[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 28, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H1665-H1731]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013


                             General Leave

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 112.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Denham). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 597 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the concurrent 
resolution, H. Con. Res. 112.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1455


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the 
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 112) establishing the budget for 
the United States Government for fiscal year 2013 and setting forth 
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2014 through 2022, with 
Mr. Kline in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the concurrent resolution is 
considered read the first time.
  General debate shall not exceed 4 hours, with 3 hours confined to the 
congressional budget, equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget, and 1 hour on 
the subject of economic goals and policies, equally divided and 
controlled by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) and the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Hinchey) or their designees.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) each will control 90 minutes of debate on the 
congressional budget.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I look forward to working with my friend, the gentleman from 
Maryland, the ranking member, on what's going to be a long day and a 
great debate. Let me start this debate, first off, by saying this is 
what our constituents sent us here to do: to lead, to make decisions, 
to budget.
  I want to start off by saying to the gentleman from Maryland how much 
I appreciate the adherence to the longstanding protocol in the Budget 
Committee on how, while we clearly disagree on a lot of the big 
fundamental

[[Page H1666]]

issues, we've been able to conduct this debate in a civil manner. And 
I'm pleased that that tradition from the Budget Committee is continuing 
to this day, and I want to simply say how grateful I am for that.
  Last year, Mr. Chairman, we passed the boldest budget in recent 
history, a comprehensive plan to lift the debt and free the Nation from 
the constraints of an ever-expanding Federal Government. We changed the 
debate in Washington. Suddenly we're having a debate about how much 
spending we should cut instead of how much more to spend, how to create 
jobs the right way, by getting the Federal Government off our backs, by 
eliminating the debt, and by reforming the Tax Code so that American 
families and small businesses can create a true economic recovery.
  This week, we're prepared to be right here on the floor to take it 
one step further. We're bringing a 2013 budget, which we call the Path 
to Prosperity, which does this: it cuts $5.3 trillion in spending from 
the President's budget. It clears the roadblock of the partisan health 
care law that is now being debated in the Supreme Court because we 
believe that this partisan health care law is a roadblock to bipartisan 
reform. It puts our budget on the path to balance and a path to 
completely pay off our debt.
  By contrast, look at what other leaders are doing today. The 
President sent us a budget last month, the fourth budget in a row, 
which proposes to do nothing to pay off the debt, let alone ever get 
the budget in balance. The President gave us a budget with the fourth 
trillion-dollar deficit in a row, ignoring the drivers of our debt, 
doing what his budget says, ``advancing the deterioration of our fiscal 
situation.''
  The President's Treasury Secretary came to the Budget Committee and 
said:

       We are not saying we have a solution to the long-term 
     problem. We're just saying that we don't like yours.

  Well, I couldn't have said it better myself.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. Chairman, by offering empty promises instead of real solutions, 
the President and his party leaders have made their choice clear. 
They're choosing the next election over the next generation. Our 
government, in both political parties, have made decades of empty 
promises to Americans, and soon those empty promises are going to 
become broken promises unless we reform government. We're borrowing 40 
cents of every dollar we spend. It can't keep continuing.
  We're offering Americans a better choice. We're offering Americans 
solutions. And let me just quickly walk you through just the kind of 
situation America faces today. This is what the Congressional Budget 
Office tells us we're looking at--a crushing burden of debt that is not 
only going to affect our children's generation by denying them a better 
standard of living, a prosperous future, but it's going to put our own 
economy into a tailspin. All the experts came to the Budget Committee 
and told us we don't have much time left to avert this tidal wave of 
debt.
  Now, what's the rush? Why do we need to move so quickly? Because, Mr. 
Chairman, every year we don't do something to fix this debt crisis, we 
go that much deeper into the hole. That many more trillions of dollars 
of empty promises are being made to the American people.
  Back in 2009, we asked the General Accountability Office how many 
empty promises is our government making to today's Americans? In 2009 
they said, $62.9 trillion. Then we said in 2010, how many empty 
promises now? Now it's $76.4 trillion. Today, just 1 year later, 
they're now saying last year's stack of empty promises to Americans was 
$99.6 trillion. It's impossible to get your mind around these numbers.
  What does that mean? That means if we want our government to keep all 
of the promises it is now making to current Americans--my mom's 
generation, my generation, and my children's generation--we have to, 
all of a sudden, invent, create and come up with about $100 trillion 
today and invest it at Treasury rates just so we could have the money 
to keep these promises government is making. That's impossible. It 
can't be done. We know that.
  So it's time to stop lying to the American people. It's time to be 
honest about the situation we're in and then start fixing the problem 
because every year we go over $10 trillion deeper in the hole. Every 
year we go that much closer toward a debt crisis where government 
reneges on its promise to Americans. The people who need government the 
most--the poor, the sick and the elderly--they're the ones who get hurt 
first and the worst in a debt crisis.
  What is the primary driver of this crisis? Spending. What the 
Congressional Budget Office tells us is spending is on course to double 
by the time my kids are my age and then double again over the course of 
this century. Revenues are going back to where they historically have 
been, but spending is on an unsustainable trajectory. And when you have 
to borrow that much money, when you have to borrow 40 cents on the 
dollar, just look at where it's coming from. This is not the 1970s 
where our debt was relatively pretty small and we borrowed about 5 
cents on the dollar from foreign countries; and it's not the 1990s 
where our debt was getting big, and we borrowed at 19 cents from 
foreign governments.
  Today, in 2012, 46 percent of our borrowing in this country--
borrowing that's bigger than our economy now--comes from other nations, 
China being number one. We can't keep relying on other governments to 
cash flow our government. We are ceding our sovereignty and our ability 
to control our own destiny as a country when we have to hope that other 
countries will lend us money. We've got to get this under control.
  Lastly, Mr. Chairman, here's what this budget does in a nutshell. It 
says, Let's get ahead of this problem. Let's preempt a debt crisis, and 
let's do it in a way so we can do it in a gradual way. Let's do it in a 
way so that we can preempt and prevent a debt crisis on our own terms 
as Americans. Let's not wait until we have a crisis. Let's not wait 
until interest rates go up and we're in sort of a European meltdown 
mode. Let's do it right, and do it now, because then we can keep the 
promises that government has made to people who need it the most--
people who are already retired, people who are about to retire, the 
people who rely on government. You have to reform government to do 
that.
  Instead of this mountain of debt, the Path to Prosperity budget puts 
our deficit and our debt on a downward slope and pays off the debt 
entirely over time. That takes time, that takes will, and it begins 
now. In short, Mr. Chairman, if we don't tackle these fiscal problems 
soon, they're going to tackle us as a country.
  The best way to do it is put the kinds of ideas and reforms in place 
that grow the economy, create jobs, and get us back on a path to 
prosperity. We believe in the Founders' vision of the American idea. 
Your rights come from God and nature, not from government; and we 
believe in the freedom to pursue happiness. That means we want 
prosperity, we want upward mobility, and we want freedom and 
opportunity. Freedom and opportunity are gone if we have a debt crisis.
  So what we're saying is let's do everything we can to get this 
economy growing, to get people back to work and back on their feet, and 
let's get our spending under control. Let's get our borrowing under 
control, and let's reform those government programs that are the 
primary drivers of our debt so that we can fulfill that great legacy 
that all of our parents told us about when we were growing up in this 
country, and that is this: each generation in America makes the next 
generation better off.
  We know without a shred of doubt, it's irrefutable, that we're in the 
midst of giving the next generation a worse-off country, a lower 
standard of living and a diminished future. We have a moral and a legal 
obligation to stop that from happening, to pass a budget, to prevent 
that, to get us back on prosperity and get our debt paid off; and 
that's precisely what this budget does.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me start by thanking the chairman of the Budget Committee for the 
way he's conducted the proceedings in

[[Page H1667]]

the committee, and I look forward to a debate on the floor because as 
the chairman said, we have very deep differences. We do not have a 
difference on the question of whether or not we should reduce the 
deficits and the debt. Of course we do. We have a difference over how 
to do that.
  In that regard, Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
Republican plan and in support of the Democratic alternative. The 
Republican budget on the floor of the House today is simply the sequel 
to last year's plan--more of the same. It abandons the economic 
recovery and ends the Medicare guarantee for individuals whose median 
income is under $21,000 while providing a whopping average tax break of 
almost $400,000 for people making over $1 million a year. These tax 
breaks for the very wealthy and the tax breaks for special interests 
come at the expense of middle-income taxpayers, at the expense of 
seniors, and at the expense of essential investments to keep America 
strong.
  This Republican plan will weaken economic growth and, according to 
independent analysts, result in over 2 million jobs lost over the next 
2 years. It rewards corporations that ship American jobs overseas while 
slashing investments in education, in scientific research and 
infrastructure that help America grow our economy right here at home. 
In short, it is a path to greater prosperity if you are already 
wealthy, while leaving seniors, working Americans, and future 
generations behind.
  Mr. Chairman, we gather here at a very important time for our 
country. As a result of the extraordinary actions taken over the last 4 
years and the tenacity of the American people and small businesses, 
America avoided a second Great Depression, and the economy is slowly 
recovering. Still, millions of Americans remain out of work through no 
fault of their own. We must push forward with the recovery, not fall 
back; and we certainly should not return to the failed economic 
policies that got America into this economic mess to begin with.
  And yet that is exactly what this Republican budget does.

                              {time}  1510

  It is a recipe for national stagnation and decline. It retreats from 
our national goal of out-educating, out-building and out-competing the 
rest of the world. And it will weaken the economic recovery by slashing 
investments to important economic growth and expanding those tax breaks 
that reward corporations that ship American jobs overseas. Even when we 
have 17 percent unemployment in the construction industry, it cuts 
critical investments in our transportation systems, including a 46 
percent cut in transportation starting next year.
  As I mentioned earlier, nonpartisan analysts looked at this and 
concluded it would lose 2 million jobs over 2 years. So, rather than 
putting the economy into reverse, we need to move forward. We need to 
adopt the remainder of the President's jobs plan, a plan that's been 
sitting here in the House since September.
  It's also clear that putting America back to work is the fastest and 
most effective way to reduce deficits in the short term. In fact, the 
Congressional Budget Office estimates that our weak economy and 
underemployment is the single major contributing factor to the deficit 
this year, accounting for over one-third of the projected 2012 deficit. 
So we need to come up with a credible plan.
  The issue, as I said, is not whether but how. Every bipartisan group 
that has looked at ways to reduce the deficit in a credible way has 
recommended a balanced approach, meaning a combination of spending cuts 
and cuts to tax breaks for the wealthy, and the elimination of special 
interest corporate tax loopholes.
  The Democratic alternative provides that balanced approach, while the 
Republican plan, unfortunately, fails that test. Instead, their plan 
would again rig the rules in favor of the very wealthy and special 
interests. That may not be a surprise, since virtually every House 
Republican has signed a pledge--a pledge--to Grover Norquist saying 
they will not close a single special interest tax loophole, not 
eliminate a single oil subsidy for the purpose of deficit reduction, 
not one penny.
  I agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin that we face a real deficit 
and debt problem. Apparently, the problem is not big enough to ask 
folks at the very high end of the income scale to contribute one penny 
toward deficit reduction.
  In addition to locking in those parts of the Bush tax cuts that 
disproportionately benefit the very wealthy, they now have a new round 
of tax cuts that will provide, on average, a $400,000 tax cut for 
people making over $1 million a year. That's according to the 
nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
  So, here's the key: because our Republican colleagues refuse to ask 
millionaires to contribute 1 cent to deficit reduction, they hit 
everyone and everything else.
  Let's take a look at Medicare recipients. They immediately increase 
costs to seniors for Medicare preventive services and terminate a new 
service, the wellness programs, that were part of the Affordable Care 
Act. They immediately reduce support to seniors in the prescription 
drug plan by reopening the doughnut hole. That decision will cost 
seniors with high drug costs an average of $10,000 over the next 10 
years.
  Once again, this Republican budget does not reform Medicare; it 
deforms it. It proposes to end the Medicare guarantee, shifting rising 
costs onto seniors and disabled individuals. It gives you the 
equivalent of a voucher, but if your voucher amount is not sufficient 
to pay for the rising cost of health care, too bad. Too bad. It simply 
rations your health care and choice of doctor by income and leaves 
seniors to the whims of the insurance industry.
  Despite claims that market competition is going to bring down those 
rising costs, the plan creates that artificial cap on the voucher 
support. Our Republican colleagues say they're using the part D 
prescription drug plan as a model, but that has no artificial cap. They 
say it's the same kind of plan offered to Members of Congress under the 
Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan, but that has no cap on support 
from their plans. So, unlike Members of Congress, seniors in Medicare 
will get vouchers with declining purchasing power relative to rising 
health care costs.
  In fact, if you look at this chart, Mr. Chairman, you will see what 
the current Medicare plan would provide in terms of the amount of 
support provided by the plan to the individual on health care. That's 
the blue line. This is the green line, Federal Employee Health Benefit 
Plan, the plan that Members of Congress are on. As you can see, the 
amount of the premium support keeps pace with rising health care costs. 
This red line is the Republican voucher plan that caps the amount an 
individual can receive and goes steadily downward, giving seniors on 
Medicare a worse deal than Members of Congress would give to 
themselves.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, this budget also rips apart the safety net for 
seniors in nursing homes and assisted living facilities, as well as 
low-income kids and individuals with disabilities who rely on Medicaid. 
Remember, two-thirds of Medicaid funding goes to seniors in nursing 
homes and disabled individuals, yet that is one of the biggest areas of 
the Republican budget cuts. It takes a hatchet to Medicaid, slashing 
over $800 billion and cutting Medicaid by one-third by the year 2022. 
This is done under the Orwellian title in their plan of ``repairing'' 
the social safety net. That's like throwing an anchor to a drowning 
person.
  Mr. Chairman, to govern is to choose, and that's what this debate is 
all about. The choices in this Republican budget are simply wrong for 
America. It is not bold to provide tax breaks to millionaires while 
ending the Medicare guarantee for seniors and sticking them with the 
bill for rising health care costs. It's not courageous to protect tax 
giveaways to Big Oil companies and other special interests while 
slashing investments in our kids' education, scientific research, and 
critical infrastructure. It is not visionary to reward corporations 
that ship American jobs overseas while terminating affordable health 
care for tens of millions of Americans. It is certainly not brave to 
cut support for seniors in nursing homes, individuals with 
disabilities, and poor kids. And it is not fair to raise taxes on 
middle-income

[[Page H1668]]

Americans financed by another round of tax breaks for the very wealthy. 
Yet those are the choices made in this Republican budget.
  Where is the shared responsibility?
  Mr. Chairman, we can and we must do better. Let's reject this budget 
and adopt the Democratic alternative which provides a balanced approach 
to accomplishing the goal of reducing our deficits while at the same 
time strengthening our economy and doing it in a way that calls for 
shared responsibility.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), a member of the 
Budget Committee.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for 
his vision and courage. It has truly been an honor to serve on the 
committee under his leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, a year ago, the House passed a budget that would have 
put our Nation back on the path to fiscal solvency and ultimately paid 
off the entire national debt. It would have saved Medicare and Medicaid 
from collapse and put them back on a solid and secure foundation. 
According to Standard & Poor's, it would have preserved the AAA credit 
rating of the United States Government. That plan was killed in the 
Senate, which has not passed a budget in 3 years.
  The Senate majority leader complained that it threatened the Cowboy 
Poetry Festival in Elko, Nevada. An allied group ran a smear campaign 
depicting Congressman Ryan as a monster willing to throw his 
grandmother off a cliff. Sadly, that's what passes for reasoned 
discourse from today's left.
  The result is that today our country is another year older and more 
than $1 trillion deeper in debt. We've lost our AAA credit rating. 
We've watched our Nation's debt exceed our entire economy, putting us 
in the same league as the worst-run European governments.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not a perfect budget, no budget ever is, but it 
will save our country from the calamity that is now destroying Greece. 
That should be reason enough for adopting it with a resounding and, 
dare I hope, bipartisan vote.
  A year ago, a panel of experts from left to right warned us that we 
were, at best, 5 years from a sovereign debt crisis. I wonder how many 
more years we've got. How many more chances will we have to set things 
right before events overtake us and we enter the inexorable downward 
spiral of bankrupt nations?
  Let's not find out the answer to that question. Let us act now to 
redeem our Nation's finances and restore our Nation's freedom while 
there is still time. That is our generation's responsibility. That is 
our generation's destiny.

                              {time}  1520

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank Ranking Member Van Hollen for yielding the time 
and stand to say that jobs need to be America's number one priority. 
The Republican budget shows, once again, that Republicans don't have a 
jobs agenda. You balance family and national budgets by creating jobs 
and putting people back to work.
  We still have over 12 million Americans looking for work, and that 
doesn't even include those who have fallen off benefits or are looking 
for work but can't find full-time employment.
  I said when we marked up this bill in committee, and I will say it 
again, this Republican budget completely ignores the President's jobs 
agenda. Instead, Republicans, incredibly, criticized Democrats for 
taking the steps that helped save the U.S. auto industry and millions 
of related high-paying manufacturing jobs.
  Republicans opposed the payroll tax extension for middle class 
Americans, which will help keep demand up so that businesses can hire 
more workers. Republicans are pushing for irresponsible cuts that 
economists have warned will hurt the economy and job creation, and 
Republicans proposed a partisan transportation bill that would bankrupt 
the highway trust fund and destroy thousands of jobs.
  In committee, we couldn't even get the Republicans to support a 
modest Veterans Jobs Corps to create 20,000 jobs for our vets returning 
from Iraq and Afghanistan. I raised this situation with President Obama 
during one of his Ohio visits and shared with him H.R. 494, a bill I've 
drafted, and the President saw a need to create jobs, and his 
administration asked Congress to do this for our returning vets.
  The Republican majority has said no to our veterans as thousands and 
thousands of them return and remain unemployed.
  I ask my colleagues to reject the Republican budget, support the 
Democratic alternative, and put our economy first. Job creation for all 
Americans must be our top priority and is the first step in beginning 
to balance our budget which requires a growth economy.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Mr. 
Mica, for the purposes of a colloquy.
  Mr. MICA. I thank the chair of the Budget Committee. And first, let 
me commend Chairman Ryan and the Budget Committee for bringing this 
resolution to the floor today.
  I'm pleased with the cooperative working relationship between our two 
committees, particularly as we seek to move a multiyear surface 
transportation reauthorization to the floor in the near future.
  As you know, H.R. 7 is the most significant transportation reform 
bill since the Interstate Highway System was created some 50 years ago. 
The bill will reduce the Federal bureaucracy by consolidating or 
eliminating more than 70 programs and allows States to set their own 
transportation priorities, not bureaucrats here in Washington.
  H.R. 7 provides the stable and predictable funding stream that is 
necessary for States and construction companies to take on major 
construction projects that span several years. The bill accomplishes 
more with less through significant reforms, including cutting in half 
the time it takes to complete major transportation infrastructure 
projects.
  H.R. 7 also establishes a blueprint for job creation, is responsibly 
paid for, and includes no earmarks, no tax increases or deficit 
spending.
  As everyone here knows, our surface transportation programs expire on 
Saturday, and we need to pass an extension in the next few days in 
order to ensure that these programs will not disrupt the folks who may 
be furloughed and construction workers who would be sent home.
  I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will act 
responsibly and put politics aside and join us in passing a short-term 
extension so we can work on a longer-term solution.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 7 meets two criteria of the deficit-neutral 
reserve fund outlined in this budget. First, it will maintain the 
solvency of the highway trust fund, and second, it will not increase 
the deficit over the period of fiscal year 2013 through fiscal 2022.
  The resolution before us also assumes a new potential funding stream 
for the trust fund in the form of oil and gas revenues, and ensures 
that any future funding transfers will be fully offset.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. MICA. Both of which are included in H.R. 7.
  I would like to confirm with the gentleman from Wisconsin that my 
understanding of these provisions is correct, and that H.R. 7 is in 
compliance with the budget resolution.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. The gentleman from Florida is correct in his 
observations that H.R. 7, as considered by the House, is in compliance 
with the fiscal year 2013 budget resolution before us today. And we 
look forward to the final, long-term reauthorization bill.
  Mr. MICA. I thank the chairman for his diligence and ongoing efforts 
to bring much-needed fiscal discipline to Federal spending.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, that was an interesting colloquy, 
especially given the fact that the Senate has passed a bipartisan 
transportation bill; again, a bill that has very broad support that, if 
we took it up today in the House, we could get it passed right now, and 
it would be good for the economy and good for the fact that we have

[[Page H1669]]

17 percent unemployment in the construction industry.
  As I remarked earlier, the Republican budget that we're considering 
would actually cut transportation funding spending outlays by 46 
percent next year. That is not good for the economy, and I hope this 
body will overturn that.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, over the past several months, in 
hearing after hearing in the Budget Committee, we have heard one 
recurring theme from our expert witnesses. Chairman Bernanke said it, 
Director Elmendorf said it, Acting Director Zients said it, and 
Secretary Geithner reaffirmed that the draconian, reckless cuts 
proposed by the Republican majority, and made evident in their budget 
proposal that we are considering on the House floor today, will create 
an enormous headwind for our economy. Yet, here we are again.
  Yes, here we are considering the same Republican budget plan as last 
year, hearing the same arguments from Chairman Ryan and the Republican 
leadership.
  As I said last week in committee, I feel like it's ``Groundhog Day'' 
all over again, but Bill Murray is nowhere in sight, and this is no 
comedy.
  In all seriousness, the harmful spending cuts incorporated into this 
budget proposal go further than simply damaging a fragile recovery. 
These cuts pull the rug out from under our most vulnerable: our 
seniors, our children, and those with serious illness.
  Democrats reject the idea that the way to deal with rising health 
care costs is to give seniors a voucher to purchase private insurance 
and then tell them to figure out how to keep their own costs down.
  Democrats believe that we cannot solve our budget challenges simply 
by shifting health costs and risks onto people who are least able to 
bear them: seniors, disabled individuals, and poor families.
  Last week I offered an amendment in the Budget Committee that no one 
in this body should ever have to offer. My amendment would have 
prevented reckless and shameful Medicaid cuts to seniors in nursing 
homes. Like all of the other amendments offered by my Democratic 
colleagues, this amendment was rejected on a party-line vote. This is 
simply unconscionable.
  As a Member of Congress representing a large number of seniors in 
south Florida, I can tell you that the House Republican budget would be 
devastating for seniors and older Americans. This Republican ``path to 
poverty'' would pass like a tornado through America's nursing homes, 
where millions of America's seniors receive long-term and end-of-life 
care.
  Sixty percent of Americans in nursing homes are on Medicaid, so cuts 
to Medicaid would have a dramatically negative impact on our seniors. 
The Federal Government made a commitment to each and every one of us 
that when we got older we wouldn't need to live in poverty or force our 
children into poverty in order to care for us.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. For decades we have looked to Medicare and 
Medicaid with the expectation that the Federal Government would honor 
its commitment. Now, under this budget plan, Republicans are trying to 
back out of our commitment to seniors. We cannot go back on our promise 
to the Greatest Generation. There is a better way forward.
  I ask my colleagues to think about our seniors and our most 
vulnerable and reject the Republican budget plan.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes just to 
respond to a few of the things that have been said.
  First off, it's not the budget that lowers the highway funding next 
year by 46 percent. It's the current law that governs the highway trust 
fund that does that anyway.
  Let's remember, Mr. Chairman, the highway trust fund is going 
insolvent. That's under current law. So our budget simply reflects that 
current law. But we say, let's go get new sources of revenue from oil 
and gas exploration to go to the highway trust fund, and let's have a 
reserve fund so that we can go out and find savings to fix this highway 
trust fund.
  But since those bipartisan negotiations are just beginning to take 
place, since that conference is beginning to take place, we can't 
include it in this budget. Therefore, we had the reserve fund to be 
held in order to accommodate that compromise once it arrives.

                              {time}  1530

  Medicare. The growth rate of Medicare under this budget is the same 
one the President proposes in his budget. So for the chart my friend 
from Maryland used saying this is what the Republican budget does to 
growing Medicare out in the future, it's the same one President Obama 
proposes.
  Here's the difference: President Obama, in his law, the one being 
debated over at the Supreme Court, says 15 unelected, unaccountable 
bureaucrats will be in charge of putting price controls and cuts to 
Medicare to accommodate that growth rate versus our plan to put 50 
million seniors in charge of choosing what health care plan is best for 
them. More for the poor, more for the sick, less for the wealthy; and 
it makes Medicare solvent.
  Here's the catch: we don't change the benefit for current seniors. 
This system applies to younger people. Unlike the current law that the 
President passed, that my friend voted for, 15 bureaucrats are in 
charge of putting price controls on current seniors' medical care which 
leads to denied care for them.
  So if we're talking about who's saving and strengthening Medicare, it 
is this budget as opposed to the status quo which raids it, rations it, 
and still allows the program to go bankrupt.
  With that, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Hampshire, a member of this Budget Committee, Mr. Guinta.
  Mr. GUINTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to add my voice to those 
calling for the passage of the Path to Prosperity.
  Mr. Chairman, we are in a debt crisis in this Nation. We have a 
spending crisis in this Nation. This Congress was sent here just a year 
ago to fix and solve these problems; and we have, for the second year 
in a row, offered solutions. We have offered ideas, and we will 
continue to work with the other side of the aisle to try to find what 
we all believe is a more prosperous Nation.
  For too long, job creators in my home State of New Hampshire have 
paced on the sidelines. They tell me over and over that we want to 
expand our payrolls, we want to see stability and predictability from 
Washington first. But that hasn't happened.
  Mr. Chairman, it's not asking too much for our Nation to see what 
good, sound fiscal policy looks like, and we ought to provide that 
opportunity. We ought to pass this piece of legislation.
  The Path to Prosperity gives job creators the confidence to resume 
doing what they do best: innovate, operate, and expand their businesses 
and their job opportunities for the rest of us.
  It does so by reducing spending $5.3 trillion over the next decade. 
We slowly bring the deficit below 3 percent of GDP as quickly as 2015, 
and we have a path to balance this Nation's budget.
  We also do this by reforming our Tax Code. Consolidating six tax 
brackets down to two, 25 and 10 percent, and on the corporate side 
reducing the rate from 35 to 25, going to a territorial system, 
allowing the opportunity for our economy to once again be thriving.
  The best way to sustain a lasting economic recovery is to remove the 
hurdles and the barriers that are holding back job creators; and this 
budget, Mr. Chairman, does just that.
  I urge my colleagues to pass the Path to Prosperity, and I call on 
the Senate to approve it as well.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, a couple of points.
  The bipartisan bill that came over from the Senate would provide 
funding fully paid for, offset for 18 months. So you could avoid the 
big 46 percent cut next year that's in the Republican budget and make 
sure folks out there who are looking for jobs in the construction 
industry could get to work.
  Secondly, with respect to Medicare, you have two fundamentally 
different approaches. The approach we had in the Affordable Care Act 
was to say we need to modernize the Medicare system

[[Page H1670]]

by changing incentives. So we reward and incentivize the quality of 
care, the value of care, not the volume of care which drove up costs.
  What we do not do is offload the risk of those rising health care 
costs onto seniors.
  Now the board, the IPAB the gentleman referred to, is specifically 
prohibited, and I have the language right here, from including any 
recommendations to ration health care, raise revenue or Medicare 
beneficiary premiums, whereas the Republican plan expressly works by 
offloading those risks and those costs onto seniors. A very different 
approach.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman. In Akron, Ohio, Summa Health 
Care is already implementing some of these accountable care 
organization methods, the medical home, and saving millions and 
millions of dollars because of the health care reform bill. I love this 
idea of we can't have a board that's rationing care.
  What are the insurance companies doing today, Mr. Chairman? We act 
like we're living in a society where the insurance industry is okaying 
every procedure that needs to get done. They're rationing care right 
now. We have 40 or 50 million Americans who can't afford health care.
  So we're going to throw our seniors now into the insurance market, 
and we're going to give them a premium support or a voucher--and our 
friend says it's not a voucher, it's premium support--to help them go 
out into the free market and buy insurance. But that voucher is only 
going to go up 3 or 4 percent a year while health care costs are going 
to go up 5, 10--who knows--15 percent a year. So that voucher every 
single year goes down and becomes worth less. That's the concern that 
we have on our side, and that's why we think the reform we put into 
place was a positive thing.
  Then the Medicaid cuts, which people in Ohio use to make sure they 
can get into a nursing home when they're seniors, get a cut by one-
third.
  So we're cutting Medicaid by a third, we're basically privatizing the 
Medicare system into a voucher system, sending our seniors to swim with 
the sharks in the insurance market, hope that the insurance companies 
grant them coverage for what they may need. Oh, by the way, you can't 
really make money off insuring senior citizens. This is the kind of 
philosophy. This is why this debate about the budget is really a 
positive one because I think it articulates the two different sides.
  Lastly, let me just say this is about balance. The deep, deep cuts in 
the Republican budget are because they can't ask Warren Buffett to pay 
a little bit more in taxes. All during the committee process this year 
and last year, we had our friends on the other side of the aisle who 
honor Ronald Reagan--light candles, burn incense, put his picture up.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. RYAN from Ohio. Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times: Tax Equity 
and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982; Highway Revenue Act of 1982; 
Social Security amendments of 1983; Railroad Retirement Revenue Act, 
tax increase of 1983; Deficit Reduction Act of 1984; Consolidated 
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985; Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1985; Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization 
Act of 1986; continuing resolution in '87, and a continuing resolution 
in '88.
  The responsible thing to do is to ask Warren Buffett and his friends 
to help us make sure that these cuts aren't that deep in Medicare and 
Medicaid and Pell Grants and the other investments that we need to make 
in this country.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member of 
the committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).
  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Budget Committee, I'm 
pleased to have not only helped author this budget but to stand here in 
strong support of it. It's a fair budget. It's an honest budget.
  The gentleman from New Hampshire said this is the second year in a 
row that we are telling the truth to the American people. You know, the 
old adage was ``never touch that third rail of politics.'' Never touch 
Medicare, never touch Medicaid, never talk about Social Security. Touch 
it and you will die. We are debunking that myth because that's exactly 
what it is.
  We give credit to the American people by telling them the truth. We 
have that respect for them. Sixty-five percent of our spending year 
over year comes out of this House on programs that don't work well and 
that are bankrupt. They won't be around for our children, and that's 
these programs right here.
  This is what drives our debt: 65 percent of our current spending.
  You know what's unfair? It's unfair that in a few decades these 
programs, as this chart shows, will take 100 percent, will take up all 
of the revenue that we bring in, the taxes that we bring in as a 
Federal Government.
  Now, some will say, Hey, wait a minute, I paid into those programs; I 
deserve to take out. Well, that's kind of true as well.
  Let's take Medicare for example. On average, we pay in 30 percent of 
what we're going to take out; and that 70 percent difference comes from 
the children of tomorrow who don't exist yet, who have no voice in this 
debate.

                              {time}  1540

  It's unfair that no one speaks for them. We do.
  We speak for the people in the here and now, and we speak for the 
people of tomorrow. Immigrants didn't come to this country for wealth 
redistribution. They didn't come to this country to practice 
intergenerational theft. They want their kids and they want their 
grandchildren to have a better life than they did. Our budget does 
that.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. The gentleman is absolutely right about the need to 
look out for future generations and the issue of the deficit. What I 
always find staggering is the refusal to close one single loophole--
just one penny--for the purposes of reducing the deficit so that we can 
address that issue of the deficits in future generations.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania 
(Ms. Schwartz), who has been a great member of the Budget Committee.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. I thank the ranking member.
  The Federal budget is a statement of our priorities and our values as 
a Nation. The budget needs to be fiscally responsible and reduce the 
deficit, meet our obligations to our seniors and our families and our 
future, and make targeted investments to grow our economy.
  The Republican budget fails to meet all three challenges. It fails 
our Nation's seniors and our middle class. It fails to ensure that we 
can compete from a position of strength in a global economy, and it 
fails to offer a balanced approach to deficit reduction. The Republican 
budget relies solely on spending cuts. It chooses tax reductions for 
millionaires at the expense of the middle class, and it chooses tax 
breaks for the biggest corporations over small business and new jobs.
  The most direct assault on our values as Americans is the 
Republicans' plan to dismantle Medicare as we know it. Rather than 
protecting the promise of Medicare for seniors now and into the future, 
the Republicans break that promise. Rather than reducing costs through 
payment and delivery system reforms, the Republicans do nothing to 
contain costs, and they simply shift the cost burden onto our seniors. 
Rather than guaranteed benefits, the Republicans leave seniors on their 
own to buy what benefits they can afford with a voucher of limited 
value. This means seniors are subjected to the uncertainty of the 
insurance industry, meaning possible discrimination based on age, 
illness, and income. Their budget even cuts health coverage for our 
sickest and frailest seniors, threatening their access to vital nursing 
home care.
  For decades, Medicare has provided both financial and health security 
for America's seniors, with access to quality, affordable, guaranteed 
health benefits. Medicare is a promise to our seniors, and it is a 
promise that this Republican budget breaks. America's seniors deserve 
better. Instead, we need a balanced approach to reduce the deficit, to 
meet our commitments in our Nation, particularly to our seniors, and to 
create an environment that grows our economy now and into the future.

[[Page H1671]]

  Reject this Republican budget and choose the Democratic budget 
alternative, which meets our Nation's challenges in a way that is 
balanced, fair, and responsible.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to 
simply say that I keep hearing this word, ``voucher.'' I'm told it 
polls well if your goal is to try and scare senior citizens. What we're 
talking about in here is to build upon the bipartisan reforms that have 
been advocated in the nineties, in the early part of this decade, and 
most recently on how best to save and strengthen the Medicare 
guarantee.
  First, no changes for anybody in or near retirement in Medicare.
  Second, when people 54 or below become Medicare eligible, they'll get 
a list of guaranteed coverage options from Medicare from which to 
choose, just like we do as Members of Congress, including, in this 
case, the traditional Medicare program. Medicare will subsidize their 
premiums from the plans they choose. If you're low-income or sick, 
you'll get much more. You'll get total coverage--no out of pocket--for 
a low-income person; and we say, if you're a wealthy person, you can 
probably afford more out of pocket, so you're not going to get as much 
of a subsidy.
  That premium grows. We competitively bid. The plans must offer the 
basic benefit so it protects against health inflation; and as a 
backstop, it grows no faster than what the President proposes in his.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. In yielding myself 30 additional seconds, Mr. 
Chairman, here is the difference:
  The President's is different. He allows Medicare to go bankrupt. Yet, 
even with that, he takes a half a trillion dollars from Medicare to 
spend on his new health care program for other people, and he puts a 
board of 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in charge of denying 
care by denying prices. It says you can go and cut reimbursement rates 
to providers and that you can do a values-based benefit design, which 
is what they propose--whatever that means--to affect current seniors.
  We reject the idea that Medicare should be run by 15 unelected 
bureaucrats. Instead, we want to preserve it for the current 
generation.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the 
House Republican Conference, a former member of the Budget Committee, 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the chairman for yielding, and I especially 
thank him for his national leadership on this pressing issue of the 
national debt.
  Mr. Chairman, last week, Secretary Geithner came up to Capitol Hill 
to warn of the threat to the American economy of the European debt 
crisis. Now, Mr. Chairman, the American people know that the greater 
threat to the American economy is the American debt crisis. We face the 
absolute worst debt crisis in America's history, and yet it has been 
almost 3 years since both House and Senate Democrats have submitted a 
budget--almost 3 full years.
  Now, to his credit, the President has submitted a budget. To his 
shame, it adds $11 trillion to our national debt on top of the $5 
trillion that he has already imposed of additional national debt. Mr. 
Chairman, everyone knows that the spending trajectory of the Federal 
Government is unsustainable. And what does our President do in his 
budget? He takes an unsustainable spending trajectory and doubles down. 
He makes it more unsustainable, which makes it unconscionable. Perhaps 
worst of all, Mr. Chairman, even though he knows what the drivers of 
our national insolvency are, he refuses to deal with them.
  But don't take my word for it. Listen to the editorial pages of major 
U.S. newspapers, many of which are pretty liberal in their 
orientations.
  The Boston Herald writes:

       President Barack Obama has apparently decided that he is 
     not going to be part of the solution to the Nation's enormous 
     deficit, which would make him, yes, part of the problem.

  The LA Times:

       It's past time for the administration to lay out a credible 
     plan for bringing the deficit and debt under control. Sadly, 
     Obama's budget proposal shows that he would rather wait until 
     after the election to have that reckoning.

  USA Today:

       The best test of a budget proposal these days is whether it 
     reins in the national debt. The election year budget 
     President Obama sent to Congress on Monday fails that test.

  It's pretty clear the President's policies have failed and are 
hampering our economic recovery. Because they have failed, regrettably, 
our President has resorted to the politics of division and envy, which 
is fairly evident in his budget. He has not appealed to the better 
angels of our disposition and not to the noblest aspirations of our 
fellow citizens. Instead, he appeals to their basic instincts.
  The Nation is truly, truly at a crossroads between two very, very 
different paths. The President's path is one of crushing, unsustainable 
debt; a massive tax increase on struggling families and small business; 
and, most troubling, a diminished future for our children and 
grandchildren. In short, it is the road to becoming a European-style 
social democracy of the 21st century.
  Mr. Chairman, it is past time to quit spending money we don't have. 
It is past time to quit borrowing almost 40 cents on the dollar, much 
of it from the Chinese, so we can just turn around and send the bill to 
our children and our grandchildren.
  Where the President and other Democrats have failed to lead, House 
Republicans, under the leadership of our Budget chairman, Paul Ryan, 
have acted. We have a vastly different path for America's future. It is 
a path of opportunity. It is a path for economic growth. It is the path 
to prosperity, and it is the path of fiscal sustainability that, over 
time, not just reduces the national debt but will pay it off.

                              {time}  1550

  Number one, let's look at the differences. Our budget would 
absolutely prevent the President's single largest tax increase in 
American history, $1.9 trillion of new taxes to be imposed upon our job 
creators and other hardworking Americans. And you know what's ironic, 
Mr. Chairman? Even if you gave the President every single job-hampering 
tax increase he's asked for, it's about 16, maybe 17 percent of the $11 
trillion he wants to add to the national debt. You can't tax your way 
out of this problem, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 
3 minutes.
  Mr. HENSARLING. So we know it's the middle-income who will end up 
paying this.
  Second point: we repealed the President's failed health care program, 
the one that we now understand is going to cost almost $2 trillion, the 
one that now the Congressional Budget Office tells us will cost almost 
2 million jobs, and the one that creates the Independent Payment 
Advisory Board, as the chairman has said, that includes 15 unelected, 
unaccountable bureaucrats who will begin making health care decisions 
for our seniors, like my 79-year-old mother, my 83-year-old father. You 
know, if one of them needs a hip replacement, if one of them needs a 
heart bypass, I want that decision to be made between them and their 
doctor, not the 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats who have one, 
and only one, purpose, and that is to impose price controls and ration 
the quality and access to health care for our seniors.
  You know, I hear the buzz line, but it seems to me that ends Medicare 
as we know it. Looting $500 billion out of Medicare to pay for the 
President's health care, that seems to end Medicare as we know it. 
Putting a global price cap, that seems to end Medicare as we know it. 
And most of all--since we've heard from the trustees of the Medicare 
and Social Security trust fund that it's going broke--allowing it to go 
broke, which our friends on the other side of the aisle do, seems to me 
to be ending Medicare as we know it.
  Our budget will end the road to bankruptcy by controlling spending. 
Under the President's budget, spending has gone from its traditional 20 
percent of our economy to 24 percent, and it's on its way to 40 percent 
over the course of the next generation. Our budget will control 
spending and limit government so we can have unlimited opportunity.

[[Page H1672]]

  What is this debate truly about, Mr. Chairman? Here's what I think 
it's about. And I have shared this correspondence with my colleagues 
before. I heard from the Calhoun family in Winnsboro, Texas, about this 
debt. And he wrote me:

       Congressman, I have never felt so embarrassed and ashamed 
     about anything I have done in my life as I do about leaving 
     this mess in the laps of Tyler and Caitlynn, my precious 
     grandkids. I have written both of them 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, we have no greater moral responsibility than to 
preserve the blessings of liberty and opportunity for this gentleman's 
grandchildren and the next generation. It's what we do. We are 
Americans. We're not just operating on borrowed money. We're operating 
on borrowed time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 
1 minute.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Two paths. Two choices. One duty. I hope history 
records that we acted worthy of ourselves, that we acted worthy of our 
forefathers, that we acted worthy of this great Republic for which so 
many have sacrificed over the years.
  No more borrowed time. No more borrowed money. Let's seize the moment 
in history. Let's adopt the Republican Path to Prosperity budget.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, the difference between the President's 
plan and the Republican budget, the difference between the Democratic 
alternative and the Republican budget, is that we take a balanced 
approach. I think everybody understands that spending cuts have to be 
part of the solution. This Congress acted last summer, cut $1 trillion 
out of the budget. But the President and the Democratic alternative 
also understand what bipartisan groups all understand, which is that 
the only credible way to reduce our deficits is through a combination 
of spending cuts and cutting some of the tax breaks to special 
interests and asking millionaires to pay more.
  I keep hearing our Republican colleagues come to the floor lamenting 
the large deficits and debt which we all agree we need to get under 
control and then refusing to cut one special interest loophole for the 
purpose of reducing the deficit, asking a millionaire to contribute one 
more penny for the purpose of reducing the deficit.
  Now with respect to the issue of Medicare, the reason it's not 
premium support is, it doesn't provide constant support to the senior 
on Medicare. Over time, seniors' purchasing power of this voucher will 
become less and less while the costs go up and up.
  I would point out, again, that Members of Congress have for 
themselves a plan, this green line, where the purchasing power of their 
health plan stays constant, even as health prices increase. But this 
red line here is what they would do to seniors on Medicare.
  Now I've heard it said a couple of times now that the President 
allows Medicare to go bankrupt. Mr. Chairman, here is a chart that the 
chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan, presented in the Budget 
Committee. The black line here is the trajectory that they claim for 
their plan in terms of cost containment. The blue line is what they 
acknowledge the President calls for.
  As you can see, the tracks are very different. This red line is 
projected cost increase by the Congressional Budget Office. The 
difference between the approaches is that the Republican plan puts the 
risk of being wrong here on the senior, whereas the plan we put forward 
says we need to change the incentive structures, to change the 
incentives in a way so that providers provide more cost-efficient care 
rather than putting that risk on the senior. That is the fundamental 
difference. And AARP, the largest organization of seniors in the 
country, agrees with what I have just said. They say in their letter:

       The premium support method described in the proposal, 
     unlike private plan options that currently exist in Medicare, 
     would likely ``price out'' traditional Medicare as a viable 
     option, thus rendering the choice of traditional Medicare as 
     a false promise.

  They go on to say that the purchasing power of this voucher will not 
keep pace with health care costs. Let's not put that risk on seniors.
  And with that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. 
Castor) who has been just tenacious in making sure that we deal with 
these issues in a fair and balanced way.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank the ranking member very much.
  The Republican budget makes something very clear, and that is, 
Democrats and Republicans have very different visions for our great 
country. The Republican vision is harsh, and independent commentators 
have said a few things about their proposed budget. They've called it 
reverse Robin Hood. They've called it disturbing. And they've called it 
extreme. And I think one of the primary reasons is that the Republican 
budget breaks the promise that this country has made to generations of 
Americans that is Medicare.
  The fundamental promise of Medicare is if you work hard and you play 
by the rules and you pay into Medicare every year, as you are working, 
that it will be there for you in retirement, and you can live your 
retirement years in dignity. Even in the face of a diagnosis of 
Alzheimer's or cancer, you will not go bankrupt, and your children will 
not go bankrupt.
  Medicare makes America great. But unfortunately, through this budget, 
the Republicans say they don't share that view. Specifically, the 
Republican budget ends guaranteed coverage that our parents and 
grandparents have paid for, cuts Medicare benefits. It increases 
premiums and co-pays, and it scraps all of those important democratic 
cost saving reforms that strengthen Medicare.
  I offered an amendment in the Budget Committee that would retain 
closing of the doughnut hole, the annual wellness visit, and other 
benefits, but unfortunately, it was voted down.

                              {time}  1600

  It ends Medicare as we know it and forces the average senior to pay 
twice as much for half the benefit.
  Americans need to ask why. Why do they want to cut Medicare while at 
the same time protecting corporate tax subsidies and loopholes like the 
ones for Big Oil? Why do they want to cut Medicare while at the same 
time increasing tax breaks for millionaires?
  The Republican budget proposes a harsh vision indeed, a vision that 
is contrary to our values for American families.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. To catch up on time, does the gentleman from 
Maryland want to yield to another Member?
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who has been fighting for jobs as part of 
this budget.
  Mr. PASCRELL. When I was introduced to this budget, the chairman of 
the Budget Committee stated that his reason for turning Robin Hood on 
his head was to stop an ``insidious moral tipping point.''
  Madam Chair, I can only assume April Fools came early and this budget 
resolution is a joke.
  We're going to steal from the middle class and working poor because 
we need to stiffen their upper lips and improve their moral fiber.
  Let's talk about moral fiber. Where were the morals of the bankers on 
Wall Street who drove this economy off the cliff? They're doing just 
fine today. They're not doing time. But the middle class is still 
struggling and millions of Americans are unemployed.
  You don't have to look far to see what the real intentions of this 
budget are. It's a 30-year pathway to poverty and shrinking the middle 
class even further.
  Don't take my word for it. When asked if his tax plan would hurt the 
middle class, the chairman of the Budget Committee responded with: I 
don't know. There's no way to know that. Are you playing Russian 
roulette with a shrinking middle class?
  Madam Chair, let's try and help the chairman figure this out. The 
$4.6 trillion tax giveaway to the very wealthy in this budget means 
that the middle class homeowners lose their mortgage interest deduction 
and property tax deduction, students lose the deduction for interest on 
student loans, small businesses lose tax credits for buying insurance, 
and future seniors will have Medicare turn into a voucher program that 
will make them pay $6,000 more out of pocket by 2022, because this 
Republican budget cuts $800 billion from Medicare.

