[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 4112-4139]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1036 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the 
concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 312.

                              {time}  1525


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 312) revising the Congressional 
budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2008, 
establishing the Congressional budget for the United States Government 
for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels 
for fiscal years 2010 through 2013, with Mr. Serrano (Acting Chairman) 
in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier 
today, amendment No. 2 printed in House Report 110-548 by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) had been disposed of.

[[Page 4113]]




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

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

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

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2009.

       (a) Declaration.--The Congress determines and declares that 
     the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008 
     is revised and replaced and that this is the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2009, including 
     appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2010 through 
     2013.
       (b) Table of Contents.--
Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2009.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

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

                        TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

Sec. 201. Reconciliation in the House of Representatives.

                       TITLE III--EARMARK REFORM

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

                      TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

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

                    TITLE V--EMERGENCY RESERVE FUND

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

             TITLE VI--LEGISLATIVE LINE ITEM VETO AUTHORITY

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

                        TITLE VII--PAY-AS-YOU-GO

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

                     TITLE VIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

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

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2008 through 2013:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,873,540,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,017,033,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,104,764,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,198,889,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,291,296,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,352,645,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be adjusted are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2008: -$6,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: -$80,091,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: -$78,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: -$229,136,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: -$362,019,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: -$402,095,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,546,649,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,429,637,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,409,712,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,514,762,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,523,758,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,619,267,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,461,810,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,478,438,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,476,911,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,523,601,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,504,363,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,594,191,000,000.
       (4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget) 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2008: $588,270,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $462,405,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $372,147,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $324,712,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $213,067,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $241,546,000,000.
       (5) Debt subject to limit.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate 
     levels of the debt subject to limit are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2008: $9,572,826,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $10,179,229,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $10,745,093,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $11,281,763,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $11,746,433,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $12,233,839,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2008: $5,402,148,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $5,733,577,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $6,002,163,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $6,225,463,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $6,337,014,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $6,482,741,000,000.

     SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2008 through 2013 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $693,273,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $604,289,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $612,497,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $645,433,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $550,414,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $607,032,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $557,026,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $577,925,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $565,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $561,666,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $576,223,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $570,503,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,072,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,588,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,768,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,763,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,118,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,808,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,956,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,327,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,684,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,274,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,028,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,967,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,407,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,456,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,934,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,645,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,472,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,507,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,071,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,297,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,679,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,917,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,290,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,026,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,548,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,681,000,000.

[[Page 4114]]

       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,874,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,928,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,832,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,330,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,880,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,656,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,950,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,984,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,022,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,212,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,560,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,440,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,890,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,424,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,782,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,328,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,670,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,729,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,568,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,169,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,490,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,896,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,456,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,528,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,529,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,279,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,719,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,680,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,891,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,876,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,263,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,435,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,621,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,816,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,216,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,381,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,560,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,907,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,687,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,448,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,798,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,244,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,246,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,637,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,642,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,535,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $79,794,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $77,795,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $74,798,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $80,350,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $76,607,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $83,694,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $77,527,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $85,807,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $78,470,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $87,808,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $79,456,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $90,112,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,029,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,819,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,553,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,251,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,826,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,816,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,134,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,874,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,450,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,817,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,755,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,561,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $90,077,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $90,729,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $92,835,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $89,831,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $98,754,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $94,527,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $101,693,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $99,246,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $103,814,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $100,416,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $97,578,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $99,411,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $285,101,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $286,688,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $305,795,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $304,946,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $322,751,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $323,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $343,709,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $342,746,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $366,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $365,286,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $391,993,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $390,267,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $390,458,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $390,454,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $420,086,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $419,880,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $445,118,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $445,247,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $494,261,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $494,084,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $491,241,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $490,999,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $552,274,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $552,389,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $389,865,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $394,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $410,152,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $412,970,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $414,946,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $416,690,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $424,315,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $425,038,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $410,706,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $410,707,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $426,299,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $426,036,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,378,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,378,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,308,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,308,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,794,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,794,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,330,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,330,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,342,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,342,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,162,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,162,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $86,365,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $83,551,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $94,268,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $92,943,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $96,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $96,210,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $101,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $101,475,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $99,115,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $98,271,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $105,094,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $104,266,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,237,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,282,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,024,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,520,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,972,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,384,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,218,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,912,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,425,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,887,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,692,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,540,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,407,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,920,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,970,000,000.

