[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 56 (Thursday, April 2, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H4415-H4431]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 305 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. 85.

                              {time}  1208


                     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. 85), with Mrs. Tauscher in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole House rose earlier, 60 
minutes of debate remained on the concurrent resolution.
  The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 30 minutes 
remaining and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) has 30 minutes 
remaining.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chair, we resume this morning. When we'd broken off 
last night, we'd had a lively but civil and spirited debate. There were 
some things said last night that were just so wildly off the mark that 
they bear just a minute of consideration to correct the Record.
  It was said repeatedly that this resolution was about the biggest tax 
increase in history. In fact, don't take it from me. Look at the CBO. 
After examining the President's budget, they said it will work out to 
be a net tax reduction of $1.7 trillion over a 10-year period of time.
  The size of the budget was mentioned several times in the debate. 
It's enormous, no question about it, but it's partly swollen by virtue 
of what has happened over the past year in the financial services 
industry, beginning

[[Page H4416]]

with the failure of Lehman Brothers, of other firms on Wall Street, and 
due to our intervention, which has cost us substantially and is 
factored into the budget that we are dealing with today.
  Our friends were blaming that crisis on us. In truth, we all share 
some responsibility for it, but it's one of the reasons we have a 
swollen number.
  Before we begin the debate proper, I would like to recognize for 1 
minute the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) because he was an 
active participant in the debate last night. This is just to connect it 
to where we left off.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chair, I think there are a couple of points that 
the Record should accurately reflect.
  Number 1: There is no energy tax in this budget. It's a statement 
that has been claimed again and again and again. It's not correct.
  Number 2: This budget reduces taxes for middle class Americans by a 
net $1.7 billion over time.
  Number 3: The budget resolution assumes that the Pomeroy estate tax 
plan will be adopted, meaning that individuals will get a $3.5 million 
exemption and that couples will get a $7 million exemption from the 
estate tax.
  Then the final point that, I think, can't be stated enough is: When 
our friends on the other side worry about doubling the national debt in 
5 years, it's a subject for which they speak with great authority, 
because that's exactly what they just did. Their plan doubled that debt 
over 5 years. So they do know what they're talking about when that 
happens.
  Mr. SPRATT. We now would like to return to the broad issue of fiscal 
responsibility. For the purposes of leading that debate, I would like 
to yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).
  Mr. BOYD. Madam Chair, I want to thank Chairman Spratt. He and his 
staff have provided great leadership over the last month or so on the 
development of this budget resolution, and he has had many difficult 
positions to reconcile. He has worked closely with myself and with my 
Blue Dog colleagues, since the new President came into office, to put 
this budget resolution in place.
  In March, Madam Chair, for the first time in 8 years, Congress had a 
President who sent us a budget blueprint that was honest and that laid 
out for the American people all of the expenditures and all of the 
projected revenues, projected expenditures, in an honest way so that 
the American people could see it.
  What do I mean by that?
  What I mean is, for the last 7 or 8 years and prior to the new 
administration coming in, when the President's budget came to Capitol 
Hill, it neglected to include massive spending obligations such as war-
cost funding, Alternative Minimum Tax fixes, the Medicare physician 
payment fixes--these are all items that the American people and the 
Congress knew that we would do--disaster relief, middle-class tax cuts, 
and other tax provisions like the estate tax, which needed to be fixed 
because of the convoluted mess that was put in place in 2001 under the 
Bush tax plan.

                              {time}  1215

  Therefore, the budget President Obama sent us is honest. But 
honestly, it left a lot of us with sticker shock when we saw it because 
I don't think many of us and many of the American people realized how 
bad the situation had gotten over the last 7 or 8 years. I think we as 
a group--and I speak for the group that I work with, the Blue Dogs--we 
had two options: We could say ``no'' or we could work constructively to 
place this country back on the right track to fiscal discipline and 
fiscal responsibility. We chose the latter path, and that is to work 
with Chairman Spratt to see if we couldn't get this country back on 
track.
  We inherited a mess. The numbers are bad. But we, working together, 
we can get back on the right track to start with an honest document, an 
honest budget, and this certainly provides that.
  Madam Chairman, I have several Members that would like to speak, and 
at this moment I am going to yield 2 minutes to a fellow Blue Dog from 
Louisiana, one of the leaders of the Blue Dogs, Representative 
Melancon.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman having the time may yield but not a specific 
block of time.
  Mr. MELANCON. Thank you for the allotment of time, Mr. Boyd.
  Let me start by saying that a budget resolution is not a binding 
document. It is a guideline, it is a principle, it is to give guidance 
to the Congress and to the administration. It has no taxes that are 
included in it. There are, in fact, spending cuts included in it.
  Working with Chairman Spratt, who has been diligent in trying to put 
together a good spending package, a good budget package, we, as the 
Blue Dogs, have consistently asked for help in trying to bring control 
over the spending that has occurred in this country over the last 8 
years that has given us the deficit we have.
  If you go and take a look at the last budget that President Bush put 
forward, add into that the offline budgets, the offline spending that 
he had, if you put them together then you'll find President Obama's 
budget in roughly the same numbers.
  We are not fooling the American public anymore. We are trying to say 
to the American public, This is what your government has been spending 
and you deserve to know that. And as a Blue Dog, what we're saying is 
we're here to work with people to try to make this government work for 
the American public and the taxpayers of this country.
  We have gone for too long with deceit and trying to trick the 
American public by thinking that they are not watching what was spent 
in the war, by not paying attention that the alternative minimum tax 
was funded out of budget, that we were just borrowing and spending, 
borrowing and spending. And if we keep this up, there will come a day 
when China will tell us when we can borrow and when we can spend, and I 
think I would rather have the dictate come from the American public 
rather than the country of China that holds our debt.
  Mr. BOYD. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for his work, and 
obviously, he has laid out what the problems are that exist before us. 
And one of the things that we wanted to do in this budget is make sure 
that we reincorporated the tools, the fiscal responsibility tools that 
were put in place in the 1990s by then-President Clinton, a Democratic-
controlled White House, and a Republican-controlled House and Senate 
working together to put in place tools that would discipline the 
Congress in the way it collected and spent this money. Those tools were 
the PAYGO principle. Pay as you go. If you are going to create a new 
program or a new spending program or new tax cut, you had to figure out 
where the money was going to come from to pay for it so it would be 
budget deficit neutral.
  Discretionary spending caps, a very important tool that I am sure 
that some on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Ryan and I, would 
certainly agree upon.
  So those tools were put in place in the 1990s but then allowed to 
expire in 2002 shortly after the Bush administration came into power in 
January of 2001.
  After those tools were allowed to expire, then you begin to see 
spending run out of control. And we had increases in all kinds of 
spending: defense spending, nondefense discretionary spending, 
mandatory--there were new mandatory programs created like the Medicare 
Prescription Drug Program without any accommodation for where that 
money would come from to pay for that.
  So that's the kind of lack of discipline, lack of enforcement tools 
and lack of fiscal management that existed in the first 8 years of this 
decade. No more.
  We have to discipline ourselves, and the Blue Dogs said we want PAYGO 
back in the statute. We want the tools that are needed to get us back 
on the fiscal track to get back to balance. We want them back in law. 
And Chairman Spratt has accommodated us, and he put statutory PAYGO 
into this budget resolution, assumes that it will be passed by the 
House and the Senate and signed into law; and President Obama has 
committed to work with us on that.
  So this has been a top priority for the Blue Dogs for years. We want 
to see programs like the Medicare Doctor Fix and tax relief and AMT and 
disaster relief, we want to see those benefit the American people. We 
want to also say to the American people, This is what your government 
is doing for you, and this is what it's going to cost you. I think it's 
time that we had that kind of straight talk for the American people, 
and this budget presumes that kind of straight talk.
  So, Madam Chairman, I am extremely proud of what Chairman Spratt has 
done to accommodate these provisions that the Blue Dogs have asked for.

[[Page H4417]]

  On a more specific note, some of the things that we wanted done is we 
wanted these new initiatives of the President, we wanted them to be 
deficit neutral. Health care reform is going to be a major undertaking 
of this United States Congress and the new President, but we think it's 
something that's important for us to do for the benefit of the American 
people. And Chairman Spratt has put in this budget resolution that we 
can do but it needs to be budget-deficit neutral. We don't have to go 
out and borrow the money some place to pay for that new program.
  Climate change, another provision, energy, the whole climate change 
energy debate that we're going to have this year, and some things have 
to be done there. We want those provisions to be budget-deficit 
neutral. And they will be per this budget resolution.
  There is always a debate about the amount of nondefense discretionary 
spending. Nondefense discretionary, you take the discretionary 
spending, you remove defense from it and then you have your other 
domestic discretionary nondefense spending and how much do you increase 
that or do you try to. Our objective was to try to get it as close to 
inflation with literally no increases until we get back on a good 
footing financially. And Chairman Spratt has accommodated that request. 
I mean, the number--the increase in that number is 1.9 percent above 
inflation. That is a very, very small number. And we know that the 
American people are going to have to sacrifice, and we are willing to 
get into that sacrifice with them.
  I see that we've just been joined, Madam Chairman, by the gentleman 
from Kansas, Mr. Moore, and if Mr. Moore would approach the microphone, 
I would love to yield him some time.
  Representative Moore from Kansas has been a leader in the Blue Dogs 
for a number of years now, and I would yield to him.
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Thank you.
  After years of irresponsible fiscal and economic policies, we're 
faced with a financial crisis that's affecting the lives of Americans 
all across our country. This administration in Congress and our Nation 
inherited from the previous administration a $5.8 trillion national 
debt which increased that much over the last 8 years. We're now in the 
worst recession since the Great Depression.
  But Congress and the administration are working to develop a 
realistic plan to put our country back on a fiscally responsible path 
while making targeted investments and health care and energy research 
that will reduce future costs and lay the foundation for future 
economic growth. This budget is not perfect, but it does take several 
steps, in my mind, that are critical for us to return to the 
sustainable fiscal path.
  The budget resolution for the first time makes a good-faith effort to 
provide us with a true accounting of our Nation's fiscal position and 
accounts for items that have been left out of the budget for years.
  Second, the budget goes further than the President's budget in 
cutting the deficit by two-thirds over the next 4 years. These deficits 
are still too high, and there is no question that difficult choices 
need to be made. But we're back on a sustainable fiscal recovery.
  And third, this budget gives us the best opportunity for 
reinstituting statutory PAYGO. This budget resolution makes sensible 
investments in several areas that are key to the long-term health of 
our Nation, including education, renewable energy technologies, and 
health care reform.
  I thank Chairman Spratt for his work on this budget resolution. I 
urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. BOYD. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BOYD. Madam Chairman, I would like to remind the American people 
that there are some--and my friends on the other side of the aisle--
there are some one-time costs accommodated for in this budget. And some 
may not think they are important, but I think they are certainly 
government responsibilities.
  And one of these is the one-time cost of the census, the 10-year 
census. That's coming up soon, and we have to accommodate that census 
in the spending bill. So I would remind the American people that that 
is being done and that is a nondefense discretionary spending item.
  There is also an item in here that relates to Farmers Home 
Administration defaults. Obviously, we are in a very unique time in 
this Nation's history in terms of home mortgage failures and 
foreclosures, and there are some extraordinary costs that are happening 
in the Farmers Home Administration as a result of these very difficult 
economic times we're in. So I would like to remind the American people 
that we have put some additional money in this budget to accommodate 
the associated costs with those foreclosures.
  Madam Chair, the average level of nondefense discretionary spending 
between 1969 and 2008 was 3.8 percent. This budget projects a better 
path on spending than there was under the previous President. I and my 
Blue Dog colleagues support controls on nondefense discretionary 
numbers as a way to get our country back on track, and we have made 
tremendous progress in this budget to control government spending and 
growth.
  Madam Chairman, to close out the few moments that I have left, I 
would like to call on my friend from Louisiana again, Mr. Melancon.
  Mr. MELANCON. Thank you, Representative Boyd.
  A budget is only as strong as those who are here to enforce it. The 
Blue Dogs have been committed to fiscal responsibility and 
accountability for over 15 years, and we will be here to make sure that 
the House follows this blueprint for putting our government and the 
economy on a fiscally sustainable path. We are here to work with all in 
this Congress for a budget, for a country, for a government that works 
for the people again.
  Mr. BOYD. I thank my friend, Mr. Melancon.
  And I would say as we close, Madam Chair, to the American people and 
to my chairman, Mr. Spratt, I want to thank him for the great work he's 
done, and to the ranking member on the Republican side, Mr. Ryan. He's 
a wonderfully smart man, and we reach out a hand to work with him as we 
bring the country out of these very difficult economic times that we 
have.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, I will yield myself 5 minutes at 
this time.
  Madam Chair, I just heard one of my colleagues say the cap-and-trade 
proposal is not in this budget. Let me show you the stalking horse 
that's in this budget. Page 30 on the chairman's mark, it says in their 
reserve fund on increasing energy independence, we can have legislation 
that provides for and limits reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
  Now, we just heard Mr. Blumenauer out on the floor a little while ago 
saying, ``Cap-and-trade. That's what cap-and-trade is. Our proposal to 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions is cap-and-trade.''

