[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 56 (Friday, April 15, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H2870-H2901]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
The Committee resumed its sitting.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Garrett
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Kingston). It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 4 printed in part B of House Report 112-62.
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2012.
(a) Declaration.--Congress declares that the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012 is hereby
established and that the appropriate budgetary levels for
fiscal year 2011 and for fiscal years 2013 through 2021 are
set forth.
(b) Table of Contents.--
Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012.
TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS
Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts.
Sec. 102. Major functional categories.
TITLE II--RECONCILIATION SUBMISSIONS
Sec. 201. Reconciliation in the House of Representatives.
Sec. 202. Submission of reports on mandatory savings.
TITLE III--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT
Sec. 301. Restrictions on advance appropriations.
Sec. 302. Emergency spending.
Sec. 303. Changes in allocations and aggregates resulting from
realistic scoring of measures affecting revenues.
Sec. 304. Prohibition on using revenue increases to comply with budget
allocations and aggregates.
Sec. 305. Application and effect of changes in allocations and
aggregates.
Sec. 306. Budget Protection Mandatory Account.
Sec. 307. Budget discretionary accounts.
Sec. 308. Treatment of rescission bills in the House.
Sec. 309. Sense of the House regarding baseline revenue projections.
Sec. 310. Sense of the House regarding long-term budget projections.
TITLE IV--EARMARK MORATORIUM
Sec. 401. Earmark moratorium.
Sec. 402. Limitation of authority of the House Committee on Rules.
TITLE V--POLICY
Sec. 501. Policy statement on health care law repeal.
Sec. 502. Policy statement on bailouts of State and local governments.
Sec. 503. Policy statement on means tested welfare programs.
Sec. 504. Policy statement on reforming the Federal budget process.
TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS
SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.
The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of
fiscal years 2011 through 2021:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2011: $1,664,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $1,866,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,128,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $2,325,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $2,426,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $2,523,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $2,694,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $2,809,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $2,959,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $3,120,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $3,287,000,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be changed are as follows:
Fiscal year 2011: -$0.
Fiscal year 2012: -$25,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: -$227,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: -$346,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: -$406,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: -$448,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: -$482,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: -$527,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: -$544,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: -$561,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: -$597,000,000,000.
(2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new
budget authority are as follows:
Fiscal year 2011: $2,961,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,617,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,502,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $2,540,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $2,624,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $2,744,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $2,808,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $2,862,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $2,975,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $3,067,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $3,154,000,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2011: $3,117,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,740,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,673,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $2,650,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $2,706,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $2,818,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $2,872,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $2,919,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $3,038,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $3,131,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $3,219,000,000,000.
(4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget)
are as follows:
Fiscal year 2011: $1,453,000,000,000.
[[Page H2871]]
Fiscal year 2012: $874,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $545,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $325,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $280,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $295,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $179,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $111,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $78,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $11,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: -$68,000,000,000.
(5) Debt subject to limit.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate
levels of the public debt are as follows:
Fiscal year 2011: $14,969,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $15,992,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $16,722,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $17,243,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $17,750,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $18,287,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $18,727,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $19,127,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $19,485,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $19,792,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $20,053,000,000,000.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2011: $10,348,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $11,208,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $11,768,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $12,100,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $12,385,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $12,678,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $12,857,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $12,976,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $13,066,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $13,106,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $13,078,000,000,000.
SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.
The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years
2011 through 2021 for each major functional category are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $733,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $696,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $646,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $662,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $674,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $687,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $699,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $711,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $723,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $735,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $747,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
[[Page H2872]]
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
[[Page H2873]]
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
[[Page H2874]]
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $213,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $213,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $254,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $254,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $310,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $310,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $372,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $372,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $426,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $426,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $477,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $477,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $518,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $518,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $549,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $549,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $570,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $570,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $586,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $586,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $591,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $591,000,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $2,015,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,904,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $1,667,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,486,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $1,546,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,363,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, 1,506,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,278,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $1,524,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,280,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $1,580,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,341,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $1,591,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,354,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $1,602,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,370,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $1,682,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,468,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $1,746,000,000,000.
[[Page H2875]]
(B) Outlays, $2,545,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $1,816,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,628,000,000,000.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(21) Global War on Terrorism and related activities (970):
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
TITLE II--RECONCILIATION SUBMISSIONS
SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
(a) Submissions to Slow the Growth in Mandatory Spending
and to Achieve Deficit Reduction.--(1) Not later than
September 15, 2011, the House committees named in paragraph
(2) shall submit their recommendations to the House Committee
on the Budget. After receiving those recommendations, the
House Committee on the Budget shall report to the House a
reconciliation bill carrying out all such recommendations
without any substantive revision.
(2) Instructions.--
(A) Committee on agriculture.--The House Committee on
Agriculture shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct
spending for that committee by $436,000,000,000 in outlays
for the period of fiscal years 2012 through 2021.
(B) Committee on education and the workforce.--The House
Committee on Education and the Workforce shall report changes
in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the
level of direct spending for that committee by
$103,000,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years
2012 through 2021.
(C) Committee on energy and commerce.--The House Committee
on Energy and Commerce shall report changes in laws within
its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct
spending for that committee by $3,007,000,000,000 in outlays
for the period of fiscal years 2012 through 2021.
(D) Committee on financial services.--The House Committee
on Financial Services shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct
spending for that committee by $49,000,000,000 in outlays for
the period of fiscal years 2012 through 2021.
(E) Committee on natural resources.--The House Committee on
Natural Resources shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct
spending for that committee by $18,000,000,000 in outlays for
the period of fiscal years 2012 through 2021.
(F) Committee on oversight and government reform.--The
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform shall
report changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to
reduce the level of direct spending for that committee by
$28,000,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years
2012 through 2021.
(G) Committee on ways and means.--The House Committee on
Ways and Means shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by
$320,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2012 through
2021.
(H) Special rule.--The chairman of the Committee on the
Budget may take into account legislation enacted after the
adoption of this resolution that is determined to reduce the
deficit and may make applicable adjustments in reconciliation
instructions, allocations, and budget aggregates and may also
make adjustments in reconciliation instructions to protect
earned benefit programs.
(b) Submission Providing for Changes in Revenue.--The House
Committee on Ways and Means shall report a reconciliation
bill not later than September 15, 2011, that consists of
changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce
revenues by not more than $4,163,000,000,000 for the period
of fiscal years 2012 through 2021.
(c) Revision of Allocations.--(1) Upon the submission to
the Committee on the Budget of the House of a recommendation
that has complied with its reconciliation instructions solely
by virtue of section 310(b) of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, the chairman of that committee may file with the
House appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a)
of such Act and revised functional levels and aggregates.
(2) Upon the submission to the House of a conference report
recommending a reconciliation bill or resolution in which a
committee has complied with its reconciliation instructions
solely by virtue of this section, the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget of the House may file with the House
appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a) of
such Act and revised functional levels and aggregates.
(3) Allocations and aggregates revised pursuant to this
subsection shall be considered to be allocations and
aggregates established by the concurrent resolution on the
budget pursuant to section 301 of such Act.
SEC. 202. SUBMISSION OF REPORTS ON MANDATORY SAVINGS.
In the House, not later than September 15, 2011, all House
committees shall identify savings amounting to one percent of
total mandatory spending under its jurisdiction from
activities that are determined to be wasteful, unnecessary,
or lower-priority. For purposes of this section, the reports
by each committee shall be inserted in the Congressional
Record by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget not
later than September 15, 2011.
TITLE III--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT
SEC. 301. RESTRICTIONS ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--(1) In the House, except as provided in
subsection (b), an advance appropriation may not be reported
in a bill or joint resolution making a general appropriation
or continuing appropriation, and may not be in order as an
amendment thereto.
(2) Managers on the part of the House may not agree to a
Senate amendment that would violate paragraph (1) unless
specific authority to agree to the amendment first is given
by the House by a separate vote with respect thereto.
(b) Exception.--In the House, an advance appropriation may
be provided for fiscal year 2013 and fiscal years 2014 for
programs, projects, activities or accounts identified in the
joint explanatory statement of managers accompanying this
resolution under the heading ``Accounts Identified for
Advance Appropriations'' in an aggregate amount not to exceed
$23,565,000,000 in new budget authority.
[[Page H2876]]
(c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance
appropriation'' means any discretionary new budget authority
in a bill or joint resolution making general appropriations
or continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2012 that first
becomes available for any fiscal year after 2012.
SEC. 302. EMERGENCY SPENDING.
(a) Designations.--
(1) Guidance.--In the House, if a provision of legislation
is designated as an emergency requirement under this section,
the committee report and any statement of managers
accompanying that legislation shall include an explanation of
the manner in which the provision meets the criteria in
paragraph (2). If such legislation is to be considered by the
House without being reported, then the committee shall cause
the explanation to be published in the Congressional Record
in advance of floor consideration.
(2) Criteria.--
(A) In general.--Any such provision is an emergency
requirement if the underlying situation poses a threat to
life, property, or national security and is--
(i) sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up
over time;
(ii) an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring
immediate action;
(iii) subject to subparagraph (B), unforeseen,
unpredictable, and unanticipated; and
(iv) not permanent, temporary in nature.
(B) Unforeseen.--An emergency that is part of an aggregate
level of anticipated emergencies, particularly when normally
estimated in advance, is not unforeseen.
(b) Enforcement.--It shall not be in order in the House of
Representatives to consider any bill, joint resolution,
amendment or conference report that contains an emergency
designation unless that designation meets the criteria set
out in subsection (a)(2).
(c) Enforcement in the House of Representatives.--It shall
not be in order in the House of Representatives to consider a
rule or order that waives the application of subsection (b).
(d) Disposition of Points of Order in the House.--As
disposition of a point of order under subsection (b) or
subsection (c), the Chair shall put the question of
consideration with respect to the proposition that is the
subject of the point of order. A question of consideration
under this section shall be debatable for 10 minutes by the
Member initiating the point of order and for 10 minutes by an
opponent of the point of order, but shall otherwise be
decided without intervening motion except one that the House
adjourn or that the Committee of the Whole rise, as the case
may be.
SEC. 303. CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS AND AGGREGATES RESULTING
FROM REALISTIC SCORING OF MEASURES AFFECTING
REVENUES.
(a) Whenever the House considers a bill, joint resolution,
amendment, motion or conference report, including measures
filed in compliance with section 201(b), that propose to
change Federal revenues, the impact of such measure on
Federal revenues shall be calculated by the Joint Committee
on Taxation in a manner that takes into account--
(1) the impact of the proposed revenue changes on--
(A) Gross Domestic Product, including the growth rate for
the Gross Domestic Product;
(B) total domestic employment;
(C) gross private domestic investment;
(D) general price index;
(E) interest rates; and
(F) other economic variables; and
(2) the impact on Federal Revenue of the changes in
economic variables analyzed under paragraph (1).
(b) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget may make
any necessary changes to allocations and aggregates in order
to conform this concurrent resolution with the determinations
made by the Joint Committee on Taxation pursuant to
subsection (a).
SEC. 304. PROHIBITION ON USING REVENUE INCREASES TO COMPLY
WITH BUDGET ALLOCATIONS AND AGGREGATES.
(a) For the purpose of enforcing this concurrent resolution
in the House, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
shall not take into account the provisions of any piece of
legislation which propose to increase revenue or offsetting
collections if the net effect of the bill is to increase the
level of revenue or offsetting collections beyond the level
assumed in this concurrent resolution.
(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to any provision of a
piece of legislation that proposes a new or increased fee for
the receipt of a defined benefit or service (including
insurance coverage) by the person or entity paying the fee.
SEC. 305. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS
AND AGGREGATES.
(a) Application.--Any adjustments of allocations and
aggregates made pursuant to this resolution shall--
(1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
(2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
(3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as
practicable.
(b) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised
allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments
shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates contained in
this resolution.
(c) Budget Committee Determinations.--For purposes of this
resolution--
(1) the levels of new budget authority, outlays, direct
spending, new entitlement authority, revenues, deficits, and
surpluses for a fiscal year or period of fiscal years shall
be determined on the basis of estimates made by the
appropriate Committee on the Budget; and
(2) such chairman may make any other necessary adjustments
to such levels to carry out this resolution.
SEC. 306. BUDGET PROTECTION MANDATORY ACCOUNT.
(a)(1) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall
maintain an account to be known as the ``Budget Protection
Mandatory Account''. The Account shall be divided into
entries corresponding to the allocations under section 302(a)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 in the most recently
adopted concurrent resolution on the budget, except that it
shall not include the Committee on Appropriations.
(2) Each entry shall consist only of amounts credited to it
under subsection (b). No entry of a negative amount shall be
made.
(b)(1) Upon the engrossment of a House bill or joint
resolution or a House amendment to a Senate bill or joint
resolution (other than an appropriation bill), the chairman
of the Committee on the Budget shall--
(A) credit the applicable entries of the Budget Protection
Mandatory Account by the amounts specified in paragraph (2);
and
(B) reduce the applicable section 302(a) allocations by the
amount specified in paragraph (2).
(2) Each amount specified in paragraph (1)(A) shall be the
net reduction in mandatory budget authority (either under
current law or proposed by the bill or joint resolution under
consideration) provided by each amendment that was adopted in
the House to the bill or joint resolution.
(c)(1) If an amendment includes a provision described in
paragraph (2), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
shall, upon the engrossment of a House bill or joint
resolution or a House amendment to a Senate bill or joint
resolution, other than an appropriation bill, reduce the
level of total revenues set forth in the applicable
concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year or
for the total of that first fiscal year and the ensuing
fiscal years in an amount equal to the net reduction in
mandatory authority (either under current law or proposed by
a bill or joint resolution under consideration) provided by
each amendment adopted by the House to the bill or joint
resolution. Such adjustment shall be in addition to the
adjustments described in subsection (b).
(2)(A) The provision specified in paragraph (1) is as
follows: ``The amount of mandatory budget authority reduced
by this amendment may be used to offset a decrease in
revenues.''
(B) All points of order are waived against an amendment
including the text specified in subparagraph (A) provided the
amendment is otherwise in order.
(d) As used in this rule, the term--
(1) ``appropriation bill'' means any general or special
appropriation bill, and any bill or joint resolution making
supplemental, deficiency, or continuing appropriations
through the end of fiscal year 2008 or any subsequent fiscal
year, as the case may be.
(2) ``mandatory budget authority'' means any entitlement
authority as defined by, and interpreted for purposes of, the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(e) During the consideration of any bill or joint
resolution, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall
maintain a running tally, which shall be available to all
Members, of the amendments adopted reflecting increases and
decreases of budget authority in the bill or joint
resolution.
SEC. 307. BUDGET DISCRETIONARY ACCOUNTS.
(a)(1) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall
maintain an account to be known as the ``Budget Protection
Discretionary Account''. The Account shall be divided into
entries corresponding to the allocation to the Committee on
Appropriations, and the committee's suballocations, under
section 302(a) and 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974.
(2) Each entry shall consist only of amounts credited to it
under subsection (b). No entry of a negative amount shall be
made.
(b)(1) Upon the engrossment of a House appropriations bill,
the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall--
(A) credit the applicable entries of the Budget Protection
Discretionary Account by the amounts specified in paragraph
(2).
(B) reduce the applicable 302(a) and (b) allocations by the
amount specified in paragraph (2).
(2) Each amount specified in subparagraph (A) shall be the
net reduction in discretionary budget authority provided by
each amendment adopted by the House to the bill or joint
resolution.
(c)(1) If an amendment includes a provision described in
paragraph (2), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
shall, upon the engrossment of a House appropriations bill,
reduce the level of total revenues set forth in the
applicable concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal
year or for the total of that first fiscal year and the
ensuing fiscal years in an amount equal to the net reduction
in discretionary budget authority provided by each amendment
that was adopted by the House to the bill or joint
resolution. Such adjustment shall be in addition to the
adjustments described in subsection (b).
(2)(A) The provision specified in paragraph (1) is as
follows: ``The amount of discretionary budget authority
reduced by this
[[Page H2877]]
amendment may be used to offset a decrease in revenues.''
(B) All points of order are waived against an amendment
including the text specified in subparagraph (A) provided the
amendment is otherwise in order.
(d) As used in this rule, the term ``appropriation bill''
means any general or special appropriation bill, and any bill
or joint resolution making supplemental, deficiency, or
continuing appropriations through the end of fiscal year 2012
or any subsequent fiscal year, as the case may be.
(e) During the consideration of any bill or joint
resolution, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall
maintain a running tally, which shall be available to all
Members, of the amendments adopted reflecting increases and
decreases of budget authority in the bill or joint
resolution.
SEC. 308. TREATMENT OF RESCISSION BILLS IN THE HOUSE.
(a)(1) By February 1, May 1, July 30, and November 11 of
each session, the majority leader shall introduce a
rescission bill. If such bill is not introduced by that date,
then whenever a rescission bill is introduced during a
session on or after that date, a motion to discharge the
committee from its consideration shall be privileged after
the 10-legislative day period beginning on that date for the
first 5 such bills.
(2) It shall not be in order to offer any amendment to a
rescission bill except an amendment that increases the amount
of budget authority that such bill rescinds.
(b) Whenever a rescission bill passes the House, the
Committee on the Budget shall immediately reduce the
applicable allocations under section 302(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 by the total amount of
reductions in budget authority and in outlays resulting from
such rescission bill.
(c)(1) It shall not be in order to consider any rescission
bill, or conference report thereon or amendment thereto,
unless--
(A) in the case of such bill or conference report thereon,
it is made available to Members and the general public on the
Internet for at least 48 hours before its consideration; or
(B)(i) in the case of an amendment to such rescission bill
made in order by a rule, it is made available to Members and
the general public on the Internet within one hour after the
rule is filed; or
(ii) in the case of an amendment under an open rule, it is
made available to Members and the general public on the
Internet immediately after being offered; in a format that is
searchable and sortable.
(2) No amendment to an amendment to a rescission bill shall
be in order unless germane to the amendment to which it is
offered.