[[Page 4115]]

       (B) Outlays, $23,408,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,402,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,449,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,039,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,938,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,733,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,753,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,407,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,194,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $349,335,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $349,335,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $333,462,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $333,462,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $367,501,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $367,501,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $403,836,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $403,836,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $429,556,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $429,556,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $445,455,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $445,455,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$8,599,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$274,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$84,556,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$72,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, -$129,273,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$124,124,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, -$155,968,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$168,315,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, -$195,848,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$205,425,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, -$229,181,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$246,124,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$86,330,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$86,330,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$68,110,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$68,110,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, -$71,710,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$71,710,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, -$77,424,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$77,424,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, -$78,136,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$78,136,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, -$86,033,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$86,033,000,000.

                        TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

     SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

       (a) Submission to Provide for the Reform of Mandatory 
     Spending.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than July 29, 2008, the House 
     committees named in paragraph (2) shall submit their 
     recommendations to the House Committee on the Budget. After 
     receiving those recommendations, the Committee on the Budget 
     shall report to the House a reconciliation bill carrying out 
     all such recommendations without substantive revision.
       (2) Instructions.--
       (A) Committee on agriculture.--The Committee on Agriculture 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
     sufficient to reduce direct spending $9,321,000,000 for the 
     period of fiscal years 2009 through 2013.
       (B) Committee on armed services.--The Committee on Armed 
     Services shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
     sufficient to reduce direct spending $1,292,000,000 for the 
     period of fiscal years 2009 through 2013.
       (C) Committee on education and labor.--The Committee on 
     Education and the Labor shall report changes in laws within 
     its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending 
     $15,926,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2009 through 
     2013.
       (D) Committee on energy and commerce.--The Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending 
     $115,812,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2009 through 
     2013.
       (E) Committee on financial services.--The Committee on 
     Financial Services shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending $73,000,000 
     for the period of fiscal years 2009 through 2013.
       (F) Committee on foreign affairs.--The Committee on Foreign 
     Relations shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending 
     $250,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2009 through 
     2013.
       (G) Committee on the judiciary.--The Committee on the 
     Judiciary shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending 
     $3,450,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2009 through 
     2013.
       (H) Committee on natural resources.--The Committee on 
     Natural Resources shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending 
     $3,721,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2009 through 
     2013.
       (I) Committee on oversight and government reform.--The 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce 
     direct spending $4,679,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
     2009 through 2013.
       (J) Committee on transportation and infrastructure.--The 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce 
     direct spending $4,672,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
     2009 through 2013.
       (K) Committee on ways and means.--The Committee on Ways and 
     Means shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
     sufficient to reduce direct spending $253,204,000,000 for the 
     period of fiscal years 2009 through 2013.
       (b) Revenue Reconciliation.--The House Committee on Ways 
     and Means shall report a reconciliation bill not later than 
     July 29, 2008, that consists of changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce revenues by not more than 
     $1,151,441,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2009 
     through 2013.
       (c) Submission of Revised Allocations.--
       (1) Upon the submission to the Committee on the Budget 
     pursuant to subsection (a), or the reporting of a measure 
     pursuant to subsection (b), a recommendation that has 
     complied with its reconciliation instructions pursuant to 
     section 310(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
     chairman of that committee may file with the House 
     appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a) of 
     such Act and revised functional levels and aggregates.
       (2) Upon the submission to the House of a conference report 
     recommending a reconciliation bill or resolution in which a 
     committee has complied with its reconciliation instructions 
     solely by virtue of this section, the chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget may file with the House appropriately 
     revised allocations and aggregates under such Act.
       (3) Allocations and aggregates revised pursuant to this 
     subsection shall be considered to be allocations and 
     aggregates established by the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget pursuant to section 301 of such Act.

                       TITLE III--EARMARK REFORM

     SEC. 301. MORATORIUM ON EARMARKS.

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

     SEC. 302. JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON EARMARK REFORM.