                              {time}  1230

  Now, it might not say cap-and-trade here, but you're saying we're 
going to achieve what cap-and-trade is.
  One more point. You reconcile the Energy and Commerce Committee. What 
does that mean for people who don't know what reconciliation means? It 
means they're telling the Energy and Commerce Committee you can do 
whatever you want within your jurisdiction, $1 billion of savings. So 
you can have a $1.3 trillion cap-and-trade tax increase, and then have 
a $1.2999 trillion spending program out of it, and you satisfy your 
reconciliation instructions.
  I heard somebody say, you know, the debt goes up under all these 
budgets. That is true. I've got news for everybody. The national debt 
is going to increase. It's going to go up under anybody's budget, under 
any conceivable scenario. You know why? The baby

[[Page H4418]]

boomers are retiring. We've got 40 million people who are going from 
paying taxes into the programs who are going to retire and collect 
money from these benefits. So the debt's going up, no two ways about 
that.
  The question is, what are we doing about it? Do we have a really bad 
fiscal situation right now? Have we inherited a mess? Yes. The question 
is, what are we doing to clean up this mess? Are we making it better or 
are we making it worse?
  I would suggest that the budget that is here before the floor makes 
it so much worse. We have a plan that we will talk about later that 
gets our debt and our borrowing under control. This is a budget that 
sends our budget deficit and debt out of control, doubling it in 5\1/2\ 
years, tripling it in a little over 10. More money going out the door 
in borrowing, raising the national debt under this Presidency than 
under all prior presidencies combined.
  So let's see if we're really being fiscally conservative here. Let's 
review the budget of our Federal agencies.
  The annual average increases in government agencies over the last 8 
years, under a Republican President, Democrat and Republican Congress: 
legislative branch got an annual increase of 6.1 percent; the 
judiciary, an annual increase of 5.9 percent; education, an annual 
increase of 10.2 percent; Health and Human Services, annual increase of 
7.7 percent; Justice, annual increase of 7.0 percent; Labor, annual 
increase of 9.1 percent; State Department, an annual increase of 11.9 
percent; Transportation Department, annual increase of 6.5 percent. 
Let's go to the executive office of the President. We had some problems 
there with Katrina, 87.3 percent annual increase. Total outlays of our 
government, from our government agencies over the last 8 years: an 
annual increase of 6.4 percent.
  So what's Congress doing this session? Are we being fiscally 
conservative? Are we being frugal? Are we watching taxpayer dollars? 
Look at the family budget. Do you think the family budget is going up 
an average of 6.4 percent a year? Inflation's not even 1 percent. Do 
you think State and local governments are going up that fast?
  Let's look at what we just passed a month ago. An increase in this 
year's budget from the stimulus, the Education Department, get this, an 
increase of 196 percent, and this budget says let's throw on top of 
that a 13 percent increase.
  HUD, an increase of 34 percent this year. What's going on top of that 
in this budget? Another 18 percent increase in their budget.
  Labor Department, an increase this year, 38 percent in their budget. 
What does this do? Another 5 percent on top.
  State Department, $600 million increase in stimulus. What are they 
saying in this budget? Let's increase the State Department by 41 
percent.
  The Environmental Protection Agency, good agency, they do smart, 
important things. In the stimulus bill this year, they got a 92 percent 
increase in their budget. What does this budget bill propose? Let's 
give them another 35 percent increase this year in their budget.
  Madam Chair, this is reckless. This is reckless spending. Name me a 
family in Janesville, Wisconsin, that's going to get a 92 percent 
increase in their family budget. Name me a local government in your 
communities that's going to get a 196 percent increase in their budget 
this year.
  We are spending like drunken sailors--wait, I apologize to the 
drunken sailors of America for that comment. This is reckless. This is 
why this budget doubles our national debt in five-and-a-half years and 
triples it in 10 years.
  Madam Chair, at this moment, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).
  Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for the time.
  You know, in the confusion and the smoke and mirrors of what 
frequently passes for floor debate, the budget every year actually 
offers us very clear contrasts between priorities and the vision and 
the direction for the Nation.
  America is at a historic crossroads. We have severe recession, record 
foreclosures, lack of credit, growing deficits, and high unemployment.
  This year alone, Congress has spent $787 billion on an economic 
stimulus and another $480 billion on what's called an omnibus. This 
does not take into account the TARP spending, the Federal reserve 
lending programs that currently expose over $5 trillion in government 
capital to financial institutions and companies.
  We are in the midst of an all-out economic downturn not experienced 
in generations, and yet, while families are cutting back from their own 
spending and reprioritizing their budgets, the Federal budget just 
keeps spending. Families and small businesses, and even local and State 
governments, have to make tough decisions, quite frankly decisions this 
Congress has been unwilling to make.
  This isn't a budget. It's an invoice. It's at best a $3.5 trillion 
IOU deliverable to every hardworking family across the country, 
courtesy of Washington, DC. You earn it; we'll spend it.
  The administration and the Congress had an opportunity to produce a 
responsible budget that would do more than throw borrowed money at old 
problems. Instead, we're debating a budget that proposes more spending, 
more taxing, more borrowing and no reforms.
  If the majority's budget is supposed to represent a new era of 
responsibility, I'd hate to see what this Congress considers to be 
irresponsible. Washington continues to ask hardworking families to make 
tough decisions on their own, but the double-speak coming out of our 
Nation's capital is quite the opposite.
  The Democratic budget we are reconsidering today will not end 
Washington's spending spree but further saddle future generations with 
irresponsible spending priorities of this Congress and this 
administration. It assumes a peak deficit using terms and numbers that 
are inconceivable.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. PUTNAM. I thank the gentleman.
  It is important that we adopt the Republican budget that offers no 
new taxes, lower spending, and lower deficits, and a lesser burden on 
future generations, who are going to be expected to carry America into 
the 21st century as a strong capitalistic and free society and not the 
Venezuelan model that we are creeping ever closer to each day.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Madam Chair, I'd like to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).
  Mr. McCOTTER. Madam Chairman, from the G-20 summit in England to 
factories in France to the streets of our Nation, the economic crisis 
is causing and exacerbating societal chaos.
  Now, the Democrats' $3.6 trillion budget, that spends too much, 
borrows too much, and taxes too much, will wreak the chaos of the 
financial institutions within our political institutions and, thereby, 
further the economic disorder within our midst.
  Thus, let us remember what working Americans already know: Big 
Government does not stop chaos. Big Government is chaos. And we cannot 
build a stable economy on government spending.
  I urge rejection of the Democrats' $3.6 trillion budget that spends 
too much, borrows too much, and taxes too much.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this moment, Madam Chair, I'd like to yield 
3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), the House 
Republican Conference chairman.
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The budget brought to the floor by the Democratic majority today 
spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much, and the American 
people know it.
  This Democrat budget will double the national debt in 5 years, triple 
it in 10; 2010 spending alone is $3 trillion, 25 percent of GDP. More 
than $1 trillion in tax increases in the majority's budget. The 2010 
deficit estimated at $1 trillion, and independent estimates suggest a 
deficit of nearly $1 trillion a year for the next 10 years.
  The numbers tell the tale. The Democratic majority is proposing the 
most fiscally irresponsible budget in American history. But this isn't 
just about the numbers. It's not about dollars and cents alone.

[[Page H4419]]

  It's about who we are as a country. It's about the American dream, 
and it's about our kids. It's about those small business owners and 
working families and family farmers that are dreading the idea of 
paying higher taxes during these hard times, higher marginal rates, 
higher national energy tax on every American household. And it's about 
our kids who may not even know or understand what they have to fear in 
the mountain range of debt that we are piling on.
  It reminds me of a time a few years back I went to the CVS, forgot my 
wallet. I was with my 10-year-old daughter, and I reached down and I 
grabbed her purse, and I took out her little kid's debit card to pay 
for my Coke. I felt so guilty about it. I still feel bad about it 
today. Truth is, that's exactly what we're doing here.
  Let's not do this to our kids. Let's not borrow from the next 
generation of Americans things that we ought to be dealing with in 
sacrifices and hard decisions today. Every American family, every 
American business is answering these challenging times by sitting down 
around tables, sitting down around desks, and with sacrifice and 
frugality, they're finding their way through these challenging days. 
Congress should do no different.
  Let's reject this Democrat budget. Let's reject runaway Federal 
spending of those who believe we can borrow and spend and bail our way 
back to a growing economy, and embrace fiscal discipline and reform and 
tax relief in the Republican alternative that will truly put our fiscal 
house in order and get this economy growing again.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, I would like to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin 
for his leadership on our alternative budget because, indeed, it is 
important that we bring forward a budget that is fiscally responsible 
because the Democrat budget does spend too much, tax too much, borrow 
too much, and it compromises hope and opportunity for future 
generations, and that is of such concern to me.
  It is something that should not be lost in this debate, that after 
232 years in this great Nation and 43 Presidents and the debt that was 
accrued there and for many of us, like me, that's too much. This budget 
is going to more than double that, and it is reckless.
  I do think it is irresponsible that my grandchildren, one who is 
10\1/2\ months old, one that will arrive in June, are going to be 
burdened with a $70,000 price tag because of the actions of this House. 
Indeed, I do see that as irresponsible, and it is something that angers 
me.
  It also angers me that section 303 of this bill, it does have an 
energy tax in there. You can call it anything you want to, but 
according to MIT, not according to Marsha, but according to MIT, $3,128 
per household. Now, that $8 a week tax rebate that you're going to see 
in your check certainly goes away when compared with $3,128.
  And Madam Chairman, a previous speaker said we've inherited a mess, 
the numbers are bad, these deficits are going to continue. You know 
what, they must have liked the deficits so much that they're going to 
double and triple them, because that is exactly what they're doing with 
these actions. Those deficits and that debt should be coming down, but 
these actions are going to see it double. They're going to triple it. 
So you must have liked it an awful lot because you're certainly dishing 
out more of it in the actions you're taking.
  Someone else said this budget is just a guideline. You know what, 
Madam Chairman, isn't it interesting, if you don't spend everything 
that's in that guideline, all of the sudden the bureaucracy yells, 
well, look what, they cut us. Let's act responsibly.
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chairman, for a rejoinder, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chair, I want to ask my friend from Tennessee who 
just spoke, if she's still here, that when she makes reference to MIT 
analysis about the so-called cap-and-trade, first of all, as my friend 
from Wisconsin knows very well, the way that we raise revenue in a 
budget resolution is to direct reconciliation instructions. And I 
frankly think his interpretation of the Energy and Commerce instruction 
is incorrect. It's for health care.
  But I want to go back to what our friend from Tennessee just said 
about the MIT study, and I will ask unanimous consent at the 
appropriate time to enter this letter into the Record, a letter dated 
April 1 from Professor John Reilly, I believe is his name, who is the 
author of that study. I will read what he says.

                              {time}  1245

  He said, ``It has come to my attention that an analysis we conducted 
examining proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has been 
misrepresented in recent press releases distributed by the National 
Republican Congressional Committee.
  ``The press release claims our report estimates an average cost per 
family of a carbon cap-and-trade program that would meet targets now 
being discussed in Congress to be over $3,000. But that is nearly 10 
times the correct estimate, which is approximately $340.''
  Is the gentlelady still on the floor? I would yield to my friend, the 
ranking member, to explain--is that the study on which you're relying?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I can't speak for her. Let me ask the 
gentleman this. It's my understanding that that MIT study comes up with 
these calculations based on the fact that people are getting rebates to 
offset the higher energy costs. I think that's right.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, I believe that's true. But I would 
like you to answer the fundamental question: Is that the study on which 
you're relying?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I can't answer the question because the 
gentlelady said it. But here's the interesting point. Since you just 
acknowledged that that study rests upon the fact of having rebates go 
back to taxpayers, then why is it that this budget you're bringing to 
the floor repeals the rebates? This budget says the Making Work Pay tax 
credit goes away.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ANDREWS. If I can just ask for 30 more seconds.
  Mr. SPRATT. I'm glad to yield 30 seconds. Maybe Mr. Ryan would yield 
some more time as well.
  Mr. ANDREWS. The budget doesn't repeal any rebate whatsoever. What it 
does is set up a process where, if the Congress wants to deal with cap-
and-trade, it will evaluate all the different ways the money could be a 
raised, the ways rebates could be paid, and whatnot.
  I'm just very troubled that the minority continues to rely, 
apparently, on a study that the author claims is just being blatantly 
misrepresented.
  Mr. SPRATT. Does the gentleman desire further time to rejoin?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I will simply say: Let's put the MIT study 
aside for a moment and look at the Congressional Budget Office. The 
Congressional Budget Office is saying it's going to hit families an 
average of $1,600 a year. That's still a lot. It's more than the Making 
Work Pay tax credit.
  But I think it's also fairly revealing that since the chairman's mark 
takes away the Making Work Pay tax credit, the only way to get it back 
is impose a cap-and-trade regime to get those revenues. Even the 
Congressional Budget Office says the tax increase on families buying 
energy will far exceed the amount of the Make Work Pay tax credit.
  No matter how you slice it, no matter how you dice it, people are 
going to get an energy tax increase if you pass that bill.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, this argument we've heard ad nauseam 
here that there's $3,100 per home rests on two arguments. The first is 
that there is an instruction to raise the revenue in the budget. Mr. 
Dreier admitted on the floor earlier that's not the case. Then, the 
$3,100 rests upon this MIT study--and the author of the study has now 
told us that's a misrepresentation.
  I think a lot of the other claims that the minority makes about the 
budget are equally invalid.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Might I ask for a unanimous consent agreement

