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

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 43 (Thursday, March 13, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H1661-H1684]
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} 1525

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. Serrano (Acting Chairman)
in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier
today, amendment No. 2 printed in House Report 110-548 by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) had been disposed of.

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

The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in House Report 110-548.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 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--EARMARK REFORM

Sec. 301. Moratorium on earmarks.
Sec. 302. Joint select committee on earmark reform.

TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 401. Enhance accountability by requiring a separate vote on an
increase in the public debt.
Sec. 402. Same-day consideration of reports.
Sec. 403. Two-thirds requirement for certain waivers under the Rules of
the House.
Sec. 404. Two-thirds requirement for availability of certain measures
on the Internet.
Sec. 405. Cost estimates for conference reports and unreported
measures.
Sec. 406. Roll call votes for new spending.
Sec. 407. Nondefense, nonterrorism related spending point of order.
Sec. 408. Limitation on long-term spending proposals.
Sec. 409. Limit on new direct spending in reconciliation legislation.
Sec. 410. Restrictions on advance appropriations.
Sec. 411. Policy statement on hanford and nuclear clean-up.
Sec. 412. Policy statement on war funding.
Sec. 413. Policy statement on medical liability.
Sec. 414. Policy statement on the Medicare ``trigger''.
Sec. 415. Program integrity initiatives.
Sec. 416. Policy statement on the alternative minimum tax.
Sec. 417. Policy statement on health care spending.

TITLE V--EMERGENCY RESERVE FUND

Sec. 501. Nondefense reserve fund for emergencies.
Sec. 502. Emergency criteria.
Sec. 503. Development of guidelines for application of emergency
definition.
Sec. 504. Committee notification of emergency legislation.
Sec. 505. Up-to-date tabulations.
Sec. 506. Contingency operations related to the global war on terrorism
and for unanticipated defense needs.

TITLE VI--LEGISLATIVE LINE ITEM VETO AUTHORITY

Sec. 601. Presidential recommendations.
Sec. 602. Procedures in the United States Congress.
Sec. 603. Identification of targeted tax benefits.
Sec. 604. Additional matters.
Sec. 605. Abuse of proposed cancellations.

TITLE VII--PAY-AS-YOU-GO

Sec. 701. Strengthening pay-as-you-go.

TITLE VIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 801. Application and effect of changes in allocations and
aggregates.
Sec. 802. Adjustments to reflect changes in concepts and definitions.
Sec. 803. Compliance with section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act
of 1990.
Sec. 804. Exercise of rulemaking powers.

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:
Fiscal year 2008: $1,873,540,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,017,033,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,104,764,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,198,889,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,291,296,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,352,645,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be adjusted are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: -$6,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: -$80,091,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: -$78,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: -$229,136,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: -$362,019,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: -$402,095,000,000.

[[Page H1662]]

(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: $2,546,649,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,429,637,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,409,712,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,514,762,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,523,758,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,619,267,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $2,461,810,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,478,438,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,476,911,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,523,601,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,504,363,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,594,191,000,000.
(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: $588,270,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $462,405,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $372,147,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $324,712,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $213,067,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $241,546,000,000.
(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: $9,572,826,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $10,179,229,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $10,745,093,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $11,281,763,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $11,746,433,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $12,233,839,000,000.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $5,402,148,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $5,733,577,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $6,002,163,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $6,225,463,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $6,337,014,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $6,482,741,000,000.

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, $693,273,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $604,289,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $612,497,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $645,433,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $550,414,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $607,032,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $557,026,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $577,925,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $565,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $561,666,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $576,223,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $570,503,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $38,072,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,588,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $33,768,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,763,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $35,118,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,808,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $35,956,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,327,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $36,684,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,274,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $37,028,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,967,000,000.
(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.
(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, $3,874,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,928,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $3,832,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,330,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $3,880,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,656,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $3,950,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,984,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $4,022,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,212,000,000.
(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, $32,890,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,424,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $33,782,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,328,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $34,670,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,729,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $35,568,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,169,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $36,490,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,896,000,000.
(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, $8,560,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,907,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $8,687,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,448,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $8,798,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,244,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $9,246,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,637,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $9,642,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,535,000,000.
(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, $74,798,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $80,350,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $76,607,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $83,694,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $77,527,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $85,807,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $78,470,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $87,808,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $79,456,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $90,112,000,000.
(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, $92,835,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $89,831,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $98,754,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $94,527,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $101,693,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $99,246,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $103,814,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $100,416,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $97,578,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $99,411,000,000.
(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, $305,795,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $304,946,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $322,751,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $323,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $343,709,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $342,746,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $366,700,000,000.

[[Page H1663]]

(B) Outlays, $365,286,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $391,993,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $390,267,000,000.
(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.
(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, $410,152,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $412,970,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $414,946,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $416,690,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $424,315,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $425,038,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $410,706,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $410,707,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $426,299,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $426,036,000,000.
(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, $94,268,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $92,943,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $96,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $96,210,000,000.
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, $50,024,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,520,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $48,972,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $49,384,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $47,218,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $48,912,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $48,425,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $48,887,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $49,692,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $49,540,000,000.
(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, $22,970,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,408,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $19,402,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,449,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $20,039,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,938,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $20,733,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,753,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $21,407,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,194,000,000.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $349,335,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $349,335,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $333,462,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $333,462,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $367,501,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $367,501,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $403,836,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $403,836,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $429,556,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $429,556,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $445,455,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $445,455,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, -$8,599,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$274,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, -$84,556,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$72,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, -$129,273,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$124,124,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, -$155,968,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$168,315,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, -$195,848,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$205,425,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, -$229,181,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$246,124,000,000.
(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, -$68,110,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$68,110,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, -$71,710,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$71,710,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, -$77,424,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$77,424,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, -$78,136,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$78,136,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, -$86,033,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$86,033,000,000.

TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

(a) Submission to Provide for the Reform of Mandatory
Spending.--
(1) In general.--Not later than July 29, 2008, the House
committees named in paragraph (2) shall submit their
recommendations to the House Committee on the Budget. After
receiving those recommendations, the Committee on the Budget
shall report to the House a reconciliation bill carrying out
all such recommendations without substantive revision.
(2) Instructions.--
(A) Committee on agriculture.--The Committee on Agriculture
shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction
sufficient to reduce direct spending $9,321,000,000 for the
period of fiscal years 2009 through 2013.
(B) Committee on armed services.--The Committee on Armed
Services shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction
sufficient to reduce direct spending $1,292,000,000 for the
period of fiscal years 2009 through 2013.
(C) Committee on education and labor.--The Committee on
Education and the Labor shall report changes in laws within
its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending
$15,926,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2009 through
2013.
(D) Committee on energy and commerce.--The Committee on
Energy and Commerce shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending
$115,812,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2009 through
2013.
(E) Committee on financial services.--The Committee on
Financial Services shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending $73,000,000
for the period of fiscal years 2009 through 2013.
(F) Committee on foreign affairs.--The Committee on Foreign
Relations shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending
$250,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2009 through
2013.
(G) Committee on the judiciary.--The Committee on the
Judiciary shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending
$3,450,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2009 through
2013.
(H) Committee on natural resources.--The Committee on
Natural Resources shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending
$3,721,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2009 through
2013.
(I) Committee on oversight and government reform.--The
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform shall report
changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce
direct spending $4,679,000,000 for the period of fiscal years
2009 through 2013.
(J) Committee on transportation and infrastructure.--The
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure shall report
changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce
direct spending $4,672,000,000 for the period of fiscal years
2009 through 2013.
(K) Committee on ways and means.--The Committee on Ways and
Means shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction
sufficient to reduce direct spending $253,204,000,000 for the
period of fiscal years 2009 through 2013.
(b) Revenue Reconciliation.--The House Committee on Ways
and Means shall report a reconciliation bill not later than
July 29, 2008, that consists of changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce revenues

[[Page H1664]]

by not more than $1,151,441,000,000 for the period of fiscal
years 2009 through 2013.
(c) Submission of Revised Allocations.--
(1) Upon the submission to the Committee on the Budget
pursuant to subsection (a), or the reporting of a measure
pursuant to subsection (b), a recommendation that has
complied with its reconciliation instructions pursuant to
section 310(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the
chairman of that committee may file with the House
appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a) of
such Act and revised functional levels and aggregates.
(2) Upon the submission to the House of a conference report
recommending a reconciliation bill or resolution in which a
committee has complied with its reconciliation instructions
solely by virtue of this section, the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget may file with the House appropriately
revised allocations and aggregates under such Act.
(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--EARMARK REFORM

SEC. 301. MORATORIUM ON EARMARKS.

(a) House.-- In the House, for the remainder of the 110th
Congress, it shall not be in order to consider a bill, joint
resolution, or conference report, containing a congressional
earmark, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit, as
such terms are defined in clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules
of the House of Representatives.
(b) Senate.--In the Senate, [to be supplied]

SEC. 302. JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON EARMARK REFORM.

(a) Establishment and Composition.--There is established a
Joint Select Committee on Earmark Reform. The joint select
committee shall be composed of 16 members as follows:
(1) 8 Members of the House of Representatives, 4 appointed
from the majority by the Speaker of the House and 4 from the
minority by the minority leader; and
(2) 8 Members of the Senate, 4 appointed from the majority
by the majority leader of the Senate and 4 from the minority
by the minority leader. A vacancy in the joint select
committee shall not affect the power of the remaining members
to execute the functions of the joint select committee, and
shall be filled in the same manner as the original selection.
(b) Study and Report.--
(1) Study.--The joint select committee shall make a full
study of the practices of the House, Senate, and executive
branch, regarding earmarks in authorizing, appropriation,
tax, and tariff measures. As part of the study, the joint
select committee shall consider the efficacy of--
(A) the disclosure requirements of clause 9 of rule XXI and
clause 17 of rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, House Resolution 491, and rule XLIV of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, and the definitions contained
therein;
(B) requiring full transparency in the process, with
earmarks listed in bills at the outset of the legislative
process and continuing throughout consideration;
(C) requiring that earmarks not be placed in any bill after
initial committee consideration;
(D) requiring that Members be permitted to offer amendments
to remove earmarks at subcommittee, full committee, floor
consideration, and during conference committee meetings;
(E) requiring that bill sponsors and majority and minority
managers certify the validity of earmarks contained in their
bills;
(F) recommending changes to earmark requests made by the
executive branch through the annual budget submitted to
Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States
Code;
(G) requiring that House and Senate amendments meet earmark
disclosure requirements, including amendments adopted
pursuant to a special order of business;
(H) establishing new categories for earmarks, including--
(i) projects with national scope;
(ii) military projects; and
(iii) local or provincial projects, including the level of
matching funds required for such project.
(2) Report.--
(A) the joint select committee shall submit to the House
and the Senate a report of its findings and recommendations
not later than 6 months after adoption of this concurrent
resolution.
(B) no recommendation shall be made by the joint select
committee except upon the majority vote of the members from
each House, respectively.
(C) notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution,
any recommendation with respect to the rules and procedures
of one House that only affects matters related solely to that
House may only be made and voted on by members of the joint
select committee from that House and, upon its adoption by a
majority of such members, shall be considered to have been
adopted by the full committee as a recommendation of the
joint select committee. In conducting the study under
paragraph (1), the joint select committee shall hold not
fewer than 5 public hearings.
(c) Resources and Dissolution.--
(1) The joint select committee may utilize the resources of
the House and Senate.
(2) The joint select committee shall cease to exist 30 days
after the submission of the report described in subsection
(a)(2).
(d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``earmark'' shall include congressional earmarks,
congressionally directed spending items, limited tax
benefits, or limited tariff benefits as those terms are
defined in clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives and rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the
Senate. Nothing in this subsection shall confine the study of
the joint select committee or otherwise limit its
recommendations.

TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 401. ENHANCE ACCOUNTABILITY BY REQUIRING A SEPARATE VOTE
ON AN INCREASE IN THE PUBLIC DEBT.

(a) Public Debt Limit.--In the House, a joint resolution
prepared pursuant to the adoption of a concurrent resolution
on the budget, or any revision to such concurrent resolution,
under the procedures set forth in rule XXVIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives shall reflect an increase in the
statutory limit on the public debt of zero.
(b) Statement.--The report of the Committee on the Budget
on a concurrent resolution and the joint explanatory
statement of the managers on a conference report to accompany
such concurrent resolution shall
(1) include the language of the joint resolution described
in rule XXVIII, which will reflect no increase in the
statutory limit on the public debt;
(2) contain a clear statement that an increase in the
statutory limit on the public debt requires a separate roll
call vote of all Members of the House of Representatives.

SEC. 402. SAME-DAY CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS.

A report on a rule, joint rule, or the order of business
may not be called up for consideration on the same calendar
day, or less than 17 hours after that, it is presented to the
House except--
(1) when so determined by a vote of two-thirds of the
Members voting, a quorum being present;
(2) in the case of a resolution proposing only to waive a
requirement of clause 4 or of clause 8 of rule XXII
concerning the availability of reports; or
(3) during the last three days of a session of Congress.

SEC. 403. TWO-THIRDS REQUIREMENT FOR CERTAIN WAIVERS UNDER
THE RULES OF THE HOUSE.

It is not in order to consider a rule or order that
waives--
(1) the layover requirement of clause 8 of rule XXII
concerning the availability of reports;
(2) clause 8(a)(1) of rule XXII;
(3) the scope requirement of the last sentence of clause 9
of rule XXII;
by a vote of less than two-thirds of the Members voting, a
quorum being present.

SEC. 404. TWO-THIRDS REQUIREMENT FOR AVAILABILITY OF CERTAIN
MEASURES ON THE INTERNET.

(a) Availability of Committee Reported Measures.--Except as
specified in subparagraph (2) of clause 4(a) of rule XIII of
the Rules of the House of Representatives, it shall not be in
order to consider in the House a measure or matter reported
by a committee until the third calendar day (excluding
Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays except when the House
is in session on such a day) on which each report of a
committee on that measure or matter has been available and
until the third such calendar day on which the underlying
measure or matter has been made available by the Committee on
Rules on its Internet site.
(b) Availability of Conference Reports.--Except as
specified in subparagraph (2) of clause (a) of rule XXII of
the House of Representatives, it shall not be in order to
consider a conference report until--
(1) the third calendar day (excluding Saturdays, Sundays,
or legal holidays except when the House is in session on such
a day) on which the conference report and the accompanying
joint explanatory statement have been available, published in
the Congressional Record and until the third such calendar
day on which such conference report and joint explanatory
statement have been made available by the standing committee
of the House with subject matter jurisdiction over the
underlying legislation on its Internet site; and
(2) copies of the conference report and the accompanying
joint explanatory statement have been available to Members,
Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner for at least two
hours,
(c) Point of Order.--It is not in order to consider a rule
or order which would waive subsections (a) or (b) by a vote
of less than two-thirds of the Members voting, a quorum being
present.

SEC. 405. COST ESTIMATES FOR CONFERENCE REPORTS AND
UNREPORTED MEASURES.

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

SEC. 406. ROLL CALL VOTES FOR NEW SPENDING.

The yeas and nays shall be considered as ordered when the
Speaker puts the question on passage of a bill or joint
resolution, or on

[[Page H1665]]

adoption of a conference report, for which the chairman of
the Budget Committee has advised the Speaker that such bill,
joint resolution or conference report authorizes or provides
new budget authority of not less than $50,000,000. The
Speaker may not entertain a unanimous consent request or
motion to suspend this section.