[[Page H1673]]

  The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Myrick). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Premium support doesn't reduce costs. It simply shifts 
them to seniors without the guarantee of Medicare benefits.
  Seniors like Medicare. Take it from me, they like the security it 
provides them, and it controls costs better than any private sector 
plan, and it costs less than any private sector plan. This is not a 
plan to strengthen Medicare. This is a plan to slowly drown it.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman another 10 seconds.
  Mr. PASCRELL. And leaving no working family's stone unturned, this 
budget takes 62 percent of its $5.3 trillion in nondefense budget cuts 
from programs that protect the most vulnerable in this society, which 
includes food stamps, Head Start, and the Women, Infants, and Children 
Nutrition Program.
  This is a joke.
  Thank you for presenting it to us. We'll present our own.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, the hyperbole knows no bounds 
these days.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma, a member of the 
Budget Committee, Mr. Lankford.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Just about 2 months ago, I went with my daughter, parked in a church 
parking lot, and let her take the wheel.
  She's 15 years old, and we're in that process of her learning how to 
drive. I do that because I'm her dad, and I know the dangers that she's 
about to face. I quite frankly know the dangers to our neighbors around 
us and their trash cans and their garage if I don't spend time teaching 
her how to drive. That's my responsibility to do that because I'm the 
adult and I'm to step up and take the lead when it's there so as to 
avoid the danger that is coming.
  That is where we are right now as a Nation. We can continue to 
pretend that this is not serious and that we can continue to spend more 
money; and if we only just spent a little more and if we only tax a 
little more, we'll tax our way out of this, we'll spend our way out of 
this. I promise it will get better. I know that we're at $15.6 trillion 
in debt; but if we only got it to $18 trillion, if we only got it to 
$20 trillion, then our economy will finally catch up and stabilize.
  What the people back in my district say is the same thing that I 
know: The problem is bigger than that.
  If we were 20 years ago saying let's tweak the Tax Code a little bit, 
let's do a couple of things, we could get a simple fix. It is not like 
that today. Just this year, we had $1.3 trillion in deficit spending. 
This President has racked up in 3 years and 3 months more debt than the 
previous administration did in 8 years.
  It is time to make some hard choices, but they are the right choices; 
and that's what I hear from people back home. They say: Balance the 
budget. It's not right to take away money from the next generation so 
we can try to just continue to stir up more programs for us.
  It is not right to just create a never-ending list of new options and 
to say if we just give more money to this group and to this group and 
to this group, it will fix it. It's not right that we don't protect 
defense. We have to do that.
  People are frustrated. They are talking about the Tax Code. Just tax 
this person, just do this little bit, just add a few more pages to it. 
They want us to fix the Tax Code, not just tweak it.
  Year after year I hear people saying to me, fix Medicare. Senior 
adults look at me and they get it. There's a problem. They want us to 
fix it. They want us to stabilize it. Considering all the things that 
were said last year, I'm amazed that PolitiFact said that the ending 
Medicare as we know it was the biggest lie of the year in politics, and 
it looks like it's in a race to win in 2012 again.
  We are not ending Medicare as we know it. We are protecting it for 
the future because it is unstable. It is going insolvent. It is time 
for us to repair it and protect it and put it on a path that can be 
sustained for the days to come.
  All the people in my district want is a reasonable, right plan that 
actually deals with the drivers of our debt, that actually deals with 
the tough issues and says stop playing with us, we're adults, let's fix 
this and let's get on with it.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, somebody who has said let's fix this in 
an adult way, a balanced way, the way other bipartisan groups have done 
is Ms. McCollum from Minnesota.
  I yield the gentlelady 2 minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, this Republican budget is a political 
document. It's the House Republicans' platform for November.
  The GOP platform puts our economy and millions of jobs at risk. They 
gut protections for seniors and families in need. They abandon local 
communities at a time when Washington should be a partner for 
opportunity and economic growth. The Republican platform cuts student 
loans and grants for higher education by $166 billion. The Republican 
budget forces seniors to pay out of pocket an average of $600 
additional every year for medications they need because the GOP reopens 
and throws seniors back into the Medicare part D doughnut hole.
  This budget drives Americans into an enormous GOP pothole, gutting 
Federal transportation investments by 25 percent, abandoning 
communities and businesses that need improved infrastructure to remain 
competitive.
  This Republican budget cuts regular folks and then protects and 
showers benefits on the wealthiest and most privileged millionaires and 
billionaires.
  The Republican platform should really be called Millionaires' 
Manifesto, because it will borrow billions of dollars from Communist 
China to guarantee every millionaire a tax cut worth nearly $400,000, 
according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. And all that 
is added to our national debt.
  The Republican budget gives oil companies $21 billion in taxpayer 
subsidies, while they are gouging Americans who are working hard when 
they fill up their tank at the gas pump and the oil companies continue 
to make record profits.
  The GOP budget sounds extreme. Well, it's only because it reflects 
the core values of the Tea Party House Republicans: protect the rich, 
cut off the poor, and walk away from the middle class.

                              {time}  1610

  Democrats have a budget that prioritizes deficit reduction and 
invests in the middle class. Democrats strengthen our American 
competitiveness by investing in education, basic research, modern 
infrastructure and green energy: investments that will create jobs. I 
urge support for the Democratic proposal.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, I yield myself 1 minute to make a 
statement. I'm pleased my friend from Maryland brought our chart down 
to the floor with his yellow background.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. If the gentleman will yield, let the record show that 
in a moment of genuine bipartisanship, I gave the chairman's chart back 
to him for his own use.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. That's right. I thank the gentleman.
  The cap on Medicare that is in law under the President's budget 
applies to current seniors. That doesn't occur for current seniors in 
our budget. We don't put this cap because we don't want the 15 
bureaucrats putting price controls on care to current seniors. For 
future seniors 54 and below, Medicare grows at the same rate that the 
President's budget proposes it grows at. The difference is we don't 
want the bureaucrats rationing care.
  On the purposes of taxes, I love this issue about tax fairness. The 
President is proposing higher tax rates and more loopholes. Here's the 
point I'm trying to make.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Yielding myself an additional 30 seconds, I'll 
say this. If you look at the current code, the top 1 percent of 
taxpayers get almost all the tax shelters, all the loopholes.
  So here's the novel idea that we have come up with, and it's a 
bipartisan one. Get rid of the tax shelters so you can lower 
everybody's tax rates. And so a person who is parking their money 
through an average of about $300,000 in tax shelters, for every dollar 
in that tax shelter that's taxed at zero, we're

[[Page H1674]]

saying get rid of the tax shelter and subject all of their money to 
taxation so we can lower everybody's tax rates.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself an extra 30 seconds to simply 
say when eight out of 10 businesses in America file their taxes as 
individuals, raising these tax rates hits job creators. Sixty-five 
percent of net new jobs come from small businesses. Half of Americans 
work in these kinds of small businesses, and my friends on the other 
side of the aisle are saying it's not enough that they pay more taxes 
than their foreign competitors; we need to make them pay a 45 percent 
tax rate in January.
  Well, I've got news for you. Countries around the world are lowering 
their taxes on their job creators, and the President is proposing to 
raise it. That is a job-killer.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from the First 
Congressional District of Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).
  Mrs. LUMMIS. I want to applaud House Republicans for putting this 
budget forward. And here's why we're trying to save Medicare. Do you 
see this little green line? That's our Medicare revenue. Now, do you 
see this huge Medicare green line? This is how much we're spending on 
Medicare. Now, that's just in the last year. So if you extend that 
forward, you can see why Medicare as it exists is going broke. So 
that's why I'm so proud of the House Budget Committee.
  What they've chosen to do is come up with a plan that will save 
Medicare in this way: if you want to keep Medicare, you can keep it. 
But if you want something like we Members of Congress have, you can 
elect to have that too. Now, here's what I have as a Member of 
Congress. When I came in as a Member of Congress, I had a preexisting 
condition, but the Federal Government couldn't turn me down because of 
that preexisting condition to acquire insurance. That's the way it 
would be under Medicare.
  Further, I have a choice between about 10 plans. I chose a standard 
Blue Cross Blue Shield plan, and I knew I could get it filled anywhere 
in the country, including my rural State of Wyoming. I pay 28 percent 
of my premium. The Federal Government, the taxpayers, pay 72 percent of 
my premium. That's basically what they're proposing. You'd have a 
choice among plans. And you would pay part of the premium, and the 
government would pay part of the premium. If you're healthy or wealthy, 
you'd pay more of your premium. If you're unhealthy or unwealthy, you'd 
pay less of your premium.
  Now, you could either choose that, if that was something you've 
become accustomed to, or if you wanted to choose to be on Medicare as 
you know it today, that would also be a choice. It seems to me, Madam 
Chairman, that's a great choice. I support the Republican budget.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, the gentlelady who just spoke is 
correct that under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan that 
Members of Congress are on that there is a 72 percent for the premium. 
That's exactly what that steady green line is. And as health care costs 
go up, the gentlelady will continue through the congressional plan to 
get a steady amount of support under the Federal health plan that 
Members of Congress have. Under the Republican budget plan, in fact, 
that support drops steadily and deeply, which is why it is not premium 
support.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon, a 
distinguished member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Blumenauer.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the opportunity to speak, but I'm sad 
that we are speaking here today on what is an artful dodge on the part 
of my Republican friends to provide a political document instead of a 
meaningful budget.
  First, as my good friend from Maryland just pointed out, they will 
slowly, surely, and steadily shift the burden to senior citizens by 
freezing the amounts the Federal Government will give. And it's 
interesting that Republicans save, they keep and then spend the money 
from reforming Medicare that is already ensconced in Federal law now.
  This budget sets back an important opportunity to reform our tax 
program. Their $10 billion of tax cuts over the next 10 years will be 
somehow offset by closing loopholes, and they have steadily refused to 
identify what loopholes they can possibly close without hammering 
average Americans.
  You cannot do it. Every independent analyst agrees that this is going 
to be a massive shift in tax unfairness, and it's going to put a 
greater burden on most Americans while it gives more assistance to 
those who need help the least.
  As far as closing loopholes, I just spent 4 hours in the Ways and 
Means Committee where they provided another big tax benefit that 
they're going to work to try to make permanent in the future. They're 
trying to have it both ways without being specific.
  But I will tell you the area that is of greatest disappointment to me 
is not just the assault on the most vulnerable. Has anybody talked to 
the providers in your district about the cuts to Medicare, the frail, 
the elderly, the poor, the most vulnerable--
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. But look at what is happening in transportation. This 
is an area, until this crew came to town, that used to be bipartisan. 
We used to be able to bring transportation bills to the floor and pass 
them in a cooperative basis. We just had a Republican bill blow up 
because they didn't even have a hearing. It was absolutely a partisan 
effort, the worst transportation bill in history. Now we're on the 
verge of losing the construction cycle for this summer because they 
will not allow the bipartisan Senate bill to come to the floor that 
would provide stability not just for this construction cycle but for 
the next construction cycle.
  What are the transportation elements of this budget? Look at them 
carefully. They would not even provide enough money to meet the 
contractual obligations that States, transit districts, and cities are 
already involved with. Contractors are at work on projects--
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman 15 seconds.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Contractors are already at work, and their budget 
would not provide enough money to meet the obligations that we have 
right now, let alone build for the future. It is unfortunate, it isn't 
worthy of your support, and I hope you will vote ``no.''
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble).
  Mr. RIBBLE. Madam Chairman, I rise today to express my support for 
the fiscal 2013 budget resolution. There has been some fiery rhetoric 
that the House budget will end Medicare, but this simply is not the 
case. Both Republicans and Democrats have worked on plans that will 
strengthen seniors' health care accessibility and security.
  If our country remains on its current path, in 10 short years 
Medicare will go bankrupt. The Congressional Budget Office warns that 
in 2022, the Medicare trust fund will run out of money and default on 
its obligations to current seniors.

                              {time}  1620

  As representatives of the American people, we here in Congress have 
the responsibility to address this growing crisis so that millions of 
seniors now and in the future will not be left without the vital care 
that they've earned and deserve. As a father and grandfather, I cannot, 
in good conscience, pass that burden on to my children and 
grandchildren--or, for that matter, anyone else's.
  The House budget will not only protect Medicare benefits for seniors 
today but will also ensure its solvency for future generations. It 
guarantees coverage for current and future beneficiaries, regardless of 
preexisting conditions.
  Premium support programs have had a proud history of bipartisan 
support and would also give more assistance to lower-income and ailing 
individuals while reducing assistance to millionaires and billionaires.
  Under our proposed fixes to preserve the Medicare program, 
beneficiaries

[[Page H1675]]

will also be able to choose from Medicare health plans competing for 
their business just like seniors currently enjoy with the very popular 
Medicare part D prescription drug coverage. This will drive down costs, 
improve value, and increase choice.
  And speaking of choice, instead of 15 unelected bureaucrats choosing, 
we will see 50 million seniors with the freedom to choose for 
themselves.
  With this proposal, those who are at or near retirement--meaning any 
individual 55 years or older--will see no change whatsoever to their 
current benefits. Because there has been a lot of misinformation out 
there, I want to stress that point: no one 55 and older will see any 
change to their Medicare under this plan.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. RIBBLE. Simply put, the House budget will improve Medicare. It 
will inject financial life into this critical but threatened program.
  The Path to Prosperity budget does exactly what the name suggests: it 
will decrease costs while improving health care quality and coverage 
for millions of seniors today and millions more tomorrow.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Doggett), who has been fighting for education, among 
other things.
  Mr. DOGGETT. This budget is based on the false belief that if we ask 
those who have the least in America to take a little less and we ask 
those who have the most to thicken their cushion just a little bit, 
that everybody will be a winner and America will grow. No matter how 
many times that mythology fails--most recently with the Bush-Cheney tax 
cuts that didn't grow the economy effectively but did grow the deficit 
to record levels. No matter how many times it fails, they insist on 
having a little more of it.
  Our contrasting view on tax policy was demonstrated in the committee 
consideration of this bill. I suggested that we extend the higher 
education tax credit that I authored so that a mechanic and a nurse 
with a young person who's gotten their high school diploma in San 
Antonio, Texas, can walk over to St. Philip's or San Antonio College 
and have their tuition, up to $2,500--which will cover tuition and 
textbooks there--that they get that right off their taxes, a tax cut. 
They rejected that tax cut because they said it would be better if we 
gave a tax break to billionaires and those at the top of the economic 
ladder, and eventually that mechanic and that nurse and that young 
person would see the benefit. I don't think they do. I think they'd 
like to be able to choose for themselves with a higher education tax 
credit opportunity for the future.
  And the little brother and the little sister there, or in Lockhart or 
in San Marcos, that want an opportunity to be prepared for school with 
Head Start and early education, our budget provides for them. It 
provides opportunity and hope for them. But Republicans insist that 
they ought to sacrifice a little bit more.
  As for our seniors and our veterans, we suggested for veterans that 
we wanted to provide more job opportunities.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. DOGGETT. And as for our seniors, we suggested that getting a 
certificate to go fish for insurance is no substitute for Medicare.
  This is about values, about dignity for those in retirement, and 
opportunity for our young people.
  This Republican budget is not a Path to Prosperity. It's an 
expressway of retread ideas, an expressway to mediocrity.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Stutzman).
  Mr. STUTZMAN. Madam Chairman, I rise today to participate in a debate 
that Americans deserve but, unfortunately, Democrats want to avoid.
  Madam Chairman, the Senate has refused to pass a budget in over 1,000 
days; but as Washington races down the road of debt and decline, 
hardworking taxpayers deserve an honest debate and a real choice. 
That's why we've come to the floor today.
  This budget, the Path to Prosperity, gives the American people a 
choice between two futures: a future of deficit spending and taxes; or 
they can choose to set priorities, cut government spending, and keep 
Medicare solvent for future generations.
  Madam Chairman, as I sit here on the floor today and listen to 
debate, I hear a lot of talk about a balanced approach, about shared 
sacrifice. Well, Madam Chairman, I believe what Americans are looking 
for is leadership. They're looking for people who they can trust.
  I want to say thank you to the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. 
Paul Ryan, for leading the Budget Committee in a team effort to bring 
forward a pathway that shows real solutions to the problems that we 
face.
  Americans are asking themselves who can they trust in Washington. 
Well, the solution we always hear from the other side of the aisle is 
let's just raise tax taxes, raise taxes on the rich, let's eliminate 
loopholes. Well, you know what? I agree. We should eliminate the 
loopholes, get rid of the credits, the incentives, and make a fairer, 
flatter Tax Code. But until Washington is truly determined to fix the 
spending problems that we have, to save Medicare, to make sure that 
Social Security is around for future generations, I don't think we 
should seriously look at any tax increases.
  We can talk about tax reform, but Americans want us to address what 
we can control, and that is spending. We can talk about raising taxes 
or we can talk about tax restructuring. I believe tax restructuring 
would be a solution where we could find bipartisanship.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 
seconds.
  Mr. STUTZMAN. I believe that we can deal with the problems that we 
face in spending without raising taxes, and that we can truly address 
tax reform in a bipartisan fashion.
  I ask that this body seriously consider the Path to Prosperity and 
support it.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, I think we should engage in tax 
reform, but I don't think we need to wait for tax reform to get rid of 
some of the subsidies to the Big Oil companies or to get rid of the 
subsidies for corporate jets. We can do that now as part of a balanced 
approach.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the newest member of the Budget 
Committee--we're pleased to have her on the committee--the gentlelady 
from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
  Ms. BONAMICI. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  We have a real choice to make here, a choice between a Republican 
budget that hurts the middle class and those who are struggling to get 
out of poverty, and a Democratic alternative that presents a balanced 
approach to reinvest in our economy.
  It's critical for the communities and employers in my district and 
around this great country that we continue to support, not cut, 
research and workforce development, that we renew our commitment to, 
not cut, public education. These are key areas in which we must invest 
in order to maintain and accelerate our much-needed economic recovery.
  We've seen the private sector dividends paid by the research 
facilitated by the NIH, the NSF, and the Department of Energy. It's 
undeniable that emerging solar, wind, and even wave energy technologies 
will all have critical roles to play on our road to energy 
independence.
  As these technologies continue to develop, we must improve upon, not 
cut, workforce development initiatives; and community colleges will 
play an important role in achieving this goal. In Oregon, we've seen 
exciting partnerships develop between green energy technology 
manufacturers and community colleges.
  Of course, access to a quality education must start well before our 
children reach college age. Our public schools are the cornerstones of 
our communities. We have an obligation to ensure that we provide the 
funding necessary, not cut important quality education that will 
enhance all of our children's future.
  When our children do reach college age, it's important that the 
option of

[[Page H1676]]

higher education is available and affordable. Instead of cutting Pell 
Grants and raising student loan interest rates in order to provide tax 
breaks for millionaires, let's work to protect our financial aid 
investments. Continued access to these programs will help prepare our 
future workers.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentlewoman another 15 seconds.

                              {time}  1630

  These programs will help prepare our future workers for their careers 
in the next-generation technologies.
  There's a stark contrast between the Republicans' budget and what my 
Democratic colleagues and I are proposing. We're at a fork in the road, 
and I urge my colleagues to avoid the path to poverty by rejecting the 
Republican budget and coming together to support the balanced approach.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. America is on the economic road to Greece. Our national 
debt is 100 percent of our gross domestic product. And I want you to 
think about that 1 minute. Did you ever think you would hear that on 
the floor of Congress, that our national debt is 100 percent of our 
gross domestic product?
  It's just mind-boggling if you just take a step back and think, for 
every dollar we spend, 42 cents is borrowed. What would a business do, 
what would a family do, what would you do with your own individual 
finances? Obviously, you would change your ways.
  Today we have that opportunity. That's what the Ryan Republican 
budget is all about. Number one, it reduces spending. It reduces 
spending by over $5 trillion, more than the President.
  Number two, it eliminates loopholes in the tax system so that the Tax 
Code would be fair, competitive, and balanced.
  Number three, it reduces the deficit and the debt by over $3 
trillion.
  And number four, it reduces the size of government from being 24 
percent of the economy down to 20 percent. Hopefully, we could even 
reduce it more than that, and it reduces the size of government without 
endangering us from a national security point of view, or without 
pulling out the safety net that's so important to our seniors and our 
most vulnerable members of society. It does this through commonsense 
reforms, through elimination of waste, through reduction and 
duplications.
  You know there are 44 different Federal job training programs? If one 
of them works, why would you need the other 43?
  The GAO says there are 19 duplications of effort and procurement at 
the Pentagon. Let's get rid of them.
  Over at the USDA--I happen to know, I'm on this committee--the 
Federal feeding programs are unbelievable. If you're Bob, and you're 3 
years old, Bob is eligible for 12 Federal feeding programs. At 10 years 
old Bob is eligible for nine. At 35 years old Bob is eligible for 
seven.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.
  Mr. KINGSTON. At 65, Bob is eligible for six Federal feeding 
programs. That doesn't mention what's going on on a State or local 
level. These are duplications that Democrats and Republicans alike 
should agree with, let's eliminate. This is the low fruit.
  That's what the Ryan budget does, commonsense reform, elimination of 
waste and getting rid of the duplications, and putting America on a 
road to prosperity, so that my children, Ann, Betsy, John and Jim, can 
live in an economy that's growing where there's opportunities for them. 
And I urge my colleagues to support the Ryan budget.

                     Bob's Food Assistance Programs

       At age 3, Bob is eligible for 12 programs:
       1. Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP)
       2. Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP)
       3. Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Program (FFVP)
       4. School Lunch Program (SBP)
       5. National School Lunch Program (NSLP)
       6. Special Milk Program (SMP) [Can receive if not on any 
     other program]
       7. Summer Food Service Program (SFSP)
       8. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
       9. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
       10. The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP)
       11. Women, Infants & Children (WIC)
       12. WIC's Farmers Market Nutritional Program (FMNP)
       At age 10, Bob is eligible for 9 programs:
       1. Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP)
       2. Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Program (FFVP)
       3. School Lunch Program (SBP)
       4. National School Lunch Program (NSLP)
       5. Special Milk Program (SMP)
       6. Summer Food Service Program (SFSP)
       7. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
       8. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
       9. The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP)
       At age 35, Bob is eligible for 7 programs:
       1. Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP)
       2. Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP)
       3. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
       4. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
       5. The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP)
       6. Women, Infants & Children (WIC)
       7. WIC's Farmers Market Nutritional Program (FMNP)
       At age 65, Bob is eligible for 6 programs:
       1. Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP)
       2. Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP)
       3. Sr. Farmers Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP)
       4. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
       5. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
       6. The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP)
       At all ages, Bob can receive:
       1. Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservation (FDPIR) 
     if living on Indian Reservation & not receiving SNAP
       2. Disaster Assistance Program (D-SNAP) if family 
     experiences natural disaster
       3. Nutrition Assistance Block Grant (NABG) if family lives 
     in U.S. Territory

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the distinguished ranking member of the 
Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I was interested to hear the gentleman 
from Georgia, a member of the Appropriations Committee, complain about 
this duplication. Apparently, during the 6 years when the Republican 
Party controlled the White House, the House, and the Senate, they 
didn't find any of them. They're late to see them, but better late than 
never.
  The other concern I had was, he talked about duplication at the 
Defense Department in procurement. But this budget protects the 
Pentagon and, in fact, increases its spending.
  Now, we have been told we should not be talking about cutting 
Medicare because that's not what's happening. So let me cite The Wall 
Street Journal, rarely accused of distorting the Republicans' position. 
In fact, they are defending the chairman of the Budget Committee 
against the right wing.
  And here's what The Wall Street Journal says, because we're talking 
here not about cutting spending but shifting it. The Wall Street 
Journal editorial yesterday:
  ``Mr. Ryan's budget would cancel the additional defense cuts of $55 
billion a year''--out of $700 billion--``under the sequester and 
replace them with savings in the entitlements. His Medicare and 
Medicaid reforms would generate future savings many times greater than 
would be gained from gutting the defense budget.''
  Now, some of us don't think that pulling out of Afghanistan, with the 
corruption there, quicker than is now planned would be gutting the 
defense budget. I know my Republican colleagues like to be critical of 
welfare in some cases, but they continue to support the greatest 
welfare program in the history of the world, the American taxpayer 
subsidy of the defense budgets of the wealthy nations of Western 
Europe.
  But let me again read what The Wall Street Journal says. Here's how 
they characterize the Ryan budget:

       Mr. Ryan's budget would cancel the additional defense cuts 
     of $55 billion a year and replace them with savings in the 
     entitlements.

  Social Security and Medicare.
  So in this respect, at least, we're not talking about cutting 
spending, but shifting it from the military into the

[[Page H1677]]

Defense Department. And that's why the AARP has written so persuasively 
that his plan would, in fact, destroy Medicare.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), a member of the Budget 
Committee.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chairman, since defense was brought up, I'm happy 
to defend our national defense.
  I rise in strong support of the FY 13 Republican budget. It's a 
responsible budget that recognizes that we cannot continue on our 
current fiscal trajectory. It also acknowledges the importance of a 
strong defense.
  Let's not forget: we're still a Nation at war. We have 90,000 combat 
forces deployed in Afghanistan as we're sitting here, and while we have 
no intention of staying there indefinitely, we must ensure that our 
troops have the equipment and support they need to accomplish the 
mission. We must also ensure that promises made to our veterans are 
kept.
  We have emerging threats and turmoil across the globe. Joint Chiefs 
of Staff Chairman General Dempsey told us during a hearing on the 
defense budget that this is the most dangerous time that he has 
experienced in his long, decorated career, which is 38 years.
  This is not a time for further cuts, which can fundamentally 
destabilize and increase the risk to our forces and the ability to 
secure the homeland. The President's budget provides the bare minimum 
for our forces for FY 2013, and would devastate them in latter years, 
with a planned $487 billion in cuts over 10 years.
  The GOP budget ensures that Congress fulfills the constitutional 
requirement for a strong national defense. It also recognizes the 
fiscal reality that we face by incorporating the recommended 
efficiencies provided by former Secretary Gates and current Secretary 
Panetta.
  The GOP budget also addresses the devastating impacts that 
sequestration, both the method and the amounts, would have on our 
ability to protect our vital national interests around the globe.
  Make no mistake. Sequestration would decimate our military and signal 
to the world that we are ceding American military superiority. This is 
an unacceptable choice, and the GOP budget rejects sequestration as a 
means of addressing our fiscal challenges.
  Instead, the GOP budget tackles sequestration head-on by thoughtfully 
and responsibly dealing with the real drivers of our national debt: 
mandatory spending programs.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. CALVERT. The choice is clear. We can either continue to bury our 
collective heads in the sand, as the President's budget does, or we can 
be honest with the American people and make the hard choices now that 
will ensure America continues to be the beacon of opportunity and 
success.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the FY 13 Republican budget.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chairman, the President's budget and the Democratic alternative 
also get rid of the sequester, but we replace that with $1.2 trillion 
in deficit reduction through a balanced way because we think it's more 
important to protect that defense spending than it is to protect a lot 
of the special interest loopholes.
  Here's the statement from General Martin Dempsey, the current 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And he says, with respect to 
what this budget will do:

       It's a force that's prepared to secure global access and 
     respond to global contingencies. It's a military that can win 
     any conflict anywhere.

  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, not talking about the 
Republican budget, talking about the President's budget.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Velazquez), the distinguished ranking member of the Small Business 
Committee.

                              {time}  1640

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the Ryan budget.
  Our seniors and working families in New York struggle with rising 
rent, food, and health care costs. Now is not the time to squeeze 
working families in order to provide tax giveaways to the most 
fortunate among us.
  This budget will mean big cuts to the supplemental nutritional 
assistance program which provides food assistance to 1.8 million New 
Yorkers. For students looking to secure an education, this budget will 
mean drastic cuts to higher education funding, meaning higher costs for 
students. New York's small businesses and, to that effect, small 
businesses across this country will see Federal programs they rely on 
for access to credit and technical assistance reduced by $80 million--
exactly the wrong direction to go as we seek to hasten our economic 
recovery.
  Nowhere does this budget fail our Nation more than in the area of 
health care. Medicaid will be slashed by $810 billion, meaning disabled 
people, the working poor, and low-income children.
  For our seniors who have worked hard their entire life, this budget 
will mean turning our back on the Medicare guarantee for the first 
time, pushing the 74,000 Medicare recipients in New York's 12th 
District into an untested, unreliable voucher system.
  Let's be clear: if you vote for this budget, you're voting to end 
Medicare as we know it.
  Madam Chair, the Ryan budget repeatedly chooses millionaires and 
billionaires over working families. Those are not American values. They 
are not New York values. We should reject them. Vote ``no.''
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, in 2011 PolitiFact labeled the 
line ``this ends Medicare as we know it'' as the lie of the year in 
2011.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma, a member 
of the Budget Committee and also, I think, a member of the 
Appropriations Committee, Mr. Cole.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Chair, I rise to support the Republican budget, and, 
frankly, I do so with a great deal of pride.
  It's the only serious plan that either party has put forward that 
deals with the looming debt crisis that we face. It cuts $5.35 trillion 
out of projected spending over the next decade. It reforms Medicare and 
Medicaid, something everybody in this House knows needs to happen. It 
actually lays out the blueprint for tax reform. It deals with the 
sequester in a responsible way. It forces the authorizing committees to 
finally begin to deal with the entitlement crisis that we face. And it 
adds $200 billion back to defense spending over the next decade, 
something, as my colleague, Mr. Calvert, pointed out, that is very much 
in our national interest.
  This budget is politically viable. It passed the House last year; it 
will pass the House this year; and, frankly, it got more votes in the 
United States Senate last year--42--than any budget presented by 
anybody. Let's contrast that with our friends on the other side.
  The President's budget last year got zero votes in the United States 
Senate, a body that his party controls. Our Democratic friends in the 
Senate haven't produced a budget in 3 consecutive years, and our 
friends on the other side didn't do so when they were in the majority, 
didn't do so last year. I'm delighted, actually, that they will do so 
this year. I think that's a step in the right direction. But that 
budget is largely silent on entitlement reform.
  My main criticism of all the Democratic budgets is not that they 
can't pass; it is that they're simply not serious. They don't deal with 
the problems that the country is facing.

  In my experience, Madam Chairman, a plan beats no plan. Our friends 
on the other side have no plan. We do. It's a plan we should embrace 
enthusiastically to avert the crisis that faces our country, so I urge 
its passage.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Connolly), a former member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Chair, as the House votes on the 
budget this week, I remind my colleagues that a budget represents our 
values. Sadly, tragically, this Republican budget seems to value only 
cruel Darwinism debasing the American society as we know it to survival 
of the fittest.

[[Page H1678]]

  If you value relieving traffic congestion, this disinvestment in 
transportation throws you to the wolves. If you value job creation 
efforts like Make It In America, the Republican budget leaves you out 
in the cold, unemployed. If you value the American innovative spirit, 
the Republican attack on education leaves nothing but scraps. If you 
value retirees and those that spent a lifetime making America what it 
is today, Republicans end the Medicare commitment to you and picks 
seniors' pockets.
  Madam Chairman, the Republican budget disinvests in America. In fact, 
the only thing Republicans claim to value, fiscal responsibility, rings 
hollow in the face of a $5 trillion of transfer of wealth to the 
already wealthy in America by cutting the highest tax bracket from 35 
to 25 percent.
  Simply put, this Republican budget attacks the America that I and my 
constituents value.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Olson).
  Mr. OLSON. I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for this 
opportunity to speak here tonight.
  Madam Chairman, next to me are photos of my daughter, Kate, and my 
son, Grant. On behalf of my two children and all of the children and 
grandchildren in America who will be left to pay our debt for the 
reckless spending that we've done here in Washington that threatens 
their path to prosperity, I rise in strong support of the House 
Republican budget for 2013, H. Con. Res. 112.
  This budget cuts spending to protect hardworking American taxpayers 
and tackles the drivers of our debts by reducing government size and 
reforming our tax system.
  The Democrat-controlled Senate has not passed a budget in over 1,000 
days, the entire time I've been a Member of this body. The President 
still refuses to offer credible solutions to the most predictable 
economic crisis in our history. Empty promises from our President and 
the Senate won't pay our bills, strengthen our health and retirement 
programs, fix our economy, or create jobs.
  Madam Chairman, today we have a choice, a choice of two paths: a path 
of mediocrity or a path to prosperity. I urge my colleagues to support 
the path to prosperity. Vote for H. Con. Res, 112, the House Republican 
budget for 2013.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, there is no doubt that we have to 
reduce the deficit and debt for the good of all of our children and 
grandchildren. The debate today is about how we do it and whether we do 
it in a balanced way. I would point out the Congressional Budget Office 
has told us that $2 trillion of the debt over the last 10 years is 
attributed to the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.
  We keep hearing today about the need, which we all agree, to reduce 
the deficit, but we still have not heard a single one of our Republican 
colleagues say that we should reduce one tax loophole for the purpose 
of reducing the deficit so we can deal with this in a balanced manner.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the 
distinguished ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. 
Markey.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, millions of Americans around the country 
are focused on March Madness and the basketball Final Four showdown 
this weekend. But for our Nation's seniors and the middle class, the 
real March madness is happening right here on the House floor with the 
Republican budget. This is the GOP's burden of March madness with its 
own final four:
  First, end Medicare guarantee for millions of seniors so that they're 
out of luck now in Medicare;
  Then you move on and you force Grandma and Grandpa to pay more for 
all of their coverage or forego it in its entirety;
  Next, what you do is you put billionaires first. You protect their 
tax breaks. You put them right up there on the top of the list of the 
most important people that need help in America today;
  Then, fourth, you subsidize Big Oil by keeping the $4 billion for tax 
subsidies in the budget while cutting, by 85 percent in the Ryan 
budget, the subsidies, the funding for wind and solar and renewable 
energy. Tax breaks for Big Oil; cut the programs for clean energy.

                              {time}  1650

  So here is the completed bracket for the Republicans: ending the 
Medicare guarantee; abandoning Grandma and Grandpa; subsidizing Big 
Oil; and putting billionaires first. That is the Republican Final Four, 
and it's also the final answer for America.
  Yet, unlike the NCAA tournament, the Republican budget doesn't pit 
these priorities against each other--they're all winners in the eyes of 
the GOP. The GOP used to stand for Grand Old Party, but now it stands 
for the Gas and Oil Party. It stands for Grandma is out of 
prescriptions. It now stands for greed over principle. This is the real 
March madness--the Republican budget that makes winners out of Big Oil 
and billionaires while running out the clock for seniors and 
hardworking families who are left to fend for themselves.
  Vote ``no'' on this Republican budget.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. By that, I am very amused, Madam Chairman.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Palazzo).
  Mr. PALAZZO. Thank you, Chairman Ryan.
  The American people have been asking for real and long-term solutions 
to the very real problems we face as a Nation. For the second year in a 
row, House Republicans, under the leadership of Chairman Ryan, are 
doing just that.
  I come before you today to echo what many of my colleagues have said 
time and again: that the budgets that have been presented before 
Congress and before the American people represent a tale of two 
futures. I'm referring to the President's budget, which leads us down a 
path to despair, and I'm referring to the House Budget Committee's own 
Path to Prosperity.
  One keeps us on an out-of-control spending spree, ignores the real 
challenges facing Medicare, and actually takes money away from seniors 
and allows sequestration to strip away vital defense spending. The 
other makes responsible choices that address the drivers of our 
disastrous debt and deficits, enables us to make good on our promises 
to seniors, and lives up to our greatest obligation under the U.S. 
Constitution: providing for the common defense.
  I stand before you today as a marine veteran, the only NCO in 
Congress also actively serving in the National Guard, and as a member 
of the House Armed Services Committee. To borrow from a recent article 
in The Weekly Standard, I say to you today that the Ryan plan is more 
than just a path to prosperity; it is truly a path to security. It is 
the only plan to come before this body that even begins to address the 
very real and scary cuts looming over our Nation's military.
  I also agreed with the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
Mike Mullen, when he said that our national debt is our biggest 
national security threat. That's why I'm standing before you today in 
support of a plan, the only plan that makes both responsible cuts to 
our debt and that takes the necessary steps to protect our economic and 
national security.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Ryan budget.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank my friend from Maryland.
  Ladies and gentlemen of the House, perhaps my colleagues on the other 
side, my conservative friends, either don't realize what they're doing 
in this budget or they're trying to make sure that nobody else knows 
what they're doing in this budget because this budget ends the Medicare 
guarantees and shifts the costs to seniors. Now, this is a simple 
statement of fact that it either does or it doesn't.
  Number two: Those making over $1 million a year in this country will 
reap an average tax cut of $394,000, while it preserves tax breaks for 
Big Oil. True or false? It either does or it doesn't.
  Number three: It destroys over 4 million American jobs in the next 
couple of years. True or false? Well, the Economic Policy Institute 
tells us that it's true.
  The last point I would like to get a true or false response from: It 
raises

[[Page H1679]]

Medicare eligibility from the age of 65 to 67. True or false?
  I would yield to anybody on the other side who would like to 
elucidate, or clarify, any of the statements that I have made. I hear 
no response.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, what the gentleman refers to as 
simple facts was rated the lie of the year by PolitiFact in 2011.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  When you're hearing this discussion, you think: When are we actually 
going to tackle this problem? When are all of us going to concede that 
not one party is responsible for this debt but that we all are? We were 
headed toward this fiscal cliff long before the current President took 
the wheel. Let's face that. I think we have on this side. Yet 
leadership requires fessing up to it and actually doing something to 
change it.
  This plan doesn't end the Medicare guarantee--arithmetic does. Unless 
we change something, unless we put it on solvent footing, the guarantee 
is gone. Medicare will be bankrupt under the current trajectory. So 
what this plan does is recognize that and say, if you're currently in 
the plan, if you're currently drawing benefits, the plan shouldn't 
change for you; but those who are younger than 55 will need a plan that 
is solvent, that does work over time. So we're not ending that 
guarantee. The current system ends that guarantee. We're trying to fix 
it here.
  I commend the gentleman for putting so much time into this. I commend 
the House Republicans for actually coming up and fessing up to the 
truth that not one party got us into this but that we're in this 
situation. This is the only budget being presented, along with one 
other later, the RSC budget, that actually treats this problem 
seriously, that treats it with the seriousness it deserves, and that 
actually has a plan to get out of it. So I commend the House 
Republicans for putting it forward, and I plan to support it.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, I would point out again, just in 
response to my friend Mr. Flake, that this is the chart that was used 
by the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan, showing the 
President's plan on Medicare and the Republican plan on Medicare, both 
of which have cost containment over the next coming decades. The 
difference is how you achieve that cost difference.
  The difference is that the Republican plan offloads all the risks of 
what they project to be increasing health care costs on to seniors 
because, unlike the plan that Members of Congress have, which, as I 
explained, provides a constant 42 percent premium support share, the 
Republican plan has the contribution for Medicare rapidly declining 
relative to the costs of health care, which puts all that risk on 
seniors.
  With that, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Democratic whip, my 
friend from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Before I start my formal presentation, let me say the gentleman from 
Arizona is correct. We do need to take responsibility on both sides of 
the aisle. Very frankly, I will tell my friend we had an opportunity to 
take responsibility when the Bowles-Simpson Commission voted. There was 
a vote in the Senate. It was divided somewhat, but mostly they voted 
for it in the Senate. We had one of our people from the House vote for 
it, a Democrat. None of your representatives voted for Bowles-Simpson, 
I guess, because it wasn't perfect. That was a missed opportunity--it 
was a doggone shame--because that would have made 14 votes, and we 
would have had that on the floor in the Senate and in the House. I 
think this is a missed opportunity because I don't think this is a real 
document.
  Now, frankly, I also think that we had a deal. We had a deal as to 
what the discretionary number was going to be, or as we call it in the 
jargon of the House, the 302(a) allocation, which the gentleman as a 
member of the Appropriations Committee knows about. We had a higher 
number and you had a lower number, and we made a deal in between. We 
haven't kept that deal. We haven't kept that deal because you couldn't 
get the votes in your committee, in the Budget Committee, for that 
deal.

                              {time}  1700

  So here we are, Madam Speaker. The chairman of the Budget Committee 
has spoken of a choice between two futures. He is correct in framing it 
this way. The budget he proposes would end Medicare's guarantee, cut 
taxes for the wealthiest, and place our economic recovery at risk.
  Robert Greenstein, head of the Center on Budget and Policy 
Priorities, described the Republican budget this way, and I quote:

       It would likely produce the largest redistribution of 
     income from the bottom to the top in modern U.S. history and 
     likely increase poverty and inequality more than any other 
     budget in recent times.

  Now, that is not a budget on which we proceed where you have a Senate 
that is chaired by the Democratic Party, majority leader, and a 
Democratic President. You're not going to get consensus on that kind of 
a budget.
  So this is essentially a statement of purpose and vision by one 
party, not a document that anybody thinks is going to pass. However, 
that is a future we simply cannot afford.
  In fact, the Republican proposal is not a realistic budget at all, I 
would suggest to you. Nobody believes in its premises that we, as a 
Nation, are suddenly going to decide to savage our domestic programs 
and leave the most vulnerable out in the cold. That's not America. 
That's not the values that we share as a country.
  This disastrous budget ends the Medicare guarantee, increasing costs 
for seniors. It cuts Medicaid by a third. That's the most vulnerable in 
America, the poor in America.
  My faith doesn't teach me that's the kind of policy I am going to 
support. I don't think anybody's faith teaches that. We want to take 
care of those who need the most help.
  It will jeopardize access to affordable health and nursing home care 
for seniors, the disabled, and low-income families who depend upon it.
  Furthermore, it repeals the critical patient protection and cost 
containment policies of the Affordable Care Act. That will cost us 
dollars.
  Their budget slashes funding for programs that help the vulnerable, 
enable our children to afford college, and provide health coverage to 
those with long-term disabilities; and it puts millions of jobs and our 
economic recovery at risk as a result of drastic spending cuts.
  At the same time, the budget extends the Bush tax cuts, including $1 
trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, and cuts an 
additional $4.6 trillion in taxes on top of that. In fact, you can get 
tax cuts up to $10 trillion with the Bush extension and the reduction 
from 35 to 25.
  And, oh, yes, we're going to eliminate preference items. We won't 
tell you what those preference items are. We don't know when we'll 
eliminate them, but we're going to eliminate them.
  I happen to agree we need to look at preference items. I agree with 
Mr. Ryan on that proposition. I'm just not very confident that, given 
what happened in Bowles-Simpson, that anybody has the courage to do so.
  It does all that without saying how it will be paid for; but 
presumably, as I said, by eliminating the deductions that middle class 
families rely on to send their kids to college and afford their homes.
  Let me say this: I have said in the past and I will say it again 
today, we must have a big, bold, balanced deal. That will affect 
entitlements, it will affect revenues, and it will affect expenditures.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bishop of Utah). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman from Maryland an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. HOYER. I will tell my friend of my deep disappointment, because I 
think the chairman of the Budget Committee certainly is one of the 
individuals in America who could be a part of the solution but is not 
being part of the solution, is proposing something that is clearly 
unacceptable to this side of the aisle, to the President. We need to 
come together and come to an agreement.
  Democrats have proposed a different future: one where we invest in a 
strong

[[Page H1680]]

economy and ask everyone to contribute their fair share; a future where 
the Medicare guarantee is preserved and seniors' health security is 
protected; a future where students who work hard, take responsibility 
for themselves, and get accepted to college won't have to worry about 
whether they can afford to go; a future where we help businesses create 
millions of jobs here at home that won't be shipped overseas; a future, 
ladies and gentlemen, where the deficit is reduced in a balanced way--
that's the key, we all know it's the key--with everyone pitching in.
  Any of the Democratic alternatives, in my opinion, will be better 
than this Republican budget. And I don't agree with everything in each 
one of those budgets, clearly.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman from Maryland an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. HOYER. We have a choice today, tonight, tomorrow of two futures, 
and that choice couldn't be clearer.
  Ladies and gentlemen of this House, I urge you to stand together in 
defeating this budget and passing one that will bring our middle class 
and working families not a grim future but a bright future.
  And in conclusion, let me say this:
  Whatever happens to this budget, any of these budgets on the floor, 
is not going to be the final word. It perhaps will not even be the 
beginning word. We need to solve this issue, and we need to do it not 
by pointing fingers at one another, not by pretending that it's going 
to be simple, not by pretending that we're going to be able to make 
happy all of our supporters. We won't be. The hole we've dug is way too 
deep. The decisions we will make are way too tough. And the only way we 
will make them is to join hands and look the American public in the eye 
and say, We have to have a balanced deal. We have to do all that is 
necessary to put this Nation on a fiscally sustainable path for the 
chairman's children, for the ranking member's children, for my 
children, my grandchildren, and, yes, my two great-grandchildren.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 2 minutes to first say, the 
gentleman doesn't look a day over a great-great-grandfather.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. First off, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the 
sincerity of the minority whip's sentiment, and he is a man who means 
that. I know that.
  I would say, though, that this process of fixing our country's fiscal 
path would have been made much better had the President proposed a 
solution. The President just gave us his fourth budget, and for the 
fourth time, it doesn't do anything to get this debt under control.
  Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I apologize. I won't because I am under tight 
time constraints.
  And more to the point, Mr. Chairman, the United States Senate, 
controlled by the gentleman's own party, they didn't pass a budget in 
2010; they didn't pass a budget in 2011; and now they've announced 
courageously that they're not going to pass a budget in 2012 either.

  How do you preempt and prevent the most predictable economic crisis 
in the history of our country, a debt crisis, if the President doesn't 
propose to do anything about it and the Senate won't even pass a 
budget?
  We're leading; we're passing; we're proposing a solution. We 
understand the other side would love to just wait for us to offer our 
solutions to then attack. We don't care about that. We're going to 
offer solutions. And when we hear the word ``balance,'' watch your 
checkbook; hold your wallet. It means tax increases. Mr. Chairman, it's 
math. You literally cannot tax your way out of this problem. The 
problem we have here is a spending problem. That is why we propose to 
cut spending.
  And with that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Chaffetz), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I first want to commend Chairman Ryan of the Budget 
Committee for actually doing the job that we were elected to do.
  As Chairman Ryan pointed out, it has been more than 1,050 days since 
the United States Senate has actually decided to even address the 
budget. And yet I look at what they're doing. I can't figure out what 
they're doing. We are actually doing the job that we are supposed to be 
doing and doing it ahead of schedule, per the statute, per what this 
country should be doing, and I am proud of the fact that we are here 
debating a budget.
  I am also terribly disappointed in the President's budget.
  You know, it is interesting. As I routinely hear, Mr. Chairman, the 
Democrats talk about a balanced approach, the problem is the President 
has never, ever introduced a balanced budget, a budget that even over 
the course of time, at some point in time, would actually balance. It 
never balances.
  So for 4 years in a row, we're going to have a $1 trillion-plus 
deficit. Understand what that means for you and your kids.
  When I was first elected in 2008, this Nation was roughly in the $9 
trillion debt range. Now we're going to be close to $16 trillion by the 
end of the year.
  Now keep in mind: How much is $1 trillion? That number is so large, 
it's hard to get your arms around it. If you spent $1 million a day 
every day, it would take you nearly 3,000 years to get to 1 trillion.