[[Page H4420]]

then, just to make sure we're sure about this--to play it doubly safe--
I would like to ask unanimous consent to remove the Commerce Committee 
reconciliation instructions out of this bill to make sure that that 
doesn't occur.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I would object to that.
  The CHAIR. The Chair cannot entertain that request in the Committee 
of the Whole.
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of our caucus, the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I want to thank the gentleman from South 
Carolina, Madam Chair, and commend him for the outstanding job that he 
has done and, most notably, as we heard from the President the other 
day, the civility in which you and Mr. Ryan conducted the hearings.
  Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are honorable people. 
They put forward proposals in an honorable fashion. They have done so 
for several years. This President and this administration inherited a 
deep and cavernous hole--from which it will take great effort, but we 
will make a steady ascent out of--not without having to face the 
largest deficits in the history of this country that were thrust upon 
this new President and this new Congress.
  Yes, it was tried in the past to send more money, tax dollars back to 
the Nation's wealthiest 1 percent. Yes, they were lax in terms of 
oversight and review in what transpired on Wall Street that has brought 
this Nation the great difficulty that it is working through now.
  The answer isn't the way it's been done in the past. The answer is in 
the hope that this administration and, under the tireless work of Mr. 
Spratt, that we provide the American people--not the Nation's 
wealthiest 1 percent, not the barons on Wall Street--but the American 
people with an opportunity to invest in their health care, to invest in 
their energy systems.
  The other ``do nothing approach'' of wanting to continue to export 
$200 billion abroad annually to pay taxes to Russia and the OPEC 
nations and Venezuela is counterproductive.
  It doesn't help grow our economy here, it doesn't invest in the 
American people, it doesn't give them what they need in terms of health 
care and in education. And they are inextricably tied and linked to our 
future.
  In a knowledge-based society, what we need is the budget that has 
been put before us today--that brings values back and educates our 
people, puts them back to work and gives them energy that will allow us 
to be independent from our foreign competitors.
  Mr. SPRATT. Could I inquire of the Chair how much time is left on 
both sides?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina has 7\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 17 minutes remaining.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, I will yield myself 2 minutes. 
The only thing that's on the ascent in this budget is the national 
debt, the budgets of our government agencies, the tax burden on the 
American people, the deficits. Because after you lower the deficit a 
little bit, it goes right back up.
  You know what is ascending in this budget is the fact that the 
national debt goes to double of what it is today in 5\1/2\, triples in 
10\1/2\ years. That's what's on the ascent.
  Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman who just spoke. We're good 
friends. And he is an honorable man. We just have honorable 
disagreements. The chairman and I have a lot of respect for one 
another. We're friends. We have honest disagreements. I wish we would 
have more debate about this because we are really, truly debating the 
fiscal future of this Nation right here.
  I asked for this unanimous consent to have what we call 
``reconciliation'' taken out of the bill. What that means is they are 
setting up a procedural device so that they can bring through 
nationalizing our health care system, a brand new energy tax on top of 
all our energy, the largest tax increase in American history, the 
biggest debt increase ever.
  They can bring this thing through here in just a few hours of debate 
in the people's House, no more than 20 hours of debate in the other 
Chamber, with no amendments. They can get this agenda passed so fast 
with this procedural stunt that the American people won't know what hit 
them.
  I just have to ask a question. You know, should we be giving any 
government agency a 200 percent increase in their budget this year? The 
Education Department is great. It's education. Six cents on the dollar 
on education spending which, by the way, comes from the Federal 
Government. All the rest is State and local government.
  Name me a family in America that just got a 196 percent increase in 
their family budget. We just gave that to the Department of Education. 
This budget says: Let's give them another 13 percent increase.
  In February, we passed a bill giving the Environmental Protection 
Agency a 92 percent increase in their budget this year. This bill says 
that wasn't enough.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  This bill says that wasn't enough. Let's give them another 35 
percent. The problem is this: We're chasing ever-higher spending with 
ever-higher taxes, and the taxes never catch up with the spending. So 
the debt we're increasing is the highest we've ever seen. It is just so 
reckless, so irresponsible.
  Madam Chair, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from 
Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).
  Ms. JENKINS. Before ever serving in elected office, I spent nearly 20 
years practicing public accounting--helping individuals and businesses 
balance their budgets. Balancing budgets is my business, and I'm 
certain of one thing--this budget spends too much, taxes too much, and 
borrows too much.
  I recently asked my constituents in Kansas how this budget will 
impact them. I heard stories from small business owners who are afraid 
that higher taxes will force them to close their doors and lay off 
employees, as well as from middle-class families scrimping to pay their 
bills and just save a little each month.
  One family wrote this: ``We are not asking for money from the 
government--just that they carefully take care of the taxes we pay. We 
consider paying taxes our responsibility as American citizens. But we 
also need to be able to have enough to live on.''
  Gimmicks don't hide the fact that this budget will triple the Federal 
debt in 10 years, bringing it to $17.3 trillion by 2019, and will 
increase the tax burden on working families across the Nation to allow 
for massive new spending plans to grow government.
  My constituents in Kansas sent me to Washington to protect their 
hard-earned paychecks. It's very disappointing that this budget falls 
so short of the fiscal discipline rhetoric that we have heard so much 
about lately.
  The House should reject this budget resolution and adopt a 
responsible plan to curb spending, create jobs, and control debt. Our 
children's future depend on it.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the vice 
ranking member of the House Budget Committee, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. As I listened 
closely to my friends on the other side of the aisle, there's a couple 
of themes that continue to reoccur. One theme is: It's not our fault. 
This mess was inherited. We sympathize with President Obama. He 
inherited a mess.
  Well, Madam Chairman, he did inherit a mess--but he inherited a mess 
from a Democratic-controlled Congress.
  In 2007 the deficit stood at $161 billion. Now, this year, for 2009, 
it's going to be $1.8 trillion--a tenfold increase under the Democratic 
watch in just 2 years. They inherited their own mess.
  In December of 2006, unemployment stood at 4.4 percent. Now, 8.1 
percent. Up 84 percent. On January 3, 2007, the Dow stood at 12,400. 
Most recently, it is now down 40 percent. The economic calamity 
happened on their watch.
  Now, Madam Chair, I don't blame them for everything, but I don't 
understand how they accept responsibility for nothing. Absolutely 
nothing.
  Madam Chair, what is so ironic, and it would be laughable if it 
wasn't so sad, is we have had Democratic leaders

[[Page H4421]]

come to the floor on previous budgets to decry the size of the national 
debt, to decry the size of the deficit.
  When the deficit was less than $400 billion, and falling--still too 
great a number--the majority leader of the House, then minority leader, 
Mr. Hoyer, the gentleman from Maryland, said this was equivalent to 
fiscal child abuse. Fiscal child abuse. And now we have a deficit of 
four and five times that--and stone-cold silence from the other side.
  Madam Chair, reckless doesn't do justice to this budget. This is a 
radical budget. Radical. Never in the history of America have so few 
voted so fast to put so many in debt. More debt will be run up on this 
Democratic budget--this radical budget--in 10 years than has been run 
up in the entire history of our Republic. A sea of red ink for 
generations to come.

                              {time}  1300

  Now, part of that generation to come is my 7-year-old daughter and my 
5-year-old son. I know the people on the other side of the aisle, they 
love their children, they love their grandchildren. But it is clear 
they don't love my children; because if they did, this radical budget 
would not be coming to the floor to put this level of debt which will 
bankrupt our Nation and crush the next generation, it wouldn't be on 
the floor. It would not be on the floor.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I give the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. HENSARLING. And one other point I would like to make. I don't see 
the gentleman from New Jersey on the floor now. But in speaking about 
the national energy tax, it reminds me of that old joke, which I will 
not and cannot repeat on the floor but whose punch line is: Now we know 
what you are, now we are just haggling over price.
  The Congressional Budget Office says the national energy tax is going 
to cost the average American family at least $1,600. We know what you 
are: You are a national energy tax. Now we are just haggling over the 
cost that will be imposed on struggling, hard-working families in 
America imposed by the Democrats.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from California, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. 
Nunes.
  Mr. NUNES. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I had to come back down here because I heard folks on the other side 
of the aisle saying that there was no energy tax in here, and last 
night out here on the floor late in the evening we talked about cap-
and-trade.
  A lot of Americans don't know what cap-and-trade means, but cap-and-
trade is an energy tax. It is not a baseball cap, it has nothing to do 
with international trade. It is an energy tax. It is a tax on 
everything that you use.
  So I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to please 
explain to me where this $2 trillion comes from if it is not a tax. 
Does it come out of the sky? Do we print it at the Federal Reserve? Do 
we borrow it from the United Nations? But there is $2 trillion in this 
bill that has got to come from somewhere. So it is disguised as cap-
and-trade, but it is a flat-out energy tax, unless someone can explain 
to me what it may be.
  So what do we know about this budget? We know that it has a cap-and-
tax, energy tax, $2 trillion. We know that we are going to have the 
largest tax increase in American history. We know that at the end of 
President Obama's first term that he will have amassed more debt than 
every single President that this country has ever had. More debt. Those 
are the things that we know.
  So unless the majority can tell us what is going to happen, where 
this money is going to come from, I don't know what they are smoking 
but somebody's hallucinating, and we need to figure that out, Madam 
Chair.
  So I would urge a ``no'' vote on this budget. Let's go back, let's 
determine where these taxes are coming from, because this is absolutely 
reckless.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  (Mr. BUYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BUYER. I want to thank the gentleman for his hard work, and I 
thank you and your staff also for creating this alternative budget. It 
is a budget I believe that you can be very proud of.
  Madam Chair, this alternative budget for fiscal year 2010 would 
provide $106.4 billion for veterans health care and programs. This 
budget is $540 million above the administration's request.
  The Republican alternative also reduces spending, it brings our 
national debt under control, and creates 2.1 million jobs, actually, 
more than the Democrat plan, all while not raising taxes.
  This alternative budget also reflects the priorities of the House 
Committee on Veterans Affairs, the Republican views and estimates for 
FY 2010, which included ensuring a seamless transition from DOD to VA. 
It also provides for the innovative programs to help veterans gain job 
skills and good-paying jobs, and making sure the VA provides world-
class health care to veterans; and, ensuring that veterans disability 
compensation claims are adjudicated quickly and accurately. I believe 
all of these are issues for which both Republicans and Democrats would 
equally embrace.
  Madam Chair, while I am supportive of the increase that the 
President's budget proposed for veterans, the overall budget request, 
for which we are having to vote on here, is nothing more than the same 
old shell game that we have come to know here in Washington, D.C.
  President Obama had promised this open and transparent budget; 
however, this budget contains many of the same tax hikes and gimmicks 
that hide the real truth from the American people about the real fiscal 
situation.
  Earlier this year, it was rumored and later confirmed by the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Eric Shinseki, that the administration 
was planning a proposal to bill veterans' health insurance to pay for 
VA treatment of their service-connected injuries. I, like many of my 
fellow veterans, was outraged by this proposal. We strongly believe 
that the same military values help guide us in our military service, 
and define the principles and allow us to say unto the administration 
that you should not be billing veterans to pay for their disabilities. 
It is one of the solemn obligations of government.
  The budget views and estimates of the Republicans on the House 
Veterans' Affairs Committee took a very strong stand, while the 
Democrats' position was very muted. It wasn't until the veterans 
service organizations met with President Obama at the White House did 
this proposal then get out unto the American people. Only then did some 
of my Democrat leaders here in the House then, in order to get in front 
of that parade, said, ``Oh, yes, I am just as outraged.''
  I look at it like this: Character is defined at the moment of 
calling. What do you do at the moment of call? Are you muted, or do you 
stand up and take charge and take control? It didn't happen, and I was 
greatly disappointed.
  Thank you, for the time Mr. Ryan and I thank you and your staff for 
your hard work on this alternative budget. It is a budget of which we 
can be proud.
  Madam Chair, the Republican Alternative for Fiscal Year 2010 Budget 
Resolution would provide $106.4 billion for Veterans healthcare and 
programs. This budget is $540 million above the Administration's 
request.
  The Republican Alternative also reduces spending, brings our national 
debt under control, creates more than 2.1 million more jobs than the 
Democrat plan all while not raising taxes.
  The Republican budget alternative reflects the priorities of the 
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs Republican Views and Estimates for 
FY 2010 which include:
  ensuring a seamless transition from DoD to VA;
  providing innovative programs to help veterans gain job skills and 
good paying jobs;
  making sure VA provides world class health care to veterans; and
  ensuring the veterans disability compensation claims are adjudicated 
quickly and accurately.
  Madam Chair, while I am supportive of the increase that the 
President's budget proposes for veterans, the overall budget request is 
really nothing more than more of the same old Washington shell game. 
Instead of proposing an open and transparent budget, as President Obama 
and the Democrats promised, this budget contains many of the same tax 
hikes and gimmicks that hide the truth from the American people about 
our real fiscal situation.