(d) As used in this section, the term ``rescission bill''
means a bill or joint resolution which only rescinds, in
whole or in part, budget authority and which includes only
titles corresponding to the most recently enacted
appropriation bills that continue to include unobligated
balances.
SEC. 309. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING BASELINE REVENUE
PROJECTIONS.
For purposes of constructing its baseline revenue
projections, the Congressional Budget Office should assume
that any tax provision which is scheduled to expire under
current law will be extended through the duration of any
budget forecast by Congressional Budget Office so as to
ensure that expiring tax provisions and expiring spending
programs (other than direct appropriations) are treated in
like fashion.
SEC. 310. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING LONG-TERM BUDGET
PROJECTIONS.
For purposes of constructing its ten-year and long-term
budget projection reports, the Congressional Budget Office
should include an alternative scenario that assumes that
mandatory spending programs grow at the same rate as average,
projected nominal gross domestic product (GDP).
TITLE IV--EARMARK MORATORIUM
SEC. 401. EARMARK MORATORIUM.
(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order to consider--
(1) a bill or joint resolution reported by any committee,
or any amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that
includes a congressional earmark, limited tax benefit, or
limited tariff benefit; or
(2) a bill or joint resolution not reported by any
committee, or any amendment thereto or conference report
thereon, that includes a congressional earmark, limited tax
benefit, or limited tariff benefit
(b) Definitions.--For the purposes of this resolution, the
terms ``congressional earmark'', ``limited tax benefit'', and
``limited tariff benefit'' have the meaning given those terms
in clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.
(c) Special Rule.--The point of order under subsection (a)
shall only apply to legislation providing or authorizing
discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other
spending authority, providing a Federal tax deduction,
credit, or exclusion, or modifying the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule in fiscal year 2011 or fiscal year 2012.
(d) Inapplicability.--This resolution shall not apply to
any authorization of appropriations to a Federal entity if
such authorization is not specifically targeted to a State,
locality, or congressional district.
SEC. 402. LIMITATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
RULES.
The House Committee on Rules may not report a rule or order
that would waive the point of order set forth in the first
section of this resolution.
TITLE V--POLICY
SEC. 501. POLICY STATEMENT ON HEALTH CARE LAW REPEAL.
It is the policy of this resolution that--
(1) the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public
Law 111-148), and the Health Care and Education
Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152) should be
repealed; and
(2) in its place, health care reform that empowers patients
should be enacted.
SEC. 502. POLICY STATEMENT ON BAILOUTS OF STATE AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS.
It is the policy of this resolution that the Federal
Government should not bailout State and local governments,
including State and local government employee pension plans
and other post-employment benefit plans.
SEC. 503. POLICY STATEMENT ON MEANS TESTED WELFARE PROGRAMS.
(a) Findings.--The House finds that:
(1) In 1996, President Bill Clinton and congressional
Republicans enacted reforms that have moved families off of
Federal programs and enabled them to provide for themselves.
(2) According to the most recent projections, over the next
10 years we will spend approximately $10 trillion on means-
tested welfare programs.
(3) Today, there are currently 77 Federal programs that
provide benefits specifically to poor and low-income
Americans.
(4) Taxpayers deserve clear and transparent information on
how well these programs are working, and how much the Federal
Government is spending on means-tested welfare.
(b) Policy on Means Tested Welfare Programs.--It is the
policy of this resolution that the President's budget should
disclose, in a clear and transparent manner, the aggregate
amount of Federal welfare expenditures, as well as an
estimate of State and local spending for this purpose, over
the next ten years.
SEC. 504. POLICY STATEMENT ON REFORMING THE FEDERAL BUDGET
PROCESS.
It is the policy of this resolution that the Federal budget
process should be reformed so that it is easier to reduce
Federal spending than it is to increase it by enacting
reforms included in the Spending, Deficit, and Debt Control
Act of 2009 (H.R. 3964, 111th Congress).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member opposed each will control 15
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
{time} 1030
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Republican Study
Committee's substitute that is now on the floor. This substitute amends
and builds upon the great work of Chairman Ryan and the entire House
Budget Committee.
And while I do come to the floor and support Chairman Ryan's
proposal, the RSC wanted to put forth a proposal on the floor today
that went even a step further. We named our budget today the Honest
Solutions budget because we know that what we are proposing will not be
easy. Why? Because real solutions are not necessarily easy solutions.
But given the dangerous conditions of our Nation's fiscal situation, we
must recognize that tough choices must be made and must be made now.
The RSC believes that we can do better than any of the budgets on the
floor today. So we have a budget that will, first of all, ensure that
our Nation spends responsibly by freezing total discretionary spending
at 2008 levels. The RSC budget further ensures that our Nation's
security will be met by meeting Defense Secretary Gates's defense
request. The RSC budget puts nondefense discretionary spending on a
sustainable path.
In addition, the RSC budget strengthens Medicare's long-term
finances. And most importantly, our budget, unlike any other budget on
the floor today, will balance within our lifetime.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 15
minutes.
Mr. PASCRELL. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Jordan), the chairman of the Republican Study Committee.
Mr. JORDAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
And I want to thank all the members of the Republican Study
Committee, Mr. Chairman, for their work on this budget. I also want to
thank Chairman
[[Page H2878]]
Ryan for the work on his budget and the committee's work there too, and
in particular, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney), and the gentleman from
California (Mr. McClintock) for their work in putting this together.
The RSC budget, as the gentleman from New Jersey has mentioned, keeps
tax rates low because we believe in economic growth; starts the process
of saving Medicare and Social Security; protects national defense,
which, after all, is that area we are supposed to constitutionally
spend taxpayer dollars on.
But most importantly, what the Republican Study Committee budget does
is it balances. It does what every single family, ever single small
business owner, every single State government and local government has
to do: it actually puts forth a budget that balances, lives within your
means, doesn't spend more than you take in, gets to balance within a
definable period of time. That is why we think this is appropriate,
particularly when you think about the fiscal situation our Nation is
in.
So I stand here in support of the budget and commend the gentleman
from New Jersey for the great work that he has done.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
If the Republican budget is a doubling down on the policies that
brought us to the brink, which is contained in this budget, my brother
from New Jersey presents a budget which I think quadruples down on the
economic policies and lack of optimism in the American people.
The budget believes we cannot, as President Kennedy said a little
over 50 years ago, ``bear any burden and meet any hardship'' in order
to better our Nation. That's what America is all about, regardless of
your party persuasion.
This budget gives trillions in income tax breaks to the wealthiest
Americans, we both agree on that--you think it's a good policy, we
think it's a horrible policy--and at the same time cuts $18 billion.
Let me just take one example, the SCHIP program: $18 billion cut to our
children--our own children, our grandchildren. You must be kidding me.
This budget gives trillions in estate breaks to the wealthiest
Americans. Many people having estates pay no taxes, yet this slashes
funding for Pell Grants for our kids, our grandchildren to go to
college.
This budget gives trillions in tax breaks to corporations that have
been shipping jobs overseas, but ask our constituents, in your district
and my district and everybody's district, to take a 20 percent cut in
the scheduled benefits to Social Security. It's easy to sit here as a
Congressman waiting until you turn 70--why are you smiling?--to retire
with benefits you've earned, but you're asking this of our asphalt
layers, our secretaries, and our teachers.
It comes down to a clear set of priorities, Mr. Chairman. If your
priorities are to cut taxes for the wealthy on the backs of the
retirees, then I think this second budget is the budget for you. But if
you believe in an America that protects our seniors, our children, the
disabled, our veterans, levels the playing field and invests in future
generations, then I urge you to stand with us.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney), who recognizes the fact that we must
live within our means now and, unlike the gentleman from New Jersey,
does not want to put additional burdens on future generations.
Mr. MULVANEY. To the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Chairman, I would
say that it's not easy to do.
Why are we here? We're here for a single purpose: we take what the
Republican Committee has done and simply lay out for the American
people how hard it is to balance the budget within 10 years. It is not
easy to do. But to sit and hear these onslaughts about how we're giving
tax breaks--from a group of people that promised they would not raise
taxes on folks who make less than $250,000 and then repeatedly violated
that promise over the course of the last 2 years--is simply hard to
take.
This is the only budget that we will get a chance to vote on this
week that both balances the budget within 10 years and does not raise
taxes. We take what the Republican Committee has done, we build on it
to show exactly how deep the hole is that we have dug for ourselves and
how hard it is to get out. But to suggest that we do it on the backs of
the poor is simply disingenuous.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who is absolutely on target on most of these
issues dealing with the budget as we move forward.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate my colleague's courtesy.
The words ringing in my ears for a moment about the Democrats having
increased taxes, there is this collective amnesia on the side of our
Republican friends who forget that a critical part of President Obama's
Recovery Act that was passed by the last Congress--42 percent of which
was tax cuts or relief--included a tax cut for every working American.
The kind of forgot about that.
As a practical matter, Mr. Chairman, what we have done is to move
forward under our initiative with something that will enable us to
rebuild and renew America. What we have been given from our friends
here with this alternative budget from my good friend from New Jersey
which I do appreciate, this is where the Republican Party wants to go.
The Ryan budget is bad enough. It will be dead on arrival in the
Senate, and will be resoundingly rejected as Americans see what is
happening, taking away the retirement, health care security of
Americans--230 million Americans will be returned to the tender mercies
of the private insurance market. Remember, the private insurance market
didn't want to insure senior citizens in an affordable fashion with
comprehensive coverage; that's why we had to have Medicaid in the first
place. And now the trick is to provide a voucher to insurance
companies, hoping that they will step up and fill the gap. When you
look at how private insurance premiums have more than doubled in the
last 10 years, you see what a hollow promise this is and what a serious
problem it is going to be for American families trying to plan for
their future.
This is the vision that we have from our Republican friends, not only
take the Republican Budget Committee, go beyond it in terms of more
benefits for those who need it the least.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Van Hollen) will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McClintock), who has no amnesia but recognizes the fact
that we do no favor for this generation by putting the burden for
future constraints on our children and our grandchildren.
{time} 1040
Mr. McCLINTOCK. This Nation is on a collision course with a sovereign
debt crisis the magnitude of which has never been known to this
country. This is not some moonless night on the Atlantic. We are
barreling full speed toward that iceberg of debt in the full light of
day, and we can all see it dead ahead.
The Ryan budget turns the ship around just enough to avoid hitting
that iceberg. The RSC budget does it with an added safety margin by
incorporating more of the debt commission's recommendations and
implementing them faster.
Mr. Chairman, we know the challenge. We see the American dream at
risk, and we know that we have but a fleeting moment in history to
avoid the hardest times our Nation has ever known. We can act now,
place our retirement systems on sound financial footings, arrest the
debilitating spiral of debt that threatens the very survival of our
Nation, and return our economy to the prosperity that it has known when
it enjoyed what Jefferson called a wise and frugal government. Or we
can continue on our present course until we crash into the ice cold and
hard reality that we can all see dead ahead.
[[Page H2879]]
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 3 minutes to the vice chairman of the
Democratic Caucus, the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, budgets are a reflection of our values and
our priorities: jobs, economic growth, fiscal discipline, fairness,
shared sacrifice. Most Americans talk about this all the time when
they're at their kitchen table. It's not that difficult.
So quite honestly the question before us is not whether to reduce the
deficit, but how. Budgets involve tradeoffs. The Republican budget that
is presented to us today along with this Republican Study Committee
alternative would say that we must continue the tax cuts for the
wealthiest Americans in this country. We must continue to give a
millionaire about $130,000 in tax cuts in this budget even though we
are facing the largest deficits our country has experienced.
At the same time, the choice that this Republican budget makes is to
say to seniors, We must end Medicare as we know it; we must eliminate
the guarantee that you, as a senior, have had for more than 35 years
under Medicare to choose your doctor and your hospital; and we must
impose upon you an additional $6,000 in health care costs because these
deficits are so big.
So as the President said a couple of days ago, under the Republican
budget, you would need to take 22 seniors paying 6,000 additional
dollars to cover the costs of giving one millionaire in this country
the $130,000 tax cut. We must do that under the Republican budget.
Democrats have said we must not do that. We must do this differently.
And we must invest again in our people.
On health care, we don't believe that Americans who are seniors
should be given a coupon instead of a guarantee. But that's what the
Republican budget does. It says, You're going to get a voucher, a
coupon, essentially. Once you've used it, the extent of the value of
that coupon, the rest of the money to pay for your health care, comes
out of your pocket. That's why the President said 6,000 additional
dollars for each senior under Medicare under the Republican plan.
Coupon care instead of Medicare. That's what you must have under the
Republican budget.
Democrats say we must invest in Medicare and find the cuts to get rid
of the waste in Medicaid that we know exists. The duplication of
services that seniors don't need. We can do this without denying
seniors guaranteed benefits.
And finally, we must create jobs, but the Republican budget, most of
the leading economists tell us, will cost us 1.7 million jobs. Not
create. Cost us 1.7 million jobs. Under the Bush recession, 8 million
Americans lost their job. The month that George Bush handed the keys to
Barack Obama, we hemorrhaged nearly 800,000 jobs.
We must do this right. Reject the Republicans' budget proposal.
Mr. GARRETT. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Graves), who, just like the
gentleman from California, understands that we must not sink the ship
of state, as the other side of the aisle would do, by excessive tax
burdens and debt.
Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. You know what's great about being here today
and talking about the Ryan plan is it's a blueprint. And blueprints you
can do a couple things to. You can add to, and you can take away from.
And what we've heard from the progressives a minute ago is, plunder
the people's plan rips the pages out of the future of this Nation for
our children and our grandchildren. But the Republican Study Committee,
it adds to it. It actually takes it a step further. It saves the
taxpayers more money by providing savings starting with 2006 levels and
going to 2008 levels.
But what we have to recognize is the debt and the deficit problems we
have here today are not because we are taxed too little; it's because
we have spent too much. And it is a result of 2 failed years of more
government, more taxes, and more spending that we've seen. It's time to
put that in history. Let's put it in the drawer.
Let's move on, and let's pass the Republican Study Committee plan
because I can assure you this: It doesn't go where the President and
the liberals of this House want to go, and that's into the wallets of
the taxpayers of this Nation.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, the bipartisan fiscal commission--no
fringe group--said that the Republican plan was unbalanced because it
doesn't ask for shared sacrifice. It's a lopsided approach. This budget
takes us farther off the deep end.
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. There is no question that the country has to reduce the
deficit by restraining spending. That's why we favor having Medicare
get the same deal on prescription drugs the VA does--which would save
$24 billion a year.
But there is a question about the future of Medicare. And today we're
going to take a vote. Will Medicare prosper or perish? Will Medicare
survive or die? That's the issue before the House today.
The fact is the Republican plan puts an insurance company between our
seniors and their doctors--and that is wrong. The fact is that the
Republican plan does not reduce health care costs. Hospitals will not
charge less. Doctors will not charge less. The government will pay
less, and seniors will pay more--$6,000 per senior per year.
The fact is that this is all being done not to reduce the deficit,
but to reduce taxes of the wealthiest people in America. The fact is we
should not have this.
And the fact is this: We can have an America that doesn't have red
ink in its budget but does have Medicare for its seniors.
Let's make the choice that our constituents sent us here to make.
Yes, let's sensibly reduce spending--as we did yesterday on a
bipartisan basis. But this is the wrong time to end Medicare. We will
fight this effort, and we will prevail.
Mr. GARRETT. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
Huelskamp).
Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the RSC budget because
we cannot wait, as the other side seems to indicate, to get our fiscal
house in order. And the RSC budget will put us on that path even
faster.
Mr. Chairman, the American people are tired of their tax dollars
going to Washington, D.C., with nothing in return but empty promises
and Federal strings. They are tired of adding to the National debt with
none of the promised jobs.
People across my State of Kansas, indeed all across the country, want
their power back from Washington. Our Founding Fathers got this concept
of federalism right, and it's time we return government power from
Washington bureaucrats and politicians back to the American people.
Block grants of Federal Medicaid dollars to the States will do just
that by allowing States and those closest to the people to use their
ingenuity and creativity to make Medicaid dollars work more
effectively.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GARRETT. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. HUELSKAMP. If we really care about the people, Mr. Chairman,
there are currently 455 Medicaid waivers, and I ask that we allow the
flexibility in the Medicaid system through a block grant system that
returns the powers of federalism back to the States. And the RSC budget
will do just that, Mr. Chairman. It's the right thing to do. It's the
right time now to balance our budget in this way.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Rangel).
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
{time} 1050
Mr. RANGEL. Thank you for this opportunity.
Unlike so many of my colleagues, I don't have any charts or anything
to point out the direction in which I would want my great country to
go, but I do have 40 young minds that come from the Frederick Douglass
Academy, come from my alma mater on Lenox Avenue, come from Harlem. And
in these minds are the dreams and the aspirations of all the young
people that want to be a part of the progress that this Nation has
made.
Most of them, their parents have never had an opportunity to go to
college, but have been the recipients of
[[Page H2880]]
Pell Grants and other kinds of educational benefits. Most of their
parents and grandparents have depended on Medicaid and Medicare. Most
of these kids have dreams that most of your kids have today. It just
seems to me that when they go home they should not be able to say that
they witnessed the protection of the wealthiest people in the United
States; but they should go home to say their dreams can be acquired,
our Nation can be stronger, and they want to be partners in making
certain that America can be all that she can be.
So as we welcome them, they are only symbolic, they are only
representative of the young people of our great country, and I hope we
can see clear to support them. Thank you for the opportunity.
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), who realizes that the young people
would do best if we not put additional tax burdens of over $40,000 or
$50,000 on their birth coming into this country by the actions of not
living responsibly.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in support of the RSC budget. With a deficit of $1.6 trillion,
a debt of $14 trillion, it's no surprise that we've got to do
something. We have to do something dramatic. This budget actually
balances over a 9-year period, and it reforms the programs that are
important to many Americans, to make them solvent and sustainable over
time.
The proposals from the other side of the aisle simply don't do that.
They ignore the time bomb that we have in these programs. So I commend
the RSC staff and Members for putting this together. This is a good
budget. We ought to support it to put our Nation on a path of financial
stability and security.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, the time bomb that's ticking is the
time bomb on the Medicare guarantee.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman), the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I can't express my concern with greater
alarm about this budget. It is a budget that's going to inflict
terrible harm on Americans from all walks of life, while protecting the
wealthiest taxpayers in America, both individuals and Republicans.
