I rise today to offer the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget. We
call it our antipoverty, pro-opportunity, peace, and security budget.
Budgets really are moral documents. They provide a road map to
identify and invest in our Nation's values and our priorities. The CPC
alternative budget reflects our American mainstream values by making
the right investments to fight poverty, to grow our economy, to assist
survivors of Hurricane Katrina, to bring common sense to our national
security budget, and to redeploy our troops and military contractors
from Iraq.
Our budget does this in a way that not only balances our priorities
but balances the Federal budget. Our budget stands in stark contrast to
the President's very cynical proposal that he presented to us last
month.
The Progressive budget rejects the President's budget and its attack
on working families, minority communities, and many of our most
vulnerable populations, like seniors and low-income individuals.
The Progressive budget rejects the President's ongoing occupation of
Iraq that's costing taxpayers $12 billion, $12 billion each month. And
the Progressive budget rejects the President's $200 billion cuts to
Medicare and Medicaid that would raise premiums for our Nation's
seniors and cut payments to the doctors and hospitals who serve them.
Our budget is different. It faces the poverty crisis in America head
on, starting with redress and reconstruction for gulf coast victims of
Hurricane Katrina. It is designed to reverse the Iraq recession by
providing a vital stimulus to jump-start the economy. It is the only
budget that brings common sense to national security by reinvesting the
President's bloated defense funding request for the Pentagon, the
highest since World War II.
The Progressive alternative will provide at least $551 billion for
domestic, nonmilitary discretionary spending in fiscal year 2009,
$131.9 billion above the President's request. As part of this increase
in domestic discretionary spending, the Progressive Caucus budget also
includes $73 billion to develop a sustained, coordinated, public
private sector strategy that recommits America to a renewed war on
poverty. This will cut the poverty rate in America in half in a decade.
This goal is in line with H. Con. Res. 198, a resolution that I
introduced which passed unanimously in the House in January.
We have budgeted the dollars to bring millions of children out of
poverty by expanding the earned income tax credit for larger families
and making the child tax credit fully refundable for any family earning
more than $3,000. It will also finally begin to fully redress the
continuing plight of the survivors of Hurricane Katrina.

[[Page H1650]]

Our alternative would provide the funds for the housing and the
health care, education, and infrastructure investment, and the vital
social services needed to bring people back to Louisiana and
Mississippi.
Our budget would also immediately provide $118 billion to fund the
most effective stimulus programs available to the government. We extend
unemployment insurance, food stamp benefits, and critical Medicaid
payments to States that will not only help keep State governments
solvent, but keep more workers healthy and productive. The economic
stimulus package will include assistance for low-income and unemployed
people that were ignored by the first stimulus.
Additionally, the CPC budget provides foreclosure relief and includes
new investments to rebuild our Nation's schools, fix our highways and
bridges, and build new affordable housing. These initiatives will
create jobs that will help keep more families in their homes.
Now, all of these vital programs will be a down payment on our
rebuild and reinvest in America initiative. This long-term, sustainable
project will create green jobs, reinvigorate our schools, and foster a
new commitment to excellence in our students. We will repair our water,
power, and transportation systems so that America cannot only compete
in the global economy, but once again lead.
The Progressive budget also brings common sense to national security
spending, providing $468 billion, which is $68 billion under the
President's bloated request. Our budget cuts government waste, fraud,
and abuse, and eliminates outdated and ineffective Cold War air weapons
systems that were developed to fight an enemy that really no longer
exists.
Most importantly, the CPC budget will end the occupation of Iraq by
rapidly and safely redeploying our troops and military contractors. We
have wasted far too much money on this occupation already, over a half
trillion dollars to date. We cannot afford to spend another $3 trillion
that some have estimated this will take.
So this budget achieves all these goals and brings the Federal
budget, mind you, into budget by fiscal year 2012 and, upon the
completion of our reinvest and rebuild America initiative, back into
balance in 2018. I urge this body to reject the President's draconian
cuts to vital programs for working American families and to support the
CPC's alternative budget.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 30
minutes.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, there are three different budgets that are offered by
our friends on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats, today. They
have many common elements. This one, perhaps, though, is the worst.
It's the worst in that it raises taxes by the highest amount on working
families all across America, especially at a time when they're trying
to stretch their paychecks to make sure that they can keep a roof over
their head, to make sure that they can fill up their cars and their
pickup trucks, to make sure that maybe for the first time they're able
to send somebody to college.
Now, we know that the main Democrat alternative, the one that
ultimately will be voted on by the majority of our friends on the other
side of the aisle, that has over a $600 billion tax increase included
in it. That's roughly $3,000 for every family in America. That's the
average tax increase that will be imposed upon families over the next
5-year period.
Now, this particular budget increases taxes by almost a third more.
So I haven't, Mr. Chairman, quite had the time to do the back-of-the-
envelope calculation, but who knows, maybe they're raising taxes by
$4,000 per family.
And not unlike all the other Democrat budgets we hear, they're
saying, well, we don't really want to raise taxes on working families,
and we really want to give them tax relief.
But what I don't see, Mr. Chairman, is any effort whatsoever for
people to put their vote where their rhetoric is.
If I've done my homework properly, over the last 6 years there have
been 21 different votes on the House floor to stop these huge automatic
tax increases that are part of current law. And yet, my guess is, and I
don't have the list in front of me, that most of my friends on the
other side of the aisle kept those tax increases, and so now they're
going to be imposed on working people.
Now we're told, well, it's not really a tax increase. It's just the
expiration of tax relief. Well, that's kind of interesting, because I
can tell you that is a fine distinction that's going to be lost on the
working men and women of the Fifth Congressional District of Texas.
If you wake up one day and your paycheck, if you're making the same
salary next year that you made last year, and all of a sudden your
taxes are higher, I can tell you, to the school teacher in Mesquite,
Texas, that's a tax increase. To the rancher in Mineola, Texas, that's
a tax increase. To a factory worker in Garland, that's a tax increase.
So I know that it's very common and seems to be favorable within the
Halls of Congress to say, well, there's no tax increase; we're just
letting tax relief expire. Well, ultimately, especially in 2011 when
the full brunt of this tax increase occurs, working families all across
America will be hit, and it will impact, again, their ability to keep a
roof over their head, their ability to send someone to college.
The Republican budget doesn't have any tax increases in it. It also,
on the other hand, has no tax cuts in it. But what it does do is it
prevents automatic tax increases that are part of current law from
occurring.
Now, a second part of this budget, which is common with all the
Democrat budgets, is it does nothing, nothing about the proliferation
of earmarks. There's been a huge debate in the United States Congress
about what to do about earmarks.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I'll admit not all earmarks are bad, but the
system is bad. And our friends on the other side of the aisle told us
they would come here and clean them up. They said they'd cut them in
half. But last year we had the second highest amount of earmarks that
we've ever had.
We were told there would be transparency, yet we had almost 300 of
what we call air-dropped earmarks that just somehow appear mystically
out of the heavens into these bills that nobody knows they're there and
no opportunity to come to the House floor to debate.
And so here we have on the one hand, Mr. Chairman, we have working
families struggling, struggling to stretch their paychecks, and yet our
friends on the other side of the aisle want to perpetuate the status
quo of earmarks, which many Americans are now waking up to the fact
that all too often someone in Congress is taking a bite out of their
paycheck so that some Member of Congress can keep theirs. It's not fair
to them, particularly in tough, challenging economic times.