                              {time}  1710

  We deficit-spend as a Nation $4 billion a day. My State of Utah, 
their entire budget, everything we do in our entire State is about $13 
billion for the year. This Nation deficit-spends roughly $4 billion a 
day. We pay more than $600 million a day in interest on our debt, and 
yet the President proposes a budget that over the course of time will 
get to $26 trillion in debt in the next 10 years where we will see 
daily debt payments to service our debt. Those interest payments are 
going to be in a range closing in on $2 billion a day. We can't do 
this, ladies and gentlemen. There is a proper role of government. We're 
taking a responsible approach, but we have to cut spending.
  The reason I rise in support of this House budget is that over the 
course of time, we take that spending as a percentage of our gross 
domestic product and bring it down less than 20 percent.
  Under the President's vision, he is fine with spending in excess of 
24 percent of GDP. What does that mean? Think of all the transactions, 
all of the financial transactions in this country, and he is 
comfortable spending 24 cents of every dollar that is spent in this 
Nation. That is fundamentally and morally wrong.
  But there is a choice. We have put together a plan. We are doing the 
heavy lifting. We're putting together a budget that's responsible.
  I wish we could balance the budget overnight. You can't. We've got to 
put ourselves on a glide path. There is a proper goal of government. We 
have to achieve that. I believe that the House Republican budget is 
bold and realistic.
  Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for his great work.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The debate we're having here is not whether to reduce the deficit and 
the debt. We have to do that. The issue is the choices we make in the 
process.
  The President does have a budget; it does take a balanced approach. 
My colleagues say: Watch out. Well, watch out for the bipartisan 
Commissions, all of whom have recommended taking an approach that is 
balanced.
  Yes, we have to deal with the spending part. We've cut a trillion 
dollars. There are additional cuts in these budgets, but we should also 
end the special-interest tax breaks, and we should ask folks at the 
very top to take a little bit more responsibility.
  Here are the choices that are made in the Republican budget. Here is 
a very simple one. This is the continuation of the Bush tax cuts for 
the top 2 percent, $261 billion. Meanwhile, they cut $810 billion from 
Medicaid. Again, two-thirds of Medicaid spending goes to seniors and 
individuals with disabilities.
  That wasn't enough. They apparently are doubling down on tax breaks 
that benefit the folks at the very top. This is the amount of tax break 
millionaires will get from continuing the Bush tax cuts. They've added 
over $260,000 in additional average tax breaks for people

[[Page H1681]]

making over a million dollars. They say they're going to make that up 
somehow. I'll tell you how they're going to make it up: by increasing 
the tax burden on middle-income Americans.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished assistant 
Democratic leader, who has been looking out for average working 
Americans his entire career, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Clyburn).
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in opposition to this misguided Republican budget because it 
fails the moral test. The Federal budget should reflect the values of 
the American people, and this Republican proposal does damage to those 
values because it is fundamentally unfair to the middle-income, to the 
hardworking people of America, and the most vulnerable among us.
  This Republican budget would end the Medicare guarantee that working 
people depend upon after a lifetime of hard work. The Republican budget 
creates new tax breaks of up to $394,000 for the wealthiest few. This 
Republican budget destroys 4.1 million jobs. The Republican budget 
breaks faith with the agreement their leaders made in last year's 
Budget Control Act to maintain funding for essential services. And this 
Republican budget protects all Pentagon funds while putting schools, 
roads, and job creation on the chopping block.
  The American people have spoken loud and clear in opposition to these 
misguided priorities. I urge the House to pass fair and balanced 
legislation to reduce our deficits in a responsible and surgical manner 
and invest in important priorities to build a strong middle class.
  Growing up in a church parsonage in South Carolina, I learned to put 
faith into action through firmly held values and high moral standards. 
This Republican budget fails the moral test, and I urge my colleagues 
to join me in defeating it.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 5 minutes 
to a member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Woodall).
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank my chairman for yielding.
  As a freshman, I have the privilege of serving on the Budget 
Committee. And in years past, the Budget Committee has been all about 
producing a political document, a document that may make for great 
sound bites, may make for great television, but doesn't make for great 
governance. As my friend from Arizona said earlier, the challenge, the 
$15.5 trillion in debt that has been placed on the backs of every 
child, every man and woman, every family in this country, has been the 
path that both parties have chosen.
  My friend from Maryland, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, 
says there is no disagreement that we have to get the debt under 
control. Yet the President, who, to his credit, has submitted a budget, 
submitted a budget that raised taxes by $2 trillion on the American 
people, but so increased spending as well that the debt continued to 
climb even faster under the President's budget than it does under the 
broken system we have today.
  Take a look at this. You can't see this, Mr. Chairman, but it's the 
drivers of our debt. If you look here at the blue line, it is Social 
Security; and Social Security is a situation that we know is facing 
peril, but it's facing peril in a predictable way that we'll be able to 
solve and control.
  We see here the green line. It's Medicaid and other health saving in 
this country, and yet it is growing rapidly. We know how we can begin 
to curb that spending.
  Look at this red line. This is Medicare spending growing out of 
control. We know it. We know it's true. That's the question folks ask 
me back home. In this budget conversation, they say: Rob, why does it 
sound like it's a big Medicare discussion?
  The reason is because Medicare is the driver. Medicare spending, the 
spending that is done through a government mandate where individuals 
don't have control over their own health care, is driving this debt 
train.
  Going back to my pride at being a freshman member of the Budget 
Committee, Mr. Chairman, this is a headline from MSNBC. And you know 
MSNBC is not one of the biggest fans of this freshman class, not one of 
the biggest fans of this Republican Congress. But this is what they 
said in a headline from March 15: ``In risky election-year move, 
Republicans offer Medicare alternatives.''
  That's right. That is why 100 new freshmen came to this body last 
year. They didn't come to recycle old ideas. They came to offer 
solutions.
  Yes, I know it's an election year, but dadgummit, Mr. Chairman, an 
election year ought to bring out the best in this body as folks work 
even harder to fulfill the hopes and dreams of the American people. 
That's what Chairman Ryan and this Budget Committee have done.
  Could they have punted on this, Mr. Chairman? Could they have said, 
You know what, this is just too hard. We know it's coming, we know it 
threatens every senior in this country, but let's just punt until after 
the election.
  We've heard some folks who have adopted exactly that attitude, but 
not this chairman, not Paul Ryan and the Budget Committee, not this 
U.S. House of Representatives. It may be risky, but they do it because 
it's the right thing to do.

                              {time}  1720

  And I tell you, Republicans and Democrats alike who were elected in 
this freshman class in 2010 came to do the right thing for the right 
reasons, not to follow election-year politics; and I'm just so proud of 
this chairman for giving us this opportunity.
  So what is it that this Budget Committee solution is? Well, what it 
doesn't do, Mr. Chairman, is change anything for seniors on Medicare 
today, not one. No changes for today's seniors, whereas the President's 
proposal makes dramatic changes by empowering this 15-member IPAB 
board. We preserve and protect Medicare in this budget by providing for 
seniors--my parents, your parents and your grandparents--providing an 
opportunity for them to have some say in their health care decisions. 
We tried that with Medicare Advantage. It's been dramatically 
successful, and we expand that to give families more choices about 
their health care decisions. Preserving and protecting the Medicare 
mandate for future generations, this is the alternative.
  Just to be clear, you can't read this, Mr. Chairman, it's the small 
print, it's all of the small print, that indicates the IPAB board. And 
it takes a lot of small print to create it because folks were scared to 
death when this thing was created. There's all sorts of language in 
this small print, Mr. Speaker, about how rationing will not happen with 
this board. Why? Because when you put a government board in charge of 
people's health care, the first thing you think is rationing.
  Well, what this board can do is clamp down on what we pay providers. 
Now, I want you to think about the doctors in your life. I want you to 
think about those folks.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman from Georgia an 
additional 1 minute.
  Mr. WOODALL. In your church, in your Sunday school class, at the CVS 
and at the Walgreen's is where you see those family practice docs. Do 
you really think those folks are the health care problem in this 
country? Do you really think that clamping down on more of your 
neighbors who provide the care to our community is the answer? Because 
that's the only thing this IPAB board can do: clamp down on those docs, 
denying care to every senior in this country.
  We offer an alternative. It may be a risky election-year move, but 
it's the right thing to do. And I want to thank the chairman. All the 
naysayers in this country who said you couldn't, you did. All the folks 
who said you shouldn't, you did. And you did it because it was the 
right thing to do. This is a document that can govern our Nation, and 
it's one that we can be proud of, and I've been proud to be a part of 
it.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I appreciate the comments of the member of the Budget Committee, Mr. 
Woodall from Georgia, but I don't think the choice the Republicans make

[[Page H1682]]

in this budget is the right thing to do. I don't think the American 
people are going to think it's the right thing to do. I don't think the 
choice to provide another round of tax cuts for people making more than 
$1 million a year while ending the Medicare guarantee for seniors who 
have median income under $23,000 a year is the right choice; and I 
don't think it's the courageous choice.
  Now, I heard Mr. Woodall say that it doesn't change one thing, not 
one thing in Medicare. That's just not true. This immediately reopens 
the prescription drug doughnut hole. The Republican plan takes some of 
the savings we achieved under the Affordable Care Act for Medicare, but 
instead of using it like we did to help strengthen the prescription 
drug plan, it reopens it. It does it immediately. That is an additional 
$10,000 over 10 years for seniors who have high prescription drug 
costs.
  Do you know what else it does immediately? It immediately ends the 
preventive care services we provided under Medicare. Because we want to 
encourage seniors to get that early care, so we eliminated the copays. 
Now they've got to pay that too, immediately.
  Now, the gentleman said the President doesn't have a plan on 
Medicare. I keep having to remind my colleagues that this chart was 
presented by the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan. And the 
black line is the Republican plan, and the blue line is the President's 
plan. The red line is projected health care costs. And the difference 
between the two plans is that the Republican plan puts all the risk of 
those rising health care costs on the seniors. And you can see that 
when you look at this chart. This is current Medicare. It provides 
constant support for the health care services received by seniors. 
That's the blue line.
  Here's the green line. This is what Members of Congress and Federal 
employees get. They get a real premium support. As health care prices 
go up, their premium support stays constant. This red line, that's what 
happens when you cap the support for seniors, as the Republican plan 
did. That red line going straight down is the same as that red line 
going straight up.
  The difference between the approaches is we say, Let's modernize 
Medicare to put greater focus and incentives on the value of care, not 
so much on the volume of care, which drives up cost. The Republican 
plan puts all those risks of rising health care costs on seniors.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Democratic leader, 
someone who has been fighting for jobs, for fairness, and for 
protecting the Medicare guarantee, Ms. Pelosi.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member of 
the Budget Committee for yielding to tell him how proud he makes us all 
for his important work in constructing a Democratic alternative to the 
Republican budget, that is, Mr. Van Hollen's budget proposal that is a 
statement of our national values that says to the American people what 
is important to you about the education, health and well-being of our 
children, the economic security of their families, and the health 
security of our seniors, those are important values to us; and those 
values are reflected in the Democratic alternative.
  The Republican Ryan bill, on the other hand, I do not believe is a 
statement of our national values as to what is important to the 
American people as reflected in their budget priorities. But you be the 
judge. Would it be a statement of your values if you had a budget that 
said to seniors we're going to end the Medicare guarantee and you're 
going to pay $6,000 or more while you get less in terms of benefits, 
while at the same time, we're going to give an over $300 billion tax 
break to the wealthiest people in our country? Would that be a 
statement of your values, this $6,000 more for seniors with fewer 
benefits, $300,000 or more to the richest people in our country?
  Would it be a statement of your values for you, my colleagues and the 
American people you represent, if you had a budget that said to Big 
Oil, we're going to continue to subsidize you to the tune of tens of 
billions of dollars, but at the same time, we're going to freeze Pell 
Grants, we're going to eliminate them for 400,000 young people and make 
them less available to over 9 million young people? Lower the benefits 
for some, eliminate it for others, and use the money to give tax 
subsidies to Big Oil, Big Oil which is making tens of billions of 
dollars in record profits each year?
  Would it be a statement of your values if you said in your budget 
that all of those young people who are now children who have a 
preexisting medical condition--asthma, diabetes, birth defect--any of 
those preexisting medical conditions, under present law, under the 
Affordable Care Act, they may not be discriminated against in obtaining 
health insurance? But the Republican budget says they should be because 
we're going to eliminate that.
  To the 2.5 million young people who are now on their parents' 
policies until they're 26 years old, this budget says ``no'' to you 
too. We're eliminating that. We're too busy giving tax breaks to the 
richest people in America. And while we're at it, with young people 
just graduating from college, some of them may have student loans, and 
in the House budget--thank you, Mr. Van Hollen--in the House budget, we 
have a provision that says that come July 1, the interest on those 
loans will not double. We have taken care of that. Under the 
circumstances, the path we're on, the interest rates would go from 3.4 
percent to 6.8 percent. The House Democratic budget says ``no'' to that 
doubling of interest. The Republican budget keeps it the same.

                              {time}  1730

  That's just to name a few things that I think may not be a statement 
of the values of the American people, whether it's interest paid on 
student loans, availability of Pell Grants to young people, ending the 
Medicare guarantee, and as the distinguished ranking member said, right 
now today, overturning the resources that were put in the Affordable 
Care Act to reduce, to narrow the doughnut hole. Maybe 5 million 
seniors have benefited to the tune of $3.2 billion already in the bill. 
Also, there are preventative services; there are annual wellness visits 
without a copay.
  So we're talking about kitchen table items for people where people 
are trying to make ends meet, where people wonder about if their 
children will be able to go to college, and if they do, will they be 
able to have health insurance so that when they look for a job, they 
can reach their aspirations without having their choices only narrowed 
by whether they have health insurance or not until the bill comes into 
full effect.
  So there are just a couple of things that I would want people to know 
about this bill. They are: ends the Medicare guarantee; ends the 
Medicare guarantee; ends the Medicare guarantee while making seniors 
pay more for less, while giving over $300 billion in tax breaks to the 
wealthiest people in our country. And by the way, did I mention it? 
It's a job loser.
  So I urge my colleagues to enthusiastically support the House 
Democratic proposal, which is a statement of our values and which our 
distinguished colleague will present--I don't know if it's tonight or 
tomorrow morning. I understand that it keeps changing.
  The House Democratic alternative invests in America's priorities, 
creates jobs, protects our seniors and our students, strengthens the 
middle class. Democrats protect Medicare; Republicans dismantle 
Medicare. The Democratic plan asks the wealthiest to pay their fair 
share and put our fiscal house in order; the Republican plan gives them 
more than the tax break they've had, they almost double their tax 
break.
  Our Democratic plan reflects the most enduring theme in America, the 
American Dream. Democrats want to reignite the American Dream, to build 
ladders of opportunity for all who want to work hard, play by the 
rules, and take responsibility. It does this by investing in small 
businesses and entrepreneurialism in our country, by strengthening the 
middle class. In that regard, we believe that our budget is a statement 
of our values.
  We call upon our Republican colleagues to work with us on a budget 
that reflects our values. We must work together to protect and 
strengthen Medicare. We must put people back to work and build a 
broadly shaped prosperity for all Americans. We must make it in America 
to stop the erosion

[[Page H1683]]

of our manufacturing base. We must rebuild America, putting people back 
to work. We must do this with community involvement. And all of these 
things strengthen the middle class, which is exactly what our 
Democratic alternative achieves.
  For the sake of our seniors, for our families, for our children, for 
our workers, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Republican 
plan, which ends the Medicare guarantee and makes seniors pay $6,000 or 
more for fewer benefits while it gives $300,000 in tax breaks to the 
wealthiest people in the United States. And it costs us jobs to do so 
and doesn't reduce the deficit until nearly 2040. It's not a good deal 
for the American people. The Democratic budget is.
  I urge a ``yes'' on the Van Hollen budget, a ``no'' on the Ryan 
Republican budget.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to 
simply say, yesterday they said we're cutting taxes on millionaires by 
$150,000, today it's $300,000--it's probably going to be $1 million 
tomorrow.
  What I would simply say is, this line that says we're ending the 
Medicare guarantee, let me remind you, Chairman, that this was rated 
the ``lie of the year'' of 2011 by the nonpartisan PolitiFact.
  We don't want a rationing board running Medicare. We want seniors in 
charge of Medicare. We don't want to take more from successful small 
businesses that create our jobs and make them uncompetitive in the 
global economy. We want to take special interest loopholes out of the 
Tax Code to lower everybody's tax rates, but especially those of small 
businesses that create our jobs. And more importantly, we want to 
balance the budget, pay off the debt. Ours is the only budget that does 
that. The so-called ``balanced'' approach by our friends on the other 
side of the aisle doesn't even pretend to get the debt paid off, let 
alone under control.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. 
Roe.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, when President Obama released his nearly $4 trillion 
budget proposal in February, he called for more spending, more 
borrowing, and more taxes. Despite a national debt that's grown to more 
than $15.5 trillion, the President elected to double down on the same 
old failed agenda.
  The Senate has failed to pass a budget for more than 1,000 days--the 
IPAB wasn't on the margin when they had a budget the last time in the 
Senate--while House Republicans are actively working to address the 
economic crisis facing our country.
  Americans deserve better than empty promises from a broken 
government, and the Path to Prosperity budget offers a tangible way 
forward. This budget cuts spending in a meaningful way, lowers tax 
rates while simplifying the Tax Code, and strengthens the social safety 
net.
  I ask the Senate and House Democrats, what's your plan? There is no 
greater contrast between the President's budget and our Republican 
budget than on Medicare--something I know something about having 
practiced medicine for 30 years. The President and congressional 
Democrats cut $500-plus billion from Medicare to fund a new 
entitlement, and then their cost controls were a 15-member board, a 
bureaucratic board--basically a denial-of-care board.
  No one argues that Medicare goes bankrupt in the near future, so 
doing nothing is not an option. Republicans propose to strengthen 
Medicare for current seniors by making no changes for those 55 and 
older, and giving future retirees the ability to choose their own 
health plan--what a novel idea that is--including a traditional 
Medicare choice, the same thing they have today. By implementing these 
commonsense reforms, we can ensure Medicare will be available to 
current and future generations.
  I am very proud of my colleagues on the House Budget Committee who 
have worked tirelessly to draft a blueprint that sets our Nation on a 
path to balancing the budget and paying off the debt. This proposal 
protects the country, saves Medicare, and puts America on the path to 
prosperity.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the chairman of 
the Budget Committee has mentioned a number of times this PolitiFact. I 
want to read from what PolitiFact said with respect to this. He said 
that it's true that the term ``terminate'' Medicare, which some had 
used, was an overstatement. No doubt about it. Just like, apparently, a 
couple of years ago they've said--what I've heard from a lot of my 
colleagues that the Affordable Care Act was a ``government takeover of 
health care.'' I've heard that a lot from my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle. That was the big PolitiFact so-called ``lie of the 
year'' a couple of years ago. So let's just be clear.
  But this is the important part. It says: If Democrats had just 
slightly tweaked their statements, they would be accurate. They go on 
to point out that, for example, when people said the plan last year 
would privatize Medicare, that was true. And that President Obama was 
also more precise with his words saying that the Medicare proposal 
``would voucherize the program and you potentially have senior citizens 
paying 10,000 or more.'' They didn't say that was false.
  What we have said, what I have said very carefully all along is that 
it ends the Medicare guarantee. And I firmly believe it ends the 
Medicare guarantee for this reason, for this reason right here: this is 
the current Medicare plan support for seniors in terms of the percent 
that they have to pay, that blue line, steady support. Green line 
demonstrates steady support that Members of Congress get from the 
Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan. Red line is what happens when 
you put seniors into the private health care market but you don't allow 
their premium support to rise with the projected rise in health care 
costs. Red line, down. I think that does end the Medicare guarantee.
  With that, 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.)

                              {time}  1740

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, there's been an understanding in our 
country for a very long time that if you work as hard as you can your 
whole life and you follow the rules, that one of the things that you'll 
get as part of this American Dream is a secure retirement; that you 
ought to be able to spend the years after you work loving your 
grandchildren, pursuing your hobbies, doing the things in life that you 
love and enjoy.
  Essential to that part of the American Dream is the Medicare 
guarantee, because here's what it really says. If you get sick and you 
need help, you get the help that you need as determined by you and your 
doctor and your family, and you pay your fair share in premiums and 
copays, but there's no insurance bureaucracy to run through. There's no 
approval you've got to get. If your cardiologist says you need a 
certain procedure and you think that you want to do it, you do it, and 
Medicare pays the bill.
  This is a guarantee, and the reason it's needed is that you can't 
make a whole lot of profit off of insuring older and sicker people. So 
since 1965, this Medicare guarantee has been a part of the promise that 
we've made to American seniors.
  This budget violates that promise because what it says is a 
substantial number of people, beginning with those under 55, will not 
be in Medicare. They'll be in a system run by the insurance companies 
of this country, and the decision will shift from people and their 
doctors to insurance companies.
  Now, the other side will say, Well, it's going to be voluntary. Well, 
here's what, in all likelihood, is going to happen. The wealthier, 
healthier people will sign up for the voluntary system, and the poorer, 
older, sicker people will stay in regular Medicare. The resources will 
diminish, the care will dwindle, and Medicare will wither and die on 
the vine.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. ANDREWS. This obviously is a good faith and legitimate 
philosophical difference. But when it comes to the termination of the 
Medicare guarantee, when it comes to jeopardizing and violating this 
covenant with the people

[[Page H1684]]

who built this country, we think that's the wrong thing to do. And it's 
especially wrong when the savings--so-called savings--from this 
approach will finance yet another tax break for the wealthiest and most 
prosperous people in our country.
  These are priorities we'll debate on this floor in good faith. We 
think they're the wrong priorities. We urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, let me yield myself 2 minutes to 
say, you know what ends the Medicare guarantee? The Medicare status 
quo.
  We had the chief actuary of Medicare in the other day. He said it is 
$37 trillion in the hole. That's the unfunded liability for Medicare.
  Look at the driver of our debt. Medicare is growing at such a rate 
that it goes into bankruptcy, the part A trust fund goes bankrupt in 
2021, according to CBO.
  Now, what does the President's law, the current law in law, do?
  It says we need to slow the growth of Medicare spending by putting a 
cap over Medicare. That's in law today. And then it says, in order to 
enforce this cap, we're going to have 15 political appointees that the 
President will appoint for 6-year terms. They make the decisions. They 
decide what health care providers can do or cannot do and what they get 
paid.
  The Medicare chief actuary came and told us the other day, they'll 
start off by paying Medicare providers 80 cents on the dollar to 
provide Medicare benefits and then go down to 30 cents on the dollar.
  You think your doctor's going to do what you need if he gets paid 30 
cents on the dollar?
  He said that 40 percent of Medicare providers are either going to go 
out of business or just stop taking Medicare patients altogether. 
That's the current law. That ends the guarantee.
  Here's what we say:
  Get rid of the rationing board. Stop the bureaucrats from getting 
between the doctor and her patients. And don't change Medicare for 
people 55 and above so that you can keep the promise the government's 
made to them. But for those younger generations, because the program is 
going bankrupt, you must reform it in order to keep the promise to 
current seniors.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself an additional 1 minute to say 
this:
  And the way we keep the Medicare guarantee is to save this. You get a 
list of guaranteed coverage options from Medicare, and among those 
choices are comprehensive private plans and the traditional Medicare 
option, and Medicare will subsidize your premiums.

  Those subsidies go up every year. If you're low-income, all of your 
out-of-pocket costs are covered. As you get sick, more and more 
coverage to prevent you from having sticker shock. And if you're 
wealthy, yes, more will be paid out of pocket because we think you can 
afford it.
  That saves Medicare. That makes it solvent. And the competitive 
bidding that is done to make those providers compete against each other 
for our business, using choice and competition, is what the Medicare 
actuary tells us is the best way to preserve and save the Medicare 
guarantee.
  You see, premium support with competitive bidding ensures guaranteed 
affordability. This is an idea that has had bipartisan support going 
back to the nineties. Yet our friends on the other side of the aisle 
would rather have politics than to really work to save the Medicare 
guarantee.
  I yield 3 minutes to the doctor from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the 
Budget Committee for yielding to me.
  We've heard our Democratic friends talk about IPAB, of which Chairman 
Ryan was just discussing. These 15 bureaucrats are nothing but a 
backstop, a backstop there to cut lower Medicare spending.
  In baseball parlance, Mr. Chairman, backstop is sometimes synonymous 
with the catcher, a catcher who literally will throw every senior out 
at second base.
  I like my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Van Hollen, 
my classmate, Mr. Andrews, who just spoke, but we're a country of laws 
and not of men, and I don't like anything about their budget.
  Our budget incorporates the Ryan-Wyden plan to save Medicare from 
bankruptcy and health care rationing. Therefore, it's with deep concern 
for seniors that I've listened to my Democratic colleagues suggest that 
the bipartisan Ryan-Wyden plan will end Medicare as we know it.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot stress this point enough: Medicare, as the 
chairman just said, Medicare will be bankrupt as early as 2016 because 
ObamaCare already ended Medicare as we know it. It stole $575 billion 
from Medicare in order to pay for ObamaCare.
  I offered a simple amendment during ObamaCare that said any Medicare 
saving must go back into Medicare to save Medicare. Who could disagree 
with that? Well, the Democrats in the House did. Twice they defeated my 
amendment. Republican efforts to save Medicare from bankruptcy were 
thwarted by House Democrats because President Obama needed a piggy bank 
to pay for ObamaCare.
  Today we have a bipartisan plan to save Medicare, created by House 
Republicans and Senate Democrats who put partisanship aside because our 
seniors need us to save Medicare from bankruptcy and save them from 
ObamaCare. If the Democrats vote against this plan to save Medicare, 
will they put forward their own plan to save Medicare? They're going to 
have an opportunity, indeed, even to vote for the Obama budget 
recommendation as well as their own.
  Mr. Chairman, we've heard a great deal of rhetoric from my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle, yet the silence on my question today 
has been deafening because they don't have a plan. And I hope they will 
stand up now and prove me wrong by telling me what is their plan.
  Mr. Chairman, not only does this budget responsibly reform and save 
Medicare, this budget also charts the path to fiscal discipline that is 
long overdue in this city. H. Con. Res. 112 lowers spending by $1.1 
trillion below even what the House passed last year. This budget 
proposes $5.33 trillion below what President Obama proposed in his own 
budget.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, this budget makes 
broad tax reforms that will prevent a $2 trillion tax increase from 
taking effect January 1, 2013, will spur economic growth by lowering 
taxes to individuals and job creators, and it proposes a 25 percent--25 
percent--corporate tax rate to promote domestic economic growth.
  Mr. Chairman, it's time that we think of the next generation and not 
the next election. This Path to Prosperity charts a responsible course 
for the fiscal health of our country, and I urge all of my colleagues, 
support H. Con. Res. 112.

                              {time}  1750

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I keep hearing my Republican colleagues 
say that their plan will provide seniors with affordable premiums for 
their health care services. I just keep asking myself why it is that 
their plan gives seniors on Medicare a much worse deal and a lot less 
support than the plan Members of Congress have under the Federal 
Employees Health Benefits Plan. That is a real premium support plan. 
That is a plan where the premium support keeps pace with rising health 
care costs.
  So if you're talking about how to deal with Medicare, it seems to me 
that you should take the approach that we have taken, that the 
President has taken, where you modernize the system, you change the 
incentives to put focus on the value of care, on the quality of care 
rather than the quantity of care.
  We're already starting up accountable care organizations. We're 
already starting up different methods of delivering care and different 
payment systems. That's a very different approach than putting the 
burden on seniors and putting the risk on seniors.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady who represents the 
Nation's capital so well, Eleanor Holmes Norton.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Van Hollen for his 
brilliant and balanced work on the budget.

[[Page H1685]]

  Shakespeare's sonnet says, ``Let me count the ways.'' I am finding it 
difficult to count the reasons to oppose the Republicans' unbalanced, 
no-growth budget that threatens to send us back into a recession.
  But when the tightest fist in the Federal Government, the OMB, says 
that the Republican budget would, and here I'm quoting, make it 
``extraordinarily difficult for the Federal Government to do its basic 
business,'' I listen.
  The Federal Government, Mr. Chairman, is labor intensive. When the 
OMB says that there will be 4,500 fewer Federal agents on the border, 
working criminal cases and performing national security, I listen.
  When the OMB says we won't be able to meet basic standards for food 
safety, I am listening.
  We simply cannot keep freezing pay for Federal employees, which 
amounts to deep cuts or replace every three with only one employee and 
expect to continue protecting the American people at the same time.
  The Republican budget kicks Federal employees while they are down and 
kicks their vital work right along with them. It guarantees the growth 
of the unaccountable contractor sector, which remains untouched in the 
Republican budget.
  So much for the phantom savings at the expense of Federal employees.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland, Dr. Harris.
  Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Ryan for yielding 
3 minutes to talk about such an important subject as the health care of 
our seniors.
  You know, the other side of the aisle wants to play pretend. Let's 
pretend that we have a program sustainable for all future generations. 
Let's pretend that all our seniors right now have access to all the 
medical care and physicians that they want. Let's pretend that the 
Medicare program that the President's health care reform bill 
establishes for our seniors allows seniors and their doctors to choose 
what care is best for them.
  But, Mr. Chairman, we would have to be playing pretend because, in 
fact, we know that the program is not sustainable for all generations. 
This graph here is not from the Republican conference. This is from the 
Congressional Budget Office. This is what happens, the red. It's no 
accident that it's in red. This is what happens to Medicare spending 
under the President's proposals.
  We are right here in the middle. This is when my children reach their 
middle age. This is when they retire. This is when my grandchildren 
reach their retirement. It's not sustainable. Anyone looking at that 
graph knows it's not sustainable. We can't play pretend.
  We would have to play pretend that all seniors have access to 
physicians. Go into my district in rural areas where seniors tell you 
they don't have access to primary care already because the Medicare 
program currently squeezes the payments, the providers to where 
providers no longer choose to take on as many Medicare patients as they 
can. The President's plan makes it even worse.
  Finally, we would be pretending that patients get to choose and their 
physicians get to choose their care because under the President's plan, 
there are 15 unelected bureaucrats who decide, that President's 
rationing board, who decide what care my mother now will get, what care 
I'm going to get in 10 years, what care my son is going to get in 39 
years when he reaches retirement age. Fifteen unelected bureaucrats, 
Mr. Chairman, by law only a minority of that board can ever have 
practiced health care. The majority are bureaucrats never having taken 
care of a patient. That's the plan that we have now.
  Mr. Chairman, it will break if we don't take care of it.
  I applaud the chairman of the Budget Committee for the bravery; and, 
Mr. Chairman, you know what the ads are going to be. You can see it 
now. You can hear all the talking points. America knows health care in 
America needs repair. They know the Medicare program needs repair if 
we're going to preserve it for future generations.
  I urge my colleagues to choose this as the repair for our future 
generations.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, my colleague, the gentleman from 
Maryland, put up a chart with the red showing the rising costs of 
Medicare and said the President has no plan. Well, I wish the gentleman 
had looked at the chart of the chairman of the Budget Committee. We've 
seen it a couple of times today. It shows the black line being the 
House Republican trajectory, the blue line being the President's plan 
to contain costs. The difference again being that the Republican 
proposal puts all the risks of rising health care costs onto seniors, 
whereas the President's plan talks about changing the delivery system 
in a way to encourage the value of care, focus on the value of care, 
rather than the volume of care.
  I would only point out that we keep hearing about the IPAB. The 
reality is that anything they would propose, number one, by law cannot 
ration care. But number two is subject to review and a vote by Members 
of Congress, the people in this body.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Ways and 
Means Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. I've been listening to this debate; and you know, the 
Republicans' claim that they're saving Medicare is political mythology.
  Essentially, what they're doing is shifting coverage to the private 
sector. They have a cap more stringent than that in the Affordable Care 
Act. So over time, more and more there is the erosion and the end of 
Medicare.
  I want to say just a few words about the tax provisions in the 
Republican budget.
  On Sunday, this is what was said: I don't know. That's what the 
Republican budget chairman said on Sunday when asked whether the middle 
class would suffer under his tax proposal.

                              {time}  1800

  It's important for the American public to know the facts. The 
Republican budget would cut taxes for the very wealthy. The top tax 
rate would be reduced by such a significant extent that, according to 
the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the average millionaire would 
receive $265,000 in tax cuts. To pay for this tax cut, the Republicans 
would have to put on the chopping block provisions in the Tax Code 
relating to health, education, the home mortgage interest deduction, 
and pensions.
  Mr. Ryan, you call these loopholes. No, these are policies. For 
example, four-fifths of the benefit of the health care exclusion goes 
to households earning less than $200,000. Half goes to those earning 
less than $100,000. Then 70 percent of the benefit provided through the 
home mortgage interest deduction goes to families who earn less than 
$200,000.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Harris). The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. LEVIN. Yet the provisions that, in fact, disproportionately 
benefit the wealthy, including the reduction for capital gains and 
dividends, the Republicans would protect from any changes.
  The Republican priorities could not be clearer when it comes to 
Medicare: end it. As to their tax provisions: help the very wealthy.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, I yield 5 minutes to a senior 
member of the Budget Committee and also a member of the Ways and Means 
Committee, the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Price.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I want to commend Mr. Ryan for standing up for 
the future of our country and for his dedication to fundamental 
American principles.
  Mr. Chairman, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Michael 
Mullen, said last year that the greatest threat to our national 
security--the greatest threat to our national security--was our debt. 
Now, there are clear differences--you've heard them here today--about 
how we should address that debt. Americans have a choice to make, and 
it is a choice that will determine the future of our great country. By 
ignoring the drivers of our debt, by ignoring Medicare and Medicaid and 
Social Security, the President's most recent budget proposal ensures a 
future of ever-increasing debt and doubt and

[[Page H1686]]

decline. In fact, before the Budget Committee, Mr. Chairman, we had 
earlier this spring Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who admitted 
of the administration that they don't ``have a definitive solution to 
our long-term problem. What we do know is we don't like yours.''
  Now there is real leadership.
  The President's health care law, the current law of the land, cuts 
Medicare by more than $500 billion for more government programs. The 
President's health care law ends the Medicare guarantee and puts us on 
this red path over here, Mr. Chairman, increasing the amount of debt 
that gives the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff pause to say that 
the greatest threat is our debt.
  The President's health care law empowers the Independent Payment 
Advisory Board to effectively deny care to seniors. You've heard about 
it--15 unelected bureaucrats. None of them--none of them--can be 
actively practicing physicians. As a physician, I can tell you that 
gives me great pause.
  You heard the gentleman from New Jersey down here, saying that, in 
their program, if a doctor says that you need cardiac surgery, you get 
it. Well, on the contrary, Mr. Chairman. In fact, if a doctor says you 
need cardiac surgery and if the board of unelected bureaucrats says you 
don't get it, guess what? You don't get it.
  Then my friend from Maryland says, Oh, no. You can bring it to the 
floor of the House. You can bring it to Congress. You could have a 
review and vote on the floor of the House for your cardiac surgery.
  Hardly, Mr. Chairman. It just isn't going to happen. The fact of the 
matter is this unelected board is charged with finding $500 billion in 
reductions in payments to Medicare physicians. Consequently, what will 
happen is that it will essentially deny care to seniors.
  As a physician, I believe that the President's health care law 
threatens all of the principles that we hold dear: accessibility, 
affordability, quality, responsiveness, innovation, choices. Every 
single principle of health care is violated by the President's health 
care law. It destroys the doctor-patient relationship. Yet it's not 
just devastating to the future of our health. It's also devastating to 
the future of our economy, which is, again, what drives the chart. 
Where is the middle class, Mr. Chairman, on this chart? In the red. 
Where are the American Dreams of our kids and grandkids? In the red.
  So we are committed to the full repeal of the President's health care 
law, and today we advance bipartisan solutions to improve and to 
strengthen Medicare. Where the President and Democrats fail to act here 
in Washington, we will lead.
  Our plan has no changes for those in or near retirement. It allows 
choices, including the Medicare option, so that patients control their 
health decisions, not bureaucrats. When bureaucrats choose, patients 
lose. In the future, Americans, through a guaranteed system--read the 
bill, Mr. Chairman--will be able to select the health coverage that is 
right for them, not what Washington says they must have. Our solution 
is guaranteed, it's voluntary, and it's bipartisan--something our 
friends on the other side of the aisle simply cannot say.
  Our plan also includes commonsense tax reform--closing loopholes, 
lowering rates, broadening the base, helping job creators. It's a 
system that is more fair and more simple and that allows us to compete 
in the world because a vibrant and robust, growing economy is necessary 
to get us back on the right track, and the right track is the green 
path here, Mr. Chairman, that gets us to a balanced budget and paying 
off our debt.
  Now, we know that the Senate won't adopt our budget. Remember, they 
haven't done one in over 3 years. So the solution to the Senate and to 
the Presidential gridlock is with the American people. It's the people 
of this great country who will decide the direction that we take, not 
Washington. It's the people who will decide. We offer a positive 
budget, a positive plan, for both our health care and our economy. It's 
a path to prosperity, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I would just urge my friend Mr. Price to again look 
at the chart presented by the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. 
Ryan, which makes it clear that we have different paths, different 
approaches, with respect to containing costs. Yet, at the end of the 
day, the trajectories are the same.
  I'll say again that if Republicans think the notion of the premium 
support plan--the voucher plan, whatever you want to call it--which 
doesn't rise with health care costs, is such a good deal for seniors, 
why are they giving themselves a different deal in the health care plan 
for Members of Congress?
  I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Langevin).
  (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, we all recognize that we are facing difficult fiscal 
challenges and that we absolutely have to get our fiscal house in 
order. Obviously, that means that we have to make smart budgetary 
decisions and invest our dollars wisely in those things that will yield 
the greatest benefit. However, it doesn't mean that we just cut for the 
sake of cutting.
  I rise today in opposition to the Republican budget, which eliminates 
the Medicare guarantee as we know it. Particularly, it eliminates the 
Medicare guarantee for my constituents in Rhode Island, our seniors. It 
also cuts programs that keep my constituents' homes heated, that help 
families afford college, and that ensure proper access to health care.
  I rise in opposition to slashing infrastructure spending that 
literally prevents our bridges from falling down, as well as gutting 
investments in education, medical research, and emerging technologies, 
which provide key areas for job creation.
  Finally, I rise in the strongest opposition to cutting these vital 
programs and economic investments while at the same time maintaining 
tax breaks for millionaires, Big Oil, and Wall Street.
  Mr. Chairman, our budget reflects our values and our priorities, and 
the Republican budget prioritizes the wealthiest Americans at the 
expense of everyone else. I urge my colleagues to reject this measure 
and to support the Democratic alternative, which keeps our promises to 
our seniors, preserves our social safety net, invests in education for 
our children, invests in creating a 21st century infrastructure for a 
21st century economy, and that asks all Americans to pay their fair 
share toward reducing our deficit.

                              {time}  1810

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I just have one more request for time, and 
then I will reserve the right to close. And I understand the gentleman 
has a number of other requests, so perhaps he would like to continue 
with his speakers?
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlelady from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his 
tremendous leadership.
  I rise in very strong opposition to the Republican budget, which 
really is a path to more prosperity for the 1 percent.
  Once again, the Republicans are proposing a budget that pays for tax 
cuts for the very wealthy at the expense of senior citizens and the 
most vulnerable Americans. At a time when America faces the greatest--
mind you, the greatest--income inequality since the Great Depression, 
this Republican budget would continue the largest wealth transfer in 
history to the top 1 percent. It would recklessly deny support services 
to the poor and the hungry, end the Medicare guarantee, and destroy 
American jobs, while preserving tax breaks for millionaires, special 
interests, and Big Oil.
  That's not all. While the Republican budget crushes the American 
Dream for those striving to become part of the middle class--of course, 
that's the poor and the working poor--it would increase spending for an 
already bloated Pentagon budget and continue the war in Afghanistan at 
a time when seven out of 10 Americans believe the war should come to an 
end.
  We cannot do this to America's struggling families and our seniors or 
low-income individuals. I urge all

[[Page H1687]]

Members to reject this Republican budget and, instead, support the 
budget proposals put forth by Congressman Van Hollen and the Democrats, 
the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and the Congressional Black 
Caucus.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 30 seconds to the gentlelady from California.
  Ms. LEE of California. A budget is a moral document that shows our 
Nation's priorities and our values.
  How can we allow this Medicare guarantee that our seniors have 
contributed to throughout their lives to be turned into a privatized 
voucher plan? Where is our sense of morality? Allowing our seniors to 
really just begin to fall through the cracks, that is just wrong.
  We need a budget that puts Americans back to work, that invests in 
our future, that protects the safety net, including Medicare, and works 
to reignite the American Dream for all and not crush it for all but the 
wealthiest 1 percent.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
ranking member of the Education Committee, Mr. Miller.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  And just like last year, some Members of Congress and beltway talking 
heads are declaring the Republican budget proposal as bold and 
courageous. But just like last year's Republican budget, this budget 
proposal is neither bold nor is it courageous.
  It's not bold to balance your budget on the backs of working 
families, low-income families, and the children of this Nation. This 
Republican budget, in fact, mortgages an entire generation of 
children's education and young people's education. It mortgages their 
educational opportunities by making cuts at the very earliest of early 
childhood education, at the elementary level of education, the 
secondary level of education; and it's going to allow the doubling of 
interest rates on student loans that families have taken out to provide 
for the higher education that these young people need to get jobs in 
this economy, to get the skills that they need to be able to go to work 
in this economy. Yet that is going to be slashed with their cuts, with 
their increased costs to those individuals.
  It also sacrifices the health care benefits of a generation, of these 
same people, because under their proposal they envision the Affordable 
Care Act somehow going away, that they can repeal it, they can get rid 
of it. And that means that young people will not be able to stay on 
their families' policies as they finish their education or they seek 
out their first job, their first beginning of a career.
  It also ends the Medicare guarantee. It follows the path that George 
Bush followed when he wanted to privatize it and then again in last 
year's budget, when they sought to end the guarantee. They're back 
again to end that guarantee to our senior citizens. It's not bold. It's 
just plain wrong.
  The Affordable Care Act, in fact, strengthened Medicare. It made it 
more sustainable for seniors and sustainable for the taxpayers. It 
extended the Medicare trust fund.
  But that's not what the Republican budget's about. It's about 
extending the deficits out until sometime in 2014, while at the same 
time not looking at the impact of military spending or continuing the 
war in Afghanistan, as they accept it in their budget.
  And what it says is, therefore, we will shift the entire cuts to the 
young, to the old, to middle class families. But that cannot be 
allowed. The Republican budget must be rejected by this House.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the chairman for yielding and for his good 
work on this budget.
  Thomas Jefferson once wrote:

       To preserve the independence of the people, we must not let 
     our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our 
     election between economy and liberty, or profusion and 
     servitude.

  In this choice of two futures, unfortunately, Congress has all too 
often chosen the latter path of out-of-control spending and expansion 
of government power. There is a spending addiction in Washington, D.C., 
and it has proven to be an addiction that Congress has not controlled 
on its own.
  The Nation has gone, in a few short years, from a Federal deficit of 
billions of dollars to a deficit of trillions of dollars. The 
government is printing money at an unprecedented pace, which presents 
significant risks of inflation. Our debt is currently an unfathomable 
$15.5 trillion and mounting rapidly, as is the waste associated with 
paying the interest on that debt. Yet Congress has done little to 
address this crisis.
  Families all across our Nation understand what it means to make tough 
decisions each day about what they can and cannot afford. Yet far too 
often, this fundamental principle has been lost on a Congress that is 
too busy spending to pay attention to the bottom line. Americans must 
exercise restraint with their own funds, then government officials must 
be required to exercise an even higher standard when spending other 
people's hard-earned money.
  While I believe that the House budget we are considering today is a 
good budget and I support it, it is dependent on fiscally minded 
Congresses being elected for the next 28 years who will be committed to 
upholding this budget, as well as a President who will sign fiscally 
responsible appropriations measures into law. That is why I am also a 
supporter of the Republican Study Committee budget. While this RSC 
budget is bold and some say drastic, these measures are needed to solve 
our Nation's fiscal crisis.
  Mr. Chairman, unless each Congress--regardless of party affiliation--
is forced to make the decisions necessary to actually set a budget--
unlike the U.S. Senate--and create a balanced budget, the temptation 
will always be there for Congress to spend more than it receives in 
revenues. And that is the advantage of a constitutional balanced budget 
amendment which would ensure that the principle of fiscal 
responsibility is forced upon all future Congresses.
  The balanced budget amendment is a commonsense approach to ensure 
that Congress is bound by the same fiscal principles that America's 
families face each day. I am pleased that the Republican Study 
Committee proposal seeks to balance the budget in 5 years and puts us 
on a path to save Medicare.
  Finally, I urge this Congress to demonstrate leadership and make the 
tough but bold decision to stop the government spending spree. We 
cannot continue to saddle our children and grandchildren with debt that 
is not their own.
  I support the Republican Study Committee budget. I support fiscal 
responsibility.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to Mr. Welch 
of Vermont, a gentleman who has been focused on fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, the budget challenge we face requires two 
things: first, it requires the confidence to invest in the future and 
rebuild the middle class; second, it requires the discipline to bring 
down our debt with a plan that recognizes what is obvious to all 
Americans, that any plan with any prospect of success must include 
spending cuts and revenues.
  This budget, instead, makes things worse and delivers a body blow to 
the middle class. It doubles down on tax cuts, adding $150,000 in cuts 
to the wealthiest Americans. It increases Pentagon spending, fencing it 
off from it being required to make any contribution to reducing our 
debt. And that body blow to the middle class, it's delivered by cutting 
Pell Grants, kicking kids off of work study, by taking away things that 
the middle class needs, a functional Food and Drug Administration, FAA, 
cuts in national science. It is really bad for the middle class.
  Americans know that a budget is much more than line items on a 
spreadsheet. It's about who we are and what we aspire to be. And the 
question is this:
  This budget believes in austerity. It leads to prosperity; no 
evidence for that. This budget believes that tax cuts for the wealthy 
will create jobs; no evidence for that.
  In our budget, we believe something very simple:

[[Page H1688]]

  We're all better off when we're all better off, and that requires a 
budget that reflects what has always made America great: investment in 
a middle class that's strong and that's enduring. Our hope in passing 
any budget has to be that the middle class will be strengthened and 
that parents will have some confidence that their kids will be better 
off than they were.

