[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.
____________________