Now, if I give the benefit of the doubt to the Republican sponsors of
their budget proposal that they're sincere, they are speaking from an
ideological point of view, they want to try a social experiment in this
country. But if they fail to live up to what they say they're going to
accomplish, there is going to be tremendous harm.
We have a social contract with seniors to provide affordable,
accessible, comprehensive health care under Medicare. And they want to
take Medicare and end it, and tell those people to go to private
insurance companies. We have estimates that the average senior will
face cost increases of $6,000 when the program begins, and it could be
over $11,000 per beneficiary in later years. But right away, to add
insult to injury, they would reopen the doughnut hole under the part D
prescription drug benefit, meaning people still have to pay all of the
cost of their drugs, reversing what the Affordable Care Act provided.
But most of their cuts are coming from the Medicaid program. They
want to take Medicaid and turn it into a block grant. Medicaid accounts
for 43 percent of total long-term care spending in the U.S. Most of it
goes to seniors and disabled people who are in nursing homes. If the
States don't have enough money in their block grants, are they going to
dump these people? These are human beings, and you are playing with
their lives. This means real harm will be inflicted where Medicaid
spending is the greatest.
By cutting reimbursement rates, Medicaid will lose providers. Nursing
home quality and staffing levels will decline.
Reject this budget. Don't experiment on the most vulnerable of our
population.
Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose the Republican Budget Resolution for
fiscal year 2012. Their budget inflicts terrible harm on Americans from
all walks of life--while protecting the wealthiest taxpayers in
America, both individuals and corporations.
I am particularly disturbed by what the Republican budget does to
Medicare and Medicaid.
There is no other way to put it: the Republican budget is the end of
Medicare as we know it, and it is devastating for Medicare
beneficiaries.
Medicare is a social contract with our seniors to provide affordable,
accessible, comprehensive health care. The Republicans want to turn
Medicare over to the private insurance industry, with payments to
seniors that will fall far short of what they need to get the health
care they deserve.
The Congressional Budget Office analysis of the Republican budget
shows that, over the next decade, it will more than double beneficiary
cost for new enrollees.
The average senior will face increased costs of over $6,000 annually
when the program begins. And all of that extra spending by seniors and
people with disabilities will go to private health insurance plans.
The transfer of seniors into private plans will raise costs by over
$11,000 per beneficiary by 2030.
To add insult to injury, the Republican budget reopens the donut hole
under the Part D prescription drug benefit, increasing the burden on
seniors starting today.
For Medicaid, the Republican budget is even worse. Medicaid covers 60
million of the country's most vulnerable people, one in 3 low income
children, 5 million seniors, and 10 million disabled individuals.
It accounts for 43 percent of total long term care spending in the
U.S.
But the Republican budget cuts Medicaid in half by 2022, and turns it
into a block grant for the states right away.
And since the Medicaid block grant would grow by only 1 percent per
year, while inflation is over 2 percent and health inflation and
enrollment growth is even higher.
This means real harm will be inflicted where Medicaid spending is the
greatest: on seniors and individuals with disabilities in nursing homes
and those receiving benefits to live independently in their home.
By cutting reimbursement rates, Medicaid will lose health providers.
Nursing home quality and staffing levels will inevitably decline.
Medicaid cuts will mean job losses in the health professions.
The Republican budget utterly fails the basic test of humane
government. It is extreme, it is mean, and it must be defeated.
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Duncan), who does not believe it's a social experiment to
do what all families have to do: live within our means.
Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, folks, no prepared
remarks, no fancy speeches. I brought with me a financial calculator.
And regardless of how you calculate the numbers, America is spending
too much money.
You know, for 3 years in a row we spent over a trillion dollars more
than we were bringing in as a Nation. We are over $14 trillion in debt.
This budget puts us on a very clear path to paying back the national
debt, to reducing and ending deficits in a very timely manner, to
protecting the future for our children and our grandchildren, our most
precious resource as Americans.
I urge my colleagues to get behind this budget, vote for it, and
let's put the American spending in priority. Let's stop the spending
insanity here in Washington, D.C., and let's do what we tell the folks
back home we are going to do, and let's get our fiscal house in order.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. We can get our fiscal house in order and do this in a
balanced way without ending the Medicare guarantee.
With that, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Israel).
Mr. ISRAEL. I thank my friend from Maryland for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, every budget is about the bottom line, and here is the
Ryan budget bottom line: If you are making over a million dollars, you
get a $100,000 tax cut. If you are a senior on Medicare, you get an
extra $12,000 medical bill. If you make over a million dollars, you win
the lottery. If you are a senior citizen, you lose your Medicare.
Mr. Chairman, they say this is about balancing the budget, but they
are trying to balance the budget by giving tax cuts to people earning
over a million dollars and taking Medicare away from our seniors. That
is no way to balance the budget.
Mr. GARRETT. May I ask the Chair how much time remains.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has 7 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Maryland has 2 minutes remaining.
[[Page H2881]]
Mr. GARRETT. At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who recognizes the fact that the solutions to
all the problems in the world, as the other side may think, is not
raising taxes on anyone and certainly not raising the taxes on those
who produce the jobs in this country.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in strong support of the Republican Study Committee budget
alternative.
The fact of the matter is we're broke. The Federal budget deficit is
projected to exceed $1 trillion for the next 2 fiscal years and exceed
$800 billion annually for at least the next decade. We cannot sustain
this path without bankrupting our country.
Congressman Ryan's budget proposal is a great start and sets us on a
path to bringing the budget into balance. However, that proposal takes
28 years to do so. I support and will vote for his budget, but I am
concerned about what will happen to it if future Congresses are not as
willing to make the tough choices that are necessary to see this budget
path to completion. That's why I strongly support the RSC budget, which
balances the Federal budget within 9 years.
Ultimately, we need a constitutional amendment to require a balanced
budget to force all future Congresses to make these tough decisions,
but the RSC budget does the best job of getting our fiscal house in
order as quickly as possible. And now I urge all Members to support it.
The RSC Budget Proposal:
Puts forward commonsense reforms to improve Medicare and Medicaid by
offering increased choices and improved services, and takes steps to
save Social Security.
Repeals ObamaCare to eliminate $677 billion in additional spending
over 10 years.
Freezes total discretionary spending at 2008 levels ($933 billion)
beginning in 2013.
Prevents any new tax increases, repeals the unaffordable $813 billion
tax increase included in ObamaCare, and proposes a smarter tax code
that would lower rates while broadening the tax base.
Reduces unnecessary mandatory spending--other than Medicare,
Medicaid, and Social Security--by $1.9 trillion between 2012 and 2021.
Mr. GARRETT. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
{time} 1100
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Republican
Study Committee budget alternative. Today I want to commend the
gentleman from New Jersey for his courageous leadership on this issue.
You know, they say that the first step in dealing with addiction is
recognize that you have got a problem. After 10 years of fighting
runaway Federal spending by both political parties here in Washington,
DC, I am convinced Washington, DC is addicted to spending, and it's
time that we got serious.
I am a strong supporter of the Republican budget authored by Paul
Ryan, and I am a strong supporter of the Republican Study Committee
alternative offered by Mr. Garrett.
The legislation before us today would actually put us on a pathway to
achieve a balanced Federal budget by the year 2020. There are hard
choices in this budget, but it's time the American people broke this
addiction. It's a time that people in both political parties came
together and played it straight with the American people and said there
are tough choices ahead, we can do them in a way that's humane, we can
do them in a way that represents fiscal discipline and reform.
But we have to act; we have to act now. I urge my colleagues to
support this important amendment.
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Rokita).
Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this budget
amendment.
As a member of the Budget Committee, I also support the Ryan budget.
Both these budget proposals are steps in the right direction. They make
reforms that are needed. They are honest proposals. They are not trying
to demagog, they are not trying to fear-monger, they are not trying to
fib to the American people.
We have got to address, Mr. Chairman, the drivers of our debt. We
could have no Defense Department. I could work for free; our staffs can
work for free. We can get rid of 167 agencies, and we still wouldn't
get rid of this debt.
Our debt is driven by these programs of Social Security, Medicare and
Medicaid. And the reason is because reckless politicians who came
before this new Member made promises that can't possibly be kept. We
are here to tell the truth, Mr. Chairman.
These budgets do this job gradually, they do it humanely, and they
allow people to prepare so that these programs can be saved for my kids
and our grandkids.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time
remains on each side.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 2 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from New Jersey has 3\3/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Southerland), who recognizes we must keep our promises,
especially to the youth of tomorrow.
(Mr. SOUTHERLAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. SOUTHERLAND. I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey
for the time this morning.
I rise today in support of the RSC budget, as well as the Ryan
budget.
You know, my friends on the other side of the aisle make quick talk
about the very most wealthy. Well, unfortunately, most of those file as
individuals because they own LLCs and they own S corporations, as my
family does. So you file those on your individual tax return. I think
the American people deserve the truth regarding that number.
The second thing, I will tell you something, as a new freshman to
this body, it's amazing that we want to talk about how the Republicans
want to harm Medicare on the heels of a health care bill that cut $500
billion out of Medicare. I have little patience, little patience with
such talk.
I will tell you the American people deserve the truth. They need this
body, rather than to propose and push forth debt, doubt and despair,
they must, they require us to give them certainty, safety, and
security.
I rise in support of the Ryan budget as well as RSC budget.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would remind the body that the $500 million in Medicare reform
savings, which we got from ending some of the big breaks to the
insurance industry, are kept in the Republican budget. You keep those
savings.
What you do not do is what we did: use some of those savings to close
the prescription drug doughnut hole. So you took the savings, but you
left the seniors with the doughnut hole.
I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms.
DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. I strongly oppose this budget proposal. The choices the
majority is making are ill considered and wrong.
Instead of working to reduce the deficit in a commonsense way, this
budget ends Medicare--it ends Medicare--throws seniors to the wolves.
Instead of working to control health care costs, this budget shifts
them on to seniors and families.
The proposal repeals health care reform, dismantles Medicaid,
throwing seniors out of nursing homes while providing giveaways to the
insurance industry. It gives tax breaks to corporations that shift jobs
overseas, cuts critical investments in education, research, job
training and infrastructure. It provides subsidies to big oil
companies, while cutting services to the most vulnerable Americans,
including $350 billion in food stamps.
Programs such as Medicaid, Pell Grants, WIC would be gutted. It cuts
taxes for the wealthiest while raising taxes on the middle class.
Millionaires, billionaires get a lower top tax rate and extended estate
tax giveaway.
Everyone else sees deductions and credits, like the child tax credit,
eliminated. This budget is Robin Hood in reverse. It takes from
seniors, the middle class, working families and gives all
[[Page H2882]]
that money to the rich and to corporate special interests.
I urge my colleagues, stand up for the middle class today and for
America's seniors and oppose this budget.
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Brooks), who actually read this amendment and understands
that it makes absolutely no changes whatsoever for seniors 60 years of
age and over and actually strengthens health care for seniors in
generations to come.
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, by way of background, for the listeners and
the people in this House, I graduated from Duke University with highest
honors with distinction in economics. I say that to give you an idea,
to have a little bit of insight as to what I am talking about when I
talk about the two principal economic theories of our day.
One is free enterprise and the other is socialism. Let's talk about
socialism for a moment. It's greater and greater government
micromanaging our lives. It's higher taxes to pay for it.
Let's talk about free enterprise. Free enterprise is belief in the
individual, in freedom and opportunity. It's what has helped make
America one of the greatest nations this world has ever seen.
This Republican budget, the two of them--you can go with the RSC or
you can go with the Ryan one--they are premised on free enterprise
solutions. They will create real jobs and wealth for all Americans.
I urge this body to go with what our Founding Fathers went with, free
enterprise. That's the ticket to success.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I have no further requests for time, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
So we stand before you, as I said before, with clear distinctions on
the course that this country will lead in the future. Shall we continue
to make the same bad policy that we have made in the past which sets us
on a fiscal crisis, which not only this side of the aisle but the
President of the United States recently stated as well?
Or should we change the direction of the ship of State? Should we
direct ourselves on a path towards fiscal sanity? Should we go in the
direction that every single family in this country has to go in, that
is to say, that we will live within our means, that we will not put an
additional burden on our children and our grandchildren?
Shall we go in a direction that we can say to the seniors 60 years of
age or older that we will not change your entitlements, we will not
change your health care but, rather, that we will put in place today's
programs that will make sure that they are here for you and for your
children and future generations as well?
Shall we go on a path that says to our children of today and of
tomorrow that we will not put additional burdens onto you today or in
the future by putting in programs that we cannot afford?
{time} 1110
The Republican Study Committee chooses the latter. The Republican
Study Committee decides that we should live within our means. The
Republican Study Committee ensures that our Nation spend responsibly by
freezing the total discretionary spending at 2008 levels, ensures our
national security by meeting Defense Secretary Gates' defense request.
Our budget puts non-defense discretionary spending on a sustainable
path for the future.
We reduce unnecessary mandatory spending other than Medicare,
Medicaid, and Social Security as opposed to what my friends on the
other side of the aisle say. We strengthen Medicare's long-term
finances. This budget would slowly phase in increases to Medicare
eligibility and make it stronger for the future.
And most of all, unlike any other budget that will come to the floor
today, this budget will actually balance, we will actually come with a
balanced budget within the lifetimes of all the Members here sitting
today.
Mr. Chairman, we believe that the solutions outlined in our budget
proposal will put our Nation on a greater, surer footing, address the
fiscal crisis and set the course for dynamic innovation, job creation,
and economic growth for the future.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, we do need to make tough choices. The question is what
choices do we make? You choose to give another round of tax cuts to
millionaires at the same time you're cutting investments in our kids'
education. You choose not to get rid of the subsidies, taxpayer
subsidies for oil companies while you end the Medicare guarantee, while
you immediately eliminate the effort to close the doughnut hole, and
while you cut funding for seniors in nursing homes by slashing
Medicaid. Those are the choices you have made.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair will remind Members that remarks in
debate must be addressed to the Chair.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
will be postponed.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Grijalva of Arizona.
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for the second electronic
vote after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Grijalva
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Grijalva) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 77,
noes 347, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 274]
AYES--77
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cummings
Davis (IL)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kucinich
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Markey
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Miller, George
Moore
Nadler
Napolitano
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pingree (ME)
Rangel
Richardson
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Serrano
Slaughter
Stark
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Velazquez
Waters
Watt
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
NOES--347
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Andrews
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
[[Page H2883]]
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holden
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
Webster
Weiner
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--8
Garamendi
Giffords
Keating
Lowey
Meeks
Olver
Reichert
Sewell
{time} 1135
Mr. PETRI changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. WATT changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Boehner was allowed to speak out of
order.)
On the Retirement of the Chaplain
Mr. BOEHNER. I think all of the Members should be aware that today is
Father Coughlin's last day as our Chaplain after 11 years of service.
I think all of us, not just the Members but the officers and the
staff, owe a giant debt of gratitude to Father Dan. He has been an
invaluable part of our community, not just with the opening prayer but
his counsel and his guidance that he's offered to all of us. In the
House's darkest hours, he's been there to gently lead us back to safe
haven. In between, when things get really noisy around here, he tries
to encourage us to stop, find some quiet time, and reflect.
He was appointed by Speaker Hastert 11 years ago. He comes from
Chicago, where he will return. I am sure that there's one person that's
real happy he's returning, and that's his mother, who's 96 years young.
So, Father Dan, on behalf of the whole House, I want to thank you for
your service. I know we haven't always been the most cooperative
congregation. I hope that you will keep this House and the people who
serve here in your prayers. We will keep you in ours.
With that, I am happy to yield to my colleague from California.
Ms. PELOSI. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
As is very evident by the response to your remarks in praise of
Father Coughlin, if there's one thing that Democrats and Republicans in
the House of Representatives agree on, it is that God has truly blessed
us with the service of Father Coughlin as our Chaplain for the past 11
years.
When we talk about him being our Chaplain, it's not that he's just
the Chaplain of the Members, he's the Chaplain for the staff, for the
carpenter that we see in the hall, for the service employees who are
here. He ministers to the needs of all of us here, sometimes in a very
macro way.
{time} 1140
When 9/11 struck, or in Tucson most recently, or with the anthrax
threat, those kinds of things had an impact on all of us. Father was
there for us as a group, and he was there for us individually. We never
know what joys or pain our colleagues or our workers here are
undergoing or suffering. Father Dan knows more than most of us, and his
discretion is something that we all value and respect.
Father Dan has ministered to the needs of the poor with the
Missionaries of Charity in Calcutta, India. He has meditated with the
Trappist monks in the monastery, and I think he's going back to do some
of that again. He has been a scholar-in-residence at the North American
College in Rome, exchanging ideas there. He has ministered to the needs
of his parishioners in LaGrange, Illinois, and that probably serves him
best for ministering to the diverse needs of the flock that he
shepherds here. We are very, very, very honored.
Last year, many of us in a bipartisan way stood up and sang the
praises. It seems so recent, but it was a year ago. Then after that,
Father was honored in Illinois for serving as a priest for 50 years.
For some of us, it was really a special source of pride. Although we
respect all of our Chaplains, it was a source of personal pride that he
was the first Roman Catholic Chaplain in the House of Representatives,
and he showed that he could minister to the needs of all of the Members
of all faiths here.
So, yes, we are very blessed by his service in the Congress. We are
going to miss him a great deal. We wish him well as he goes forth. The
legacy that he left us is one that was not only of opening prayer each
day to inspire us and lift us to a higher place in our deliberations,
but he set an example of civility in the Congress of confidentiality of
relationships. He was a great Chaplain. We will miss him greatly, and
we are enormously grateful to him.
Thank you, Father Coughlin.