SEC. 407. NONDEFENSE, NONTERRORISM RELATED SPENDING POINT OF
ORDER.

(a) Nondefense and Nonterrorism-Related Spending.--It shall
not be in order to consider any supplemental appropriation
measure that primarily provides funding for war-related
defense needs and for the global war on terrorism, that also
provides funding for domestic discretionary programs,
projects or activities designated as emergencies.
(b) Listing of Nondefense and Nonterrorism-Related
Provisions.--Prior to the consideration of any appropriation
bill or joint resolution referred to in subsection (a), the
Committee on the Budget of the House shall transmit to the
Speaker, the Majority Leader, the Minority Leader, and the
Ranking Member of the Committee on the Budget, and, to the
extent practicable, publish in the Congressional Record, a
list of any nondefense and nonterrorism related provisions
designated as emergency included in that bill or joint
resolution.

SEC. 408. LIMITATION ON LONG-TERM SPENDING PROPOSALS.

(a) Congressional Budget Office Analysis of Proposals.--The
Director of the Congressional Budget Office shall, to the
extent practicable, prepare for each bill or joint resolution
reported from committee (except measures within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations), or
amendments thereto or conference reports thereon, an estimate
of whether the measure would cause, relative to current law,
a net increase in direct spending in excess of $5 billion in
any of the four 10-year periods beginning in fiscal year 2016
through fiscal year 2055.
(b) Direct Spending Limitation.--In the House, it shall not
be in order to consider any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that would cause a net
increase in direct spending in excess of $5 billion in any of
the four 10-year periods beginning in 2016 through 2055.

SEC. 409. LIMIT ON NEW DIRECT SPENDING IN RECONCILIATION
LEGISLATION.

In the House, it shall not be in order to consider any
reconciliation bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report, in relation to, a reconciliation bill
pursuant to section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, that produces an increase in outlays, if--
(1) the effect of all the provisions in the jurisdiction of
any committee is to create gross new direct spending that
exceeds 20 percent of the total savings instruction to the
committee; or
(2) the effect of the adoption of an amendment would result
in gross new direct spending that exceeds 20 percent of the
total savings instruction to the committee.

SEC. 410. RESTRICTIONS ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) In General.--
(1) In the House, except as provided in subsection (b), an
advance appropriation may not be reported in a bill or joint
resolution making a general appropriation or continuing
appropriation, and may not be in order as an amendment
thereto.
(2) Managers on the part of the House may not agree to a
Senate amendment that would violate paragraph (1) unless
specific authority to agree to the amendment first is given
by the House by a separate vote with respect thereto.
(b) Advance Appropriation.--In the House, an advance
appropriation may be provided for the fiscal years 2010 and
2011 for programs, projects, activities, or accounts
identified in the joint explanatory statement of managers
accompanying this resolution under the heading ``Accounts
Identified for Advance Appropriations'' in an aggregate
amount not to exceed $23,565,000,000 in new budget authority
in each year.
(c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance
appropriation'' means any new budget authority provided in a
bill or joint resolution making general appropriations or any
new budget authority provided in a bill or joint resolution
making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2009 that
first becomes available for any fiscal year after 2009.

SEC. 411. POLICY STATEMENT ON HANFORD AND NUCLEAR CLEAN-UP.

It is the policy of this resolution that the United States
Government must meet its responsibility in cleaning up
nuclear waste sites created in the name of our Nation's
defense by our World War II and Cold War era nuclear weapons
production and is an obligation of the Federal Government,
not an option. The Environmental Management program
responsible for cleaning up these wastes requires a
sufficient level of funding so as not to cause legal cleanup
milestones and obligations to be missed.

SEC. 412. POLICY STATEMENT ON WAR FUNDING.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) there are currently more than 183,000 troops in the
theater supporting Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom;
(2) in February of 2007, the President submitted a war
request for supplemental funding to support these troops and
their ongoing operations in the global war on terrorism;
(3) more than a year later, Congress has only acted to
partially fund that request by providing less than half of
the funding required by the troops;
(4) this policy assumes Congress will act on war funding
requests in a timely manner so as to avoid--
(A) not having sufficient funds to pay United States
soldiers, serving at home or abroad;
(B) not having sufficient funds to pay civilian Army
personnel;
(C) significant disruption in base budget activities, which
may result in delaying or foregoing contracts and activities
(e.g., training) that ultimately may increase cost; and
(D) losing the ability to use the Commanders Emergency
Response Program, which is critical to the success of United
States and Coalition Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
(b) Policy of the House on War Funding.--It is the policy
of the House that funding for troops in Operations Iraqi and
Enduring Freedom should be provided in a timely manner so as
not hinder their performance or needlessly place them in
harms way.

SEC. 413. POLICY STATEMENT ON MEDICAL LIABILITY.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) medical liability and the resulting practice of
defensive medicine continue to plague the medical profession
in the United States, reducing access for patients,
increasing the cost of medical care generally, and increasing
the cost of government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid
for the United States taxpayer; and
(2) as the medical liability crisis grows, a large fraction
of these dollars will be spent on wasteful health care
services provided solely to shield providers from a lawsuits.
(b) Policy Statement on Medical Liability.--It is the
policy of this resolution that it assumes effective medical
liability reform which will contribute to the overall goal of
domestic entitlement reform, constraining the growth of vital
programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and helping to ensure
their long-term viability.

SEC. 414. POLICY STATEMENT ON THE MEDICARE ``TRIGGER''.

This resolution assumes that the committees of
jurisdiction, in complying with the reconciliation
instruction set forth in section 20, will submit to the
Committee on the Budget language that locks in any savings
resulting from Medicare funding warning legislation designed
to reduce the program's general revenue spending exceeding 45
percent. By directing savings solely to deficit reduction,
this provision will help Medicare fulfill its mission for the
long term.

SEC. 415. 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.--

[[Page H1666]]

(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.
(c) President's Budget.--In determining whether an
adjustments may be made pursuant to this section, the
Chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall take into
consideration, the recommendations made in President's budget
related to such adjustments.

SEC. 416. POLICY STATEMENT ON THE ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX.

This resolution assumes that the Committee on Ways and
Means, in complying with the reconciliation instruction set
forth pursuant to section 201(b) of this resolution, will
prepare legislative language which will phase out the
alternative minimum tax.

SEC. 417. POLICY STATEMENT ON HEALTH CARE SPENDING.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) Medicare's unfunded liability will grow from $34
trillion to $45 trillion in the next 5 years;
(2) health care spending is expected to reach nearly 20
percent of GDP by 2017;
(3) half of the Nation's $2.4 trillion in annual health
care spending comes from taxpayer dollars; and
(4) the only way to ensure health care entitlement programs
survive and continue to fulfill their missions in the 21st
century is through fundamental reform.
(b) Policy Statement on Health Care Spending.--This
resolution assumes that the committees of jurisdiction over
health care spending issues will report legislation to reduce
health care costs and expand coverage, in part, by removing
distortions in the health care market. The removal of these
distortions may be accomplished by increasing personal
ownership and improving health care quality and information
through the sharing of information, including the passage of
H.R. 1174 and H.R. 3370.

TITLE V--EMERGENCY RESERVE FUND

SEC. 501. NONDEFENSE RESERVE FUND FOR EMERGENCIES.

(a) Nondefense Set Aside.--In the House:
(1) Except as provided by subsection 506, if a bill or
joint resolution is reported, or an amendment is offered
thereto (or considered as adopted) or a conference report is
filed thereon, that provides new discretionary budget
authority (and outlays flowing therefrom), and such provision
is designated as an emergency pursuant to this section, the
chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall make
adjustments to the allocations and aggregates set forth in
this resolution up to the amount of such provisions if the
requirements set forth in section 504 are met, but the sum of
all adjustments made under this paragraph shall not exceed
$7,300,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
(2) If a bill or joint resolution is reported or a
conference report is filed thereon, and a direct spending or
receipt provision included therein is designated as an
emergency pursuant to this paragraph, the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget may make adjustments to the
allocations and aggregates set forth in this resolution.
(b) Additional Adjustment Procedures.--In the House, before
any adjustment is made pursuant to this section for any bill,
joint resolution, or conference report that designates a
provision an emergency, the enactment of which would cause
the total amount of the set aside fund set forth in
subsection (a)(1) for fiscal year 2009 to be exceeded:
(1) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall
convene a meeting of that committee, where it shall be in
order, subject to the terms set forth in this section, for
one motion described in paragraph (2) to be made to authorize
the chairman to make adjustments above the maximum amount of
adjustments set forth in subsection (a). If the Chairman does
not call such a meeting within 24 hours of a committee
reporting such a measure, any member of the Committee may
call such a meeting.
(2) The motion referred to in paragraph (1) shall be in the
following form: ``I move that the chairman of the Committee
on the Budget be authorized to adjust the allocations and
aggregates set forth in the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2009 by the following amount:
$___,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.'', with the blank being
filled in with amount determined by the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget. For any measure referred to in
subsection (a)(1), such amount shall not exceed the total
amount for fiscal year 2009 designated as an emergency in
excess of the applicable amount remaining in the set aside
fund.
(3) The motion set forth in paragraph (2) shall be open for
debate and amendment, but any amendment offered thereto is
only in order if limited to changing an amount in the motion.
(4) Except as provided by paragraph (5), the chairman of
the Committee on the Budget may not make any adjustments
under subsection (a) or subsection (b) unless or until the
committee filing a report or joint statement of managers on a
conference report on a measure including an emergency
designation fulfills the terms set forth in section 504.
(5) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall make
any adjustments he deems necessary under this section if he
determines the enactment of the provision or provisions
designated as an emergency is essential to respond to an
urgent and imminent need, the chairman determines the
exceptional circumstances referred to in rule 3 of the rules
of the committee are met and the committee cannot convene to
consider the motion referred to in this section in a timely
fashion.
(c) Application of Adjustments.--The adjustments made
pursuant to subsection (a) or (b) shall
(1) apply while that bill, joint resolution, conference
report or amendment is under consideration;
(2) take effect upon the enactment of that legislation; and
(3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as
practicable.

SEC. 502. EMERGENCY CRITERIA.

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

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

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

SEC. 504. COMMITTEE NOTIFICATION OF EMERGENCY LEGISLATION.

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

SEC. 505. UP-TO-DATE TABULATIONS.

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

SEC. 506. CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS RELATED TO THE GLOBAL WAR ON
TERRORISM AND FOR UNANTICIPATED DEFENSE NEEDS.

(a) Exemption of Contingency Operations Related to the
Global War on Terrorism and for Unanticipated Defense
Needs.--In the House, if any bill or joint resolution is
reported, or an amendment is offered thereto or a conference
report is filed thereon, that makes appropriations for fiscal
year 2009 for contingency operations directly related to the
global war on terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-
related operations, then the new budget authority, new
entitlement authority, outlays, or receipts resulting
therefrom shall not count for purposes of titles III or IV of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(b) Current Level.--Amounts included in this resolution for
the purpose set forth in this section shall be considered to
be current law for purposes of the preparation of the current
level of budget authority and outlays and the appropriate
levels shall be adjusted upon the enactment of such bill.

TITLE VI--LEGISLATIVE LINE ITEM VETO AUTHORITY

SEC. 601. PRESIDENTIAL RECOMMENDATIONS.

(a) Proposed Cancellations.--If, within 45 calendar days
after the enactment of any bill or joint resolution providing
any discretionary budget authority, item of direct

[[Page H1667]]

spending, limited tariff benefit, or targeted tax benefit,
the President proposes, in the manner provided in subsection
(b), the cancellation of any dollar amount of such
discretionary budget authority, item of direct spending, or
targeted tax benefit, such recommendation shall be introduced
as a freestanding measure consistent with the terms of this
title and shall be eligible for the expedited procedures set
forth herein. If the 45 calendar-day period expires during a
period where either House of Congress stands adjourned sine
die at the end of a Congress or for a period greater than 45
calendar days, the President may propose a cancellation under
this section and transmit a special message under subsection
(b) on the first calendar day of session following such a
period of adjournment.
(b) Transmittal of Special Message.--
(1) Special message.--
(A) Contents of special message.--Each special message
shall specify, with respect to the discretionary budget
authority, items of direct spending proposed, limited tariff
benefits, or targeted tax benefits to be canceled--
(i) the dollar amount of discretionary budget authority,
the specific item of direct spending (that OMB, after
consultation with CBO, estimates to increase budget authority
or outlays as required by section 1017(9)), the limited
tariff benefit, or the targeted tax benefit that the
President proposes be canceled;
(ii) any account, department, or establishment of the
Government to which such discretionary budget authority is
available for obligation, and the specific project or
governmental functions involved;
(iii) the reasons why such discretionary budget authority,
item of direct spending, limited tariff benefit, or targeted
tax benefit should be canceled;
(iv) to the maximum extent practicable, the estimated
fiscal, economic, and budgetary effect (including the effect
on outlays and receipts in each fiscal year) of the proposed
cancellation;
(v) to the maximum extent practicable, all facts,
circumstances, and considerations relating to or bearing upon
the proposed cancellation and the decision to propose the
cancellation, and the estimated effect of the proposed
cancellation upon the objects, purposes, or programs for
which the discretionary budget authority, item of direct
spending, limited tariff benefit, or the targeted tax benefit
is provided;
(vi) a numbered list of cancellations to be included in an
approval bill that, if enacted, would cancel discretionary
budget authority, items of direct spending, limited tariff
benefit, or targeted tax benefits proposed in that special
message; and
(vii) if the special message is transmitted subsequent to
or at the same time as another special message, a detailed
explanation why the proposed cancellations are not
substantially similar to any other proposed cancellation in
such other message.
(C) Duplicative proposals prohibited.--The President may
not propose to cancel the same or substantially similar
discretionary budget authority, item of direct spending,
limited tariff benefit, or targeted tax benefit more than one
time under this Act.
(D) Maximum number of special messages.--The President may
not transmit to the Congress more than 5 special messages
under this subsection related to any bill or joint resolution
described in subsection (a), but may transmit not more than
10 special messages for any omnibus budget reconciliation or
appropriation measure.
(2) Enactment of approval bill.--
(A) Deficit reduction.--Amounts of budget authority, items
of direct spending, limited tariff benefit, or targeted tax
benefits which are canceled pursuant to enactment of a bill
as provided under this section shall be dedicated only to
reducing the deficit or increasing the surplus.
(B) Adjustment of levels in the concurrent resolution on
the budget.--Not later than 5 days after the date of
enactment of an approval bill as provided under this section,
the chairs of the Committees on the Budget of the Senate and
the House of Representatives shall revise allocations and
aggregates and other appropriate levels under the appropriate
concurrent resolution on the budget to reflect the
cancellation, and the applicable committees shall report
revised suballocations pursuant to section 302(b), as
appropriate.
(C) Trust funds and special funds.--Notwithstanding
subparagraph (A), nothing in this title shall be construed to
require or allow the deposit of amounts derived from a trust
fund or special fund which are canceled pursuant to enactment
of a bill as provided under this section to any other fund.

SEC. 602. PROCEDURES IN THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS.

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

SEC. 603. IDENTIFICATION OF TARGETED TAX BENEFITS.