[[Page H4422]]

  Earlier this year it was rumored, and later confirmed by Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs Eric Shineski, that the Administration was planning a 
proposal to bill veterans' health insurance to pay for VA treatment of 
their service connected injuries.
  I, like many of my fellow veterans, was outraged by this proposal and 
I strongly believe that the same military values that guided me and my 
fellow servicemembers should define how our government provides 
benefits and assistance to them now as veterans.
  The prospect of VA collecting from third-party insurers for care 
provided for service-connected conditions is contrary to these military 
values and our obligation as a grateful Nation.
  This proposal was soundly rejected by the Republican Members in our 
FY 2010 Views and Estimates and in the March 18th letter to the 
President by all members of the Republican House leadership and all of 
the Republican members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  It was only after the voice of reason was heard from Republicans and 
numerous veteran service organizations that President Obama dropped his 
proposal.
  However, by dropping his proposal the President left a $540 million 
hole in the VA budget. And, I am proud to say that the Republican 
Alternative budget includes $540 million to fill the gap.
  While I am happy that this crisis was averted and this outrageous 
proposal was rejected, the fact that President Obama would even 
consider such a proposal is worrisome to me and other veterans 
advocates.
  Madam Chair, the overall Democratic budget is not good for Americans, 
including veterans. The Democratic budget contains a $1.5 trillion tax 
hike. This includes tax hikes on veterans and their families, and 
veterans who own small businesses.
  It is unfortunate that Democrats continue to try to pass the largest 
tax hike in American history. This is the wrong message to send to our 
veterans and their families when our country is in a recession.
  Madam Chair, we are a nation at war, and we will win these wars. The 
best way to maintain morale of our servicemembers is to make tough 
decisions here that will engender their confidence in our capacity to 
preserve the vitality of this nation while they fight for its freedom.
  I believe that the Republican alternative helps do exactly that, 
while honoring the promises we have made our veterans and their 
families.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina has 7\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, a Vietnam veteran, a 
colonel in the Border Guard, Silvestre Reyes.
  Mr. REYES. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank him for his leadership of the committee and for the inclusive 
process that he has utilized to come up with this budget resolution.
  Madam Chair, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 85, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote for this budget because, at a time when Americans 
are looking for leadership, at a time when they are looking for this 
new administration to keep our country safe, this budget resolution 
provides the tools to do just that. It provides increased support for 
our national security, it increases the funding for the Department of 
Defense and for the veterans budget. It also funds above the 
administration's defense request.
  These additions help this country meet its military goals, it 
supports the efforts to reform the acquisition program, it supports the 
efforts to improve facilities, it supports and sets out important steps 
to help our country care for our wounded, our ill, and our injured 
servicemembers.
  The resolution matches the President's request for overseas 
operations. Having his separate request is important. It provides the 
transparency that has been missing in describing the real cost of the 
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  This funding is important as we sustain our efforts in Iraq with an 
eye towards responsibly reducing troop levels throughout the coming 2 
years. This funding is also important because it supports the 
administration's new Afghanistan strategy, and the intelligence 
community stands committed to supporting the new strategy using every 
means possible to attain success in Afghanistan.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. REYES. Our intelligence professionals stand ready to not only 
continue their support to the war fighter, but also to continue their 
support to the policymakers that are working on issues that affect not 
just our country but the entire world.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution. Americans are 
smart. They know who got us in this mess. They know what administration 
inherited a surplus and what administration inherited a mess. The 
record is clear. The dog they have sent out isn't hunting.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I assume the gentleman from South Carolina has 
the right to close. Is that correct, Madam Chair?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Does the gentleman from South Carolina have 
any other speakers?
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from New Hampshire 
(Ms. Shea-Porter).
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I come from the middle class. I was a military 
spouse, and my husband is now a veteran; my children and my husband all 
have a chronic disease, asthma; my mother is elderly; and, I pay 
college tuition for kids.
  I looked at this budget from this prism: Does it help the middle 
class, the military and military families and vets, and those families 
with medical problems, the elderly, and families with kids in school? 
The answer is a resounding ``yes.'' And that is why I support this 
budget that supports the middle class.
  Ninety-five percent of Americans will get a tax cut. This budget 
helps our military become better prepared and it supports military 
families. It increases VA funding by more that 11 percent in 2010. It 
will help reduce health care costs and help Americans get insurance 
coverage.
  Budgets are moral documents stating our Nation's priorities. We are 
finally investing in America and in our middle class, and I am 
delighted to support this budget.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I take it the chairman has no other speakers?
  Mr. SPRATT. I have one other speaker in addition possibly to myself. 
How much time is left?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina has 4 minutes remaining, 
and the gentleman from Wisconsin has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SPRATT. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I take it the gentleman is waiting for the 
Speaker to come.
  Madam Chair, there is a virtual conga line forming around the Capitol 
right now to come and get money. We are spending so much money these 
days. We have got to get this spending under control. It is out of 
control. And because the spending is out of control, the debt is going 
out of control.
  But I want to talk about something else in the closing minutes of the 
general debate here, and that is about the biggest problem in America 
today: Jobs. We don't have enough of them. In my hometown of 
Janesville, Wisconsin, they closed down the General Motors plant. It is 
about three-quarters of a mile from my house. Two of my neighbors had 
their jobs there. Gone. High unemployment everywhere.
  So the real question is, what are we doing to get jobs back in this 
economy, to get out of this deep recession, this the longest recession 
since 1945?
  I would say that it is important to focus on one fact. Small 
businesses are the engine of economic growth in this economy. Seventy 
percent of our jobs come from small businesses. That is who got us our 
prosperity, that is who is going to get us our prosperity back.
  And so what does this budget do for small businesses? Do you know 
what it says to small businesses? We are going to raise your taxes.
  You have got to remember, Madam Chair, that the people who pay those 
rates that are being increased, those tax rates that are being 
increased in this budget are small businesses. They file their income 
taxes as individuals.
  So we hear speaker after speaker after speaker saying, we are not 
doing these irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent, the 
rich.
  Look, Madam Chair, preying on people's emotions of fear and envy may 
be

[[Page H4423]]

a good political slogan, but it doesn't create jobs. Tapping into the 
legitimate anger and anxiety in America today is not leadership. 
Because what this does with these tax increases on small businesses is 
it demonizes those successful small businesses that are getting us our 
jobs, and it demoralizes those small business men and women in America 
who are trying to become successful. It tells them, you know what? If 
you work hard, if you achieve, if you take a risk, if you innovate, if 
you become an entrepreneur in this country, we are going to tax you, we 
are going to demonize you. You are one of the evil people.

                              {time}  1315

  That is not America. That is not what this country is all about. We 
believe we ought to help people become successful. We want to reward 
work. We want that entrepreneurial, innovative spirit in America to 
come alive again.
  The problem with this budget at the end of the day is it shuts off 
the wealth machine, the job creation machine of America. It makes it 
harder for those small business men and women to survive. The big 
reason why I voted against that stimulus package is because only 1 
percent of it was actually dedicated toward encouraging small 
businesses to keep and create jobs. The rest of it was spending or tax 
rebates. There is a big difference here, a huge difference.
  The American people finally have a very clear choice. Do you want 
bloated government? Do you want spending where every government agency 
gets double and triple-digit increases in their budget? Do you want 
record deficits, record tax increases and record debt increases? Or do 
you want to get this stuff under control? Do you want to get spending 
under control? Do you want to get borrowing under control? Do you want 
to get our deficits under control? Do you want to get taxes low so we 
can create more jobs?
  At the end of the day, it is all about freedom. The budget they are 
bringing to the floor gives us less of it. The budget we are going to 
bring gives us more of it. That is what America is all about. America 
is the land of opportunity. We help people when they are down on their 
luck. We help people who cannot help themselves. But we create an 
entrepreneur activity. We create a country that rewards freedom, risk 
taking, advancement and success. Those are good things. This budget 
squelches that. This budget extinguishes those great aspects of 
America, the American ideal we have come to know and love. I say we 
keep it and reject this budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Could the Chair inform me how much time is now remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield myself 3 minutes.
  It has been difficult to sit here and listen to the cascade of 
unfounded facts. It is hard to respond to everything that has been 
said. But a few things need to be said clearly as we move forward with 
this debate. First of all, last night in particular, but again today, 
Member after Member got up and talked about the biggest tax increase in 
history. It is not here. It is not in this particular budget 
resolution. If you read CBO's analysis of the President's budget, you 
will see that CBO, not me, CBO finds that there is a net reduction of 
$1.7 trillion due to tax cuts that are incorporated in this budget 
resolution. For example, we have been saying for years that we would 
renew the middle-income tax cuts when it came time to, those that were 
middle-income tax cuts adopted between 2001 and 2003. Well, the date 
for their expiration is approaching, and we are coming forward with 
what we have said consistently for the last several years, we are 
renewing those tax cuts, the marital tax relief, child's tax credit, 
the 10 percent bracket, the Pomeroy substitute for estate taxes. We 
provide in this budget resolution for the renewal and the extension of 
those tax cuts. And as a result we have a net tax cut of $1.7 trillion.
  Then there has been a lot of limiting of the size of the deficit for 
this year and next year. And as the Lord knows, I share the concerns. I 
pride myself on having been a budget hawk, on having brought together 
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and for the first time in 30 years 
actually, actually balanced the budget of the Federal Government. We 
did it.
  Well, what has happened this year with the swollen budget that we 
have seen before us is that we have had a catastrophe in the financial 
markets. And much of the cost of that, the TARP, Fannie Mae, Freddie 
Mac, AIG, FDIC, the list goes on and on, and the costs that have come 
out of the Treasury are reflected in the swollen spending level of 
today. It isn't acknowledged, but spending is projected in the 
President's book here to come down from $3.9 trillion to $3.5 trillion, 
$400 billion per his recommendations here. You wouldn't have known that 
to listen to the cascade of facts coming forth.
  Finally, as to spending levels, NDD, nondefense discretionary, often 
looked upon as an index as to whether or not Congress is exercising 
restraint in spending, the increase in NDD is about 4, 4\1/2\ percent. 
Defense, national defense, we want a strong national defense. We have 
always stood for that as Democrats and still do. We think we should 
restrain, however, the defense spending level. And it is restrained by 
the President to a 4 percent increase. Some would say that is a modest 
increase, but it is a big sum of money. We will be spending over $660 
billion on national defense at that level.
  For all of these reasons, the resolution before us should be ready 
and up for debate on the House floor.
  I would now like to yield the balance of my time, 1 minute, to the 
Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi.
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank 
him for his extraordinary mastery of the budget and for presenting us 
with the opportunity to vote for a statement of our national values 
here today.
  Madam Chair, President Thomas Jefferson wisely stated that ``Every 
difference of opinion is not a difference of principle.'' That is so. 
But some are. The difference of opinion over this budget is a 
difference of principle, in fact, more than one principle. This budget 
is a statement of our national values and upholds the American 
principles of opportunity, security, responsibility and fairness.
  It upholds the principle of fairness with tax cuts for the middle 
class, for 95 percent of the American people. It upholds the principle 
of fairness with health care for all Americans as a right, not a 
privilege. The budget will not only create a healthier America, but by 
lowering health care costs, health care reform is entitlement reform. 
By curtailing the rising costs of Medicare and Medicaid, health care 
reform will significantly reduce the deficit.
  This budget upholds the principle of opportunity by advancing the 
President's investments in education from early childhood through post-
secondary education and training. It supports the President's goal of 
improving education and training a workforce that is prepared to 
compete and succeed in the global economy.
  This budget upholds the principle of security. The first 
responsibility we have as elected officials is to keep the American 
people safe. I am proud that in doing so, this budget gives the biggest 
increase ever to our veterans, the first time a President has submitted 
a budget which exceeds the veterans' independent budget. I hasten to 
add that in the last Congress, the new direction Congress exceeded the 
veterans' benefits under the leadership of Chet Edwards and Mr. Spratt 
as well. On the battlefield, the military promises to leave no soldier 
behind. And when they come home, we promise to leave no veteran behind.
  This budget upholds the principle of responsibility. The budget 
resolution begins the process of turning around the Republican budget 
legacy of deep deficits, mounting debt and economic decline due to the 
Bush administration's reckless fiscal policy. It takes steps to put the 
budget back on a fiscally sustainable path by restoring fiscal 
responsibility and cutting the deficit by more than one-half by 2013.
  It upholds the principle of responsibility for our planet by 
investing in science, technology and renewable energy resources to 
reduce our dependence on foreign oil. That is a national security 
issue, an economic issue, an environmental health issue and a moral 
issue, if you believe as I do that

[[Page H4424]]