{time} 1330

So in the Republican budget, we declare a year-long moratorium on
earmarks. And we give that money to the taxpayer. We say, You know
what, it's more important that you are able to pay your heating bill,
and it is more important that you be able to put gasoline in your car
than it is to fund some kind of monument to me as has been done for the
chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. It's more important that you
have $2 million than some Member of Congress get a monument to himself.
We say it's more important, again, that the rancher in Mineola,
Texas, is able to send a kid to college than it is to send $100,000 to
make sure we have proper landscaping in the L.A. fashion district.
These are two very distinct differences. So we are having the largest
tax increase in American history to pay for more congressional
earmarks, and clearly this budget and every other Democrat budget needs
to be summarily rejected by this body.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEE. I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the Chair of the Financial Services
Committee, who has had a very good handle on what it takes to bring our
economy back.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thought the Republican

[[Page H1651]]

budget deficits that we have seen since they took power in 2001 were
pretty big, but the rhetoric deficit between what they say and economic
reality is even bigger. There are zero tax increases or cuts in any of
these budgets. The tax situation at the end of the year, the end of
this fiscal year, will be the same.
Now, the gentleman from Texas is worried about people who will be
facing tax increases later on. By the way, he says tax increases that
are in current law, that's current law that the Republicans passed.
I didn't vote for the current law, so they don't like what they put
into the law. But the people I talk with, working people in my
district, no, they are not worried about estate taxes on $20 million.
They're not worried about incomes over $200,000.
The gentleman did make an accurate point. He said, What about the
person whose paycheck will be exactly the same next year? Well, before
the Republicans took over, her paycheck wasn't exactly the same. They
used to go up. Paychecks used to increase. Only with the Republicans in
power have we seen this freeze on real pay, in fact, a decrease in real
pay.
Let me tell you why I am for the Progressive budget, because I do
believe we ought to save the taxpayers money. I am prepared to say that
when the Republicans were in power, we won the Cold War. They
apparently don't recognize that, because they've got a budget that's
still fighting it. In addition to the enormous waste of lives and
American prestige and everything else that is involved in the Iraq war
and the enormous waste of money there, we are still funding weapons in
this budget. Now, many of these weapons are great weapons, but they
have one defect: they have no enemy. A weapon without an enemy is a
pretty silly thing to have.
So I like the Progressive budget because, among other things, it
brings under control this enormous increase in Pentagon spending, and
apparently according to my right-wing Republican colleagues, spending
on weapons that we don't need is good spending. Spending to pay for
health care for children is bad spending. I think they get it exactly
opposite and the Progressive budget is the way to fix that.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would yield 5 minutes to
the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I wish my friend from
Massachusetts would have stayed at the mike.
I simply want to ask if the Democratic budget balances the budget, if
it achieves balance. Would the gentleman care to answer the question if
the Democratic budget achieves balance in 2012?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman will yield to me, I
haven't looked at that part. I was addressing the assertion that it
raises taxes in this current year.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. My question was, Does the budget achieve
balance in 2012?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will give the answer.
No. I don't think it does, anymore than the President's does or yours
does.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Oh, well, that's different than what the
Budget chairman says.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, if the gentleman has me confused
with the chairman, I would like to hear from the chairman.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Reclaiming my time from the chairman of
Financial Services, I'm not sure if he's on the same page as the
chairman of the Budget Committee. The chairman of the Budget Committee
is claiming that their budget balances the budget by 2012. I'll take
him at his word, and actually it's correct. The Congressional Budget
Office certifies that the Democratic budget does indeed balance in
2012. Here is how they certify it balances in 2012: by raising taxes.
They simply cannot say on the one hand they're balancing the budget,
and then on the other hand not raising taxes. Because the only way
their budget balances is only by raising taxes.
So, Mr. Chairman, don't listen to me. Listen to the 99 Senators who
just voted this morning to validate everything I just said. Ninety-nine
Senators, just a couple hours ago, voted for the Baucus amendment, the
Democratic chairman of the Finance Committee's amendment, that said the
tax increases in this budget are just a little too big; let's cut them
in half. Let's reduce the tax increases by $341 billion. So it's only
about a $300 billion tax increase. The Senate budget now has half the
tax increase in it that this budget here does.
My friends, the Progressives, I want to compliment them because
they're bringing a budget to the floor that reflects the principles
that respect their values, and they are putting their rhetoric where
their mouth is by bringing a budget to the floor, and I want to commend
my Progressive friends for doing that. That's what we all should be
doing.
You hear me criticizing the underlying budget. You hear me
criticizing the Progressive budget. But we will be bringing our own
budget to the floor in just a few minutes to show what we stand for;
and what we stand for is controlling spending, is doing an earmark
moratorium and saving that money. By just saying ``no'' to earmarks for
a year, as our budget proposes to do, we can pay for making the child
tax credit permanent, making the marriage penalty repeal permanent.
Just those two things.
So at the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, it's about choices. It is
about values. Do we want pork, or do we want more money in paychecks of
Americans? Pork or paychecks? We are going to vote for paychecks. And
the reason we're going to vote for putting more money in people's
paychecks, for protecting their paychecks, is because people's
paychecks aren't stretching as far as they used to.
You have high gas prices, high home health heating prices, high
health care prices, high food prices. The last thing the American
workers need today, the last thing American families need today is an
average $3,000 tax increase. We shouldn't be taxing people because
they're married. We shouldn't be raising taxes $500 per child. We
shouldn't be making small businesses pay a higher tax rate than the
largest corporations in America. Yet, that is exactly what the
Democratic budget does.
It's what the Progressive budget does as well. It's what the
Congressional Black Caucus budget does as well. It's a difference of
opinion. It's a difference of values. We think Washington spends too
much money. And my friend from California, she was right when she said
it is about morals; it is about values. And we have different ideas.
We believe that the engine of economic growth, what makes America
great, is its people, are the families, the workers, the small
businesses, the entrepreneurs of America.
We also believe we have a moral imperative to make right by future
generations. You know, my parents told me that the legacy of America is
you leave the next generation better off. You make them safer, more
prosperous, and will to them a higher standard of living.
We may sever that relationship because of the unsustainable past of
our entitlement programs which each of these budgets makes worse. The
Democratic budget, just in two programs, sends two programs, Medicare
and Social Security, $14 trillion deeper in debt. That's wrong. That's
giving our children and grandchildren a huge debt, a higher debt.
We think we need to go the other direction. We need to reform these
programs so it can fulfill the mission of health and retirement
security, but do so while still guaranteeing our children and
grandchildren get a better future, a more prosperous future, a higher
standard of living. That's why we should vote ``no'' on all of these
budgets.
Ms. LEE. I yield myself 30 seconds.
First of all, the Democratic budget does balance by 2012. The
Congressional Black Caucus budget balances by 2012. The Congressional
Progressive Caucus budget balances by 2012. There are people in this
country making over $1 million, $1 million, and all that we do is we
provide the tax cuts which will expire in 2010 for the people in our
country who make over $1 million. That's the top 1 percent, mind you, 1
percent of taxpayers, and that brings us at least $222 billion.