                              {time}  1820

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I am the last speaker. I reserve the right to 
close. So I will let the gentleman from Maryland use up all his time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I stand in strong opposition to the Republican budget that 
we are considering here today.
  How easy it is for some to forget that when President Bush took 
office, we had surpluses as far as the eye could see, and when 
President Bush left office, we were left with a deep pool of red ink.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle talk about the urgency of 
reducing our deficits, but where were my deficit-concerned colleagues 
when Congress passed tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, adding 
trillions to the deficit? Where were my deficit-concerned colleagues 
when President Bush took us into two wars without paying for either?
  I find it hard to believe that after voting time and again to add 
trillions to the deficit, that the only solution they offer to create 
economic growth in this country is to end Medicare and to hand out more 
tax cuts to the wealthiest among us.
  The Republican vision in this budget doesn't reflect the America that 
I grew up in, and their vision of an America that can't is not the 
country that I want my children to inherit.
  Budgets are about choices, and this Republican budget chooses 
billionaires over seniors and oil subsidies over college dreams for our 
middle class.
  The same Republican budget that replaces the Medicare guarantee and 
gives us ``coupon care'' that immediately and dramatically increases 
seniors' health care costs and that cuts college aid for over 9 million 
students and slashes investments in our K 12 schools, turns around and 
showers hundreds of thousands of dollars on millionaires and 
billionaires. You can't make this stuff up.
  What's most astonishing to me about this budget is the absence of any 
talk about real Americans, those fighting to hold on to their jobs and 
their homes.
  America has always been the land of opportunity, where those who work 
hard and play by the rules have a chance to succeed and to achieve the 
American Dream.
  Instead of turning America into a can't-do country where you begin by 
dismantling Medicare and Medicaid and dismantling our programs to help 
our children trying to go to college and all of those institutions that 
we rely on, the Institutes of Health and all of those that do all the 
science research for us, we should recognize that this is still a great 
country.
  We need to come together in this debate with the conviction that 
America's best days are yet to come.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this can't-do Republican budget 
and for the Democratic alternative.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Republican budget.
  Once again, the Republicans move a slash-and-burn budget that would 
turn Medicare into a private voucher system and force seniors to spend 
more than $6,000 out of pocket every additional year. It would gut 
Medicaid, education programs, medical research, and transportation 
among other things. You name it, they devastate it.
  First, the Republican budget calls for a staggering $10 trillion in 
tax cuts for the wealthy and large corporations over 10 years. It would 
pay for it by closing unspecified tax loopholes, but this is a fraud. 
For loophole closing of this magnitude, the Republicans would have to 
get rid of all the tax breaks the middle class depends on, loopholes 
like the mortgage interest deduction, the tax exclusion for employer-
sponsored health insurance, and charitable donations. This won't 
happen, which is why the Republicans won't name any of their loophole 
closings.
  The Republican budget then proposes $5.3 trillion in non-defense 
discretionary spending cuts, beyond what was agreed to in last year's 
debt ceiling, $1.2 trillion beyond. It would slash $860 billion from 
Medicare and all to pay for tax cuts because it wouldn't balance the 
budget until 2040, because these cuts are to pay for the tax cuts for 
the wealthy.
  For shame.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican budget for 
FY13 as offered by Mr. Ryan.
  Last year, the Republicans moved a slash-and-burn budget proposal 
that would have eliminated Medicare and substituted for it a private 
voucher system, and would have implemented devastating cuts to 
Medicaid, education programs, medical research, and transportation, 
among other things You name it, they wanted to devastate it.
  Now we turn to this year's Republican budget proposal and, as one 
famous New Yorker would say: It's deja vu all over again.
  First, the Republican budget calls for a staggering $10 trillion in 
tax cuts for the wealthy and large corporations over ten years. They 
claim to pay for this giveaway by closing unspecified tax loopholes. 
But this is a fraud. For loophole closing of this magnitude, the 
Republicans would have to get rid of all the tax breaks the middle 
class depends on--``loopholes'' like the mortgage interest deduction, 
tax exclusions for employer-sponsored health insurance, and charitable 
donations. This won't happen--which is why the Republicans won't name 
any of their ``loophole-closings.''
  So this would make the budget deficit $10 trillion larger--which is 
why they do not anticipate balancing the budget until 2040. But they 
make devastating spending cuts--not to balance the budget, but to pay 
for their tax cuts for the wealthy. What priorities!
  The Republican budget seeks even deeper spending cuts than last 
year's proposal. It proposes $5.3 trillion in non-defense discretionary 
spending cuts--$1.2 trillion (22 percent) beyond the cuts agreed to in 
last year's Debt Ceiling deal. More than 60 percent of these cuts would 
come on the backs of middle- and low-income families.
  For example, the Republican budget would slash $860 billion (34 
percent) from the Medicaid program while turning it into an 
unguaranteed block grant. These severe cuts would shift the cost burden 
to the states, who would have to decide between investing even more of 
their own money, cutting benefits, shifting the cost onto 
beneficiaries, doctors, and hospitals, throwing people out of the 
program, or all of these. The Urban Institute estimated that the 
Republican plan would result in between 14 and 27 million people being 
dropped from Medicaid by 2021.
  Additionally, the Ryan budget would reduce food stamps by $134 
billion, knocking 8 to 10 million people from the program and leaving 
them to go hungry. WIC, which provides nutritional assistance to women 
and children, would also be cut, taking food out of the mouths of 
700,000 pregnant women, new moms and their kids. Over the next decade, 
nearly two million women and children would be left without access to 
critical food. What kind of cruel and heartless country do the 
Republicans want us to live in?
  Seniors on Medicare don't fare much better. First, Republicans would 
raise the eligibility age to 67, leaving seniors aged 65 and 66 out in 
the cold. They would force seniors to go it alone in negotiating with 
private insurance companies for coverage. Seniors would receive 
vouchers to offset the cost of private insurance--vouchers whose value 
would increase much more slowly than the cost of buying medical 
insurance. CB0 estimates that within ten years seniors would have to 
pay $6,000 more out of pocket for medical care annually. All this, 
mind you, while promising to do away with all of the provisions in the 
Affordable Care Act, like medical ratio requirements, which actually 
help to stem the cost of private insurance.

  Don't look to the Republican plan for investments in infrastructure, 
medical research, or education--primary or collegiate, for students or 
for teachers--because they are not there.
  And the Republican budget would greatly increase unemployment. 
According to the Economic Policy Institute, Republican spending cuts 
would result in the loss of 1.3 million jobs next year and an 
additional 2.8 million jobs the year after that. That's 4.1 million 
jobs lost in just two years, thereby eviscerating all the jobs added to 
the economy in the last 23 months and then some.
  Mr. Chair, the sheer gravity of the cuts proposed by the Republican 
budget is staggering and disastrous. While no budget is perfect,

[[Page H1689]]

any of the Democratic proposals under consideration today is head and 
shoulders better for America, and for Americans, than the Ryan Budget 
Against America: Part Two.
  While we may disagree on how to continue to support and grow our 
economy, let's stop using the working poor, the middle-class, women, 
kids, and seniors as pawns. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Ryan 
budget.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield myself the remaining 
time.
  The debate we've had this afternoon is not whether we should reduce 
the deficit, whether we should reduce the debt, but how we do it, the 
choices that we make in reaching that goal.
  We support what has been described as a balanced approach, the same 
approach taken by every bipartisan group that has looked at this 
challenge. That approach says, yes, we need to make cuts. But we should 
also cut special interest tax loopholes for the purpose of reducing the 
deficit. We should also ask folks at the very high end of the income 
ladder to go back to the same tax rates they were paying during the 
Clinton administration.
  Our colleagues reject that balanced approach. I have not heard one of 
our Republican colleagues say that they're prepared to take one penny 
from closing a tax loophole, one penny from getting rid of an oil 
subsidy for the purpose of deficit reduction. When you do that, when 
you say we're not going to ask the wealthiest to share a greater 
responsibility, you have to take your budget cuts out on everyone and 
everything else. That's why they slashed the transportation funding 
next year by 46 percent, kicking the economy when it's down. That's why 
they end the Medicare guarantee for seniors. That's why they reopen the 
prescription-drug doughnut hole. That's why their budget cuts Medicaid 
by a third, by the year 2022, in the name of repairing the social 
safety net. That's not repairing the social safety net. That's blowing 
a hole in protections for the most vulnerable Americans.
  That is not a choice the American people want to make. The American 
people would choose a balanced approach. They would not choose another 
round of tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans at the expense of 
seniors, at the expense of middle-income Americans, at the expense of 
important investments. They would reject that approach.
  I urge my colleagues to reject that approach and adopt the balanced 
Democratic alternative.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  When we confronted the 2008 economic crisis, which launched us into 
the worst recession since the Great Depression, which threw millions of 
people out of work, which lost trillions of dollars in wealth in 
retirement savings for millions of Americans, that crisis caught us by 
surprise. We didn't see it coming. Out of that came very ugly 
legislation that lots of us supported.
  Mr. Chair, this one is the most predictable economic crises we've 
ever had, and we have a Senate that has chosen for 3 years in a row to 
just do nothing. We have a President who, for the fourth budget in a 
row, proposes to do nothing to fix it. In fact, he makes it worse.
  Here is what we're trying to do. We're trying to go to the country 
and offer them a solution. We don't think the country is headed in the 
right direction right now because a debt crisis is coming. So we feel 
morally bound and actually legally bound because the Budget Act 
requires that we pass a budget to offer a solution and an alternative: 
fundamental tax reform to get job creators creating jobs; take away the 
special interest loopholes and tax shelters and treat everybody fairly; 
stop raising the tax rate on successful small businesses to 45 percent, 
like is going to happen in January, and instead keep their tax rates 
low so they can create jobs; control spending; reform our welfare 
system.
  We believe the American idea is essentially an opportunity to decide 
if the safety net--and we believe in a safety net that is there to help 
people who cannot help themselves, and to be there to help people who 
are down on their luck get back on their feet. But we do not want to 
convert this safety net into a hammock that lulls able-bodied people 
into lives of dependency and complacency which drains them of their 
will and their intentions to make the most of their lives.

                              {time}  1830

  We believe in a system of upward mobility and opportunity. We believe 
when we see Medicare and Medicaid going bankrupt that we should fix 
that. Let's let the States innovate, create, and have good solutions 
that meet the needs of their populations by giving them more control 
over Medicaid. They run it already right now. They just have all these 
government rules and regulations from Washington.
  Stop the rationing board from denying care to current seniors. Get 
rid of that, and replace it with a guarantee that current seniors get 
the promise made to them and future seniors actually have a program 
that's solvent. So instead of having 15 bureaucratic elites price-
control their program, allow 50 million seniors in the future to choose 
which one they want the best. One-quarter of seniors already today pick 
among the private plans that meet their needs. We want to keep giving 
them the choices.
  At the end of the day, it's about a choice of two futures: Do we want 
this path of debt, doubt, and decline where we have a debt crisis, 
where the people that get hurt first and the worst are those who need 
government the most--the poor, the people in the safety net, and the 
elderly who depend on Medicare--or are we going to get this debt under 
control and pay it off and give our children a better future?
  At the end of the day, it's a philosophy. What the other side is 
doing and what the President is proposing is that elites in the 
bureaucracy who are unelected, they make the decisions. In my judgment, 
Mr. Chairman, that is paternalistic, it's arrogant, and it's 
condescending.
  So the question really is: Who do you want to be in charge of your 
life, you or these cronies in government?
  Do we want to keep taking money from job creators and from families 
and sending it to Washington so they can distribute it to their 
cronies, so they can distribute it to whoever has the clout, and so 
they can make all these decisions in our lives on health care, 
financial services, education, the environment, and energy? If we keep 
surrendering our liberties and our freedom and our dollars, we won't 
have the right to pursue happiness as we see happiness in our own 
lives.
  The idea of this country is that our rights come from nature and God 
to us automatically before government. Our rights don't come from 
government. But the idea that's being perpetrated, the path the 
President is putting us on, is one where he and his elites in 
Washington know better. They define our rights for us. They regulate, 
ration, and redistribute them for us. Whatever you call that, Mr. 
Chairman, that is not the American idea.
  We have a profound responsibility to look our children in the eye, 
like our parents did to us, and fix this country's problems so they can 
have a more prosperous future. We know, without a shadow of a doubt--
it's irrefutable--the next generation is going to be worse off. We know 
that if we allow this debt crisis to continue, if we allow it to kick 
in--and the experts tell us it could be as little as 2 years away--
everybody is going to get hurt and the economy is going to go down.
  We have a moral obligation to do something about that. What we're 
saying is do it now, do it on our own terms, do it in a way where 
people can see the reforms that are necessary so they are gradual, and 
do it in a way so that we can keep the promises the government has made 
to people who have already retired who count on government the most.
  At the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, this is about choices. And we 
are going to give the country a choice of two futures so they can 
decide whether or not we want to maintain the American idea in this 
country.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bishop of Utah). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Brady) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) each will 
control

[[Page H1690]]

30 minutes on the subject of economic goals and policies.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  At the end of the day, the Republican budget developed by our Budget 
chairman, Paul Ryan, is a jobs bill. We know America faces an 
unemployment crisis today greater than at any time during the 
Depression. We know roughly 23 million Americans can't even find a 
full-time job. We know that while government spending has rebounded and 
how other factors have rebounded in this economy, what we know is that 
jobs haven't rebounded. In fact, there are fewer jobs in America today 
than when this President took his oath of office.
  So we're going to talk about this budget and its impact on America's 
economy. The truth of the matter is, if you like the way our economy is 
going, if you think this is the best we can do, stick with the 
President's budget and stick with the Democrats' budget. It stays the 
course. But if you think we can do better for American hardworking 
taxpayers and jobseekers, there is a choice of two futures.

  Mr. Chairman, it's a privilege to serve as the vice chairman of the 
Joint Economic Committee, the lead Republican for the House and Senate. 
I'd like to acknowledge the contributions that my fellow House 
Republicans, such as Dr. Burgess, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Amash, 
and Mr. Mulvaney make as members of the Joint Economic Committee.
  We are here as a matter of law. Established in 1946 as the 
congressional counterpart to the President's Council of Economic 
Advisers, the Joint Economic Committee has provided timely insight on 
economic issues to the Congress for more than half a century. We helped 
lay the intellectual groundwork for the Kennedy tax cut in 1964, and 
its 1980 report plugging in the supply side established the credibility 
of supply-side economics and paved the way for the Reagan tax cuts in 
1981. The Joint Economic Committee examines economic developments and 
evaluates economic ramifications of policies being considered by the 
Congress, such as this budget, and work by the JEC Republicans received 
national attention during the debate over President Obama's plan to 
nationalize health care in the 111th Congress.
  Since the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 
1978, the Joint Economic Committee has performed an important function 
in this, the annual budget process. Advising Members of Congress on the 
potential economic impact of the policies set forth in the President's 
budget and the budget resolution we consider today, it's for this 
purpose we come to the House floor this evening.
  Well, let's begin our assessment of the House budget by discussing 
some very key economic principles.
  Real growth in the economy, which is the foundation for creating jobs 
along Main Street for hardworking Americans, comes from the private 
sector and not from government. The Joint Economic Committee examined 
for the last 40 years the relationship between changes in government 
spending and jobs along Main Street and private payroll employment. And 
what's clear is that there is not a tight relationship; there's an 
inverse relationship.
  As Federal Government spending grows, jobs along Main Street shrink. 
Likewise, when the Federal Government takes a smaller share of 
resources from Main Street, more hardworking taxpayers find jobs as 
payroll employment increases. And this chart shows--the blue being 
Federal Government spending and the red being jobs along Main Street--
every time Washington grows, Main Street shrinks.
  My colleagues across the aisle argue that Federal spending should 
increase when private job growth plummets, but even during periods of 
sustained increases in Federal spending and investments, jobs along 
Main Street have remained low or negative. And put simply, Federal 
spending doesn't create jobs. Only when Federal spending subsides do 
jobs grow.
  Next, there's a very close economic relationship, though, between 
what we call private nonresidential fixed investment growth. What that 
means is, when businesses invest in building and software equipment 
technology, jobs along Main Street grow. This chart shows, again, since 
1971, in blue the private investment, businesses software, equipment, 
and building; in red, job growth along Main Street. And it shows almost 
a nearly identical correlation.
  So, in the end, growing jobs in America depends upon more investment 
in America, not Federal Government spending, more investment that 
creates those jobs. In spite of that evidence, 40 years of proven 
evidence, the White House, President Obama, and Congressional Democrats 
have only pushed us deeper and deeper into debt.

                              {time}  1840

  We have to remind ourselves that both the debt we hold to the public 
and our gross Federal debt are reaching new post-war levels. They've 
never been this high since World War II.
  Publicly held Federal debt roughly doubled to nearly 70 percent of 
the size of our economy in just the 4 years leading up to 2011. The 
same can be said of the gross Federal debt, again, reaching 100 percent 
of our economy--dangerous levels: dangerous levels to the economy, 
dangerous levels to our credit rating, dangerous levels to our 
investment. According to the President's latest budget estimates, this 
gross debt isn't expected to go under 100 percent for years and years. 
In fact, he proposes a budget that never balances. The President 
proposes a budget that takes us deeper and deeper and deeper into debt 
and hangs an anchor around America's economy.
  There is a better solution, and the model is right in front of us. 
All you have to do is compare President Obama's spending-driven 
approach to the economy and look at the last serious recession, that 
which President Reagan had to tackle. Despite bailouts and Cash for 
Clunkers and auto bailouts and stimulus and deficit-spending in the 
trillions of dollars, you can tell this recovery continues to struggle. 
A good comparison is the Reagan recovery because that recovery was 
fueled by Main Street, by private investment and free enterprise, just 
the opposite of President Obama and congressional Democrats.
  The White House's current focus on massive increases in Federal 
spending, expanding government beyond imaginable levels to encourage 
growth has been a failure. Meanwhile, the smaller government, free-
market approach utilized by the Reagan administration proved to be much 
more successful.
  Looking at the comparisons between the two, at this same point in the 
recession, President Reagan's increase in jobs was up almost 10 
percent; President Obama's is less than a third of that. The 
unemployment rate had dropped 3.5 percent at this point in the recovery 
under President Reagan. It's less than half of that under President 
Obama.
  In average growth, how did the economy grow under the free-market, 
less-spending approach of President Reagan? It grew by 6 percent. 
President Obama's record is about a third of that.
  These policies by this President and this Democrat Congress of the 
past 2 years, prior to Republican control, has failed. The point of the 
matter is government needs to get out of the way. We need to cut 
government spending. We need to hold the line and reform our terrible 
tax system. We need to free our small businesses from the oppressive 
level of regulation coming out of Washington.
  Mr. Chairman, in a moment I'm going to talk about the tax reality. 
We're going to talk about how the current budget that we've living with 
today inflates our prices and damages real business. But at this time, 
I have a number of key speakers from the Joint Economic Committee in 
our conference that I want to get to.
  So at this point I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I am afraid that our colleagues have made a slight mistake in naming 
their plan. This budget should be called the ``Road to Austerity'' 
because it is a plan that is most noteworthy for the rather harsh 
austerity it demands of the many and the lavish benefits it extends to 
the few.
  It clearly envisions a rising tide of selective tax cuts that would 
lift all

[[Page H1691]]

yachts, but leave most dinghies. Our Republican friends like to talk 
about making the hard choices. What they propose here would indeed make 
things much harder for millions of Americans, but it will also make 
things much easier for a fortunate few--millionaires and billionaires. 
That's their plan.
  But before we get to the specifics of the plan tonight, it's 
important to examine where we are before we decide where we want to go.
  Because of President Obama's economic policies, there are continuing 
signs of economic progress and recovery. For example, in the fourth 
quarter of 2011 and through the beginning of this year, there is fresh 
new data showing that the recovery is gaining strength. The economy has 
added more than 200,000 jobs for 3 straight months. As you can see from 
this chart, private sector employment has increased for 24 consecutive 
months; And during these past 24 months, the economy has added almost 4 
million private sector jobs.
  On this chart, the red bars are the Bush administration. It shows 
that in the closing days, the closing months, this country was losing 
over 700,000 jobs per month. The blue bars are the Obama 
administration. And you can see the steady, slow gains and the 24 
months of gains of jobs in the private sector.
  This chart is similar to one that was presented by Chairman Bernanke 
in his testimony before the Financial Services Committee in the 
Humphrey-Hawkins hearings. This is from his report. It shows the low, 
deep area we were in when President Obama took office, losing so many 
jobs, and because of his policies, the steady gain and the continuing 
gain we hope to see.
  Actions taken by the President and Congress, including passage of the 
Recovery Act and recent legislation to continue Federal Unemployment 
Insurance and extend the payroll tax cut through 2012, have played an 
important role in driving this economic recovery and private job gain.
  Few would disagree, however, that to reach this point has taken 
longer than we would have liked. It has required fiscal interventions 
to sustain and strengthen the economy and to support those harmed by 
the Great Recession. And it has required a variety of creative and 
effective approaches from the Federal Reserve to ease monetary policy 
and boost growth.
  I would also like to show the chart on unemployment. It shows that 
the unemployment rate has fallen significantly, from 9.1 percent last 
August to 8.3 percent in February, which is well below the peak of 10 
percent reached in October 2009. So, again, these are positive signs 
under the Obama administration.
  Still, there are far too many Americans hurting. The reality is that 
we have a long way to go to regain the ground that we lost during the 
Great Recession: 12.8 million Americans remain unemployed, and more 
than four out of 10 unemployed have been jobless for more than 6 
months. The share of those unemployed and out of work for more than 6 
months has been greater than 40 percent since December of 2009, a 
period of time that has been unprecedented.
  Clearly, cutting further into the unemployment rate and bringing down 
the rate of long-term unemployed must be continuing priorities of this 
Congress. I can say that Democrats will not be satisfied until every 
American who wants a job can get a job. So while we have made some 
economic progress, there are many challenges ahead.
  While GDP has grown for 10 straight quarters, GDP growth in the first 
quarter of 2012 is projected to slow to an annual rate of just 1.9 
percent. This is far from robust economic growth. The European 
community's economic weakness may present new headwinds in the months 
ahead. And the recent spike in U.S. oil and gas prices leaves consumers 
with fewer dollars in their wallets for other purchases, putting new 
pressure on the recovery.
  Clearly, we need Congress to stay vigilant on the fiscal side. Part 
of this fiscal vigilance is rejecting austerity plans and short-sighted 
budget cuts that will jeopardize the recovery while harming the most 
vulnerable among us, including low-income Americans and senior 
citizens.

                              {time}  1850

  The reality is that the majority's Ryan budget harms those who need 
help and doles out tax breaks and benefits to those who don't. Let me 
be as clear as I possibly can. The Ryan budget, if it were passed by 
this House, would risk our recovery.
  The majority's budget resolution for 2013, the Ryan budget, abandons 
the economic recovery, contains policies that ship American jobs 
overseas, and harms our Nation's economic competitiveness. And by 
slashing programs that low-income and elderly Americans count on, while 
cutting taxes for corporations and the wealthiest individuals, the Ryan 
budget provides the latest, clearest example of Republican economic 
priorities.
  Just like last year, the Ryan budget ends the Medicare guarantee, 
shifts the burden of rising health care costs onto seniors, and shreds 
our Nation's social safety net. These are bad choices for America.
  The Ryan budget extends the Bush tax cuts and lowers the current top 
tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, giving millionaires and 
billionaires a 10 percentage-point tax cut.
  Instead of asking the wealthiest Americans to do what they can to 
help restore fiscal responsibility and preserve vital services, 
Republicans would choose to slash support for tuition assistance and 
other services in order to pay for tax cuts that provide a huge benefit 
to millionaires and hurt America's working middle class.
  The Ryan budget includes the latest attempt to end Medicare as we 
know it. Instead of strengthening Medicare, Ryan's plan would replace 
Medicare's guaranteed benefits with a voucher for Medicare or private 
insurance, creating higher costs for seniors and unraveling the 
traditional Medicare program.
  Initial analysis shows that the plan would cut future spending by 
$5,900 per senior, shifting costs to seniors and diminishing their 
access to quality care. Republicans continue to propose ideas to end 
Medicare, even though 70 percent of Americans support keeping the 
program as it is.
  The Ryan budget would strip away health care benefits for millions of 
American families. By repealing the Affordable Care Act, Chairman 
Ryan's plan would eliminate benefits that are providing stable and 
secure care for millions of Americans and go back to the days when 
insurance companies would deny coverage or jack-up prices, or just 
refuse coverage because of preexisting conditions whenever, and 
however, they pleased.
  The Republican budget would get rid of benefits Americans are already 
receiving, such as the following:
  Free preventive health services for 32 million seniors; $3.2 billion 
in prescription drug savings for 5.1 million seniors by reopening the 
doughnut hole; reducing drug coverage; preventive services like 
mammograms, cervical cancer screening, and contraception for over 20 
million women; coverage for 2.5 million young Americans who have 
already gained coverage on their parents' insurance plans; protections 
from insurance companies canceling coverage when people get sick; and 
denying coverage to children with preexisting conditions.
  And the Ryan budget also eliminates benefits slated to help Americans 
in the coming 2 years, such as access to stable and secure care for 32 
million Americans; protections against being discriminated against due 
to gender or preexisting conditions; or facing limits on coverage for 
over 105 million Americans.
  Chairman Ryan's budget does something else. It breaks the agreement 
made last year to reduce the deficit, backing out of the bipartisan 
deal Republicans and Democrats made on government spending. Many will 
recall last year, in order to avert an unprecedented national default, 
Democrats and Republicans passed the Budget Control Act.
  The Ryan budget breaks that agreement, that bipartisan agreement, by 
slashing government services by $19 billion more than was agreed to in 
the Budget Control Act. Republicans would break their word on spending 
and reduce services and investments, all while slashing tax rates for 
millionaires and billionaires.
  The Ryan budget block-grants Medicaid, slashing $810 billion from the 
program, jeopardizing nursing home care for seniors, and shifting costs 
to States.
  Chairman Ryan's plan reaffirms the Republican call to end Medicaid as 
a

[[Page H1692]]

safety net, jeopardizing vital services that seniors depend on, like 
nursing home care and home health care aides, and shifts the burden of 
rising health care costs to cash-strapped States.
  According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, these 
dramatic reductions in spending ``might involve reduced eligibility 
coverage of fewer services, lower payments to providers, or increased 
cost-sharing by beneficiaries, all of which would reduce access to 
care.''
  The Ryan budget increases the burden on low-income Americans. The 
Republican budget block-grants and slashes funding for the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program by almost $123 billion over 10 years, 
jeopardizing economic security for millions of Americans.
  The Ryan budget would also just pull the plug on America's clean-
energy industries. Instead of moving toward a clean economy and 
reducing dependence on fossil fuels, Chairman Ryan's plan pulls the 
plug on support for clean-energy technology and simply calls for 
opening more land to drilling, even though American oil production is 
at its highest level since 2003, and the oil and gas industry is using 
less than one-third of the 75 million acres of land offered for 
development. And it continues the subsidies to the oil industry.
  This plan would pull Americans out of the race to create well-paying 
new jobs and dominate the growing global market for clean-energy 
technology.
  The alternative, of course, is the Democratic plan, which takes a 
totally different approach, a balanced approach of shared sacrifice 
that meets the Nation's need to invest in the future, keeps our country 
strong, and preserves Medicare and our social safety net, while 
continuing tax relief for working families.
  For me, the choice is easy, not hard. I urge you to join me in 
supporting the Democratic plan, supporting Medicare, supporting working 
families, supporting the middle class, and supporting the firm belief 
that the American Dream is alive and well.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), one of the key new members of 
the Joint Economic Committee who understands you can't tax your way 
back to a strong economy or to a balanced budget.
  Mr. DUFFY. To be clear, we owe over $15 trillion in national debt. 
This year we're going to borrow $1.3 trillion and a couple of years 
before that. Every year we've borrowed $1 trillion.
  And I hear my friends across the aisle talk about a balanced 
approach. I believe the American people want a balanced budget. I think 
we need to be clear on what the Democrat proposals are. If you look at 
what my friends across the aisle have proposed in regard to a budget, 
it never balances. There are deficits and debt as far as the eye can 
see.
  The President's budget, there are debts and deficits as far as the 
eye can see. It never balances.
  Then we look at the Democrat-controlled Senate. For 3 years they 
haven't passed a budget.
  And so I think the American people want honesty. They want to make 
sure that the Democrats are honest with regard to how much debt we're 
going to pass off to our next generation.

                              {time}  1700

  They want us to be honest with regard to how much debt the Democrats 
want the Chinese to buy from America. I think they want us to be honest 
in regard to tax rates that, as of April 1, America is going to have 
the highest tax rate in the industrialized world. My Democrat friends 
across the aisle, they want to raise taxes even further. So when a 
business is looking at where it's going to invest, is it going to be in 
America or somewhere else? Or if you're looking at investing in America 
or somewhere else, they look at tax rates.
  When we talk about shipping jobs overseas, it's these tax policies 
from my friends across the aisle that ship my jobs in Wisconsin 
overseas.
  They talk about fairness and wanting to balance the budget on a fair 
playing field. Let's take a look at this chart. Today, the two top tax 
rates are 33 and 35 percent. If you want to get the deficit down to 3 
percent of the economy, you have to raise those top tax rates to 72 and 
77 percent. If you want to get it down to 2 percent of debt to the size 
of our economy, you have to raise the top tax rate to 86 and 91 
percent.
  The bottom line is, if you wanted to pay off the debt with the 
current spending agenda of the Democrats, you could never do it by 
taxing. You could take all of the wealth, all of the income of those 
top tax earners, and you would never balance the budget.
  Americans want you to be honest in regard to the fallacy that you can 
tax your way out of these debts and deficits.
  I think America wants you to be honest in regard to your plan for 
Medicare, the plan that says you want to take a half a trillion dollars 
out of Medicare and use it for some other group. Taking seniors' money 
that they have invested in that plan for a lifetime, take a half a 
trillion out and use it for another group of people; that's 
unconscionable.
  But moreover, you want to set up a board of 15 unelected bureaucrats 
who are going to ration our seniors' care, a board that's going to 
systematically reduce reimbursements to doctors, hospitals, and 
clinics, and, in essence, will impact the access and quality of care, 
not of some future generations of seniors, but of today's seniors.
  So when we talk about taking care of our seniors, let's have a plan 
that truly takes care of our seniors, which is the House plan.
  I hear about a guaranteed benefit that the Democrats talk about for 
our seniors. There is no guaranteed benefit for our seniors. They're 
rationing it down to nothing.
  I think it's important we talk about a bold plan, bold leadership 
that's going to resolve the problems that we face in this country; a 
plan that is going to put us on a path of sustainability, that will 
balance our budget, that will pay off our debt; a plan that implements 
pro-growth policies so our economy can expand.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Womack). The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. DUFFY. A plan that will put us on a pro-growth path, but also a 
plan that will preserve and protect Medicare and save it for future 
generations.
  I would ask my friends across the aisle to stop pandering but to join 
us in bold leadership, and I would submit that their children and 
grandchildren, some not yet born, would applaud their bold leadership 
to save our country from this massive debt that will be their future if 
we don't act.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from 
Pennsylvania, a member of the Budget Committee, Allyson Schwartz.

  Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to add a few words. Some of 
these kinds of issues have been talked about all day or all afternoon, 
but I felt compelled to rise again to talk about what really is at 
stake here, and what is truly a sharp contrast between the Republican 
budget and the Democratic budget alternative.
  Our budgets as a Federal budget should reflect our priorities and 
values as a Nation. Our Democratic budget moves America forward by 
building for the future, by investing in innovation, in education, in 
energy with confidence and expectation about the opportunities that are 
available to us in this country.
  But it also ensures that we keep our promises to America's seniors by 
protecting and strengthening Medicare.
  The Republican plan for America moves our Nation backward and harms 
our economic competitiveness now and into the future by choosing 
sustained tax cuts for millionaires over small businesses and jobs for 
the middle class, by choosing tax breaks for our biggest companies 
rather than investments in our future economic growth.
  Their vision is one in which college becomes more expensive for 
millions of Americans, where investments in innovation and research are 
slashed and we stop being the leaders in the world on bioscience and 
energy. It abandons seniors in their most vulnerable years.
  Rather than balancing the budget by shifting costs to Medicare 
beneficiaries, the Democratic budget reduces the rate of growth in 
health care spending through initiatives that will increase our value 
and efficiency in our health care system. It will contain costs for 
Medicare and for all Americans.

[[Page H1693]]

  Millions of seniors rely on Medicare every day for their life-saving 
medications, treatments, and doctor visits. We cannot abandon our 
obligation to our seniors, and the Democratic budget does not.
  The Democratic budget takes a balanced approach to meeting our 
Nation's fiscal challenges. It makes targeted investments needed to 
spur economic growth, and, yes, it preserves the Medicare guarantee and 
protects tax relief for middle class families--a high priority for us, 
one that is much less, if a priority at all, for the Republican budget.
  Our budget tackles the Federal deficit by reducing the Federal 
deficit as a share of GDP by more than 8 percent so that it is 2.7 
percent of GDP within 10 years. We make some hard choices about how we 
cut spending, but our budget is a commitment to cut spending by over $2 
trillion.
  So it reduces the deficit responsibly and fairly. It protects our 
seniors and our middle class, and it does not ask either our seniors or 
the middle class to shoulder our fiscal challenges alone.
  We have a choice to make, and we will be making it this evening and 
tomorrow as we decide which budget is better for the America that we 
dream about, that we expect, and that we work for.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up for a responsible budget that, yes, 
makes spending cuts and also makes smart investments; that grows our 
economy, but also meets our obligations; that respects our values and 
who we are as Americans. It creates opportunities, and it is fair to 
America.
  I suggest that we vote ``yes'' for the Democratic budget that 
protects America and our values and grows our economy.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentlelady from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers), who serves on an 
important Small Business Committee and who is a nurse and understands 
our health care challenges in America.
  Mrs. ELLMERS. I thank the chairman for allowing me to be here tonight 
to help in this effort.
  Mr. Chairman, the President's economic agenda has failed the American 
people. The President's economic agenda has failed our job creators, 
our seniors, and future generations.
  The President's policies have failed and are making the economy 
worse. The President's budget calls for more failed attempts to tax, 
spend, borrow, and bail out our way to job creation.
  I'd like to read a quote from a third party that addresses this 
issue. Bernie Marcus, former chairman and CEO of Home Depot:

       If we don't lower spending, and if we don't deal with 
     paying down the debt, we are going to have to raise taxes. 
     Even brain-dead economists understand that when you raise 
     taxes, you cost jobs.

                              {time}  1910

  Because the President cannot stand on his record, he has regrettably 
turned to the politics of envy and division. There is nothing fair 
about making our children and our grandchildren pay the bills for what 
the President's own fiscal commission cochairs called ``the most 
predictable economic crisis in our history.''
  I have a couple of more quotes, and these aren't from conservative 
publications, mind you.
  USA Today: ``Obama's budget plan leaves debt bomb ticking.''
  The Boston Herald:

       President Barack Obama has apparently decided that he is 
     not going to be part of the solution to the Nation's enormous 
     deficit, which would make him, yes, part of the problem.

  Mr. Chairman, our friends across the aisle continuously discuss the 
issue of Medicare, which we know is one of the growing problems when 
we're dealing with the debt. Our Democrat friends continue to say that 
Republicans are cutting Medicare and are changing it as we know it. 
Yet, in ObamaCare, they cut a half a trillion dollars out of Medicare.
  I have a quote from the Congressional Budget Office as well, and my 
friend across the aisle had one a few moments ago. This quote is from 
12/19/09, and reads that the government takeover of health care ``could 
reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care.''
  I also have a quote from the Government Accountability Office: 
``Medicare remains on a path that is fiscally unsustainable over the 
long term.''
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
  Mrs. ELLMERS. Mr. Chairman, House Republicans are going to pass a 
jobs bill. We are going to pass a budget. This budget includes 
fundamental pro-growth tax reform and eliminating corporate loopholes 
and subsidies in order to help create jobs. It addresses the real 
drivers of our debt, saving our social safety net programs from going 
bankrupt, and it calls for the repeal of the government takeover of 
health care and other job-destroying spending.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for the House 
budget bill.
  Mrs. MALONEY. I inquire of the Chair as to how much time remains.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York has 10\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. MALONEY. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, 
Congressman Cooper.
  Mr. COOPER. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Unfortunately, this is one of the most partisan weeks in Washington 
as each side presents its own budget. I urge Members to weigh these 
budgets very carefully. Unfortunately, we have very little time to do 
so. The entire debate for the Republican and Democrat budgets is some 4 
hours. There will be many alternative budgets presented.
  The one that I am most interested in, the Simpson-Bowles-endorsed 
budget, will come up later tonight, which is a big schedule change 
since it hadn't been expected until tomorrow. We will have a total of 
10 minutes to explain the only bipartisan budget that will be offered. 
There are six or seven budgets being offered, but there is only one 
that is bipartisan. There are many excellent features in the Democratic 
budget and in the Republican budget, but there is only one that has the 
support of folks on both sides of the aisle.
  I hope that Members choose carefully even in this, the most partisan 
of weeks, because it's almost a David versus Goliath situation when you 
have 10 minutes versus 4 hours. I hope that Members will look at the 
details of these budgets and will realize that hidden in the details 
are lots of massive changes to lots of massive programs. Yet, if we 
don't let ideology control, if we look at the basics and realize that 
America does have a deficit and debt problem, as the White House 
acknowledges and as our Republican friends acknowledge, if we respect 
each other and understand that we have to have real revenues and 
entitlement reform, there is still really only one plan that offers 
both. I did not originate it, but I'm thankful that Simpson and Bowles, 
with their report of a year and a half ago, introduced such a plan. 
Tonight, later in the debate, in an hour or two, Members will have the 
first opportunity in either the House or the Senate to consider that.
  So these are very important issues that we're facing. I wish it were 
not a David and Goliath sort of situation. It's almost like David 
versus two Goliaths, because the institutional infrastructure in 
Washington supporting either the Republican budget or the Democratic 
budget is massive.
  I think that once you look at the fundamentals, you see that there 
has got to be a way in which Americans can work together. The folks I 
hear from back home--and I assume it's true in every State--want us to 
stop the partisan bickering and want to us work together. I am thankful 
that our Republican friends allowed the Simpson-Bowles bipartisan 
budget to be considered, but for Members to only have 10 minutes of 
debate to consider it is going to be very difficult.

  So I'm hopeful that Members, as they're sitting in their offices 
tonight, as they're interrupting their dinners, as they're 
contemplating these issues, will focus not only on the important Joint 
Economic Committee issues that have been raised by both sides this 
evening but that they will also focus on the details of the budgets 
they're about to vote on.
  We had anticipated that the vote on the Simpson-Bowles alternative 
would be tomorrow morning, which is what we had been told, but an hour 
or so ago, they suddenly had a change of plans. We feel that we're 
gaining momentum, and I think that's evidenced

[[Page H1694]]

by the fact that most folks of the interest groups in Washington are 
gearing up to either support us or to oppose us, so I think that 
Members should weigh their decisions tonight very carefully.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
a key member of the Joint Economic Committee and of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, one of the most knowledgeable on health care, a 
physician who has delivered more than 3,000 babies, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  A lot of people have asked, if you're going to do a Republican 
budget, why do you even involve yourself in the President's new health 
care law? They've asked, Why is it necessary for the Republican budget 
to repeal the President's health care law and advance bipartisan 
solutions that take power away from the government and give it back to 
the people?
  The Joint Economic Committee prepared a chart dealing with the 
Affordable Care Act some 2 years ago, and it's an involved chart. You 
look at it and--it needs to be right side up, of course. But do you 
know what? It doesn't really matter. It makes just as much sense upside 
down. The only reason I wanted to turn it over is because, when you 
look at this thing, instead of the patient being at the center of all 
of this, the patient is way down here at the bottom. This chart was 
prepared, again, 2 years ago by the committee staff of the Joint 
Economic Committee, and this is precisely the reason why the Affordable 
Care Act has to be pulled up by the roots in order for us to get any 
semblance of economic sanity in this country.
  Ignore the fact for a moment that this thing busts the bank. Ignore 
the fact that this is a drain on the Federal Treasury unlike anything 
we've ever seen before. The bottom line is that this just does not 
work.
  Now, I spent yesterday at the Supreme Court, and I got to hear the 
oral arguments before the Supreme Court. It was astonishing to hear the 
arguments put forward as to why we had to take over one-sixth of the 
economy and why we had to expand government power in a way that's 
really going to fundamentally redefine the relationship of the 
government with the American people.
  The reason was, well, the uninsured cost us so much money. I've got 
to tell you something--that's nonsense. The uninsured, yes, may cost a 
little bit at the margin of the total health care system, but what's 
the real cost driver of health care in this country? What's the real 
reason that health insurance is going inexorably up and up and up? It 
is because the Federal Government does not pay its freight for 
Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP, and it is the cross-subsidization from 
the private sector to fill that hole by the public sector that causes 
the cost of insurance to go up so much.
  I was astounded that this argument was not made before the Supreme 
Court. I was concerned that they might be arguing from false premises. 
Regardless, what is the solution then to fixing this problem of the 
health care costs going up? We're going to put a subsidy out there for 
the middle class in the exchanges. Well, that will help.
  Then the worst part is we're going to double Medicaid. Medicaid is 
the problem. Medicaid is the reason this cost is going up inexorably 
year over year over year. What was the President's solution? What was 
Speaker Pelosi's solution? Let's double Medicaid in this country, and 
see if that won't fix the problem. Will it fix the problem? I submit it 
will not.
  You ask yourself, How could the law be so convoluted as shown on this 
graph? The reason is, if you look at the language that wrote that 
graph, this is not two copies of the law; this is one copy of the law 
in two volumes. How was it so badly done? You need do nothing more than 
to look at the title page of H.R. 3590 from December 24, 2009, in the 
Senate of the United States.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

                              {time}  1920

  Mr. BURGESS. Christmas Eve, December 24, 2009, Resolved, that the 
bill from the House of Representatives H.R. 3590 entitled, An act to 
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time home 
buyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain 
other Federal employees, and for other purposes.
  Well, wait a minute. That doesn't sound like a health care law. How 
did it become a health care law? It's called an amendment. An amendment 
to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the remaining 
2,700 pages.
  I submit to you, this thing was flawed from start to finish. It must 
be struck out by the roots; otherwise, fiscal sanity cannot be restored 
back it to this country.
  Mrs. MALONEY. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
Congressman Fattah.
  Mr. FATTAH. I thank the gentlelady, and I applaud her work on the 
Joint Economic Committee.
  I come this evening to suggest that it would, indeed, be cheaper for 
our country if we want to subordinate this great Nation to other 
nations in this world. If we want to educate less of our children, if 
we want to invest less in innovation, if we want to do less in terms of 
providing for the well-being of our country, we could try to operate on 
the cheap.
  I don't think it's worthy of our House to consider a budget that 
would cut off America's global leadership position. As we see China, 
India, other countries, the European Union rising to become more and 
more economic competitors to the United States, this debate between 
Democrats and Republicans is much too small for this body. We need to 
be thinking about our country, thinking about the future of our country 
and its position in the world.
  No one can intellectually argue that somehow it would be better for 
our Nation to educate less of our children, to have less scientists or 
engineers or to invest less in manufacturing and innovation. So I would 
ask the majority this evening, after we get finished with this part of 
the process, that we try to come together, to think about not our party 
but positioning our country for future greatness.
  We have a grand legacy as a Nation, and for us to come here and to 
say, well, the way we're going to solve this problem is we're just 
going to cut, cut, and cut--this is a budget that cuts trillions but 
doesn't get the budget in balance for the next 30 years. Really, they 
are using the fiscal circumstances of the country to go after programs 
that they never supported anyway.
  This is not a worthy proposition for our House. I am prepared to 
support the Democratic budget. I am prepared to support Simpson-Bowles. 
I'm prepared to support raising additional revenue. The majority of our 
country believes that we should have a balanced approach, that is, we 
should cut programs we don't need and we should raise the revenues we 
do need.
  We're at a 60-year low in tax rates, and the young lady who spoke on 
the other side said earlier that any economist will tell you that by 
raising taxes you will lose jobs. Well, let me tell you what the facts 
are:
  When, under the Clinton administration we raised taxes, we invested 
in education, we invested in clean energy, we created close to 23 
million new jobs in this country, and every sector of our society 
improved. Yes, the rich got richer, but every other group of Americans 
also did better. Those are the facts. Facts are stubborn things.
  I hope that, as a Congress, we can rise to meet the needs of this 
great Nation.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney), again, another key freshman member 
of the Joint Economic Committee and also a member of the Budget 
Committee who understands, again, what it takes to get this terribly 
sluggish economy back on track.
  Mr. MULVANEY. I thank my colleague from Texas (Mr. Brady) for the 
opportunity.
  There is so much we could talk about here tonight, and it is 
unfortunate we only have a few minutes to talk about each of these 
budgets. But one of the things that I heard the gentlelady from New 
York mention earlier in her presentation was that the budget that we've 
offered as the Republican Party is noteworthy mostly for its austerity.