(a) Statement.--The chairman of the Committee on Ways and
Means of the House of Representatives and the chairman of the
Committee on Finance of the Senate acting jointly (hereafter
in this subsection referred to as ``the chairmen'' shall
review any revenue or reconciliation bill or joint resolution
which includes any amendment to the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 that is being prepared for filing by a committee of
conference of the two Houses, and shall identify whether such
bill or joint resolution contains any targeted tax benefits.
The chairmen shall provide to the committee of conference a
statement identifying any such targeted tax benefits or
declaring that the bill or joint resolution does not contain
any targeted tax benefits. Any such statement shall be made
available to any Member of Congress by the chairmen
immediately upon request.
(b) Statement Included in Legislation.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other rule of the
House of Representatives or any rule or precedent of the
Senate, any revenue or reconciliation bill or joint
resolution which includes any amendment to the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 reported by a committee of conference of
the two Houses may include, as a separate section of such
bill or joint resolution, the information contained in the
statement of the chairmen, but only in the manner set forth
in paragraph (2).
(2) Applicability.--The separate section permitted under
subparagraph (A) shall read

[[Page H1668]]

as follows: Section 1021 of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 shall ``_________'' apply to
``_________.'' with the blank spaces being filled in with--
(A) in any case in which the chairmen identify targeted tax
benefits in the statement required under subsection (a), the
word ``only'' in the first blank space and a list of all of
the specific provisions of the bill or joint resolution in
the second blank space; or
(B) in any case in which the chairmen declare that there
are no targeted tax benefits in the statement required under
subsection (a), the word ``not'' in the first blank space and
the phrase ``any provision of this Act'' in the second blank
space.
(c) Identification in Revenue Estimate.--With respect to
any revenue or reconciliation bill or joint resolution with
respect to which the chairmen provide a statement under
subsection (a), the Joint Committee on Taxation shall--
(1) in the case of a statement described in subsection
(b)(2)(A), list the targeted tax benefits in any revenue
estimate prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation for any
conference report which accompanies such bill or joint
resolution, or
(2) in the case of a statement described in section
13(b)(2)(B), indicate in such revenue estimate that no
provision in such bill or joint resolution has been
identified as a targeted tax benefit.
(d) President's Authority.--If any revenue or
reconciliation bill or joint resolution is signed into law
(1) with a separate section described in subsection (b)(2),
then the President may use the authority granted in this
section only with respect to any targeted tax benefit in that
law, if any, identified in such separate section; or
(2) without a separate section described in subsection
(b)(2), then the President may use the authority granted in
this section with respect to any targeted tax benefit in that
law.

SEC. 604. ADDITIONAL MATTERS.

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

[[Page H1669]]

(viii) if a corporation, partnership, association, trust or
estate is the beneficiary of a provision, the shareholders of
the corporation, the partners of the partnership, the members
of the association, or the beneficiaries of the trust or
estate shall not also be treated as beneficiaries of such
provision;
(C) For the purpose of this paragraph, the term ``revenue-
losing provision'' means any provision that is estimated to
result in a reduction in federal tax revenues (determined
with respect to either present law or any provision of which
the provision is a part) for a period of the--
(i) first fiscal year for which the provision is effective;
or
(ii) five fiscal years beginning with the first fiscal year
for which the provision is effective;
(D) the ``term targeted tax benefit'' does not include any
provision which applies uniformly to an entire industry; and
(E) the terms used in this paragraph shall have the same
meaning as those terms have generally in the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, unless otherwise expressly provided.

SEC. 605. ABUSE OF PROPOSED CANCELLATIONS.

The President, or any executive branch official, should
not condition the inclusion or exclusion or threaten to
condition the inclusion or exclusion of any proposed
cancellation in any special message under this title upon any
vote cast or to be cast by any Member of either House of
Congress.

TITLE VII--PAY-AS-YOU-GO

SEC. 701. STRENGTHENING PAY-AS-YOU-GO.

(a) Limitation.--In the House, in determining the effect of
a bill, joint resolution, amendment or conference report on
the deficit or surplus for purposes of clause 10 of rule XXI
of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee
on the Budget shall disregard provisions that are
impermissible offsets.
(b) Definition of Impermissible Offsets.--A provision is an
``impermissible offset'' if the Committee on the Budget
determines that it--
(1) is the same or substantially the same as a change in
law reducing the deficit included in a bill, joint
resolution, or conference report previously passed by the
House but not enacted;
(2) causes a decrease in outlays within the first time
period set forth in clause 10 of such rule XXI, but causes no
change in outlays over the second time period included in the
clause; or
(3) causes an increase in revenue within the first time
period set forth in clause 10 of such rule XXI, but causes no
change in revenues over the second time period included in
the clause.
(c) Treatment of Direct Spending Provisions.--In the House:
(1) For purposes of enforcing clause 10 of rule XXI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, a provision included
in a bill, joint resolution, or conference report increasing
direct spending in any year may be deemed by the chairman of
the Committee on the Budget to be structured such that it
artificially disguises an increase in entitlement spending by
use of expiration dates or reductions in entitlement or
beneficiary levels.
(2) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall cause
a clear statement for any bill, joint resolution or
conference report as to whether a provision increasing
mandatory budget authority or outlays has or has not been
structured as described in paragraph (1), to be inserted in
the Congressional Record if requested by the Speaker, the
Majority Leader, the Minority Leader or the Ranking Member of
the Committee on the Budget.
(d) Strengthen Pay-as-You-Go.--It shall not be in order to
consider any bill, joint resolution, or conference report
that increases the deficit in the budget year or the five-
fiscal year period following the second period of fiscal
years set forth in clause 10 of rule XXI of the Rules of the
House of the House Representatives. The effect of such
measure on the deficit or surplus shall be determined on the
same basis as set forth in such clause.

TITLE VIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 801. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS
AND AGGREGATES.

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

SEC. 802. ADJUSTMENTS TO REFLECT CHANGES IN CONCEPTS AND
DEFINITIONS.

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

SEC. 803. COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 13301 OF THE BUDGET
ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1990.

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

SEC. 804. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

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

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1036, the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and a Member opposed each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to
yield 1 minute to the esteemed minority leader, Mr. Boehner.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from
Wisconsin for yielding and congratulate him and the Republican members
of the Budget Committee for a job well done in putting this budget
together.
I also want to thank our colleague from South Carolina, Mr. Spratt,
the chairman of the committee for their budget. Although I'll be
critical of it, still, the gentleman did his work, and the House is
considering the budget at the time of the year the House should be
considering its budget, in March, and in early March, which has not
always happened.
When we think about our budgets, it's not as complicated as people
think. It's about revenue coming into the Federal Government and
revenue going out of the Federal Government to provide benefits for the
American people. And it's not just about numbers for this year. It's
about numbers for next year and over the next 5 or 10 years that we
need to look at so that there is a balance between revenues and
expenses.
Clearly, over the last 40 years, there's been a big imbalance between
what goes out and what comes in. And the fact is that in 36 of those 40
years, the Federal Government has run a deficit, at least 36. I think
36 of the 40 years we've run a deficit. We balanced the budget in the
late 1990s when Republicans controlled the Congress by holding the line
on spending while revenues to the Federal Government were growing in a
healthy economy, held the line on spending at or near the rate of
inflation, and revenues surpassed expenses for the first time in some
almost 30 years.
But here we are again, back in a situation where we're spending more
than what's coming in, mostly as a result of the attacks of 9/11, the
aftershocks to our economy. But if you look at the revenue over the
last 5 years, revenues have grown at 11 percent annually in each of the
last 4 years, going back through 2006. And even in 2007, revenues to
the Federal Government grew, estimated to grow at about 8 to 9 percent.
And so revenue growth to the Federal Government, I think, has been
healthy since we reduced taxes on capital gains and dividends, per
child tax credit, and relief for the marriage penalty back in 2001 and
2003.

[[Page H1670]]

{time} 1530

And so you can see that reducing tax rates doesn't mean less revenue
to the Federal Government. Matter of fact, you can look back over the
last 27 years, other than a couple of small exceptions, there has been
a significant effort to lower tax rates, income tax rates, capital gain
tax rates; and as a result, there has been more economic activity in
our country, more people employed in our country, and more people
paying taxes.
And so if you look at the marginal tax rates today as compared to
1980, you see that those tax rates are significantly lower. Yet the
Federal revenue, the taxes that American families pay, continues to
come into Washington at very high levels of growth on an annual basis
I would argue that making the capital gains tax rate permanent,
making the rate on dividends permanent, would give more people reasons
to invest in America's economy allowing those rates of growth in
revenue to the Federal Government to continue.
And so Washington doesn't have a revenue problem. Washington has a
spending problem. And when you look at the Washington spending
problems, it really rolls down to several things: one is controlling
the growth of domestic discretionary spending. I think, by and large,
if you look at the budgets that we've seen over the last 15 years,
we've done a fairly good job of controlling domestic discretionary
programs and the spending that goes there. There are some exceptions,
and there is certainly some room to eliminate some of what I would call
wasteful Washington spending. But if you look at the increases, most of
it has gone into the area of defense.
The real problem that we have is that we continue to have an older
America. The number of Americans over 65 continues to grow and will
grow significantly as I and other baby boomers begin to retire.
And so when you look at the problem today in terms of the spending
problem, it is in the entitlement area. And the underlying budget that
the majority has put forward does nothing to reform entitlement
spending. I came here in 1990 because I thought that programs like
Social Security and Medicare were unsustainable unless Congress was
willing to act to protect those programs.
And here we are in my 18th year. We've nibbled around the edges of a
couple of these programs, but have never really done anything that
would make these programs sustainable for tomorrow and for succeeding
generations. As I have said hundreds of times on this floor, our
generation has made promises to ourselves that our kids and grandkids
can't afford.
So if you look at the budget being presented by myself and our
Republican colleagues, we assume that the capital gains rate of 15
percent will be made permanent. We assume that the rate on dividends at
15 percent is made permanent and the per-child tax credit is put in
permanent law as is the marriage penalty, the tax cuts that were put in
place on a temporary basis in 2001 and 2003.
So our budget balances over the next 5 years, and it balances because
we go in and actually do something about the spending side of the
equation.
Now, if you look at the Democrat budget, they assume that the 15
percent capital gains rate goes back to 20 percent. They assume that
the 15 percent rate on dividends goes to whatever the marginal tax rate
for that taxpayer would be, probably an average tax rate of about 30
percent on dividends, or double that tax, that the marriage penalty
comes back in for all Americans and that the $1,000 per-child tax
credit goes away.
And I forgot one, of all things: the death tax that we want to see go
away completely in 2010. The death tax, under the Democrat proposal,
comes back in full force putting the Federal Government back into a
competition with the heirs over the balance that we have in people's
estates.
But the real issue in the Democrat budget is spending. If you look at
the chart I'm holding here, the Democrat budget assumes all of these
tax cuts go away. So you have a $683 billion tax increase in their
budget, the largest one in American history; and they have it in
because if you look at their spending levels, they do nothing about
reforming entitlement programs or putting a lid on the growth of
domestic discretionary spending.
So I think that the budget that the Republicans are putting forward
here is a responsible budget, and I think, frankly, a majority of the
American people would agree with me. We ought to keep tax rates low. We
ought to encourage economic activity and more economic growth in
America that would provide more opportunity for more jobs and better
paying jobs in America, and to get the balance, do something
constructive about Social Security and Medicare, especially, to modify
those programs so that we can save them for future generations.
At some point, we are going to have to ante up to the piper, and the
sooner we begin to address the long-term problems in Social Security
and Medicare, the better off we will be.
So I would encourage my colleagues to look closely at the budget put
together by Mr. Ryan and his Republican colleagues on the Budget
Committee, and I ask all of our Members to consider supporting it.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the substitute.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Serrano). The gentleman from South Carolina
is recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I think it bears remembering that 8 short years ago the
budget of this government was $236 billion in surplus. Since 2001, we
have experienced, on the watch of this administration, the largest
deficits, nominal deficits, in American history, and an accumulation of
debt that's enough to blow the mind. The debt of this country was $5.7
trillion when Mr. Bush came to office. When he leaves office, it will
be $10 trillion. So that explains why we are skeptical, if you will,
and even more skeptical and dubious when we look at the substitute
resolution that has been brought to the floor, about which the leader
barely spoke until he got to the very end of his presentation a few
minutes ago.
To find the real numbers in this resolution, the leader said that
this is addressed to deal with a spending problem, not a revenue
problem. So as we look through the spending side of the resolution, we
have to go all the way to an obscure account called function 920
Allowances to find where the real action is.
Now, this function is typically an allowance function where we have
things we haven't decided how to assign yet and put into allowances
because we know it is a catch-all account until some decision is made
as to how to treat it.
Typically, therefore, you find smaller amounts in this account; but
in this particular case, in this particular resolution, $817 billion in
additional cuts are called for.
If you look at the Republican resolution, initially it seems to be
providing current services for just about every function. But then you
get to function 920 and you see that what has been provided is taken
back. And when you ask where these cuts are distributed, who bears the
brunt of $817 billion in cuts over a 5-year period of time, there is no
real answer because they're unallocated. We've heard them say they've
added a billion dollars to veterans health care; but once they begin
allocating the $817 billion, that billion dollars is likely to be wiped
out.
The same can happen to defense and nondefense programs. We can't say,
because $817 billion is left unresolved tucked away in this account
called function 920. This is the first black hole in this budget.
This budget then goes on. You can do a little arithmetic and figure
out that $405 billion is assigned to cuts in domestic discretionary
spending, $417 billion is assigned to mandatory cuts. Mandatory cuts
are entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid;
and if you look at the accounts here, you will find that basically it
appears that the Ways and Means Committee is being directed to save
$253 billion, is presumably out of Medicare; the Energy and Commerce
Committee is being asked, told, directed to save that $116 billion out
of Medicaid. These are not just small cuts, minor adjustments that you
would normally find in function 920. These are emasculating cuts for
programs that are critically important.

[[Page H1671]]

Then when we come to the reconciliation provisions, we find that the
Republicans' substitute anticipates at least another $1.1 trillion in
tax reduction. How that's allocated, we can't tell for sure; but the
tax cuts have to be reconciled against the mandatory spending cuts.
When you do that, what we find is the tax cuts equal $1.1 trillion; the
mandatory spending cuts equal $412 as a $739 billion addition to the
deficit. It worsens the deficit rather than improving the deficit.
That's the second black hole in this particular budget.
Reconciliation actually works as a problem instead of improves it. We
know that the other side intends to repeal the alternative minimum tax
after 3 years. We know also that they intend to extend the tax cuts
that were enacted in 2001 and 2003. The total of these would come to
$2.5 trillion easily over a period of 5 to 10 years; and if that's the
case, the third hole, the third hole that this resolution leaves is a
big hole in the bottom of the budget.
So what we've got here is work that is not really a completed
product. It is not a finished product because function 920 leaves $817
billion still to be distributed, still to be determined. By whom?
Apparently by the appropriators or someone like this, but not today on
the floor. When you vote for this today, it has tremendous
consequences.
Let me just offer one illustration of what the consequence might be.
After the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, which are truly sizable,
they are starkly large, there is a cut called for of $115 billion in
savings by the Education and Labor Committee. Now, where would the
Education and Labor Committee go to get such cuts? They would go to
student loans.
We have just done something phenomenal. In last year's budget, we
were able to make some rearrangements and reduce the interest rate over
time and subsidize student loans from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent. A
phenomenal accomplishment. This indicates that the reduction in
interest would be abolished, reversed, as one way of achieving that
direction to save $115 billion.
We just passed a College Cost Reduction and Access Act. One of the
things it did would take Pell Grants up to $5,400 over time. That, too,
would have to be repealed in order to meet $115 billion.
So watch out for the black holes. Watch out for the things that won't
easily appear as you read the language here. If anyone votes for this,
we are voting, in effect, in my opinion, to go back to where we were
over the last 7 years in a period of endless deficits and mountainous
debts. This is not the way to go. This is not good work. This is not a
finished product, and we should not support this as an amendment to the
base bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to
yield 2 minutes to our minority whip, Mr. Blunt.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the budget he brings to
the floor. I think it's clear, looking at that budget, that the
specific cuts that have just been suggested don't have to be the cuts
that are made. That's up to those committees.
Now, I personally, as a former university president, would not go to
student loans as the first thing to look at of all of the things that
are in the Education and Labor Committee to decide what the Federal
Government's doing that it could be doing better. This is a budget
that's willing to take that kind of responsibility. This is a budget, a
budget that's being presented by Mr. Ryan, that's willing to look at
the things that otherwise will overwhelm us in the future.
The mandatory spending in the Federal Government is going to be
overwhelming if it is not dealt with. This budget deals with it. I had
people yesterday, reporters, asking, well, how could you slow the
growth of these mandatory programs from 5.2 percent to 3.8 percent?
That would be $400 billion over 5 years.