Mr. BOEHNER. Father Dan, may God be with you.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Garrett
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Gingrey of Georgia). Without objection, 5-
minute voting will continue.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Garrett) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 119,
noes 136, answered ``present'' 172, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 275]
AYES--119
Akin
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Campbell
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Culberson
Denham
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Griffith (VA)
Guinta
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herger
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hunter
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Labrador
[[Page H2884]]
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latta
Long
Lummis
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Pence
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Ribble
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Ross (FL)
Royce
Scalise
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Shimkus
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
West
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Woodall
NOES--136
Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Barletta
Barrow
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Black
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boswell
Boustany
Braley (IA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Davis (KY)
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Forbes
Fortenberry
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hanna
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Heller
Herrera Beutler
Hultgren
Hurt
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Kildee
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lungren, Daniel E.
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCotter
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Miller (MI)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Paulsen
Pearce
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Schilling
Schock
Schrader
Scott (SC)
Sensenbrenner
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Stivers
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walden
Watt
Webster
Whitfield
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--172
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--5
Giffords
Keating
Meeks
Olver
Reichert
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). Less than 2 minutes remain in
this vote.
{time} 1158
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS, Mrs. BONO MACK and Mr. DREIER changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. GALLEGLY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
Messrs. ELLISON, TIERNEY, GUTIERREZ, DINGELL, SARBANES, BECERRA,
RICHMOND, GRIJALVA, DeFAZIO, FRANK of Massachusetts, GEORGE MILLER of
California, McDERMOTT, PAYNE, HONDA, LYNCH, McNERNEY, WAXMAN, CLYBURN,
ROTHMAN of New Jersey, PASCRELL, MICHAUD, Ms. McCOLLUM, and Messrs.
LIPINSKI and RUSH changed their vote from ``no'' to ``present.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Van Hollen
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in part B of House Report 112-62.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to put in order the Democratic
substitute budget.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2012.
(a) Declaration.--Congress declares that this resolution is
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012
and that this resolution sets forth the appropriate budgetary
levels for the fiscal years 2013 through 2021.
(b) Table of Contents.--
Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012.
TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS
Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts.
Sec. 102. Major functional categories.
TITLE II--RESERVE FUNDS
Sec. 201. Reserve fund for job creation through investments and
incentives.
Sec. 202. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for increasing energy
independence.
Sec. 203. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for America's veterans and
servicemembers.
Sec. 204. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for Medicare improvement.
Sec. 205. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for Transitional Medical
Assistance.
Sec. 206. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for initiatives that benefit
children.
Sec. 207. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the reauthorization of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
Sec. 208. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the Affordable Housing Trust
Fund.
Sec. 209. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for college affordability.
Sec. 210. Reserve fund for additional tax relief for individuals and
families.
TITLE III--ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Point of order against advance appropriations.
Sec. 302. Adjustments to discretionary spending limits.
Sec. 303. Costs of overseas contingency operations and emergency needs.
Sec. 304. Budgetary treatment of certain discretionary administrative
expenses.
Sec. 305. Application and effect of changes in allocations and
aggregates.
Sec. 306. Exercise of rulemaking powers.
TITLE IV--POLICY
Sec. 401. Policy of the House on Social Security reform that protects
workers and retirees.
Sec. 402. Policy of the House on protecting the Medicare guarantee for
seniors.
Sec. 403. Policy of the House on affordable health care coverage for
working families.
Sec. 404. Policy of the House on Medicaid.
Sec. 405. Policy of the House on health care for military
servicemembers and their families and veterans.
Sec. 406. Policy of the House on overseas contingency operations.
Sec. 407. Policy of the House on national security.
Sec. 408. Policy of the House on tax reform and deficit reduction.
Sec. 409. Policy of the House on agriculture spending.
TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS
SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.
The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of
fiscal years 2012 through 2021:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2012: $1,874,821,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,160,696,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $2,427,909,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $2,617,442,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $2,766,457,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $2,912,862,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $3,088,525,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $3,265,724,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $3,440,495,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $3,621,001,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be changed are as follows:
Fiscal year 2012: -$16,590,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: -$194,259,000,000.
[[Page H2885]]
Fiscal year 2014: -$242,966,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: -$213,460,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: -$204,735,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: -$262,449,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: -$245,937,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: -$237,092,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: -$240,015,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: -$262,582,000,000.
(2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new
budget authority are as follows:
Fiscal year 2012: $3,019,682,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $3,020,663,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $3,211,158,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $3,343,359,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $3,558,413,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $3,724,776,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $3,883,519,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $4,098,979,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $4,314,542,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $4,497,789,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2012: $3,056,448,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $3,077,023,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $3,199,401,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $3,342,246,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $3,549,501,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $3,691,037,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $3,828,322,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $4,056,925,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $4,258,952,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $4,452,330,000,000.
(4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget)
are as follows:
Fiscal year 2012: $1,181,627,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $916,327,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $771,492,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $724,804,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $783,044,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $778,175,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $739,797,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $791,201,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $818,457,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $831,329,000,000.
(5) Debt subject to limit.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate
levels of the public debt are as follows:
Fiscal year 2012: $16,316,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $17,417,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $18,385,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $19,336,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $20,362,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $21,403,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $22,433,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $23,505,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $24,622,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $25,784,000,000,000.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2012: $11,533,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $12,463,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $13,241,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $13,972,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $14,753,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $15,533,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $16,282,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $17,087,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $17,936,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $18,810,000,000,000.
SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.
The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years
2012 through 2021 for each major functional category are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $585,002,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $598,671,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $602,362,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $598,619,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $618,636,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $606,563,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $631,159,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $618,331,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $644,397,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $633,353,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $656,009,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $642,314,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $668,081,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $650,535,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $680,295,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $667,865,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $692,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $679,939,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $705,330,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $692,242,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $57,212,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $50,595,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $57,982,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $54,638,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $55,518,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $56,105,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $55,252,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $56,081,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $55,452,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $57,002,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $58,018,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $58,049,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $60,083,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $58,820,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $61,194,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $58,325,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $62,327,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $58,348,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $63,511,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $59,299,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $32,566,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,940,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $31,473,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,783,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $31,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,616,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $31,378,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,380,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $32,367,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,049,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $33,151,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,711,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $33,970,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,471,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $34,819,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,235,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $35,695,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,079,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $36,607,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,875,000,000.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $12,878,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,240,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $9,720,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,682,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $7,280,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,103,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $6,188,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,477,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $6,262,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,723,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $6,267,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,827,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $6,408,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,953,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $6,667,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,923,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $6,686,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,857,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $6,825,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,974,000,000.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $37,368,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,740,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $35,981,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,587,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $36,157,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,448,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $36,225,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,306,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $37,218,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,184,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $38,031,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,714,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $39,456,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,871,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $40,229,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,583,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $41,599,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,772,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $42,066,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,309,000,000.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $21,035,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,419,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $20,260,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,047,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $20,309,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,942,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $19,463,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,863,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $19,564,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,980,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $19,518,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,889,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $19,795,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,144,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $20,052,000,000.
[[Page H2886]]
(B) Outlays, $19,384,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $20,267,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,598,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $20,549,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,889,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $24,201,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,682,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $13,610,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,036,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $12,159,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$3,079,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $13,124,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$4,620,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $13,693,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$7,122,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $17,275,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$6,557,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $18,584,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$7,780,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $20,922,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,830,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $28,482,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,763,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $21,746,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,194,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $92,997,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $92,985,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $93,428,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $93,367,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $93,560,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $93,954,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $94,344,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $95,487,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $95,319,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $96,910,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $96,329,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $98,070,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $97,374,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $99,368,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $98,462,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $100,766,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $99,607,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $103,033,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $100,797,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $104,951,000,000.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $15,768,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,957,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $15,850,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,312,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $16,136,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,510,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $16,432,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,044,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $16,752,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,581,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $17,132,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $17,527,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,726,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $17,905,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,027,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $18,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,410,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $18,694,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,802,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $111,660,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $117,278,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $103,601,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $105,183,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $106,767,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $105,243,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $111,512,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $110,265,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $118,367,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $115,349,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $122,925,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $120,086,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $124,810,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $123,162,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $126,741,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $125,134,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $128,251,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $126,917,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $130,037,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $128,515,000,000.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $356,454,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $358,345,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $371,025,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $368,610,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $452,921,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $435,868,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $518,204,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $506,510,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $565,854,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $570,405,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $612,933,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $615,828,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $654,725,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $652,292,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $700,813,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $697,785,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $755,915,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $742,356,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $799,717,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $795,946,000,000.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $483,906,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $483,575,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $520,906,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $521,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $548,999,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $548,921,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $571,619,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $571,471,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $618,727,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $618,926,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $640,386,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $640,268,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $663,131,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $662,959,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $722,938,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $723,130,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $775,021,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $774,897,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $829,118,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $828,970,000,000.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $536,350,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $531,078,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $523,956,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $522,361,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $520,920,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $519,386,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $518,437,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $516,335,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $525,765,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $527,558,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $526,227,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $523,584,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $530,452,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $523,054,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $546,089,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $543,158,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $557,719,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $554,766,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $570,308,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $567,314,000,000.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $54,439,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $54,624,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $29,094,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,256,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $32,699,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,776,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $36,259,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,311,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $40,171,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,171,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $44,265,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,263,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $48,721,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $48,717,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $53,514,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $53,508,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $58,560,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $58,552,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $64,063,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $64,053,000,000.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $128,339,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $128,114,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $130,024,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $130,024,000,000.
[[Page H2887]]
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $134,143,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $134,055,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $138,167,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $137,851,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $147,410,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $146,868,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $146,323,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $145,704,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $145,412,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $144,751,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $155,091,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $154,407,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $159,680,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $158,979,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $164,381,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $163,622,000,000.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $55,182,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $57,072,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $61,315,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $57,008,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $55,543,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $57,426,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $56,239,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $58,230,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $59,732,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $60,823,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $59,411,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $59,808,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $60,848,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $61,743,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $62,427,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $62,080,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $66,045,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $65,430,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $68,682,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $68,039,000,000.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $27,419,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,492,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $26,927,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,930,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $27,510,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,103,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $28,157,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,464,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $29,173,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,198,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $29,798,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,598,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $30,502,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,191,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $31,275,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,735,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $31,841,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,377,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $32,511,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,931,000,000.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $373,659,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $373,659,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $439,991,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $439,991,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $519,615,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $519,615,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $598,459,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $598,459,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $678,904,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $678,904,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $756,129,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $756,129,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $827,473,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $827,473,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $890,592,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $890,592,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $953,210,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $953,210,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $1,006,915,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,006,915,000,000.
(19) Non-Security Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, -$20,374,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$13,539,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, -$16,513,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$10,639,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, -$22,316,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$18,381,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, -$22,402,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$19,208,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, -$25,768,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$23,209,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, -$28,411,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$26,537,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, -$30,325,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$29,013,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, -$32,186,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$31,172,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, -$33,734,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$32,954,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, -$35,241,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$34,708,000,000.
(20) Security Allowances (930)
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, -$15,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$8,592,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, -$20,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$15,405,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, -$25,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$21,052,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, -$30,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$26,235,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, -$35,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$31,385,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, -$35,692,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$33,860,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, -$36,409,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$35,217,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, -$37,142,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$36,167,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, -$37,884,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$36,982,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, -$38,653,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$37,728,000,000.
(21) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, -$77,923,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$77,923,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, -$80,329,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$80,329,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, -$81,798,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$81,798,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, -$84,857,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$84,857,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, -$85,946,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$85,946,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, -$91,248,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$91,248,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, -$97,099,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$97,099,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, -$101,718,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$101,718,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, -$105,645,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$105,645,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, -$110,174,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$110,174,000,000.
(22) Overseas Contingency Operations (970):
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $126,544,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $118,036,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $92,862,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $65,077,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $0,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,301,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $0,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,179,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $0,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,497,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $0,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,201,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $0,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $515,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $0,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $250,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $0,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $100,000,000.
TITLE II--RESERVE FUNDS
SEC. 201. RESERVE FUND FOR JOB CREATION THROUGH INVESTMENTS
AND INCENTIVES.
The chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise the
allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this
resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report that provides for a robust Federal
investment in America's infrastructure, incentives for
businesses, and support for communities that creates jobs for
Americans and boosts the economy. The revisions may include
measures that:
(1) Provide for additional investments to improve energy
efficiency, develop renewable energy sources, and provide the
training for workers in these industries (``clean energy
[[Page H2888]]
jobs'') by the amounts in such measure if such measure would
not increase the deficit for either of the following time
periods, fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2016 or fiscal year
2011 to fiscal year 2021.
(2) Reauthorize Federal highway and transit programs by
providing new contract authority by the amounts provided in
such measure if such measure establishes or maintains a
solvent Highway Trust Fund over the period of fiscal years
2012 through 2017. ``Solvency'' is defined as a positive cash
balance. Such measure may include a transfer into the Highway
Trust Fund from other Federal funds, as long as the transfer
of Federal funds is fully offset.
(3) Create a National Infrastructure Bank to pool Federal,
State, local, tribal, and private-sector resources for a wide
range of investments of national or regional significance by
the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would
not increase the deficit for either of the following time
periods, fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2016 or fiscal year
2011 to fiscal year 2021.
(4) Provide for additional investments in rail, aviation,
harbors, seaports, public housing, broadband, energy, water,
and other infrastructure by the amounts provided in such
measure if such measure would not increase the deficit for
either of the following time periods, fiscal year 2011 to
fiscal year 2016 or fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2021.
(5) Provide additional incentives, including tax
incentives, to small businesses, nonprofits, States, and
communities to expand investment and to train, hire, and
retain private-sector workers and public service employees by
the amounts provided in such measure if such measure does not
increase the deficit for either of the following time
periods, fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2016 or fiscal year
2011 to fiscal year 2021.
SEC. 202. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR INCREASING ENERGY
INDEPENDENCE.
The chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise the
allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this
resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report that--
(1) provides tax incentives for or otherwise encourages the
production of renewable energy or increased energy
efficiency;
(2) encourages investment in emerging energy or vehicle
technologies or carbon capture and sequestration;
(3) limits and provides for reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions;
(4) assists businesses, industries, States, communities,
the environment, workers, or households as the United States
moves toward reducing and offsetting the impacts of
greenhouse gas emissions; or
(5) facilitates the training of workers for these
industries (``clean energy jobs'');
by the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would
not increase the deficit for either of the following time
periods, fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2016 or fiscal year
2011 to fiscal year 2021.
SEC. 203. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR AMERICA'S VETERANS
AND SERVICEMEMBERS.
The chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise the
allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this
resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report that--
(1) enhances health care for military personnel, military
retirees, or veterans;
(2) maintains the affordability of health care for military
personnel, military retirees, or veterans;
(3) improves disability benefits or evaluations for wounded
or disabled military personnel or veterans, including
measures to expedite the claims process;
(4) expands eligibility to permit additional disabled
military retirees to receive both disability compensation and
retired pay (concurrent receipt); or
(5) eliminates the offset between Survivor Benefit Plan
annuities and veterans' dependency and indemnity
compensation;
by the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would
not increase the deficit for either of the following time
periods, fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2016, or fiscal year
2011 to fiscal year 2021.
SEC. 204. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR MEDICARE
IMPROVEMENT.
The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that make improvements to
Medicare, including making reforms to the Medicare payment
system for physicians that build on delivery reforms
underway, such as advancement of new care models, and--
(1) change incentives to encourage efficiency and higher
quality care in a manner consistent with the goals of fiscal
sustainability;
(2) improve payment accuracy to encourage efficient use of
resources and ensure that patient-centered primary care
receives appropriate compensation;
(3) support innovative programs to improve coordination of
care among all providers serving a patient in all appropriate
settings; and
(4) hold providers accountable for their utilization
patterns and quality of care;
by the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would
not increase the deficit for either of the following time
periods, fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2016 or fiscal year
2011 to fiscal year 2021.
SEC. 205. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR TRANSITIONAL
MEDICAL ASSISTANCE.
The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that extends the Transitional
Medical Assistance program in title XIX of the Social
Security Act through fiscal year 2012, by the amounts
provided in such measure if such measure would not increase
the deficit for either of the following time periods, fiscal
year 2011 to fiscal year 2016 or fiscal year 2011 to fiscal
year 2021.
SEC. 206. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR INITIATIVES THAT
BENEFIT CHILDREN.
The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that improves the lives of
children by the amounts provided in such measure if such
measure would not increase the deficit for either of the
following time periods, fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2016
or fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2021. Improvements may
include:
(1) Extension and expansion of child care assistance.
(2) Changes to foster care to prevent child abuse and
neglect and keep more children safely in their homes.
(3) Changes to child support enforcement to encourage
increased parental support for children, particularly from
non-custodial parents, including legislation that results in
a greater share of collected child support reaching the child
or encourages States to provide access and visitation
services to improve fathers' relationships with their
children. Such changes could reflect efforts to ensure that
States have the necessary resources to collect all child
support that is owed to families and to allow them to pass
100 percent of support on to families without financial
penalty. When 100 percent of child support payments are
passed to the child, rather than administrative expenses,
program integrity is improved and child support participation
increases.
SEC. 207. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE
REAUTHORIZATION OF TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE.
The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that extends Trade Adjustment
Assistance and the 2009 reforms to Trade Adjustment
Assistance, which expired earlier this year, by the amounts
provided in such measure if such measure would not increase
the deficit for either of the following time periods, fiscal
year 2011 to fiscal year 2016 or fiscal year 2011 to fiscal
year 2021.
SEC. 208. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING TRUST FUND.
The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that capitalizes the existing
Affordable Housing Trust Fund by the amounts provided in such
measure if such measure would not increase the deficit for
either of the following time periods, fiscal year 2011 to
fiscal year 2016 or fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2021.
SEC. 209. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR COLLEGE
AFFORDABILITY.
The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that makes college more
affordable, including efforts to maintain the maximum Pell
grant award, by the amounts provided in such measure if such
measure would not increase the deficit for either of the
following time periods, fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2016
or fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2021.
SEC. 210. RESERVE FUND FOR ADDITIONAL TAX RELIEF FOR
INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES.
The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that provides additional tax
relief to individuals and families, such as expanding tax
relief provided by the refundable child credit, by the
amounts provided in such measure if such measure would not
increase the deficit for either of the following time
periods, fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2016 or fiscal year
2011 to fiscal year 2021.