[[Page H1652]]

I yield now 3 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Waters),
who chairs the Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee of the
Financial Services Committee and who has helped us put together this
budget, especially the Rebuild America's Communities budget, who has
worked on our housing issues, Katrina issues and so many issues for so
many years. And this section of this budget is a remarkable section,
and I hope everyone will listen to her so they can understand exactly
what we did in our Progressive Caucus budget.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Congresswoman Barbara
Lee and Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey for their leadership on the
Progressive Caucus for all of the work that they do, not only putting
this alternative budget together, but the leadership they have provided
to this Congress and trying to get this Congress moving in the right
direction and representing all of the people.
I certainly did not want to take my time responding to the gentleman
from Wisconsin, but we need to understand the definitions. When he
talks about raising taxes, what he's really talking about is the fact
that both of these budgets, the Congressional Black Caucus budget and
the Progressive Caucus budget simply will eliminate the tax giveaways
to the richest corporations in America. And that's what he calls
raising taxes, the very people who are responsible for getting us in
this sub-prime mess that we are in now where we have people who are
losing their homes to foreclosures.
Having said all of that, I have already spoken about my support for
the Congressional Black Caucus. And I'm offering today my very, very
strong support for the Progressive Caucus budget.
Many of the priorities are the same in these two budgets, including
vastly increasing funds for housing and community development, veterans
education, health programs, and energy independence. I strongly support
these increases.
As I said, when I talked about the Congressional Black Caucus budget,
they had eliminated HOPE VI, a program that would provide decent
housing for the most vulnerable people in our society in a responsible
way. They tried to reduce the CDBG program, the program that goes to
these small cities and to these towns that are using them for
infrastructure and helping senior citizens and youth. And this budget
would put the money back in to make them continue to be credible
programs.
Let me talk a little bit about the economic stimulus. The components
of the economic stimulus package included in the Progressive Caucus
budget, for which we have been advocating for many weeks now, are
certainly needed to help those Americans hardest hit by the worsening
economic situation.
Most importantly, stimulation will come from increased funds for
housing assistance and community development. The economic downturn
came from the devastating housing market, and that is where we need to
focus our resources.
The Progressive Caucus also targets unemployment, insurance, food
stamps, FMAP and health care aid and large infrastructure projects in
each of our States to invest in our cities and create new jobs. With
well-founded fears of a recession being discussed at dinner tables
across the country, these investments are absolutely necessary to
support our constituents and stimulate our economy.
The Progressive Caucus also focuses on cutting the fat from our
bloated Pentagon budget. Our military is still preparing to fight the
Cold War against the USSR. I won't go any further than that.
I thank the gentlewoman for the time, and I'd like to express my
support for the Progressive Caucus.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on each
side?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas has 19 minutes. The
gentlewoman from California has 18 minutes.

{time} 1345

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important for all the American
people who are following this debate, we always hear these claims that
all we're going to do is somehow tax the rich. Well, again we've heard
the gentlelady from California say that this budget balances, but
according to the Congressional Budget Office, headed up by a Democrat,
their appointee, the only way that that budget balances or any of the
Democrat budgets balance is by huge automatic tax increases that will
take place over the next few years. And under the tax increases that
will take place in current law, you're going to have 116 million
taxpayers see an average tax increase of $1,800 a year.
More than 6 million low-income individuals and couples who currently
pay no tax, no tax, will no longer be exempt. Approximately 48 million
married couples will face an average tax increase of $3,000 a year.
Low-income families with one or two children will no longer be eligible
for the refundable child tax credit in 2011. Roughly 12 million single
women, and we know that often to be poor in America is to be a single
mother, 12 million single women will see their tax increases by $1,100
per year. And again, don't take my word for it, go to the Congressional
Budget Office and look at the numbers and their impact on all the
different tax brackets. Those who are at the lowest bracket today, the
10 percent bracket, are going to see their taxes increase 50 percent to
a 15 percent bracket.
So I hope the American people are watching this debate very closely,
because every time we hear the Democrats say, oh, we're just going to
tax the wealthy, we're going to tax the wealthy, that's a sign for any
working American to hold on to their wallet, Mr. Chairman. That's what
that sign is.
And we're also debating today the AMT, the alternative minimum tax,
which would have been more aptly named the ``absolute maximum tax.''
Well, when that was brought to the floor by Democrats in the first
place, Mr. Chairman, we were told that's going to only impact 150 high-
income Americans, and yet today we know it threatens 25 million
Americans with an additional tax payment of over $2,000 a year.
So our friends on the other side of the aisle can't have it both
ways. Either you do not balance the budget, or if you do, you certainly
have no spending discipline in your budget, then you're doing it
through the tax increases. And look at the numbers of your
Congressional Budget Office. They say you will impose the single
largest tax increase in American history. And it's not just aimed for
the wealthy; it's aimed at all.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio,
Congressman Dennis Kucinich.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Progressive
Caucus budget because it includes home foreclosure relief. The
foreclosure crisis is at the epicenter of our economic slowdown, and
northeast Ohio is among the hardest hit in the Nation.
Hardworking American families deserve financial security. Foreclosure
undermines the physical, emotional, and financial security of America's
families, has a detrimental effect on the greater community.
Neighborhoods with foreclosed properties are likely to experience
declining property values. Cuyahoga County, which includes Cleveland,
my hometown, had 11,000 foreclosures in 2005, more than triple the
number a decade earlier.
My home State of Ohio has the ninth highest rate of foreclosures, and
fourth nationwide for the number of preforeclosure and foreclosure
filings. So I'm urging my colleagues to support this budget for that
reason. But there's another reason, too.
We can talk about the transfer of wealth, which is a lot of the
discussions that go on. This whole government is an engine to transfer
the wealth of the country upwards. We have to recognize it. If there is
one engine that's transferring the wealth upwards with great
acceleration it's the war. Because this war would be as if every
American family took out a checkbook and wrote out a check already for
$16,000 and handed it over to the government. Already it has cost each
family in this country $16,000. And if we continue this war, if you
read Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize winning economist, the war is
going to cost $3

[[Page H1653]]