[[Page H1695]]

I would disagree with that. I think it's noteworthy mostly for the fact 
that it balances. It balances. It does something the President's budget 
does not do. It does something that I would expect the Democrat 
offering later on this evening does not do. It balances.
  It's a word that our colleagues across the aisle, Mr. Chairman, like 
to use from time to time. They want an approach that balances. I used 
to think that the word ``balance'' would actually mean that the budget 
would balance. They would have us believe that what it really means is 
they want to maybe sort of raise taxes and sort of cut spending.
  The truth of the matter is, though, that every single budget that 
they've offered has only increased taxes and increased spending. That's 
true of the President's budget, which we'll be taking up later this 
evening. I imagine it's true of Mr. Van Hollen's budget, which we will 
be taking up later this evening.
  And I think it's important to look at what would actually work. We're 
not the first country to go through this situation. In fact, if you 
look at other countries that have had debt crises like we are facing 
now, which you can see that some of them have managed to get out of it, 
and they have managed to get out of it mostly by cutting spending. In 
fact, a ratio of roughly seven-to-one on spending cuts versus tax 
increases is what actually works. And you can do better than this. You 
can point to other countries that have managed to save themselves 
without raising taxes by a single penny. You cannot point to a single 
country that has done it by raising taxes on even a one-to-one basis, 
as we'll take up tonight with Simpson-Bowles.
  But again, the President's budget, the Democrat budget doesn't even 
come close to this. We couldn't even put it on the graph because it 
both increases taxes and increases spending, not even coming close to 
what has worked in every other developed nation that has tried to do 
exactly what we are trying to do with our budget tonight.

  Look, I spend a lot of time back home, and I know that folks back 
home might be willing, under certain circumstances, to pay more taxes. 
They might do that, for example, if they could trust us not to waste 
the money. They might be willing to do that if they could trust us to 
actually put the money towards the debt and deficits. But we don't do 
that. What have we always given them, mostly from my colleagues across 
the aisle but also from my party in past years? New spending now and 
new waste now in exchange for a promise of spending reductions 
someplace down the road that never come.
  I think it's time for us to acknowledge that our colleagues are 
trying to sell us a definition of the word ``balance'' that doesn't 
make any sense. It's time for us to reclaim the definition of that word 
and say, look, we are the ones offering a balanced budget. We are the 
ones who are offering a balanced approach. We are the ones that are 
offering a way to pay off the debt.
  I think it's a fair question to ask: The money that we borrowed 
yesterday, do we ever really intend to pay it back?
  The Ryan budget allows us a way to do that. The GOP budget allows us 
a way to do that. The President's budget never moves to surplus.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield the gentleman from South Carolina an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. MULVANEY. The President's budget never goes to surplus. There is 
no plan offered by the Democrats to actually pay back the money that we 
are borrowing.
  It's time to change the word back to what it really means, which is 
spending less than we take in. And it's the Republican budget that 
offers that this evening.
  Mrs. MALONEY. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  I would like to respond to my colleague from the other side of the 
aisle who objected to my calling the Republican plan, which is called 
the Road to Prosperity--when I said that it actually should be called 
the Road to Austerity. On the negative side of the Republican plan, the 
Economic Policy Institute estimates that the Republican austerity plan 
will destroy 4.1 million jobs through 2014. But at the same time, the 
Republican budget makes tax cuts for the most fortunate few permanent, 
while those making over $1 million per year will get an average tax cut 
of at least $150,000, and tax breaks for Big Oil will be preserved. 
That's their plan.
  The alternative, of course, is the Democratic budget plan, which 
takes a totally different approach, a balanced approach that meets the 
Nation's need to invest in the future while preserving Medicare and our 
social safety nets and supporting the firm belief that the American 
Dream is alive and well by investing in the future of our children and 
our Nation.
  I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland, 
Congressman Van Hollen, the ranking member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the gentlelady for her leadership tonight.
  Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the chairman.
  I want to close where the gentlelady began, which is on the economy 
and on jobs.
  As this chart shows, when President Obama was sworn in, we were 
losing over 800,000 jobs a month. But because of actions taken by the 
President and the Congress and because of the tenacity of the American 
people and small businesses, we were able to stop the free fall and 
begin to climb out of that hole.

                              {time}  1930

  We are now at 24 consecutive months of positive private sector job 
growth. There were close to 4 million jobs created in that period. We 
need to sustain that recovery, not put the brakes on it.
  The Republican proposal unfortunately puts the brakes on it. I'll 
give you just one example. Next year they would cut our investment in 
transportation in their budget by 46 percent when we have about 17 
percent unemployment in the construction industry. That's putting the 
brakes on.
  We hear from our colleagues that the only way to deal with the budget 
deficits is to cut, cut, cut. We propose a balanced approach. We do ask 
that we close some of those tax loopholes. We do ask that folks making 
a million dollars a year go back to paying the rates that they were in 
the Clinton administration.
  Let's see what happened in the economy back then. What this shows is 
during the Clinton years, 20.8 million jobs were created. After 
President Bush took office, they lowered the tax rates. There was a net 
of 653,000 jobs lost. By the way, in 2001, just before the tax cuts 
that disproportionately benefited the wealthy, that was the last time 
we balanced the budget. We balanced the budget, and we had great job 
growth. That's why we propose a balanced approach.
  The issue here is not whether we reduce the deficit, not whether we 
reduce the debt. It's how. Yes, we have to make spending cuts. I hear 
colleagues on the Republican side coming down here and saying you can't 
do this all on the revenue side. We get that. But you know what? If you 
do it without asking the folks at the very top to pay a penny, by 
closing loopholes and getting rid of tax breaks, what does it mean? It 
means everybody else pays the consequences.
  Those decisions to support the wealthy and not ask for shared 
responsibility come at the expense of our seniors and you end the 
Medicare guarantee and slash Medicaid by $800 billion. It comes at the 
expense of middle-income taxpayers, because not only are you locking in 
the Bush tax cuts for the folks at the top, you're dropping the top 
rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. That's another over-$200,000 tax 
break to people making a million dollars a year.
  You say you're going to pay for it. You know how it's going to 
happen? It's going to happen by increasing taxes on middle-income 
Americans. That's how you're going to finance it. I've not seen a 
proposal. Show me a piece of paper that says it won't be taken out on 
middle-income taxpayers.
  Mr. Chairman, there's a better approach than the Republican approach. 
It's the balanced approach. It's the approach supported by bipartisan 
groups,

[[Page H1696]]

and it's the approach that we will propose in our amendment.
  I again thank the gentlelady and thank the Chairman.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  President Obama made two key promises to the American public. The 
first was that he would reduce the deficit by half in his first term of 
office. The second is that he would fix this broken economy in 3 years.
  Let's take a close look at those promises, looking first at the 
economy. This is hard to believe--and I hope those at home are sitting 
down--but after all of the bailouts, after all the stimulus, after all 
the Cash for Clunkers, the deficit spending, the housing bailout, 
everything the President wished for and got in increased spending, we 
have fewer Americans working today than when this President took 
office. Think about it: there are fewer Americans working after all the 
President's economic policies have gone full bore. It's failed the 
American public in such a way that there are fewer people working today 
than when this President took the oath of office.
  Look at the stimulus. This chart shows he promised the American 
public if you'll just borrow and spend nearly a trillion dollars of 
interest, our economy will recover. In fact, he promised right now our 
unemployment rate would be around 6 percent. It's far above that at 
nearly 8\1/2\ percent. But that doesn't tell the whole picture because 
so many Americans have given up hope and so many Americans don't even 
look for a job anymore. They've just dropped out. We have the fewest 
people in the workforce in almost three decades. They've just given up 
that much. Our unemployment rate is really nearly 16 percent. It's a 
little above it, as a matter of fact.
  This is an unemployment crisis. The President's policies--no 
question, he inherited a poor economy, to say the least. His policies 
have failed. He's made it worse for about 23 million Americans who 
can't even find a full-time job these days.
  If you want more of the same, stick with the President's budget, 
stick with the Democrats' budget. They deliver more of the same in an 
economy that is struggling like it hasn't since the Depression, and 
millions of Americans just can't find work no matter how hard they try.
  The President promised he would reduce the deficit and cut it in half 
in his first term. He should have been able to do that. Instead, he has 
increased it by almost half. This is the fourth trillion-dollar deficit 
in a row.
  He proposes to spend so that we're the largest government in American 
history, larger even than World War II when they dropped everything to 
win the war. He wants a government bigger than that and deficits that 
go as far as the eye can see.
  Republicans believe we ought to have a choice of futures. When you 
look at the debt that's being piled on America in the future, let me 
put that in real terms. We have two young boys, and one is in third 
grade and one is in seventh. They make our family a joy. I think about 
what all this means to them, and you may be thinking about it for your 
kids or your grandkids. All that red ink this President has piled up 
and the future of America with this debt, today a baby born in America, 
their fair share of the debt is about $47,000. A baby born today owes 
Uncle Sam a new Lexus.
  If we don't change our ways by the time they're 13, they'll owe Uncle 
Sam a second Lexus. By the time they're 22 when they've finished 
college and they're getting ready to start their life, they'll owe 
Uncle Sam a third Lexus.
  The good news is young people don't actually buy luxury sedans for 
the Federal Government, but they pay the price another way. For all 
that debt, they pay the price in a sluggish economy, in higher taxes, 
in higher interest rates. So that young person starting their life 
after all that schooling and pursuing their dreams in America, they'll 
have a harder time finding jobs--there will be fewer of them--and 
they'll keep less in their paycheck as a result of this. That's the 
future if we stay the course with this President and Democrats in 
Congress.
  Republicans believe there is a better future for America. The 
Republican budget does just that. It restores a healthy economy for 
America in a commonsense way. It gets our financial house in order. It 
starts limiting this out-of-control spending. It starts to take away 
all the waste and abuse, sunsetting obsolete Agencies, stopping this 
wasteful spending from stem to stern in the Federal budget. It starts 
to tighten the Federal Government's belt and budget.
  In addition to putting our financial house in order, it shrinks the 
size of government. It makes it affordable again for America. Not only 
do we balance the budget; the goal of the Republican budget is to pay 
off our debt.
  Think about it: our goal is not to just break even again. It's to 
start to whittle down and pay off those huge amounts of debt that we 
owe to so many in this world. It tackles important issues like Social 
Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. It preserves them for every 
generation once and for all.
  Last year, America had to borrow $142 billion from China and other 
foreign investors just to pay Social Security for our seniors. We know 
Medicare goes bankrupt in 12 years unless we act. If we don't act 
today, Medicare ends itself as we know it. It ends itself.
  Republicans have a commonsense proposal to preserve those important 
programs, to make them sustainable for every generation; and we do it 
without raising taxes.
  We know you can't take more from people and hope to grow the economy. 
We know that Washington ought to tighten its belt before we ask 
hardworking taxpayers to tighten theirs. We know that taxing 
professionals and small businesses, taxing our local energy companies 
who manufacture here in the United States, we know that taxing 
companies that are creating jobs in America is the wrong way to go.

                              {time}  1940

  We're going to offer, and are offering, not just a choice of two 
futures; we're offering some hope to a country that despairs it will 
ever see a balanced budget again. We're offering hope to a country that 
right now has a second-rate economy and that some parts of the world 
make fun of, frankly. We're going to offer hope to businesses who want 
to compete again both in their community and around the world because 
today what they tell us is they're not adding jobs. With this debt 
hanging over us, with all the talk of new taxes and new regulation, 
they're not adding those jobs. Why would they?
  The Republican budget makes sure that we don't balance our budget on 
the backs of America's small businesses. We know the problem isn't that 
government doesn't take more of what you earn; the problem is that the 
Federal Government spends too much. We offer a Path to Prosperity to 
America. It's the only responsible budget that will be offered to this 
debate. I wish I could say the Senate will take it up; but for 3 years, 
they've refused to give a budget to the American people.
  We're going to change the trajectory of America, we're going to 
change the future of America, and we're going to give hope back by 
passing the Republican budget.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Republican budget. 
This budget makes the wrong choices. We must enact a plan to steadily 
reduce our deficits and debts, but we must do so in a responsible way.
  This Republican budget is irresponsible. It provides tax breaks to 
millionaires, while ending the Medicare guarantee and shifting more 
costs to seniors. It slashes health insurance for the working disabled, 
gutting the program that provides the care they need to stay working. 
It shifts hundreds of billions in costs on to the States--the same 
States that are struggling to balance their budgets.
  It transfers tens of billions in health care costs on to the backs of 
the frail elderly in nursing homes and parents with children. And it 
takes away the guarantee of affordable health coverage--a right that 
everyone should enjoy--and leaves millions more uninsured.
  My Republican colleagues fail to understand that simply cutting the 
Federal commitment to health care, as they propose, doesn't make the 
need go away--it just shifts the problem somewhere else. Rather than 
responsibly address the issue of rising health care costs as the 
Democrats did in the Affordable Care Act--House Republicans would 
repeal that bill and leave American families without any protections 
from insurance company abuses.
  The Republican budget doesn't fix our health care problems. To pay 
for tax breaks for millionaires, it cuts hundreds of billions of

[[Page H1697]]

dollars from Medicare and Medicaid and shifts costs to seniors . . . to 
people with disabilities . . . and to families with children.
  Under the Republican budget, the Medicaid program would be gutted. 
Their budget cuts more than $1.7 trillion out of the program over the 
next ten years and turns it into a block grant.
  This is deeply misguided. Medicaid serves the poorest children, 
pregnant women, elderly in nursing homes, and those needing services to 
live in the community and more. By 2050, when the baby boom generation 
will be retired and in need of long term care, Medicaid would be cut 75 
percent according to the Congressional Budget Office. It's a great 
talking point if you want to appeal to the Tea Party, but a horrible 
policy if you really care about America's health.
  And of course, every Federal dollar cut from Medicaid means almost $2 
cut from the State economy. As a result, the Republican plan would 
ultimately sap nearly $3.4 trillion in health care spending out of 
state and local economies, causing a significant loss in health care 
jobs and investments.
  The Republican budget makes severe cuts to Medicare, ending the 
program as we know it. For nearly five decades, Medicare has provided a 
lifeline for tens of millions of seniors and people with disabilities. 
Seniors rely on Medicare's affordability, and they depend on its 
guaranteed benefits. They cherish their ability to pick their own 
doctors, and they know that their doctors will treat them without 
interference from insurance bureaucrats. But the Republican plan would 
undo these protections. They would turn Medicare into a voucher that is 
virtually guaranteed to not keep pace with rising health care costs--
leaving seniors holding the bag.
  The adverse impacts on seniors would be immediate. The Republican 
plan would repeal access to free preventive services, increase prices 
for prescription drugs in the donut hole, and undo the other 
improvements to Medicare that were part of the Affordable Care Act.
  The proposed cuts wouldn't just hurt Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP. 
This budget slashes the level of discretionary spending for many 
critical health programs, including prevention and wellness, health 
professions training, community health centers, biomedical research, 
and oversight of food, drugs and medical devices.
  These programs--and many others--would face severe cuts if the limit 
for appropriated programs is reduced below the level agreed to--on a 
bipartisan basis--less than a year ago.
  I want to be clear. This isn't a proposal that would affect people 
years from now. It will have very real effects immediately. This budget 
would irreparably harm the basic fabric of our Nation's health care 
system. It is bad medicine. There is a better way to rein in our 
deficit. I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican plan.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise today to oppose 
the Republican Budget. This budget is another giveaway to the wealthy, 
balanced on the backs of middle class families, the elderly, and the 
poor.
  The Republican's budget would reduce spending to support Medicare 
program management by $207 million in 2013. These cuts hinder the 
ability to keep pace with growing Medicare and Medicaid enrollment. 
These cuts would restrict patient access to care and delay payments to 
providers.
  Under the GOP budget, 9.6 million students would see their Pell 
Grants cut in 2012. Their budget would also result in $430 million in 
cuts to the Head Start program, with 60,000 low-income children losing 
access to early childhood education.
  The GOP budget would also cut $350 million from nutritional 
assistance for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). This would cut off 
funding for 700,000 women and children from receiving food necessary 
for healthy child development.
  This ill-conceived budget would cut funds for Social Security by 5.4 
percent in 2013 and 19 percent in future years, reducing vital services 
for our Nation's seniors. This budget ends the Medicare guarantee and 
increases costs for seniors--replacing Medicare's guarantee of health 
security with a voucher that shifts higher and higher costs onto 
seniors and the disabled over time. It cuts Medicaid by a third, while 
turning it into a block grant.
  These are the priorities of the Republican majority in the House, Mr. 
Chair. The Republicans' FY2013 Budget favors tax cuts for the wealthy 
over the needs of children and seniors. The corporate tax cuts alone 
would cost $1 trillion in lost Federal revenue over the next decade. 
The Republican leadership's budget is a giveaway to the wealthiest 
Americans, who would receive an average tax cut of at least $150,000, 
while inevitably forcing drastic cuts on those most in need.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Republican Fiscal Year 2013 Budget. Budgets are statements of 
priorities. Unfortunately, this budget does not reflect the priorities 
of my constituents and the American people: bolstering a strong middle 
class, investing in job creation, and ensuring a secure retirement.
  The American middle class is the bedrock of our society. But the 
Republican Budget fails to recognize this. It gives the bulk of its 
$4.6 trillion in tax cuts to wealthy Americans. It cuts $166 billion 
from Pell Grants and federal student loans, effectively telling 
students to think twice about a college education. And it puts job 
creation on hold by cutting $31 billion from transportation and 
infrastructure investment in the next fiscal year.
  The Republican Budget also cuts $11 billion from science and medical 
research by 2014. The two largest employers in my district are Stony 
Brook University and Brookhaven National Lab. When you factor in the 
additional $1 trillion in unspecified non-defense discretionary cuts 
over 10 years, reductions like these jeopardize the economic recovery 
and stifle the advances that can make the United States a competitive 
force in a global economy. And yet, the Republican Budget does not ask 
those who have benefited from investments of this type made in the past 
to shoulder any responsibility in resolving our fiscal issues.
  After decades of hard work and sacrifice by our Nation's seniors, the 
Republican Budget replaces Medicare's health coverage guarantee with a 
voucher to purchase traditional Medicare coverage or a private 
insurance plan. If one scrutinizes this proposal, they will discover 
the voucher will very likely fail to keep pace with medical inflation, 
thereby threatening seniors' financial security by forcing them to bear 
the bulk of their medical costs and even leaving some retirees without 
health insurance as the Medicare eligibility age is raised.
  The Republican Budget also makes drastic cuts to Medicaid, 
jeopardizing the ability of seniors to access nursing home care and 
threatening the health coverage Americans with meager incomes rely on.
  Mr. Chair, it is important that this Congress refocus our efforts on 
bolstering the middle class, investing in job creation, and ensuring a 
secure retirement. That is how we will build an economy to last and 
make a better future in America for our children. The Republican Budget 
fails at this, and I urge my colleagues to vote against the resolution.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
Majority's misguided budget.
  Forty-seven years ago, when seniors were the most uninsured group in 
our nation, we made a promise that their health care would be 
guaranteed.
  Because of that promise, tens of millions of older Americans have 
been assured of quality, affordable health care and a life of dignity.
  Because of that promise, tens of millions of Americans have avoided 
bankruptcy and upended lives trying to find a way to ensure they or 
their aging parents receive the medical care they need and deserve.
  But the Majority's budget seeks to break that promise by ending 
Medicare as we know it.
  There are a host of problems with this proposal:
  Instead of a guarantee of health care seniors would get a fixed 
amount voucher to help them partially pay for an insurance policy, 
assuming they can find one.
  And given that the Majority also seeks to repeal the law that outlaws 
preexisting condition exclusions, as well as annual and lifetime 
coverage limits, there is no guarantee a senior would be able to find a 
plan, much less an affordable one.
  This voucher would be for a fixed amount, meaning it would be worth 
less and less with each passing year.
  In California, this would mean seniors' out of pocket costs would 
rise by at least $6,000 each year.
  The bill would also raise Medicare's eligibility age, delaying the 
promise of a sound retirement for millions of working Americans.
  This would mean over 5 million Californians would face the struggle 
of finding and paying for health care for 2 more years before they even 
qualify for the limited promise of care of the Majority's voucher 
program.
  In addition to ending Medicare, the Ryan budget would whack away at 
the Medicaid program, which provides long term care for indigent 
seniors and the disabled.
  Medicaid funding would drop and the responsibilities would be pushed 
onto the states, where seniors and persons with disabilities would have 
no assurances of coverage.
  Anyone who has seen what has happened to state budgets across the 
country over the last few years should be under no illusions that hard 
pressed states won't cut Medicaid funding in tough times--they are 
doing it today!
  Mr. Chair, my colleagues promoting this plan to end Medicare and 
slash Medicaid have argued that it's really the only choice we have.
  They will argue that health care costs are bankrupting our nation and 
we simply have to

[[Page H1698]]

make these changes in order to bring down our deficit to manageable 
levels.
  And they will argue that these changes don't affect seniors today, 
only those off in some distant future.
  None of those arguments hold water.
  First, we do need to address our deficit and that means getting 
health care costs under control.
  But their plan doesn't bring down health care costs--it just shifts 
those costs onto the backs of our nation's seniors.
  Second, it is stunning that their plan again puts the onus for 
deficit reduction completely on seniors and working Americans, while 
providing huge tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations.
  Under this budget, no sacrifice is too large to ask of our nation's 
seniors and any sacrifice is too much to ask of our nation's most well 
off.
  Third, this plan will affect today's seniors.
  For example, it repeals important benefits--like access to free 
preventive screenings and annual wellness physicals--that seniors are 
already enjoying under Obamacare.
  These benefits would be taken away from almost 60,000 seniors in my 
district.
  The Ryan plan would also reopen the infamous ``donut hole,'' 
immediately increasing annual prescription drug costs for millions of 
seniors.
  This would affect over 6,000 seniors in my district immediately and 
cost them hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars each and every year.
  And finally, the Ryan plan would weaken Medicare as the voucher 
program draws off healthier seniors and leaves behind the oldest and 
sickest, thereby undercutting the financial stability of the program.
  I can already hear the calls that would come saying we just can't 
afford traditional Medicare.
  Adopting this plan will cause untold harm to our nations' seniors and 
to the millions and millions of American families who today rely on 
Medicare for the promise of quality, affordable health care.
  We made a promise--a promise that is working for millions of American 
seniors and their families.
  We cannot break that promise.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support 
of H. Con. Res. 112, the budget resolution offered by my colleague Mr. 
Ryan of Wisconsin, which cuts federal spending, faces our nation's debt 
crisis head on, and spurs economic recovery and job creation.
  When President Obama was running for President four years ago, he 
promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his term. Instead, 
his spending policies have left the American people with our nation's 
first, second, third and fourth year of trillion-plus dollar deficits--
contributing more to the national debt than the 40 previous Presidents 
combined.
  Unfortunately, the budget request that President Obama submitted to 
Congress last month is more of the same failed policies. It calls for 
spending increases to record levels, tax hikes on families and small 
businesses and still it adds more to our nation's debt for future 
generations to pay off.
  President Obama's plan passes this compounding debt on to our 
children and grandchildren instead of making the difficult decisions 
necessary to protect our country's future. But at least he has a plan. 
The Senate has failed to even pass a budget in three years.
  Chairman Ryan's proposal offers a real alternative to these failed 
policies. H. Res. 112 cuts federal spending by $5 trillion dollars. It 
takes on the true drivers of our debt--entitlement spending that takes 
up more than 60 percent of the federal budget--while strengthening 
Medicare and Medicaid so that these programs will continue to be 
available for future generations.
  It reduces the size of the federal government to the historic average 
of 20 percent of the economy by 2015--allowing the private sector to 
grow and create jobs.
  It reforms our broken tax code to spur job creation and economic 
opportunity by lowering tax rates, closing loopholes, and putting 
hardworking taxpayers ahead of special interests.
  And it places our country on a path to pay off our national debt in 
as few as seven years. Americans need real jobs, real solutions, and 
real results--not more budget tricks or accounting gimmicks.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to join me creating an efficient, 
effective government that spends less and serves better, by supporting 
the Ryan budget resolution.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, as I have said before, the federal budget is a 
moral document. It reflects, in dollars and cents, our national 
priorities. My priorities as a member of this body are supporting 
middle class families, helping to foster job creation, and promoting 
education, research and innovation that will help our economy grow over 
the long-term.
  Unfortunately, for the second year in a row, the Republican budget 
resolution before us today fails to meet these goals and moves us in 
the wrong direction. At a time when economic inequality has risen to 
its highest level in decades, according to the Census Bureau, and after 
more than a decade of stagnant wages for middle-class Americans, we 
need a budget that strengthens our middle class, not weakens it.
  And, once again, for the second year in a row, Republicans want to 
end the promise of Medicare to our seniors. Instead, seniors would 
receive a voucher to buy either private insurance or traditional 
Medicare--but what's so egregious about this proposal is that the 
voucher will fail to keep pace with projected health care costs over 
time. This budget puts insurance companies in charge of seniors' 
health. Our seniors would be forced to pay thousands more out of their 
own pockets on premiums for a plan that provides the same benefits 
seniors on Medicare are currently receiving. What if they don't have 
those extra thousands? In my home State of New Jersey, for example, the 
Republican budget will increase seniors out of pocket expenses by 
nearly $6,000. Moreover, this plan reopens the ``donut hole'' for 
seniors' prescription drug costs, by $2.2 billion this year and $44 
billion by the end of the decade. More than 1 million New Jersey 
seniors will be forced to pay more for preventive services this year if 
this plan is enacted--services that are currently covered by Medicare, 
including mammograms, colonoscopies, and annual physicals.
  This budget plan abandons investments in research and innovation--
exactly the kind of investment we need to grow and sustain our economy 
over the long-term. This budget plan is a direct assault on Medicaid--
it slashes $810 billion over 10 years. It turns Medicaid into a block 
grant and leaves it to already cash-strapped States to decide what to 
do next.
  This budget plan cuts education funding on all levels--from pre-K 
through college--by $166 billion over the next decade. My home State of 
New Jersey, for example, will lose $8.4 million this year for Head 
Start--this will eliminate more than 1,000 enrollment slots for 
underserved children. Another 3,100 slots would be eliminated in Fiscal 
Year 2014. More than 20,000 New Jersey students would be negatively 
impacted by cuts to Title I. And for college-bound students, this plan 
freezes the maximum Pell Grant level and takes no action to prevent a 
doubling of interest rates on student loans starting this summer. We 
should be investing in education, not gutting it.
  This budget cuts highway funding by 25 percent, weakening our ability 
to support our economic recovery and putting thousands of jobs at risk. 
This budget slashes food stamps by $133.5 billion over 10 years during 
a time when millions of Americans are still struggling to make ends 
meet.
  While this budget all but dissolves the safety net, it maintains the 
costly tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy. How can we justify 
billions of dollars in tax breaks to the ``Big 5'' oil companies--which 
made more than $1 trillion in profits over the past decade--while tens 
of millions of Americans are still looking for work?
  Despite all of these cuts, this budget resolution still fails to 
balance the budget over the next decade.
  Getting our Nation's fiscal house in order is a task my colleagues 
and I take seriously. Of course, we always should be looking to remove 
wasteful spending and ineffective programs. I have supported, and will 
continue to support, thoughtful budget cuts that reduce the deficit by 
eliminating unnecessary spending and costly tax giveaways to industries 
reaping enormous profits. At the same time, though, we must also 
preserve investments in infrastructure, science, and education, along 
with safety net programs that assist the most vulnerable among us in 
obtaining housing, health care, and food. The budget before us today 
fails to strike this essential balance.
  There are better ways, and I will be supporting alternative 
approaches that take a more balanced approach to our Nation's fiscal 
challenges. They protect the most vulnerable members of our society 
while making the investments in research, education, and innovation 
that are absolutely critical to sustaining our economic recovery. These 
alternatives invest $50 billion to fund jobs that address our urgent 
transportation needs. They include $5 billion to help keep cops on the 
beat and firefighters on the job. They protect Social Security from 
privatization and promote tax relief for working families. They invest 
in research and development and science education. And, at the end of 
the day, these alternatives achieve a balanced budget in 10 years.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this budget resolution and 
support one of these viable alternatives.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the concurrent resolution is considered read.

[[Page H1699]]

  The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 112

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

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2013.

       (a) Declaration.--The Congress determines and declares that 
     this concurrent resolution establishes the budget for fiscal 
     year 2013 and sets forth appropriate budgetary levels for 
     fiscal years 2014 through 2022.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this 
     resolution is as follows:

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts.
Sec. 102. Major functional categories.

 TITLE II--RECONCILIATION AND DIRECTIVE TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

Sec. 201. Reconciliation in the House of Representatives.
Sec. 202. Directive to the Committee on the Budget of the House of 
              Representatives to replace the sequester established by 
              the Budget Control Act of 2011.

TITLE III--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2030, 2040, 
                                AND 2050

Sec. 301. Policy statement on long-term budgeting.

                        TITLE IV--RESERVE FUNDS

Sec. 401. Reserve fund for the repeal of the 2010 health care laws.
Sec. 402. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the sustainable growth rate 
              of the Medicare program.
Sec. 403. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for revenue measures.
Sec. 404. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for rural counties and schools.
Sec. 405. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for transportation.

                      TITLE V--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 501. Limitation on advance appropriations.
Sec. 502. Concepts and definitions.
Sec. 503. Adjustments of aggregates and allocations for legislation.
Sec. 504. Limitation on long-term spending.
Sec. 505. Budgetary treatment of certain transactions.
Sec. 506. Application and effect of changes in allocations and 
              aggregates.
Sec. 507. Congressional Budget Office estimates.
Sec. 508. Budget rule relating to transfers from the general fund of 
              the treasury to the highway trust fund that increase 
              public indebtedness.
Sec. 509. Separate allocation for overseas contingency operations/
              global war on terrorism.
Sec. 510. Exercise of rulemaking powers.

                            TITLE VI--POLICY

Sec. 601. Policy Statement on Medicare.
Sec. 602. Policy Statement on Social Security.
Sec. 603. Policy statement on deficit reduction through the 
              cancellation of unobligated balances.
Sec. 604. Recommendations for the elimination of waste, fraud, and 
              abuse in Federal programs.

                TITLE VII--SENSE OF THE HOUSE PROVISIONS

Sec. 701. Sense of the House regarding the importance of child support 
              enforcement.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2013 through 2022:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,058,604,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,248,773,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $2,459,718,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $2,627,541,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $2,770,342,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $2,891,985,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,021,132,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,173,642,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,332,602,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $3,498,448,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2013: -$234,735,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: -$302,411,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: -$356,566,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: -$388,565,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: -$423,997,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: -$460,304,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: -$497,440,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: -$534,378,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: -$574,350,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: -$617,033,000,000.
       (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 2013: $2,793,848,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,681,566,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $2,756,471,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $2,888,570,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $2,998,681,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,117,133,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,290,908,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,455,514,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,570,712,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $3,780,807,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,891,589,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,769,702,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $2,784,233,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $2,892,523,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $2,977,372,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,080,794,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,248,524,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,398,470,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,531,790,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $3,748,801,000,000.
       (4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget) 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2013: -$832,985,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: -$520,930,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: -$324,515,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: -$264,982,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: -$207,030,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: -$188,810,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: -$227,392,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: -$224,828,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: -$199,189,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: -$250,353,000,000.
       (5) Debt subject to limit.--The appropriate levels of the 
     public debt are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2013: $17,072,810,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $17,769,762,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $18,277,348,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $18,752,806,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $19,216,661,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $19,676,545,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $20,168,534,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $20,657,588,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $21,121,620,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $21,627,396,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2013: $12,261,337,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $12,860,706,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $13,260,430,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $13,597,083,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $13,874,203,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $14,125,515,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $14,417,373,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $14,717,285,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021; $15,005,091,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $15,363,610,000,000.

     SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2013 through 2022 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $562,166,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $621,469,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $574,807,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $589,720,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $588,501,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $586,446,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $602,958,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $599,658,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $618,519,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $607,874,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $635,241,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $617,648,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $653,094,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $639,165,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $671,528,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $656,950,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $690,261,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $675,190,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $709,450,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $699,316,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,128,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,999,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,113,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,758,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,271,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,707,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,082,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,041,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,446,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,529,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,366,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,777,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,303,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,780,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,294,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,774,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,329,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,737,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,649,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,872,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,001,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,204,000,000.

[[Page H1700]]

       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,154,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,535,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,633,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,591,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,176,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,006,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,759,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,526,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,412,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,127,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,066,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,719,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,747,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,377,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,454,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,973,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,173,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,680,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, -$3,025,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,407,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,670,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,220,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $952,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,375,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $990,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,128,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $960,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,832,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $960,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,903,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,017,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,103,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $975,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,110,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $863,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,130,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,221,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,274,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,882,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,554,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,144,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,181,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,058,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,868,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,832,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,848,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,756,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,140,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,245,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,981,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,845,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,132,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,707,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,338,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,178,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,046,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,666,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,691,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,611,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,145,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,113,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,395,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,107,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,142,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,761,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,962,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,571,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,291,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,849,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,556,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,152,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,045,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,667,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,543,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,154,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,571,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,187,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, -$7,095,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,151,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, -$1,455,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$12,070,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $711,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$11,591,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,675,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$12,166,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,135,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$11,195,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,515,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$10,525,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,778,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$15,134,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,491,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$14,115,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,206,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$6,446,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,311,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$6,533,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,139,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,729,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $80,829,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $84,541,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $74,602,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $77,294,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $76,512,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $79,831,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $77,561,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $80,358,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $80,640,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $81,412,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $81,636,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $81,348,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $85,165,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $84,201,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $80,486,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $79,090,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $93,104,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $91,180,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,047,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,732,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,307,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,886,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,389,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,927,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,415,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,647,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,427,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,848,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,435,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,044,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,410,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,673,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,501,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,691,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,604,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,805,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,726,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,997,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,626,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $78,335,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,151,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,269,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,904,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,931,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $71,626,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $71,719,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $79,630,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $78,652,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $84,076,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $84,121,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $87,738,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $87,647,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $89,329,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $89,911,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $90,305,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $91,272,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $91,458,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $92,408,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $363,596,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $365,614,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $358,322,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $362,556,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $365,058,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $369,455,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $376,993,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $376,408,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $393,219,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $394,754,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:

[[Page H1701]]

       (A) New budget authority, $404,124,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $406,143,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $419,428,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $417,557,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $446,427,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $433,169,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $449,759,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $446,710,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $471,657,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $468,212,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $510,144,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $510,056,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $532,701,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $532,004,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $554,995,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $554,555,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $601,515,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $601,281,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $615,386,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $614,665,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $634,539,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $634,089,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $692,173,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $691,921,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $737,284,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $736,531,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $784,647,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $784,158,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $866,591,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $866,448,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $517,076,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $516,848,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $475,714,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $474,603,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $472,820,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $471,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $453,169,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $455,843,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $450,453,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $448,404,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $453,608,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $447,336,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $469,525,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $467,922,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $481,660,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $480,331,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $494,347,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $493,341,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $511,458,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $515,356,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,216,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,296,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,892,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,002,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,135,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,210,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,953,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,991,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,140,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,140,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,590,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,590,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,429,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,429,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,425,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,425,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,604,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,604,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,079,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,079,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $134,635,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $135,222,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $137,004,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $137,230,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $139,862,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $139,774,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $148,556,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $148,044,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $147,499,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $146,846,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $146,341,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $145,634,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $156,034,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $155,291,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $160,511,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $159,760,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $165,065,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $164,272,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $175,431,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $174,607,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,277,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,623,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $51,201,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,168,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,499,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,276,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,868,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,929,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,704,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,547,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,407,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,053,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,263,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,828,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,091,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,003,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,137,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,045,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,922,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,817,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,155,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,051,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, 23,415,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,042,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,067,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,435,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,814,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,961,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,149,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,170,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,734,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,699,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,304,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,897,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,751,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,365,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,358,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,896,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,881,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,449,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $344,415,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $344,415,000,000
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $356,352,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $356,352,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $391,014,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $391,014,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $447,356,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $447,356,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $506,642,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $506,642,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $565,014,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $565,014,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $618,628,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $618,628,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $664,102,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $664,102,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $696,908,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $696,908,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $730,179,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $730,179,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, -$22,607,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $859,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, -$87,771,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$50,682,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, -$90,146,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$80,035,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, -$94,030,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$93,943,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$96,411,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$101,325,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$101,394,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$106,211,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$106,767,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$111,171,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$113,223,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$117,350,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$120,493,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$123,784,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$121,281,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$125,413,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2013:

[[Page H1702]]

       (A) New budget authority, -$84,736,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$84,736,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, -$78,697,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$78,697,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, -$84,531,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$84,531,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, -$86,226,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$86,226,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$94,507,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$94,507,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$98,066,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$98,066,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$104,845,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$104,845,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$103,878,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$103,878,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$108,168,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$108,168,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$110,655,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$110,655,000,000.
       (21) Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
     Terrorism:
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $96,725,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,125,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,159,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,010,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,159,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,034,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,159,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,422,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,159,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,284,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,159,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,912,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,159,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,770,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,159,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,741,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,159,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,727,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,159,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,727,000,000.

 TITLE II--RECONCILIATION AND DIRECTIVE TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

     SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

       (a) Submissions of Spending Reduction.--Not later than 
     April 27, 2012, the House committees named in subsection (b) 
     shall submit recommendations to the Committee on the Budget 
     of the House of Representatives. After receiving those 
     recommendations, such committee shall report to the House a 
     reconciliation bill carrying out all such recommendations 
     without substantive revision.
       (b) Instructions.--
       (1) Committee on agriculture.--The Committee on Agriculture 
     shall submit changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
     sufficient to reduce the deficit by $8,200,000,000 for the 
     period of fiscal years 2012 and 2013; by $19,700,000,000 for 
     the period of fiscal years 2012 through 2017; and by 
     $33,200,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2012 through 
     2022.
       (2) Committee on energy and commerce.--The Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce shall submit changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by 
     $3,750,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2012 and 2013; 
     by $28,430,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2012 
     through 2017; and by $96,760,000,000 for the period of fiscal 
     years 2012 through 2022.
       (3) Committee on financial services.--The Committee on 
     Financial Services shall submit changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by 
     $3,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2012 and 2013; 
     by $16,700,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2012 
     through 2017; and by $29,800,000,000 for the period of fiscal 
     years 2012 through 2022.
       (4) Committee on the judiciary.--The Committee on the 
     Judiciary shall submit changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by $100,000,000 
     for the period of fiscal years 2012 and 2013; by 
     $11,200,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2012 through 
     2017; and by $39,700,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
     2012 through 2022.
       (5) Committee on oversight and government reform.--The 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform shall submit 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce 
     the deficit by $2,200,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
     2012 and 2013; by $30,100,000,000 for the period of fiscal 
     years 2012 through 2017; and by $78,900,000,000 for the 
     period of fiscal years 2012 through 2022.
       (6) Committee on ways and means.--The Committee on Ways and 
     Means shall submit changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
     sufficient to reduce the deficit by $1,200,000,000 for the 
     period of fiscal years 2012 and 2013; by $23,000,000,000 for 
     the period of fiscal years 2012 through 2017; and by 
     $53,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2012 through 
     2022.

     SEC. 202. DIRECTIVE TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET OF THE 
                   HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO REPLACE THE 
                   SEQUESTER ESTABLISHED BY THE BUDGET CONTROL ACT 
                   OF 2011.

       (a) Submission.--In the House, the Committee on the Budget 
     shall report to the House a bill carrying out the directions 
     set forth in subsection (b).
       (b) Directions.--The bill referred to in subsection (a) 
     shall include the following provisions:
       (1) Replacing the sequester established by the budget 
     control act of 2011.--The language shall amend section 251A 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985 to replace the sequester established under that section 
     consistent with this concurrent resolution.
       (2) Application of provisions.--The bill referred to in 
     subsection (a) shall include language making its application 
     contingent upon the enactment of the reconciliation bill 
     referred to in section 201.

TITLE III--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2030, 2040, 
                                AND 2050

     SEC. 301. POLICY STATEMENT ON LONG-TERM BUDGETING.

       The following are the recommended budget levels for each of 
     fiscal years 2030, 2040, and 2050 as a percent of the gross 
     domestic product of the United States:
       (1) Federal revenues.--The appropriate levels of Federal 
     revenues are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2030: 19 percent.
       Fiscal year 2040: 19 percent.
       Fiscal year 2050: 19 percent.
       (2) Budget outlays.--The appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2030: 20.25 percent.
       Fiscal year 2040: 18.75 percent.
       Fiscal year 2050: 16 percent.
       (3) Deficits.--The appropriate amounts of deficits are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2030: 1.25 percent.
       Fiscal year 2040: -.25 percent.
       Fiscal year 2050: -3 percent.
       (4) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2030: 53 percent.
       Fiscal year 2040: 38 percent.
       Fiscal year 2050: 10 percent.

                        TITLE IV--RESERVE FUNDS

     SEC. 401. RESERVE FUND FOR THE REPEAL OF THE 2010 HEALTH CARE 
                   LAWS.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for the budgetary effects of any 
     bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference 
     report thereon, that repeals the Patient Protection and 
     Affordable Care Act or the Health Care and Education 
     Reconciliation Act of 2010.

     SEC. 402. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE SUSTAINABLE 
                   GROWTH RATE OF THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for the budgetary effects of any 
     bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference 
     report thereon, that includes provisions amending or 
     superseding the system for updating payments under section 
     1848 of the Social Security Act, if such measure would not 
     increase the deficit in the period of fiscal years 2013 
     through 2022.

     SEC. 403. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR REVENUE MEASURES.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for the budgetary effects of any 
     bill reported by the Committee on Ways and Means, or any 
     amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that 
     decreases revenue, but only if such measure would not 
     increase the deficit over the period of fiscal years 2013 
     through 2022.

     SEC. 404. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR RURAL COUNTIES AND 
                   SCHOOLS.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels and limits in this resolution for the budgetary 
     effects of any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto 
     or conference report thereon, that makes changes to the 
     Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act of 1976 (Public Law 94 565) or 
     makes changes to or provides for the reauthorization of the 
     Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 
     2000 (Public Law 106 393) by the amounts provided by that 
     legislation for those purposes, if such legislation would not 
     increase the deficit or direct spending for fiscal year 2013, 
     the period of fiscal years 2013 through 2017, or the period 
     of fiscal years 2013 through 2022.

     SEC. 405. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR TRANSPORTATION.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill or joint resolution, 
     or amendment thereto or conference report thereon, if such 
     measure maintains the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund, but 
     only if such measure would not increase the deficit over the 
     period of fiscal years 2013 through 2022.

                      TITLE V--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 501. LIMITATION ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--In the House, except as provided in 
     subsection (b), any bill or joint resolution, or an amendment 
     thereto or conference report thereon, making a general 
     appropriation or continuing appropriation may not provide for 
     advance appropriations.

[[Page H1703]]

       (b) Exceptions.--An advance appropriation may be provided 
     for programs, projects, activities, or accounts referred to 
     in subsection (c)(1) or identified in the report to accompany 
     this resolution or the joint explanatory statement of 
     managers to accompany this resolution under the heading 
     ``Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations''.
       (c) Limitations.--For fiscal year 2014, the aggregate 
     amount of advance appropriation shall not exceed--
       (1) $54,462,000,000 for the following programs in the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs--
       (A) Medical Services;
       (B) Medical Support and Compliance; and
       (C) Medical Facilities accounts of the Veterans Health 
     Administration; and
       (2) $28,852,000,000 in new budget authority for all other 
     programs.
       (d) 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 2014.

     SEC. 502. CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS.

       Upon the enactment of any bill or joint resolution 
     providing for a change in budgetary concepts or definitions, 
     the chair of the Committee on the Budget may adjust any 
     appropriate levels and allocations in this resolution 
     accordingly.

     SEC. 503. ADJUSTMENTS OF AGGREGATES AND ALLOCATIONS FOR 
                   LEGISLATION.

       (a) Enforcement.--For purposes of enforcing this 
     resolution, the revenue levels shall be those set forth in 
     the March 2012 Congressional Budget Office baseline. The 
     total amount of adjustments made under subsection (b) may not 
     cause revenue levels to be below the levels set forth in 
     paragraph (1)(A) of section 101 for fiscal year 2013 and for 
     the period of fiscal years 2013 through 2022.
       (b) Adjustments.--(1) The chair of the Committee on the 
     Budget may adjust the allocations and aggregates of this 
     concurrent resolution for--
       (A) the budgetary effects of measures extending the 
     Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001;
       (B) the budgetary effects of measures extending the Jobs 
     and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003;
       (C) the budgetary effects of measures that adjust the 
     Alternative Minimum Tax exemption amounts to prevent a larger 
     number of taxpayers as compared with tax year 2008 from being 
     subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax or of allowing the use 
     of nonrefundable personal credits against the Alternative 
     Minimum Tax;
       (D) the budgetary effects of extending the estate, gift, 
     and generation-skipping transfer tax provisions of title III 
     of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, 
     and Job Creation Act of 2010;
       (E) the budgetary effects of measures providing a 20 
     percent deduction in income to small businesses;
       (F) the budgetary effects of measures implementing trade 
     agreements;
       (G) the budgetary effects of provisions repealing the tax 
     increases set forth in the Patient Protection and Affordable 
     Care Act and the Health Care and Education Affordability 
     Reconciliation Act of 2010;
       (H) the budgetary effects of provisions reforming the 
     Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health 
     Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010; 
     and
       (I) the budgetary effects of measures reforming the tax 
     code and lowering tax rates.
       (2) A measure does not qualify for adjustments under 
     paragraph (1)(H) if it--
       (A) increases the deficit over the period of fiscal years 
     2013 through 2022; or
       (B) increases revenues over the period of fiscal years 2013 
     through 2022, other than by--
       (i) repealing or modifying the individual mandate (codified 
     as section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986); or
       (ii) modifying the subsidies to purchase health insurance 
     (codified as section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986).
       (c) Other Adjustments.--If a committee (other than the 
     Committee on Appropriations) reports a bill or joint 
     resolution, or an amendment thereto or a conference report 
     thereon, providing for a decrease in direct spending (budget 
     authority and outlays flowing therefrom) for any fiscal year 
     and also provides for an authorization of appropriations for 
     the same purpose, upon the enactment of such measure, the 
     chair of the Committee on the Budget may decrease the 
     allocation to such committee and increase the allocation of 
     discretionary spending (budget authority and outlays flowing 
     therefrom) to the Committee on Appropriations for fiscal year 
     2013 by an amount equal to the new budget authority (and 
     outlays flowing therefrom) provided for in a bill or joint 
     resolution making appropriations for the same purpose.
       (d) Determinations.--For the purpose of enforcing this 
     concurrent resolution on the budget in the House, the 
     allocations and aggregate levels of new budget authority, 
     outlays, direct spending, new entitlement authority, 
     revenues, deficits, and surpluses for fiscal year 2013 and 
     the period of fiscal years 2013 through fiscal year 2022 
     shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by the 
     chair of the Committee on the Budget and such chair may 
     adjust the applicable levels of this resolution.