TITLE III--ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--In the House, except as provided in
subsection (b), any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report making a general appropriation or
continuing appropriation may not provide for advance
appropriations.
(b) Exceptions.--Advance appropriations may be provided--
(1) for fiscal year 2013 for programs, projects,
activities, or accounts identified in the joint explanatory
statement of managers to accompany this resolution under the
heading ``Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations'' in
an aggregate amount not to exceed $28,852,000,000 in new
budget authority, and for 2014, accounts separately
identified under the same heading; and
[[Page H2889]]
(2) for the Department of Veterans Affairs for the Medical
Services, Medical Support and Compliance, and Medical
Facilities accounts of the Veterans Health Administration.
(c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance
appropriation'' means any new discretionary budget authority
provided in a bill or joint resolution making general
appropriations or any new discretionary budget authority
provided in a bill or joint resolution making continuing
appropriations for fiscal year 2012 that first becomes
available for any fiscal year after 2012.
SEC. 302. ADJUSTMENTS TO DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.
(a) Program Integrity Initiatives.--
(1) Social security administration program integrity
initiatives.--In the House, prior to consideration of any
bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report
making appropriations for fiscal year 2012 that appropriates
$315,000,000 for continuing disability reviews and
Supplemental Security Income redeterminations for the Social
Security Administration and provides an additional
appropriation of up to $623,000,000, and that amount is
designated for continuing disability reviews and Supplemental
Security Income redeterminations for the Social Security
Administration, the allocation to the House Committee on
Appropriations shall be increased by the amount of the
additional budget authority and outlays resulting from that
budget authority for fiscal year 2012.
(2) Internal revenue service tax compliance.--In the House,
prior to consideration of any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report making appropriations for
fiscal year 2012 that appropriates $7,233,000,000 for the
Internal Revenue Service for enhanced enforcement to address
the Federal tax gap (taxes owed but not paid) and provides an
additional appropriation of up to $1,257,000,000, to the
Internal Revenue Service and the amount is designated for
enhanced tax enforcement to address the tax gap, the
allocation to the House Committee on Appropriations shall be
increased by the amount of additional budget authority and
outlays resulting from that budget authority for fiscal year
2012.
(3) Health care fraud and abuse control program.--In the
House, prior to consideration of any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report making appropriations for
fiscal year 2012 that appropriates up to $581,000,000, and
the amount is designated to the health care fraud and abuse
control program at the Department of Health and Human
Services, the allocation to the House Committee on
Appropriations shall be increased by the amount of additional
budget authority and outlays resulting from that budget
authority for fiscal year 2012.
(4) Unemployment insurance program integrity activities.--
In the House, prior to consideration of any bill, joint
resolution, amendment, or conference report making
appropriations for fiscal year 2012 that appropriates
$10,000,000 for in-person reemployment and eligibility
assessments and unemployment insurance improper payment
reviews for the Department of Labor and provides an
additional appropriation of up to $60,000,000, and the amount
is designated for in-person reemployment and eligibility
assessments and unemployment insurance improper payment
reviews for the Department of Labor, the allocation to the
House Committee on Appropriations shall be increased by the
amount of additional budget authority and outlays resulting
from that budget authority for fiscal year 2012.
(b) Procedure for Adjustments.--Prior to consideration of
any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report,
the chairman of the House Committee on the Budget shall make
the adjustments set forth in this subsection for the
incremental new budget authority in that measure and the
outlays resulting from that budget authority if that measure
meets the requirements set forth in this section.
SEC. 303. COSTS OF OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS AND
EMERGENCY NEEDS.
(a) Overseas Contingency Operations.--In the House, if any
bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report makes
appropriations for fiscal year 2011 or fiscal year 2012 for
overseas contingency operations and other activities and such
amounts are so designated pursuant to this paragraph, then
the allocation to the House Committee on Appropriations may
be adjusted by the amounts provided in such legislation for
that purpose up to the amounts of budget authority specified
in section 102(22) for fiscal year 2011 or fiscal year 2012
and the new outlays resulting therefrom.
(b) Emergency Needs.--If any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report makes appropriations for
discretionary amounts and such amounts are designated as
necessary to meet emergency needs pursuant to this
subsection, then new budget authority and outlays resulting
therefrom shall not count for the purposes of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, or this resolution.
SEC. 304. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF CERTAIN DISCRETIONARY
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.
(a) In General.--In the House, notwithstanding section
302(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, section
13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and section 4001
of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, the joint
explanatory statement accompanying the conference report on
any concurrent resolution on the budget shall include in its
allocation under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 to the House Committee on Appropriations amounts
for the discretionary administrative expenses of the Social
Security Administration and of the Postal Service.
(b) Special Rule.--For purposes of applying section 302(f)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, estimates of the
level of total new budget authority and total outlays
provided by a measure shall include any off-budget
discretionary amounts.
SEC. 305. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS
AND AGGREGATES.
(a) Application.--In the House, any adjustments of
allocations and aggregates made pursuant to this resolution
shall--
(1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
(2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
(3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as
practicable.
(b) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised
allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments
shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates included in
this resolution.
(c) Applicability.--Clause 10 of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives shall not apply to measures for
which the chairman of the Committee on the Budget has made an
adjustment contemplated under title II of this resolution.
(d) Adjustments.--The chairman of the House Committee on
the Budget may adjust the aggregates, allocations, and other
levels in this resolution for legislation which has received
final congressional approval in the same form by the House of
Representatives and the Senate, but has yet to be presented
to or signed by the President at the time of final
consideration of this resolution.
SEC. 306. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.
The House adopts the provisions of this title--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of
Representatives and as such they shall be considered as part
of the rules of the House, and these rules shall supersede
other rules only to the extent that they are inconsistent
with other such rules; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
the House of Representatives to change those rules at any
time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as in the
case of any other rule of the House of Representatives.
TITLE IV--POLICY
SEC. 401. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM THAT
PROTECTS WORKERS AND RETIREES.
(a) Findings.--The House finds that--
(1) Social Security is America's most important retirement
resource, especially for seniors, because it provides an
income floor to keep them, their spouses and their survivors
out of poverty during retirement--benefits earned based on
their past payroll contributions;
(2) in 2010, 53 million people relied on Social Security;
(3) Social Security benefits are modest, with an average
annual benefit for retirees of about $14,000, while the
average total retirement income is only about $25,000 per
year;
(4) diverting workers' payroll contributions toward private
accounts undermines retirement security and the social safety
net by subjecting the workers' retirement decisions and
income to the whims of the stock market;
(5) diverting trust fund payroll contributions toward
private accounts jeopardizes Social Security because the
program will not have the resources to pay full benefits to
current retirees; and
(6) privatization increases Federal debt because the
Treasury will have to borrow additional funds from the public
to pay full benefits to current retirees.
(b) Policy.--It is the policy of this resolution that
Social Security should be strengthened for its own sake and
not to achieve deficit reduction. Because privatization
proposals are fiscally irresponsible and would put the
retirement security of seniors at risk, any Social Security
reform legislation shall reject partial or complete
privatization of the program.
SEC. 402. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON PROTECTING THE MEDICARE
GUARANTEE FOR SENIORS.
(a) Findings.--The House finds that--
(1) senior citizens and persons with disabilities highly
value the Medicare program and rely on Medicare to guarantee
their health and financial security;
(2) in 2010, more than 40 million people relied on Medicare
for coverage of hospital stays, physician visits,
prescription drugs, and other necessary medical goods and
services;
(3) the Medicare program has lower administrative and
program costs than private insurance for a given level of
benefits;
(4) excess health care cost growth is not unique to
Medicare or other Federal health programs, it is endemic to
the entire health care system;
(5) destroying the Medicare program and replacing it with a
voucher or premium support for the purchase of private
insurance that fails to keep pace with growth in health costs
will expose seniors and persons with disabilities on fixed
incomes to unacceptable financial risks; and
(6) shifting excess health care cost growth onto Medicare
beneficiaries would not reduce
[[Page H2890]]
overall health care costs, instead it would mean
beneficiaries would face higher premiums, eroding coverage,
or both.
(b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that the
Medicare guarantee for seniors and persons with disabilities
should be preserved and strengthened, and that any
legislation to end the Medicare guarantee and shift rising
health care costs onto seniors by replacing Medicare with
vouchers or premium support for the purchase of private
insurance should be rejected.
SEC. 403. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE
COVERAGE FOR WORKING FAMILIES.
(a) Findings.--The House finds that--
(1) making health care coverage affordable and accessible
for all American families will improve families' health and
economic security, which will make the economy stronger;
(2) the Affordable Care Act signed into law in 2010 will
expand coverage to more than 30,000,000 Americans and bring
costs down for families and small businesses;
(3) consumers are already benefiting from the Affordable
Care Act's provisions to hold insurance companies accountable
for their actions and to end long-standing practices such as
denying coverage to children based on pre-existing
conditions, imposing lifetime limits on coverage that put
families at risk of bankruptcy in the event of serious
illness, and dropping an enrollee's coverage once the
enrollee becomes ill based on a simple mistake in the
enrollee's application;
(4) the Affordable Care Act reforms Federal health
entitlements by using nearly every health cost-containment
provision experts recommend, including new incentives to
reward quality and coordination of care rather than simply
quantity of services provided, new tools to crack down on
fraud, and the elimination of excessive taxpayer subsidies to
private insurance plans, and as a result will slow the
projected annual growth rate of national health expenditures
by 0.3 percentage points after 2016, the essence of ``bending
the cost curve''; and
(5) the Affordable Care Act will reduce the Federal deficit
by more than $1,000,000,000,000 over the next 20 years.
(b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that the law of
the land should support making affordable health care
coverage available to every American family, and therefore
the Affordable Care Act should not be repealed.
SEC. 404. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON MEDICAID.
(a) Findings.--The House finds that--
(1) Medicaid is a central component of the Nation's health
care safety net, providing health coverage to 28 million low-
income children, 5 million seniors, and 10 million disabled
individuals who would otherwise be unable to obtain health
insurance;
(2) senior citizens and persons with disabilities account
for two-thirds of Medicaid program spending and consequently
would be at particular risk of losing access to important
health care assistance under any policy to sever the link
between Medicaid funding and the actual costs of providing
services to the currently eligible Medicaid population;
(3) Medicaid pays for 43 percent of long-term care services
in the United States, providing a critical health care safety
net for senior citizens and disabled individuals facing
significant costs for long-term care; and
(4) at least 70 percent of persons over age 65 will likely
need long-term care services at some point in their lives.
(b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that the
important health care safety net for senior citizens, persons
with disabilities, and other vulnerable populations provided
by Medicaid should be preserved and should not be dismantled
by converting Medicaid into a block grant that is incapable
of responding to increased need that may result from trends
in health care costs or economic conditions.
SEC. 405. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON HEALTH CARE FOR MILITARY
SERVICEMEMBERS AND THEIR FAMILIES AND VETERANS.
(a) Findings.--The House finds that active duty military
servicemembers and their families value the high-quality
health care they receive through Tricare and other programs
run by the Defense Department, and veterans rely on the
health service network run by the Department of Veterans
Affairs to address their unique health needs.
(b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that the
Congress should reject legislation that would damage the
excellent care provided to the men and women who are serving
and who have served the country in uniform; and that any
future health care legislation that eliminates quality
Federal health care programs for military servicemembers and
veterans and replaces them with vouchers or premium support
for the purchase of private insurance should be rejected.
SEC. 406. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY
OPERATIONS.
(a) Findings.--The House finds that--
(1) it is the stated position of the Administration that
all troops will be redeployed from Iraq by the end of 2011;
and
(2) it is the stated position of the Administration that
Afghan troops will take the full lead for security operations
in Afghanistan by the end of 2014.
(b) Policy.--It is the policy of this resolution that--
(1) consistent with the Administration's stated position,
no funding shall be provided for operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan through the Overseas Contingency Operations
budget beyond 2014; and
(2) any future operations should be funded through the base
budget.
SEC. 407. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON NATIONAL SECURITY.
(a) Findings.--The House finds that--
(1) the country's national security depends upon a well-
coordinated strategy that involves the Department of Defense,
the National Nuclear Security Administration, the Department
of Homeland Security, and international affairs programs--
including those at the Department of State and the Agency for
International Development;
(2) a growing economy is the foundation of our security and
enables the country to provide the resources for a strong
military, sound homeland security agencies, and effective
diplomacy and international development;
(3) because it puts our economy at risk, the Nation's debt
is an immense security threat to our country, just as
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen has
stated, and we must have a deficit reduction plan that is
serious and realistic;
(4) the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal
Responsibility and Reform and the bipartisan Rivlin-Domenici
Debt Reduction Task Force concluded that a serious and
balanced deficit reduction plan must put national security
programs on the table;
(5) the House Budget Committee voted and passed on a
bipartisan vote of 33-5 an amendment to the 2012 budget
resolution recognizing that national security programs should
be considered as part of a serious deficit reduction plan;
(6) the national security recommendations of the National
Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform contained a
number of suggestions for savings that could be made without
jeopardizing our troops, military families, veterans, or the
country's security and global standing;
(7) more can be done to rein in wasteful spending at the
Nation's security agencies, including the Department of
Defense--an agency that has been unable to pass a clean
audit--and the Department of Homeland Security, such as the
elimination of programs the Government Accountability Office
recently reported as duplicative, which could save billions
of dollars;
(8) effective implementation of weapons acquisition reforms
at the Department of Defense can help control excessive cost
growth in the development of new weapons systems and help
ensure that weapons systems are delivered on time and in
adequate quantities to equip our servicemen and servicewomen;
(9) the Department of Defense should continue to review
defense plans to ensure that weapons developed to counter
Cold War-era threats are not redundant and are applicable to
21st century threats;
(10) the State Department, the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID), and other U.S.
international affairs agencies can save money and improve
cost-effectiveness by ensuring that their workforces have the
appropriate mix of direct-hire personnel and contractors, as
identified by the Administration's 2010 Quadrennial Diplomacy
and Development Review;
(11) the Department of Defense and the Department of
Homeland Security should perform a comprehensive review of
the role that contractors play in their operations, including
the degree to which contractors are performing inherently
governmental functions, to ensure they have the most
effective mix of government and contracted personnel;
(12) ballistic missile defense technologies that are not
proven to work through adequate testing and that are not
operationally viable should not be deployed, and that no
funding should be provided for the research or development of
space-based interceptors;
(13) cooperative threat reduction and other
nonproliferation programs (securing ``loose nukes'' and other
materials used in weapons of mass destruction), which were
highlighted as high priorities by the 9/11 Commission, need
to be funded at a level that is commensurate with the
evolving threat; and
(14) the Department of Defense should make every effort to
investigate the national security benefits of energy
independence, including those that may be associated with
alternative energy sources and energy efficiency conversions.
(b) Policy.--It is the policy of this resolution that after
thorough review, the Committee on Appropriations shall
determine savings within the Nation's security programs as
identified in subsection (a)(1) below the levels in the
President's 2012 budget equal to the amounts in section
102(20).
SEC. 408. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON TAX REFORM AND DEFICIT
REDUCTION.
(a) Findings.--The House finds that--
(1) the House must pursue deficit reduction through reform
of the tax code, which contains numerous tax breaks for
special interests;
(2) these special tax breaks can greatly complicate the
effort to administer the code and the taxpayer's ability to
fully comply with its terms, while also undermining our basic
sense of fairness;
(3) the corporate income tax does include a number of
incentives that help spur economic growth and innovation,
such as extending the research and development credit and
clean energy incentives;
(4) but tax breaks for special interests can also distort
economic incentives for businesses and consumers and
encourage businesses to ship American jobs and capital
overseas;
(5) the President's National Commission on Fiscal
Responsibility and Reform observed that the corporate income
tax is riddled with special interest tax breaks and
subsidies, is
[[Page H2891]]
badly in need of reform and proposed to streamline the code,
capturing some of the savings in the process, to achieve
deficit reduction in a more balanced way.
(b) Policy.--
(1) In general.--This resolution's revenue policies achieve
the same net savings as the revenue policies in the
President's budget. It does not endorse any of the
President's specific proposals unless expressly stated in
this resolution.
(2) Policy on individual income taxes.--
(A) The President and this resolution extend the middle
class tax cuts, provide long-term relief from the Alternative
Minimum Tax for tens of millions of middle class American
families, and provide estate tax relief at the 2009 levels.
(B) The President and this resolution apply President
Clinton's top two tax rates to persons with adjusted gross
incomes above $200,000 ($250,000 for married couples). The
National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform plan
also assumes revenue from returning to those top two tax
rates for top earners.
(C) The President and this resolution extend policies that
support saving and capital formation.
(D) This resolution encourages the House Committee on Ways
and Means to consider the various proposals made by the
National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to
limit tax expenditures and raise revenue for deficit
reduction; and expressly rejects the approach in the
Republican resolution that provides millionaires with even
larger tax cuts at the expense of middle-income taxpayers.
This resolution protects middle-income taxpayers and
encourages the House Committee on Ways and Means to consider
tax expenditure reform proposals that would apply to
households with over $1 million in adjusted gross income,
consistent with the National Commission on Fiscal
Responsibility and Reform's proposals to limit tax
expenditures.
(3) Policy on corporate income taxes.--
(A) The President and this resolution assume elimination of
subsidies for the major integrated oil and gas companies, and
pernicious tax breaks that reward U.S. corporations that ship
American jobs--rather than products--overseas.
(B) This resolution adopts those and other pro-growth
corporate tax incentives in the President's budget, such as
extending the research and development credit and clean
energy incentives.
(C) This resolution therefore urges the House Committee on
Ways and Means to consider the full range of different
corporate tax reform proposals to determine which one can
most effectively optimize economic growth and provide for
necessary revenues.
SEC. 409. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON AGRICULTURE SPENDING.