{time} 1545

Now, the key is slow the growth. The other key is they would still
grow by 3.8 percent. And the final key is we're going to have to look
at these programs and not just think about them in terms of whether we
care based on how much money we spend, but whether we care based on the
service we provide.
And we can look at these programs, as this budget anticipates we
will, in a way that makes us look at health care so that people have
more rights to have choices in health care, so they have more rights to
their information in health care. We can look at health care. We can
look at Social Security. We can look at things that provide a better
service in a better way for taxpayers and recipients.
Just simply not exceeding inflation as our goal doesn't mean we're
going to provide worse service. It means we're going to really look at
these programs seriously. This budget has the courage to do that. I
rise in support of it and hope that my colleagues will join me.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, this week, the House has in front of it two well-
thought-out but starkly different visions of where to take the country.
We have put forward a budget that is true to our principles. We believe
that you grow the economy and create opportunity for people by stopping
the practice of running the government on borrowed money, by investing
in the education, health care, and development of our people, and by
expanding opportunities for economic development both here and around
the world.
The minority, true to its principles, has introduced a budget which
follows its strategy. I think this is a sincere and well-thought-out
budget whose principles are just wrong. And if anything, I think that
this budget is nostalgic because it does remind us of the 6 years in
which the minority had the majority in both the House and the Senate
and the White House. And it follows a tried and true, but failed,
strategy, which is to say that you reduce taxes by more than you cut
spending, and you borrow the difference.
Now, if I add this up correctly, in reading the minority's budget, it
calls for spending cuts in the area of $800 billion over 5 years.
Perhaps there's a different interpretation, but it would seem to me
that there is entitlement spending reduction there and also
discretionary. And it calls for reductions in revenue over a 5-year
period in the vicinity of $1.2 trillion. So it would appear to me that
there is about a one-third or $400 billion difference between the
reduction in revenues that is called for and the reduction in spending
that is called for. That is, if nothing else, traditional to the
practice of borrowing money to run the government.
Second, I have a concern about the specificity of the spending cuts
that are put forward. Our friend from Missouri, the minority whip, just
talked about the instructions to cut spending in the Education and
Labor Committee's area. And our friend said that, as a former
university president, he would not first look to cut student loans as a
way to deal with the cuts that are required under the minority's
budget. Well, I would respectfully say to him, Mr. Chairman, through
you, that to my knowledge there is only two other places one could look
to find those cuts: The first would be in the pensions of Americans
through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, and the
second would be through the school nutrition program, through school
breakfasts or lunches.
So, one can say that you don't want to cut student loans, but if you
do, then you've got to turn either to the school lunch or breakfast
program, or the pensions of Americans.
We, frankly, disagree with that approach. We took a very different
approach on student loans, as the chairman said. What we did was to cut

student loan rates in half and expand opportunities for Pell Grants and
other scholarships, and we did so without borrowing money. What we did
was to go after what we felt were unjustifiably high subsidies for the
student loan banking industry. So, this example, I think, shows the
difference in philosophies.
In order to finance tax cuts which are skewed toward the wealthiest
in our country, the minority would borrow a substantial amount of money
on top of the debt it has already run up, and it would pay for it in
part by cutting either student loans, by raising interest

[[Page H1672]]

rates to students, or cutting school lunches and school breakfast
programs, or somehow getting money out of the Pension Guaranty
Corporation. We would not do that. What we did was to cut student loan
rates in half, increase Pell Grants and other scholarship
opportunities, and pay for it without borrowing money by reducing what
we view as a corporate welfare subsidy to the student loan banking
industry.
This is a very big difference. It's a legitimate difference. We think
it's why the gentleman's amendment should be rejected.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield myself 6
minutes, and I'm going address the House in the well.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to start off by thanking my
friends from New Jersey and South Carolina. They did put together a
credible budget that adds up. We did, too.
Budgets are about priorities; they're about values; they're about
what way you think the country should go on a fiscal ship. Let me walk
through our budget and how it's different.
Number one, my friend from New Jersey and the chairman himself said
that by calling our budget that makes today's tax policy a permanent
tax cut, I want to thank them for saying that. By keeping tax rates
where they are today, which is what we propose, a tax cut, then the
opposite of that is a tax increase. They have proven my point. Their
budget raises taxes.
Now, let me simply show you, Mr. Chairman. This red line is the
baseline that the Democrats have chosen to adopt for their budget. This
blue line is the baseline we've chosen on revenues to adopt for our
budget. The blue line says, make the child tax credit permanent, repeal
the marriage penalty forever, make the income tax rate not go up, keep
the death tax repealed, keep the lowered tax rate on capital gains and
dividends. What does the Democrat budget do? It raises taxes $683
billion on everybody, not just rich people.
What do we do on the alternative minimum tax? Here's what the
Democratic budget proposes to do: It proposes to patch it for a year by
swapping it out with another tax increase. Then, by 2009, about 30
million people are going to get hit by it; 2010, 31 million people. On
and on and on. We propose to make sure no new people get hit by the
alternative minimum tax, then we phase it out completely. That's point
two of what our budget achieves.
Point three, and I think you're going to hear this a lot, we cut,
cut, cut, cut, cut, cutting here, cutting there. You hear this sort of
legislative gobbledygook about function 920. Well, as we looked at the
Democratic budget, we really couldn't find any savings, but we did, we
found a sliver of savings in the budget. Where was that sliver of
savings kept? Function 920.
What matters in a budget resolution are two numbers, the
discretionary number, the 302(a) we call that, we do that, and the
direction to the committees, we do that. We do it just like the
Democrats did it. That's how we wrote our budget. But there's a
difference. You may not be able to see this. For those who are watching
on TV, you may have to zoom in. The CBO baseline is the red line. The
Republican substitute is the blue line. Not a huge gap of difference in
spending. We are simply saying let's not spend that money as fast, and
by controlling the growth and the increase in spending, we can make
sure we don't raise taxes on the American people. We can repeal the
alternative minimum tax. That's the difference in values between the
two of us.
Let me give it to you in a different way. What we Republicans are
proposing to do is, instead of spending $15.82 trillion over the next 5
years, let's instead spend $15.32 trillion over the next 5 years. Don't
spend 15.8, spend 15.3. What's the difference? We're not cutting the
child tax credit in half. We're not bringing back the marriage tax
penalty. We're not raising every single income tax payer's tax rates
across the board. We're not raising the tax on pensions and 401(k)s by
raising the tax on dividends and capital gains, and we're not going to
keep taxing people when they die. At the end of the day, though, what
are we doing for our children and our grandchildren? That's what we
should be talking about in budgeting.
Budgets are moral documents. There is a moral imperative before this
country, before this Congress, and that moral imperative is, what are
we doing for future generations? In just one program, in just one
program, the Medicare program, one of the most important programs in
the history of the Federal Government, the Democrats' budget proposes
to increase its debt by $11 trillion. The debt for Medicare right now
stands at $34 trillion; that's the unfunded liability. What are the
Democrats doing by doing nothing, by going 5 years with blinders on?
$45 trillion. That breaks down to $395,000 per household, each
household would owe to make Medicare whole.
What are we doing? We're reforming the program. We're making it work
better. We're giving it changes that are needed so that we can make it
sustainable, so we can save the program for the baby boomers.
We lower the Medicare debt and unfunded liability by $11 trillion to
23. The Democrats raise the debt to Medicare alone by $11 trillion; we
reduced it by $11 trillion. At the end of the day, it's about
priorities.
We also call for a 1-year moratorium on earmarks. We're simply
saying, let's just take a time-out from pork for a year in Congress.
What do we achieve with that? By not doing earmarks for 1 year and by
saving that money in this budget, we can make sure we don't raise taxes
on every household by $500 per child. We can make sure we don't return
to the days of taxing people when they're married. Just those two
things can be accomplished by saying ``no'' to earmarks for a year,
having a time-out, saying let's have Democrats and Republicans from
both parties from both the Senate and the House get together and figure
out how to clean up this system and, in the meantime, save the money.
So we don't tax people for having kids and we don't tax people for
being married.
At the end of the day, you're going to hear all this rhetoric about
cuts, about devastation, about how wrong it is and how immoral it is.
We're simply saying, instead of spending $15.8 trillion, spend $15.3
trillion. We're still increasing spending, but let's not increase it as
fast as Washington has been spending it so we can save that money, so
we can make sure we don't raise taxes on Americans. That's what our
budget does.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, this week, or just today, rather, it was
found out, we discovered and it was reported, that the United States is
running a $176 billion deficit in February alone. Earlier this week, we
also found out that the Iraqis have a surplus of over $50 billion.
We also know that the American taxpayers have paid for 20 Iraqi
hospitals to be refurbished and 80 health clinics to have been built
and 60 more planned. And the Republican budget, in the area of health
care, cuts $370 billion from Medicare and Medicaid.
The Iraqis, due to the American taxpayers, will get 6,700 schools
rehabbed. The Republican budget eliminates the Pell Grant increases
that Congress proposed this year.
We're also increasing our funding and training of the Iraqi teachers.
The Republicans plan to reduce the military retirement and health care
benefits by $1.3 billion. And while Iraq is running a surplus and not
spending their resources on improving their country, the entire deficit
over the entire period of time that the Republican budget has is a
little over $700 billion.
President Kennedy once said, ``To govern is to choose,'' and my
friends on the other side have made some choices. While the Iraqis run
a surplus, they've made sure that America runs a deficit. While Iraq
and American taxpayers are asked to make sure that we rebuild schools
and hospitals in Iraq, here in the United States their budget cuts
those very investments.
In fact, the Democratic budget turns this ship around of inheriting
$3.8 trillion in new debt that has accumulated over the last 6 years
and ensures that we invest in American schools, in American hospitals,
in American health clinics, and in American teachers. And it ensures,
also, that we have a middle class tax cut. So, it makes sure that,
while we are doing what we are supposed to do in Iraq, we don't do

[[Page H1673]]

it at the expense of what we need to do here at home. We have invested
in Iraq, and our budget ensures that we invest in America.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just
to simply say to my friend from Illinois, cutting military benefits?
Where did that one come from? Not true, not even anywhere in our
budget. You know what? Medicare goes up, spending goes up. Education?
Spending increases. I don't know where these cuts are coming from that
he's talking about, but that's not in our budget.
At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia, our assistant minority whip, Mr. Cantor.
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
First of all, let me respond to some of the assertions made by our
friend from Illinois. He tries to portray this as a choice, a budget
document that represents a choice between the Iraqi people and the
American people. I beg to differ with the gentleman.
This budget document is not a choice about that. This budget document
represents a choice about the future of where we're going in this
country. This represents a choice about whether we here in Washington
are actually going to do something for the American people.
You know, if you think about the American people right now when
they're watching us on TV, you know, I don't blame them when they look
at the TV in disgust and say, you know, they just don't get it up in
Washington.

{time} 1600

They believe, and they're right, that Washington is broken and we
have got to do something to fix it. Frankly, we have got to get the
Federal Government working for the people again. But that means we have
got to spend less.
The gentleman from Wisconsin talked about the fact that there is
absolutely no treatment, no curtailment of anything having to do with
the earmark question. Earmarks are just the tip of the iceberg as far
as our spending culture is here in Washington. Let's go ahead and take
the first step. Let's reform that process because we have got to spend
less.
Let's face it: gas prices, they're too high. The American public is
sick and tired of excuses coming out of Washington. But the way to fix
it is not to put more burden on the American family while they are
already facing the prospects of $4-a-gallon gas this summer. That's
just not what we do. People across this country are worried about their
health care. They're worried about their jobs. This stuff about we're
going to provide you with middle-class tax cuts, have you looked to see
what's in this document? This document will lead us to the largest tax
increase in American history.
The choice here is not between whether we are going to provide for
our national security and the people of America. The choice here is
whether we are going to trust in the people to control their own
destiny.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, we have to remind ourselves exactly where we are with
the policies that took place in 2001 and 2003 and what has happened to
our budget. You will see that we dug ourselves out of a ditch from 1993
to 2001, and it had a surplus. And overnight that surplus has
absolutely collapsed. And we need a chart because there is a lot of
partisanship on the floor. If you tried to describe this, people would
think you're being partisan because they can't believe that you could
do this to the budget.
In fact, in the 10 years after 2001, we had a projected surplus of
$5.5 trillion. After the policies of 2001 and 2003, it looks like we
are going to have a $3 trillion deficit, not a surplus, a swing of $8.8
trillion.
Now, a $5.5 trillion surplus. Everybody knows that the Social
Security program is in trouble. In 2001 we had a shortfall of $4
trillion in the Social Security program. If we had $4 trillion in the
bank in 2001, we could pay Social Security for 75 years without
reducing benefits. We had a surplus of $5.6 trillion, not just the $4
trillion we needed to solve all of the problems in Social Security.
When we started in 2001, one of the questions that Chairman Greenspan
had to answer was, what's going to happen when we pay off the national
debt? Because by 2013 we would have paid off the national debt and put
all the money back in the trust funds. Zero debt, zero interest on the
national debt. Now it looks like in 2013 we're going to have to pay
$300 billion a year in interest on the national debt because we messed
up the budget. And $300 billion at $30,000 each is enough to hire
everybody now drawing unemployment with money to spare with a $30,000-
a-year job. That's $30,000 a year for everybody drawing unemployment.
You've got money left over before you run out of people.
Now, we have heard that by cutting all these taxes, we increase
revenues. Well, let me just show you this chart that shows the income
tax revenues over the past years going back to 1960. The color code
says that green is a year in which you had a record revenue. Red is a
year in which you did not have a record revenue. You look back since
1960 through recessions, depressions, good times, bad times, high
taxes, low taxes. We had record revenues every year but two, and the
following year you had a record revenue. So we always get record
revenues. Whoops, excuse me. Until 2001 and 2003, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
consecutive years without record revenues. So we didn't get record
revenues.
And we hear that people are bragging about jobs that were created
during this time. Let's look at the chart, get rid of the arithmetic.
The worst job performance in this administration since Herbert Hoover.
You've got to go back to Herbert Hoover to find job performance any
worse that this.
So we've gotten into the ditch. We're trying to get out of the ditch.
The Democratic budget makes the responsible decisions to try to get us
out of the ditch. We've had tough decisions.
And other things like earmarks, we have heard this thing about
earmarks: just cut out the earmarks and we will save some money. Let's
have a word about how these earmarks work. If you have an appropriation
of $200 million and I have got a little earmark for $1 million for a
program in my district, that comes out of the $200 million. If I don't
get an earmark, $200 million. If I get an earmark, $200 million. Get
rid of the earmarks, and you're not saving the taxpayers any money.
What this Republican budget does is it has a fantasy of about $800
billion in unspecified cuts. We don't know where these cuts are coming
from. It might be health care. It might be student loans, school
lunches, food safety, airline inspections, homeland security, port
security grants, public safety. We've already tried to cut back on the
COPS program.
This budget makes no sense unless you actually name the cuts, because
the fact of matter is you're probably not going to cut student loans.
You're probably not going to cut the school nutrition program. You say
you're going to cut, and you don't do it. And so you've had the tax
cuts. You got us in the ditch. And then when the spending cuts come
around, nothing happens. So until they start naming what will be cut,
this entire budget proposal substitute makes no sense.
I would hope that we would adopt the Democratic budget. I would have
hoped that we had had the Congressional Black Caucus budget, but the
Democratic budget makes a responsible attempt to reduce the deficit, go
into surplus, and make the expenditures on the priorities that we
desperately need.
We should reject this substitute and adopt the underlying bill.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to
make three points.
The gentleman's revenue chart makes our point. After the dot-com
bubble, we went into recession and revenues went down. After the tax
cuts, and his own chart makes the point clear, revenues went up.
Point number two, this budget, the Democratic budgets, has the single
largest increase in the national debt in any given year in the history
of the country.
Point number three, Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman just acknowledged
more or less, their budget raises taxes. We don't believe we should be
raising taxes at a time when people are paying a lot just to live in a
time when we're about to go into recession.