this planet is God's creation and we have a moral responsibility to 
preserve it. It is God's beautiful gift to us, and it is our 
responsibility to convey it to the next generation intact.
  Mr. Spratt, thank you again for this budget which will create 
economic growth, make America healthier and honor our veterans.
  Decisions are liberating. By deciding to support this budget, Members 
are freeing themselves from past mistakes and stale assumptions. They 
are unleashing the possibilities of the future. This budget is the 
logical progression of the bold initiatives already taken in the first 
3 months of this year. By providing health care for 11 million American 
children in the SCHIP Act and the recovery bill and the omnibus bill's 
investments in NIH cancer research and in health IT, this Congress has 
done more for health care in America than has been done in decades.
  In terms of education, with the investments we made in the Recovery 
Act, the omnibus, the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, and now this 
budget, we have done more for education than has been done in any one 
other period of time in our history.
  On energy proposals, we plow new ground. As President Obama said, 
``We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars 
and run our factories.'' We have made the investments that will spur 
new growth of energy that we can produce here in America, creating new 
green collar jobs for American workers. This budget also allows for 
fiscally responsible legislation that will promote energy independence 
over the long term.
  In terms of science, we have made bold and new investments in the 
area of science in both the Recovery Act and the omnibus. We also just 
passed a landmark public lands bill that will protect 2 million acres 
of natural heritage, the most sweeping conservation legislation in 
decades. So in terms of energy and the environment, we have made 
historic progress.
  This budget is in stark contrast to the Republican budget's hollow 
shell. We must always strive to find common ground here in the 
Congress. However, when the American people voted for change in 
November, they did not vote to send us here to split the difference. 
They sent us here to make a difference. Sadly, that difference of 
opinion on this budget is a difference of principle.
  Mr. Spratt, again, I thank you and members of the committee for 
giving us the privilege of upholding America's principles of fairness, 
opportunity, security and responsibility today by voting ``aye.''
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, last fall the American people voted for 
change and today we are seeing its vision implemented. As such, I rise 
in strong support of the Democratic budget.
  For too long America has been distracted with misplaced priorities 
such as unnecessary wars, tax cuts for the ultra wealthy, and spending 
on unnecessary weapons systems. At the same time, our leaders were 
often negligent when it came to honouring our solemn commitment to the 
hard working men and women of America. It will take time to reverse 
failed Republican policies, but I believe the Democratic budget will 
lead America in a new direction by providing urgently needed health 
care reform, bringing back our tradition of progressive taxation, 
improving our education, and confronting global warming.
  Everyday, we hear more bad news about companies laying off their 
workers--a sad occurrence that has increased the already alarming 
levels of Americans who lack access to health insurance. Madam Chair, 
access to health care is a human right and enacting today's legislation 
will bring us one step closer to desperately needed reform. This bill 
will do so by improving quality, expanding coverage, addressing the 
rising costs that create so much budget heartache for hardworking 
citizens. This bill will also add an important provision into the 
Budget Reconciliation which will allow for expedited consideration for 
health reform later this year. I enthusiastically support the inclusion 
of this provision as a means to move this critical legislation to the 
President's desk this year.
  At the State of the Union, President Obama made it clear he wanted to 
cut the budget deficit in half; this budget fulfils that promise. 
Today's legislation takes the record deficit that President Obama and 
the 111th Congress inherited in 2009, and cuts it to $586 billion in 
2013.
  Madam Chair, for too long the broken ideology of trickle down 
economics has promoted tax cuts for the very rich as the solution to 
our nation's economic woes. After years of economic decline and 
stagnation it is evident this ideology is not viable. The Democratic 
budget will instead provide over $1.5 trillion in tax cuts to nearly 9 
out of 10 Americans. This is done by giving Alternative Minimum Tax 
(AMT) relief, eliminating the estate tax, giving hard working a fair 
shot at higher education with tax relief in higher education. The 
Democratic budget funds these tax cuts by closing corporate loopholes 
and the ``tax gap.''
  In this era of global competition, it is imperative that we give our 
students the world class education without staggering amounts of debts. 
The bill will continue to increase Pell grant funding, expand early 
childhood education programs, and expand federal school meals 
initiatives.
  While some may see that this budget is too ambitious, I say that the 
state of our economy demand nothing less. I urge my colleagues to 
support this bill.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chair, today I rise in support of the fiscal year 
2010 budget resolution. Today's vote on the budget is a critical one, 
not only because it finally invests resources in domestic priorities, 
but because it also takes into consideration the needs of our families.
  Our economy is suffering, financial markets are in turmoil, and back 
home in Michigan we are facing an unemployment rate of 12 percent. My 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle suggest cutting our spending, 
while also providing huge tax cuts for their fat cat friends and more 
subsidies for oil and gas companies. These are not the folks that need 
government tax breaks and subsidies.
  If it is not the government who will pump money into our economy, 
provide tax cuts to our families and make health care and education 
more affordable, then who will? We know that our banks are not lending, 
families are living paycheck to paycheck, and our small businesses and 
companies are struggling to maintain their payroll. The status quo is 
not an option.
  For the first time in eight long years we have a President who 
proposed a budget that takes into consideration the long-term stability 
of our country and provides a strong economic plan to guide us out of 
this recession. To that end, Congress proposes cutting the deficit by 
nearly two-thirds by 2013, reducing discretionary spending to its 
lowest level ever, and including initiatives to cut waste, fraud and 
abuse, saving taxpayers nearly $50 billion. And for the first time, 
Congress and the administration are including the costs of the Wars in 
Iraq and Afghanistan in the budget, no longer hiding the costs in 
supplemental legislation.
  Yes, Congress and this administration is tackling a lot at once, not 
only because the last administration left a platter of problems at our 
feet, but also because we can no longer afford to put off health care 
reform, or climate change, or quality education. Our country and our 
economy need a long-term solution.
  Through this budget we will begin to tackle the rising costs of 
healthcare by reducing high administrative costs and rooting out 
inefficiencies. We will ensure that Medicare physician payments provide 
clear incentives for better quality care and ensure that primary care 
physicians are compensated for the hard work that they do. All of these 
steps will set the stage for health care reform and provide a down 
payment for legislation this summer.
  This budget also continues our investment in education by raising the 
maximum Pell grant award, including additional assistance to help more 
low-income students complete college. This is critical to ensuring that 
our current and future employers continue to have a highly educated 
workforce. We need to keep our workforce competitive with our neighbors 
abroad and I strongly believe that ensuring access to education for all 
is one way to do that.
  Finally, we will look towards laying the foundation for climate 
change legislation this summer by ensuring that funding and tax 
incentives in the stimulus bill receive significant funding--producing 
new sources of energy and creating green jobs across the country. 
Further, it will set aside funding to be used to pay for climate change 
legislation that the House and Senate are working on as we speak. This 
will ensure that the final product that makes it to the President's 
desk is paid for, allowing for responsible legislation that will cut 
greenhouse gas emissions, promote energy independence, and create new 
jobs in the energy sector.
  I want to commend the leadership of the Obama administration and 
Chairman Spratt for all of their hard work to put together this budget 
proposal. I know that producing a budget that will address the problems 
of the last eight years, while also investing in the priorities of our 
families, was not an easy task. However, it is high time that the 
budget helps all Americans, not just the wealthy. Let this budget be a 
message that Congress has heard our families loud and clear--we want to 
ensure your families are healthy, your children receive quality 
education, and your paychecks stretch a bit further than they used to. 
This is

[[Page H4425]]

particularly true for the people of the 15th District--you can rest 
assured that I am working tirelessly to help you through this tough 
time. Together we can, and we will, turn our country's economy around.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chair, I want to say a few words in 
support of the Fiscal Year 2010 House Budget Resolution. This important 
legislation builds on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to 
create jobs and strengthen the American economy for the long-term. It 
also restores honesty and transparency to the congressional budget 
process and puts our nation on a clear path to recovery.
  I want to especially commend House Budget Committee Chairman John 
Spratt, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag, and the 
leadership of the Blue Dog Coalition for their outstanding work in 
crafting this budget. As a Blue Dog, I am pleased that the budget 
incorporates many of the Coalition's principles--namely, commitments to 
statutory Pay-As-You-Go budget discipline, deficit neutral health care 
reform, eliminating $50 billion in waste and abuse in government 
spending, and cutting the deficit in half by Fiscal Year 2013.
  Concerning the deficit, it is important to recall that America's 
fiscal house was in order when the Bush Administration took office 
eight years ago. There was a projected ten-year budget surplus of $5.6 
trillion. The nation would have had the resources then to pay down the 
national debt, protect Social Security for future generations, and 
accommodate tax relief for hardworking American families.
  In a few short years, the surplus disappeared and the national debt 
mushroomed. Rather than a $5.6 trillion surplus, Congress is now 
confronting a record $1 trillion deficit in 2009 alone. In fact, the 
nation is facing deficits in 2009 and 2010 that would be greater as a 
share of the economy than in any year since World War II.
  According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, the current 
recession ``is compounding the underlying long-term fiscal pressures 
resulting from rapidly rising health care costs, the aging of the 
population, past tax cuts, and war costs. If we continue current 
policies . . . the nation is on a path to amass $10 trillion in 
cumulative deficits over the next decade, during which time the deficit 
will not fall below 5 percent of GDP.'' Both as a member of the Blue 
Dog Coalition and, more importantly, as an American citizen, it was 
troubling to see that our nation's commitment to fiscal discipline was 
being so recklessly squandered during these eight years.
  This budget resolution finally puts America's budget house in order. 
In addition to ensuring budget discipline, it makes vital investments 
in a number of areas. The House Budget Resolution strengthens education 
by providing additional funding for new initiatives in early childhood 
education and raising the Pell Grant award. It includes provisions to 
reduce health care costs while improving access to quality medical 
care.
  The House Budget Resolution also supports veterans by increasing 
Veterans' Affairs funding by 11%. Finally, it increases our investments 
in renewable energy and energy efficiency by 18% in 2010 to promote 
clean energy technologies, industries, and jobs.
  The House budget makes many of these investments at a lower level of 
nondefense discretionary funding than President Obama's original 
request. I also am pleased that it includes tax relief for middle-
income taxpayers and small businesses, as well as an accurate 
accounting of the costs of our military operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  This budget is good for Georgia and good for America. I am pleased to 
support it and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of its adoption.
  Mr. PETERS. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of the budget 
resolution. Like the President, I came to Washington this year at a 
time when we are both inheriting record budget deficits, and battling 
the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. I am a strong 
believer in fiscal discipline, and I understand that the current budget 
deficits are unsustainable. However, I also know that it is next to 
impossible to bring our nation out of a deep recession and balance our 
budget at the same time. This budget is a blueprint for generating 
economic expansion. As our economy begins to grow again, deficits will 
be reduced over time.
  This budget makes a great deal of progress on deficit spending, 
cutting the record budget deficit inherited from the last 
administration in half over the next five years. The budget also 
reaffirms the commitment of this Congress to the PAYGO rules, which 
require that new spending and tax cuts be offset by cuts in spending or 
new revenue so new measures do not increase our deficit and our 
national debt. The budget also ends the use of accounting tricks to 
hide costs of certain spending. For example, for the first time the 
budget includes both a full-year estimate for the cost of the wars in 
Iraq and Afghanistan for the budget year as well as estimates for 
future costs.
  The quickest way to restore balanced budgets is to increase growth, 
and at a time when our economy is simply not functioning this plan has 
the investments and incentives to make that growth happen. This budget 
includes substantial middle class tax cuts, and makes critical 
investments in education, health care reform, and energy independence 
that are necessary to revive the economy and ensure that our nation 
leads the globe in next generation technologies.
  In Michigan and Oakland County, this means investments in programs 
like MEP, which helps small manufacturers retool and retrain as they 
implement the next generation of manufacturing practices and green 
technologies. It also means investments in new advanced vehicle 
technologies, which will help ensure that the next generation of green 
vehicles are designed and built in Michigan, not overseas.
  Madam Chair, I was elected to office along with President Obama 
because voters were demanding change. This budget delivers on the 
promises we made to voters last fall, by restoring fiscal discipline, 
delivering middle class tax cuts, making critical investments in our 
future, and laying the groundwork for future reforms. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this blueprint for job creation and 
robust economic growth in America.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to H. Con. 
Res. 85 Democrat budget resolution. Our economy is in chaos, every day 
more Americans lose jobs, and our retirement savings are dwindling. The 
only response Democrat leadership and this White House seems to have is 
to spend more. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
forgotten that a successful economy comes from the ground up, not from 
the government down.
  Do I have to remind the Speaker that ``money doesn't grow on trees?'' 
This money comes from the American people, directly from their wallets 
which are growing thinner and thinner by the day. What they need from 
us isn't a larger government, but a government that tightens its belt 
as they are forced to do. A government that helps the private sector 
get back on its feet and prosper. A government that creates a level 
playing field for American employers on the world market.
  The past few months we have all become economics majors as we try to 
interpret and make decisions on complex financial markets. There is no 
question in my mind that everyone in this body wants to return to our 
country's historic economic success. I think there's considerable 
disagreement on how we get there, but I think at least we can start 
with the statement that we all want to end up in the same place. A 
place where our children can start a business or find a high quality, 
high paying job. Today's discussion--and indeed the focus of the entire 
Congress--should be on how to renew the American Dream.
  I do not subscribe to Keynesian economics. Every thin dime this 
Congress spends--or more appropriately borrows--is the functional 
equivalent of a thick quarter the children of Kansas and the rest of 
America have to pay back later, and I have yet to see a government job 
that pays for itself. I don't believe that massive deficit spending as 
we see in this budget proposal is going to create private sector jobs 
in the short-term or revive our economy. In the short time he has been 
in office, we have already amassed $3 trillion in debt for a total of 
$8.7 trillion. $8.7 trillion is a lot of money, money we don't have and 
money that our children and grandchildren will be forced to pay back.
  One of the very worst things that we, the Congress, can do is follow 
economic policies that result in raising taxes on American citizens and 
employers. We have enjoyed economic success in the past in large part 
because of our relatively low tax rates. To raise taxes will, in my 
view, not only hurt American wallets immediately, but also stifle the 
prospect of economic prosperity in the near future. Sadly this is where 
the administration is headed.
  The president has made a big deal recently about Republicans being 
the ``party of no.'' I am ready to say ``yes.'' To say yes to policies 
that will help rebuild a sound economy for today and the future. We 
need to pursue common sense economic policies that work--while reducing 
the size and scope of a government that has strangled growth. We need 
to move toward competitive business tax rates to compete with the rest 
of the world. Ireland, though it too has been caught up in the 
worldwide downturn, is well poised to recover as it welcomes companies 
and fosters growth. We desperately need a common sense approach to 
regulation, with cost-based justification of the rules our bureaucrats 
impose on those who create jobs. We need to be energy independent. It's 
well past time that we adopt a ``loser pays'' approach to litigation as 
the United Kingdom follows. Finally, I hope we discuss the rising cost 
of health care (in addition to ensuring health care access), which is