(a) Findings.--The House finds that--
(1) the current looming Federal deficit threatens our
Nation's economic security and continued growth;
(2) the Committee on Agriculture reduced spending in
programs under its jurisdiction when writing the 2008 farm
bill;
(3) as directed by the 2008 Farm Bill, the Department of
Agriculture realized an additional $6 billion in crop
insurance savings by renegotiating the Standard Reinsurance
Agreement;
(4) soaring crop prices and a booming farm sector make
agriculture subsidies--particularly those originally designed
to be temporary--difficult to defend in a time of fiscal
constraint; and
(5) farm policy is vital to rural communities and protects
food and energy security around the country.
(b) Policy.--It is the policy of this resolution that the
Committee on Agriculture should reduce spending in farm
programs that provide direct payments to producers even in
robust markets and in times of bumper yields. The Committee
should also find ways to focus assistance away from wealthy
agribusinesses and toward struggling family farmers in a
manner that protects jobs and economic growth while
preserving the farm and nutrition safety net.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and a Member opposed each will control
15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, our top priority in this Congress
should be to support a robust economic recovery and put America back to
work. That is what the Democratic plan does. It reduces the deficit in
a steady, predictable way without slashing important investments in our
kids' education and strategic national investments, without ending the
Medicare guarantee, and without putting seniors, disabled individuals
and kids at risk who rely on Medicare, and it reduces the deficit in a
balanced way by $1.2 trillion more than the President's budget and
achieves primary balance in the year 2018.
The Republican plan we've been discussing is a narrow vision of
America--a place with no shared sacrifice, a place where those who have
benefited the most from what our country has to offer give little in
return.
The Democrats have a different vision for our country. We believe our
strength springs not only from the undisputed benefits of a free people
pursuing their ambitions and their dreams but also from sometimes
harnessing those talents for important national purposes.
We believe America's greatness is rooted not only in a collection of
individuals acting alone but from our capacity to work together for the
common good. We believe that is a patriotic vision of America. We do
not see the government as an enemy but as the imperfect instrument by
which we can accomplish together as a people what no individual or
single corporation can do alone.
Small business owners recognize that they must make certain
investments to build a successful enterprise. Similarly, our Nation
must make the strategic national investments necessary to keep our
country strong in an increasingly global economic marketplace. Our plan
does that.
We also believe we can do that while making cuts, and we make
sensible, targeted cuts. But we do it in a smart way, not with a meat
ax that threatens the fragile recovery.
We also agree with the fiscal commission that security spending
should be part of this debate. Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, has stated, and I quote, that the most
significant threat to our national security is our national debt. There
is growing bipartisan consensus that those security agencies must
themselves be part of our effort to reduce our debt and strengthen our
country.
Our approach is a balanced one. We take cuts in the discretionary and
bring down that part of the budget to the lowest point as a percentage
of the economy since the Eisenhower administration. We take cuts in
other areas. We take cuts in mandatory programs, including agriculture
subsidies.
But we make different choices than the Republican budget. We end the
subsidies to Big Oil rather than keeping those as we cut education for
our kids. We ask the folks at the very top to pay the same tax rate
they paid during the Clinton administration rather than end the
Medicare guarantee and slash funding for seniors in nursing homes and
others who rely on that support.
We make very different choices in this budget, but we accomplish the
goal in a fiscally responsible way.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
First of all, I want to start off by commending Mr. Van Hollen. It's
not always that the minority offers an alternative budget. In fact, I
know there are a lot of pressures not to do that. So I think Mr. Van
Hollen is to be commended, and his very capable staff, for actually
proposing an alternative. That's important. It's important that we
bring ideas to the table so we can have a real debate about ideas. I
want to start with saying that.
Number two, we just have a different definition of ``fiscal
responsibility,'' I suppose. This budget, relative to the mark, to the
base budget we're talking about, increases spending by $4.5 trillion,
raises taxes by $2 trillion, and it adds $2.4 trillion to the deficit
compared to the base bill we're talking about here.
It does exceed the President's budget in debt reduction, in deficit
reduction, and so the gentleman is to be commended for that, but I
personally think the President's budget is a pretty low water mark. It
exceeds it by raising taxes another $210 billion and also cutting
defense by $614 billion above the cuts that are in the base, our
budget, and in the President's budget.
Secretary Gates has warned us that such cuts would leave the military
unable to meet its current missions. And using his words: ``Setting
indiscriminate targets to scrimp on defense is math, not strategy.''
I think it's very important that we recognize our priorities. Number
one, national defense is the primary responsibility of the Federal
Government. When our war fighters tell us this doesn't allow them to
have the tools to keep them safe, the equipment they
[[Page H2892]]
need to prosecute their jobs, I think that's not responsible.
When our economy is struggling to get out of a very deep recession,
over $2 trillion in tax increases I just don't think is responsible.
{time} 1210
On the alternative, I think what we are offering is responsible. Our
budget does four basic things. It gets the economy growing. It keeps
taxes where they are and prevents massive tax increases. It saves our
Medicare and Medicaid programs. It fulfills the mission of health and
retirement security for all Americans by guaranteeing that people who
have retired and are about to retire keep what they have, what they
have organized their lives around, and then reforms these programs so
that they're solvent and sustainable for the next generation. Number
three, it repairs our social safety net so that it works. And it,
number four, pays off our debt. That's what we do.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, the fiscal commission said of the
Republican plan it was an unbalanced approach. Our approach is a
balanced approach. Secretary Gates' comments were directed to the
fiscal commission's recommendations. Our proposals are in line with
what the President outlined just the other day. I would point out that
Governor Haley Barbour said, ``If we Republicans don't propose some
savings of money on defense, we will have no credibility on anything
else.'' Of course the Pentagon has never passed a GAO budget, and I
think everybody who does budgets recognizes there is some savings to be
found there.
With that, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished assistant leader,
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).
Mr. CLYBURN. I thank my friend from Maryland for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard from our Republican friends that they're
transforming Medicare. They call it a move to premium support. They
also say they're just fixing the flaws in Medicaid. They say they're
being brave, and finally tackling entitlement reform. But earlier
today, on one of the morning shows, I heard my friend from Texas, Jeb
Hensarling, being finally candid about the Republicans' view of
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. He called them cruel Ponzi
schemes. So there we have it.
This isn't about being brave, or transformative, or making a few
changes to save the economy. Republicans are pushing the same agenda
they have always had, ending the safety net programs that they view as
fraudulent. And the Republican budget does exactly that. It ends
Medicare, results in a huge cost shift, and forces seniors to pay
$6,000 per year out of pocket.
It block grants Medicaid, slashes nursing home aid, and would lead to
50 different benefit programs across the country. That takes us back to
my childhood, when benefits in our country were determined by what
State you may have been fortunate or unfortunate to have been born in.
But the greatest fraud being committed is that these drastic and
unfair changes don't even bring the Republican budget to balance. In
fact, the Republican budget adds $8 trillion to the deficit over the
next decade. Then where is all that money going, one might ask. While
Republicans are gutting Medicare and Medicaid with one hand, they're
giving tax breaks to big oil companies and making tax cuts for the
wealthy with the other hand. That's what I call a Ponzi scheme.
Now, if you're wealthy or a special interest group, this is surely a
pathway to prosperity. But if you're in your golden years, it's the
Road to Ruin. Democrats have a plan to reduce the deficit in a steady,
responsible way as we build a foundation for shared prosperity and
long-term economic growth. In fact, the Democratic budget achieves
primary balance by fiscal year 2018, and cuts the deficit by $1.2
trillion more than the President's budget. I proudly support the
Democratic alternative budget.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).
Mr. McCOTTER. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding.
We have heard from the minority party that their budget seeks to
harness the American people. Why? They have already saddled the
American people with record spending deficits and debt. Just say
``neigh.''
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin).
Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say a few
words about Medicare if I can. First and foremost, I want to make it
very clear that if you are 55 and over, there are no changes to you
whatsoever. We hear a lot about Medicare as we know it. Unfortunately,
Medicare as we know it is going bankrupt. If you are for the status quo
with regard to Medicare, you're on the side of the elimination of
Medicare as we know it.
Another point I want to make is, we hear a lot about cuts. These are
Washington cuts. This is Washington cut-speak. Where I'm from, if you
get $5 on a Monday and the next day you get $10, that's an increase,
not a cut. Most Americans would be appalled to know, Mr. Chairman, that
the increases we are seeing are being called cuts. And I'm going to
explain it to my folks when I get back to Arkansas. Medicare has not
one penny of cuts in this budget. It continues to grow.
With regard to the language about vouchers, there is no voucher here.
We're trying to give the folks that are 55 and under health care like
Members of Congress have. Have you ever, Mr. Chairman, heard anyone in
Congress describe their own health care plan as a voucher? No. Of
course you haven't. Because it's not. That word has been rolled out
with the other tested words, ``privatization,'' all this other
nonsense, for the purposes of politics. You don't want the American
people, Mr. Chairman, to have the same health care that you have.
I support this budget because it will keep our promise to seniors, it
will save Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and it will preserve
this country for my kids.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I urge Republican Members to read their
own budget. It does not give seniors the same deal as Members of
Congress. Members of Congress have a fair share formula. Seniors do not
under their bill. Seniors get an immediate cut to the prescription drug
benefit to the extent that we closed the doughnut hole, and they don't.
Let's get our facts straight.
With that, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Democratic
Caucus, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I want to thank Chairman Van Hollen and I
want to thank Mr. Ryan for the conduct of this debate that's taking
place. They are two exemplary examples of how debate and discussion
should move forward and emanate here in the House of Representatives.
Harry Truman said, ``Every segment of our population, and every
individual, has a right to expect from his government a fair deal.'' I
rise in strong support of the fair deal that's being proposed by the
Democratic side in this debate. I rise because it helps us out with
jobs and the economy, and recognizes that we must deal with the
deficit, but deal with it in a manner that makes sense.
In my hometown we go to a place called Augie & Ray's. In Augie &
Ray's, they want to know, whose side are you on in this? When you take
Medicare and end the program as we know it, and shift the burden of the
deficit at a time when we need shared sacrifice to the elderly, it is
just flatly unfair. The social contract that the governed, that the
people have with their government is about shared sacrifice, but it's
also about the guarantee.
{time} 1220
This is not about charts and statistics and flow charts; it's about
people at the end of the day who are impacted by the decisions that we
make; not by some economist's theory, but about a guarantee from their
government, a guarantee that if they pay in, at the end of the day they
are going to receive the benefits they have worked so hard for all of
their lives.
That guarantee shouldn't be two-tiered. That guarantee shouldn't cut
off benefits immediately to some and postpone it for others. That's a
guarantee we should be working to fix, not to end. That is the
fundamental difference in what's going on here today.
[[Page H2893]]
My distinguished colleague, the leader, Mr. Clyburn, said let's
recognize what's going on here, the extreme differences that have
existed in this party since Roosevelt became President. An end of
Social Security, an end of Medicare, an end to Medicaid, that has been
the goal of the other side.
I stand in strong support of the Democratic alternative.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our
distinguished chief deputy whip, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Roskam).
Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
My colleague from Connecticut talked about a guarantee. Well, there
is one guarantee that is for sure, Mr. Chairman, and that is the
guarantee that Medicare as we know it is a pipe dream into perpetuity.
It's going broke. The guarantee that the Democratic House has brought
us in the past is a guarantee that says 47 percent of our debt
obligations are to foreigners.
We are guaranteed right now to borrow 40 cents on every dollar unless
we do something about it. So what do we do about it? There are famous
themes in literature that fast-forward into the future. You get a
glimpse of the reality of the future, and then we always love it when
the hero comes back and says, Oh, here's what's going on. There's a
choice. Let's make a good choice and let's move forward.
Well, we don't need fiction today. What we need is the clear-eyed
reality of what these numbers present to us, and they present to us a
choice:
We can either choose to do nothing, and I would say that is choosing,
or we can choose to do something. We can choose to do a historic plan
that brings a brightness to the economy, that creates jobs and
opportunity, that doesn't mortgage our children's future to China and
ultimately puts the U.S. on a global competitive basis, the likes of
which the world will have never seen.
This is a time of choosing. Let's move forward and choose the House
Republican plan, which makes guarantees and makes promises that we can
keep with.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, this is a time of choosing. Our budget
chooses to make investments in our kids rather than choosing to provide
even bigger tax breaks to the very wealthy, and we choose to get rid of
subsidies for oil companies instead of cutting nursing homes funding
through Medicare for seniors and disabled individuals.
With that, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished ranking member of
the Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Berman).
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget cuts the President's
2012 request for international affairs by $20 billion. That's 39
percent of the amount in diplomacy and development outside of Iraq,
Afghanistan and Pakistan. While diplomacy and development account for
only about 1 percent of the overall budget, under the Republican plan
this tiny portion of the budget would absorb a wildly disproportionate
share of the cuts.
Here's what it means on the ground: Taking AIDS patients off
lifesaving medication, withholding bed nets from children in malaria
zones, and standing idly by during humanitarian emergencies.
I know the chairman of the committee, I know he doesn't want to see
those things happen, but the effect of his plan would make them happen.
The Democratic alternative takes a wise and responsible approach to
reducing the deficit. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, let's talk about Medicare for a moment. It's not as if
we don't have a problem. We know Medicare is going broke in 9 years. We
want to make sure that the people who have retired and who are 10 years
away from retiring can bank on the promises that have been made for
them.
But to keep that promise, we have to reform it and save it for the
next generation. So that's why we have a plan that says for people 54
and below, you too will have a plan of guaranteed Medicare coverage
from guaranteed Medicare plans that you get to choose from. Choice and
competition works.
A prescription drug benefit, a bunch of plans that compete against
each other for the seniors' business, came in 41 percent below cost
projections. Why? Because it's not a government-run program. It's not a
bunch of bureaucrats.
What is the President proposing? What are the Democrats proposing?
Here's what they have proposed for current seniors. The President just
gave us a glimpse of it 2 days ago. He wants to take this board of 15
people he appoints on this rationing board, and they make the
decisions. They price-control Medicare. They ration Medicare, $480
billion, almost $10,000 per senior on current seniors.
We are saying, don't do this to seniors, get rid of the rationing
board and don't delegate Medicare decision-making to 15 people
appointed by the President with no congressional oversight. Let the 40
million seniors in Medicare be in charge of their Medicare program.
More importantly, we save Medicare, prevent its bankruptcy.
What does the other side do? They sit by and watch the program go
bankrupt.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I would remind my colleagues that the
reason Medicare was created in the first place was because the private
insurance industry wouldn't cover seniors' affordable care. That's what
they want to go back to.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Democratic
resolution.
Last week on the floor of the House, the Republican leader, Eric
Cantor, asked a very important question. He asked, How did we get here?
So I took the challenge. I went back and have carefully chronicled a
series of vote steps and quotes from Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, John
Kasich and others who argued against the Clinton plan for balancing the
budget.
Remember when Clinton left office, the clock in Times Square had been
turned off. Alan Greenspan said, you're paying down the debt too
quickly.
We've had five balanced budgets since 1969; four of them came with
Bill Clinton. The prescription that was offered on January 20 of the
Bush inauguration was massive tax cuts and the invasion of Iraq and
Afghanistan.
And our Republican friends ask, How did we get here?
I am very optimistic about engaging in this conversation now and as
we get to the debt ceiling. When Clinton walked out on January 19,
2001, 22 million jobs had been created. Economic growth averaged 4
percent per quarter. It was the greatest period of economic prosperity
in the history of America. And our friends on the other side of the
aisle want to turn the clock back on that reality.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member of
the Budget Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Lankford).
Mr. LANKFORD. I do appreciate the conversation about the balanced
budgets in the past.
Yes, Bill Clinton was the President there. He did sign that budget.
But as this House knows, above any other place, this House is very
aware that budgets originate in the House of Representatives. So
Republicans were leading the House of Representatives pulling that
budget together.
We are proposing a similar thing again, that a Republican House can
propose a budget, send it to a Democrat President, and we work together
to start balancing the budget again.
So that formula that we just discussed, I believe, is a very good
formula. We should initiate that again and say, once again, a
Republican House, do a great budget, send it over to a Democrat
President, and be able to work their way through it.
I would disagree with the cuts in defense. I think it is a very
common statement that we can look and say there are issues with defense
systems. There are issues with our acquisition process in defense.
{time} 1230
Where I would disagree is we should then take our defense and where
we find savings, then move it over to deficit reductions. I represent
an area around Tinker Air Force Base in Midwest City. It is a great
base that is strategic to us. Those planes that fly out of there are
50-plus years old. There are some airmen that are flying with the same
tail number that their grandfather flew 50 years ago. This is a
[[Page H2894]]
moment when we should not be robbing from defense and saying we are
going to use that for deficit reduction that we need to be reinvesting.
Robert Gates, our Secretary of Defense, has said there's $178 billion
that he can find, and $78 billion of that savings is applied to deficit
reduction in the Republican plan, and $100 billion of it is reinvested
back into the Defense Department. There are good ways to do this that
leave America safe and that make strategic sense. We think we should do
those things.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. May I inquire as to how much time remains?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 1\3/4\ minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin has 6\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from South Carolina, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr.
Mulvaney.
Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to start by thanking my own
chairman, Mr. Ryan, and also the ranking member, Mr. Van Hollen, for
the entire process. It has been my first year. I have enjoyed it. We've
had some spirited debates. I know that we have disagreed more than we
agree, but I have appreciated the opportunity to do this.
I'll close with this. This will be the last opportunity I'll have to
speak on this year's budget. We've heard a lot about the benefits that
accrued to this Nation during the Clinton administration. I for one am
willing to give partial credit to the President at that time. It was a
Democrat President. Yes, it was. It was a House of Representatives
controlled by my party. And I think it was a formula that worked for
the Nation.
We've heard a lot of things, though, about the importance of raising
the tax rates back to the Clinton era in order to solve our problems. I
would suggest to you it was not the tax rates during the Clinton era
that drove our prosperity at the time.
Let me show you what President Clinton did to the size of the
government workforce. President Clinton was elected right about here.
There was a dramatic reduction in the size of the Federal workforce, a
dramatic reduction in the size of Federal spending on people who work
for the Federal Government. In fact, unprecedented in the last 30
years, done again under a Democrat President and a Republican House.