       (a) Establishment and Composition.--There is established a 
     Joint Select Committee on Earmark Reform. The joint select 
     committee shall be composed of 16 members as follows:
       (1) 8 Members of the House of Representatives, 4 appointed 
     from the majority by the Speaker of the House and 4 from the 
     minority by the minority leader; and
       (2) 8 Members of the Senate, 4 appointed from the majority 
     by the majority leader of the Senate and 4 from the minority 
     by the minority leader. A vacancy in the joint select 
     committee shall not affect the power of the remaining members 
     to execute the functions of the joint select committee, and 
     shall be filled in the same manner as the original selection.
       (b) Study and Report.--
       (1) Study.--The joint select committee shall make a full 
     study of the practices of the House, Senate, and executive 
     branch, regarding earmarks in authorizing, appropriation, 
     tax, and tariff measures. As part of the study, the joint 
     select committee shall consider the efficacy of--
       (A) the disclosure requirements of clause 9 of rule XXI and 
     clause 17 of rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives, House Resolution 491, and rule XLIV of the 
     Standing Rules of the Senate, and the definitions contained 
     therein;
       (B) requiring full transparency in the process, with 
     earmarks listed in bills at the outset of the legislative 
     process and continuing throughout consideration;
       (C) requiring that earmarks not be placed in any bill after 
     initial committee consideration;
       (D) requiring that Members be permitted to offer amendments 
     to remove earmarks at subcommittee, full committee, floor 
     consideration, and during conference committee meetings;
       (E) requiring that bill sponsors and majority and minority 
     managers certify the validity of earmarks contained in their 
     bills;
       (F) recommending changes to earmark requests made by the 
     executive branch through the annual budget submitted to 
     Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States 
     Code;

[[Page 4116]]

       (G) requiring that House and Senate amendments meet earmark 
     disclosure requirements, including amendments adopted 
     pursuant to a special order of business;
       (H) establishing new categories for earmarks, including--
       (i) projects with national scope;
       (ii) military projects; and
       (iii) local or provincial projects, including the level of 
     matching funds required for such project.
       (2) Report.--
       (A) the joint select committee shall submit to the House 
     and the Senate a report of its findings and recommendations 
     not later than 6 months after adoption of this concurrent 
     resolution.
       (B) no recommendation shall be made by the joint select 
     committee except upon the majority vote of the members from 
     each House, respectively.
       (C) notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, 
     any recommendation with respect to the rules and procedures 
     of one House that only affects matters related solely to that 
     House may only be made and voted on by members of the joint 
     select committee from that House and, upon its adoption by a 
     majority of such members, shall be considered to have been 
     adopted by the full committee as a recommendation of the 
     joint select committee. In conducting the study under 
     paragraph (1), the joint select committee shall hold not 
     fewer than 5 public hearings.
       (c) Resources and Dissolution.--
       (1) The joint select committee may utilize the resources of 
     the House and Senate.
       (2) The joint select committee shall cease to exist 30 days 
     after the submission of the report described in subsection 
     (a)(2).
       (d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``earmark'' shall include congressional earmarks, 
     congressionally directed spending items, limited tax 
     benefits, or limited tariff benefits as those terms are 
     defined in clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives and rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the 
     Senate. Nothing in this subsection shall confine the study of 
     the joint select committee or otherwise limit its 
     recommendations.

                      TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

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

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

     SEC. 402. SAME-DAY CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 406. ROLL CALL VOTES FOR NEW SPENDING.

        The yeas and nays shall be considered as ordered when the 
     Speaker puts the question on passage of a bill or joint 
     resolution, or on adoption of a conference report, for which 
     the chairman of the Budget Committee has advised the Speaker 
     that such bill, joint resolution or conference report 
     authorizes or provides new budget authority of not less than 
     $50,000,000. The Speaker may not entertain a unanimous 
     consent request or motion to suspend this section.

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

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 410. RESTRICTIONS ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) In the House, except as provided in subsection (b), an 
     advance appropriation may not be reported in a bill or joint 
     resolution making a general appropriation or continuing 
     appropriation, and may not be in order as an amendment 
     thereto.
       (2) Managers on the part of the House may not agree to a 
     Senate amendment that would violate paragraph (1) unless 
     specific authority to agree to the amendment first is given 
     by the House by a separate vote with respect thereto.