[[Page H4426]]

one of the biggest burdens on our economy. I believe a consumer-based 
approach to health care delivery will benefit patients and our economy.
  These ideas build the fundamental strength of our economy. That is 
how we can and will renew the dream and renew opportunity for ourselves 
and our children.
  I'll close by saying that, although we are struggling today, I am 
confident and optimistic that the American people will overcome this 
downturn, as we always have. My concern is that borrowing and spending 
will prolong the pain instead of fixing the problem.
  I look forward to our discussion today.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, a budget is a moral document that demonstrates 
our values and priorities. I want to congratulate Chairman Spratt for 
again bringing forth a budget that represents values of which we can be 
proud. This budget would make real investments in education, hometown 
security, veterans' programs, healthcare, and research and development 
while halving the budget deficit in four years.
  I am pleased that this Fiscal Year 2010 budget continues to follow 
the pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) principle that the House restored at the 
start of the 110th Congress in January 2007. This ensures that every 
new dollar of spending is offset and will not worsen the deficit. 
Although the budget resolution does not set tax or spending levels, it 
does lay out the plan for the coming years to spend money and to raise 
revenues.
  This budget validates the President's Inaugural declaration that we 
will ``restore science to its rightful place.'' This resolution 
restores science to its rightful place in terms of our national 
innovation investment by providing $31 billion for the science and 
research programs. In these troubled economic times, it is important to 
understand that while research lays the foundation for our long-term 
prosperity, research also creates jobs now. A report by the Information 
Technology and Innovation Foundation estimated that each additional $1 
billion investment in research would create approximately 20,000 
American jobs a year. This investment would provide jobs not just to 
scientists but also to research students, electricians who wire the 
labs, lab technicians who run the instrumentation, construction workers 
who will renovate the buildings, and many more. This job creation is 
comparable to or better than job creation for other spending, even in 
the short term, and over the long term, nothing produces jobs tomorrow 
like research today.
  This budget would make a significant investment in our nation's 
energy future by building on the significant funding and tax incentives 
for renewable energy and energy efficiency that were contained in the 
recovery bill. The budget increases investments in energy programs by 
18.4 percent to create new sources of renewable energy, to improve 
energy efficiency, and to expand research and technological 
development. The budget is committed to reducing greenhouse gas 
emissions and ensures that Congress has the flexibility to consider 
legislation for increasing our nation's energy independence.
  Madam Chair, this budget honors our commitment to our nation's 
children by investing in education. The budget follows on the bold 
investments made by the economic recovery bill and provides further 
support for early childhood education. The budget supports education at 
a young age through a range of approaches, including strengthening and 
expanding early childhood education programs, home visiting programs, 
and child nutrition programs such as school meals. I am pleased that 
the budget also would help make college more affordable and accessible 
for students in New Jersey and throughout the country by increasing 
funding for Pell grants and providing additional assistance for low-
income high school graduates. The budget further would expand our 
scientific workforce by tripling the number of graduate fellowships in 
science.
  I am pleased that the budget addresses the fact that 46 million 
Americans are uninsured, with more than 8 out of 10 of those uninsured 
living in working families. Specifically, data from The Henry J. Kaiser 
Family Foundation show that 16 percent of New Jersey's residents were 
uninsured in 2007. This is despite the fact that health care spending 
has grown to about $7,026 per person as of 2007. According to a report 
from the Institute of Medicine, working-age Americans without health 
insurance are more likely to receive too little medical care too late 
and to receive poorer medical treatment throughout their lives. As a 
result, they are sick more often and die at a younger age. This budget 
resolution supports the President's goal for health care reform and 
provides opportunities for the relevant committees to work this year to 
draft reform legislation that will help more Americans get health 
insurance, reduce health care costs, and improve patient safety.
  I strongly support the provisions in the budget that would invest 
$53.3 billion for veterans' programs, an increase of 11.5 percent over 
the 2009 level. I am pleased that the budget reverses the policies of 
the previous administration and restores health care eligibility for 
non-disabled veterans with modest incomes. This funding is more 
important than ever to treat the 908,690 Iraq and Afghanistan war 
veterans, many of whom suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, 
traumatic brain injuries, or blast-related injuries.
  I also am voting for the two alternatives offered by Mr. Scott and 
Ms. Lee because, although each is imperfect, each in different ways, 
they would advance the principles of equality and justice in our 
society and the peaceful resolution of international problems. I expect 
that neither of those alternatives will prevail over the well-crafted 
compromise of Mr. Spratt, yet they are worthy of support.
  Madam Chair, the budget produced by the Budget Committee, under the 
leadership of Representative Spratt, reflects values of which we can be 
proud. It supports healthcare, science and engineering research, 
education, veterans, and national security programs while maintaining 
our commitment to fiscal responsibility. By adopting this budget and 
supporting the designated funding levels throughout the appropriations 
process, we would be investing in priorities important to our future.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Chair, I rise today in measured support of H. Con. 
Res. 85, the FY 2010 Budget Resolution.
  A budget is a moral document that should reflect our priorities as a 
nation and act as a blueprint for the investments our nation needs to 
be healthy and prosperous. By this measure, the budget resolution 
before us is not a perfect document. It does, however, provide for 
vital investments in health care, jobs, education, and the environment 
that will spur both short-term and long-term economic growth and make 
our country healthier and more humane.
  This budget unfortunately continues to provide far too much money for 
defense--51 percent of discretionary spending. The $532.6 billion for 
defense includes billions for out-dated or just plain bad weapons 
systems and ideas, such as missile defense, space-based weapons, and 
the V-22 Osprey. Cutting these and other wasteful defense programs 
would save nearly $69 billion. These savings could be invested in 
reforming our education system, ending hunger, and rebuilding our 
infrastructure. The Congressional Progressive Caucus alternative budget 
would allow for those important investments and I am proud to support 
it.
  While the budget before us is not perfect, it does steer us--after 
eight years headed the wrong way--in the right direction. It sets the 
stage for long overdue comprehensive health reform, while providing 
latitude for us to make improvements to Medicare. Within these budget 
parameters, we will be able to address structural problems with 
physician payment policies to increase access to primary care, provide 
incentives for coordinated patient-centered care, manage chronic 
diseases, and improve quality. We will build on what works in our 
existing system by creating a public health insurance plan available to 
everyone and preserving our existing employer-based system. This budget 
will allow us to make investments in our people and our future, 
yielding long-term benefits in both tangible cost savings and improved 
quality of life by finally achieving quality, affordable health care 
for all.
  This budget provides a framework for economic prosperity and builds 
on the investments made by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 
in education and energy. Under this budget, education from early 
childhood through college is given top priority. It allows for the 
expansion of early childhood education programs and creation of a nurse 
visitation program that will assist new mothers raise healthy children. 
The bill also creates a framework to permanently reform the Pell Grant 
program and ensure that it provides yearly increases for students most 
in need of assistance.
  Creating a clean energy economy will not only allow us to avoid the 
catastrophic consequences of global warming, it will also create jobs 
and spur innovation. This budget includes a roadmap for a comprehensive 
response to global warming and provides for investments in energy 
efficiency and technology that will lead to good paying jobs across the 
country. Already, the energy funds in the recovery bill are creating 
jobs in my district through the financing of a new solar panel 
manufacturing facility. These types of projects will become more common 
with the passage of this budget.
  This budget clearly distinguishes the priorities of the new Congress 
and President Obama--jobs, universal health care, and a first rate 
education system--from the misplaced priorities of past Republican 
budgets--tax cuts for the wealthy, war, and an eviscerated safety net. 
I urge all of my colleagues to embrace priorities that put the health 
and wellbeing of people ahead of the narrow interests of the well 
connected and support this budget.

[[Page H4427]]

  Mr. WOLF. Madam Chair, I am deeply disappointed that the FY 2010 
budget resolution considering today represents another missed 
opportunity for both sides of the aisle to come together for the future 
of our country. Frankly, it continues down a very dangerous path that 
has been business as usual in the House for far too long. For our 
children and grandchildren we must come to grips with the financial 
crisis looming on the horizon.
  We all know that we face enormous fiscal challenges in terms of the 
deficit, the debt, and solvency of entitlement programs such as Social 
Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Addressing these issues in a 
meaningful and bipartisan way will take strong bipartisan commitment--
the kind of commitment that is sorely lacking in the budget resolution 
that will be voted on in the House.
  The statistics accompanying the nation's long-term fiscal health are 
astounding. The national debt has topped $11 trillion for the first 
time in history. While the White House claims that the president's 
budget proposal would increase the deficit by $6.9 trillion over ten 
years, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that this 
figure will be closer to $9.3 trillion, more than a third higher than 
the administration's projection. By 2019 the government could be paying 
over $800 billion annually just in interest on this amount. China is 
one of our biggest bankers and now holds the paper on about one out of 
every 10 American dollars. Standard and Poor's Investment Service 
predicts loss of our triple-A bond rating as early as 2012. Moody's 
predicts 2018.
  The American people are hurting. The U.S. unemployment rate hit 8.1 
percent in February, the highest in more than 25 years. If that isn't 
troubling enough, leading economists are predicting the jobless rate 
could hit double digits by year's end.
  Many of those lost jobs are coming from the U.S. manufacturing base, 
or what's left of it. The decay in U.S. manufacturing is real. Drive 
across the cast iron bridge linking Trenton, New Jersey, with 
Morrisville, Pennsylvania, and read the outdated sign: ``Trenton Makes, 
the World Takes.'' There was a time when Trenton made the steel used 
for the world's longest suspension bridges, its cars, and farm tools. 
The sign today could be: ``The World Makes and America Takes.''
  This Congress must face the reality of America's long-term financial 
future and start a process that will reverse the downward slide we're 
facing. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Congress acting 
alone will not make the hard choices necessary to right our ship of 
state. The partisan divisions are too deep. We need a process outside 
of Congress to come to grips with the burden of debt we are piling on 
our children and grandchildren.
  The American people--our constituents--understand that we are in 
serious trouble and that regular order in the House offers no way 
forward. The American people have no confidence in this Congress's 
ability to think outside of the box and come up with bipartisan 
solutions to the country's most pressing issues. A recent Peter Hart/
Public Opinion Strategies survey confirmed that 56 percent of 
registered voters say a bipartisan commission rather than the regular 
congressional process is the best means to begin tackling our growing 
budget deficit and national debt.
  There is a plan on the table right now that this House could act on 
to set up such a national commission. Jim Cooper and I--a Democrat and 
a Republican--have been working together on legislation--the SAFE 
Commission Act--that would establish a bipartisan commission to address 
entitlement spending, other spending and tax policy. When we 
reintroduced the bill last month, there were exactly 26 Republicans and 
26 Democrats joining the effort as original cosponsors. Everything is 
on the table, because to reverse the current financial path, we must 
look at the big picture. And when the commission makes its legislative 
recommendations to Congress after extensive public hearings around the 
country, Congress is required to vote up or down, like the base-closing 
process, on the plan.
  The Cooper-Wolf SAFE Commission Act has garnered support from the 
Heritage Foundation, Brookings Institution, Committee for a Responsible 
Federal Budget, Concord Coalition, National Federation of Independent 
Business, Business Roundtable, The Peterson Foundation and former U.S. 
Comptroller General David Walker. Newspapers across the country, 
including the Washington Times, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Winchester 
Star, Dallas Morning News and the Tennessean, have editorialized about 
SAFE being the only way forward. National syndicated columnists, 
including David Broder, Robert Samuelson and David Brooks have all 
written favorably about this proposal.
  I submit for the record David Broder's piece ``Hiding a Mountain of 
Debt'' from last Sunday's Washington Post which speaks to the inability 
of Congress to tackle entitlement reform through regular order and 
suggests the Cooper-Wolf SAFE Commission as a bipartisan process that 
could help lawmakers face reality.
  If there are other ideas about how to come to grips with the 
mountains of debt under which we are burying our children and 
grandchildren--that can pass--I implore our colleagues to offer them. 
We just can't continue with the same old tired process, drawing lines 
in the sand while the tsunami of debt comes crashing toward America's 
shore.
  That process is on full display today with the business as usual tone 
on this year's budget resolution. The current process is broken. The 
SAFE Commission offers an opportunity to make a difference for the 
country's future, rather than just continuing to score political points 
as we see in the debate today.
  The SAFE Commission process could be the foundation for a renaissance 
in America. It can renew Americans' confidence in the ability of our 
elected leaders to act and provide the opportunity to order priorities, 
create jobs and provide a quality of life unsurpassed in America. It 
can ensure that we have the funding for education, cutting edge 
technology, medical research, infrastructure improvements and other 
programs critical to providing a bright future for the next generation 
of Americans.
  Why is every budget plan today from both sides of the aisle missing 
this critical component? For our country's future, this Congress and 
this administration must come together and work to set up a bipartisan 
panel to deal with America's long-term financial future to give hope to 
our children and grandchildren. The time bomb of debt is ticking and 
it's on our watch to act before the explosion buries our country.