     SEC. 504. LIMITATION ON LONG-TERM SPENDING.

       (a) In General.--In the House, it shall not be in order to 
     consider a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee 
     (other than the Committee on Appropriations), or an amendment 
     thereto or a conference report thereon, if the provisions of 
     such measure have the net effect of increasing direct 
     spending in excess of $5,000,000,000 for any period described 
     in subsection (b).
       (b) Time Periods.--The applicable periods for purposes of 
     this section are any of the first four consecutive ten 
     fiscal-year periods beginning with fiscal year 2023.

     SEC. 505. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 302(a)(1) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, section 13301 of the Budget 
     Enforcement Act of 1990, and section 4001 of the Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, the joint explanatory 
     statement accompanying the conference report on any 
     concurrent resolution on the budget shall include in its 
     allocation under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 to the Committee on Appropriations amounts for 
     the discretionary administrative expenses of the Social 
     Security Administration and the United States Postal Service.
       (b) Special Rule.--For purposes of applying sections 302(f) 
     and 311 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.
       (c) Adjustments.--The chair of the Committee on the Budget 
     may adjust allocations and aggregates for legislation 
     reported by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 
     that reforms the Federal retirement system, but does not 
     cause a net increase in the deficit for fiscal year 2013 and 
     the period of fiscal years 2013 to 2022.

     SEC. 506. 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 included in 
     this resolution.
       (c) Exemptions.--Any legislation for which the chair of the 
     Committee on the Budget makes adjustments in the allocations 
     or aggregates of this concurrent resolution shall not be 
     subject to the points of order set forth in clause 10 of rule 
     XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives or section 
     504.

     SEC. 507. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATES.

       (a) Fair Value Estimates.--
       (1) Request for supplemental estimates.--Upon the request 
     of the chair or ranking member of the Committee on the 
     Budget, any estimate prepared for a measure under the terms 
     of title V of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, ``credit 
     reform'', as a supplement to such estimate of the 
     Congressional Budget Office shall, to the extent practicable, 
     also provide an estimate of the current actual or estimated 
     market values representing the ``fair value'' of assets and 
     liabilities affected by such measure.
       (2) Enforcement.--If the Congressional Budget Office 
     provides an estimate pursuant to subsection (a), the chair of 
     the Committee on the Budget may use such estimate to 
     determine compliance with the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 and other budgetary enforcement controls.
       (b) Budgetary Effects of the National Flood Insurance 
     Program.--The Congressional Budget Office shall estimate the 
     change in net income to the National Flood Insurance Program 
     by this Act if such income is included in a reconciliation 
     bill provided for in section 201, as if such income were 
     deposited in the general fund of the Treasury.

     SEC. 508. BUDGET RULE RELATING TO TRANSFERS FROM THE GENERAL 
                   FUND OF THE TREASURY TO THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND 
                   THAT INCREASE PUBLIC INDEBTEDNESS.

       For purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, or 
     the Rules of the House of Representatives, a bill or joint 
     resolution, or an amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, or any Act that transfers funds from the general 
     fund of the Treasury to the Highway Trust Fund shall be 
     counted as new budget authority and outlays equal to the 
     amount of the transfer in the fiscal year the transfer 
     occurs.

     SEC. 509. SEPARATE ALLOCATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY 
                   OPERATIONS/GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM.

       (a) Allocation.--In the House, there shall be a separate 
     allocation to the Committee on Appropriations for overseas 
     contingency operations and the global war on terrorism. For 
     purposes of enforcing such separate allocation under section 
     302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the ``first 
     fiscal year'' and the ``total of fiscal years'' shall be 
     deemed to refer to fiscal year 2013. Such separate allocation 
     shall be the exclusive allocation for overseas contingency 
     operations

[[Page H1704]]

     and the global war on terrorism under section 302(a) of such 
     Act. Section 302(c) of such Act does not apply to such 
     separate allocation. The Committee on Appropriations may 
     provide suballocations of such separate allocation under 
     section 302(b) of such Act. Spending that counts toward the 
     allocation established by this section shall be designated 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       (b) Adjustment.--In the House, for purposes of subsection 
     (a) for fiscal year 2013, no adjustment shall be made under 
     section 314(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 if any 
     adjustment would be made under section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985.

     SEC. 510. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

       (a) In General.--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 of Representatives, 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.
       (b) Limitation on Application.--The following provisions of 
     H. Res. 5 (112th Congress) shall no longer have force or 
     effect:
       (1) Section 3(e) relating to advance appropriations.
       (2) Section 3(f) relating to the treatment of off-budget 
     administrative expenses.

                            TITLE VI--POLICY

     SEC. 601. POLICY STATEMENT ON MEDICARE.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) More than 50 million Americans depend on Medicare for 
     their health security.
       (2) The Medicare Trustees Report has repeatedly recommended 
     that Medicare's long-term financial challenges be addressed 
     soon. Each year without reform, the financial condition of 
     Medicare becomes more precarious and the threat to those in 
     and near retirement becomes more pronounced. According to the 
     Congressional Budget Office--
       (A) the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be exhausted in 
     2022 and unable to pay scheduled benefits; and
       (B) Medicare spending is growing faster than the economy 
     and Medicare outlays are currently rising at a rate of 6.3 
     percent per year, and under the Congressional Budget Office's 
     alternative fiscal scenario, direct spending on Medicare is 
     projected to reach 7 percent of GDP by 2035 and 14 percent of 
     GDP by 2085.
       (3) Failing to address this problem will leave millions of 
     American seniors without adequate health security and younger 
     generations burdened with enormous debt to pay for spending 
     levels that cannot be sustained.
       (b) Policy on Medicare Reform.--It is the policy of this 
     resolution to protect those in and near retirement from any 
     disruptions to their Medicare benefits and offer future 
     beneficiaries the same health care options available to 
     Members of Congress.
       (c) Assumptions.--This resolution assumes reform of the 
     Medicare program such that:
       (1) Current Medicare benefits are preserved for those in 
     and near retirement, without changes.
       (2) For future generations, when they reach eligibility, 
     Medicare is reformed to provide a premium support payment and 
     a selection of guaranteed health coverage options from which 
     recipients can choose a plan that best suits their needs.
       (3) Medicare will provide additional assistance for lower-
     income beneficiaries and those with greater health risks.
       (4) Medicare spending is put on a sustainable path and the 
     Medicare program becomes solvent over the long-term.

     SEC. 602. POLICY STATEMENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) More than 55 million retirees, individuals with 
     disabilities, and survivors depend on Social Security. Since 
     enactment, Social Security has served as a vital leg on the 
     ``three-legged stool'' of retirement security, which includes 
     employer provided pensions as well as personal savings.
       (2) The Social Security Trustees report has repeatedly 
     recommended that Social Security's long-term financial 
     challenges be addressed soon. Each year without reform, the 
     financial condition of Social Security becomes more 
     precarious and the threat to seniors and those receiving 
     Social Security disability benefits becomes more pronounced:
       (A) In 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office, 
     the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund will be exhausted 
     and will be unable to pay scheduled benefits.
       (B) In 2036, according to the Social Security Trustees 
     Report the combined Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance 
     Trust Fund and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund will 
     be exhausted, and will be unable to pay scheduled benefits.
       (C) With the exhaustion of the trust funds in 2036, 
     benefits will be cut 23 percent across the board, devastating 
     those currently in or near retirement and those who rely on 
     Social Security the most.
       (3) The current recession has exacerbated the crisis to 
     Social Security. The Congressional Budget Office continues to 
     project permanent cash deficits.
       (4) Lower-income Americans rely on Social Security for a 
     larger proportion of their retirement income. Therefore, 
     reforms should take into consideration the need to protect 
     lower-income Americans' retirement security.
       (5) Americans deserve action by their elected officials on 
     Social Security reform. It is critical that the Congress and 
     the administration work together in a bipartisan fashion to 
     address the looming insolvency of Social Security. In this 
     spirit, this resolution creates a bipartisan opportunity to 
     find solutions by requiring policymakers to ensure that 
     Social Security remains a critical part of the safety net.
       (b) Policy on Social Security.--It is the policy of this 
     resolution that Congress should work on a bipartisan basis to 
     make Social Security permanently solvent. This resolution 
     assumes reform of a current law trigger, such that--
       (1)(A) if in any year the Board of Trustees of the Federal 
     Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal 
     Disability Insurance Trust Fund in its annual Trustees' 
     Report determines that the 75-year actuarial balance of the 
     Social Security Trust Funds is in deficit, and the annual 
     balance of the Social Security Trust Funds in the 75th year 
     is in deficit, the Board of Trustees should, not later than 
     September 30 of the same calendar year, submit to the 
     President recommendations for statutory reforms necessary to 
     achieve a positive 75-year actuarial balance and a positive 
     annual balance in the 75th year; and
       (B) such recommendations provided to the President should 
     be agreed upon by both Public Trustees of the Board of 
     Trustees;
       (2)(A) not later than December 1 of the same calendar year 
     in which the Board of Trustees submits its recommendations, 
     the President shall promptly submit implementing legislation 
     to both Houses of Congress, including recommendations 
     necessary to achieve a positive 75-year actuarial balance and 
     a positive annual balance in the 75th year; and
       (B) the Majority Leader of the Senate and the Majority 
     Leader of the House should introduce such legislation upon 
     receipt;
       (3) within 60 days of the President submitting legislation, 
     the committees of jurisdiction to which the legislation has 
     been referred should report such legislation, which should be 
     considered by the full House or Senate under expedited 
     procedures; and
       (4) legislation submitted by the President should--
       (A) protect those in and near retirement;
       (B) preserve the safety net for those who rely on Social 
     Security, including survivors and those with disabilities;
       (C) improve fairness for participants; and
       (D) reduce the burden on, and provide certainty for, future 
     generations.

     SEC. 603. POLICY STATEMENT ON DEFICIT REDUCTION THROUGH THE 
                   CANCELLATION OF UNOBLIGATED BALANCES.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) According to the Office of Management and Budget, 
     Federal agencies will hold $698 billion in unobligated 
     balances at the close of fiscal year 2013.
       (2) These funds represent direct and discretionary spending 
     made available by Congress that remain available for 
     expenditure beyond the fiscal year for which they are 
     provided.
       (3) In some cases, agencies are granted funding and it 
     remains available for obligation indefinitely.
       (4) The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 
     1974 requires the Office of Management and Budget to make 
     funds available to agencies for obligation and prohibits the 
     Administration from withholding or cancelling unobligated 
     funds unless approved by an act of Congress.
       (5) Greater congressional oversight is required to review 
     and identify potential savings from unneeded balances of 
     funds.
       (b) Policy on Deficit Reduction Through the Cancellation of 
     Unobligated Balances.--Congressional committees shall through 
     their oversight activities identify and achieve savings 
     through the cancellation or rescission of unobligated 
     balances that neither abrogate contractual obligations of the 
     Federal Government nor reduce or disrupt Federal commitments 
     under programs such as Social Security, veterans' affairs, 
     national security, and Treasury authority to finance the 
     national debt.
       (c) Deficit Reduction.--Congress, with the assistance of 
     the Government Accountability Office, the Inspectors General, 
     and other appropriate agencies should make it a high priority 
     to review unobligated balances and identify savings for 
     deficit reduction.

     SEC. 604. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE ELIMINATION OF WASTE, 
                   FRAUD, AND ABUSE IN FEDERAL PROGRAMS.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) The Government Accountability Office is required by law 
     to identify examples of waste, duplication, and overlap in 
     Federal programs, and has so identified dozens of such 
     examples.
       (2) In testimony before the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform, the Comptroller General has stated that 
     addressing the identified waste, duplication, and overlap in 
     Federal programs ``could potentially save tens of billions of 
     dollars''.
       (3) The Rules of the House of Representatives require each 
     standing committee to hold at least one hearing every four 
     months on waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement in Government 
     programs.

[[Page H1705]]

       (4) The findings resulting from congressional oversight of 
     Federal Government programs should result in programmatic 
     changes in both authorizing statutes and program funding 
     levels.
       (b) Policy on Deficit Reduction Through the Reduction of 
     Unnecessary and Wasteful Spending.--Each authorizing 
     committee annually shall include in its Views and Estimates 
     letter required under section 301(d) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 recommendations to the Committee on the 
     Budget of programs within the jurisdiction of such committee 
     whose funding should be reduced or eliminated. Such 
     recommendations shall be made publicly available.

                TITLE VII--SENSE OF THE HOUSE PROVISIONS

     SEC. 701. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE IMPORTANCE OF 
                   CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT.

       It is the sense of the House that--
       (1) additional legislative action is needed to ensure that 
     States have the necessary resources to collect all child 
     support that is owed to families and to allow them to pass 
     100 percent of support on to families without financial 
     penalty; and
       (2) when 100 percent of child support payments are passed 
     to the child, rather than administrative expenses, program 
     integrity is improved and child support participation 
     increases.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment shall be in order except those printed 
in House Report 112 423.
  Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall 
be considered as read, and shall be debatable for the time specified in 
the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent. The adoption of an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
shall constitute the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent 
resolution for amendment.
  After conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for 
amendment, there shall be 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.


 Amendment No. 1 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Mulvaney

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in House Report 112 423.
  Mr. MULVANEY. I rise to claim time in support of the amendment.
  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. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2013 through 2022:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,065,796,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,373,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $2,640,705,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $2,835,767,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $2,996,291,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,123,888,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,262,770,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,434,833,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,606,140,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $3,782,963,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2013: -$227,543,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: -$177,683,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: -$175,579,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: -$180,339,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: -$198,048,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: -$228,401,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: -$255,802,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: -$273,187,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: -$300,812,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: -$332,518,000,000.
       (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 2013: $2,981,518,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $3,036,509,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $3,183,712,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,388,753,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,545,013,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,713,179,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,903,527,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $4,116,158,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $4,299,370,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $4,504,615,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2013: $3,078,221,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $3,098,134,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $3,197,095,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,385,620,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,506,849,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,653,640,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,875,989,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $4,070,744,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $4,264,323,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $4,472,110,000,000.
       (4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget) 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2013: -$1,012,425,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: -$724,634,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: -$556,390,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: -$549,853,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: -$510,558,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: -$529,752,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: -$613,219,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: -$635,911,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: -$658,183,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: -$689,147,000,000.
       (5) Debt subject to limit.--The appropriate levels of the 
     public debt are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2013: $17,314,780,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $18,251,238,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $19,050,579,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $19,855,892,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $20,624,430,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $21,419,275,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $22,288,175,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $23,197,859,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $24,143,484,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $25,123,397,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2013: $12,517,072,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $13,330,583,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $13,981,546,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $14,618,296,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $15,215,406,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $15,824,696,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $16,518,942,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $17,245,767,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021; $18,007,496,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $18,818,701,000,000.

     SEC. 2. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2013 through 2022 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $559,695,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $623,942,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $566,879,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $583,766,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $579,817,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $573,914,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $590,329,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $583,897,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $602,399,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $589,346,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $615,052,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $596,095,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $628,979,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $613,977,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $642,907,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $628,324,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $656,291,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $641,663,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $673,651,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $662,113,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,338,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,377,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,241,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,977,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,643,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,994,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,666,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,503,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,315,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,115,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,464,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,434,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,679,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,545,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,906,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,701,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,141,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,805,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,909,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,168,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,556,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,840,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,091,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,964,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,654,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,335,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,244,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,890,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,920,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,523,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,623,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,357,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,859,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:

[[Page H1706]]

       (A) New budget authority, $34,089,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,576,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,824,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,212,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,667,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,996,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,925,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,042,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,434,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,079,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,072,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,335,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,929,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,653,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,244,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,594,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,215,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,534,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,348,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,545,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,207,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,507,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,133,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,618,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,174,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,430,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,460,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,447,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,559,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,804,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,130,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,608,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,030,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,727,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,879,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,121,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,015,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,011,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,972,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,307,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,148,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,558,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,715,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,419,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,362,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,834,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,722,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,804,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,373,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,079,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,842,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,488,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,059,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,025,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,578,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,448,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,945,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,112,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,656,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,524,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,098,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,155,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,718,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,965,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,538,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,968,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,769,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,357,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,293,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,366,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$4,783,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,145,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$6,537,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,758,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$6,533,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,253,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$4,945,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,773,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$8,348,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,613,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,240,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,563,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $474,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,101,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,275,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $88,386,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $102,364,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $101,243,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $105,524,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $107,661,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $104,782,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $114,471,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $107,766,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $120,819,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $112,009,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $127,262,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $115,782,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $92,354,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $113,424,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $94,123,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $107,580,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $95,934,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $105,310,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $97,877,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $104,566,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,509,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,695,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,125,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,292,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,339,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,812,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,573,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,110,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,843,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,523,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,121,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,301,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,410,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,848,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,705,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,046,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,999,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,583,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,343,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,958,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $82,028,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $122,483,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $87,194,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $107,191,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $85,938,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $101,331,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $85,960,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $92,781,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $95,143,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $92,808,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $99,647,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $98,392,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $103,464,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $102,181,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $104,120,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $104,073,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $105,157,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $105,085,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $106,690,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $106,209,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $372,835,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $375,955,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $473,879,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $464,352,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $542,160,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $538,003,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $590,904,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $594,729,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $626,658,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $629,150,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $664,032,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $662,930,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $707,099,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $706,061,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $761,258,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $749,868,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $800,618,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $799,481,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $851,615,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $849,973,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $525,876,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $525,716,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:

[[Page H1707]]

       (A) New budget authority, $553,675,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $552,981,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $570,815,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $570,407,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $617,954,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $617,756,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $633,488,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $632,808,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $653,683,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $653,276,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $715,518,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $715,315,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $763,016,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $762,316,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $810,664,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $810,230,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $885,513,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $885,426,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $545,622,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $542,562,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $537,970,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $534,946,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $538,691,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $533,883,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $546,156,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $545,811,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $544,282,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $539,685,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $546,446,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $538,021,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $561,786,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $558,295,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $573,480,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $570,338,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $586,855,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $583,571,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $604,517,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $605,786,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,416,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,496,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,892,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,002,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,135,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,210,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,953,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,991,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,140,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,140,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,590,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,590,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,429,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,429,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,425,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,425,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,604,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,604,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,079,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,079,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $135,651,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $135,289,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $136,996,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $137,447,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $139,827,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $139,964,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $148,005,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $147,807,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $146,445,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $146,074,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $144,620,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $143,993,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $153,568,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $152,909,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $157,302,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $156,643,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $161,056,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $160,370,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $170,839,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $170,088,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,772,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,831,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,029,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,404,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,792,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,371,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,542,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,214,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,889,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,538,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,992,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,408,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,204,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,504,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,406,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,011,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,772,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,348,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,988,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $67,496,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,808,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,408,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,256,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,706,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,196,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,376,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,275,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,459,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,433,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,613,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,417,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,969,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,513,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,338,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,762,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,226,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,219,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,669,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $347,234,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $347,234,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $360,341,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $360,341,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $400,112,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $400,112,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $466,938,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $466,938,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $539,743,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $539,743,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $614,473,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $614,473,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $686,716,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $686,716,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $751,343,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $751,343,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $804,643,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $804,643,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $858,474,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $848,474,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, -$19,353,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$10,338,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, -$20,761,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$17,171,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, -$20,286,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$18,947,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$19,802,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$19,342,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$19,873,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$19,674,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$20,905,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$20,297,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$26,857,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$23,804,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$18,232,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$20,916,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$60,069,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$61,008,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, -$79,096,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$79,095,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, -$80,150,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$80,149,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, -$85,787,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$85,786,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, -$87,260,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$87,259,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$91,024,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$91,023,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$94,141,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$94,140,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$100,689,000,000.

[[Page H1708]]

       (B) Outlays, -$100,688,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$99,551,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$99,550,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$103,660,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$103,659,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$105,959,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$105,959,000,000.
       (21) Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
     Terrorism:
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $96,725,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,125,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,159,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,010,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,159,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,034,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,159,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,422,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,159,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,284,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,159,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,912,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,159,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,770,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,159,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,741,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,159,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,727,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,159,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,727,000,000.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 597, the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it occurred to me during the budget debate that 
something was missing from the debate. As my colleagues across the 
aisle offered their various amendments through the course of the day 
and into the evening, it occurred to me that the President's budget had 
not been offered as an amendment by the Democrat Members of the House 
Budget Committee, and that as we were getting information about which 
amendments were being offered here today on the floor as amendments to 
the overall GOP budget, it occurred to me that, again, that same 
oversight had taken place.
  Clearly, it must be an oversight. Clearly, my colleagues meant to 
offer the President's budget as an amendment and simply failed to do 
so. And so in a pique of bipartisanship, I thought I would help my 
colleagues across the aisle out a little bit and offer the President's 
budget, which is exactly what this amendment is.
  This amendment is the President's budget as analyzed, not scored, but 
analyzed by the CBO, nothing more and nothing less. It has a lot in 
here that I imagine my colleagues would like. It has, for example, $1.9 
trillion in new taxes. It has new taxes on income, new taxes on the 
giving of gifts, new taxes on gasoline, and even new taxes on dying.
  It has $1.5 trillion in new spending, spending on welfare, spending 
on unemployment, and spending on green energy. The term ``Solyndra'' 
comes to mind, I would imagine. In fact, it has so many new taxes and 
new spending, it seems to be bringing the phrase ``tax-and-spend 
liberal'' back into fashion here in Washington, D.C. So, clearly, it 
must simply be an oversight that has not been offered by my colleagues.
  But that's not all. The budget that the President offered and that is 
contained in this amendment never balances--never balances. It is a 
balanced approach to reach a never-balancing budget. It also fails to 
deal completely with our entitlement problems.
  So, again, I say, Mr. Chairman, I think there's a lot here for my 
colleagues to like. I look forward to their defense of the President's 
budget. And in many ways, I would suppose this is a landmark document 
for the Democrats as we go into this election year.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I seek recognition to speak on this 
important issue.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is the gentleman opposed to the amendment?
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I am opposed.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. And I'm opposed for a simple reason. This document 
filed by Mr. Mulvaney is not the President's budget. And it's being 
portrayed as a very misleading--it was a very misleading presentation 
of the President's budget.
  This is the President's budget.
  If you look at all the other budgets presented today, you'll find 
numbers and you'll find policy statements that describe the policies 
behind the budget. The thing Mr. Mulvaney filed--no policy. In fact, he 
just said the President's policy raises gas taxes, I believe? That's 
just a false statement.
  The other issue is why you have a number for revenue in the 
President's budget. You mentioned that there was a revenue number. The 
President never pretended otherwise. The President's budget takes a 
balanced approach to deficit reduction. It makes cuts, and it raises 
revenue.
  Let's talk about how he raises revenue. He raises revenue, in part, 
by getting rid of subsidies on the big oil companies. We think at a 
time of record profits, we don't need to have taxpayer subsidies for 
big oil companies. Our Republican colleagues, almost every one of them, 
have signed this pledge to Grover Norquist saying they won't get rid of 
one oil subsidy or one tax loophole for the purpose of deficit 
reduction. Well, the President thinks we need a balanced approach to 
deficit reduction.
  Now, you wouldn't know from reading Mr. Mulvaney's document, what he 
puts in place as the President's budget, that that's how the President 
raises revenue. You wouldn't know from Mr. Mulvaney's document that the 
President also asks the very top 2 percent of taxpayers to go back to 
paying the same top rate they were during the Clinton administration, a 
time when the economy was booming, because the President thinks we need 
to take a balanced approach, again, a combination of revenues and 
spending cuts, because the President believes, and I agree, that if you 
do it the way the Republicans do it, without asking the folks at the 
very top to share some responsibility, it means you deal with the 
budget at the expense of everybody else, at the expense of seniors, at 
the expense of middle-income Americans, and at the expense of important 
investments in our economy like investments in transportation.
  Their budget cuts transportation next year by 46 percent at a time 
when we have 17 percent unemployment in the construction industry. 
Their budget puts the brakes on the budding economic growth.
  So, Mr. Chairman, let's end this charade. The gentleman said he 
wanted to get beyond politics. This is politics at its absolute worst, 
presenting something as the President's budget without the policy 
detail, without the explanation to the American people about what's in 
the President's budget. As a result, he presents a very misleading 
version of what the President has asked us to do.
  In fact, the Democratic alternative that we will propose later adopts 
the general framework of the President's budget. We don't adopt every 
single proposal he makes in here, but we take the general framework. 
The difference is we have those policy statements, and we make it clear 
that we want to get rid of the subsidies for the big oil companies at a 
time they're making record profits. We make it clear that we want 
millionaires, people making a million dollars a year, to go back to 
paying what they were during the Clinton administration. We make that 
clear in our alternative.
  So let's not play this political charade. We're going to have the 
Democratic alternative that, as I said, takes the framework of the 
President's proposal. Our Republican colleagues will have an 
opportunity to vote against that. But this is not the President's 
budget, and let's not pretend it is.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend from 
Georgia (Mr. Graves).
  Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, we really find ourselves in an interesting 
spot here. The ranking member of Budget finds himself in a very 
difficult position, standing in opposition of the President's budget. 
And he says, well, this isn't the President's budget. And for a moment, 
let's assume it's not.

[[Page H1709]]

Where is it? Where is it? If it was such a good document, why didn't 
they present it? We don't understand it.
  I was in a committee meeting today, and the Secretary of the Treasury 
was just going on about how good the President's budget was, how it had 
this balanced approach, and it had this glide path to reducing the 
deficit. I asked him, well, who from your party is going to present 
that? He said, I don't know. You would think with such an awesome 
document that puts us on this great path of a future for our Nation 
that surely the Democrats would present their own budget. But they have 
yet to do that.

                              {time}  1950

  In fact, their side is empty right now. You'd think it would be full 
with them lining up to speak in favor of the President's budget, but 
they have yet to do that. In fact, there's much of an exodus here.
  But let's talk about what the budget really is, because it's more 
than the framework or the document; it is a vision. It's a vision for 
where we think we're going to take our Nation. What the President's 
budget is is a vision of debt and dependency. Maybe that's why they 
didn't present it. But yet we're presenting a much different approach, 
one of opportunity and prosperity.
  As we conclude these debates--and they may call it a gimmick. And if 
they want to call the President's budget a gimmick, let them call that 
a gimmick. But as we conclude this debate, we're all going to be making 
a decision. We've been empowered with the opportunity to vote for our 
constituents. They've given us that voting card, and we're going to 
have a decision to make. We're going to be choosing between a balanced 
approach that raises taxes, increases the size of government, increases 
our debt--it's debt and dependency--or we can choose the balanced 
budget approach. The Republican budget lowers taxes, has an energy 
plan, puts us on that path to a balanced budget. That is the choice 
that will be before us.
  So I hope that my colleagues, as they debate the President's budget, 
will reject that debt and dependency and choose that path of the 
balanced budget.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I guess we're going to spend the next I 
don't know how many minutes talking about something that's not the 
President's budget. It's an attempt to be misleading about what the 
President's budget does because it leaves out all the content, leaves 
out the substance.
  You look at the Republican budget, they've got a lot of sections on 
policy. You look at the other alternatives that are being presented, 
they have alternatives and policy statements. This is a bunch of 
numbers without the explanation.
  Now, do the Democrats, for example, think that the President invested 
enough in his budget in LIHEAP, the low-income energy program for low-
income individuals. We actually have a majority in our caucus that 
thinks the President should have put a little more into that. But 
that's only the kind of detail you would know if you went through the 
President's budget, not this thing that Mr. Mulvaney claims is the 
President's budget, which it's just not. So just to be clear: This is 
not the President's budget, and therefore it obviously is a political 
gimmick.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. I appreciate the gentleman from South Carolina for 
bringing up this debate.
  And this is the President's budget we're discussing. When you look at 
this resolution, this contains the same kind of language as any 
resolution that's brought to the floor contains. But let's talk about 
what it seems like some Members of the Democratic Party on the other 
side are so afraid to talk about, and that is what the President's 
budget really does.
  The President's budget never even comes close to balancing, first of 
all. So this President, who campaigned 4 years ago on reducing the 
deficit, on trying to bring fiscal responsibility to Washington, goes 
the opposite way, adding trillions more dollars of debt, mountains of 
debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren.
  What's worse, if you look at the policies, $1.9 trillion of job-
killing tax increases. What does that mean to families? Hardworking 
families out there are looking at this, and they're knowing just what 
this is going to do to jobs in this country when you add another $1.9 
trillion.
  Just look at one part. They love bragging about all the taxes they're 
raising on American oil. In fact, their budget, President Obama's 
budget that we're talking about right now, President Obama's budget 
adds $40 billion a year in new taxes on American energy. The irony is 
the President's tax increase on American energy doesn't apply to OPEC 
nations, so OPEC countries are now incentivized to send more oil here. 
But if you make it in America--it's in the President's budget, go look 
at it--$40 billion of new tax increases if you make it in America. What 
is that going to do to gas prices that are already skyrocketing under 
President Obama's policies?
  American families out there know what that means. If you add $40 
billion a year in new taxes on American-made energy, that will only 
increase the price that is already too high. What's worse is that it 
kills American jobs because it says--and President Obama said this; in 
his budget President Obama says, if you're OPEC and you're sending us 
oil, we're not going to raise your taxes in the President's budget. But 
if you make energy in America, he'll raise taxes $40 billion a year.
  This is the most warped policy I've ever seen. I hope we reject it, 
and then take up the budget that we're going to present that actually 
puts us in balance and has good, sound policy to create jobs.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 5 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from South Carolina has 4 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Let's talk a little bit about energy policy. One of the things you 
wouldn't know from the document that Mr. Mulvaney put forward claiming 
it's the President's budget is that the President actually provides the 
resources to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to help police 
speculators in the oil market. Because what we're seeing today is that, 
because of conditions around the world, a lot of those are being taken 
advantage of by people who are engaged in excessive speculation on the 
oil market, driving it up. But the Republican budget doesn't want the 
cop on the beat. The Republican budget doesn't want to police the 
speculators because, you know what, they're just doing fine. But again, 
Mr. Mulvaney's budget--what he pretends is the President's budget--you 
wouldn't know that. But if you looked in the President's real budget, 
you would know that kind of thing. That's why this exercise is such a 
farce.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Thank you to my good friend.
  We actually did this on the floor last night. Part of it was an 
attempt to sort of help folks through some of the absurdity of the 
rhetoric compared to the reality of math.
  One of the fun slides we brought on is using the current budget 
numbers and the fact that we're borrowing about $3.5 billion a day. We 
actually have this one board--and we're putting it up on our Web site--
that actually shows a clock. On that clock it has some of the 
President's budget policies. And one in there is one we've already sort 
of heard talked about or alluded to, and people like to call it the 
``Buffet Rule.'' Well, do you realize that all of the rhetoric around 
something like the Buffet Rule and those new taxes and those needs for 
those folks to pay more would pay for--I think we came up with 3 
minutes and 30 seconds. It would cover 3 minutes and 30 seconds of 
borrowing a day.
  We did some slides earlier that talked about not just taxing Big Oil, 
but if you taxed all fossil fuels. And what we're talking about is 
getting rid of their depletion allowance and actually going after their 
depreciation tables. That came out to about 2 minutes

[[Page H1710]]

and 30 seconds of covering borrowing a day.
  The reason I stand behind this microphone right now is the political 
theater of--it's great rhetoric. I'm sure it's nice and poll tested. 
But it doesn't solve any of the problems. That's why this is a joyous 
moment to see the other side stand up and embrace the President's 
budget with such enthusiasm.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from South Carolina is 
prepared to close, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MULVANEY. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I hear my good friend from Maryland. I understand he 
thinks it's a charade. I got the same press release that he got from 
the White House. They called it a gimmick, he calls it a charade. And 
they go on to talk about how they lack any details.
  I've got the same stack that my colleague from Maryland has. I have 
the President's budget here. But we also have what we used to formulate 
the amendment, which is the analysis of the President's 2013 budget 
from the Congressional Budget Office. In there, if you take the time to 
review it, you'll find a summary of the way the President treats the 
2001 2003 tax reductions, the alternative minimum tax, limiting 
deductions and exclusions, modifying estate and gift taxes, other 
revenue proposals, more tax provisions, OCO, the automatic procedures 
in the Budget Control Act, the President's cap on deductions and 
exclusions, deals with initiatives that will widen the deficit, 
transportation, Medicare, Medicaid, the Build America Bonds Program. 
The President's budget does not include reductions, and increases 
mandatory outlays.
  It goes on to talk about overseas contingency, disaster relief, $2 
billion for a program, integrity initiatives. The details are here. The 
details are here. Let's make no mistake about what we're voting on. 
This is the President's budget.
  Again, I got the White House memo and it says, you know, we encourage 
Democrats to vote against our own budget--that's what the President 
said today--because what could be in this amendment is raising taxes on 
the middle class.

                              {time}  2000

  It could be in here, Mr. Chairman, but only if it's in here. They go 
on to say that this amendment could include severe cuts to important 
programs, and I guess, in theory, it could, but only if it's in here.
  Let's make one thing and one thing extraordinarily clear. This is the 
President's budget. This is the CBO, the nonpartisan analysis of what 
the President gave us of what I guess, several millions of dollars, of 
tax dollars, were spent in preparing. We spent an entire day debating 
this and examining this in the Budget Committee.
  It's not a charade. It's not a gimmick unless what the President sent 
us is the same.
  We are voting on the President's budget. I would encourage my 
Democrats to embrace this landmark Democrat document and support it. 
Personally, I'll be voting against it.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, my friend from South Carolina wants to 
play make-believe today, but the reality is that this is not the 
President's budget, and we've already shown you the President's budget.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, let me just say one thing. You 
know, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't 
fool all of the people all of the time; and I can tell you, the 
Republican budget is not fooling anybody.
  I just want to talk about one aspect of the President's budget on 
transportation. We know for every billion dollars that we spend, it 
generates 44,000 jobs. However, the Republicans refuse to pass a 
budget.
  The Transportation Committee, throughout the history, has been 
bipartisan. We have worked together. The Republicans and the Democrats 
over in the Senate have passed a bill. The Republicans refuse to take 
up the bill on transportation because, for once, you don't want to put 
the American people back to work.
  I say again, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but 
you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2 \3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Again, we can stand here all we want and play let's pretend. The 
reality is that the budget that's before us is not the President's 
budget.
  As I indicated earlier, the Democratic alternative later takes the 
framework of the President's budget and adopts some of the policies of 
the President's budget. We don't accept every single spending proposal 
or spending cut which is laid out in great detail here. But that 
presents a framework.
  And I should say to my colleagues that one of the things you would 
not know from reading this Republican version of the President's 
proposal is that, unlike the Republican budget, the President's plan 
does not end the Medicare guarantee. It does not extend tax breaks for 
the highest income Americans. It doesn't provide another windfall tax 
cut for those Americans financed by increasing taxes on middle-income 
Americans. It doesn't cut the transportation budget by 46 percent next 
year, at a time when we have high unemployment in the construction 
industry. The President's budget doesn't do that. The Republican budget 
does do that.
  We will later present that balanced approach that says, in order to 
tackle our deficits, we have to make some cuts, some tough cuts. 
Congress has already made $1 trillion in cuts. We have more cuts. But 
we should also close some of those special interest tax loopholes for 
the purpose of reducing the deficit, because if we don't do that, it 
means that we're providing--essentially asking nothing of the very 
wealthy, and that means we have to reduce the deficit at the expense of 
everybody else in America.
  So let's end the charade. Let's end this game of make-believe. This 
is not the President's budget, and unless there's some of our 
colleagues who want to play fantasyland, I suggest we get down to 
reality, and that's why we're opposing this document, the Mulvaney 
amendment.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for debate has expired.The question is on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Mulvaney).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MULVANEY. 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 South 
Carolina will be postponed.


  Amendment No. 2 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Cleaver

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 112 423.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chair, 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. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2013 through 2022:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,335,291,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,680,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $3,004,405,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,219,867,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,399,791,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,545,388,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,701,670,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,890,233,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $4,078,241,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $4,272,162,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2013: $41,776,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $129,432,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $187,945,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $203,234,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $204,691,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $192,105,000,000.

[[Page H1711]]

       Fiscal year 2019: $181,937,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $180,911,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $169,741,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $154,993,000,000.
       (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 2013: $3,128,317,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $3,111,395,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $3,189,733,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,395,345,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,546,170,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,698,240,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,867,601,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $4,063,783,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $4,230,729,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $4,423,309,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2013: $3,169,119,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $3,176,782,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $3,237,481,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,397,122,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,511,256,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,639,385,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,840,278,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $4,018,250,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $4,195,261,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $4,390,772,000,000.
       (4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget) 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2013: -$833,825,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: -$496,081,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: -$233,078,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: -$177,254,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: -$111,464,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: -$93,996,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: -$138,607,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: -$128,017,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: -$117,020,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: -$118,609,000,000.
       (5) Debt subject to limit.--The appropriate levels of the 
     public debt are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2013: $17,147,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $17,822,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $18,241,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $18,632,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $19,003,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $19,371,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $19,777,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $20,172,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $20,556,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $20,932,000,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2013: $12,336,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $12,913,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $13,224,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $13,476,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $13,661,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $13,820,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $14,026,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $14,231,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021; $14,439,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $14,668,000,000,000.

     SEC. 2. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2013 through 2022 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $553,925,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $585,924,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $564,074,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $568,196,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $574,336,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $565,518,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $585,581,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $578,055,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $598,841,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $585,091,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $612,097,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $592,763,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $625,362,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $610,522,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $639,661,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $625,015,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $653,962,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $638,965,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $671,019,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $659,506,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,338,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,222,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $51,241,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,512,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,643,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,706,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,666,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,352,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $51,315,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,085,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,464,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,391,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,679,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,494,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,906,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,664,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,141,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,768,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,909,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,145,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,556,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,268,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,091,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,988,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,654,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,987,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,244,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,095,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,920,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,687,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,623,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,182,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,357,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,841,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,089,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,558,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,824,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,194,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,667,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,978,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,925,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,128,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,434,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,209,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,072,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,367,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,929,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,202,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,653,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,258,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,594,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,206,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,534,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,339,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,545,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,198,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,507,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,124,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,618,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,165,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,430,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,003,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,947,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,124,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,304,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,646,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,108,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,531,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,227,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,386,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,621,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,510,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,511,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,467,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,807,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,643,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,058,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,210,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,919,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,857,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,334,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,536,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,304,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,085,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,579,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,407,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,988,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,577,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,525,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,096,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,948,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,440,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,612,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,151,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,024,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,593,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,655,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,213,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:

[[Page H1712]]

       (A) New budget authority, $20,465,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,003,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,968,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,769,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,357,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,293,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,366,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$4,783,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,145,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$6,537,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,758,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$6,533,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,253,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$4,945,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,773,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$8,348,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,613,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,240,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,563,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $474,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,101,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,275,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $138,386,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $129,503,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $126,243,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $133,784,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $117,661,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $122,449,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $124,471,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $120,261,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $130,819,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $123,333,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $137,262,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $126,032,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $102,354,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $123,333,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $104,123,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $117,489,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $105,934,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $115,219,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $107,877,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $114,475,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,509,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,409,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,125,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,304,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,339,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,138,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,573,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,213,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,843,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,605,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,121,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,292,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,410,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,839,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,705,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,037,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,999,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,574,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,343,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,949,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $107,028,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $136,053,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $102,194,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $122,678,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $96,301,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $113,711,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $104,104,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $105,916,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $114,347,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $111,578,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $118,943,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $117,633,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $122,868,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $121,414,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $123,647,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $123,418,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $124,802,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $124,551,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $126,461,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $125,796,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $382,159,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $380,707,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $482,752,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $471,591,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $546,803,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $545,420,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $596,809,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $601,541,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $638,350,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $641,242,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $676,122,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $675,168,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $719,320,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $718,259,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $773,097,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $761,684,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $813,176,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $812,016,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $869,043,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $867,378,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $526,636,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $526,476,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $562,063,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $561,369,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $588,473,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $588,065,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $639,731,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $639,533,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $659,125,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $658,445,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $682,905,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $682,498,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $747,240,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $747,037,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $801,602,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $800,902,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $855,814,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $855,380,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $938,731,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $938,644,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $580,622,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $572,990,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $547,970,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $543,312,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $548,691,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $543,228,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $556,156,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $555,492,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $554,282,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $549,594,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $556,446,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $547,930,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $571,786,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $568,204,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $583,480,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $580,247,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $596,855,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $593,480,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $614,517,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $615,695,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,416,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,496,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,892,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,002,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,135,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,210,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,953,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,991,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,140,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,140,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,590,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,590,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,429,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,429,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,425,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,425,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,604,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,604,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,079,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,079,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $140,651,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $138,003,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $141,996,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $141,630,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $144,827,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $144,636,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $153,005,000,000.

[[Page H1713]]

       (B) Outlays, $152,648,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $151,445,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $151,028,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $149,620,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $148,947,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $158,568,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $157,863,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $162,302,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $161,597,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $166,056,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $165,324,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $175,839,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $175,042,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,772,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,917,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,029,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,534,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,792,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,403,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,542,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,216,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,889,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,552,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,992,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,399,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,204,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,495,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,406,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,002,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,772,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $63,339,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,968,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,487,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,808,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,408,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,256,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,706,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,196,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,376,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,275,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,459,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,433,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,613,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,417,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,969,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,513,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,338,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,762,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,226,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,219,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,669,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $346,034,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $346,034,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $356,872,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $356,872,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $390,660,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $390,660,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $444,699,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $444,699,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $500,673,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $500,673,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $555,019,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $555,019,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $604,374,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $604,374,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $645,680,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $645,680,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $674,506,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $674,506,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $703,024,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $703,024,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,325,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,272,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, -$18,028,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$9,013,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, -$19,436,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$15,846,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, -$18,961,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$17,622,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$18,477,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$18,017,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$18,548,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$18,349,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$19,580,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$18,972,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$25,532,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$22,479,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$16,907,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$19,591,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$58,744,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$59,683,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, -$79,230,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$79,229,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, -$80,576,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$80,575,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, -$86,663,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$86,662,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, -$88,673,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$88,672,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$92,938,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$92,937,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$96,445,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$96,444,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$103,169,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$103,168,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$102,135,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$102,134,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$106,354,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$106,353,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$108,766,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$108,766,000,000.
       (21) Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
     Terrorism:
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $96,725,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $92,230,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,159,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,766,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $28,845,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $9,173,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $2,650,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $706,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $192,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $52,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $38,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $24,000,000.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 597, the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver) and a Member opposed each will control 15 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chair, I first want to acknowledge all 42 members of 
the Congressional Black Caucus who endorsed this presentation, but 
especially our Budget, Appropriations, and Taxation Taskforce and the 
FY13 Budget chairs, Congressman Bobby Scott, Congresswoman Gwen Moore, 
and Congresswoman Karen Bass, who is the emcee at a dinner and cannot 
be here with us.
  This budget, Mr. Chair, itself, is a statement of our beliefs as a 
Nation. It is the way we choose to run government and help the people 
we serve. Our FY 2013 alternative Federal budget will address the 
deficit while protecting important safety net programs needed by our 
communities.
  The CBC's top priorities for the 112th Congress are promoting job 
creation and economic development, providing lifetime educational 
opportunities, protecting access to health care, and protecting the 
right to vote and justice for all Americans. We can only make these 
priorities a reality by sustaining and strengthening the programs that 
invest in and protect all Americans, whether it is workforce 
investment, unemployment insurance, investment in unemployment, 
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, or with the onslaught 
of these voter laws across the country, proper funding of the Election 
Assistance Commission. These programs are vital to national interest 
because they train our workforce, stabilize our economy, and provide 
funding for our cities and States throughout the Nation.
  I understand that now is the time for us, as Americans, to sacrifice 
in order to protect our children and our children's children. However, 
we struggle,

[[Page H1714]]

as a caucus, to understand how the proposed majority budget helps 
achieve this goal.
  More recently, due to many strategic investments led by the 
President, the Nation's overall unemployment rate has been lowered; 
however, the African American unemployment rate remains nearly double 
the national average. In order to improve this dire situation and to 
ensure every American's full recovery, we must make smart and targeted 
investments for all America's vulnerable communities.
  Government investment in people, education, infrastructure, and 
innovation can create jobs. Over time, the jobs created by these 
strategic investments pay for themselves and then some. Investments 
allow people to earn, learn, spend, and save. Cutting programs that 
assist hardworking Americans, help families with their most basic 
needs, maintain our crumbling infrastructure, and expand access to 
educational opportunities will only make unemployment statistics worse.
  Our success as a Nation is interwoven in the success of all 
communities. Until we grasp that concept as a Nation, we will never see 
the full potential of the United States of America; and for that, I am 
truly concerned.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of our committee, Bobby 
Scott of Virginia.

                              {time}  2010

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Black Caucus 
budget is a more credible and responsible alternative than the 
underlying Republican budget. The CBC budget is a plan that 
significantly reduces our deficit over the next decade while increasing 
economic opportunities and promoting job creation in every corner of 
our society. Deficit reduction is about making tough choices, but the 
path to fiscal responsibility must not be on the backs of our Nation's 
most vulnerable communities.
  Our budget makes those tough choices, but it doesn't jeopardize 
Social Security, turn Medicaid into a block grant, or dismantle the 
Medicare guarantee. The fundamental choice we have to make is a choice 
between millionaires and Medicare.
  The CBC budget extends the Bush-era tax cuts only for hardworking 
middle class American families but pays for this extension through tax 
reform by closing corporate loopholes and giveaways, deterring 
aggressive speculation in the stock market--the speculation that helped 
create the 2008 fiscal crisis and the recent gas price increase--and we 
ensure that millionaires who benefited most from income growth, tax 
cuts, and bailouts in the last decade contribute their fair share.
  With additional revenue, the CBC budget restores funding for 
important programs cut in the Budget Control Act of 2011, we cancel the 
sequester for security and nonsecurity programs, and we match the 
Democratic alternative on defense spending. Our budget also makes 
targeted investments that will create jobs in the short term by funding 
transportation and infrastructure projects, and our budget will ensure 
our long-term prosperity by investing in education and job training 
initiatives, including an increase in the maximum Pell Grant by nearly 
$1,000, to $6,500.
  The CBC budget will positively impact every sector of our economy, 
cement the foundation of a strong economic recovery, and reduce the 
deficit by $770 billion more over the next decade than the Republican 
budget, as this chart shows.
  The CBC budget outlines specific recommendations to achieve this 
goal. The Republican budget, on the other hand, simply instructs the 
Ways and Means Committee to find $4 trillion in new revenues and then 
instructs the Appropriations Committee to find spending cuts in the 
range of almost a trillion dollars. In light of the fact that the 
supercommittee failed to find $1.2 trillion, it is unlikely that 
anybody will figure out how to fill this $5 trillion hole in the 
Republican budget. But even if they do, the CBC budget still has $770 
billion more in deficit reduction than the Republican budget.