trillion, and by the time we get over it, it will be upwards of $5
trillion.
Let's talk about how this budget is being used to accelerate the
wealth of the Nation. Now, portend, it's the Progressive budget which
offers an alternative which says, end the war, stop funding the war,
stop funding wasteful military spending. We want a secure Nation, but
we cannot secure our Nation on lies. The war is based on lies. We're on
the fifth anniversary of this war. We went into war based on lies at a
cost of $3 trillion now, 4,000 of our troops, a million innocent
Iraqis, the morality of the United States, our position in the world
all under attack because the truth wasn't told.
This budget is the truth. This budget gives the American people an
opportunity to finally have their basic needs met. And those needs are
going to continue to be neglected as long as we stay riveted to a war
that is based on lies.
Bring those troops home. The Progressive budget does it. Stop the
war. The Progressive budget does it. Take a new direction with our
international policy. The Progressive budget does it. Take care of
things here at home. The Progressive budget does it. Vote for the
Progressive budget.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I will yield 4 minutes
again to the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee, the
gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I
thank the gentleman for all the work he has done on making us fiscally
secure, being fiscally responsible, and bringing fiscal sanity to
Congress. He's one of the leaders.
Mr. Chairman, the problem in Washington is not that we have too
little tax money coming in. The problem in Washington is spending is
too high.
Let me show you what this chart shows. It's a little complicated. The
red line shows you the Democrats' line of higher taxes. The blue line
shows you the revenue line that our budget will do, which is lower
taxes. That's the difference of the marriage penalty, the child tax
credit, income tax rates across the board, capital gains, dividends,
the death taxes. The green line is the current spending trajectory that
we are on. Let me describe what it looks like in just one program, as
foreseen in the Democratic budget.
Under the Democratic budget, the Medicare program today has an
unfunded liability of $34 trillion. What does that mean per household,
per family? Three hundred thousand dollars. Right now, every family in
America would have to put in $300,000 just to make Medicare secure,
just to make Medicare viable and solvent. Under the Democratic budget,
they increase that debt by $11 trillion in just 5 years. This 5-year
budget says that in 5 years, by the time their budget expires, it will
be about a $400,000 burden to every single household in America. You
can buy a pretty darn nice house for $400,000.
Let me explain what this looks like across the board. And that's just
one program where they're raising the debt by $11 trillion. This is the
one that counts the most, Mr. Chairman.
For the last 40 years, the Federal Government has been pretty
consistent in how much money it has had to tax to pay for the Federal
Government. Washington had had to tax about 18.3 cents on the dollar
for every dollar made in America. About 18.3 cents of the dollar made
in America went to pay for Washington. Well, because of the baby
boomers, because of their retirement, this isn't a Democrat thing or a
Republican thing. It's just what's happening in America, because we are
doubling the amount of retirees we have in this country, we're going
from 40 million retirees to 78 million retirees. And these programs are
what we call pay-as-you-go, where current workers pay a current tax to
finance the benefits for current beneficiaries.
So I'm paying my payroll taxes and my income taxes for my mom, who's
on Medicare and Social Security. That's the way the system works. And
it works out well if you have an equal ratio of workers and
beneficiaries, but we don't. The reason we don't is because our birth
rates declined after the baby boomer generation. There's nothing wrong,
nothing sinister about it. It's just that it is what it is.
And so we're increasing our tax-consuming generation. We're
increasing the beneficiaries by 100 percent, but we're only increasing
the taxpayers by 17 percent. That, in a nutshell, is why we have this
fiscal train wreck. That, in a nutshell, is why we're staring at these
enormous debts in our country's future.
What does that mean to the future of our country? What does that mean
for our children and our grandchildren? I'll tell you what it means to
my three children. My son Sam is 3, my son Charlie is 4, my daughter
Liza is 6. By the time my three children are exactly my age, and I'm
not the oldest guy around here, by the time they are my age, they will
have to pay twice what we pay in taxes just to keep today's Federal
Government going for them at that time.
Let me say it a different way. Instead of taking 18.3 cents out of
every dollar made in America today, when my three kids are my age,
they're going to have to spend 40 cents on every dollar made in America
just to pay the bills to the Federal Government.
Mr. Chairman, we have real competition that we have staring us in the
face. We have competition from India, from China. The age of the global
economy is here with us whether we like it or not, it is here. You
can't extend and give a prosperous Nation a higher standard of living
to the next generation if we're doubling their taxes. If we say today
it's 18 cents on the dollar and tomorrow it's 40 cents on the dollar,
you can't give our children and grandchildren a chance at a great
career at a higher standard of living in this new competitive era we're
in. If we do go down this path, we're going to give more and more jobs
to China, to India, to other countries.
So we say what we ought to do is do what our employers want us to do.
The people that sent us here to Congress want us to fix this problem.
They want us to fulfill the mission of healthy retirement security and
do it without bankrupting future generations, and do it so we can stay
competitive in a global economy so that we can pass a better future on
to future generations. That's why this budget should be defeated.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes now to the gentlelady from
Texas, whose voice is heard loud and clear in terms of her priorities
with regard to the Progressive Caucus budget, Congresswoman Sheila
Jackson-Lee.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to listen
to my good friends about the tax cuts that they believe will generate
happiness in America. I want to remind my friends that the last 8 years
have been governed by a Republican administration that has had as the
definition of their viability in this country that they are the big tax
cutters. And they're right. If you're making a million dollars or
you're Warren Buffet, you're celebrating and dancing in the streets.
That's the tax cuts that my friend is talking about. But if you're
hardworking, middle class Americans that have looked toward the dream
that Americans have offered, those who built cars with their hands or
drive trucks, teachers and nurses, the very people who made America
great, the kind of salt of the Earth that a Thomas Edison came from or
a George Washington Carver, then you're not dancing in the street. In
fact, you're trying to pick the pieces up and walk through the street.
Because if you look at what this administration has generated, $1.47
in 2001, now the average price per gallon $3.13, maybe going to $4,
because right now the price per barrel of oil is $110 dollars a barrel.
Not only hurting those hardworking Americans, but even in Texas, some
of the refineries that hire blue collar workers can barely make it
because they can't make a recovery when they're paying $110 a barrel
for gas or for oil. They don't answer that question.
The Progressive budget is a budget that addresses the heartburn of
America. What it says to his children and their grandchildren is that
we believe in a domestic agenda that gets you out of the pits of
depression and economic recession. We believe in helping children and
parents work by improving and expanding early child care and increasing
Head Start. If you've got a 1962 car, 1977, 1999, barely you can make
it, trying to get to work and pay

[[Page H1654]]

child care. We get them out of the doldrums of the recession.
We understand that there are people who are now evicted who were
homeowners. We give out 200,000 housing vouchers so that those in my
district alone, 25,000 people on the waiting list for section 8 and
other housing resources, not because they can't work, because there are
no facilities for them and because the market is out of control. This
is what the Progressive budget does.
And then it takes to the least of those, those children in the foster
care system that circle around in the system. Who knows who they turn
out to be. Maybe it's the unfortunate young men that found themselves
on the streets of North Carolina to take the life of a coed.
There are tragedies out there, and this budget understands that
investing in America and these workers will make a difference. That's
why this budget supports an increase in the EITC to increase work
incentives and reduce poverty. And it brings the troops home. That's
where the money is going. And it doesn't stifle competition. It
promotes the space program. It applauds science and math for young
people to aspire to space, but it gives those whose pocket has a hole
in it, it gives them opportunity.

{time} 1400

It is a bill, a budget, that stamps out poverty, that recognizes that
it is important to not ignore those who you can ignore because they're
not in front of you.
I applaud Warren Buffett for his ingenuity and his greatness in terms
of his economic prowess. But I also applaud Mrs. Jones who gets up
every morning at 3 a.m. trying to get to work. This is what she's
facing.
The domestic budget by the Progressive Caucus should be supported.
I rise today in support of the budget substitute offered by the
Congressional Progressive Caucus. I support this budget proposal
because it represents the mainstream values of our great nation,
providing crucial boosts in domestic spending by eliminating
expenditure on outdated and obsolete military technologies.

second economic stimulus

This budget includes funding for a second economic stimulus package,
designed to infuse $119.9 billion into our struggling economy. While I
was very pleased to see the passage earlier this year of an economic
stimulus package injecting $145.9 billion into the economy in 2008, I
continue to be concerned about a number of important provisions that
were omitted from the package. The ``Economic Stimulus #2'' package
included in the Progressive Caucus budget includes more effective
stimulus tools to meet the outstanding needs of the American people.
The Progressive Caucus budget extends Federal spending for
unemployment insurance and food stamp benefits, and it increases
Federal spending on Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP)
Medicaid payments to states. In addition, this budget recognizes the
crisis posed by rising home foreclosure rates, and it provides home
foreclosure relief and housing assistance. The Economic Stimulus #2
package also includes the creation of jobs repairing the nation's
schools, transportation infrastructure, and public housing.

anti-poverty platform

In addition to the inclusion of the second economic stimulus package,
this alternative budget is also unique because it includes a focused
and concerted anti-poverty platform. The Progressive Caucus's ``Anti-
Poverty and Opportunity Initiative'' is committed to cutting the
poverty rate in America in half over the next ten years, and we will
begin to do so under this budget. This alternative budget invests
$73.05 billion in FY09 and increases to $129.3 billion in FY 18 for a
sustained, coordinated public-private sector strategy.

poverty and the people

This morning Tavis Smiley shared with the Tom Joyner Morning Show,
his thoughts and the American people's thoughts, on what is really
going on in America. He shared how we have easily gotten side-tracked
with nonessential staff and consultants to the Clinton and Obama
campaigns and to the exploits of Governor Spitzer; all the while
forgetting the issues of importance to the people.
Eradicating poverty is something the Progressive Caucus is addressing
with its funding of anti-poverty legislation.