What happened as a result? As spending as a percentage of our economy
went down, the unemployment rate went down. As the government spent
less, more people went back to work. As we sit here, we all agree that
the discussion is really about jobs. There's nothing more telling than
what happened during the Clinton administration as a formula for how to
create jobs--the government needs to spend less.
My question to my esteemed colleagues on this side of the aisle is,
where is this type of leadership out of the White House these days?
Where is this generation's Bill Clinton saying let's spend less on
government spending so that people go back to work? If we put President
Obama's proposals, his current budget, up here, it would be almost the
exact opposite of what your party proposed only 20 years ago. Where is
that type of leadership out of the White House?
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a
distinguished member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Garrett of New
Jersey.
Mr. GARRETT. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Democrat substitute
amendment. Let me just quickly here sum up. The Democrats'
prescription, if you will, for our Nation's fiscal troubles basically
includes what? More spending, more debt and more taxes, more taxes on
hardworking families and small businesses. And so while the Democrat
budget has lower deficits than, well, the President's budget, you
really need to take a closer look at how they achieve this and how they
achieve the deficit reduction compared to the White House's budget.
Let's take a look at it. First, well, they raise taxes again. How
much? By $208 billion more than the President's budget on all
Americans. Then what do they do next? They cut the defense budget. By
how much? By $614 billion again relative to the President's budget over
the 10-year window. Now, at the same time, you already had Secretary
Gates who has said that we need to cut the Defense budget by $78
billion. They want to cut Defense by $614 billion on top of that.
What about in addition to that? Well, in their budget, if you go into
it and look, there's about $400 billion in unspecified savings.
Unspecified? Here at the 12th hour they still can't decide how they
want to try to rein in spending? Of course not, because they really
honestly don't want to do so.
I believe that budgets must be credible, and the Democrats' budget
doesn't pass that test at all. The only specific savings in the budget
come from how? Raising taxes again on Americans and cutting the defense
budget. The Democrat budget does not tackle even the drivers behind our
deficits. What are they? It does not address the pending bankruptcy--
yes, bankruptcy--of Medicare and Medicaid. The Democrat budget is
nothing more than punting, which is exactly what the administration and
the White House have been doing as well.
Now, look, the American people want Congress to do the right thing.
The American people want us to get spending, want us to get deficits,
and they want us to get our debt here in Washington under control, just
as American families have to get their spending, deficit and debt under
control, just as small businesses across this country have to get it
under control. The Democrats' budget is frankly an embarrassment and
shows that the other side is not serious about taking our fiscal
challenges seriously.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself 45 seconds.
What we heard just doesn't fit the facts. In fact, our budget does
make cuts to domestic programs, but we do not do it in a meat ax way.
We make cuts to agriculture subsidies. We do tax reform as the
commission recommended, getting rid of a lot of clutter in the Tax Code
for special interests. That is what we do.
With respect to defense, our numbers track what the President was
saying the other day, but we do get rid of a so-called overseas
contingency fund which we think our Republican friends would like to
join us on which gives the executive branch a blank check to undertake
any military operations whatsoever for the next 10 years and doesn't
have to ask Congress. That's what we do.
What we don't do? We don't end the Medicare guarantee. What we don't
do is we don't keep giving subsidies to oil companies while we cut
education for kids. That's what we don't do.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the very
distinguished Democratic leader, Ms. Pelosi.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 1
minute.
Ms. PELOSI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the gentleman for yielding. I commend him and the members of
the Budget Committee for their hard work to bring legislation to the
floor to enable us to have this debate yesterday and today and I think
for a long time to come.
We have said it over and over again: A Federal budget should be a
statement of our national values. It should reflect what is important
to us as we allocate the resources of investments for the future. Much
has been said about this deficit, and I want to join the distinguished
ranking member before I go any further in correcting the record.
I listened with great interest as Members on the other side are
taking credit for the Clinton administration balanced, or budgets in
surplus. And I remind them or tell them, because many of them may not
know, that those budgets were a result of the 1993 budget vote that we
took on this floor of the House without one Republican vote which was
the source of that fiscal discipline and job creation, again, as other
speakers have said, over 20 million jobs created.
So when I hear the Republicans say it was the Clinton Presidency and
the Republican Congress, no, it was the Democratic Congress, because we
know that deficit reduction is essential. We had to stop the budget
deficits that President Clinton inherited, and now
[[Page H2895]]
we have to stop the budget deficits that President Obama inherited.
Budget deficits, I've heard our colleagues say, are immoral. I quite
agree. We have a responsibility and an obligation to our children and
our grandchildren not to send them any bills, personal or official. And
we do not intend to do so. But they were immoral during the Bush years,
too, when they were giving tax cuts to the rich, two unpaid-for wars
and a prescription drug benefit that gave away the store to the private
sector and sent the bill to the taxpayer.
So here we are with a choice on the floor. Some of it was spoken; a
vision of it was shared with the Nation by President Obama the other
day. He talked about an America of greatness that cared about its
people. He talked about the essential need for us to reduce the
deficit. He talked about growth, investments, and job creation.
{time} 1240
He talked about being fair to our seniors and keeping our promise to
them. In the budgets that we have before us today, one presented by Mr.
Van Hollen, one presented by the Republicans, we see a sharp contrast,
one that supports the vision that the President puts forth, and one
that definitely does not.
Mr. Chairman, we are talking about the budget deficit; but we also in
doing so, if we are going to do right by the American people, have to
recognize that there are other deficits. We have a deficit in
education. We have a deficit in innovation because innovation begins in
the classroom. We have a deficit in investments in our infrastructure.
All of these investments have a payoff back to us. They create growth.
They bring revenue to the Treasury, and they help reduce the deficit.
It is a false economy to think that we can write a budget that cuts
serious investments in education, infrastructure, innovation and the
rest and think that we are going to end the deficit. You cannot cut
your way out of it. You cut, you grow, and you increase revenue. That's
a subject I will hold for when we talk about the Republican budget more
specifically.
What is important to note, if you had one thing to know about the
difference between the Democrats and the Republicans in terms of these
budgets, if you had just one thing, it would be on the subject of
Medicare. The Republican budget breaks the promise that this country
has made to seniors that after a lifetime of work, they will be able to
depend on Medicare to protect them in retirement. But the plan here
ends Medicare as we know it and dramatically reduces benefits for
seniors. It forces seniors to buy their insurance from the health
insurance companies where the average senior would be forced to pay
twice as much for half the benefit--as much for some as $20,000 a year.
I want to call the attention of my colleagues to this chart, ``Senior
Citizens Health Cost Skyrockets Under Republican Budget.'' Blue is the
government share, red is the beneficiary share. Health care spending
for a typical 65-year-old in 2022 dollars, the Republican budget would
have $8,000 from the Federal Government, $12,500 from the individual,
which is more than twice what the Medicare cost should be to a senior,
$6,150; twice as much for less in benefit.
Now, this chart is not our chart. This information was conveyed to
the Republican chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan, by the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office, in a letter to him describing what the
cost would be to seniors under his plan. I just don't think that is
fair to our seniors. This plan has the wrong priorities. It is focused
on helping corporate special interests and Wall Street, not reducing
the deficit or helping the country.
It raises taxes for the middle class while cutting them for the
wealthiest in our country. It repeals Wall Street reforms for the big
banks. It abolishes Medicare as we know it, cuts funding for education,
health care, alternative energy and job training programs, and uses the
money not for reducing the deficit but to help the most privileged,
help the most privileged and negate what we did in our health care
bill, which was to start to close the doughnut hole.
If you are a senior and you see that your prescription drug costs
will come down under the health care bill and the doughnut hole will
close, this budget reverses that.
There are so many reasons for seniors and people with disabilities
and people who care about Medicare to be concerned. Medicare is a
bedrock of stability for our seniors, for their health, for their
economic security, and for those with disabilities who depend on it. We
must make sure that it is solvent, but we must not charge seniors more
while giving bigger tax cuts to the wealthy.
Just remember these three points. First of all, it abolishes Medicare
as we know it, increasing costs to seniors, while it gives tax breaks
of tens of billions of dollars to Big Oil.
Changes in Medicaid will send seniors out of nursing homes while we
give tax breaks to companies that send jobs overseas. This Ryan budget,
the Republican budget, will hurt education, cut the education of our
children, increase the cost of higher education for young adults, 10
million young adults, while we give tax cuts to the wealthiest. That's
just not the American way.
The President said in his remarks that we are about shared
responsibility and shared sacrifice. We are about a sense of community
in our country. And so as we want to reduce the deficit, the fiscal
deficit, and we must, and we have proven, Democrats have proven that we
can, this proposal does not.
But what Mr. Van Hollen is proposing in the positive sense is
recognizing that we need to reduce the deficit, growth is a part of
that and so we have investments in education and the innovation that
springs from that, and other initiatives that grow our economy, that
strengthen the middle class, that creates jobs as it reduces the
deficit.
I urge our colleagues to vote ``yes'' on Mr. Van Hollen's budget and
``no'' on the Ryan budget to strengthen the middle class.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
First, let me start off by saying that the only way the word ``oil''
is mentioned in this budget--it is not in the Tax Code--it is that we
want to drill for more of it in this country so we can lower gas prices
and get ourselves off foreign oil.
Let me address Medicare briefly. I have here the Federal Employee
Benefit Handbook that everybody in Congress, every Federal employee
has. Nowhere in this book does it say voucher. Look at all of these
plans we get to choose from: Kaiser, Aetna, Humana, Blue Cross/Blue
Shield, Coventry, pages and pages of choices and options. This is what
we're talking about for people 54 and below.
Guess what, the biggest threat to Medicare is the status quo.
Medicare goes bankrupt in 9 years. And so, is this exactly like the
Federal employee health plan? No, it is not. It is the same kind of
plan because what we say is in the future, people who are wealthy don't
need as much of a subsidy. People who are sick need more, people who
are low-income need more, and they get complete out-of-pocket coverage.
More for the sick, more for the poor, less for the wealthy, and a
solvent Medicare system.
But more importantly, the people choose. Medicare beneficiaries
choose. What's the President's plan? What's the Democrats' plan?
Appoint 15 people to do the choosing. It is a different philosophy.
Should we have 15 unelected bureaucrats run Medicare, ration Medicare,
or should we allow 40 million to 50 million seniors make the decision?
Let's talk about taxes. Look at all of these budgets we've been
looking at today. By the way, our budget doesn't even cut taxes. I wish
I could say it does. Revenues still rise, about $12 trillion under this
budget. We just don't want to go up and up and up.
The budget we have here is a $2 trillion tax increase; the plan we
had before, the Progressive plan, a $16 trillion tax increase; the
Congressional Black Caucus budget, a $6 trillion tax increase.
This budget cuts defense $619 billion; the Progressive budget, $1.2
trillion; the CBC budget cuts defense $469 billion.
The CBC budget increases spending on domestic spending $4.1 trillion.
The Progressive Caucus increases domestic
[[Page H2896]]
spending $11.4 trillion. The Democratic budget increases, relative to
the mark, $4.6 trillion.
So we've got it. We know where they are. More spending. More spending
on everything, but cut and gut defense, and raise taxes a lot.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the
Democratic alternative budget for FY 2012. With this budget,
Congressman Van Hollen has offered a responsible alternative to the
dangerous Republican approach.
The Democratic alternative offers a dramatically different vision of
America's future. It takes on our deficits, but not in a reckless way.
It does so responsibly, so that we can continue investing in our
economy and our people. It took us years to get into this fiscal
challenge, and economists agree that it would be disastrous to try to
get out of it overnight. But that is exactly what Republicans want to
do. Democrats believe in a balanced approach that keeps our economy
growing while getting us back to living within our means.
The Democratic alternative also allows us to keep the promise of
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to our seniors, the disabled,
and the poor. What our country needs is to get on a more responsible
fiscal path. But we cannot afford to remake the social contract in a
way that harms the least advantaged in our society. Democrats want to
strengthen these programs--not destroy them.
Mr. Chairman, the Democratic budget is a responsible alternative to a
Republican plan that would fundamentally alter the kind of society that
we live in. Democrats reject the false choice between fiscal
responsibility and our values. We are offering an opportunity to get
serious about our deficits without turning our backs on those who can
least afford it.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Democratic budget.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for debate has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 166,
noes 259, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 276]
AYES--166
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--259
Adams
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Kucinich
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peters
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Waters
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--7
Aderholt
Bishop (UT)
Giffords
King (IA)
Meeks
Olver
Reichert
{time} 1312
Mr. COBLE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. RICHMOND, Ms. BALDWIN, Messrs. POLIS, COSTELLO, and Ms. CLARKE of
New York changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 276, I was detained by
two (2) elevators which were in use by non-Members during votes. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, it is now in order to
consider a final period of general debate, which shall not exceed 20
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Budget.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished majority
whip.
Mr. McCARTHY of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by first
thanking the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan, and the entire
Budget staff. I would also like to thank the Democrat members on the
Budget Committee as well.
What we are taking up today is the point of where this country goes.
Because this debate has gone on for quite some time, there is probably
not one person in America that has not watched the news and watched the
clock of our debt of $14 trillion.
I want you all to imagine for one moment, just imagine for one
moment, what the future of this country would hold in the dreams if
that clock was zero. What could we invest in? What could we build? And
what would our
[[Page H2897]]
children become? But because that clock does not say zero and that
clock continues to climb in the wrong direction, that's why we are here
today. But it is a good day because today is the day that we turn that
clock back around.
We have a plan and a Path to Prosperity that will create jobs--even
those on the outside that looked at it said there will be more than 1
million jobs, a plan that will make us energy independent, but also a
plan that does something the rest of America has to do as well: tighten
our belts.
So today, when we come and have to put our card in the voting slot, I
want you to think of one thing: Today could be the day that we create
the great America comeback, or it could be the day that America goes
into the long fade into history. The floor is made up of a microcosm of
America, and all of America knows that we have to control the situation
we are in.
So today, a ``yes'' vote is for jobs, for energy independence, and a
new Path to Prosperity.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair notes a disturbance in the gallery which
is in contravention of the laws and rules of the House. The Sergeant at
Arms will remove those persons responsible for the disturbance and
restore order to the gallery.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, we are turning back the clock. We're
turning back the clock on progress and we're turning back the clock--
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will suspend.
The Chair notes a disturbance in the gallery which is in
contravention of the laws and rules of the House. The Sergeant at Arms
will remove those persons responsible for the disturbance and restore
order to the gallery.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, what the Republican budget does is turn
back the clock on a fair deal for the American people.
Every person in this body today loves this great Nation of ours and
believes it's a special place. We have to maintain the dynamism and
exceptionalism of this country. We see different paths and make
different choices to accomplish that goal.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair notes a disturbance in the gallery which
is in contravention of the laws and rules of the House. The Sergeant at
Arms will remove those persons responsible for the disturbance and
restore order to the gallery.
Point of Order
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois will state his point of
order.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, my question is about the
clarification of the rules. The rules also, for our visiting guests,
allow the Sergeant at Arms to clear the Chamber, if necessary. Is that
correct, Mr. Chairman?
The Acting CHAIR. It is within the authority of the Chair to clear
the gallery.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the Chairman.
I would just encourage those to continue the civil conversation that
we are having about a very difficult conversation in our country.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, if I----
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair notes a disturbance in the gallery which
is in contravention of the laws and rules of the House. The Sergeant at
Arms will remove those persons responsible for the disturbance and
restore order, and would affirm to all Members that the Chair has the
authority to clear the gallery.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time
remains.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 9\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, we all agree we have to act now to put
in place a plan to reduce our deficit.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair notes a disturbance in the gallery which
is in contravention of the laws and rules of the House. The Sergeant at
Arms will remove those persons responsible for the disturbance and
restore order to the gallery.
{time} 1320
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to begin my
remarks from the beginning and reset the clock.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Maryland?
There was no objection.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues.
As I said, nobody doubts that every person in this Chamber loves this
country and wants to do the right thing.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair notes a disturbance in the gallery, which
is in contravention of the laws and rules of the House. The Sergeant-
at-Arms will remove those persons responsible for the disturbance and
restore order to the gallery.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm tempted to reserve my time and yield it back to the other----
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair notes a disturbance in the gallery which
is in contravention of the laws and rules of the House. The Sergeant-
at-Arms will remove those persons responsible for the disturbance and
restore order to the gallery.
The Chair makes this announcement for purposes of possible
prosecution.
The gentleman from Maryland may proceed.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I said, I was tempted to reserve my time and allow my colleague to
proceed. But as I understand the Chamber is now quiet, let me begin
where I left off and say that all of us agree, everybody in this
Chamber agrees, we need to put in place a plan to reduce our deficit in
a predictable, steady manner. The question throughout this debate has
been not whether, but how we do that. And as the bipartisan fiscal
commission has indicated, any responsible effort requires a balanced
approach.
And the Republican plan simply fails on that score. And that's what
the cochairs of the bipartisan fiscal commission said. They said it,
``falls short of the balanced, comprehensive approach needed for a
responsible plan.'' And when you peel off the layers, what you find is
the Republican plan is not bold. It's just the same old, tired formula
we've seen before of providing big tax breaks to the very wealthy and
powerful special interests at the expense of the rest of America--
except this time it's dressed up with a lot of sweet-sounding talk of
reform. But at the end, it's the same old ideological agenda--except
this time on steroids.
To govern is to choose. Each of us is sent here to make difficult
choices, and the choices that are made in the Republican plan we
believe are wrong for America.
We do not believe it's courageous to protect tax giveaways to big oil
companies and other special interests when we're slashing investments
in our kids' education, scientific research, and critical investments
in the future.
We don't think it's bold to provide another tax break to millionaires
while ending the Medicare guarantee for seniors and sticking seniors
with the bill for ever-rising health care costs.
We do not believe it's visionary to award corporations that ship
American jobs rather than American products overseas while we're
terminating affordable health care for tens of millions of Americans
right here at home.
And we don't think it's brave to give Governors a blank check of
Federal taxpayer dollars and then a license to cut support for seniors
in nursing homes, individuals with disabilities, and poor kids.
And we don't think it's fair to raise taxes on middle-income
Americans to pay for additional tax breaks for the folks at the very
top.
[[Page H2898]]
{time} 1330
Yet those are the choices that are made in the Republican budget.