[[Page 4117]]

       (b) Advance Appropriation.--In the House, an advance 
     appropriation may be provided for the fiscal years 2010 and 
     2011 for programs, projects, activities, or accounts 
     identified in the joint explanatory statement of managers 
     accompanying this resolution under the heading ``Accounts 
     Identified for Advance Appropriations'' in an aggregate 
     amount not to exceed $23,565,000,000 in new budget authority 
     in each year.
       (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance 
     appropriation'' means any new budget authority provided in a 
     bill or joint resolution making general appropriations or any 
     new budget authority provided in a bill or joint resolution 
     making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2009 that 
     first becomes available for any fiscal year after 2009.

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

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

     SEC. 412. POLICY STATEMENT ON WAR FUNDING.

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

     SEC. 413. POLICY STATEMENT ON MEDICAL LIABILITY.

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

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

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

     SEC. 415. PROGRAM INTEGRITY INITIATIVES.

       (a) Adjustments to Discretionary Spending Limits.--
       (1) Continuing disability reviews and supplemental security 
     income redeterminations.--In the House, prior to 
     consideration of a bill or joint resolution making 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2009 that appropriates 
     $264,000,000 for continuing disability reviews and 
     Supplemental Security Income redeterminations for the Social 
     Security Administration, and provides an additional 
     appropriation of up to $240,000,000, and the amount is 
     designated for continuing disability reviews and Supplemental 
     Security Income redeterminations for the Social Security 
     Administration, the allocation to the Committee on 
     Appropriations shall be increased by the amount of the 
     additional budget authority and outlays resulting from that 
     budget authority for fiscal year 2009.
       (2) Internal revenue service tax compliance.--In the House, 
     prior to consideration of a bill or joint resolution making 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2009 that appropriates 
     $6,997,000,000 to the Internal Revenue Service and the amount 
     is designated to improve compliance with the provisions of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and provides an additional 
     appropriation of up to $490,000,000, and the amount is 
     designated to improve compliance with the provisions of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the allocation to the 
     Committee on Appropriations shall be increased by the amount 
     of the additional budget authority and outlays resulting from 
     that budget authority for fiscal year 2009.
       (3) Health care fraud and abuse control program.--In the 
     House, prior to consideration of a bill or joint resolution 
     making appropriations for fiscal year 2009 that appropriates 
     up to $198,000,000 and the amount is designated to the health 
     care fraud and abuse control program at the Department of 
     Health and Human Services, the allocation to the Committee on 
     Appropriations shall be increased by the amount of additional 
     budget authority and outlays resulting from that budget 
     authority for fiscal year 2009.
       (4) Unemployment insurance program integrity activities.--
     In the House, prior to consideration of a bill or joint 
     resolution making appropriations for fiscal year 2009 that 
     appropriates $10,000,000 for in-person reemployment and 
     eligibility assessments and unemployment insurance improper 
     payment reviews for the Department of Labor and provides an 
     additional appropriation of up to $40,000,000, and the amount 
     is designated for in-person reemployment and eligibility 
     assessments and unemployment insurance improper payment 
     reviews for the Department of Labor, the allocation to the 
     Committee on Appropriations shall be increased by the amount 
     of additional budget authority and outlays resulting from 
     that budget authority for fiscal year 2009.
       (b) Procedure for Adjustments.--
       (1) In general.--In the House, prior to consideration of a 
     bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report, the 
     chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall make the 
     adjustments set forth in subsection (a) for the incremental 
     new budget authority in that measure and the outlays 
     resulting from that budget authority if that measure meets 
     the requirements set forth in subsection (a), except that no 
     adjustment shall be made for provisions exempted for the 
     purposes of titles III and IV of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 under section 404 of this resolution.
       (2) Matters to be adjusted.--The adjustments referred to in 
     paragraph (1) are to be made to--
       (A) the allocations made pursuant to the appropriate 
     concurrent resolution on the budget pursuant to section 
     302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974; and
       (B) the budgetary aggregates as set forth in this 
     resolution.
       (c) President's Budget.--In determining whether an 
     adjustments may be made pursuant to this section, the 
     Chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall take into 
     consideration, the recommendations made in President's budget 
     related to such adjustments.