children and the budget

As Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus and the Progressive
Caucus, I am proud to support this budget alternative because it
contains provisions designed to help our children succeed.
This budget improves and expands early child care and it increases
Head Start funding. It will help parents and families by making the
Child Tax Credit fully refundable and expanding the EITC for larger
families. It also fully funds Community Development Block Grants and
distributing grants to families with disabled members and as such
promises to lift every child out of deep poverty. Furthermore, this
budget provides for the improvement of Child Support Distribution as
well as helping abused and neglected children by improving the Foster
Care system.
Specifically the Progressive budget:
Iraq--projects complete U.S. military redeployment out of Iraq before
the end of FY09--savings of at least $135 billion and replicated in
subsequent years.
Target waste, fraud, and abuse, starting with Pentagon savings--
projects enactment of the Common Sense Budget Act, which would save at
least $60 billion/year on largely obsolete Cold War-era weapons systems
plus tens of billions more in waste, fraud, and abuse in DOD spending
identified by the nonpartisan Government Accounting Office, GAO--
savings of at least $687 billion over ten years;
Repeal of Bush tax cuts for the top 1 percent of taxpayers--due to
expire in 2010 regardless and beyond--savings of at least $222 billion;
Crackdown on corporate welfare--increased revenue of at least $18-50
billion/year throughout the next decade from the elimination of some of
the many corporate tax loopholes throughout the tax code, including but
not limited to special tax breaks for the oil and gas industry and
other extraction industries;
SMART Security Alternative to Preemption Doctrine--shifts some
spending and increases other non-military spending to enhance homeland
security and fight the root causes of terrorism--21st century diplomacy
and meeting basic human needs (e.g. HIV/AIDS/TB/Malaria, universal
basic education for all);
Global Warming and Energy Independence--funding for immediate, cost-
effective steps to redress global warming and the rapid acceleration of
renewable energy development and commercialization;
Education for All--fully fund the ESEA and IDEA and improve Teacher
Corps and job training;
Medicare for All--affordable, accessible, quality health care for all
Americans, starting with fully funding of the SCHIP program to ensure
that every American child eligible is covered for basic health
insurance;
Guaranteed Veterans' Health Care--ensure whatever federal funding is
needed to provide health care (including mental health care) for All
America's veterans (including but not limited to veterans of the Iraq
and Afghanistan military operations;
Fairness for Middle-Class--increase funding to protect fundamental
worker rights, enforce fair credit and lending practices, and promote
livable wages and safe workplaces;
Renew the Social Contract and 21st Century Safety Net--substantially
increase funding for decent affordable housing, anti-hunger programs,
and more quality child care for low-income and impoverished Americans
(including Hurricane Katrina victims); and
Rebuild America's Communities--increase funding for Community
Development Block Grants, Hurricane Katrina relief and reconstruction,
community policing, and priority clean-up of leaking underground
storage tanks that threaten the drinking water of nearly half of all
Americans--a down payment on the implementation of other urgently
needed environmental justice programs.

Pentagon and Defense Spending

The Progressive Caucus Budget will be the only budget substitute
offered in this debate that will actually cut even one penny from the
Pentagon budget below the full amount that President Bush requested for
Fiscal Year 2009--a 7.4 percent increase boost over last year (not
counting Iraq and Afghanistan operations).

unified security budget

If Congress fully funds President Bush's military budget request of
$707 billion (including Iraq operations more accurately at $170 billion
and Afghanistan operations) for next fiscal year, our Nation will spend
more on our armed forces next year than at any time since World War II.
As Bush administration officials defend their latest defense spending
request before congressional committees, they and their supporters are
also arguing for a substantial increase above this amount in future
years, even as they disingenuously project spending on the current
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to go down.
A consistent theme of these presentations is that military spending
currently represents a relatively low percentage of our national Gross
Domestic Product. We should spend more, according to this argument,
because we can. The fallacy of this argument is readily apparent as we
fall deeper into debt.

[[Page H1655]]

The Bush Administration's national security doctrine of pre-emptive
warfare, drawn up before the current wars were launched, prescribes an
expansive, global role for the U.S. military, one that even current
levels of spending and manpower don't come close to covering. After
five years of failed tests, it's time to ask: Does the Bush doctrine of
preemptive warfare and its costs make sense? What we must ask ourselves
is does it make us safer and more secure?
No Member of this Congress can claim credibly to be fiscally
responsible and not tackle head-on the soaring, unsustainable financial
costs of the Iraq debacle. Accordingly, we hope virtually all of our
Republican colleagues and most Blue Dog Democrats will stop paying for
this foreign policy disaster with a credit card that seemingly has no
limits.

Savings

The Progressive Caucus Budget is the most transparent and accurate,
when it comes to scoring the fiscal impact of on-going U.S. military
operations in Iraq. We can save at least $135 billion if we end the
U.S. military occupation of Iraq by the end of FY09.
The Progressive budget will save at least $135 billion over the
subsequent nine fiscal years if we change the Bush policy, end the U.S.
military occupation of Iraq, don't establish permanent military bases
in Iraq, and bring virtually all U.S. troops and military contractors
no later than September 30, 2009.
Let me state that we already approved $70 billion of the $170 billion
in President Bush's supplementary request for FY08. The remainder to be
voted upon in April 2008 or soon thereafter should be strictly fenced,
so that it can only be used for the safe and orderly redeployment of
U.S. troops and military contractors.

Cutting Outdated and Unneeded Weapons Systems ($60 Billion/Year)

The Defense Department is wrought with waste, fraud, and abuse as it
continues to spend in excess of $60 billion a year on holdover Cold War
era weapons systems.
It's time that we bring some common sense back to the budget process
and see to it that the basic human needs of all Americans come before
the needs of the military industrial complex. The Progressive Caucus
budget targets weapons programs that are either outdated or poorly
conceived from the very beginning for elimination. Despite what a
handful of giant defense contractors would have us believe, this
inexcusable waste actually makes us less safe.

Combating Global HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria ($5.412 billion)

It is also in our national security interest for America to do more
to meet the world's growing humanitarian crises. Let me cite just one
example from our Progressive Caucus Budget.
Over the last five years the United States has achieved significant
progress in fighting the global HIV/AIDS pandemic. Direct funding
provided to developing countries heavily impacted by HIV/AIDS through
the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief has supported treatment for over
1.45 million people with life saving anti-retroviral medications.
Additionally, U.S. contributions to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS,
Tuberculosis, and Malaria have supported AIDS treatment for another 1.4
million people, while also providing treatment for tuberculosis to over
3.3 million people, and distributing 46 million insecticide treated bed
nets to protect against malaria.
In line with pending legislation in the House and Senate to
reauthorize the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, and to continue U.S.
involvement with the Global Fund, this increase in funding will fully
fund our efforts to combat the global HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and
malaria pandemics for the next five years.
This increase in funding will help reach the goal of preventing 12
million new HIV infections; treating at least 3 million people living
with HIV/AIDS--including 450,000 children; providing care for 12
million individuals affected by HIV/AIDS--including 5 million orphans
and vulnerable children in communities affected by HIV/AIDS; and
training and retaining at least 140,000 new health care professionals
for HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment and care.
This overall level of funding will fundamentally help our programs
achieve sustainability as we increase program linkages and strengthen
country ownership of these important initiatives.

Investing in clean renewable energy sources

If we want a more peaceful, secure world, then America must act with
a sense of urgency to end our growing dependency upon imported oil and
bring on line the full range of renewable energy technologies. We need
a national commitment to accelerate the development and
commercialization of renewable energy sources on the scale of the
Manhattan Project during World War II or the moon shot of the 1960s.
That is what we provide in the Progressive Caucus Budget.
It calls for spending $30 billion/year for the next decade to create
3 million new, clean energy jobs to free America from foreign oil
dependence. We want to reinvest in the competitiveness of American
industry, rebuild our cities, create good jobs for working families,
and ensure good stewardship of both our national economy and the
environment we share with the rest of the world.

Infrastructure needs

Our Nation faces a crumbling transportation infrastructure that is
being asked to handle ever-increasing loads. Between 1955 and 2005, the
U.S. population grew by 130 million to 295 million. Over the next 50
years it is expected to grow by 140 million to 435 million. Over the
next 30 years, 88 percent of that growth will occur in the south and
west. By 2030, the population of people over 65 will have grown from 35
million to 70 million. More than 70 percent of the Nation's population
growth and 80 percent of its economic growth are expected to take place
in metropolitan areas. At the same time, rural States will face the
enormous cost of preserving the network of roads they have built over
the past 80 years. Congestion on our Nation's highways gets worse by
the year as funding fails to keep pace.
The Progressive Caucus Budget reverses this trend with additional
transportation funding over a ten-year period to strengthen our
infrastructure and provide millions of new construction jobs. The
Federal Highway Trust Fund is facing shortfalls that need to be met and
this Budget addresses those needs by funding the gap between what we
need to maintain the current system versus the degradation that is
projected over the life of this Budget.