Where is the shared sacrifice? We have American men and women putting
their lives on the line in Iraq, in Afghanistan, while others hide
their income in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland and refuse to pay
their fair share to support our national efforts. And that is why the
bipartisan commission, among other reasons, said that the Republican
plan is just not balanced. It's not.
Let's say ``no'' to the Republican plan. Let's say ``yes'' to finding
a balanced way to reduce our deficits in a way that protects the values
and priorities of the American people and in a way that gets our
economy moving and America back to work.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished chairman of the House Republican Conference, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, earlier this week, USA Today reported
that we have the fewest participants in our workforce than at any time
in 30 years. And my Democratic colleagues announced their plan to
increase taxes $1.5 trillion on our economy, much of it on our small
businesses.
The Congressional Budget Office has announced that Medicare is going
broke in 2020. And my Democratic colleagues announced their plan to
double down on the rationing of health care for our seniors.
Announcement By the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair notes a disturbance in the gallery in
contravention of the law and rules of the House. The Sergeant at Arms
will remove those persons responsible for the disturbance and restore
order to the gallery.
The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Budget Office has
announced that Social Security will go broke in 2037. And my Democratic
colleagues have announced this is not a problem. We're ready to
implement the 22 percent benefit cut that's already in our statute.
Survey after survey shows that our fellow citizens believe that their
children will be worse off than they are, and yet my Democrat
colleagues announced their plan to add $9.1 trillion to the national
debt.
Mr. Chairman, it's time to quit spending money we don't have. It's
time to quit borrowing 42 cents on the dollar, much of it from the
Chinese, and then send the bill to our children and grandchildren.
The Republican budget will help us create jobs with fundamental tax
reform in preventing these tax increases. It will save our social
safety net programs. Programs that have been of a great comfort to my
parents and grandparents before our eyes are morphing into cruel Ponzi
schemes for my third-grade daughter and my first-grade son. And, Mr.
Chairman, the Republican budget will put us on the path to pay off the
national debt.
Mr. Chairman, I heard from one of my constituents recently. He said,
I never felt so embarrassed and ashamed of anything I have done in my
life as I do about leaving this mess in the laps of Tyler and Caitlyn,
my precious grandkids. I have written them both a heartfelt apology for
them to read when they get old enough to understand what I allowed our
country's governing authority to do to them.
Mr. Chairman, I have got a message for Mr. Calhoun. Put that letter
away. House Republicans are going to stand for Tyler and Caitlyn. We're
going to put America back to work. We're going to save the social
safety net and preserve the American Dream for ourselves and our
posterity.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, it's hard to see how someone would
define saving the social safety net by ending the Medicare guarantee
for seniors, by slashing Medicaid by over $750 billion, a program that
disproportionately helps seniors in nursing homes and disabled
individuals. It's really hard to understand how that is preserving the
social safety net. It reminds me of that strange statement we once
heard that you have to destroy the village in order to save it.
Now, let's understand what happens under this budget to Medicare.
This budget ends the Medicare guarantee for seniors. It doesn't reform
Medicare; it deforms and dismantles it because it forces seniors off
the Medicare program, into the private insurance market.
And it does nothing, as it dumps the seniors into the private
insurance market, to control the rate of increase in health care costs.
Instead, it transfers to the senior all those risks and all those
costs. Seniors will pay a lot more, while the insurance companies will
get all their Medicare payroll taxes. They'll get a bonanza out of this
thing, but seniors will be left holding the bag.
If your voucher amount, call it whatever you want, is not sufficient
to pay for the increased cost, you eat it. And we saw earlier the fact
that by the year 2022 seniors will have to pay more than $6,000 above
what they would have had to pay under the regular Medicare program. If
your doctor's not on a private plan that you can afford, tough luck.
This is rationing health care by income, nothing more.
And I want to say something just to clear the record one more time.
We keep hearing that they're offering seniors exactly what Members of
Congress get. It simply is not true. What Members of Congress get is
what's called a fair share deal. I encourage my colleagues on all sides
of the aisle just to look at the Federal Employees Benefit Plan. And
you look in the Office of Personnel and it says: ``This formula is
known as the fair share formula because it will maintain a consistent
level of government contributions as a percentage of program costs
regardless of what plan the enrollees elect.'' And it says that the
government contribution equals the lesser of 72 percent of the amounts
OPM determines are program-wide, or 75 percent.
The point is Members of Congress get a fair share formula. The
Republican budget does not give a fair share formula to seniors on
Medicare. It just doesn't. In fact, the way it saves money is to give
them an unfair deal. It unconnects the support we give to seniors from
rising health care costs. That's why seniors will end up paying so much
more and more and more, because you make the savings--health care costs
are going up like this, and the support, if you want to call it
support, it's really not coming from the Medicare program or the
Federal Government, is going like this. That's why the seniors are
having to eat those additional costs. That is what the Republican
budget does. At the same time they do provide additional tax breaks for
the folks at the very top.
If you want to get rid of some of the junk in the Tax Code, you can
support the Democratic plan, because we got rid of subsidies for the
oil companies. We got rid of those perverse tax incentives to reward
corporations that are shipping American jobs instead of American
products overseas.
So if you want to start with tax reform, vote for the Democratic
plan. Those are the choices we made, not ending the Medicare guarantee.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Cantor).
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) for his outstanding leadership and all the hard
work he has shown in leading this effort to put together a budget for
this House. I also want to commend the hard work of his members in the
committee for bringing this forward.
Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government is broke. We borrow nearly 40
cents of every dollar we spend. Our debt is more than $14 trillion and
is averaging yearly trillion-dollar deficits. We simply cannot afford
to keep spending money we don't have, and we must bring down the debt.
Now, for years this House, including legislators on both sides of the
aisle, has kicked the can down the road. Americans were led to believe
that we could spend hundreds of billions of dollars that we don't have
and that there would be no consequences. And when it came to fostering
an environment where American business could compete in a global
economy, we became complacent. This must stop.
{time} 1340
It's time to be honest with the American people.
[[Page H2899]]
Mr. Chairman, we stand at a crossroads. Before us lie two divergent
paths: one defined by crushing debt, slow growth and diminished
opportunity; and one defined by achievement, innovation and American
leadership.
By demonstrating courage and directly confronting our challenge at
this critical moment, we can fulfill the promise of America and pass on
to our children a Nation that offers everyone a fair shot at earning
their success.
The House Republican budget is an honest, fact-based proposal that
details our vision for managing down our debt and growing our way back
to prosperity.
First, we will stop spending money that we don't have. This budget
cuts non-security discretionary spending to below 2008 levels and
freezes it for 5 years. Overall, we reach $6.2 trillion in savings
against the President's budget.
Second, we will lead where the President has failed by finally
addressing our insolvent entitlement programs. We know that these
programs are the biggest drivers of our debt, and the Congressional
Budget Office acknowledges that if we don't take action, these
important safety net programs will go broke.
We cannot afford to ignore this oncoming fiscal train wreck any
longer. While it may be seen by some as politically risky, we
Republicans are willing to lead, because, to be frank, complacency is
not an option.
To be clear, our plan will not touch benefits for today's seniors and
those nearing retirement. For those of us 54 and below, it calls for
reforms that will restructure Medicare and Medicaid to ensure that
these safety nets will still be there for those who need it, not for
those who don't.
Unlike the lofty outline the President gave in his speech this week,
our budget is not a political document. We do not dream up imaginary
savings and dodge specifics in an effort to lull people into the belief
that they can actually get things for nothing. Our budget is a concrete
plan for getting our fiscal house in order, and we do not resort to tax
increases on the very small businesses and job creators we need to put
America back to work.
Bringing down the debt sends a message to American families. It sends
a message to businessmen and -women, to entrepreneurs and to investors.
It gives them the confidence that they won't face a future plagued by
inflation, higher taxes and higher interest rates.
We understand that cutting spending alone is not enough. That's why
our budget calls for pro-growth policies to get our economy growing and
get people back to work.
Families and small business people are struggling, and today, Tax
Day, millions of them will send their hard-earned money to Uncle Sam.
The last thing we should be asking them to do is to send yet again
more. Instead, our budget calls for a more competitive tax system that
will encourage the economy to grow, create jobs and spur investment in
the private sector.
We call for the end of crony capitalism that allows privileged
industries to gain competitive advantage in our Tax Code, and we call
for a more simple system that lowers rates for all but makes sure
everyone pays their fair share.
Mr. Chairman, with this budget, House Republicans are changing the
culture in Washington from one of spending to one of savings.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, America will see that it can get its fiscal
house in order after years of mismanagement. We are finally doing what
families and small business people have been doing for years:
tightening the belt and learning how to do more with less.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Ryan and his committee for
their outstanding leadership.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the Speaker
of the House, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, the American people understand that we
can't continue to spend money that we don't have. Our national debt has
now surpassed $14.2 trillion, and it's on a track to eclipse the entire
size of our economy.
This massive debt that we are incurring hurts private sector job
creation, eroding confidence, spreading uncertainty amongst employers
big and small, and discouraging private investment in our economy that
is sorely needed in order for us to create jobs.
This debt is also a moral threat to our country. In my opinion, it is
immoral to rob our children's and grandchildren's future and leave them
beholden to countries around the world who buy our debt. We have a
moral obligation to speak the truth and to do something about it.
Yesterday, we took the first step in beginning to address this
massive debt by passing legislation that will reduce our deficit by
$315 billion over the next 10 years. It was an imperfect bill, but it
was a positive step that has cleared the decks and allowed us to focus
on cutting trillions of dollars, not just billions.
Chairman Ryan and the members of the Budget Committee have done an
excellent job of putting together a budget that's worthy of the
American people. This budget will help job creation today, lift the
crushing burden of debt that threatens our children's future, and
preserve and protect programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Most
importantly, the budget shows families and small businesses that we're
serious about dealing with America's spending illness so we can put our
country on a path to prosperity.
The Ryan budget sets the bar for the debate going forward. President
Obama had an opportunity to match it. Unfortunately, he gave a partisan
speech about the need for more spending, more taxing, and more
borrowing. He said he wants to target our debt problem through a so-
called ``debt fail-safe,'' but exempts the major entitlement programs
that account for most of the long-term debt problems. And he proposed
yet another commission, though he ignored the recommendations of this
last one.
Instead of offering serious solutions, the President asked Congress
to raise the debt limit without addressing Washington's spending
problem. The President wants a clean bill, and the American people will
not tolerate it.
Now, let me be clear: There will be no debt limit increase unless
it's accompanied by serious spending cuts and real budget reforms.
We delivered this message on Wednesday morning to the President. We
cannot continue to borrow recklessly and dig ourselves a deeper hole
and mortgage the future of our children and grandchildren. The American
people are looking for leadership to address this debt crisis.
Unfortunately, the President has failed to put a serious proposal on
the table. If the President won't lead, we will.
{time} 1350
No more kicking the can down the road. No more whistling past the
graveyard. Now is the time to address the serious challenges that face
the American people. And we will.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that even if we adopt
the Republican budget, we're going to have to lift the debt ceiling for
years and years to come. So let's not play Russian roulette with the
economy and the full faith and credit of the United States Government.
Now, on the question of jobs--the question of jobs--during the
Clinton administration, we asked the very wealthiest for a little bit
more sacrifice than they have today. And do you know what happened to
jobs? Twenty million jobs were created during the Clinton
administration. Under the current tax rates, after 8 years of George
Bush, the private sector lost 630,000 jobs.
So you see the pattern here. During the Clinton administration,
economic growth was booming, and 20 million jobs were created. During
the 8 years of the Bush administration, there was a net loss of 653,000
jobs. We need to continue to invest in this country and make sure that
the entrepreneurs of this country can continue to thrive. We need to do
this in a balanced way.
I would point out that the folks who said that this Republican plan
we are debating would increase jobs are the same people who predicted
that the Bush tax cuts would create jobs. That's the blue line. That's
the prediction of the Heritage Foundation about what
[[Page H2900]]
would happen. The red is the reality. If we want to create jobs and
reduce the deficit, we need to do it in a balanced way. That's what the
fiscal commission said. That's what the Democratic plan does.
We urge everyone, respectfully, to vote ``no'' on the Republican
plan. It's the wrong choice for America.
With that, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished
Democratic leader, Ms. Pelosi.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 1
minute.
Ms. PELOSI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for bringing a budget
proposal to the floor today that is a statement of our national values
and about what we care about: investing in our children, honoring our
seniors, creating jobs, growing the economy and strengthening the
middle class. Thank you, Mr. Van Hollen, for your great leadership in
that regard.
Mr. Chairman, today we will be taking a vote that is very, very
important for the health and security of American seniors. A great deal
is at stake. I'm just going to focus on one part of this Republican
budget. I want to say to my Republican colleagues, Do you realize that
your leadership is asking you to cast a vote today to abolish Medicare
as we know it? Because that is the vote that we have. This is not about
an issue; this is about a value. This is about an ethic. Medicare is a
core value of our social compact with the American people. Yet this
budget shreds that contract which is part of the strength of our
country. The Republican proposal breaks the promise that our country
has made to our seniors that after a lifetime of work, they will be
able to depend on Medicare to protect them in retirement.
This plan, the Republican plan, ends Medicare as we know it and
dramatically reduces benefits for seniors. It forces them to pay more
to buy their insurance from health insurance companies, where the
average senior will be forced to pay twice as much for half the
benefit. I want to repeat that: the Republican plan forces seniors to
buy their insurance from health insurance companies where the average
senior will be forced to pay twice as much for half the benefits, as
much as $20,000 per year more for some seniors.
This plan has the wrong priority for our seniors and for all
Americans. Just remember these three things about the Republican
budget: It ends Medicare as we know it as it gives big tax breaks and
subsidies--tens of billions of dollars--to Big Oil. This budget reduces
Medicaid for our seniors in nursing homes, sending them away from
nursing homes, while it gives tax breaks to companies that send jobs
overseas. This budget hurts our children's education. In fact, it
increases the cost of higher education for nearly 10 million of our
young adults, while it gives tax breaks to America's wealthiest
families. That's just not fair. It is just not the American way.
Here we are. Yesterday, we observed the 100th day of the Republican
majority in Congress. In those 100 days, not one job has been created.
Not one job agenda is in the works. And what are we doing? We are here
to abolish Medicare instead.
I have heard our colleagues say that the budget deficit is immoral.
It's been immoral for the 8 years of the Bush administration, and I
didn't hear anybody say ``boo'' while we were giving tax cuts to the
rich, having two wars unpaid for, and giving prescription drug bills to
the private sector.
Democrats are committed to reducing the deficit. We have demonstrated
that we can during the Clinton administration, and we will. We are
committed to strengthening the middle class, to growing our economy as
we reduce the deficit, and to creating jobs. The Republican budget
fails to do that, and the Republican budget will not have Democratic
support.
We are here, and as one of the previous speakers said, now is the
time. Now is the time to preserve Medicare. And Democrats will. I urge
a ``no'' vote on the Republican plan.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself the remainder of my time.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank our staffs, the
Democratic staff and the Republican staff, for all of their hard work
in getting us to this moment.
I want to ask my colleagues a question. I want to ask the American
people a question. I remember one of the worst moments I had in
Congress was the financial crisis of 2008. It seems like it was
yesterday. We had the Treasury Secretary and we had the Federal Reserve
chairman coming here talking about crisis and talking about bank
collapses. And what came out of that was really ugly legislation that
we passed on a bipartisan basis but no one enjoyed. That crisis caught
us by surprise. It was unpredictable. We didn't see it coming.
Let me ask you this. What if your President and your Member of
Congress saw it coming? What if they knew why it was happening, when it
was going to happen, and more importantly, they knew what to do to stop
it and they had time to stop it, but they didn't? Because of politics?
What would you think of that person?
Mr. Chairman, that is where we are right now.
This is the most predictable economic crisis we've ever had in the
history of this country. Yet we have a President who is unwilling to
lead. We have too many politicians worried about the next election and
not worried about the next generation. Every politician in this town
knows we have a debt crisis. They know that we are in danger.
We cannot avoid this choice. To govern is to choose. We are making a
choice even if we don't act. And that's the wrong choice. In the words
of Abraham Lincoln, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and
this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. Will we
be remembered as the Congress that did nothing as the Nation sped
toward a preventable debt crisis and irreversible decline? Or will we
instead be remembered as a Congress that did the hard work of
preventing that crisis, the one that chose this Path to Prosperity?
This Path to Prosperity charts a different course. It gets us off this
wrong track.
It achieves four objectives:
Number one, grow the economy and get people back to work.
Number two, fulfill the mission of health and retirement security. We
don't want to ration Medicare. We don't want to see Medicare go
bankrupt. We want to save Medicare.
Number three, repair the social safety net. Get it ready for the 21st
century. We don't want a welfare system that encourages people to stay
on welfare. We want them to get back on their feet and into
flourishing, self-sufficient lives. So let's reform welfare for people
who need it, and let's end corporate welfare for people who don't need
it.
{time} 1400
Number four, let's do the work of lifting this crushing burden of
debt from our children.
This is what we achieve. We have a choice of two futures, but we have
to make the right choice. We must not leave this Nation in decline. We
must not be the first generation of this country to leave the next
generation worse off. Decline is antithetical to the American idea.
America is a Nation conceived in liberty, dedicated to equality and
defined by limitless opportunity. Equal opportunity, upward mobility,
prosperity; this is what America is all about.
In all the chapters of human history, there has never been anything
quite like America. This budget keeps America exceptional. It preserves
its promise for the next generation. Colleagues, this is our defining
moment. We must choose this Path to Prosperity.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for debate has expired.
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Smith of Nebraska) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bass of New Hampshire,
Acting 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. 34) establishing the budget for the
United States Government for fiscal year 2012 and setting forth
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2013
[[Page H2901]]
through 2021, and, pursuant to House Resolution 223, reported the
concurrent resolution back to the House with an amendment adopted in
the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the concurrent
resolution.
Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235,
nays 193, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 277]
YEAS--235
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--193
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinley
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--4
Giffords
Meeks
Olver
Reichert
{time} 1423
Mr. LAMBORN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
____________________