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

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

     SEC. 417. POLICY STATEMENT ON HEALTH CARE SPENDING.

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

                    TITLE V--EMERGENCY RESERVE FUND

     SEC. 501. NONDEFENSE RESERVE FUND FOR EMERGENCIES.

       (a) Nondefense Set Aside.--In the House:
       (1) Except as provided by subsection 506, if a bill or 
     joint resolution is reported, or an amendment is offered 
     thereto (or considered as adopted) or a conference report is 
     filed thereon, that provides new discretionary budget 
     authority (and outlays flowing therefrom), and such provision 
     is designated as an emergency pursuant to this section, the 
     chairman of the Committee on the Budget

[[Page 4118]]

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

     SEC. 502. EMERGENCY CRITERIA.

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

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

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

     SEC. 504. COMMITTEE NOTIFICATION OF EMERGENCY LEGISLATION.

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

     SEC. 505. UP-TO-DATE TABULATIONS.

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

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

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

             TITLE VI--LEGISLATIVE LINE ITEM VETO AUTHORITY

     SEC. 601. PRESIDENTIAL RECOMMENDATIONS.

       (a) Proposed Cancellations.--If, within 45 calendar days 
     after the enactment of any bill or joint resolution providing 
     any discretionary budget authority, item of direct spending, 
     limited tariff benefit, or targeted tax benefit, the 
     President proposes, in the manner provided in subsection (b), 
     the cancellation of any dollar amount of such discretionary 
     budget authority, item of direct spending, or targeted tax 
     benefit, such recommendation shall be introduced as a 
     freestanding measure consistent with the terms of this title 
     and shall be eligible for the expedited procedures set forth 
     herein. If the 45 calendar-day period expires during a period 
     where either House of Congress stands adjourned sine die at 
     the end of a Congress or for a period greater than 45 
     calendar days, the President may propose a cancellation under 
     this section and transmit a special message under subsection 
     (b) on the first calendar day of session following such a 
     period of adjournment.
       (b) Transmittal of Special Message.--
       (1) Special message.--
       (A) Contents of special message.--Each special message 
     shall specify, with respect to the discretionary budget 
     authority, items of direct spending proposed, limited tariff 
     benefits, or targeted tax benefits to be canceled--
       (i) the dollar amount of discretionary budget authority, 
     the specific item of direct spending (that OMB, after 
     consultation with CBO, estimates to increase budget authority 
     or outlays as required by section 1017(9)), the limited 
     tariff benefit, or the targeted tax benefit that the 
     President proposes be canceled;
       (ii) any account, department, or establishment of the 
     Government to which such discretionary budget authority is 
     available for obligation, and the specific project or 
     governmental functions involved;
       (iii) the reasons why such discretionary budget authority, 
     item of direct spending, limited tariff benefit, or targeted 
     tax benefit should be canceled;
       (iv) to the maximum extent practicable, the estimated 
     fiscal, economic, and budgetary effect (including the effect 
     on outlays and receipts in each fiscal year) of the proposed 
     cancellation;
       (v) to the maximum extent practicable, all facts, 
     circumstances, and considerations relating to or bearing upon 
     the proposed cancellation and the decision to propose the 
     cancellation, and the estimated effect of the proposed 
     cancellation upon the objects, purposes, or programs for 
     which the discretionary budget authority, item of direct 
     spending, limited tariff benefit, or the targeted tax benefit 
     is provided;
       (vi) a numbered list of cancellations to be included in an 
     approval bill that, if enacted, would cancel discretionary 
     budget authority, items of direct spending, limited tariff 
     benefit, or targeted tax benefits proposed in that special 
     message; and
       (vii) if the special message is transmitted subsequent to 
     or at the same time as another special message, a detailed 
     explanation why