Transportation Stimulus ($18 billion in FY09)

Every billion dollars spent on infrastructure creates 42,000 new
jobs. States have identified 3,000 projects (see below) that could be
up and running in 30-90 days for a total cost of $18 billion dollars.
In a time when the economy is in trouble due to the over-inflated price
of housing and the sub-prime mortgage market, the people in most need
of jobs are construction workers. Funding transportation projects puts
these people to work, in good paying jobs, which serve an overall
benefit to the economy.
As a woman, a mother, a Member of Congress, and the Progressive
Caucus, I am proud of the initiatives taken by the Progressive Caucus
and morally compelled to support this budget.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure the hardworking men and women of America
need a chart to know how expensive gasoline is, and I was interested in
my friend from Texas's history lesson. But there is a more recent
history lesson that I believe the American people could benefit from.
Elections have consequences. The Democrats took control of the Senate
and took control of the House in January of 2007. They've been in
control of the Nation's economy now for 15 months. This is what the
price of oil was when the Democrats took control of this body. Here's
where the price of oil is now. Roughly double.
Since the Democrats took control of this body, Mr. Chairman, job
growth has been cut in half, and the economy has actually lost over
80,000 jobs in the most recent 2 months. The average family's grocery
bill has increased about $70 per month since the Democrats took control
of Congress. The stock market has lost about 10 percent of its value
since the Democrats took control of Congress. Home prices have fallen
roughly 8 percent since the Democrats took control of Congress.
Consumer price inflation has increased over 4 percent, the largest
calendar year increase since the early 1990s, since the Democrats have
taken control of Congress. That is the more recent history lesson that
the American people can profit from.
There is another aspect, though, of these Democrat budgets that,
again, I believe deserve very special attention. I want to again thank
the ranking member for his insight into the peril that these budgets
present to future generations and really the threat to the retirement
security of our children and grandchildren because these budgets
compromise it.
We know that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security won't be around
for future generations unless they are reformed. But I want to focus
again on the fact that this budget and every Democrat budget will raise
taxes on hardworking American families by at least $3,000 a month.
And what do they do with that money? They keep alive an earmark
system that far too many Americans have rightfully concluded that all
too often represent the victory of secrecy over transparency and
special interest

[[Page H1656]]

over the national interest and privilege over merit. So they're going
to raise taxes on American families $3,000 a year. And what are they
going to pay for? Well, they are going to pay for things like $2
million to study yoga in the Defense bill that was placed in by a
Democrat Member of Congress. And perhaps they don't have a bridge to
nowhere, but according to CBS News, we have an arch to nowhere. A
Democrat Member of Congress wanted to rebuild an arch in a park.
We fund the Doyle Center for Manufacturing Technology, named after a
Democrat Member of Congress. I have already mentioned the Charlie
Rangel Center. They raise taxes on the American people, $3,000 a
family, to pay for the Charlie Rangel Center for Public Service. I've
already mentioned the fact that they are spending $100,000 for the L.A.
fashion district for ``signage and streetscape improvements.'' One of
the district's main thoroughfares, Robertson Boulevard, is known as a
``great place to spot celebrity shoppers.'' The Democrat budgets keep
these earmarks alive and well and raise taxes on the American people
$3,000 a year to pay for it.
There's $231,000 for something called the Lincoln Airport Commission,
an airport in Illinois that does not even exist, the executive director
of whom apparently is on the staff of a Democrat Member of the United
States Congress.
In order to raise taxes $3,000 a year on American families, the
Democrats also continue to fund earmarks like $300,000, requested for a
Democrat Member, to help train future employees of Hollywood movie
sets. I'm sure the movie studios are struggling as they make their
multimillions at the box office. And $2 million for the ``paint
shield'' for protecting people from micro-bio threats, which was given
to one specific company. No competitive bid. They just handed the money
to Sherwin-Williams and said no need to compete. No need to show merit.
We're going to raise taxes on the American family $3,000 a year to pay
for more earmarks. And the list goes on and on.
Two very different budgets, Mr. Chairman. The Republican budget says
enough's enough; declare a year-long moratorium on earmarks and fix
this broken system. Every single Democrat budget, Mr. Chairman, says
the status quo is fine. Let's keep these earmarks acoming. Let's make
sure we take from the family paychecks so some Member of Congress can
keep theirs.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, let me again thank Congresswoman Barbara Lee and
Congresswoman Woolsey for their steadfast commitment to addressing the
concerns of the most heavily impacted Americans in this most disruptive
economic season.
Let me remind my friends that we are speaking of a Congress
Democratically led for a little over a year. In that time frame, we
have, in fact, increased the minimum wage. We have waged a valiant
fight for the Children's Health Insurance Program to insure 10 million
children.
But what you have seen that has occurred, if you will, under this
administration, which is really the definition of this Republican
minority, they are the residents on the ship captained by this
administration. So if they want to talk about what burdens are falling
on the American people, the Democratic House and Senate leadership is
no more than a year, but the helm of this government has been captained
by a Republican administration. And we can clearly see that a surplus
existed under the past administration, under the Clinton
administration; but under this administration not only have we eaten up
the surplus, thrown hardworking Americans under the bus, but it is
growing and growing and growing. Now, that is with the so-called tax
cuts that this administration insists on making permanent, that the
Progressive budget recognizes cannot continue to eat away in the
pockets of those who go out and work every day.
And to my good friend on the earmarks, let me suggest to him that he
might read some of the studies that say that earmarks are fairly
distributed.
This is the cause of our depression. The Progressive budget should be
supported.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the distinguished ranking member on the Budget Committee.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Texas
mentioned, we are not saying all earmarks are bad. Some of them are
worthy. Some of them are vetted. Some of them fit within the proper
role of the Federal Government. But a lot of them are bad. A lot of
them are wasteful. A lot of them probably go outside of what most
people think is the proper role of the Federal Government.
The point is we don't have all the answers on how to make it work
right. That's why we think we ought to have a commission of an equal
number of Democrats, an equal number of Republicans, the Kingston-Wolf
Commission is what everybody calls it, to figure out how to make these
things work right so that Congress can regain the trust and confidence
of the American people. But in the meantime, let's say ``no'' to these
earmarks for a year. Let's do a moratorium. That's what we do.
Do you know what we can accomplish by actually having a moratorium of
earmarks for 1 year? By banking those savings, by saying ``no'' to
earmarks for a year and carrying those savings in our budget, we can
make sure that we're not going to cut the child tax credit in half;
that we are not going to tax people for being married. We can make
permanent the $1,000 per-child tax credit, the repeal of the marriage
tax penalty.
Let me just read along this list of earmarks that we have: an ode to
Tom Daschle, a nice guy, former Senate majority leader, a $1 million
earmark to create a center for Tom Daschle in South Dakota. Or we could
look at the Hippie Museum. This one's been pretty well known, $1
million to commemorate hippies at Woodstock. Or we can look at the
sailing earmark, they call it, a 65-foot catamaran sailing around
Monterey Bay. It sounds like a fun thing to do. Why should people in
Wisconsin pay their Federal taxes to pay for that? Or we could take a
look at all the lists and lists and lists that go on. One of my
personal favorites is the ``ferry to nowhere.'' That came from our side
of the aisle, $50 million for a Navy expeditionary marine craft, just a
ferry to go to a peninsula that serves 40 people.
The point is, Mr. Chairman, we're not saying that Republicans are so
much better than Democrats on all of this. We're saying Congress is
broken in this area. Let's fix it. But in the meantime, let's save this
money. Let's have a time out. Let's fix this problem so that we can
regain the trust and take that money and do two really important
things: let's not tax people for being married, and let's not raise
taxes on American families by $500 per child. We can do those two
things by simply saying ``no'' to earmarks this year. That's what our
budget will do.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to now yield 4 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California, a very active and strong member of the
Hispanic Caucus (Ms. Solis).
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
Congressional Progressive Caucus budget.
As Chair of the Hispanic Task Force on Health and the Environment,
this budget speaks to the growing need to create green collar jobs and
reinvest in our country, and I am very proud that they were able to
include that language in this proposed budget.
It also increases Federal spending for unemployment insurance and
food stamps. And we know that Latinos are hard-pressed and hard hit
when it comes to bad economic times in this country, and we are no
different. Right now in my district in East Los Angeles, we see upwards
of 7.2 percent of unemployment and foreclosures occurring almost every
hour. In my district alone, 650,000 people have already lost their
home. It's time for a change. It's time for a new direction.
This budget also increases Federal spending on Federal Medicaid
assistance percentage payments to our States, which are sorely in need
of that assistance right now, providing help, again, for foreclosures
and housing assistance; reinvesting and creating jobs