[[Page H1674]]

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from South Carolina, the vice-ranking member of the Budget
Committee (Mr. Barrett).
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Republican substitute.
And there is a clear difference between the two proposals on the table.
The key to managing, and budgeting, is to set priorities. Everybody
knows that that has had a family or run a business. You have to do
this. You have to make tough choices, and you can't have everything you
want when you want it.
But the Democrats have refused to set priorities, Mr. Chairman. They
simply want to spend more on everything and everyone within the reach
of the Federal Government. And to pay for all this new spending, well,
they simply want to raise taxes, this time by $683 billion, the largest
tax increase in American history.
If you want me to bring it home in South Carolina terms so all my
folks in South Carolina can understand it, this is a $2,500 tax
increase for the average South Carolina home, $2,500.
The Republican substitute achieves a balance by 2012 without raising
taxes. Also, this substitute attempts to repeal another looming tax
increase by completely repealing the AMT, the alternative minimum tax,
by 2013.
Our country's on the verge of a financial crisis, Mr. Chairman. The
total unfunded entitlement liability, Medicare and Social Security,
this country faces is $53 trillion. Former Comptroller General David
Walker said, ``You are not going to tax your way out of this problem.
You are not going to grow your way out of this problem. You are not
going to do it by constraining spending. You are going to have to do it
by a combination of things, and the biggest thing you are going to have
to do is entitlement reform, Social Security and Medicare being the
greater challenge. And we need to start soon because time's working
against us. That $53 trillion number is going up between 2 and $3
trillion a year by doing nothing.''
The Republican substitute reduces the $53 trillion unfunded liability
by $11 trillion. It makes an attempt to secure the future existence and
benefits of major entitlement programs, especially Medicare and
Medicaid, which are currently on an unsustainable path to spending.
Mr. Chairman, therefore, I not only firmly support this Republican
substitute but insist on it so we don't raise taxes any higher on the
American citizens.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, we have heard about this average
tax cut. I just want to show a chart of what they mean when they talk
about ``average.''
This is a $20 billion tax cut that's in the Republican package. It's
involving personal exemption phaseout and the elimination of ceilings
on itemized deductions. This is $20 billion, which is an average $100
for every man, woman, and child. And here's how you distribute the
average for this tax cut: if you make over $1 million, you get $17,500.
If you make $200,000 to $1 million, you get about $650. If you make
$100,000 to $200,000, you get $11 out of this tax cut. And if you make
under $100,000, you get on average zero. This is what they call an
``average'' $100-a-person tax cut.
When they talk about the biggest tax cut and all this kind of stuff,
let's be clear. What is repealed or what we allow to expire are the
kinds of policies that got us into the ditch to begin with. We need to
let them expire, get back on the right track, balance the budget, and
address our priorities.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas, a senior member of the Budget Committee, (Mr.
Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the ranking member for yielding, and I
certainly thank him for his leadership and all he does to protect the
family budget from the Federal budget.
Mr. Chairman, today the American people are truly presented a tale of
two budgets. Look at the Democrat budget: a $683 billion tax increase,
the single largest tax increase in American history. And, Mr. Chairman,
it's about $3,000 out of every American family paycheck a year. This is
written in the law. This isn't something they are planning. This is
something written into law. And I hope, Mr. Chairman, that they'll
reflect upon how this impacts working families in their district
because I can assure you I hear from families in my district.
I heard from the Vance family in Maybank, Texas, in the Fifth
Congressional District. They write: ``Dear Jeb, both my wife and I are
cancer patients, and I can't for the life of me understand why anyone
would think this Nation could survive such a huge tax increase at this
time. As it stands right now, I would have to sell my house, lose my
small business, and go without health insurance'' to pay the Democrat
tax increase. The Republican budget: no tax increases.
Let's look at the spending side. No news here. The largest single
budget in American history. More government programs, more government
spending, more of the same. The Republican budget actually has spending
control, holds discretionary spending to 4.3 percent, and still funds
our Nation's priorities.
Let's look at the national debt. What did the Democrats bring us? The
single largest 1-year increase in the Federal debt. The Republican
budget balances the budget in 2012 without, I repeat, Mr. Chairman,
without tax increases.
Let's look at earmarks. The Democrat budget: status quo. They want to
continue the earmarks. While they are raising taxes on hardworking
American families $3,000 a year, just look at what they did last year.

{time} 1615

There was $100,000 for landscaping for the L.A. fashion district;
$300,000 to train people to work on Hollywood movie sets; $2 million,
$2 million so they could create a monument to one of their Members, all
while putting the single largest tax increase on American families. Now
let's think about entitlement spending: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social
Security. They're not going to be around for my 6-year-old daughter or
my 4-year-old son unless we reform these entitlements.
The Democrat budget? Stone cold silent. What does that mean? Listen
to our former Comptroller General: ``The rising cost of government
entitlements are a fiscal cancer that threatens catastrophic
consequences for our country and could bankrupt America.''
The Republican budget reforms these programs. It is a budget for the
next generation. Theirs is a budget for the next election. Two
completely different visions, Mr. Chairman. Theirs is a vision of more
government, less opportunity, and higher taxes. Ours is about greater
economic security and a brighter future for our children. We don't want
to be the first generation in America's history to leave the next
generation with a lower standard of living. And that's what they do by
remaining stone cold silent on the greatest fiscal challenge to our
Nation. We can have a brighter future for our children, but we must
enact the Republican budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the majority leader of
the House, Mr. Hoyer, the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. I'm always interested to listen to some of the
representations made on this floor. I have been here some time, as all
of you know.
Ronald Reagan said ``trust but verify.'' For 27 years, all but 8 of
those with Republican Presidents, I have heard representations from the
floor by Republicans about what their deficits were going to do.
For every one of those 27 years that Republicans were President of
the United States, every one without exception, we ran huge deficits.
And this year will be no different. The Republicans have had monopoly
on policy-making in this town for essentially 7 years. This past year,
we had some authority because the American people wanted change. But
clearly, the President of the United States would not agree with us,
and we had to do what the President would agree to so that,
essentially, without restraint, the Republicans have had, for the last
7 years, the authority to do whatever they wanted to do.
The first 8 years I was here, Ronald Reagan was President. He ran $1
trillion in deficits. Then George Bush became President, a little over
$1 trillion. This President, a little over $1.6

[[Page H1675]]

trillion. President Clinton was President for 8 years, only 8 years
that we have had the Presidency, and America ran a net surplus.
So when you hear the protestations of the distinguished ranking
member of the Budget Committee and the gentleman who just spoke from
Texas, listen to them, but verify. Look at the record of Republican
fiscal irresponsibility undiminished in the 27 years I have been here.
Mr. Ryan, for whom I have a great deal of respect, and I have very
substantial differences on how you get from here to there, is he
correct that we need to look at our entitlement system? He is
absolutely correct. As a matter of fact, as he knows, I went to the
Senate and testified on behalf of a resolution that does that. There is
a resolution here that does that, as well. We have to do that. There is
no alternative.
Have they done that over the last 7 years of this Presidency? They
did not. Did we do it in 1983 with Ronald Reagan as President, Tip
O'Neill as Speaker of the House? We did. And we made Social Security
secure for the next 60 years. But when we were running up those
deficits that Ronald Reagan said we were not going to run up, the
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid crisis that confronts us was
decades away.
Today, the gentleman from Wisconsin is correct. It is years away.
However, the solution is not to cut medical services for senior
citizens and to cut education for our college students. The solution is
not to put the car in reverse. The solution, as Ross Perot said, is to
lift up the hood and fix it. And that is what the Spratt budget is
doing. The Spratt budget is saying to all the Members of this House and
to this Congress, we must act responsibly. Responsibly is not only
acting fiscally responsibly, but also investing responsibly in the
future of our country.
I would urge my colleagues to reject this tired, tired, tired
shibboleth about ``the biggest tax increase in history.'' Frankly, the
biggest per capita real tax increase in my tenure was under Bob Dole
and Ronald Reagan in 1982. And then, of course, George Bush was
defeated, presumably because he tried to help balance the budget. And
in fact, George Bush made a significant contribution because it was the
George Bush agreement on pay-as-you-go, the 1997 Newt Gingrich-Bill
Clinton agreement on pay-as-you-go that got us those 4 years of surplus
of which I have spoken.
John Spratt was involved in the leadership of that effort. Tom Kahn
of the committee was involved in that effort. And as a result of that
effort, we brought surpluses, 4 years. Surprisingly, one of those years
was a real surplus. And when I say ``real surplus,'' notwithstanding
the Social Security income that we are counting to get to either
balance or surplus which is really not what we should be doing, I agree
with that, on either side of the aisle.
But ladies and gentlemen, John Spratt's budget meets the test of
verification. It meets the test of reality. It meets the test of saying
we need to pay for what we buy and not pass it along to our children
and grandchildren. The budget vote is one of the most important that we
make. Not because the American people really will look closely at the
budget or because they think it has great consequence in their lives.
It is very difficult to see the consequence of the budget because the
budget then needs to be carried out in appropriations, authorizations,
and policy.
But ladies and gentlemen of this House, we know that it speaks to
whether or not we have the courage of our appropriations. The gentleman
that spoke before me from Texas talked about earmarks. I am always
interested to hear Republicans talk about earmarks. They came to
Congress and quadrupled, quadrupled, four times, the number of
earmarks.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Will the gentleman yield for a friendly point
on that?
Mr. HOYER. I am always pleased to yield to a friendly point. Do I get
to make the judgment as to how friendly it is?
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. The gentleman is right. Earmarks proliferated
under Republican watch. You're right about that. Both parties are
guilty. That is why we should have a moratorium and clean the system
up.
Mr. HOYER. I am reclaiming my time.
The tears, the crocodile tears that flow from the eyes of the ranking
member of the Budget Committee about this awful thing that we called
``congressional investments.'' It is so sad that for 6 years they were
unable to discipline themselves. And by the way, last year, they were
unable to discipline themselves. And guess what? This year they wanted
a moratorium for 6 months.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Will the gentleman yield on that point? This
budget is a 1-year, for-the-rest-of-the-Congress moratorium.
Mr. HOYER. You have gone much longer than your caucus wanted to go. I
understand that. But the conference wanted to go for 6 months.
I thought it was such an interesting proposal because it meant ``we
will go just long enough until we really do appropriations and when it
really means something.'' Too often, ``hypocrisy, thy name is
ourselves.'' I say it on both sides of the aisle.
Now, I'm for, as everybody knows, congressional initiatives. But I am
for paying for them. When we quadrupled them, we borrowed for them from
the Chinese, from the Germans, and from the Saudis. As a matter of
fact, this President, as my friend knows, has borrowed more money from
foreign governments than all of the other Presidents combined. Trust
but verify.
Every year that I have been here, ranking members have risen, one of
whom is now the chairman of the OMB, and told me what a bright future
it would be if their budgets were adopted. Now, the problem is that
sometimes they can't get agreement between Senate Republicans and House
Republicans on what that beautiful budget ought to be. We passed a
budget last year. We lived within that budget last year. We need to do
so this year. And we are trying to pay for things. We had a stimulus we
didn't pay for. Some of us were concerned about that, but you can't
stimulate and depress at the same time.
So my colleagues in the House, Republicans and Democrats, vote for
our children and future generations today. Vote for the John Spratt
Democratic budget. Reject this budget that pretends it's going to bring
you balance but has never done so once, not once in the 27 years that I
have been here. Vote for the Spratt budget. It is good for our country.
It is good for our people. It is good for our future.
Let me first thank the chairman of the Budget Committee, John Spratt
of South Carolina, for all of his hard work, patience and intelligence
in producing this Democratic budget resolution--which is nothing less
than a blueprint of our values and priorities.
Let me also thank my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus and
Progressive Caucus for offering their important budget alternatives--
alternatives that reflect our shared commitment to the American people
and a stronger America.
Now, before I discuss what I believe to be the vastly superior and
realistic Democratic budget, let me briefly address the Republican
budget substitute that we are now debating.
I both like and respect the gentleman from Wisconsin, the ranking
member on the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan. He is a thoughtful, diligent
Member.
And, I believe that were it up to him, he might actually try to
implement the provisions in the Republican budget substitute.
But the problem, of course, is that he would be fighting a lonely,
losing, untenable battle.
This we know: many, many Republicans would not support the deep,
draconian cuts to domestic programs called for in their own budget.
The fact is, this Republican budget only reaches balance in 2012 by
slashing funding for mandatory programs by $412 billion.
This Republican budget would cut Medicare and safety-net programs;
cut Medicaid, thereby jeopardizing health care for more than 50 million
children, parents, seniors and disabled Americans; cut--and possibly
eliminate--the recently enacted increase in Pell Grants; and cut
funding for military retirement and health care.
Furthermore, the Republican budget implies very deep cuts in
discretionary programs, devastating public health, education, safety
net and infrastructure programs.
This Republican budget fails to reflect the values and priorities of
the American people.
In contrast, the Democratic budget continues to move our Nation in a
new direction and to clean up the fiscal train wreck caused by failed
Republican economic policies over the last 7 years.
Remember, in just 86 months, Republicans have turned projected budget
surpluses into