               [From the Washington Post, March 29, 2009]

                       Hiding a Mountain of Debt

                          (By David S. Broder)

       With a bit of bookkeeping legerdemain borrowed from the 
     Bush administration, the Democratic Congress is about to 
     perform a cover-up on the most serious threat to America's 
     economic future.
       That threat is not the severe recession, tough as that is 
     for the families and businesses struggling to make ends meet. 
     In time, the recession will end, and last week's stock market 
     performance hinted that we may not have to wait years for the 
     recovery to begin.
       The real threat is the monstrous debt resulting from the 
     slump in revenue and the staggering sums being committed by 
     Washington to rescuing embattled banks and homeowners--and 
     the absence of any serious-strategy for paying it all back.
       The Congressional Budget Office sketched the dimensions of 
     the problem on March 20, and Congress reacted with shock. The 
     CBO said that over the next 10 years, current policies would 
     add a staggering $93 trillion to the national debt--one-third 
     more than President Obama had estimated by using much more 
     optimistic assumptions about future economic growth.
       As far as the eye could see, the CBO said, the debt would 
     continue to grow by about $1 trillion a year because of a 
     structural deficit between the spending rate, averaging 23 
     percent of gross domestic product, and federal revenue at 19 
     percent.
       The ever-growing national debt will require ever-larger 
     annual interest payments, with much of that money going 
     overseas to China, Japan and other countries that have been 
     buying our bonds.
       Reacting to this scary prospect, the House and Senate 
     budget committees took the paring knife to some of Obama's 
     spending proposals and tax cuts last week. But many of the 
     proposed savings look more like bookkeeping gimmicks than 
     realistic cutbacks. The budget resolutions assume, for 
     example, that no more money will be needed this year to bail 
     out foundering businesses or pump up consumer demand, even 
     though estimates of those needs start at $250 billion and go 
     up by giant steps.
       Republicans on the budget committees offered cuts that were 
     larger and, in some but not all instances, more realistic.
       But the main device the Democratic budgeteers employed was 
     simply to shrink the budget ``window'' from 10 years to five. 
     Instantly, $5 trillion in debt disappeared from view, along 
     with the worry that long after the recession is past, the 
     structural deficit would continue to blight the future of 
     young, working families.
       The Democrats did not invent this gimmick. They borrowed it 
     from George W. Bush, who turned to it as soon as his 
     inherited budget surpluses withered with the tax cuts and 
     recession of 2001-02. But Obama had promised a more honest 
     budget and said that this meant looking at the long-term 
     consequences of today's tax and spending decisions.
       There are plenty of people in Congress for whom the CBO 
     report was no surprise, and some of them have proposed a 
     solution that would confront this reality. Kent Conrad, the 
     chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, and Judd Gregg, its 
     ranking Republican, have offered a bill to create a 
     bipartisan commission to examine every aspect of the budget--
     taxes, defense and domestic spending, and, especially, 
     Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Congress would be 
     required to vote promptly, up or down, on its 
     recommendations, or come up with an alternative that would 
     achieve at least as much in savings.

[[Page H4428]]

       In the House, Democrat Jim Cooper of Tennessee and 
     Republican Frank Wolf of Virginia have been pressing a 
     similar proposal but have been regularly thwarted.
       The roadblock in chief is Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the 
     House. She has made it clear that her main goal is to protect 
     Social Security and Medicare from any significant reforms. 
     Pelosi has not forgotten how Democrats benefited from the 
     2005-06 fight against Bush's effort to change Social 
     Security. Her party, which had lost elections in 2000, 2002 
     and 2004, found its voice and its rallying cry to ``Save 
     Social Security,'' and Pelosi is not about to allow any 
     bipartisan commission to take that issue away from her 
     control.
       The price for her obduracy is being paid in the rigging of 
     the budget process. The larger price will be paid by your 
     children and grandchildren, who will inherit a future-
     blighting mountain of debt.

  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Madam Chair, I rise in support of House Concurrent 
Resolution 85 (H. Con. Res. 85). This resolution builds on the work of 
this Congress to put our economy back on track, addressing the current 
crisis and building for future needs.
  A budget is more than just a document, it is a statement of our 
priorities. This is an especially important budget and comes as our 
nation faces a number of challenges in our struggling economy. Across 
the country, millions of families are facing foreclosure or have lost 
their jobs, savings, or access to health care. We have seen the failure 
of many of our financial institutions, and a lack of credit that is 
necessary for our small businesses to grow. In my own state of North 
Carolina, the unemployment rate has risen to a historic high of 10.7 
percent.
  This budget begins to reverse the Bush Administration's failed 
policies and restore America's economic strength. H. Con. Res. 85 
invests in priorities like health care, education, and energy 
independence to create jobs and get our economy back on track. As the 
former Superintendent of Schools in North Carolina, I know that the 
best investment we can make is in our children. I am pleased that H. 
Con. Res. 85 strongly supports early learning, including the 
President's initiatives to help strengthen and expand early childhood 
education and school meals initiatives. This budget also makes college 
more affordable and accessible by increasing Pell grants and providing 
additional assistance to help more low-income high school graduates 
attend and complete college. Education is the key to economic growth, 
future success, and access to opportunity for our citizens.
  The legacy left by the previous administration includes mounting debt 
and economic decline and we must return to a fiscally sustainable path. 
In addition to education, this budget makes investments in health care, 
energy independence, and other areas in a fiscally responsible way. 
This budget cuts the deficit in half over four years and bolsters 
PAYGO, the rule requiring Congress to find revenue to offset spending 
proposals. As a Member of the Committee on Ways and Means, I am also 
pleased that this budget supports $1.5 trillion in tax cuts for low and 
middle income families.
  This Budget Resolution provides a strong blueprint for our economic 
future. I support H. Con. Res. 85, and I urge my colleagues to join me 
in voting for its passage.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Madam Chair, I rise today in 
opposition to the majority's Budget Resolution.


                             cap and Trade

  The majority and President Obama's budget proposal calls for the 
passage of Cap and Trade legislation.
  The President estimates that the auction associated with Cap and 
Trade will bring in more than $640 billion.
  The administration admitted that number would be more like $1 
trillion and possibly as high as $2 trillion.
  Cap and Trade is a regressive tax because those with less income 
spend more of their paychecks on energy.
  This plan will raise taxes on an average family by $1,600 annually.
  Furthermore, if the United States acts without the support of China 
and India, Cap and Trade will only force more jobs out of the country.
  Beyond the loss of jobs, Cap and Trade will tax every American for 
using energy.


                     Size of Deficits/National Debt

  If raising your taxes by $1,600 a year wasn't enough; President Obama 
and the Democrat Majority's budget resolution will increase your share 
of the national debt by more than $20,000 in four short years.
  Today, every American's share of the National Debt is $36,000.
  By the end of President Obama's first term in office, the national 
debt will have exploded to $54,000 per American.
  This is a picture of my grandchildren. If you want to saddle your 
children and grandchildren with this type of debt then I would 
encourage you to vote for the majority's budget resolution.
  If you do not, there is an alternative way forward. The Republican 
budget alternative taxes you less, spends less and borrows much less.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Madam Chair, I rise this morning 
to state my strong support for the budget resolution.
  I'm excited to see that American working families will once again be 
prioritized.
  It is a sight for sore eyes to see the President present an honest 
budget, putting an end to years of masking the costs of things we have 
to pay for, like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  This is good news for working and middle-class families who have been 
struggling to keep their heads above water. For far too long, these 
families have been bearing the brunt of misplaced priorities, above 
all, the ever-rising cost of healthcare.
  Too many never see a doctor until they visit an emergency room. The 
cost to employers, local, state and the federal government is 
unsustainable.
  It is shameful that while the United States spends more than every 
other nation in the world on health care, we fail to care for everyone.
  This budget makes a down payment on health care reform, invests in 
working families, and sets America on a fundamentally new course. I 
urge my colleagues to support this critical investment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chair, adequate investment in our transportation 
and other public infrastructure is the foundation for future economic 
growth, and in these troubled times, it is needed more than ever.
  The Budget Resolution before us today recognizes the importance of 
infrastructure investment-- investment that will not only jump-start 
our economy now, but continue to pay dividends for many years into the 
future.
  The Resolution provides a solid foundation for the surface 
transportation authorization act that must be completed this year. If 
the Resolution is applied over the six-year period from fiscal year 
2010 through fiscal year 2015, it provides a base allocation of $324 
billion for highway, highway safety, and transit programs. Importantly, 
this allocation restores $82 billion of highway contract authority that 
had been eliminated from the baseline because of FY 2009 rescissions 
that the baseline assumed to recur in all future years.
  As a point of comparison, the budget resolution proposed by the 
Senate Committee on the Budget does not restore this $82 billion of 
highway contract authority. I will insert into the Congressional Record 
a state-by-state chart comparing the FY 2010 highway contract authority 
apportionments under the House and Senate budget resolutions (assuming 
the current law programs and formulas), to illustrate how devastating 
the Senate proposal would be for many States.
  In addition, the House Budget Resolution establishes a Reserve Fund 
to allow the base allocation of $324 billion to be adjusted upward as 
necessary to accommodate higher funding levels to the extent they can 
be supported by the Highway Trust Fund. This Reserve Fund provides the 
flexibility necessary to accommodate surface transportation 
authorization legislation as it is developed and shaped by Congress 
this year.
  For the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), the Resolution provides 
the full amounts authorized by H.R. 915, the ``FAA Reauthorization Act 
of 2009'', as ordered reported by the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure on March 5, 2009. Specifically, the Resolution allocates 
$4.0 billion for AIP in FY 2010, increasing to $4.1 billion in FY 2011, 
and $4.2 billion in FY 2012. This funding will allow the AIP program to 
keep pace with inflationary cost increases, and begin to address the 
investment gap in airport safety and capacity needs.
  For passenger rail, the Resolution accommodates the President's 
proposal for a new Federal commitment to high-speed rail transportation 
by increasing investment to $1 billion in FY 2010. Building on the $8 
billion for high-speed rail provided in the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act of 2009, this additional funding will lead to the 
creation of several high-speed rail corridors across the country 
linking regional population centers.
  For environmental infrastructure, the Resolution assumes $2.4 billion 
for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund program in FY 2010, consistent 
with the President's budget and H.R. 1262, the ``Water Quality 
Investment Act of 2009'', as passed by the House on March 12, 2009. I 
welcome and strongly support the President's proposal to significantly 
increase Federal support for restoring and maintaining the nation's 
water quality. It is indeed a refreshing change from the previous eight 
years, which saw some of the lowest funding levels requested by any 
administration since the creation of this program.
  Finally, the Resolution rejects the Office of Management and Budget's 
proposal to change how programs funded by contract authority are 
treated for budget scoring purposes. This proposal, had it been 
adopted, would have converted the mandatory contract authority that 
currently funds our highway, highway safety, transit and airport grant 
programs to a simple

[[Page H4429]]

authorization of appropriations for budget scoring purposes. I am 
pleased that the Resolution continues to recognize the unique nature of 
trust-funded programs by rejecting this misguided proposal.
  I thank Chairman Spratt and the Committee on the Budget for their 
strong support for transportation and infrastructure programs, and I 
urge my colleagues to support the Resolution.

     FY 2010 FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY CONTRACT AUTHORITY COMPARISON OF HOUSE BUDGET RESOLUTION AND SENATE BUDGET
                                                   RESOLUTION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       House Budget        Senate Budget
                      State                        Resolution (H. Con.  Resolution (S. Con.       Difference
                                                         Res. 85)             Res. 13)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama..........................................         $750,502,172         $516,451,803        -$234,050,368
Alaska...........................................          439,554,461          302,479,599         -137,074,861
Arizona..........................................          734,391,521          505,364,622         -229,026,899
Arkansas.........................................          491,318,142          338,095,044         -153,223,098
California.......................................        3,429,330,000        2,359,845,892       -1,069,484,108
Colorado.........................................          519,743,051          357,654,101         -162,088,950
Connecticut......................................          488,622,768          335,995,383         -152,627,385
Delaware.........................................          163,152,846          112,271,703          -50,881,142
Dist. of Col.....................................          145,767,381          100,307,258          -45,460,123
Florida..........................................        1,895,296,186        1,304,234,359         -591,061,827
Georgia..........................................        1,279,712,245          880,623,534         -399,088,711
Hawaii...........................................          166,547,342          114,523,644          -52,023,698
Idaho............................................          285,381,912          196,383,095          -88,998,817
Illinois.........................................        1,296,279,966          892,020,673         -404,259,294
Indiana..........................................          951,906,101          655,046,481         -296,859,621
Iowa.............................................          451,070,541          310,397,616         -140,672,924
Kansas...........................................          376,911,793          259,176,473         -117,735,320
Kentucky.........................................          652,507,863          449,017,053         -203,490,810
Louisiana........................................          657,198,643          452,242,292         -204,956,351
Maine............................................          174,639,887          120,551,562          -54,088,325
Maryland.........................................          596,761,038          410,652,679         -186,108,360
Massachusetts....................................          604,230,800          415,488,222         -188,742,578
Michigan.........................................        1,037,618,157          713,504,389         -324,113,768
Minnesota........................................          625,566,887          430,476,787         -195,090,100
Mississippi......................................          466,071,827          320,721,163         -145,350,663
Missouri.........................................          889,273,176          611,943,309         -277,329,867
Montana..........................................          366,277,284          252,050,954         -114,226,329
Nebraska.........................................          286,487,562          197,142,114          -89,345,448
Nevada...........................................          311,525,651          214,373,365          -97,152,286
New Hampshire....................................          166,488,270          114,483,223          -52,005,047
New Jersey.......................................          972,008,432          668,876,265         -303,132,167
New Mexico.......................................          364,249,524          250,653,966         -113,595,557
New York.........................................        1,660,321,081        1,141,694,643         -518,626,438
North Carolina...................................        1,039,925,752          715,614,469         -324,311,283
North Dakota.....................................          241,653,208          166,290,394          -75,362,815
Ohio.............................................        1,321,137,088          909,125,872         -412,011,216
Oklahoma.........................................          570,787,695          392,779,712         -178,007,984
Oregon...........................................          456,610,251          314,209,806         -142,400,446
Pennsylvania.....................................        1,623,581,576        1,116,433,610         -507,147,966
Rhode Island.....................................          193,230,364          135,659,996          -57,570,368
South Carolina...................................          620,987,972          427,326,829         -193,661,143
South Dakota.....................................          268,773,569          184,953,497          -83,820,072
Tennessee........................................          824,732,715          567,531,810         -257,200,905
Texas............................................        3,168,619,579        2,180,458,508         -988,161,071
Utah.............................................          313,958,483          216,047,035          -97,911,448
Vermont..........................................          168,547,458          115,983,429          -52,564,030
Virginia.........................................          976,733,110          672,128,732         -304,604,378
Washington.......................................          633,569,542          435,980,466         -197,589,075
West Virginia....................................          416,728,500          286,769,231         -129,959,270
Wisconsin........................................          734,296,976          505,300,612         -228,996,364
Wyoming..........................................          257,349,706          177,091,532          -80,258,174
                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------
    TOTAL........................................       37,527,938,057       25,824,428,808      -11,703,509,249
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table is based on Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) technical assistance, and illustrates the
  estimated distribution of FY 2010 contract authority under the House and Senate budget resolutions (assuming
  current law programs and formulas). To have sufficient funds to meet all criteria of the Equity Bonus
  calculation, as in effect in FY 2009, an estimated $39 billion in contract authority would be required for
  apportioned programs. To perform the calculations with the amounts provided by the House and Senate budget
  resolutions, FHWA altered the funding floor element of the Equity Bonus calculation by lowering the 121
  percent floor that is in effect for FY 2009 to 117.5 percent for the House resolution, and 80.8 percent for
  the Senate resolution.

  Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chair, I rise to voice my concern over this 
proposed budget. As many of my colleagues have said, it taxes too much, 
borrows too much and spends too much.
  And it will raise taxes during a recession when we shouldn't even be 
discussing tax hikes. Why do they want to raise taxes? Not to pay down 
the deficit but instead to fund another massive expansion of 
government. This plan, as proposed by the Administration, would place 
an immense burden on middle-class families.
  They want to raise taxes on homeowners by limiting the mortgage tax 
interest rate deduction. We're facing a wave of foreclosures and should 
be encouraging responsible homeownership. Instead, this tax will 
discourage homeownership and further weaken the economy by delaying 
housing recovery efforts.
  The proposal also furthers the Administration's plan to raise taxes 
on charitable contributions, discouraging Americans from donating to 
charities and nonprofits. This comes at a time when these organizations 
are needed most by struggling families. We should be encouraging 
Americans to help one another, not the opposite.
  Madam Chair, the budget also paves the way for higher taxes on small 
businesses by reversing cuts to the death tax, punishing thrift, 
discouraging entrepreneurship and devastating family-owned small 
businesses.
  This is certainly change, and not for the better.
  Ms. HARMAN. Madam Chair, one of the most momentous votes I have cast 
as a Member of Congress occurred in my first year of service. It was a 
vote for President Clinton's budget, which made some difficult 
choices--among them, cutting spending and raising taxes to balance the 
federal budget. While controversial, I knew the Clinton budget charted 
the best course for the U.S. economy over the long run.
  It came as no surprise, but my support for the Clinton budget became 
the primary issue in my first reelection campaign, which I won by only 
a whisker. Many of my colleagues were not so fortunate.
  Today, the country is again in a perilous economic position--much 
more so than in 1993. And a new President is again outlining an 
ambitious economic agenda that could transform American society.
  As in 1993, I intend to support the budget. President Obama inherited 
an economy and federal balance sheet in total disarray. He has made the 
difficult decision to prioritize long-delayed investments in health 
care reform, clean energy, and education, and to pay for them with 
responsible reversals of Bush Tax cuts for the most fortunate among us. 
I believe he has done so in an honest manner by, among other things, 
putting the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on budget for the 
first time.
  The budget isn't perfect--no budget is. I would prefer more deficit 
reduction in its out years. But the President has his priorities right, 
and is making the investments that this nation has put off for too 
long. This Congress should support him and pass this budget.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chair, as the House of 
Representatives begins to consider the President's Fiscal Year 2010 
Budget, I would like to highlight a number of priorities. First, I 
would like to begin by saying President Obama has inherited an 
extensive deficit from the previous administration--the result of 
mistaken policies, misplaced priorities and an era of profound 
irresponsibility. This was no April Fools joke. Our budget deficit is a 
real problem with real consequences for the American people.

[[Page H4430]]

  For too long, we have ignored the tough choices we needed to make and 
failed to address the big challenges our economy faces.
  This lack of responsibility has left our nation with an economy in 
recession and an untenable fiscal situation--$1 trillion a year 
deficits on average over the coming decade.
  The FY2010 budget submitted by the President is up front and honest 
about the challenges we face. Unlike the previous administration which 
assumed revenue from the Alternative Minimum Tax overwhelming the 
middle class and not accounting for the Medicare doctor's fee fix and 
the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are no budget 
gimmicks in President Obama's budget to cover up the mess we're in.
  I urge the President to include funding for summer jobs for youth. 
Our youth, and individuals that have opted not to go to college or 
institutions of higher learning, need to be engaged and employed. 
Employment will provide them with skills and aptitudes that are 
necessary to be productive in society. I urge funding for our youth.
  I support the President's call for healthcare reform. I urge the 
Budget Committee to account for the cost of healthcare reform to ensure 
that the 45 million uninsured Americans (four million of which are 
children) have access to quality and affordable healthcare.
  In addition, I urge the Committee to account for the following:
  Funding the Minority AIDS Initiative at $610 million this year (an 
increase of nearly $200 million) to build capacity among minority run 
non-governmental organizations and to conduct outreach services among 
minority communities.
  Funding the Ryan White CARE Act at $2.8 billion this year (an 
increase of $578 million) to support care and treatment programs at the 
local level to address the needs of people living with HIV/AIDS.
  Funding the CDC Prevention activities for HIV, STD, TB and Viral 
Hepatitis at $2.28 billion (an increase of nearly $1.2 billion) to fund 
testing initiatives and support innovative prevention efforts at the 
local level.
  Funding for Housing for people living with HIV/AIDS (HOPWA) at $360 
million (an increase of $50 million) to provide supportive housing for 
people with AIDS.
  Zeroing out funding for ineffective abstinence only until marriage 
programs to recover $99 million in funding. These programs have been 
proven to be ineffective.
  Funding for comprehensive sex education programs that will be 
authorized by the REAL Act with at least $50 million this year to 
reduce spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases and reduce 
unintended pregnancies.
  A $200 million increase in funding for the National Center on 
Minority Health and Health Disparities at NIH.
  Reserve funding ($3.5 billion) for the Health Equity and 
Accountability Act (not yet enacted).
  I commend the President for requesting an increase of $15 billion for 
the Department of State and other international programs in FY2010, 
which is a 40% increase over the FY2009 level. I urge the Budget 
Committee to include this increase in the budget resolution. I am 
hopeful that these additional funds will go towards the Global Fund to 
Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; USAID; migration and refugee 
assistance; peacekeeping efforts in Darfur; education, healthcare and 
cultural exchange programs; child survival and health programs; and 
development assistance.
  As the President begins to withdraw troops from Iraq, I also urge the 
Budget Committee to account for the need to increase Iraqi humanitarian 
assistance by $1.17 billion in FY2010.
  I support the robust funding for our troops and America's national 
defense. I support reducing funding for the failed Ballistic Missile 
Defense program and reallocating those funds within the Defense 
Department to fund increases in shipbuilding, troop readiness, military 
and civilian pay, cancer research, and mental health services.
  I have consistently fought for funding to weed out waste, fraud and 
abuse within the Department of Defense. The Defense Department has 
already saved an estimated $89 billion between FY01 and FY07 by 
implementing 1,682 of the Government Accountability Office's 
recommendations. President Obama's FY2010 Budget Overview reflects a 
similar commitment, as has the House Budget Committee under Chairman 
Spratt's leadership.
  As the economy continues to worsen, I urge the Budget Committee to 
account for the increased need for income security programs, such as 
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Unemployment Insurance, 
Medicaid, and the Recovery Act's COBRA subsidy.
  I urge the President to consider including the necessary budget 
authority to account for the cost of increasing the federal minimum 
wage and indexing it to inflation. In addition, the Committee should 
consider the cost of reforming current asset tests for economic 
assistance. As more and more Americans lose their jobs, it makes little 
sense to force families to drain their savings to the extent necessary 
to qualify for certain temporary economic assistance programs.
  Finally, the President should also consider the cost of redefining 
the Federal Poverty Level, which is currently $22,050 for a family of 
four (100%). I urge the creation of a Decent Living Standard Threshold 
to determine the amount of annual income that would allow an individual 
to live beyond deprivation at a safe and decent, but modest, standard 
of living.
  The housing crisis lies at the center of the economic problems we 
face today. After the series of TARP bills, the Congress has just found 
out that bank executives have used over $100 million in TARP funds to 
pay for executive bonuses and other forms of compensation. I urge the 
President to reverse eight years of underfunding of the nation's 
affordable housing programs and we are pleased that the Administration 
has proposed a HUD budget that increases funding for the Department by 
19 percent. I urge the President to match this aggressive budget 
authorization and to support large investments into the Community and 
Regional Development and the Income Security functions in order to 
account for increases in Affordable Housing programs.
  Specifically, the President should consider including the necessary 
budget authority to fund the Section 8 public housing operating subsidy 
at 100% of need. In addition, the President must also consider 
providing sufficient budget authority for the renewal of all Section 8 
vouchers currently in use.
  Although the public housing capital fund received an injection of $4 
billion in the recent stimulus package, this only represents 12.5 
percent of the estimated $32 billion backlog in deferred capital needs. 
The President should include sufficient budget authority to allow 
housing authorities to address ongoing and deferred maintenance needs.
  In addition, I urge the President to support the Administration's 
proposal to fund the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund at $1 
billion and to fully fund the Community Development Block Grant 
program. I also urge full funding of HUD's housing programs for the 
elderly, disabled, and Native Americans, as well as for those programs 
that prevent homelessness. I support an increase in funding for the 
Neighborhood Stabilization Program, which allows states, localities, 
and nonprofits to buy up and rehabilitate abandoned and foreclosed 
properties.
  I urge the President to account for funding efforts to combat and 
reduce juvenile crime and efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders. I 
strenuously urge the full funding of the Second Chance Act, which 
provides transitional assistance to assist ex-offenders in coping with 
the challenges of reentry. Removing barriers to reentry has proven to 
reduce recidivism, which in the long run reduces crime. In addition, 
the President should account for much needed increases in youth crime 
intervention programs. Research has shown that targeting funding 
towards intervention rather than incarceration is more effective at 
reducing crime and saving the taxpayer money in the long run.
  I have long supported efforts to increase funding for the Justice 
Assistance Program, the Juvenile Justice Program, Civil Rights 
Enforcement, the COPS Program, the Byrne Justice Grant Program, and 
State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance. I urge the President to 
account for sustaining many of the important increases for these 
programs that was included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment 
Act.
  As the Chairwoman of the Children's Caucus, I support the President's 
efforts to reform and expand the Pell Grant program. Pell Grants are 
way to make education affordable to disadvantaged youth. This is very 
important to me.
  I would like to see continued and sustained increases in education 
funding, especially for Title I and IDEA. Even though Congress is to 
consider the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act this year, 
the Budget Committee should still account for the need to address the 
substantial funding shortfalls of this program over the last eight 
years. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act made substantial 
increases, but I urge the President to account for sustaining many of 
these new investments.
  The President must also account for needed increases in funding for 
Head Start, TRIO (including Upward Bound), GEAR UP, Youth Build, and 
vocational education programs. In addition, I urge the President to 
account for funding for expanded grants to states for workplace and 
community transition as authorized in the Higher Education Opportunity 
Act. These grants will better assist and encourage incarcerated 
individuals who have obtained a secondary school diploma or its 
recognized equivalent to acquire educational and job skills.
  I urge this body to account for fully funding the historic increases 
in funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities and 
Minority

[[Page H4431]]

Serving Institutions authorized in the Higher Education Act 
reauthorization enacted last year.
  I support the President's efforts at increasing spending for 
infrastructural projects. The President's priorities are reminiscent of 
the New Deal where this country invested in building up our Nation. The 
President has made a significant effort at achieving this by his 
signing of HR 1, the Stimulus Act.
  In the Stimulus Act, the President authorized money to be spent on 
infrastructural projects that were shovel ready, i.e., ready to be 
started within 120 days. I know that America could use this money.
  Indeed, Houston would benefit. Houston's Metro Rail needs to complete 
its RAIL service in certain quadrants of Houston. The project has been 
twenty years in the making. I have worked with Leadership and Chairman 
Oberstar to ensure that METRO Rail projects get the funding that they 
need to be completed.
  Completion of this mobility project would decrease congestion and 
pollution as Houstonians would travel via rail instead of using their 
cars. This would increase Houston mobility and the health of 
Houstonians as they would be forced to walk around instead of using 
their private transport.
  The House Budget Committee has shown a commitment to increased 
funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs. I commend the 
President's budget for including a $25 billion above baseline increase 
for the VA over the next five years.
  Other Priorities: Fully fund the Community Development Block Grant;
  Increased funding for the Public Housing Capital Fund to continue to 
address eight years of stagnant funding under the Bush Administration; 
fully fund the Child Care and Development Block Grant; fully fund the 
Social Services Block Grant; increased funding for HOPE VI; fully fund 
the Neighborhood Stabilization Program; increased funding for the 
Affordable Housing Trust Fund; support for the creation of a National 
Infrastructure Bank; continued funding for Hurricane Katrina recovery 
and rebuilding efforts; increased funding for the Environmental Justice 
Small Grants Program; increased funding for the National Underground 
Railroad Network to Freedom program at the National Park Service. This 
is important to me. I worked to get funding for urban parks in the 
Stimulus bill. This increases the health and overall well being of 
constituents. It is necessary in urban meccas like Houston.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Perlmutter) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Tauscher, Chair 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. 85) setting forth the congressional budget for 
the United States Government for fiscal year 2010 and including the 
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2009 and 2011 through 
2014, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________