[[Page 4119]]

     the proposed cancellations are not substantially similar to 
     any other proposed cancellation in such other message.
       (C) Duplicative proposals prohibited.--The President may 
     not propose to cancel the same or substantially similar 
     discretionary budget authority, item of direct spending, 
     limited tariff benefit, or targeted tax benefit more than one 
     time under this Act.
       (D) Maximum number of special messages.--The President may 
     not transmit to the Congress more than 5 special messages 
     under this subsection related to any bill or joint resolution 
     described in subsection (a), but may transmit not more than 
     10 special messages for any omnibus budget reconciliation or 
     appropriation measure.
       (2) Enactment of approval bill.--
       (A) Deficit reduction.--Amounts of budget authority, items 
     of direct spending, limited tariff benefit, or targeted tax 
     benefits which are canceled pursuant to enactment of a bill 
     as provided under this section shall be dedicated only to 
     reducing the deficit or increasing the surplus.
       (B) Adjustment of levels in the concurrent resolution on 
     the budget.--Not later than 5 days after the date of 
     enactment of an approval bill as provided under this section, 
     the chairs of the Committees on the Budget of the Senate and 
     the House of Representatives shall revise allocations and 
     aggregates and other appropriate levels under the appropriate 
     concurrent resolution on the budget to reflect the 
     cancellation, and the applicable committees shall report 
     revised suballocations pursuant to section 302(b), as 
     appropriate.
       (C) Trust funds and special funds.--Notwithstanding 
     subparagraph (A), nothing in this title shall be construed to 
     require or allow the deposit of amounts derived from a trust 
     fund or special fund which are canceled pursuant to enactment 
     of a bill as provided under this section to any other fund.

     SEC. 602. PROCEDURES IN THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS.

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

     SEC. 603. IDENTIFICATION OF TARGETED TAX BENEFITS.

       (a) Statement.--The chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
     Means of the House of Representatives and the chairman of the 
     Committee on Finance of the Senate acting jointly (hereafter 
     in this subsection referred to as ``the chairmen'' shall 
     review any revenue or reconciliation bill or joint resolution 
     which includes any amendment to the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 that is being prepared for filing by a committee of 
     conference of the two Houses, and shall identify whether such 
     bill or joint resolution contains any targeted tax benefits. 
     The chairmen shall provide to the committee of conference a 
     statement identifying any such targeted tax benefits or 
     declaring that the bill or joint resolution does not contain 
     any targeted tax benefits. Any such statement shall be made 
     available to any Member of Congress by the chairmen 
     immediately upon request.
       (b) Statement Included in Legislation.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other rule of the 
     House of Representatives or any rule or precedent of the 
     Senate, any revenue or reconciliation bill or joint 
     resolution which includes any amendment to the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 reported by a committee of conference of 
     the two Houses may include, as a separate section of such 
     bill or joint resolution, the information contained in the 
     statement of the chairmen, but only in the manner set forth 
     in paragraph (2).
       (2) Applicability.--The separate section permitted under 
     subparagraph (A) shall read as follows: Section 1021 of the 
     Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
     shall ``_________'' apply to ``_________.'' with the blank 
     spaces being filled in with--
       (A) in any case in which the chairmen identify targeted tax 
     benefits in the statement required under subsection (a), the 
     word ``only'' in the first blank space and a list of all of 
     the specific provisions of the bill or joint resolution in 
     the second blank space; or
       (B) in any case in which the chairmen declare that there 
     are no targeted tax benefits in the statement required under 
     subsection (a), the word ``not'' in the first blank space and 
     the phrase ``any provision of this Act'' in the second blank 
     space.
       (c) Identification in Revenue Estimate.--With respect to 
     any revenue or reconciliation bill or joint resolution with 
     respect to which the chairmen provide a statement under 
     subsection (a), the Joint Committee on Taxation shall--
       (1) in the case of a statement described in subsection 
     (b)(2)(A), list the targeted tax benefits in any revenue 
     estimate prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation for any 
     conference report which accompanies such bill or joint 
     resolution, or
       (2) in the case of a statement described in section 
     13(b)(2)(B), indicate in such revenue estimate that no 
     provision in such bill or joint resolution has been 
     identified as a targeted tax benefit.
       (d) President's Authority.--If any revenue or 
     reconciliation bill or joint resolution is signed into law
       (1) with a separate section described in subsection (b)(2), 
     then the President may use the authority granted in this 
     section only with respect to any targeted tax benefit in that 
     law, if any, identified in such separate section; or
       (2) without a separate section described in subsection 
     (b)(2), then the President may use the authority granted in 
     this section with respect to any targeted tax benefit in that 
     law.

     SEC. 604. ADDITIONAL MATTERS.