[[Page H1676]]

record deficits--including a projected $386 billion this year and
another $340 billion next year--and added more than $3 trillion to the
national debt, which today stands at $9 trillion.
Our Democratic budget restores fiscal responsibility, adhering to
pay-as-you-go budget rules and bringing the Federal budget back to
balance by 2012.
It rejects the drastic funding cuts in the Republican substitute and
the President's budget, which includes cuts to Medicare, Medicaid,
State and local law enforcement programs, and environmental protection.
It strengthens our economy, providing crucial funding for our
innovation agenda, efficient and renewable energy programs, education,
and infrastructure.
It provides tax relief for hard-working Americans, including a
reconciliation instruction that provides offsets for a new one-year
patch of the alternative minimum tax.
And, our Democratic budget makes America safer, providing for a
robust defense, boosting homeland security funding, and rejecting the
President's cuts to first responder programs.
This is a budget that we can be proud of. And, it stands in stark
contrast to the irresponsible fiscal policies of the current
administration and former Republican majorities in Congress.
I urge all of my colleagues:
Vote for fiscal responsibility, and a bright future for our children.
Vote for the budget that reflects our values--and meets the needs of
the American people.
Vote for this Democratic budget.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield myself 1
minute simply to praise the majority leader before he leaves because he
has been a man who has sincerely discussed and talked about the need to
reform entitlements most of his career. And we need to talk to each
other more often. I want to praise him for his leadership on
entitlements.
I also want to say that this budget proposes to borrow more in one
year from foreign governments than any has in history. Also, Mr.
Chairman, let's take a look at the 2003 taxes.
Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield on his last point?
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. I agree with him, and the reason for that, of course, is
while you cut revenues, you didn't cut spending when you were in
charge.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Reclaiming my time, my point is the Democrats'
budget, the Spratt budget, has the single largest increase in national
debt in any given year, which comes from largely foreign governments
these days.
My other point was I understand why my friends on the other side of
the aisle are so dismissive of these tax cuts in 2003. Only three
Democrats who are here today voted for them. All but three of them
voted against them. They voted against reducing the marriage tax
penalty. They voted against expanding the child tax credit. They voted
against lowering tax rates across the board. They voted against
lowering dividends and capital gains and repealing the death tax.
I simply would say that, as this chart shows you, even after all of
those tax cuts, look what happened. Receipts went up. Four straight
years of income tax receipts increased. Do you know why? People went to
work. They got jobs. They paid taxes. Economic growth, even at those
lower tax rates.
At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
Mr. HOYER. It is too late to ask you to yield, I take it, on the
employment issue.
Mr. PENCE. I thank the ranking member for yielding, and I thank him
for his extraordinary leadership on this budget. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of fiscal responsibility, and my conscience therefore
demands that I rise in support of the Republican budget.
Now, the American people deserve to know the truth. We have a $9.3
trillion national debt, but that is not the whole story. The American
people also deserve to know that we have some $53 trillion in unfunded
liability in Social Security and Medicare over the next 75 years.
Frankly, if this government were a business back in Indiana, it would
have to file bankruptcy.
Republicans are offering an alternative budget to deal with this
fiscal crisis at the national level based on spending restraint and
entitlement reform. It balances the budget without taxes and without
earmarks.
But the answer from the Democrat majority? Get this: The largest
budget in American history, $3.1 trillion. The largest 1-year increase
in the public debt in American history, some $646 billion. Higher taxes
and nothing to reform earmarks or the very entitlement spending that
threatens the economic vitality of our children and our grandchildren's
future.

{time} 1630

In 2006, the American people voted for change in Washington, D.C.,
but they weren't referring to what would be left in their pockets after
the Democrats took control. We must balance the Federal budget with
fiscal discipline and reform, not with more spending and more taxes. We
must reject the policies of the new liberal Democratic majority in
Congress and reject their budget.
I urge my colleagues to vote for fiscal discipline and reform, to end
earmarking as usual, and to stand for fundamental entitlement reform in
Washington, D.C. Vote for the budget priorities of the Republican
minority in Congress. They are, I believe with all my heart, the budget
priorities of the overwhelming majority of the American people.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I want to inquire of the time, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Capuano). Both sides currently have 10
minutes each.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
We have heard throughout this debate the charge repeatedly that we
are raising taxes by as much as any tax increase since the history of
time. The charge won't really bear itself out. But let me just turn to
third parties. Don't take it from me, let me turn to third parties who
have a tremendous interest in the Federal budget and in the deficit in
particular. None is more respected or more truly nonpartisan than the
Concord Coalition, and here is what the Concord Coalition says:
``Allowing some of the tax cuts to expire would not be the result of
Congress' raising taxes. It would be the result of sunsets that were
included when those tax cuts were originally enacted to avoid the level
of fiscal scrutiny that PAYGO is designed to ensure.''
Now, I have a chart here which is a replica of our famous eye chart
to test your visual acuity. I am not sure whether you can see it, but
the bottom line is instructive. We will reach surplus, starting from a
CBO baseline, our budget will take us to surplus by the year 2012. That
surplus will continue throughout time, 2012, 2013. And if you total
that surplus up between 2012 and 2018, the total amount you get is $1.4
trillion.
Out of that $1.4 trillion in surpluses, a lot of money can be derived
if we so choose to offset tax cuts. And toward that end, we have
pledged ourselves as specifically and explicitly as we possibly can in
the budget resolution before you in commitment to the middle-income tax
relief. And anyone who has any doubt of this should come and read this
paragraph in our budget resolution itself, not in the report, it is in
the budget resolution itself, which says the following:
``It is the policy of this resolution to minimize the fiscal burdens
on middle-income families and children and grandchildren, to provide
immediate relief for tens of millions of middle-income families who
would otherwise be subject to the AMT, the alternative minimum tax,''
and, by the way, we provide a 1-year patch. Talk about tax cuts, we
have got a tax cut, and it is offset in our bill.
To extend the child tax credit we commit ourselves; to extend the
marriage penalty relief, we commit ourselves; to eliminate estate taxes
on all but a small fraction of estates, we are committed to that; to
extend the research and experimentation tax credit, we are committed to
that; to extend the deduction for State and local sales taxes; to
extend the deduction for small business expenses; to enact a tax credit
for schools.
This resolution assumes that the cost of enacting these policies is
offset by reforms within the Internal Revenue Code that promote a
fairer distribution of taxes across families and generations and
economic efficiency and higher rates of tax compliance. And we

[[Page H1677]]

put money in the bill for program integrity, for the IRS to bear down
and try to close the tax gap.
When you take what we can reap from doing that, it may not be as
great as it would seem since the tax gap is estimated to be $500
billion, when you add to that the $1.4 trillion in surpluses per our
projection of our budget, you have a lot to work with, not just for tax
relief, but for other things as well. Debt retirement, the retirement
of the baby boomers, all of these things will be demanding.
That is why we put this decision off until a later time. It is not
pressing now. It doesn't have to be committed to now. The tax cuts
don't expire until December 31, 2010. In the interim, nobody's taxes
are going up because of what is done here on the House floor today, and
nobody's taxes are going down, because it doesn't work that way.
Over time, we think that we have got a partial solution here. If we
can simply adhere to the budget that we are proposing in House
Concurrent Resolution 312, we believe that we can produce surpluses
along this bottom line, a substantial portion of which can be used to
offset tax cuts.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to who has the
right to close. There seems to be difficulties about that.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina has the right
to close.
Mr RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
You know, our friends on the other side of the aisle may not like and
may have problems with our budget, but the one thing they can't say is
that we are not doing what we say we are going to do. We have said that
we are not going to raise taxes, and it doesn't. We said we will
balance the budget in 5 years without raising taxes, and it in fact
does that. We have said that entitlements are a big problem and that
they will swamp this budget and the next generation with debt if we
don't deal with them, and this budget begins to deal with it. They may
not like that, but we are doing what we say.
And there is an old saying that says ``do what I say, not what I
do.'' That is what somebody who intends to have their actions be
different than their words says, ``do what I say, not what I do.''
Let's take a look at this Democratic budget, which I would argue is
the ``listen to what I say, don't watch what I do budget.'' We have
heard over the last year how PAYGO and all these other things were
going to result in and lead towards a balanced budget and that is where
they wanted to go. But yet this budget nearly doubles, actually more
than doubles, the deficit from the last budget passed under Republican
rule.
Our friends on the other side say that they want to eliminate the
alternative minimum tax, at least they say for whatever they define as
``middle-class taxpayers.'' But yet in this budget, this budget counts
on and continues the revenues from the alternative minimum tax at its
current rate or higher for the entire 5 years of the budget.
Our Democratic friends have always talked about how they want a tax
cut for the middle class. But yet as has been mentioned, this budget
counts on all of the money, all of the tax increases that have been
described. It counts on eliminating the marriage penalty credit and the
child care credit; it counts on raising the tax rates all the way from
the 10 percent rate to 35 percent, raising them all.
They talk about health care, that they want to cover everyone with
health care, universal health care and all of that. Is any of that in
this budget? No. There are no changes to anything like that in the
budget. They were offered the opportunity to put that in the Budget
Committee and they didn't do it.
They talk a lot about the death tax, that the death tax is strangling
farmers and small businesses. And it is. And what does this budget do?
It takes the death tax back up to the rates it was 10 years ago. It
increases the death tax over where it is now.
Then there is the big issue of entitlement reform. All of the
analyses, liberal, conservative, in the middle, everyone agrees if we
don't reform Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid, they will bankrupt
this country. What do they do to reform those in the next 5 years in
this budget? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Yes, my friends, Mr. Chairman, this is the ``listen to what I say,
but don't pay attention to what I do'' budget. It is like the Wizard of
Oz. Watch the smoke in the front, but don't pay attention to what the
man behind the curtain is doing. This budget, if you look at it, is
what the man behind the curtain is doing and really wants to do, but it
is not what is right or what is good for America or for taxpayers.
Mr SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
May I begin by thanking the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr.
Spratt, the chairman of the Budget Committee, for his masterly work in
bringing this budget before us. It is fiscally sound. It is a
responsible blueprint to build our economy, moving us forward and
strengthening our national security. The Democratic budget, which is
the budget for our country, puts the future first. It is about future
generations, and it moves us to surplus by 2012.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the fiscal soundness of this budget.
While being fiscally sound, the budget is also a plan again to get
our country moving. It is a budget for the future by putting family
budgets first, helping make affordable everything from energy to
groceries to college education, helping families avoid foreclosures,
and lowering, lowering, taxes. It provides for us to have middle-income
tax cuts. This is about America's families and their economic security.
It invests in the future by investing in renewable energy to make
America more energy independent and secure and to create green jobs. It
is a blueprint for a green revolution in our country.
It creates a new generation of innovators by investing in math,
science, engineering and technology, to keep good-paying jobs here in
America. In total, we provide $7.1 billion more than last year for
education and job training.
It rebuilds America's crumbling infrastructure, which again is an
engine of job creation, and makes health care more affordable for
families and veterans. VA health care will receive a $3.6 billion
increase to care for the men and women who have defended America.
I read this list of provisions in the bill to show that this budget
is really a statement of our values. It shows to the American people
that we indeed care about them and the budget that we write is relevant
to their lives. These are priorities that leading economic experts have
said will put our Nation on solid economic footing.
Our budget is also a plan for a stronger America that begins to
restore military readiness and better protect Americans against
terrorism. Many of you know that the distinguished chairman of the
Budget Committee is also the second-highest ranking Democrat on the
Armed Services Committee, so he brings to this budget process a full
knowledge of our national security needs, a full commitment to our
military and their families, and dedication to our veterans which has
been unsurpassed.
In this bill in terms of national security, ours is a plan to make
Americans safer and stands in stark contrast to the President's
priorities in Iraq. That misguided war has badly strained our military,
distracted us from the fight against terrorism, and damaged our
reputation in the world. In fact, the funds committed to that war, some
say $3 trillion, huge amounts of money, not only are an opportunity
cost for investments here at home in our own education and
reconstruction and military readiness, but the deep debt that we are
incurring because of the war in Iraq is damaging to our economy. We
cannot continue to borrow to pay for the war in Iraq and not see it
have an impact on our economy, and that is in addition to the rising
cost of oil prices that are related to the war in Iraq as well.

[[Page H1678]]

We begin in our national security to reestablish America's strength
by rebuilding our military, investing in equipment and training that
our military requires, and making caring for our troops, veterans, and
military families a top priority.
Our plan stands in stark contrast to the President's priorities and
the Republican budget, which would undermine health care for seniors
and working families by cutting Medicare and Medicaid over half a
trillion dollars over the next 10 years and charge veterans and
military retirees more than $18 billion in new fees over 5 years. Our
budget does not do that. The Republican budget puts the burden of
additional fees on our veterans.
The Republican budget eliminates essential funding for State and
local law enforcement and cuts EPA grants that would help protect our
planet and our health.

{time} 1645

On inauguration day 2009, President Bush will move out of the White
House. But, unfortunately, his fiscal legacy will remain unless we can
reverse that.
The Bush administration turned a projected $5.6 trillion surplus, I
heard our distinguished majority leader talking about this earlier,
into a $3.2 trillion deficit. That is historic, that is a historic
fiscal turnaround of epic proportions, nearly a $10 trillion swing in
fiscal soundness. The President leaves a record of breathtaking fiscal
recklessness.
Budgets are more than just accounting documents. Budgets, our Federal
budget, I believe, should be a statement of our national values. What
we believe in our Nation should be reflected in the allocation of our
resources, in our budget.
With this budget, the New Direction Congress and under the leadership
of Chairman Spratt is saying that we value families and their economic
future, we will fight to insure their hard work is rewarded, and that
the American Dream is renewed.
With this statement of our values, we are saying that we do value our
valiant men and women in uniform. We will insist that they receive the
tools and training they need to perform their mission, and that when
they return home, they will come to high quality health care.
And we were saying in this statement that we value our children. We
will invest in their education, their health care, and their future,
and do this without leaving them a legacy of debt.
My colleagues, we must make clear that the American values are the
values of this House. We should have a statement of the values of the
American people in the budget that we put forth, and we do today, to
invest in our children's health and education and strengthening
families, to provide for the national security of our country by
rebuilding our military and respecting our responsibility to our
veterans, by investing in the future and innovation and new energy
technologies and the education that goes with it. We must make clear
that this is a budget plan for a stronger America, for stronger
families, for a stronger economy, and a stronger military.
I urge my colleagues to support with great pride the budget put forth
by Mr. Spratt in the Budget Committee this evening.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I will just take 30 seconds for
myself.
I would simply say our budget does not have the veterans fee
increases. That is in the President's budget. That is not in our
budget.
Also, our budget does not cut Medicare and Medicaid by a half a
trillion dollars. Under our budget, Medicare and Medicaid increases
every year, one year after the other. We simply think it should not
increase as fast as it is because we want to make it more solvent.
Third point, they say this is a new vision budget that they are
proposing. All they are really doing is bringing us a CBO baseline and
slapping another $280 billion on top of it. That's what their budget
is. The problem is that the CBO baseline requires the largest tax
increase in history. That's what we don't support.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the new Member from Georgia, Dr.
Broun.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the Speaker is absolutely right, but this is about
their values, not America's values. We hear it's about the children.
The Democrat Party's budget, the one that they have proposed, is going
to bankrupt our children. They are not going to live at a standard of
life as we live today because of their budget, if this is put into
place.
The Republican budget is about the children, because it will save
their future. Our budget is about the children's well-being. The
Democratic Party's budget is about their values, bigger government,
greater control of people's lives. They want to do that. They want to
take money away from hardworking American citizens and build a bigger
government, and they want to tax them to death, tax them into
bankruptcy.
But our budget doesn't do that. It actually helps to balance the
budget. It helps to have a future for our children. That's the
difference. Our budget is about the children. It's about families. It's
about businesses. It's about having a strong financial future for small
business. That's what our budget does. Their budget guarantees a bigger
future for government bureaucrats.
I encourage anyone in this House who is interested in, truly, our
children and furthering the best interests of America and the middle
class to vote for the Republican budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, may I just ask the chairman of
the Budget Committee, are you the last person? You are going to close
next, no more speakers on your side; is that right?
Mr. SPRATT. I reserve the right to close. I have no further speakers.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. All right. I will address the House from the
well for the remainder of my time.
Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have left?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 5 minutes.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
First of all, I would like to say thank you to a few people. I would
like to take this moment to recognize the hard work of the minority
staff of the Budget Committee.
I want to thank Austin Smythe, our new staff director; Chauncey Goss,
Pat Knudson, Charlene Crawford, Tim Flynn, John Gray, Jim Herz,
Charlotte Ivancic, Angela Kuck, Paul Restuccia, Jon Romito, Stephen
Sepp and Clete Willems; and our interns, Sigurd Neubauer, Dustin
Antonello, and Ryan Michaels.
I am very fortunate to have very bright, very talented, and very
dedicated coworkers on the Budget Committee. I also want to thank the
chairman for being a gentleman and for his staff for being professional
as well.
I have a problem with the budget the chairman has brought to the
floor. We have a different vision. It's good that we have these
choices. We owe the American people a choice. We owe them two different
visions to choose from in this country.
That's what's good about elections. Lately, the differences have been
muddled. I'm glad we are making them more clear. What do we want to do
with our budget?
We believe that we should do a few things. We should balance the
budget, number one, and we shouldn't raise taxes. We think that it's
really tough for people to afford just the cost of living today. You
are filling up your gas pump at the highest prices you have ever paid
before. You are paying health care costs the highest you have probably
ever paid before. Food prices are up $70 a month for the average family
these days.
The last thing the American taxpayer needs is a big tax increase, an
average of $3,000 per family per year. That's what the Democrat budget
has.
Now, the Democrats like to say they have this policy document in
their budget. On page 48, it's the policy that we don't want these
taxes to go up. Then they say, later on, but we are balancing the
budget.
The first 27 pages are ones that matter in this budget, the numbers.
They can't have it both ways. They can't look the American people in
the eye and say we are balancing the budget and we are not raising
taxes, because