[[Page H1657]]

in the near term repairing the Nation's schools, transportation, and
infrastructure.
I also want to touch base on something that's very deeply of much
concern with our community, and that is with respect to education and
health care overall. And I'll tell you the temperature of the patient
in terms of Latinos, African Americans, and people of color is not
good. Right now what we see is 40 million people that don't have health
care insurance. About 40 percent of those happen to be Latino children
under the age of 6. We know there has to be a change. We need to
promote a budget that will provide that kind of safety net for all
Americans.
Our budget also increases veterans funding in 2009 by $3.6 billion,
something that we should keep as an honorable deed when we say that we
want to send our soldiers out there to defend, first and foremost, our
liberties. Let's make sure that we take care of them when they come
home. A high percentage tend to be those young men and women of color
using the military because they have no other way of gaining access.
When they come home, whether they are disabled or not, they need to
have the kind of assistance that's ready made available for them where
they don't have to trek 2 hours to get on a bus to go down to the
nearest Veterans Administration to get help and assistance. We need to
change that and this budget does that.
In terms of the environment and global warming, Latinos' low-income
communities are always hard-pressed. We need to reverse that trend and
make sure that EPA gets the full assistance that they need to enforce
our current laws that will create a better level playing field for all
Americans.

{time} 1415

This budget addresses that issue.
Again, I would like to say that I am strongly supportive of the
Congressional Progressive Caucus budget and would ask the Members of
the House to support this budget in a new direction and new reform for
this country.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is
remaining on each side.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Serrano). The gentleman has 4\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentlewoman has 7 minutes remaining.
Mr. HENSARLING. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield
2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Kingston), one of the prime authors of the Kingston-Wolf earmark
moratorium bill.
Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I want to say from the beginning I am supporting the Republican
budget. And I do find it ironic that a Congress that just distributed a
one-time $1,200 per household tax credit is now going to turn around
and raise taxes by $3,155 per household. It doesn't make sense. And for
that reason, I'm planning to vote ``no'' on the Democrat tax increase
budget and support the Republican alternative.
But also I wanted to speak specifically about the earmark portion.
I'm a member of the Appropriations Committee, and I realize that if you
are a member of one party, you might not always disagree with the
members of the other party. For example, if you are a Democrat right
now, you might not be in complete agreement with the Bush budget.
Likewise, if you're a Republican, should a President from another party
get elected, you might not agree with their budget all the time.
Therefore, it is important for equal branches of government to have a
say-so in the construction of a budget.
Within that framework, it is often important that Congress have the
ability to earmark. However, I want to say that, as a Republican,
earmarking got out of control under our Republican watch. We know that
for a fact. Any Republican who is denying that probably has his head in
the sand. And I want to give Democrats credit. They have tried to
reform earmarks. However, unfortunately, the reforms haven't been
apparent, they haven't been given the credit, and they haven't been
enough. We still have work to do.
Therefore, I am supporting the Kingston-Wamp-Wolf approach, which is
to call for a bipartisan, bicameral select committee to review
earmarks, with a moratorium for the time period that the select
committee is in existence. And I know that ours isn't, the moratorium
is lifted when they come back, report back to Congress. In this bill
there's a 1-year moratorium. But I think either way you can take a step
back and look, what is the process and how can we improve it?
Because as an appropriator, we are always focused on appropriations
earmarks, and yet the infamous Bridge to Nowhere did not come from an
appropriations bill. It came from a transportation bill.
In December 2006, we passed a tax relief bill that had, I think, over
100 different types of earmarks on it. But because it was a tax bill,
they weren't defined as earmarks. We see the same thing in trade bills.
I believe that all earmarks should be put on the table and the process
should be reviewed. And that should include the White House earmarks.
That is why it is important for us, on a bipartisan, bicameral basis,
to take a step back and see what we can do to improve this. We all
agree earmarks should not increase a budget but work within the
existing budget limits passed by Congress.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan, the Chair of the Judiciary Committee,
Congressman Conyers, and thank him for his leadership.
Mr. CONYERS. I thank the cochair of the caucus for allowing me to
make it clear to our friends on the other side of the aisle that the
budget, as a document of what it is we believe in, what we put our
money down in support of, expresses in some greater way the values of
the Nation. And so we come to this 2008 budget consideration in the
midst of what some call an economic downturn, others call a recession
and other things.
Now, what we have done, and if there are parts of the Progressive
Caucus budget that are specifically objected to, I would like to invite
our friends on the other side to let us know what they are so that we
can continue our work on it, because the Progressive Caucus every year
always introduces an alternative budget. We've been getting more
support on it each year.
It's our hope that with your enlightened analysis of it, we will get
more support. I'm looking for the day when we get a bipartisan vote on
the Progressive Caucus budget. I think it's possible. I think it states
our priorities that don't have ``Democratic'' or ``Republican'' stamped
on them. What we are saying is let's look at these issues in the budget
and point out which ones make your favorite, make the hit list, and
which ones don't match the aspirations and viewpoints of the minority.
I thank you, Madam Floor Manager.
I rise today in support of the budget alternative offered by the
Congressional Progressive Caucus, CPC.
We often say that the Federal budget is a moral document, expressing
the values and priorities of our Nation.
During this economic downturn, when more families are facing
unemployment, foreclosure and bankruptcy, our top priority should be
protecting our most vulnerable citizens and keeping more Americans from
falling into poverty.
The President, however, seems to have his priorities upside-down. In
this final budget proposal of his presidency, he once again sacrifices
services for low- and moderate-income families failing to provide
adequate funding for health care, housing, child care, job training and
a host of other programs.
Even though the President cuts these vital programs, his budget still
makes the deficit worse, because it continues to give stunningly high
tax cuts to the rich. Tax cuts for millionaires alone will cost $51
billion in FY '09.
The CPC alternative budget gets our priorities straight. In stark
contrast to the President's proposal, the CPC budget puts the needs of
the economically vulnerable ahead of the needs of millionaires.
The CPC budget proposal is the only one under consideration today
that cuts wasteful cold war era defense spending, according to
standards recommended by the GAO, so that we can employ our scarce
resources to help people, not to keep feeding the military industrial
complex for weapons we don't need.
I want to draw attention today to the efforts of the Congressional
Out of Poverty Caucus, which I co-chair along with my colleagues Ms.
Lee, Mr. Honda, Mr. Baca and Mr. Butterfield.
Under Ms. Lee's leadership, the House recently passed by unanimous
consent H. Con. Res. 198, which commits the Congress to cutting poverty
in half in the next decade. With the passage of H. Con. Res. 198, the
House went on record, with unanimous, bipartisan support, making the
alleviation of poverty a priority for this government.

