[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;

     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. 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.

       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

[[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

  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

[[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

  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. 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.

       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 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $590,686,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $576,173,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $447,581,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $511,354,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $459,368,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $480,072,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $472,272,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $476,871,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $485,586,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $475,791,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $499,094,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $490,585,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $513,212,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $503,768,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $527,678,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $518,179,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $542,899,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $537,546,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $558,342,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $548,691,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $574,487,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $559,777,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,648,000,000.

[[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.

                          ____________________