[[Page H1679]]

the only way they balance the budget, you can bring out all these left-
of-center experts that tell you otherwise, but according to the
numbers, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the only way
they balance the budget is by enacting the largest tax increase in
American history.
So the question is, at this time of economic uncertainty, at this
time of job loss, at this time where we possibly could go into a
recession, at this time of high prices of living, can we afford the
Democrats' tax hike? I would like to know. I would like to get e-mails
and calls from people to know, can we afford this?
What is our vision? Our vision is to balance the budget without
raising taxes. The key thing is we have got to save money. We are not
even proposing to cut spending. We are saying instead of spending
$15.832 trillion over the next 5 years, let's spend $15.32 trillion
over the next 5 years. Instead of growing spending at 5.2 percent,
let's grow it at 3.8 percent.
In that, we are saying let's put a down payment for reform on our
children and grandchildren so we can make Medicare and Social Security
more solvent, so we can say to the seniors of this country we want
Social Security and Medicare to last for you and for our kids.
But we also say, this Congress is broken. Most people get that. We
don't call earmarks congressional initiatives or investments; it's
pork. If we just do away with the pork for 1 year, we can put a down
payment on making sure we don't have our taxes increased. For 1 year,
we can make sure we don't raise taxes on everybody who has children by
$500 per child. We can make sure we are not going to tax people simply
because they are married if Congress just says ``no'' for pork for a
year.
So what's the question? Do we want pork or paychecks? More money in
workers' paychecks or more pork up here in Washington?
I agree that earmarks are necessary and are a function of this branch
of government. It's out of control. It's broken. It needs to be fixed.
Let's stop them for a year, fix this problem so that it has the
integrity and the faith that the American people deserve. While we are
doing that, let's balance the budget without raising taxes. That is
what our budget does.
Yet you hear this same old thing in Washington every year. What they
always say is, if you are doing anything other than spending as much as
they want, you are cutting spending. If you are not throwing all this
money at new programs, you are cutting spending, you are hurting the
veterans, you are hurting children, you are hurting people, you are
doing this, you are doing that. We are simply saying we need to control
our spending in this town.
You see, Washington doesn't have a tax revenue problem. Plenty of
money is coming in. Washington has a spending problem. We have got to
get our handle on that spending.
By controlling that spending, by growing it at a slower pace, by
putting a down payment on reform, by making Medicare more solvent, we
can do those things while we balance the budget without raising taxes.
That's the choice. We can have their plan with the largest tax
increase in history, more and more and more spending, more earmarks,
more pork, less money in our paychecks, or we can have our plan:
control spending, balance the budget, keep more money in your
paychecks.
Because you know what? Paychecks aren't going as far as they used to.
They don't cover as much groceries, as many gas tanks. They don't cover
as much of health care bills as they used to. We believe it's the
people's money; they believe it's Washington's money. That's the basic
difference at the end of the day.
We believe people ought to keep more of their own money because it is
their money. They believe it's Washington money, and they want more of
it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, for purpose of closing, I yield myself the
balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, like Mr. Ryan, I want to express my heartfelt gratitude
to the staff on both sides: Tom Kahn, Sarah Abernathy, Ellen Balis,
Arthur Burris, Linda Bywaters, Barbara Chow, Marsha Douglass, Stephen
Elmore, Chuck Fant, Jason Freihage, Jose Guillen, Jennifer Hanson-
Kilbride, Dick Magee, Sheila McDowell, Diana Meredith, Gail Millar,
Morna Miller, Namrata Mujumdar, Kimberly Overbeek, Kitty Richards,
Diane Rogers, Scott Russell, Marcus Stephens, Naomi Stern, Lisa Venus,
Greg Waring, Andrea Weathers, and interns Les Braswell and Tina Shah.
We have had a fast track on which to bring this resolution out of
committee onto the floor to passage. Without their assistance, long
nights, weekends, you name it, we certainly could not have done it. We
certainly could not have done it without the presentation we put on the
last 2 days. To them, I am deeply indebted for all of their help, both
sides of the aisle, my staff in particular, which I think is one of the
best committee staffs of any committee on the Hill in either House.
If I had a chart of my choice, I would have a counterpart to Mr.
Ryan's chart, which said, can we afford the Democrats' tax? It would
say, can our children afford the Republicans' debt tax? Because the
legacy of this administration, 8 years, is nearly $5 trillion in
additional debt, a phenomenal increase in debt that will have to be
borne by our children.
When I say that our first objective in taking on this budget was to
move it to balance, that's not some economic goal. That's not some
green eyeshade objective. That's because I think we are morally wrong
in leaving this mountain of debt to our children and our grandchildren.

{time} 1700

If I had a chart, it would say just that, because I would assign the
blame, the primary blame, to our Republican colleagues for the last 7
years.
We have brought to this floor a budget resolution, the base bill on
which we will vote. After we vote on the Ryan amendment, we will vote
on the base bill. I would ask for a vote against the Ryan amendment and
for the base bill, H. Con. Res. 312, which is the Democratic-reported
budget resolution.
We set as our first objective balancing the budget within a
reasonably foreseeable period of time. The day we chose was 2012, and
we hit that day. In fact, by our calculations, using CBO numbers, we
will have a surplus that year under certain assumptions of $178
billion. That surplus will grow as time moves on; and by the year 2018,
we will have accumulated $1.4 billion in surpluses. Now, I know they
will be dissipated and used for other purposes, but I am suggesting
here and have been suggesting that is one of the ways that we will pay
for the tax cuts, particularly the middle-income tax cuts to which we
have explicitly committed ourselves. That is one way we will make
certain that they are cared for and extended.
Secondly, even though we are committed to balancing the budget, we
are also morally committed to doing other things that shouldn't be held
up or put aside while we try to bring our books in order, one of which
is the education of our children. The President's budget basically flat
funds education for the next 5 years.
I am proud to say that our budget provides $7.3 billion, $7.1 billion
more than the President requested in his budget for the education of
our children.
And watch out for education when they begin to, if you adopt the Ryan
resolution, when they begin to distribute these undistributed,
unallocated cuts, because education is right there in the bore sights.
Secondly, veterans health care. Of all of the promises government
makes, the promises we make to our veterans ought to be upheld. And
right now we have an increasing caseload. Therefore, we are proposing
$3.6 billion over and above current services in order to pay for the
additional case loads.
CHIP, children's health insurance. I am proud to claim a little
paternity there. I was involved in 1997 when we created the program in
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Now we are saying that we can balance
our budget and still balance our priorities by seeing that our
children, all of our children who don't have health insurance, can get
health insurance. We provide for that. We provide for that in this
budget resolution.
Finally, we provide for innovation, competitiveness, energy,
research, things that will keep our economy on a competitive edge. For
all of these reasons, we think we have brought to the

[[Page H1680]]

floor a good budget resolution which is worthy of the support of not
just the Democrats on this side, but Republicans as well. It moves us
toward balance, and it has balanced priorities. It is good for America
and good for our economy.
I, therefore, request a vote in favor of the Spratt resolution, H.
Con. Res. 312, which is the base bill and against the Ryan resolution
which, if it were adopted, and I don't think it will be, but were it to
be adopted, it would displace our bill. Vote for the base bill, H. Con.
Res. 312, and vote to do these things that are so important to our
economy, our country, our families, and our children. This is a good
bill and I commend it to you for your support today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 157,
noes 263, not voting 15, as follows:

[Roll No. 140]

AYES--157

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

NOES--263

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

NOT VOTING--15

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

{time} 1730

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Messrs. GUTIERREZ, SAXTON, Ms. LINDA
T. SANCHEZ of California, Messrs. HOYER, COHEN, FRELINGHUYSEN, FATTAH,
TURNER and Mrs. SCHMIDT changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. FLAKE, EHLERS, FRANKS of Arizona, SHULER and McINTYRE changed
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota: Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H. Con.
Res. 312 and congratulate Chairman Spratt for putting forward a budget
that reflects the values of American families.
Again this year, President Bush proposed a reckless, fiscally
irresponsible budget that would have neglected key investments and made
significant cuts to critical services while driving up an already
unsustainable deficit. Democrats reject Republican policies that have
led to record debt and a weakened economy and today offer a budget that
invests in families, makes America safer, strengthens our economy and
improves our global competitiveness.
This budget proposal recognizes that smart investments in our country
today will result in significant savings in the long run. H. Con. Res.
312 invests in renewable energy and ``green collar jobs''. Record gas
prices are straining family, business and government budgets. This
investment in the Midwest will reduce our dependence on oil, reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, and create new jobs in our communities.
While the President proposed to cut education, the Democrats budget
provides for a significant investment in our children by including $7.1
billion above the President's request. This funding will provide needed
increases for No Child Left Behind, Head Start and Special Education.
The underfunding of these programs under Republican leadership has led
to reduced opportunities for our students and increased taxes for
homeowners. The Democratic budget makes an important step in living up
to the federal government's promises on education funding. It also
provides funding for the America COMPETES Act, allowing for the
education of the teachers, scientists, engineers and mathematicians we
need to remain competitive in the global economy.
The Democratic budget invests in health care. It provides health care
for all children and makes significant investments in health research
and public health. Importantly, this budget rejects the draconian cuts
to Medicare and Medicaid proposed by the President. Democrats recognize
that access to health care includes access to quality health care
providers.
In contrast to claims made by my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle, this budget does not raise taxes on the middle class families.
It fact, it includes a 1-year fix for the Alternative Minimum Tax and
extends middle class tax cuts including the child tax

[[Page H1681]]