  Mr. Chairman, there is a clear difference between the Republican 
budget and the CBC budget, and that difference is the CBC budget 
chooses Medicare over millionaires. I urge my colleagues to support the 
Cleaver amendment to ensure a fairer and more prosperous future for 
America.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 15 
minutes.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to this budget. I am proud of the 
fact that we are actually debating a budget; for you see, you look over 
to the other body, you look to the United States Senate, and you'll see 
it's been more than 1,050 days, an exceptional amount of time--years, 
in fact--since the United States Senate has actually discussed a 
budget.
  And here we are debating a budget. There's a contrast in vision. 
There's a contrast in priorities, but we're debating this. On some 
issues, there is some common ground; but on other things, there is a 
divergence in our approach.
  This budget that's being presented here as an amendment raises taxes 
by more than $6 trillion. Mr. Chairman, let me put in context what $1 
trillion is. If you spent $1 million a day every day, it would take you 
almost 3,000 years to get to $1 trillion.
  So what we have to have is a realization of the fiscal woes that we 
face ourselves. I didn't create this mess, but I am here to help clean 
it up.
  The reality is we cannot face tens of trillions of dollars in debt 
because there's a consequence of that. The consequence of this massive 
debt: rising interest rates, devaluation of the dollar. There's so many 
things. Inflation as you throw more money into the marketplace.
  Imagine what this world would be like if we didn't have what will be, 
at the end of this year, nearly $16 trillion in debt. Right now we're 
paying more than $600 million a day in interest on that debt.
  So, while I think there is common ground and appreciation of what 
needs to happen for our kids and our future and investments that we do 
need to make, what they would like to do in terms of infrastructure and 
roads and all of these types of things and our military, we're saddled 
with a $16 trillion debt. So we don't have that $600 million. We really 
don't get anything for that. We have to pay that as interest on the 
debt.
  That's where you see a contrast. What is being proposed here versus 
what the Republicans are offering in their budget, which has passed 
through the Budget Committee, is they would have to spend $5.3 trillion 
more over 10 years than what we have proposed.
  So I stand in opposition to this. I appreciate the passion and 
commitment they have to their agenda, but I do want to recognize, and I 
hope we can applaud on both sides of the aisle at least here in the 
House of Representatives, we're actually debating a budget.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  Ms. MOORE. I thank you so much, Mr. Cleaver.
  Mr. Chairman, prior to 1994, Congress acted to ensure that Americans 
had guaranteed support under the Social Security Act. It was a three-
legged stool. The American social contract provided retirement security 
for retirees through Social Security, health coverage for elders with 
Medicare, dignified care for the infirm and disabled under Medicaid and 
sustenance for low-income families with children.
  Now, in 1994, on a bipartisan basis, this body breached the Social 
Security Act's contract with the people and ``ended welfare as we know 
it.''
  Now, this Republican budget says that that is a model for what this 
budget should do. It recalls that victory, and I quote from the 
narrative under the Path to Prosperity, a blueprint for American 
Renewal:

       This budget completes the successful work of transforming 
     welfare by reforming other areas of America's safety net to 
     ensure that welfare does not entrap able-bodied citizens into 
     lives of complacency and dependency.

  We've heard on this floor that we're going to make sure that the 
safety net does not become a hammock. So, in other words, Medicare and 
Medicare recipients are now welfare recipients.
  So what this budget does is it ends the guarantee of health care for 
retirees, turning it into a voucher program,

[[Page H1715]]

and cuts $30 billion over the next decade.
  The program, Medicaid, it is now a welfare program, and Grandma, who 
is in the nursing home, is now a welfare recipient who is lying in a 
hammock instead of living out her life in dignity, and you cut $810 
billion out of that fund over the next decade.
  Another entitlement program, food stamps, which served 45 million 
people during this recession, half of all Americans are now poor. 
You're going to amend that entitlement program by cutting $134 billion 
out over the next decade.
  The CBC budget rejects the breach of the Social Security Act and 
renews that contract with Americans. It rejects the 62 percent of the 
Republican budget that cuts $5.3 trillion--62 percent of it taken from 
those Americans who are most vulnerable--yet it provides deficit 
reduction of $3.4 trillion over a 10-year period of time.
  Yes, we do have different priorities. We prioritize retirees, elders, 
the disabled, and infirm over millionaires.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire about the remainder of my 
time?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CLEAVER. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanna).
  Mr. HANNA. Thank you for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I am speaking on the previous offering by Mr. Mulvaney. 
I'd like to rise and speak in opposition to the administration's 
proposed 2013 budget plan. I'd like to speak about one particular issue 
of concern.
  Despite the administration's emphasizing of the importance of 
cybersecurity and the need to retain our technological edge, this 
budget presents a stark contradiction to these priorities. Key program 
areas that are essential to maintaining our Nation's 21st century 
defense initiatives have been unreasonably slashed in this proposal.
  For example, the Air Force's science and technology cyber funding has 
been cut 17 percent. Over $1 billion has been cut from the Air Force's 
total funding level for research, development, testing, and evaluation 
programs.

                              {time}  2020

  I can personally attest to the innovative accomplishments that are 
produced by the Air Force Research Labs, such as Rome Lab in Rome, New 
York. For instance, the Air Force Research Labs were the first to 
institute computer network attack and exploitation as a formal science 
and technology discipline.
  Secretary Panetta has warned that a cyberattack could very well be 
the next Pearl Harbor that our Nation confronts. Both our defense 
enterprises and our commercial economy have become dependent on 
information technology, which makes it critical that we protect our 
networks. We can't say one thing and do another when it comes to 
prioritizing our 21st century cyberdefenses.
  I urge my colleagues to support our national security by voting 
against this budget plan.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
the U.S. Virgin Islands, Dr. Donna Christensen.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong and proud support of 
the Congressional Black Caucus' budget, which builds on the President's 
and the Democratic budget, is fiscally responsible, and restores 
America's promise and invests in our future. As a physician and chair 
of the Health Braintrust, I am particularly pleased with the investment 
we make in health.
  The CBC budget provides an additional $10 billion in 2013, which 
protects Medicare and Medicaid, and which fully funds the Affordable 
Care Act, the Minority AIDS Initiative, and the AIDS Drug Assistance 
Program. It supports the Office of Minority Health. Finally, it 
provides adequate funding for the new institute at NIH.
  We provide robust funding for important prevention and public health 
programs like the block grant, maternal and child health, oral health 
programs, and community-centric efforts to address the socioeconomic 
determinants of health. We also increase funding for the Substance 
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, for the training of 
underrepresented minorities for the health workforce and, for the first 
time, for health facilities improvements and construction.
  Health care is a right. The CBC, through this budget, ensures that 
all Americans will enjoy that right. We make a strong investment in 
health and much more, and we still reduce the deficit by $3.4 trillion 
over the next 10 years. I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  One of the moral obligations, I think, is not only to the current 
generation but to the older Americans who have poured their hearts and 
souls into this contract. They've lived with the assumption that 
certain things are going to be there. We have to live up to those 
obligations, but we also have to live up to the obligations that we 
have for our kids and our grandkids.
  One of my goals and objectives is to leave this country better than 
how I found it. One of the things that the House Republican budget does 
over the course of time is balance the budget and pay off the debt, 
which is something we have to do. So the fundamental question becomes, 
How do you do that?
  Now, I think where we have some common ground is that we want to 
broaden the base. The Republicans are suggesting that we lower the 
rates. Let people keep their own money and spend their own money. That 
is fundamentally what the United States of America is all about. The 
contrast here in what's being proposed is that they want to broaden the 
base--again, common ground--but they want to raise the rates, and 
that's where I think we have a fundamental challenge. We talk about 
what people have to pay, their fair share and whatnot. Yet let's look 
historically at what has happened in the United States of America.
  Historically, we have spent less than 20 percent of our gross 
domestic product. When the Democrats controlled the House and the 
Senate and the Presidency, they raised that up over 24 percent. That is 
more than 24 cents out of every dollar spent by the Federal Government 
in this country. I think that's immoral. I think that's wrong. We have 
an obligation--we have a duty--to live within our means and to provide 
opportunity and liberty for people to thrive. No matter where they are 
in life, the United States of America is about freedom, it's about 
liberty, it's about the opportunity to succeed--and that's the 
foundation of this country. That's what I'm committed to. That's what a 
responsible Federal Government does.
  The proper role of government is limited in its scope, and the proper 
role of government is a role of government. To me, that means the 
Department of Defense and other things to protect our Nation. That's 
where we should put our priorities, and that's why I think that this 
budget that the House Republicans have proposed is so responsible. I 
don't think we're just one good tax increase away from prosperity in 
this country, and that's, in part, why I stand in opposition to this 
amendment.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Corrine Brown.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. I want to first thank the Congressional Black 
Caucus for their leadership. The fact is that they are the conscience 
of this Congress. Thank you so very much.
  Let me say that transportation and infrastructure, if adequately 
funded, will generate thousands of jobs. In fact, for every $1 billion 
we invest in transportation it generates 44,000 permanent jobs and $6.2 
billion in economic activity. With the CBC's initial investment of $50 
billion in infrastructure funding, this budget would create over 2 
million good-paying jobs. It would also allow us to fix our failing 
bridges, aging transit systems, and crumbling roads.
  In addition, let me mention one thing about the VA. The Republicans 
often mention, What did the Democrats do when they were in charge? We 
passed the largest VA budget in the history of the United States of 
America.
  Republicans often talk the talk. Democrats walk the walk.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.

[[Page H1716]]

  You have to recognize how much money the Federal Government is 
spending here. We're going to spend in the range of about $3.5 trillion 
to $3.6 trillion in a 12-month period. Part of my rhetorical question 
here is: If that's not stimulative to the economy, why isn't it? What 
are we spending our money on if it's not intended to, in part, 
stimulate the economy? There are things that we have to do in terms of 
security and in providing for the FAA and for the Department of 
Defense, but we have to utilize those resources in a very wise way.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chairman, I would now like to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlelady from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. Let me first thank chairman Emanuel Cleaver 
for his tremendous leadership of the Congressional Black Caucus and of 
many caucuses in this House. I also thank Representative Bobby Scott 
and Representative Gwen Moore and all of our CBC colleagues for their 
tireless efforts on this budget.
  At a time when America is facing the greatest income inequality since 
the Great Depression, we must stand up and put the needs of the most 
vulnerable over the wants of the most wealthy, the special interests, 
and Big Oil. The Congressional Black Caucus' budget is a moral document 
that shows our Nation's priorities and our values.
  This budget makes important investments in job creation, 
transportation, health care, and education. The CBC budget also 
protects the safety net without cutting Social Security or destroying 
Medicaid or by ending the Medicare guarantee, as the Republican budget 
does. We must ensure that those who have borne the brunt of this 
recession, who have experienced the highest unemployment rates, and the 
highest rates of poverty--communities of color--have an opportunity to 
return to the workplace in order to support their families, have access 
to education and to the American Dream.
  These should be the values and priorities of a budget--a budget for 
everyone in mind, not just for the 1 percent. These are the priorities 
that will ensure our country and all of its people, not just the 1 
percent, recover fully from this devastating recession.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out that 
the gentleman from Utah has suggested the need to reduce the deficit. 
The Congressional Black Caucus budget beats the Republican budget by 
$770 billion. Then he talks about tax increases, but doesn't mention 
the fine print in the Republican budget that instructs the Ways and 
Means Committee to find $4 trillion in tax increases.
  So, if fiscal responsibility is the idea, the budget of the 
Congressional Black Caucus beats the Republican budget by $770 billion 
over 10 years.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time both 
sides have.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah has 8 minutes remaining, 
and the gentleman from Missouri has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, it is my intention to yield the gentleman 
some additional time. I know he has a number of speakers who are still 
left. I am happy to do that. So that is my intention as you allocate 
the rest of your time.
  For now, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLEAVER. I would like to thank the gentleman from Utah for his 
generosity and courtesy.
  I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

                              {time}  2030

  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the chairman of the Congressional 
Black Caucus for yielding to me and, again, join my colleagues in 
thanking him for his leadership, as well as the chairman of our CBC 
Budget Committee, Mr. Scott, the work that Congresswoman Moore does on 
this committee, and all the others that have gathered here.
  And I thank my good friend for a vigorous debate. I would only say to 
you that in the course of our debate this evening and today, we've 
heard of the mountain of debt and the need to cut, cut, cut. It is all 
right to have a difference of opinion, but what I would argue is that 
there are documented economists that say that if you invest in human 
capital, if you invest in people, then you build up the economy, you 
make things, you make things in America.
  I don't want to leave Americans, if you will, on the trash heap of 
despair. I don't want to leave bodies straddled all along the highways, 
those who are knocking on doors of colleges, those who are trying to 
get into primary and secondary education, seniors who are cast out on 
the streets out of nursing homes. That's where we're going.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CLEAVER. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
  So I am standing here to try to end the elimination of Medicare and 
the destruction of jobs and the taking of money from the poor.
  The CBC budget is responsible in that it's ending the mortgage 
interest deductions for vacation homes and yachts. It provides 
additional tax relief for the middle class. It provides a $25 billion 
increase for education and job training; $50 billion in transportation 
infrastructure, creating jobs; rolling back the harmful cuts to 
American Federal employees, recognizing that they provide services that 
are needed; $12 billion above the President's budget regarding NASA, 
with advanced research and development programs--that's the genius of 
the 21st century, providing more funding for the National Science 
Foundation.
  And, yes, we believe in justice. We support full funding of the 
Department of Justice, with funding for Cops on the Beat, Second 
Chance, the civil rights division. I will tell you that the message 
tonight has to be that we don't want to take food from poor people. We 
don't want to make it harder for low-income students to get a college 
degree, squeeze funding for research, education, infrastructure. We 
want to take people off that trash heap of despair and let them walk 
into glory. Let's support the CBC budget.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chairman, let me ask, with the generosity of the 
gentleman from Utah, how much time do we have?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman if he needs it and has additional speakers.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Missouri will 
control that time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Richardson).
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of the 
Congressional Black Caucus' alternative budget for fiscal year 2013. 
This budget should be considered and made in order by all of our 
colleagues.
  Minority communities took the hardest hit during the economic 
recession. In my district, we suffer rates of unemployment ranging as 
high as 25 percent and home foreclosures that are significantly higher 
than the rest of the country.
  The CBC alternative budget deals with these issues, helping us to 
have a skilled, educated workforce that can tackle the 21st century. It 
increases the maximum Pell Grant award, which we desperately need; 
invests an additional $25 billion of the President's budget in 
education and job training; invests an additional $50 billion in job-
creating transportation infrastructure projects; and provides an 
additional $5 billion for the President's budget to help people in our 
communities with foreclosures.
  Mr. Chair, I stand in support of the CBC budget and urge my 
colleagues to support it as well.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chairman, let me close on our side by thanking the 
gentleman from Utah.
  And first of all, let me call attention to one thing, and I think 
it's important. It may be more important than the discussion of the 
budget because I

[[Page H1717]]

think it helps us eventually reach budgets.
  Not one speaker on this side called this the Ryan budget. I was in an 
interview this morning and someone asked me about what I thought about 
the Ryan budget. And I said, this is the Republican budget. And if I 
attack the budget, it seems as if I'm attacking the man whose name 
seems to be attached to it. This Institution is far too important for 
us to get down into that kind of thing.
  We have some real differences in this budget. I believe, and our 
budget reflects, that budget is an x-ray of our innards. It is a moral 
document. It tells who we are. And I say, in another position in my 
life, if you show me your checkbook, I can tell you what you believe 
in.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I do appreciate the gentleman's comments, Mr. Chairman, the 
generosity and the approach that he took that, yes, we should debate 
the issues, but we don't need to attack the person. I think it is the 
right attitude, and I appreciate the comments about our chairman, 
Chairman Ryan.
  I remember what Speaker Boehner said at the beginning when I started. 
He said, We may disagree, but we shouldn't be disagreeable. So I 
appreciate the spirit in which we do this today.
  This is a contrast. There is a difference in opinion in the direction 
that we should go. I fundamentally don't believe that we're just one 
good tax increase away from prosperity in this country. I think one of 
the problems and challenges in this Nation is that our government has 
overreached. It is spending too much money. It is borrowing too much 
money. And it is regulating too much. Is there a proper role for 
regulation? Absolutely, absolutely. And where it's a necessity, we need 
to prioritize it. We need to fix those things that aren't working.
  But what we have proposed, as the House Republicans, in our budget is 
a responsible, bold budget. It's also a realistic budget that, over the 
course of time, balances the books and pays off the debt. That is the 
imperative of our Nation. Because, as I sited earlier, we have to 
leave--we should leave this Nation better than the way we found it; and 
that means creating opportunity for this Nation to thrive. We need to 
remember that manufacturing is good in this Nation. We need to remember 
that, yes, we have to make investments, but to protect our Nation.
  I look at the President's budget, and the only thing I see that it 
cuts is defense; and the only thing it drills is your wallet. I don't 
believe that that is the direction of our Nation, and that is why we 
are debating this issue in contrast to the United States Senate which, 
for more than 1,050 days now, has not even brought a budget to the 
floor to debate. That is fundamentally and morally wrong. I am proud of 
the fact that this body is doing this.
  I encourage a ``no'' vote on what has been offered as the substitute, 
but I do encourage Members to vote for what passed out of the Budget 
Committee. I think it's responsible. I think it's bold. I think it's 
the right move for our Nation.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CLEAVER. 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 Missouri 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  2040


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

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report 112 423.
  Mr. COOPER. 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 2013.

       (a) Declaration.--The Congress determines and declares that 
     this concurrent resolution establishes the budget for fiscal 
     year 2013 and sets forth appropriate budgetary levels for 
     fiscal years 2014 through 2022.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this 
     resolution is as follows:

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts.
Sec. 102. Major functional categories.

 TITLE II--RECONCILIATION AND DIRECTIVE TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

Sec. 201. Reconciliation in the House of Representatives.
Sec. 202. Directive to the Committee on the Budget of the House of 
              Representatives to replace the sequester established by 
              the Budget Control Act of 2011.

                        TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS

Sec. 301. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the sustainable growth rate 
              of the Medicare program.
Sec. 302. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for revenue measures.
Sec. 303. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for rural counties and schools.
Sec. 304. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for transportation.

                      TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 401. Discretionary spending limits.
Sec. 402. Enforcement of discretionary spending limits.
Sec. 403. Current policy estimates for tax reform.
Sec. 404. Limitation on advance appropriations.
Sec. 405. Concepts and definitions.
Sec. 406. Limitation on long-term spending.
Sec. 407. Budgetary treatment of certain transactions.
Sec. 408. Application and effect of changes in allocations and 
              aggregates.
Sec. 409. Congressional Budget Office estimates.
Sec. 410. Budget rule relating to transfers from the general fund of 
              the treasury to the highway trust fund that increase 
              public indebtedness.
Sec. 411. Separate allocation for overseas contingency operations/
              global war on terrorism.
Sec. 412. Adjustments to discretionary spending limits.
Sec. 413. Exercise of rulemaking powers.

                            TITLE V--POLICY

Sec. 501. Policy statement on tax reform.
Sec. 502. Policy statement on Medicare.
Sec. 503. Policy Statement on Social Security.
Sec. 504. Policy statement on budget enforcement.
Sec. 505. Policy statement on deficit reduction through the 
              cancellation of unobligated balances.
Sec. 506. Recommendations for the elimination of waste, fraud, and 
              abuse in Federal programs.

                TITLE VI--SENSE OF THE HOUSE PROVISIONS

Sec. 601. Sense of the house on a responsible deficit reduction plan.
Sec. 602. Sense of the house regarding low-income programs.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2013 through 2022:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,078,076,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,318,693,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $2,570,303,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $2,761,728,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $2,922,355,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,061,602,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,219,541,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,388,521,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,564,364,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $3,744,062,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2013: -$215,263,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: -$232,491,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: -$245,981,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: -$254,378,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: -$271,984,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: -$290,687,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: -$299,031,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: -$319,499,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: -$342,588,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: -$371,419,000,000.
       (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 2013: $2,870,262,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,946,241,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $3,054,353,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,233,324,000,000.

[[Page H1718]]

       Fiscal year 2017: $3,363,711,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,497,732,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,688,807,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,870,702,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,994,601,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $4,162,314,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,918,761,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,976,823,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $3,071,338,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,251,164,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,354,859,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,468,791,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,657,676,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,826,568,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,967,541,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $4,143,424,000,000.
       (4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget) 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2013: -$840,685,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: -$658,130,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: -$501,035,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: -$489,436,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: -$432,504,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: -$407,189,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: -$438,135,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: -$438,047,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: -$403,177,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: -$399,362,000,000.
       (5) Debt subject to limit.--The appropriate levels of the 
     public debt are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2013: $17,078,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $17,904,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $18,574,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $19,253,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $19,916,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $20,560,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $21,222,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $21,873,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $22,459,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $23,015,000,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2013: $12,267,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $12,994,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $13,557,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $14,097,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $14,574,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $15,009,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $15,471,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $15,933,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021; $16,342,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $16,751,000,000,000.

     SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2013 through 2022 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $551,925,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $577,486,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $554,250,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $562,264,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $556,697,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $557,062,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $560,232,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $562,378,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $564,905,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $560,727,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $570,166,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $559,637,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $576,041,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $569,660,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $582,007,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $575,432,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $588,032,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $581,313,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $594,125,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $592,693,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,260,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,938,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,573,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,130,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,248,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,555,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,582,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,036,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,930,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,771,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,442,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,192,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,955,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,640,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,484,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,019,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,256,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,551,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,488,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,967,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,606,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,838,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,724,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,775,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,901,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,907,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,140,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,110,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,410,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,353,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,713,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,590,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,019,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,885,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,328,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,641,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,413,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,662,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,448,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,012,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,856,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,446,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,631,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,338,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,648,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,998,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,157,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,767,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,512,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,636,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,556,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,575,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,337,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,468,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,187,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,485,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,153,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,230,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,115,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,704,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,634,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,406,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,839,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,479,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,960,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,133,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,268,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,123,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,867,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,533,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,260,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,379,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,893,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,174,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,420,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,092,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,837,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,745,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,645,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,537,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,846,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,420,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,182,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,823,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,640,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,268,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,988,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,562,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,575,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,197,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,909,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,566,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,462,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,113,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,172,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,838,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,820,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,488,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,692,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,784,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,397,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$4,276,000,000.

[[Page H1719]]

       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,640,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$7,260,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,045,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$7,854,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,332,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$7,379,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,297,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$12,237,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,391,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$11,766,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,476,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$4,579,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,119,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$5,902,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,053,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,979,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $83,894,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $87,609,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $75,899,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $79,265,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $77,076,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $80,930,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $78,050,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $81,348,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $80,070,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $81,343,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $80,564,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $80,784,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $83,365,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $82,933,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $78,427,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $77,578,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $90,193,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $88,853,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,876,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,755,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,761,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,081,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,787,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,384,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,387,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,554,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,442,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,496,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,426,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,562,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,203,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,610,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,158,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,679,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,225,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,730,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,335,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $73,081,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $83,403,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,083,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $74,994,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $72,234,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $74,032,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $79,848,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $79,869,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $89,238,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $87,213,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $93,216,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $93,638,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $96,259,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $96,624,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $95,955,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $97,590,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $95,776,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $97,437,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $95,877,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $97,325,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $372,016,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $367,939,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $459,021,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $448,912,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $529,180,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $524,554,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $557,667,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $580,571,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $620,385,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $623,165,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $655,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $654,839,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $696,256,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $695,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $748,320,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $737,316,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $775,692,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $774,927,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $825,197,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $824,069,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $504,884,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $504,776,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $530,189,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $529,657,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $554,449,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $554,255,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $605,756,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $605,793,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $621,150,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $620,723,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $641,367,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $641,237,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $699,350,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $699,450,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $747,812,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $747,435,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $786,084,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $785,993,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $858,585,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $858,866,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $536,342,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $534,683,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $529,771,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $527,681,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $526,878,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $524,573,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $530,473,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $532,642,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $524,849,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $522,708,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $524,520,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $518,512,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $537,417,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $536,176,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $545,520,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $544,737,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $556,173,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $555,576,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $571,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $575,528,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,381,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,497,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,053,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,206,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,320,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,462,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,003,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,134,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,160,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,253,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,418,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,529,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,051,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,179,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,841,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,973,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,807,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,944,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,097,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $67,237,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $133,980,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $135,090,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $134,668,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $135,585,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $136,587,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $137,357,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $143,925,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $144,474,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $141,458,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $141,884,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $138,730,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $139,184,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $146,811,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $147,290,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $149,676,000,000.

[[Page H1720]]

       (B) Outlays, $150,184,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $152,563,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $153,082,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $161,158,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $161,726,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,196,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,338,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,974,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,953,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,934,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,731,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,946,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,385,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,507,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,905,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,821,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,197,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,261,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,571,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,702,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,341,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,305,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,951,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,549,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,220,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,560,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,422,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,667,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,467,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,756,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,412,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,718,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,381,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,875,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,208,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,995,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,196,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,252,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,242,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,433,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,503,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,699,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,677,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,966,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,948,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $344,483,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $344,483,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $357,477,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $357,477,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $395,203,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $395,203,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $458,360,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $458,360,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $526,814,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $526,814,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $595,670,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $595,670,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $659,883,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $659,883,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $715,403,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $715,403,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $757,921,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $757,921,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $799,383,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $799,383,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, -$13,676,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$7,857,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, -$15,386,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$13,295,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, -$17,603,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$16,779,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, -$20,026,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$19,647,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$22,371,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$22,297,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$25,662,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$25,587,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$28,895,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$28,827,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$31,737,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$31,685,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$34,029,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$34,012,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$78,230,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$78,242,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, -$76,328,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$76,328,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, -$79,432,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$79,432,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, -$85,712,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$85,712,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, -$88,268,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$88,268,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$96,233,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$96,233,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$100,032,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$100,032,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$106,935,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$106,935,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$106,113,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$106,113,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$110,573,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$110,573,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$115,265,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$115,265,000,000.
       (21) Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
     Terrorism:
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $86,192,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $82,394,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,019,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $73,453,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,667,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,979,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,108,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,797,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,914,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,014,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,807,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,316,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,734,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,218,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,680,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,806,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,653,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,662,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,656,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,603,000,000.

 TITLE II--RECONCILIATION AND DIRECTIVE TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

     SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

       (a) Submissions of Spending Reduction.--Not later than 
     April 27, 2012, the House committees named in subsection (b) 
     shall submit recommendations to the Committee on the Budget 
     of the House of Representatives. After receiving those 
     recommendations, such committee shall report to the House a 
     reconciliation bill carrying out all such recommendations 
     without substantive revision.
       (b) Instructions.--
       (1) Committee on agriculture.--The Committee on Agriculture 
     of the House of Representatives shall report changes in laws 
     within its jurisdiction to reduce the deficit by $148,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2013 and by $22,371,000,000 for the period of 
     fiscal years 2013 through 2021.
       (2) Committee on armed services.--The Committee on Armed 
     Services of the House of Representatives shall report changes 
     in laws within its jurisdiction to reduce the deficit by 
     $2,400,000,000 for fiscal year 2013 and by $51,800,000,000 
     for the period of fiscal years 2013 through 2021.
       (3) Committee on education and the workforce.--The 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of 
     Representatives shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction to reduce the deficit by $4,270,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2013 and by $59,490,000,000 for the period of 
     fiscal years 2013 through 2021.
       (4) Committee on energy and commerce.--The Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives shall 
     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction to reduce the 
     deficit by $4,400,000,000 for fiscal year 2013 and by 
     $70,700,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2013 through 
     2021.
       (5) Committee on natural resources.--The Committee on 
     Natural Resources of the House of Representatives shall 
     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction to reduce the 
     deficit by $407,000,000 for fiscal year 2013 and by 
     $5,157,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2013 through 
     2021.
       (6) Committee on oversight and government reform.--The 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of 
     Representatives shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction to reduce the deficit by $600,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2013 and by $60,400,000,000 for the period of fiscal 
     years 2013 through 2021.
       (7) Committee on ways and means.--(A)(i) The Committee on 
     Ways and Means of the House of Representatives shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to enact 
     fundamental tax reform that reduce the deficit by $1 trillion 
     relative to current policy through 2021.
       (ii) In determining compliance with the revenue instruction 
     the chair of the Committee on the Budget shall calculate 
     deficit

[[Page H1721]]

     reduction relative to the current policy baseline defined in 
     section 403.
       (B) The House Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives shall report changes in direct spending laws 
     within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending 
     by $8,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2013 and by 
     $100,700,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2013 through 
     2021.

     SEC. 202. DIRECTIVE TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET OF THE 
                   HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO REPLACE THE 
                   SEQUESTER ESTABLISHED BY THE BUDGET CONTROL ACT 
                   OF 2011.

       (a) Submission.--In the House, the Committee on the Budget 
     shall report to the House a bill carrying out the directions 
     set forth in subsection (b).
       (b) Directions.--The bill referred to in subsection (a) 
     shall include the following provisions:
       (1) Replacing the sequester established by the budget 
     control act of 2011.--The language shall amend section 251A 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985 to permanently repeal the sequester established under 
     that section consistent with this concurrent resolution for 
     fiscal year 2013, and each subsequent fiscal year through 
     2021.
       (2) Application of provisions.--The bill referred to in 
     subsection (a) shall include language making its application 
     contingent upon the enactment of the reconciliation bill 
     referred to in section 201.

                        TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS

     SEC. 301. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE SUSTAINABLE 
                   GROWTH RATE OF THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for the budgetary effects of any 
     bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference 
     report thereon, that includes provisions amending or 
     superseding the system for updating payments under section 
     1848 of the Social Security Act, if such measure would not 
     increase the deficit in the period of fiscal years 2013 
     through 2022. Areas for savings may include, but are not 
     limited to, reducing Medicare fraud, increasing drug 
     discounts, reforming cost sharing requirements, and 
     accelerating or strengthening payment reforms.

     SEC. 302. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR REVENUE MEASURES.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for the budgetary effects of any 
     bill reported by the Committee on Ways and Means, or any 
     amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that 
     decreases revenue, but only if such measure would not 
     increase the deficit over the period of fiscal years 2013 
     through 2022.

     SEC. 303. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR RURAL COUNTIES AND 
                   SCHOOLS.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels and limits in this resolution for the budgetary 
     effects of any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto 
     or conference report thereon, that makes changes to the 
     Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act of 1976 (Public Law 94 565) or 
     makes changes to or provides for the reauthorization of the 
     Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 
     2000 (Public Law 106 393) by the amounts provided by that 
     legislation for those purposes, if such legislation would not 
     increase the deficit or direct spending for fiscal year 2013, 
     the period of fiscal years 2013 through 2017, or the period 
     of fiscal years 2013 through 2022.

     SEC. 304. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR TRANSPORTATION.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill or joint resolution, 
     or amendment thereto or conference report thereon:
       (1) For surface transportation programs by providing new 
     contract authority by the amounts provided in such measure if 
     the total amount of contract authority does not exceed the 
     additional revenue deposited into the Highway Trust Fund and 
     made available over the authorized period.
       (2) Such measure maintains the solvency of the Highway 
     Trust Fund, but only if such measure would not increase the 
     deficit over the period of fiscal years 2013 through 2022.

                      TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 401. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

       Spending limits for total discretionary Federal spending 
     are:
       (1) with respect to fiscal year 2013--
       (A) for the security category, $684,000,000,000 in new 
     budget authority;
       (B) for the nonsecurity category, $359,000,000,000 in new 
     budget authority; and
       (C) for overseas contingency operations (OCO), 
     $86,192,000,000 in new budget authority;
       (2) with respect to fiscal year 2014--
       (A) for the security category, $686,000,000,000 in new 
     budget authority;
       (B) for the nonsecurity category, $361,000,000,000 in new 
     budget authority; and
       (C) for overseas contingency operations, $61,019,000,000 in 
     new budget authority;
       (3) with respect to fiscal year 2015--
       (A) for the security category, $689,000,000,000 in new 
     budget authority;
       (B) for the nonsecurity category, $362,000,000,000 in new 
     budget authority; and
       (C) for overseas contingency operations, $42,667,000,000 in 
     new budget authority;
       (5) with respect to fiscal year 2016--
       (A) for the discretionary category, $1,057,669,000,000 in 
     new budget authority; and
       (B) for overseas contingency operations, $38,108,000,000 in 
     new budget authority;
       (6) with respect to fiscal year 2017--
       (A) for the discretionary category, $1,066,130,000,000 in 
     new budget authority; and
       (B) for overseas contingency operations, $37,914,000,000 in 
     new budget authority;
       (7) with respect to fiscal year 2018--
       (A) for the discretionary category, $1,075,725,000,000 in 
     new budget authority; and
       (B) for overseas contingency operations, $37,807,000,000 in 
     new budget authority;
       (8) with respect to fiscal year 2019--
       (A) for the discretionary category, $1,086,482,000,000 in 
     new budget authority; and
       (B) for overseas contingency operations, $38,734,000,000 in 
     new budget authority;
       (9) with respect to fiscal year 2020--
       (A) for the discretionary category, $1,097,347,000,000 in 
     new budget authority; and
       (B) for overseas contingency operations, $39,680,000,000 in 
     new budget authority; and
       (10) with respect to fiscal year 2021--
       (A) for the discretionary category, $1,108,321,000,000 in 
     new budget authority; and
       (B) for overseas contingency operations, $40,653,000,000 in 
     new budget authority.

     SEC. 402. ENFORCEMENT OF DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

       (a) Point of Order Against Increasing or Repealing Any 
     Discretionary Spending Limit.--It shall not be in order in 
     the House of Representatives to consider any bill or joint 
     resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, that--
       (1) increases the amount of any discretionary spending 
     limit for any fiscal year set forth in this concurrent 
     resolution on the budget; or
       (2) repeals any discretionary spending limit set forth in 
     this concurrent resolution on the budget.
       (b) Point of Order Against Any Resolution Setting 302(a) 
     Allocations Assumed in This Resolution.--It shall not be in 
     order in the House of Representatives to consider any 
     concurrent resolution on the budget or any resolution deeming 
     any budget allocations or aggregates to be in effect, or any 
     amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that provides 
     for allocations under section 302(a) for any fiscal year 
     that, in the aggregate, would exceed the discretionary 
     spending limit for that fiscal year pursuant to this 
     concurrent resolution on the budget.
       (c) Point of Order Against Waiver of Subsections (a) or 
     (b).--It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives to consider a rule or order that waives the 
     application of subsection (a) or (b).
       (d) Disposition of Points of Order.--In the House of 
     Representatives:
       (1) As disposition of points of order under subsection (a) 
     or (b), the chair shall put the question of consideration 
     with respect to the proposition that is subject to the points 
     of order.
       (2) A question of consideration under this paragraph shall 
     be debatable for ten minutes by each Member initiating a 
     point of order and for ten minutes by an opponent on each 
     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.
       (3) The disposition of the question of consideration under 
     this paragraph with respect to a bill or resolution shall be 
     considered also to determine the question of consideration 
     under this paragraph with respect to an amendment made in 
     order as original text.

     SEC. 403. CURRENT POLICY ESTIMATES FOR TAX REFORM.

       For the purposes of section 201, the term ``current policy 
     baseline'' is the baseline, as defined at section 257 of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
     based on laws in effect as of March 1, 2012, modified to 
     assume--
       (1) a permanent extension of the provisions of titles I, 
     II, III, and IV of the Economic Growth and Tax Reconciliation 
     Act of 2001, and any later amendments;
       (2) a permanent extension of the provisions of titles I, 
     III, and IV of the Jobs, Growth and Tax Reconciliation Act of 
     2001, and any later amendments;
       (3) a permanent increase in the limitations on expensing 
     depreciable business assets for small businesses under 
     section 179(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as in 
     effect in tax year 2011, as provided under section 202 of the 
     Jobs, Growth and Tax Reconciliation Act of 2001, and any 
     later amendments;
       (4) a permanent extension of the Estate and Gift Tax 
     provisions from the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance 
     Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, beginning 
     January 1, 2013; and
       (5) a permanent extension of relief from the Alternative 
     Minimum Tax, as defined in section 7(e) of the Statutory-Pay-
     As-You-Go Act of 2010, beginning January 1, 2012.

     SEC. 404. LIMITATION ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--In the House, except as provided in 
     subsection (b), any bill or joint resolution, or an amendment 
     thereto or conference report thereon, making a general 
     appropriation or continuing appropriation may not provide for 
     advance appropriations.

[[Page H1722]]

       (b) Exceptions.--An advance appropriation may be provided 
     for programs, projects, activities, or accounts referred to 
     in subsection (c)(1) or identified in the report to accompany 
     this resolution or the joint explanatory statement of 
     managers to accompany this resolution under the heading 
     ``Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations''.
       (c) Limitations.--For fiscal year 2014, the aggregate 
     amount of advance appropriation shall not exceed--
       (1) $54,462,000,000 for the following programs in the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs--
       (A) Medical Services;
       (B) Medical Support and Compliance; and
       (C) Medical Facilities accounts of the Veterans Health 
     Administration; and
       (2) $28,852,000,000 in new budget authority for all other 
     programs.
       (d) 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 2014.

     SEC. 405. CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS.

       Upon the enactment of any bill or joint resolution 
     providing for a change in budgetary concepts or definitions, 
     the chair of the Committee on the Budget may adjust any 
     appropriate levels and allocations in this resolution 
     accordingly.

     SEC. 406. LIMITATION ON LONG-TERM SPENDING.

       (a) In General.--In the House, it shall not be in order to 
     consider a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee 
     (other than the Committee on Appropriations), or an amendment 
     thereto or a conference report thereon, if the provisions of 
     such measure have the net effect of increasing direct 
     spending in excess of $5,000,000,000 for any period described 
     in subsection (b).
       (b) Time Periods.--The applicable periods for purposes of 
     this section are any of the first four consecutive ten 
     fiscal-year periods beginning with fiscal year 2023.

     SEC. 407. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 302(a)(1) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, section 13301 of the Budget 
     Enforcement Act of 1990, and section 4001 of the Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, the joint explanatory 
     statement accompanying the conference report on any 
     concurrent resolution on the budget shall include in its 
     allocation under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 to the Committee on Appropriations amounts for 
     the discretionary administrative expenses of the Social 
     Security Administration and the United States Postal Service.
       (b) Special Rule.--For purposes of applying sections 302(f) 
     and 311 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.
       (c) Adjustments.--The chair of the Committee on the Budget 
     may adjust allocations and aggregates for legislation 
     reported by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 
     that reforms the Federal retirement system, but does not 
     cause a net increase in the deficit for fiscal year 2013 and 
     the period of fiscal years 2013 to 2022.

     SEC. 408. 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 included in 
     this resolution.
       (c) Exemptions.--Any legislation for which the chair of the 
     Committee on the Budget makes adjustments in the allocations 
     or aggregates of this concurrent resolution shall not be 
     subject to the points of order set forth in clause 10 of rule 
     XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives or section 
     504.

     SEC. 409. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATES.

       (a) Fair Value Estimates.--
       (1) Request for supplemental estimates.--Upon the request 
     of the chair or ranking member of the Committee on the 
     Budget, any estimate prepared for a measure under the terms 
     of title V of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, ``credit 
     reform'', as a supplement to such estimate of the 
     Congressional Budget Office shall, to the extent practicable, 
     also provide an estimate of the current actual or estimated 
     market values representing the ``fair value'' of assets and 
     liabilities affected by such measure.
       (2) Enforcement.--If the Congressional Budget Office 
     provides an estimate pursuant to subsection (a), the chair of 
     the Committee on the Budget may use such estimate to 
     determine compliance with the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 and other budgetary enforcement controls.
       (b) Budgetary Effects of the National Flood Insurance 
     Program.--The Congressional Budget Office shall estimate the 
     change in net income to the National Flood Insurance Program 
     by this Act if such income is included in a reconciliation 
     bill provided for in section 201, as if such income were 
     deposited in the general fund of the Treasury.

     SEC. 410. BUDGET RULE RELATING TO TRANSFERS FROM THE GENERAL 
                   FUND OF THE TREASURY TO THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND 
                   THAT INCREASE PUBLIC INDEBTEDNESS.

       For purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, or 
     the Rules of the House of Representatives, a bill or joint 
     resolution, or an amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, or any Act that transfers funds from the general 
     fund of the Treasury to the Highway Trust Fund shall be 
     counted as new budget authority and outlays equal to the 
     amount of the transfer in the fiscal year the transfer 
     occurs.

     SEC. 411. SEPARATE ALLOCATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY 
                   OPERATIONS/GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM.

       (a) Allocation.--In the House, there shall be a separate 
     allocation to the Committee on Appropriations for overseas 
     contingency operations and the global war on terrorism. For 
     purposes of enforcing such separate allocation under section 
     302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the ``first 
     fiscal year'' and the ``total of fiscal years'' shall be 
     deemed to refer to fiscal year 2013. Such separate allocation 
     shall be the exclusive allocation for overseas contingency 
     operations and the global war on terrorism under section 
     302(a) of such Act. Section 302(c) of such Act does not apply 
     to such separate allocation. The Committee on Appropriations 
     may provide suballocations of such separate allocation under 
     section 302(b) of such Act. Spending that counts toward the 
     allocation established by this section shall be designated 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       (b) Adjustment.--In the House, for purposes of subsection 
     (a) for fiscal year 2013, no adjustment shall be made under 
     section 314(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 if any 
     adjustment would be made under section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985.
       (c) Limitation on Adjustment.--The amount of the 
     adjustments shall not exceed the amounts specified in section 
     501, except to the extent the additional increase is offset 
     pursuant to subsection (d) or by the amount not to exceed a 
     request submitted by the President pursuant to subsection 
     (e).
       (d) Permissible Offsets to Allow Increases in OCO Limits.--
     The discretionary spending limit for the overseas contingency 
     operation (OCO) category for any fiscal year may be 
     increased--
       (1) by the amount of any reduction in the security 
     category, nonsecurity category, or the discretionary 
     category, as applicable, for that fiscal year, if the statute 
     making such reduction sets forth the amount of the reduction 
     in such category that is to be used to increase the overseas 
     contingency operation category; or
       (2) by the amount of any reduction in direct spending or 
     increase in revenues if the statute making such reduction in 
     direct spending or increase in revenues sets forth the amount 
     of such reduction or increase that is to be used to increase 
     the overseas contingency operation category.
       (e) Request of the President.--If the President requests 
     revisions for the overseas contingency operation limit set 
     forth in this concurrent resolution on the budget by June 30, 
     2012 to accompany any supplemental budget request for such 
     operations for fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2021 with 
     an explanation of strategy consistent with the proposed 
     adjustments, then such adjustments shall not be subject to 
     the offset requirements in subsection (d).
       (f) Limitation on Adjustment.--The adjustment may only be 
     made for spending meeting the definition of overseas 
     contingency operations spending, defined as any operations 
     the funding of which is only used in geographic areas in 
     which combat or direct combat support operations occur, and 
     would be limited to--
       (1) operations and maintenance for the transport of 
     personnel, equipment, and supplies to, from, and within the 
     theater of operations; deployment-specific training and 
     preparation for units and personnel to assume their directed 
     mission; and the incremental costs above the funding 
     programmed in the base budget to build and maintain temporary 
     facilities; provide food, fuel, supplies, contracted 
     services, and other support; and cover the operational costs 
     of coalition partners supporting United States military 
     missions;
       (2) military personnel spending for incremental special 
     pays and allowances for Service members and civilians 
     deployed to a combat zone; and incremental pay, special pays, 
     and allowances for Reserve Component personnel mobilized to 
     support war missions;
       (3) procurement costs to replace losses that have occurred, 
     but only for items not already programmed for replacement in 
     the Future Years Defense Plan;
       (4) military construction spending for facilities and 
     infrastructure in the theater of operations in direct support 
     of combat operations; and
       (5) research and development projects required for combat 
     operations in these specific theaters that can be delivered 
     in a 12-month period.

[[Page H1723]]

     SEC. 412. 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 or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference 
     report thereon, making appropriations for fiscal year 2013 
     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 $751,000,000, and that amount is 
     designated for continuing disability reviews and Supplemental 
     Security Income redeterminations for the Social Security 
     Administration, the allocation to the Committee on 
     Appropriations shall be increased by the amount of the 
     additional budget authority and outlays resulting from that 
     budget authority for fiscal year 2013.
       (2) Internal revenue service tax compliance.--In the House, 
     prior to consideration of any bill or joint resolution, or 
     amendment thereto or conference report thereon, making 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2013 that appropriates 
     $7,979,000,000 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 
     $3,132,000,000 to the Internal Revenue Service and the amount 
     is designated for enhanced tax enforcement to address the tax 
     gap, the allocation to the Committee on Appropriations shall 
     be increased by the amount of additional budget authority and 
     outlays resulting from that budget authority for fiscal year 
     2013.
       (3) Health care fraud and abuse control program.--In the 
     House, prior to consideration of any bill or joint 
     resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, making appropriations for fiscal year 2013 that 
     appropriates up to $299,000,000, and the amount is designated 
     to the health care fraud and abuse control program at the 
     Department of Health and Human Services, the allocation to 
     the Committee on Appropriations shall be increased by the 
     amount of additional budget authority and outlays resulting 
     from that budget authority for fiscal year 2013.
       (4) Unemployment insurance program integrity activities.--
     In the House, prior to consideration of any bill or joint 
     resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, making appropriations for fiscal year 2013 that 
     appropriates $60,000,000 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 $10,000,000, and the amount 
     is designated for in-person reemployment and eligibility 
     assessments and unemployment insurance improper payment 
     reviews for the Department of Labor, the allocation to the 
     Committee on Appropriations shall be increased by the amount 
     of additional budget authority and outlays resulting from 
     that budget authority for fiscal year 2013.
       (b) Procedure for Adjustments.--Prior to consideration of 
     any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or 
     conference report thereon, the chair of the Committee on the 
     Budget of the House of Representatives 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. 413. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

       (a) In General.--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 of Representatives, 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.
       (b) Limitation on Application.--The following provisions of 
     H. Res. 5 (112th Congress) shall no longer have force or 
     effect:
       (1) Section 3(e) relating to advance appropriations.
       (2) Section 3(f) relating to the treatment of off-budget 
     administrative expenses.