[[Page H1658]]

For the good of the Nation, it is imperative that we live up to our
commitment. The Congress must take action to make good on this promise.
The CPC budget promotes policy initiatives that can move us toward
this goal by expanding programs with a proven track record of success
in reducing poverty, like the Earned Income Tax Credit. We don't need
more war and tax breaks for the rich. We need jobs, job training and
better access to health care, child care and education. The CPC budget
provides these critical tools that can help Americans lift themselves
out of poverty.
Let's get our priorities straight. Let's pass the CPC budget
alternative.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, am I correct in assuming I have the
right to close?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas has the right to close.
Mr. HENSARLING. In that case, I reserve my time.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me say a couple of things as I close in
response to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
First, let me just talk about the argument with regard to tax
increases. Our budget provides for tax fairness. We want to bring back
some real justice in the Tax Code. Let me just say to you that the
Progressive Caucus believes that individuals earning $1 million or more
a year, which is the top 1 percent of our country, that those tax
breaks should be rolled back, the tax bracket should be rolled back to
39.6 percent. That raises at least $96 billion. I finally think that
that $96 billion can be put into restoring some of the very draconian
cuts in our budget to initiatives such as education and health care
which the President has cut.
Secondly, we're talking about repealing capital gains and dividends
tax breaks raises at least $74.4 billion. I think that that $74.4
billion can restore the 50 education programs, including student
financial aid, which the President has sought to cut. We also want to
roll back the estate tax break, raising at least $74 billion. I think
that that $74 billion can go to restore those deep cuts to highway
infrastructure or, of all things he is slashing, support for law
enforcement. I think that those resources could better be used in those
areas.
Also, we're talking about in terms of repealing all additional tax
breaks for the top 1 percent. That means we have $177 billion. Maybe
that could go to help restore the energy assistance for low-income
families that the President cut. Or maybe it could go to restore the
renewable energy and energy conservation programs that the President
decided to cut.
And what about this when you talk about tax increases? How about what
we want to do to eliminate the corporate tax incentives for offshore
jobs? The Tax Code has a number of preferences that directly or
indirectly encourages, mind you, encourages United States companies to
relocate operations and jobs overseas. How about using those revenues
to create some jobs and to invest in job training programs which, of
course, the President wants to cut in his budget? That makes sense to
me. That's about fairness. That's not about tax increases.
We're not talking about increasing taxes on middle-income
individuals. We're talking about tax fairness, restoring some tax
fairness to the Tax Code. And I don't believe that anyone in our
country, if they knew the bogus nature, I think, of this argument with
regard to what all of us are trying to do to bring some fairness into
the Tax Code, I think the American people would say, what is wrong with
raising revenue from those making over $1 million a year? They actually
didn't really support that tax cut when they received it, so what's
wrong with creating jobs in our own country rather than giving tax
breaks for sending jobs offshore? I don't think the American people see
that as being the wrong way to use our tax dollars. I don't think that
they would worry at all about us repealing some of these estate taxes
and individual tax breaks for the 1 percent.
And so I think that when you talk about tax increases, we need to be
honest and say what we're really talking about, and that's giving tax
breaks, continuing to give tax breaks for the very wealthy while our
young people, our children, our senior citizens, the poor, low-income,
middle-income individuals are struggling to just manage to survive
through this recession that has been created, yes, by many of these tax
cuts, but also by this deep hole that we are digging in terms of the
Iraq war and the Iraq recession.
I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. I thank you so much. I just wanted to commend you before
our debate closes on the Progressive Caucus proposal, because I'm
hearing for the first time, we want to get beyond partisan positions,
progressive partisan positions, progressive or conservative positions.
Ms. LEE. In fact, this is a moral document. A budget should be a
moral document. We have bipartisan support from Catholic Charities,
from many faith groups, from many organizations around the country.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from California has
expired.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate my friends on
the other side of the aisle. Although we have very strong
disagreements, I respect their principle and I respect the passion that
they bring to the floor in this debate. We on this side of the aisle
have our passion. We have our principles. And I think, Mr. Chairman,
that it's important to note that no matter what Democrat budget you're
talking about, there's really only one Democrat budget, and they differ
from the Republican budget in many different ways. Theirs values the
government budget. Ours values the family budget. Every Democrat
budget, including this Progressive budget, will increase taxes on the
American family, the largest single tax increase in American history,
by over $3,000 per family. The Republican budget will prevent those tax
increases while hardworking American families are trying to fill up
their cars, send their kids to college, and put food on the table.
Second of all, every Democrat budget provides the highest amount of
government spending we've ever seen. More government. If you think the
answer to your problems is more government, then maybe you want this
Democrat budget. If you think the answer to your problems is more
freedom, more opportunity, a secure paycheck, and greater career
opportunities, then you want the Republican budget.
The Democrat budgets are silent, silent on earmark reform. They want
to preserve the status quo. They will continue to take a bite out of
people's paychecks again so that some Member of Congress might keep
theirs.
But for as bad as what these budgets do, they are even worse for what
they don't do. They are stone cold silent on the number one fiscal
challenge in the land, and that is out-of-control entitlement spending.
Mr. Chairman, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security will not be here for
future generations unless we reform them. We are on the verge of being
the first generation in American history to leave the next generation
with a lower standard of living, double their taxes with just the
government we have today. I will not sit idly by, nor will any
Republican, and let that happen.
Defeat the Democrat budget. Vote for less government, more freedom,
and our children's future.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Congressional Progressive Caucus, CPC, PC fiscal year 2009 alternative
budget. In an attempt to meet head on the administration's proposed
fiscal year 2009 upside-down budget priorities, the CPC budget calls
for a more humanitarian approach addressing the current deficit and
economic downturns.
Indeed, CPC's alternative budget:
Funds a second economic stimulus package designed to pump $118.9
billion into our declining economy and help the hardest hit low- and
middle-income Americans;
Repeals the President's tax cuts for the top 1 percent of taxpayers;
Leaves no child behind by fully funding NCLB and IDEA while improving
Teacher Corps and job training;
Provides Medicare for all with affordable, accessible quality health
care for all Americans;
Renews the Social Contract and 21st Century Safety Net by
substantially increasing funding for decent affordable housing, anti-

[[Page H1659]]

hunger programs, and more quality childcare; and foremost
Rebuilds America's communities that are being plagued by the
aftermath of Katrina by substantially increasing funding for Community
Development Block Grants, community policing, and priority cleanup of
leaking underground storage tanks that threaten the drinking water of
nearly half of all Americans.
Collectively, these provisions reflect a commitment to addressing
socioeconomic woes affecting middle- to-lower class Americans across
the country. I commend CPC for their pledge to cut the poverty rate in
America in half during the next decade and for a progressive budget
that appropriates funding to much needed programs.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 98,
noes 322, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 138]

AYES--98

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baca
Baldwin
Becerra
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Castor
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
Delahunt
Doyle
Ellison
Engel
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hare
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kaptur
Kilpatrick
Kucinich
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Miller, George
Moore (WI)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Olver
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schakowsky
Scott (GA)
Serrano
Slaughter
Solis
Stark
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wynn

NOES--322

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
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 Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
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 (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
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Israel
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Kanjorski
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
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
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
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
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--14

Bordallo
Boustany
Garrett (NJ)
Hooley
Hunter
LaHood
Oberstar
Rangel
Renzi
Rush
Tancredo
Weller
Woolsey
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

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

{time} 1453

Mr. MORAN of Virginia changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. KAGEN and BECERRA changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Carney) having assumed the chair, Mr. Serrano, 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. 312) revising the congressional budget for the
United States Government for fiscal year 2008, establishing the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2009, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2010 through 2013, had come to no resolution thereon.

____________________