credit, the marriage penalty relief, and the deduction for state and
local sales taxes. It also calls for immediate action on the
foreclosure crisis and provides for an affordable housing trust fund to
help families find safe, stable housing and to begin to create wealth.
Democrats support investing in our communities. This budget
recognizes the declining status of our nation's infrastructure and
makes it a priority to invest in the necessary rebuild and expansion.
In Minnesota, because of the tragic bridge collapse last August, we are
all too aware of the need for upgrade and repair to our infrastructure.
In addition, families are spending too much time and too much money
commuting. This budget will allow for investment in transportation--
both to increase options and to improve safety.
I also commend the Congressional Black Caucus and the Progressive
Caucus for putting forward alternative budget proposals. I strongly
support the emphasis on diplomacy and investments in global health
proposed in these amendments.
Mr. Chairman, the Democratic budget reflects America's priorities and
will put this country back on track by reducing our debt and investing
in our future. I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 312.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, this budget is a commitment to restoring
fiscal responsibility while providing for programs that boost economic
growth, create new jobs, and provide tax relief to millions of middle-
class families.
When the President presented the last budget proposal of his
administration last month, he cemented his legacy of fiscal
irresponsibility. Since January 2001, a $5.6 trillion 10-year surplus
has been converted into record deficits and mounting debt.
The budget, which will outline Congressional spending for the next
fiscal year, rejects the President's original proposal of cutting
Medicare/Medicaid, key education programs, and the COPS law enforcement
agency grant programs.
In contrast to the Administration's budget proposal, this budget
passed by the House reaches a balance by FY 2012. It ensures that,
under the adopted pay-as-you-go principles, any new spending is offset
and does not add to the deficit.
With over 20 million middle-class American families facing the burden
of paying the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT, we have included fiscally
responsible legislation that will provide a one-year `patch' and
provide AMT relief to those families.
This is a budget that defends our Nation and provides for our
Nation's veterans and wounded heroes. It increases veterans funding for
FY 2009 by $3.6 billion above current levels and $38 billion over the
next 5 years. Our budget also allows the Department of Veterans Affairs
to treat 5.8 million patients in 2009 and rejects the $2.3 billion in
health care fee increases imposed by the President's budget proposal.
The budget also prioritizes resources to restore military readiness
that has been worn down by repeated deployments and more than 6 years
of war. As chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee of the House Armed
Services Committee, I am fully aware of the need to restore the
strength of our military and protect our country from future attacks.
Despite the President's insistence on not expanding children's health
insurance program, CHIP, this budget includes a reserve fund to provide
up to $50 billion for CHIP. The President's budget proposal also cuts
Medicaid by $94 billion over 10 years and a whopping $479 billion from
Medicare over the same period. That is unacceptable and Congress
rejects those cuts.
I urge all my colleagues to support this fiscally responsible budget
that properly funds our nation's priorities.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I support this budget
resolution, which will lay the foundation for the decisions about
spending and taxes that we must make this year.
Our first responsibility as Members of Congress is to provide for our
national defense and homeland security, in order to safeguard the lives
and liberties of the American people.
For that reason, and as a Member of the Armed Services Committee, I
am glad to be able to say that this budget meets that responsibility by
providing $537.8 billion for national defense, which is in line not
only with the amounts requested but also the recommendation of our
committee.
I also support the budget because it puts the needed priority on
moving to restore the capabilities so seriously eroded by repeated
deployments and more than 6 years of war. And, even more important, it
includes instructions to properly care for the men and women in uniform
by rejecting TRICARE fee increases, providing funding to continue
addressing problems such as those at Walter Reed Army Medical Center,
and calling for enhanced pay and benefits to improve the quality of
life of our troops and their families. It also calls for allocating
$4.9 billion more than in the current fiscal year for veterans' health
care.
But that is not the end of our responsibility. We also need to act
responsibly to change the policies that over the last seven years have
brought us deeper budget deficits and massive increases in the national
debt even as we make needed investments in our society here at home.
This budget meets that responsibility as well. It lays out a path
that can bring the budget back to balance. It includes an essential
aspect of fiscal responsibility by following the ``pay-as-you-go''
approach now embodied in our House rules, requiring that any
entitlement spending increases or revenue reductions be offset, so that
the bottom line of the budget is not worsened.
At the same time it allows for funding priority investments in
education, children's health care, veterans' health care, and
innovation but also accommodating tax relief for middle-income
Americans. It rejects President Bush's proposed cuts in Medicare,
Medicaid, and assistance to local law-enforcement agencies while
accommodating $50 billion over 5 years for the State Children's Health
Insurance Program (SCHIP). It also allows for substantially greater
appropriations that the president has requested for education, and
energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.
And it includes a deficit-neutral reserve fund to accommodate middle-
income tax cuts, such as extension of the child tax credit, marriage
penalty relief, extension of the 10 percent individual income tax
bracket, elimination of most estate taxes, extension of the research
and experimentation tax credit, extension of the deduction for state
and local sales taxes, and a tax credit for school construction bonds.
In addition, through a reconciliation instruction to the Ways and Means
Committee, it allows for action to protect more than 20 million middle-
income taxpayers from exposure to the alernative minimum tax, which was
never intended to apply to them.
As a member of the Committee on Science and Technology, I applaud the
fact that the budget will allow an additional $1.98 billion over the
amounts appropriated for this fiscal year for science, space, and
technology.
That amount will fully accommodate the commitments made in the
America COMPETES Act--a measure I was proud to cosponsor and champion
in the conference committee--for the National Science Foundation and
the Department of Energy Office of Science.
Further, the budget includes increased budget authority for energy
technology research programs such as those at the Advanced Research
Projects Agency for Energy, ARPA-E and the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, which include help for small manufacturers
and technology companies through the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership and Technology Innovation Program.
These programs have great potential to increase our economic growth
and to foster innovation. As the global marketplace becomes more
competitive, it is essential that we compete on the basis of improved
skills and greater productivity, rather than follow the destructive
path of trying to compete solely on cost with the half of the world's
workers who earn less than $2 a day.
That is the purpose of the America COMPETES Act, and why it is so
important that we provide adequate funding for it. And it also the
point of the resolution's provision saying the House should provide
sufficient funding so that our Nation may continue to be the world
leader in education, innovation, and economic growth and so we can stay
on a 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.
In addition, as a member of the Natural Resources, and as a
westerner, I also support the budget because it will allow for an
increase of more than $6 billion in the amounts available for
protection of our water and air and the sound management of our public
lands and other natural resources.
Mr. Chairman, it is said that to govern is to choose--and today's
debate demonstrates the truth of that adage because the House must
choose among four competing proposals for how the budget should be
shaped in the years ahead.
Before deciding to support the resolution approved by the Budget
Committee, I carefully reviewed the three competing alternatives, and
in each I found some things that I think have considerable merit. For
example, I liked the additional investments in education, job training,
and employment included in the alternative advanced by the
Congressional Black Caucus, as well as the provisions regarding
unemployment insurance, food stamps, and housing assistance highlighted
in the Progressive Caucus alternative. And the Republican alternative
includes procedures for a legislative line-item veto similar to
legislation (H.R.

[[Page H1682]]

595) I have introduced under the name of the Stimulating Leadership in
Limiting Expenditures (or ``SLICE'') Act and would place a moratorium
on spending earmarks pending review of the earmarking process by a
bipartisan panel--two ideas that I think could result in worthwhile
reforms.
But, on balance, I have concluded that the version now before us,
developed in the Budget Committee under the able leadership of its
distinguished Chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr Spratt,
is the best choice. It is a sound proposal that will enable our
government to meet its responsibilities, at home and abroad, in a way
that is fiscally sound and respectful of the need to provide tax relief
for middle-income Americans and promoting a sound economy.
I will vote for it and I urge its approval by the House.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of North Carolina's children
and our working families, I rise in support of this budget resolution
and I congratulate you, Chairman John Spratt for your visionary
leadership in crafting this important document.
With this budget resolution, the Democratic majority will succeed
where our Republican predecessors failed. To budget is to govern, and
this resolution will produce a balanced budget with balanced
priorities.
As the only former State schools chief serving in Congress, I am
particularly pleased about this measure's provisions for education and
innovation. Specifically, rather than continue the Republicans' record
of passing a crushing debt burden on to future generations, the Spratt
resolution contains tough budget discipline for a new direction for the
Federal budget. The Spratt resolution rejects the President's proposed
education cuts and instead provides greater investment in our Nation's
schools, including the school construction bonds Chairman Rangel and I
have been working on for nearly a decade and increased Impact Aid for
federally impacted local public schools. It provides $50 billion for
children's health insurance. And it protects millions of middle income
families from the onslaught of the alternative minimum tax.
As a Member of the Committee on Homeland Security, I am pleased that
after 7 years of this Administration failing to address fully some of
our most pressing security needs, the Chairman's mark provides the
necessary resources to meet critical threats to the Nation.
Specifically, the Chairman's mark places high priority on rejecting the
President's cuts to first responder support. This includes the State
Homeland Security Grant Program through which States may direct grants
to local law enforcement, firefighters, emergency medical services, and
other preparedness officials to address a wide array of public safety
needs. The Administration proposed cutting this proven security
initiative by $705 million, and the Spratt budget rejects that
misguided cut. The Chairman's mark also rejects these other mistaken
budget cuts: $463 million from firefighter assistance grants that give
local firefighters the tools they need to do their dangerous jobs
protecting the public; $173 million from Byrne Justice Assistance
Grants flexible funding for local criminal justice efforts; $599
million from the Community Congress Oriented Policing Services COPS
funds that help local communities hire, train and retain police
officers and to improve law enforcement technology. I strongly believe
the homeland security starts with hometown security, and I strongly
support the Chairman's mark as it provides essential services for local
first responders. Unbelievably, for the sixth year in a row, the
President's budget proposes to eliminate the State Criminal Alien
Assistance fund of $417 million which helps States cope with the costs
of incarcerating undocumented aliens who commit crimes. I am pleased
the Chairman's mark rejects this misguided budget cut.
I was disappointed to see the President's proposed budget contains
the failed Social Security privatization plan, and the leading
Republican Presidential candidate just this week embraced this risky
plan. When the President first proposed privatizing Social Security, I
toured the country to oppose this risky gamble with Social Security.
The American people have spoken loud and clear that they want their
Social Security benefits to be an ironclad guarantee instead of a risky
gamble like the Republicans continue to propose. The Bush/McCain plan
is a bad idea. I am pleased the Chairman's mark rejects this risky
Social Security privatization scheme.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I have become increasingly concerned about the
legacy of debt this Administration is passing on to future generations.
The $5.6 trillion projected surplus that the Administration inherited
when it took office has been transformed into a $3.2 trillion deficit.
More than 80 cents of every dollar of new debt since 2001 is owed to
foreign investors, including foreign governments. The high level of
indebtedness to foreign investors heightens the American economy's
exposure to potential instability or even from financial threat from
unfriendly foreign governments, and places additional burdens on our
children and grandchildren. It is a massively irresponsibly tax on
posterity.
There are many reasons to support this resolution, but in my brief
allotment of time, I want to say that I support this resolution on
behalf of my grandchildren and all the children of this country and
their families who deserve a budget that puts their needs first. That's
the definition of a budget that's truly balanced.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res.
312, the Budget Resolution for fiscal year 2009. This proposal fulfills
an important commitment that we have made to the American people by
investing in fiscally responsible tax relief to millions of households
and in programs that strengthen the economy, make America safer, and
help families struggling to make ends meet in an economic downturn.
On February 6, I expressed my strong concerns over the misguided
budget request that the President transmitted to Congress. I am very
pleased to see that the budget before us today restores many of the
important programs that the President proposed to cut, while achieving
balance by 2012. It is more vital than ever that we remain responsive
to the needs of the American people, while maintaining strong fiscal
stewardship to ensure our financial obligations are not passed along to
our children and grandchildren.
Any budgetary blueprint that we expect to bolster the economy must
also include an investment in education and job training programs that
will promote new employment and ensure our workforce can adapt to the
jobs of the future. Unfortunately, those programs were not priorities
for this Administration. Under the President's proposal, Rhode Island
would see $1.5 million less for after-school programs and a cut of
almost $6 million for career and technical education. In contrast, the
Democratic budget resolution would provide $7.1 billion more than the
President for vital education, job training, and social services
programs nationwide in 2009.
I am pleased that this resolution addresses the President's failure
to make higher education affordable for students with economic
challenges, especially in Rhode Island, where college tuition has risen
45 percent in 4 years. This measure also includes crucial funding for
the Democratic innovation agenda and the America COMPETES Act, which
will enhance our edge in math and science education and research. To
maintain our economic advantage in the coming years, our Nation must
invest more in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, STEM,
education.
Also critical to America's economic prosperity is a budget that
promotes fiscally responsible tax relief to millions of families
struggling to make ends meet. In particular, this measure includes a 1-
year patch to keep millions of hard-working, middle-class Americans
outside the ever-widening net of the alternative minimum tax, AMT, and
it is fully offset. In addition, the Democratic budget will extend the
R&D tax credit, which will spur economic growth, create new jobs, and
help struggling small businesses regain their competitive edge.

Community development and social services programs will play an
important role for businesses and families as we attempt to reclaim our
economic prosperity, and I am proud to support a budget that funds
these initiatives. This budget restores community and regional
development programs, like the Community Development Block Grant, CDBG,
program, which provides vital funding for economic and community
development in both urban and rural areas nationwide. The House
Democratic budget resolution also reverses cuts to the Low Income Home
Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, and the Weatherization Assistance
Program, which helps people actually reduce their energy consumption.
These programs are vital to places like Rhode Island where families are
struggling with astronomical heating costs.
This budget resolution also includes $1.2 billion more than the
President's budget for energy programs. As families face unprecedented
costs to heat their homes and put gas in their cars, it is imperative
that we fund efficient and renewable energy programs. H. Con. Res. 312
does this by encouraging the production of renewable energy
alternatives, increasing energy efficiency, investing in new energy and
vehicle technologies, and training workers for ``green collar'' jobs.
This resolution also encourages mass transit by increasing funding for
Amtrak. I am proud that Rhode Island has already started many of these
initiatives, but Democrats recognize that we need to support them on a
broad, nationwide basis.
Equally important during this challenging economic time is the
continued need for strong health care funding. The Democratic budget
measure rejects the President's proposed 10-year cut of over $500
billion to both Medicare and Medicaid, two vital safety net programs
serving our Nation's elderly, low-income, and disabled citizens. It
also provides

[[Page H1683]]

an increase over the President's proposed discretionary health care
budget to fund programs that emphasize support for disease-prevention,
food safety, and access to quality health care for underserved
populations. I am also very pleased to see that this budget will
accommodate up to a $50 billion increase to expand children's health
insurance to cover millions of uninsured children.
Health care also remains the highest priority for our Nation's
veterans and the brave men and women currently serving in our Armed
Forces. This resolution appropriately addresses veterans' needs by
rejecting the President's proposed new fees and increasing veterans
funding by $3.6 billion relative to the amount needed to keep pace with
inflation. This will provide increased resources for the VA to treat
5.8 million patients in 2009, including 333,275 Iraq and Afghanistan
war veterans. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the VA will play a
larger role in the coming years as more servicemembers return from
ongoing conflicts.
As the Chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emerging
Threats, Cybersecurity, Science and Technology, I am proud to support a
budget that properly invests in our homeland security. Unlike the
President's budget, this resolution provides robust funding for
programs important to State and local law enforcement in Rhode Island,
including the State Homeland Security Grant Program, which awarded
$34.8 million to Rhode Island from 2004 to 2007, and the Law
Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, LETPP, from which Rhode
Island received $11.5 million from 2004 to 2006. By passing the
Democratic budget, we can give local law enforcement officials in Rhode
Island the tools they need to continue to keep our citizens safe.
The Democratic budget resolution also makes America safer by
investing in our Nation's transportation systems, including highways
and waterways, providing sufficient funding as well as a reserve fund
to facilitate new infrastructure initiatives. This budget also meets
the President's funding level for the Department of Defense, but shifts
resources to high priorities such as nuclear nonproliferation programs,
which was a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. Finally, this
resolution responds to the current hardships faced by our
servicemembers by funding quality of life improvements for the troops
as well as their families.
In this time of uncertainty, the American people are relying on us as
decisionmakers to put forth a plan that will restore our economic
prosperity, strengthen our national security, provide relief where it
is needed, and promote fiscal discipline. Today, I am pleased to rise
in support of a Democratic proposal that will accomplish each one of
these goals. This budget resolution represents a new roadmap toward
achieving the true priorities of Americans, and I urge my colleagues to
join me in voting yes on this measure.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, let me take this means to congratulate
Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt, also a senior and well-respected
member of the House Armed Services Committee, for crafting a strong,
balanced budget for fiscal year 2009. I am pleased to support this bill
that would provide for a strong national defense, would put our country
on a path to budget surpluses in 2012, would promote tax relief for
middle-class American families, and would invest in programs that have
been priorities for those living in rural Missouri.
On defense, the House Budget Resolution would prioritize resources to
restore military readiness that has been worn down by repeated
deployments and more than 6 years of war. The resolution would reject
TRICARE fee increases, provide funding to continue addressing problems
such as those identified at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and would
call for enhanced pay and benefits to improve the quality of life of
our troops and their families.
On rural affairs, the House Budget Resolution would bolster commodity
support, agricultural research, and animal and plant inspection
programs. It would assume sufficient resources for the Farm Bill, which
provides Missouri farmers with a secure economic safety. It would also
set aside critical funds for rural development, for food and nutrition
programs, and for conservation.
Also important to Fourth District residents are commitments in the
House Budget Resolution to infrastructure improvements, to local police
and firefighters, to the health care needs of Missouri's senior
citizens and low-income children, to education, and to our cherished
veterans.
The resolution would provide immediate and long-term relief from the
alternative minimum tax and provide for additional middle-class tax
relief and enhanced economic equity through tax policies. And,
importantly, it would adhere to the ``pay-as-you-go'' rule adopted by
House Democrats early in 2007. That rule requires new entitlement
spending or revenue reductions to be offset so the budget remains in
balance.
On behalf of the rural Missourians I am privileged to represent, I am
pleased to support Chairman Spratt's work product.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. There being no further amendments, under the
rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs.
Tauscher) having assumed the chair, Mr. Capuano, 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, pursuant to House Resolution 1036, he reported the
concurrent resolution back to the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the concurrent resolution.
Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on adoption of
the concurrent resolution will be followed by a 5-minute vote on the
motion to suspend the rules on House Resolution 991.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 212,
nays 207, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 141]

YEAS--212

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

NAYS--207

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake

[[Page H1684]]

Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Sanchez, Loretta
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--12

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

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

{time} 1750

Mr. Shuler changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

____________________