                            TITLE V--POLICY

     SEC. 501. POLICY STATEMENT ON TAX REFORM.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) America's tax code is broken and must be reformed.
       (2) The current individual income tax system is confusing 
     and complicated, while the corporate income tax is the 
     highest in the world and hurts America's ability to compete 
     abroad.
       (3) Tax expenditures are simply spending through the tax 
     code, and cost taxpayers approximately $1.3 trillion 
     annually. They increase the deficit and cause tax rates to be 
     higher than they otherwise would be.
       (4) Tax reform should lower tax rates, reduce the deficit, 
     simplify the tax code, reduce or eliminate tax expenditures, 
     and help start and expand businesses and create jobs.
       (b) Policy on Fundamental Tax Reform.--It is the policy of 
     this resolution that fundamental income tax reform shall be 
     based on the principles and framework outlined in the 
     bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Moment of Truth report and the 
     bipartisan Rivlin-Domenici Restoring America's Future report 
     including:
       (1) lowering individual and corporate income tax rates 
     across-the-board with the top rate reduced to between 23 and 
     29 percent unless the top rate must be higher than 29 percent 
     to offset preferential treatment for capital gains;
       (2) shifting the corporate income tax from a worldwide to a 
     territorial system;
       (3) increasing the competitiveness of U.S. businesses;
       (4) broadening the tax base by reducing or eliminating tax 
     expenditures;
       (5) preserving reformed versions of tax provisions 
     addressing low-income workers and families; mortgage interest 
     for principal residences; employer-provided health insurance; 
     charitable giving; and retirement savings and pensions;
       (6) maintaining or improving progressivity of the tax code; 
     and
       (7) simplifying the tax code.

     SEC. 502. POLICY STATEMENT ON MEDICARE.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) More than 50 million Americans depend on Medicare for 
     their health security.
       (2) The Medicare Trustees Report has repeatedly recommended 
     that Medicare's long-term financial challenges be addressed 
     soon. The Medicare Trustees continue to stress the importance 
     of developing and implementing further means of reducing 
     health care cost growth in the coming years. According to the 
     Board of Trustees, Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal 
     Supplemental Medicare Insurance Trust Funds, the official 
     source for Medicare financial and actuarial status:
       (A) The Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund will remain 
     solvent until 2024, at which point it would be unable to 
     fully pay all scheduled HI benefits.
       (B) Medicare spending is growing faster than the economy. 
     Medicare outlays are currently rising at a rate of 6.3 
     percent per year, and under alternative fiscal scenario of 
     the Congressional Budget Office, mandatory spending on 
     Medicare is projected to reach 7 percent of GDP by 2035 and 
     14 percent of GDP by 2085.
       (3) Failing to address this problem will leave younger 
     generations burdened with an enormous debt to pay and less 
     health care security in old age, for spending levels that 
     cannot be sustained.
       (4) Medicare spending needs to be put on a sustainable path 
     and the Medicare program needs to become solvent over the 
     long-term.
       (b) Policy of Medicare Reform.--It is the policy of this 
     resolution that Congress should work on a bipartisan basis to 
     ensure the future of the Medicare program is preserved. The 
     Medicare changes under this resolution shall reflect the 
     principles and framework outlined in the bipartisan Simpson-
     Bowles Moment of Truth report including:
       (1) reforms achieving savings within the budget window from 
     policies including but not limited to:
       (A) permanently reforming or replacing the Medicare 
     sustainable growth rate with a system that encourages 
     coordination of care and moves toward payment based on 
     quality rather than quantity;
       (B) reducing Medicare fraud;
       (C) reforming cost sharing requirements;
       (D) accelerating or strengthening payment and delivery 
     system reforms; and
       (E) increasing drug discounts; and
       (2) setting targets for the total Federal budgetary 
     commitment to health care and requiring further structural 
     reforms if the policies in this resolution and other reforms 
     are not sufficient to limit the growth of total Federal 
     budgetary commitment to health care, including mandatory 
     programs and provisions of the tax code related to health 
     care to GDP plus 1 percent.

     SEC. 503. POLICY STATEMENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) More than 55 million retirees, individuals with 
     disabilities, and survivors depend on Social Security. Since 
     enactment, Social Security has served as a vital leg on the 
     ``three-legged stool'' of retirement security, which includes 
     employer provided pensions as well as personal savings.
       (2) The Social Security Trustees report has repeatedly 
     recommended that Social Security's long-term financial 
     challenges be addressed soon. Each year without reform, the 
     financial condition of Social Security becomes more 
     precarious and the threat to seniors and those receiving 
     Social Security disability benefits becomes more pronounced:
       (A) In 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office, 
     the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund will be exhausted 
     and will be unable to pay scheduled benefits.
       (B) In 2036, according to the Social Security Trustees 
     Report the combined Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance 
     Trust Fund and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund will 
     be exhausted, and will be unable to pay scheduled benefits.
       (C) With the exhaustion of the trust funds in 2036, 
     benefits will be cut 23 percent across the board, devastating 
     those currently in or near retirement and those who rely on 
     Social Security the most.
       (3) The current recession has exacerbated the crisis to 
     Social Security. The Congressional Budget Office continues to 
     project permanent cash deficits.
       (4) Lower-income Americans rely on Social Security for a 
     larger proportion of their retirement income. Therefore, 
     reforms should

[[Page H1724]]

     take into consideration the need to protect lower-income 
     Americans' retirement security.
       (5) Americans deserve action by their elected officials on 
     Social Security reform. It is critical that the Congress and 
     the administration work together in a bipartisan fashion to 
     address the looming insolvency of Social Security. In this 
     spirit, this resolution creates a bipartisan opportunity to 
     find solutions by requiring policymakers to ensure that 
     Social Security remains a critical part of the safety net.
       (b) Policy on Social Security.--It is the policy of this 
     resolution that Congress should work on a bipartisan basis to 
     make Social Security sustainably solvent over 75 years, as 
     certified by the Congressional Budget Office using estimates 
     provided by the Social Security Administration Office of the 
     Chief Actuary. Legislation to ensure sustainable solvency 
     shall reflect the principles and framework outlined in the 
     bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Moment of Truth report and the 
     bipartisan Rivlin-Domenici Restoring America's Future report, 
     which:
       (1) achieve the following objectives:
       (A) protect those in and near retirement;
       (B) preserve the safety net for those who rely on Social 
     Security, including survivors and those with disabilities;
       (C) improve fairness for participants; and
       (D) reduce the burden on, and provide certainty for, future 
     generations, and
       (2) include, among other proposals:
       (A) moving to a more progressive benefit formula;
       (B) providing an enhanced minimum benefit for low-wage 
     workers;
       (C) increasing benefits for the elderly and long-time 
     disabled, accounting for changes in life expectancy over the 
     next 75 years; and
       (D) gradually restoring the maximum wage base that has 
     slowly eroded.

     SEC. 504. POLICY STATEMENT ON BUDGET ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) The Congressional Budget Office, the Federal Reserve, 
     the Government Accountability Office, the Simpson-Bowles 
     Fiscal Commission, the Rivlin-Domenici Debt Reduction Task 
     Force, and ten former Chairmen of the Council of Economic 
     Advisors all concluded that debt is growing at unsustainable 
     rates and must be brought under control.
       (2) According to the Congressional Budget Office, if 
     entitlements are not reformed, entitlement spending on Social 
     Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will exceed the historical 
     average of revenue collections as a share of the economy 
     within forty years.
       (3) According to the Congressional Budget Office, under 
     current policies, debt would reach levels that the economy 
     could no longer sustain in 2035 and a fiscal crisis is likely 
     to occur well before that date.
       (7) To avoid a fiscal crisis and maintain program solvency, 
     Congress must enact legislation that makes structural reforms 
     to entitlement programs.
       (8) Instead of automatic debt increases and automatic 
     spending increases, Congress needs to put limits on spending 
     with automatic reductions if spending limits are not met.
       (9) The budget lacks both short- and long-term spending 
     controls. Greater transparency and the use of spending 
     controls, particularly for long-term entitlement spending, 
     are needed to tackle this growing threat of a fiscal crisis.
       (b) Policy on Debt Controls.--It is the policy of this 
     concurrent resolution on the budget that in order to 
     stabilize the debt and bring it under control, the following 
     statutory spending and debt controls are needed:
       (1) Enforceable statutory caps on discretionary spending at 
     levels set forth in this concurrent resolution on the budget 
     for the period of fiscal years 2013 through 2022, that 
     includes:
       (A) separate limits on security and nonsecurity spending 
     and firewalls through fiscal year 2015, and limits on 
     Overseas Contingency Operations through 2021;
       (B) a point of order; and
       (C) an across-the-board sequester to bring spending back in 
     line with statutory caps if the point of order is waived.
     At the end of each session of Congress, the Congressional 
     Budget Office shall certify that discretionary spending 
     approved by Congress is within the discretionary spending 
     caps. If the caps are not met, the Office of Management and 
     Budget would be required to implement an across-the-board 
     sequester.
       (2) Establish a debt stabilization process to provide a 
     backstop to enforce savings and keep the Federal budget on 
     path to achieve long-term targets that:
       (A) Require at the beginning of each year, the Office of 
     Management and Budget to report to the President and the 
     Congressional Budget Office to report to the Congress 
     whether--
       (i) the budget is projected to be in primary balance in 
     2015;
       (ii) the debt held by the public as a percentage of GDP is 
     projected to be stable at 2015 levels for the following five 
     years; and
       (iii) beginning in fiscal year 2016, whether the actual 
     debt-to-GDP ratio will exceed the prior year's ratio.
       (B) In a year in which the Office of Management and Budget 
     indicates any one of these conditions has not been met, the 
     President's budget submission shall include legislative 
     recommendations that would restore primary budget balance in 
     2015 or, after 2015, stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio.
       (C) If the Congressional budget resolution also shows that 
     one of these conditions has not been met, the resolution 
     shall include fast-track procedures for debt stabilization 
     legislation to bring the budget back within the deficit or 
     debt targets.
       (D) If Congress cannot agree upon a budget resolution in a 
     timely manner, and the report of the Congressional Budget 
     Office predicts one of these conditions has not been met, 
     then any Member of the House may introduce a debt 
     stabilization bill, and a motion to proceed to that bill 
     shall be considered on the floor.
       (E) Congressional action on debt stabilization action would 
     be enforced by a supermajority point of order against any 
     legislation that would provide new mandatory budget authority 
     or reduce revenues until a stabilization bill has been passed 
     in years during which a budget resolution includes a debt 
     stabilization instruction. The debt stabilization process 
     would be suspended if nominal GDP grew by less than one 
     percent in the prior fiscal year. The process could also be 
     suspended by the enactment of a joint resolution stating that 
     stabilization legislation would cause or exacerbate an 
     economic downturn.

     SEC. 505. POLICY STATEMENT ON DEFICIT REDUCTION THROUGH THE 
                   CANCELLATION OF UNOBLIGATED BALANCES.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) According to the Office of Management and Budget, 
     Federal agencies will hold $698 billion in unobligated 
     balances at the close of fiscal year 2013.
       (2) These funds represent direct and discretionary spending 
     made available by Congress that remain available for 
     expenditure beyond the fiscal year for which they are 
     provided.
       (3) In some cases, agencies are granted funding and it 
     remains available for obligation indefinitely.
       (4) The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 
     1974 requires the Office of Management and Budget to make 
     funds available to agencies for obligation and prohibits the 
     Administration from withholding or cancelling unobligated 
     funds unless approved by an act of Congress.
       (5) Greater congressional oversight is required to review 
     and identify potential savings from unneeded balances of 
     funds.
       (b) Policy on Deficit Reduction Through the Cancellation of 
     Unobligated Balances.--Congressional committees shall through 
     their oversight activities identify and achieve savings 
     through the cancellation or rescission of unobligated 
     balances that neither abrogate contractual obligations of the 
     Federal Government nor reduce or disrupt Federal commitments 
     under programs such as Social Security, veterans' affairs, 
     national security, and Treasury authority to finance the 
     national debt.
       (c) Deficit Reduction.--Congress, with the assistance of 
     the Government Accountability Office, the Inspectors General, 
     and other appropriate agencies should make it a high priority 
     to review unobligated balances and identify savings for 
     deficit reduction.

     SEC. 506. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE ELIMINATION OF WASTE, 
                   FRAUD, AND ABUSE IN FEDERAL PROGRAMS.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) The Government Accountability Office is required by law 
     to identify examples of waste, duplication, and overlap in 
     Federal programs, and has so identified dozens of such 
     examples.
       (2) In testimony before the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform, the Comptroller General has stated that 
     addressing the identified waste, duplication, and overlap in 
     Federal programs ``could potentially save tens of billions of 
     dollars''.
       (3) The Rules of the House of Representatives require each 
     standing committee to hold at least one hearing every four 
     months on waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement in Government 
     programs.
       (4) The findings resulting from congressional oversight of 
     Federal Government programs should result in programmatic 
     changes in both authorizing statutes and program funding 
     levels.
       (b) Policy on Deficit Reduction Through the Reduction of 
     Unnecessary and Wasteful Spending.--Each authorizing 
     committee annually shall include in its Views and Estimates 
     letter required under section 301(d) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 recommendations to the Committee on the 
     Budget of programs within the jurisdiction of such committee 
     whose funding should be reduced or eliminated. Such 
     recommendations shall be made publicly available.

                TITLE VI--SENSE OF THE HOUSE PROVISIONS

     SEC. 601. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON A RESPONSIBLE DEFICIT 
                   REDUCTION PLAN.

       It is the sense of the House that--
       (1) the Nation's debt is an immense security threat to our 
     country, just as Admiral Mullen, the former Chairman of the 
     Joint Chiefs of Staff, has stated;
       (2) the Government Accountability Office has issued reports 
     documenting billions of dollars of waste and duplication at 
     Government agencies;
       (3) the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Fiscal Commission and the 
     bipartisan Rivlin-Domenici Debt Reduction Task Force were 
     correct in concluding that everything, including spending and 
     revenue, should be ``on the table'' as part of a deficit 
     reduction plan; and

[[Page H1725]]

       (4) any budget plan to reduce the deficit must follow this 
     precept.

     SEC. 602. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING LOW-INCOME PROGRAMS.

       It is the sense of the House that in achieving the deficit 
     reduction targets outlined in section 201, the importance of 
     low-income programs that help those most in need should be 
     taken into consideration.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 597, the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. COOPER. I would like to make a unanimous consent request.
  I believe that we've agreed to divide the time in a different way.
  I would like to yield to the gentleman, my friend from Wisconsin.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I will claim time in opposition, 
but I will yield half my time, 5 minutes, to the gentleman from 
Tennessee.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Tennessee 
will control 15 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, a further unanimous consent request. I 
would like to yield half of my time, 7\1/2\ minutes, to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Ohio will 
control that time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have the honor tonight of representing the budget that is endorsed 
by Simpson and Bowles. This is the only bipartisan budget that the 
House of Representatives will be able to consider in this budget cycle. 
This is the first time that a Simpson-Bowles budget has been allowed on 
the floor of the House or the Senate. This is a historic night, and I 
hope that Members will appreciate this opportunity.
  This is one of the most partisan weeks in Washington, and this is the 
only bipartisan way to solve the Nation's problems. This is the only 
budget that has a chance of getting through both the House and the 
Senate. I hope Members will appreciate this opportunity.
  Members have expressed interest, but in this partisan week, we've 
been hammered by forces on both the left and the right, people who do 
not want America to solve its problems in a sensible and fair manner.
  To illustrate what we're doing here, the Wall Street Journal today 
had a graph of the different budget alternatives.
  The top line here is assuming current policies. It is clear trouble 
for the Nation because we're not reducing the deficit.
  The blue line here is the White House budget, which makes 
considerable progress in solving our problems.
  The bottom line here is the GOP plan, which is tough and completely 
partisan.
  There's not a single Democrat in the country that will support that. 
So it's a budget to nowhere. It's a bridge to nowhere.
  In between the White House budget and the GOP plan is the 
bipartisanship proposal, the Simpson-Bowles-endorsed budget. It's very 
tough on deficits, it gets the job done, and it gets the job done in a 
bipartisan fashion.
  I hope my colleagues will focus on this budget alternative. We have 
precious few minutes to debate this, a total of 15 minutes, when the 
other side had 4 hours. This is a David versus Goliath situation. But I 
hope not only Members of this body will pay attention, but the public 
back home, because they want us to solve our problems in a peaceable 
and fair fashion. They're tired of political bickering. We have the 
chance in this House tonight to stop the political bickering and pass a 
good, tough, and fair budget for America.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. I thank Mr. 
Cooper for his courtesy and his partnership.
  I want to begin by saying something nice about Paul Ryan. Paul Ryan 
has got one of the toughest jobs in the country. It's like herding cats 
to get new guys, old guys, and everybody else to put together the 
budget that he has for the last 2 years.
  However, as Mr. Cooper indicated, his budget is a Republican budget. 
Mr. Van Hollen's budget is a Democratic budget.
  There's an organization called PolitiFact which sort of checks out 
what public figures say about certain things. This particular chart, 
Pants on Fire, was awarded for the biggest lie of 2011, and that was 
those who claimed that Mr. Ryan's last budget ended Medicare as we know 
it. It got the distinction of being Pants on Fire for all of 2011.
  As Mr. Cooper indicated, we have been viciously attacked from the 
left and the right; and when you know you have a good deal is when the 
left and the right are pounding the snot out of you. That's what's 
happening here today.
  So I want to give some Pants on Fire to some of the claims that are 
being made.
  The claim that this creates a path for Medicare premium support, if 
you're making that argument, your pants are on fire.
  This slashes benefits for Social Security recipients. False. Your 
pants are on fire.
  This is a $2 trillion tax hike. False. Your pants are on fire.
  Repealing the sequester means $1 trillion in increased spending. 
False. Your pants are on fire.
  This would decimate the defense budget. False. Your pants are on 
fire.
  This encourages tax avoidance by corporations and will ship jobs 
overseas. Your pants are on fire.
  The recession would worsen under Simpson-Bowles. Your pants are on 
fire.
  GDP+1 requires deep cuts in health care, including Medicare. Your 
pants are on fire.
  The Simpson-Bowles budget would decimate domestic programs and force 
massive cuts. Your pants are on fire.
  Anybody that wants to read about it, come see Mr. Cooper or me and we 
will put your pants out.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I will yield myself 2\1/2\ 
minutes, and I will just do 2\1/2\ minutes to close.
  First of all, the reason I wanted to yield these gentleman half our 
time is I don't know why they weren't yielded the same amount of time 
as the other substitutes were. I don't know why that happened, but it's 
wrong that it happened the way it did. That's why I wanted to give them 
those 5 minutes.
  I also want to congratulate them for putting a plan on the table. 
It's nice to see. We don't see that too often these days.
  I served on the Simpson-Bowles Commission, and I voted against it. I 
want to explain why, and I will use the numbers from this budget to 
show.
  Number one, it keeps ObamaCare in place. It keeps PPACA in place. 
This budget does, too, because it's current law. So unless you rescind 
it, the spending of it, you're keeping ObamaCare in place, and I have a 
problem with that health care law. I think it's a bad one. This budget, 
Simpson-Bowles, keeps it in place.
  Number two, it doesn't address the real drivers of our debt, which 
are these health care entitlement programs. Simpson-Bowles didn't do 
it. This one doesn't either. To me, you're really not dealing with the 
driver of our debt unless you do that.
  Number three, revenues. Based on the baseline, it has $1.8 trillion 
in higher revenues. It does mean higher taxes. The last year of this 
particular budget has higher revenues than the Democratic substitute 
and the President's budget.
  The spending cuts, when you look at the baseline compared to the 
current law baseline, the one we all measure against here, and you take 
out the war gimmick, it only has $27 billion in spending cuts over 10 
years; by contrast, our budget has $3.3 trillion. So I'm not a fan of 
the war gimmick. If you take out that war thing, it only cuts about $27 
billion off the current law baseline.
  It claims that this cuts $4 trillion in deficit reduction. I'm not 
sure what baseline is being used to do that. But on the current policy 
baseline, this really only has $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction; 72 
percent of that comes from tax increases and 28 percent comes from 
spending reductions.
  I want to simply say amen for bringing a plan to the table. I have 
tremendous respect for Erskine Bowles and

[[Page H1726]]

Alan Simpson and Jim Cooper and Steve LaTourette because they're here 
being a part of the solution by offering a solution and not being a 
part of the problem.
  I think it goes without saying, but it bears repeating, I just don't 
like the substance of it. I think it's going to end up pushing people 
into ObamaCare, whose costs will explode, and I think it's going to be 
bad for our health care system and it doesn't deal with the primary 
drivers of our debt. And I don't want to see a big tax increase before 
you deal with the entitlement programs, because then you're just 
chasing higher spending with higher revenues.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I think there's a consensus in America 
that we have to reduce our deficit. Most it of should be by cutting 
spending, and some of it should come in revenue contributions from the 
wealthiest Americans. This proposal does this, so I support it.
  I will tell you the other reason I support it. I want our country to 
have enough resources that a child can get the best education they 
should. We won't if we don't control the deficit. I want her mother to 
get a college education and a good job. We won't if we don't control 
the deficit. I want her grandmother to have Social Security and 
Medicare. We won't if we don't control the deficit.
  If you believe in the progressive things government can do, you must 
believe and act on reducing the deficit.
  This is the best and bipartisan way in front of us. I urge a ``yes'' 
vote.
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I would now like to yield 1 minute to my 
friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who actually helped me 
with the original Cooper-Wolf legislation that helped spawn the 
Simpson-Bowles Commission.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to take 1 minute of 
our time and give it to Mr. Wolf for a grand total of 2 minutes.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  2050

  Mr. WOLF. Simon & Garfunkel said in the song ``The Boxer'': ``Man 
hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.'' I tell the 
gentleman, I'm opposed to ObamaCare. I voted against it 26 times.
  America is in trouble. America is facing economic collapse. We have 
$15.2 trillion debt, and by the end of this year when you hang your 
Christmas tree lights up with Christmas tree lights made in China, it 
will be at $17 trillion. We're borrowing money from China where there 
are 25 Catholic bishops under house arrest and hundreds of Protestant 
pastors under house arrest, and we're doing nothing about it. We're 
borrowing money from Saudi Arabia that funded the radical madrassas up 
among the Afghan-Pakistan border that led to 9/11, and that led to 
where we are, quite frankly, with regard to Afghanistan.
  When I go into every high school in my district, I ask the young 
people, Is the Social Security system sound and will it be there when 
you retire? In the last 3 years, not one has raised their hand. The 
seniors in my congressional district know more than this Congress, and 
they know more than this administration. The President has walked away 
and has failed, and the Congress--both political parties--have walked 
away and failed.
  I commend my friends, Mr. Cooper and Mr. LaTourette, and ask for a 
``yes'' vote on the Simpson-Bowles Commission.
  Mr. Chair, nearly six years ago--during the last Republican House 
majority--I introduced legislation to create an independent, bipartisan 
commission to address the deficit.
  I called it the SAFE Commission, short for Securing America's Future 
Economy. Everything would be on the table for discussion--entitlements, 
all other spending programs and tax policy--and like the BRAC process, 
Congress would be required to vote up or down on the commission's 
recommendations.
  My colleague and good friend Jim Cooper of Tennessee joined me in 
sponsoring this legislation in 2007 and in subsequent years. It 
ultimately became the blueprint for the President's National Commission 
on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, more commonly referred to as the 
Simpson-Bowles Commission.
  The Simpson-Bowles Commission produced a credible plan that gained 
the support of a bipartisan majority of the commission's 18 members. 
Called ``The Moment of Truth,'' the commission's report made clear that 
eliminating the debt and deficit will not be easy and that any reform 
must begin with entitlements. Mandatory and discretionary spending also 
has to be addressed as well other ``sacred cows,'' including tax reform 
and defense spending.
  Had just three more members of the Simpson-Bowles Commission 
supported the recommendations, this plan likely would have passed the 
Congress and be law today. I was disappointed that the President, and 
his administration, walked away from the commission. The President 
failed the country. Leadership on both sides of the congressional aisle 
has done no better. This town is dysfunctional. If the plan had 
advanced, we would already be on our way in getting our nation's fiscal 
house in order.
  Over the past year and a half I have repeatedly said that while there 
are some changes I would make, I would support a budget proposal 
similar to or based on Simpson-Bowles if it came to a vote on the House 
floor. I want to commend Mr. Cooper and Mr. LaTourette today for 
offering this substitute amendment, which was drafted using the 
bipartisan principals of the Simpson-Bowles Commission.
  Simpson-Bowles provides the framework for the most comprehensive and 
realistic solution to our nation's fiscal problems. I have submitted 
the preamble of the Simpson-Bowles Commission report for the Record, 
which, I believe, is a worthy read as we debate the Cooper-LaTourette 
substitute.
  Every Member of Congress and the President know the dire economic 
situation facing our country: a debt load over $15.5 trillion, annual 
deficits over $1 trillion and unfunded obligations and liabilities over 
$65 trillion on the books to pay for programs such as Social Security, 
Medicare and Medicaid.
  We're borrowing this money from nations such as China--which is 
spying on us, where human rights are an afterthought, and Catholic 
bishops, Protestant ministers and Tibetan monks are jailed for 
practicing their faith--and oil-exporting countries such as Saudi 
Arabia--which funded the radical madrasahs on the Afghan-Pakistan 
border resulting in the rise of the Taliban and al Qaeda.
  We always say we want to leave our country better than we found it, 
and to give our children and grandchildren hope for the future. Just 
today, noted historian Niall Ferguson testified before my subcommittee 
and said that, if we do not change course, the debt burden will not 
only crush our children and grandchildren but also the current 
generation in the very near future.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office's long term estimate, 
every penny of the federal budget will go to interest on the debt and 
entitlement spending by 2025. Every penny. That means no money for 
national defense. No money for homeland security. No money to fix the 
nation's crumbling bridges and roads. No money for medical research to 
find a cure for cancer or Alzheimer's or Parkinson's diseases.
  We have to find a solution to this debt crisis. Failure is not an 
option.
  Congress and the President must be willing to support a plan that 
breaks loose from the special interests holding Washington by the 
throat and return confidence to the country.
  Congress and the President also need to be honest with the American 
people and explain that we cannot solve our nation's financial crisis 
by just cutting waste, fraud and abuse within discretionary accounts. 
The real runaway spending is occurring in our out-of-control 
entitlement costs and the hundreds of billions in annual tax earmarks. 
Until we reach an agreement that addresses these two drivers of our 
deficit and debts, we cannot right our fiscal ship of state.
  I am--and have been--willing to make the hard choices to ensure a 
better future for our children and grandchildren. Every two years I 
take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. I do not sign 
pledges to lobbyists or special interest groups.
  If the Cooper-LaTourette substitute does not pass today, I will vote 
to support the Ryan budget proposal so that we may move the budget 
process forward and continue the necessary discussions to address our 
nation's financial crisis.
  But I hope this substitute passes. It is a balanced and ambitious 
roadmap to address our deficit.
  It also is the only truly bipartisan plan that is being offered, and, 
I believe, the only plan that has the opportunity to be approved by the 
Senate.

[[Page H1727]]

  More important, this proposal calls for difficult decisions by 
finding savings to completely turn off the Budget Control Act's looming 
sequestration, which could devastate our defense capabilities.
  As I mentioned earlier, I do not agree with every recommendation in 
the Simpson-Bowles plan. Nor do I support every part of the Cooper-
LaTourette substitute. For example, I fully support efforts to repeal 
and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and regret 
that Cooper-LaTourette is silent on the need to address this issue. I 
am also concerned about the instructions proposed for the committee of 
jurisdiction over the federal workforce. This could impact workers 
including the FBI and CIA agents serving in Afghanistan, CBP agents 
stopping illegal immigrants coming across our borders, the VA doctors 
caring for our veterans, and the NIH medical researchers working to 
develop cures for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's and autism.
  However, the Cooper-LaTourette substitute is the kind of bipartisan 
cooperation that we must have. It is the kind of forthright, realistic 
conversation about our nation's fiscal future in which we must engage 
across the aisle, across the Capitol and down Pennsylvania Avenue if we 
are to have any hope of coming up with a credible plan to protect the 
future for our children and grandchildren.
  Every Member should support this substitute.

                                Preamble

       Throughout our nation's history, Americans have found the 
     courage to do right by our children's future. Deep down, 
     every American knows we face a moment of truth once again. We 
     cannot play games or put off hard choices any longer. Without 
     regard to party, we have a patriotic duty to keep the promise 
     of America to give our children and grandchildren a better 
     life.
       Our challenge is clear and inescapable: America cannot be 
     great if we go broke. Our businesses will not be able to grow 
     and create jobs, and our workers will not be able to compete 
     successfully for the jobs of the future without a plan to get 
     this crushing debt burden off our backs.
       Ever since the economic downturn, families across the 
     country have huddled around kitchen tables, making tough 
     choices about what they hold most dear and what they can 
     learn to live without. They expect and deserve their leaders 
     to do the same. The American people are counting on us to put 
     politics aside, pull together not pull apart, and agree on a 
     plan to live within our means and make America strong for the 
     long haul.
       As members of the National Commission on Fiscal 
     Responsibility and Reform, we spent the past eight months 
     studying the same cold, hard facts. Together, we have reached 
     these unavoidable conclusions: The problem is real. The 
     solution will be painful. There is no easy way out. 
     Everything must be on the table. And Washington must lead.
       We come from different backgrounds, represent different 
     regions, and belong to different parties, but we share a 
     common belief that America's long-term fiscal gap is 
     unsustainable and, if left unchecked, will see our children 
     and grandchildren living in a poorer, weaker nation. In the 
     words of Senator Tom Coburn, ``We keep kicking the can down 
     the road, and splashing the soup all over our 
     grandchildren.'' Every modest sacrifice we refuse to make 
     today only forces far greater sacrifices of hope and 
     opportunity upon the next generation.
       Over the course of our deliberations, the urgency of our 
     mission has become all the more apparent. The contagion of 
     debt that began in Greece and continues to sweep through 
     Europe shows us clearly that no economy will be immune. If 
     the U.S. does not put its house in order, the reckoning will 
     be sure and the devastation severe.
       The President and the leaders of both parties in both 
     chambers of Congress asked us to address the nation's fiscal 
     challenges in this decade and beyond. We have worked to offer 
     an aggressive, fair, balanced, and bipartisan proposal--a 
     proposal as serious as the problems we face. None of us likes 
     every element of our plan, and each of us had to tolerate 
     provisions we previously or presently oppose in order to 
     reach a principled compromise. We were willing to put our 
     differences aside to forge a plan because our nation will 
     certainly be lost without one.
       We do not pretend to have all the answers. We offer our 
     plan as the starting point for a serious national 
     conversation in which every citizen has an interest and all 
     should have a say. Our leaders have a responsibility to level 
     with Americans about the choices we face, and to enlist the 
     ingenuity and determination of the American people in rising 
     to the challenge.
       We believe neither party can fix this problem on its own, 
     and both parties have a responsibility to do their part. The 
     American people are a long way ahead of the political system 
     in recognizing that now is the time to act. We believe that 
     far from penalizing their leaders for making the tough 
     choices, Americans will punish politicians for backing down--
     and well they should.
       In the weeks and months to come, countless advocacy groups 
     and special interests will try mightily through expensive, 
     dramatic, and heart-wrenching media assaults to exempt 
     themselves from shared sacrifice and common purpose. The 
     national interest, not special interests, must prevail. We 
     urge leaders and citizens with principled concerns about any 
     of our recommendations to follow what we call the Becerra 
     Rule: Don't shoot down an idea without offering a better idea 
     in its place.
       After all the talk about debt and deficits, it is long past 
     time for America's leaders to put up or shut up. The era of 
     debt denial is over, and there can be no turning back. We 
     sign our names to this plan because we love our children, our 
     grandchildren, and our country too much not to act while we 
     still have the chance to secure a better future for all our 
     fellow citizens.

  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, if no one else is seeking time, I would 
like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend from Oregon (Mr. Schrader) 
who, along with Mr. Quigley, Mr. Lipinski, and Mr. Costa, have been 
invaluable partners in pushing for the Simpson-Bowles budget.
  Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I really commend Mr. Cooper and Mr. 
LaTourette for bringing this bipartisan proposal forward. It's really 
time, America, to focus on things we agree on, not things that we 
disagree on. America wants to see us as uniters, not dividers, in this 
business down here.
  This is the only bipartisan proposal that's going to be offered. It 
is going to be the framework for whatever deal we come to at the end of 
this year when we're staring the Bush tax cuts going off and when we're 
staring extreme defense cuts in the face. This is the proposal, in some 
form, that will be adopted.
  This proposal recognizes there's a balance. It's not perfect. There 
are some groups that are very peeved at the altar, quite frankly. But 
this is the only proposal that's bipartisan. It actually addresses the 
two big drivers. Our revenues are at an all-time low, the lowest since 
World War II. You're not going to have a vibrant economy without 
revenue to support our schools, our infrastructure, our transportation, 
and our economic development.
  Yes, the entitlements are a problem. The gentleman from Wisconsin, 
while he's not in favor of some of the aspects of the health care bill, 
adapts all of the savings that we did in the last Congress because 
they're good, efficient ways to improve the life and solvency of 
Medicare. Medicare is not a problem because President Bush was evil or 
President Obama was evil. It's a problem that we've got more people and 
the baby boomers are retiring, so there are less workers to support 
them at the end of the day, and great health care that's being driven. 
So we need to get our act together and support this proposal.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, at this time, it is my pleasure to 
yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend and classmate from New Hampshire, a 
cosponsor of this substitute, Charlie Bass.
  Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the pending amendment. The budget 
presented by my friend from Wisconsin, Congressman Ryan, is a great 
statement of principle, and I will vote for it. And I suspect that it 
will pass the House. But it will not be considered by the Senate. The 
Senate will not accept or pass appropriations at its levels, and there 
will be no reconciliation this year.
  Mr. Chairman, in 9 short months, the Bush-era tax cuts will end, and 
taxes will go up by $4.6 trillion, the biggest tax increase in American 
history. The mindless across-the-board cuts in spending in the 
sequester will take effect cutting, amongst other programs, defense by 
over $400 billion. We'll have a vote to raise this Nation's debt with 
no accomplishments to justify it. We will have to either renew or 
repeal the temporary payroll tax holiday, and we'll have to complete 
our appropriations at higher levels than in this budget, the base 
budget, or face the specter of continuing resolutions through next 
year.
  The American people have heard the debate on both sides, and they are 
crying for solutions--not squabbling, not posturing or policy 
brinksmanship. We all have principles. Compromise is not a capitulation 
of principle. It never has been. All of the great policy 
accomplishments of our Nation's history have resulted from the 
willingness of men and women of principle to attack and resolve crises 
together through negotiation and, yes, compromise. We have that chance 
tonight.
  Mr. Chairman, I challenge Republicans and Democrats to vote for the

[[Page H1728]]

LaTourette-Cooper-Simpson-Bowles bipartisan budget tonight and make 
America proud of us once again.
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend from 
Pennsylvania, Chaka Fattah.
  Mr. FATTAH. I rise in support of this bipartisan budget that's being 
offered that would approach this in a balanced way, that is, with both 
cuts and additional revenues. It is the basis under which there is a 
majority support in our country. We have a responsibility to rise to 
the occasion, and I would hope tonight that we would have Members of 
this House that could rise above party and do what's right. Let's move 
the country in a responsible way so that we can continue to make the 
investments we need so America can live up to its responsibilities to 
its citizens and to global leadership.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield an 
additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman seek unanimous consent?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Yes.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Ohio will 
control the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. And in the spirit of unanimous consents, I would ask 
unanimous consent that 15 of those precious seconds go to Mr. Cooper 
and that he be permitted to yield those 15 seconds as ever how he sees 
fit.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. At this time, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to 
a new Member of the House from the State of Illinois, who has 
cosponsored this substitute at great political peril, quite frankly; 
and he deserves to be rewarded by the citizens of Illinois and not 
punished by the special interest groups of the right or left, Bob Dold.
  Mr. DOLD. I certainly thank the gentleman for yielding and for his 
leadership on this. I also want to take the opportunity to thank my 
friend, Paul Ryan, for his work on the budget which I think is so 
critical. As we look at budgets right now, there are not so many of 
them over in the United States Senate, and when I think about running a 
business or the families across the country that need to put together a 
budget, I think it's wrong that the United States Government doesn't 
have one.
  Mr. Chairman, my children were on the floor today. They were here in 
Washington, D.C.; and when I think about why I came to Washington, 
D.C., it's because of them, about the American Dream for my children, 
about providing a country that's better off for them.
  We've got $15.5 trillion in debt; we borrow 42 cents of every single 
dollar. It's time that we put people before politics and progress 
before partisanship so that we can get something done. It's about 
providing solutions for our country so that we can come together, have 
a document that we can use to be able to move the country forward. We 
need to cut back and rein in spending. We need to be able to provide 
that certainty for American businesses that are out there.
  This is our time. We, Republicans and Democrats alike, have to put 
the party bickering aside. We have to focus on the solutions that are 
out there. Am I going to like all of it? The answer is, no, I'm not 
going to like all of it.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.
  Mr. DOLD. Mr. Chairman, I certainly thank Mr. LaTourette.
  The point is simply this, Mr. Chairman, for my children and yours, 
for the children of the next generation, the time is now. We have to 
stand up, we have to put together a budget, we have to do so, and we 
have to find the common ground and move forward. We have to lower our 
corporate tax rates so that we can be more competitive in the global 
marketplace. This is our time. I'm asking everyone for a ``yes'' vote 
on the LaTourette-Cooper amendment.
  I thank my colleague from Tennessee for his leadership and my 
colleague from Ohio, as well.
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time remains.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee has 1\3/4\ minutes 
remaining, including his additional 15 seconds; the gentleman from Ohio 
has 3 minutes remaining; and the gentleman from Wisconsin has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. COOPER. Do my colleagues have any further speakers, or should I 
start the process of closing?
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Ryan has the right to close on behalf of the 
committee, and I am the last speaker on our side. Unless Mr. Ryan wants 
to give us the rest of his time, we can finish this right now.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I'll keep what I have.
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  On November 2 of last fall, 100 of our colleagues signed a letter, 
the so-called ``go big'' letter, urging the supercommittee to do the 
right thing. And let me quote:

       To succeed, all options for mandatory and discretionary 
     spending and revenues must be on the table. In addition, we 
     know from other bipartisan frameworks that a target of some 
     $4 trillion in deficit reduction is necessary to stabilize 
     our debt as a share of the economy.

                              {time}  2100

  This is what the Simpson-Bowles budget does, and only the Simpson-
Bowles budget.
  For those of my colleagues who are worried about certain features of 
this, do not confuse the Simpson-Bowles report with a budget. A budget 
is just a framework. It's an outline. It instructs the committees to 
come up with certain savings, and the committees have the discretion to 
come up with those savings in whatever way they choose. It's true that 
the Simpson-Bowles report is one way of achieving those savings, but 
this is a guide, a target for the committees of jurisdiction.
  That's what we must do tonight and do on a bipartisan basis. We must 
come together for the good of the country. We must put our Nation 
first. We must set partisanship aside. This is the only way that we can 
pass a budget in the House and Senate this year, which we must have.
  It's easy to be critical; it's hard to perform. Let's make it happen 
for America tonight. We have an opportunity within our hands to give 
the United States a budget. All of the other plans are purely partisan 
and they don't have a prayer. Let's build a bridge to the future. Let's 
build a real budget that can pass both Houses of Congress.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Simpson-Bowles-endorsed 
alternative budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Again, I want to thank my partner, Mr. Cooper. I also 
want to thank all the brave Republicans and Democrats who are going to 
vote for this, all the brave Republicans and Democrats who cosponsored 
it, because this is not an easy vote.
  Mr. Chairman, the last three elections have been the wildest 
elections I have seen in my political life. It has swung between party 
and party and party, and 2012 is going to be the same thing. But I'll 
tell you what's different. It's not the Democrats are going to take 
over or the Republicans are going to take over. The mood in the country 
is: Throw the bums out. Throw them all out and replace them with new 
people. Americans are screaming for us to take off our red jerseys on 
this side, to take off the blue jerseys on that side, and put on the 
red, white, and blue jerseys of the United States of America.
  Our proposal, inspired by the Simpson-Bowles fiscal commission, 
authorized by the President of the United States, has been viciously 
attacked from the left and the right. And so I think, Cooper, we're on 
to something.
  I want to make an observation, from a pretty famous American, made 
just a month ago in the Rose Garden down at the White House. The quote 
is:

       This may be an election year, but the American people have 
     no patience for gridlock and just a reflexive partisanship, 
     and just paying attention to poll numbers and the next 
     election instead of the next generation and what we can do to 
     strengthen opportunity for all Americans. Americans don't 
     have the luxury to put off tough decisions, and neither 
     should we.

[[Page H1729]]

  President Barack Obama, February 21, 2012.
  I have heard a lot of people say that this is hard work, that not 
now. Well, if not now, when? And if not this, what? Ever?
  Mr. Chairman, we're asking that Members tonight stand up, that they 
stand up to the bloodsuckers in this town that take $5, $10, $15, $25 
from our constituents to pretend to defend causes on their behalf. 
We're asking people to stand up to pledges they had made 20 years ago 
when we didn't have a $15 trillion deficit owed to China. We're asking 
people to stand up to honor their pledge that they made on the opening 
day of the 112th Congress to defend the United States of America from 
all enemies foreign and domestic. We ask that our colleagues stand up 
to America's biggest domestic threat and enemy, the $15 trillion--soon 
to be $22 trillion--that's staring us in the face.
  The time is now. We've got to get it done. This is the only 
bipartisan approach. And this is the only thing that has the chance to 
be adopted by both parties and the President of the United States, who 
authorized Simpson-Bowles.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I'll close by saying, Mr. Chairman, how I 
started.
  I want to congratulate the gentlemen for just showing a plan and 
coming together. But I would simply say that the President disavowed 
this plan already. The Senator majority leader said he's not doing a 
budget this year, so I don't think anything is passing over there.
  I want to reserve the rest of my comments for the substance of this. 
And I'll reveal the private conversation I had with Simpson and Bowles 
as to why I was not supporting Simpson and Bowles, as a member of that 
commission.
  This doesn't go big. This doesn't tackle the problem. It doesn't do 
the big things. You can never get the debt under control if you don't 
deal with our health care entitlement programs. They're the ones that 
are the big drivers of our debt.
  So, not only in addition to the fact that this keeps ObamaCare in 
place and it doesn't do Medicare and Medicaid reform--which are 
essential toward preventing the debt crisis--by repealing the tax 
exclusion, as Simpson-Bowles plans on doing, purports to do, you're 
going to cause all of these employers to drop health insurance for 
their employees and push everybody into the health care law, into 
ObamaCare, and the costs will explode. So I believe that it will do 
more harm than good at the end of the day.
  I just don't think it's a balanced plan. I mean, if you look at the 
raw numbers, 72 percent of it is tax increases and 28 percent of it is 
spending reductions. That, to me, is just not balanced. We don't want 
to create a new revenue machine for government without getting these 
entitlements under control. Let's not chase ever-higher spending with 
ever-higher revenues.
  So I appreciate the sincerity and the bipartisanship nature of this, 
but I just don't think the substance of this bill is right. I think 
it's going to worsen our fiscal situation by piling people onto the 
health care law, and it's going to hasten the bankruptcy of Medicare. 
It's still going to stretch Medicaid, which grows by a third in 
eligibility, a program that's falling apart by the seams. And I believe 
these tax rate increases, the revenue increases, will just be used to 
fuel more spending. That's why I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, 
on the substance of it.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. COOPER. 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 Tennessee 
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 printed in House Report 112 423 on 
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:


           Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Mulvaney of South Carolina.

  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Cleaver of Missouri.
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Cooper of Tennessee.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
  Amendment No. 1 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. 
Mulvaney.
  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney) 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 0, noes 
414, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 143]

                               NOES--414

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     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
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Olver
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quayle
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby

[[Page H1730]]


     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Webster
     Welch
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Cardoza
     Clay
     Deutch
     Filner
     Grijalva
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Kaptur
     Larson (CT)
     Mack
     Meeks
     Paul
     Rangel
     Ryan (OH)
     Sewell
     Shuler
     Towns

                              {time}  2132

  Messrs. MANZULLO, DENHAM, CLEAVER, GOWDY, and AUSTRIA changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 143, I was away from the 
Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 143, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no.''


  Amendment No. 2 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Cleaver

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Yoder). The unfinished business is the demand 
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Cleaver) 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 will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 107, 
noes 314, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 144]

                               AYES--107

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lynch
     Markey
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Miller (NC)
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--314

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonamici
     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
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Cicilline
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     DeGette
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hochul
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     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, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Cardoza
     Clay
     Deutch
     Filner
     Jackson (IL)
     Mack
     Meeks
     Paul
     Rangel
     Towns


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining.

                              {time}  2139

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 144, I was away from the 
Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``aye.''


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

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Cooper) 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 will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 38, 
noes 382, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 145]

                                AYES--38

     Andrews
     Bass (NH)
     Boren
     Boswell
     Buerkle
     Carney
     Clyburn
     Cooper
     Costa

[[Page H1731]]


     Cuellar
     Dent
     Dold
     Fattah
     Gibson
     Himes
     Johnson (IL)
     Kind
     Larsen (WA)
     LaTourette
     Lipinski
     Lummis
     Meehan
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Petri
     Platts
     Polis
     Quigley
     Reed
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Visclosky
     Watt
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--382

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Olver
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Webster
     Welch
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2

     Connolly (VA)
     Moran
       

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Cardoza
     Deutch
     Filner
     Jackson (IL)
     Mack
     Meeks
     Paul
     Rangel
     Towns


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining.

                              {time}  2146

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 145, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Tiberi) having assumed the chair, Mr. Yoder, 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. 112) establishing the budget for the United 
States Government for fiscal year 2013 and setting forth appropriate 
budgetary levels for fiscal years 2014 through 2022, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________