       (a) Definitions.--
       (1) Appropriation law.--The term ``appropriation law'' 
     means an Act referred to in section 105 of title I, United 
     States Code, including any general or special appropriation 
     Act, or any Act making supplemental, deficiency, or 
     continuing appropriations, that has been signed into law 
     pursuant to Article

[[Page 4120]]

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

     SEC. 605. ABUSE OF PROPOSED CANCELLATIONS.

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

                        TITLE VII--PAY-AS-YOU-GO

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

       (a) Limitation.--In the House, in determining the effect of 
     a bill, joint resolution, amendment or conference report on 
     the deficit or surplus for purposes of clause 10 of rule XXI 
     of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee 
     on the Budget shall disregard provisions that are 
     impermissible offsets.
       (b) Definition of Impermissible Offsets.--A provision is an 
     ``impermissible offset'' if the Committee on the Budget 
     determines that it--

[[Page 4121]]

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

                     TITLE VIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 804. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

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

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

                              {time}  1530

  And so you can see that reducing tax rates doesn't mean less revenue 
to the Federal Government. Matter of fact, you can look back over the 
last 27 years, other than a couple of small exceptions, there has been 
a significant effort to lower tax rates, income tax rates, capital gain 
tax rates; and as a result, there has been more economic activity in 
our country, more people employed in our country, and more people 
paying taxes.
  And so if you look at the marginal tax rates today as compared to 
1980, you see that those tax rates are significantly lower. Yet the 
Federal revenue, the taxes that American families pay, continues to 
come into Washington at very high levels of growth on an annual basis
  I would argue that making the capital gains tax rate permanent, 
making the rate on dividends permanent, would give more people reasons 
to invest in America's economy allowing those rates of growth in 
revenue to the Federal Government to continue.
  And so Washington doesn't have a revenue problem. Washington has a 
spending problem. And when you look at the Washington spending 
problems,

[[Page 4122]]

it really rolls down to several things: one is controlling the growth 
of domestic discretionary spending. I think, by and large, if you look 
at the budgets that we've seen over the last 15 years, we've done a 
fairly good job of controlling domestic discretionary programs and the 
spending that goes there. There are some exceptions, and there is 
certainly some room to eliminate some of what I would call wasteful 
Washington spending. But if you look at the increases, most of it has 
gone into the area of defense.
  The real problem that we have is that we continue to have an older 
America. The number of Americans over 65 continues to grow and will 
grow significantly as I and other baby boomers begin to retire.
  And so when you look at the problem today in terms of the spending 
problem, it is in the entitlement area. And the underlying budget that 
the majority has put forward does nothing to reform entitlement 
spending. I came here in 1990 because I thought that programs like 
Social Security and Medicare were unsustainable unless Congress was 
willing to act to protect those programs.
  And here we are in my 18th year. We've nibbled around the edges of a 
couple of these programs, but have never really done anything that 
would make these programs sustainable for tomorrow and for succeeding 
generations. As I have said hundreds of times on this floor, our 
generation has made promises to ourselves that our kids and grandkids 
can't afford.
  So if you look at the budget being presented by myself and our 
Republican colleagues, we assume that the capital gains rate of 15 
percent will be made permanent. We assume that the rate on dividends at 
15 percent is made permanent and the per-child tax credit is put in 
permanent law as is the marriage penalty, the tax cuts that were put in 
place on a temporary basis in 2001 and 2003.
  So our budget balances over the next 5 years, and it balances because 
we go in and actually do something about the spending side of the 
equation.
  Now, if you look at the Democrat budget, they assume that the 15 
percent capital gains rate goes back to 20 percent. They assume that 
the 15 percent rate on dividends goes to whatever the marginal tax rate 
for that taxpayer would be, probably an average tax rate of about 30 
percent on dividends, or double that tax, that the marriage penalty 
comes back in for all Americans and that the $1,000 per-child tax 
credit goes away.
  And I forgot one, of all things: the death tax that we want to see go 
away completely in 2010. The death tax, under the Democrat proposal, 
comes back in full force putting the Federal Government back into a 
competition with the heirs over the balance that we have in people's 
estates.
  But the real issue in the Democrat budget is spending. If you look at 
the chart I'm holding here, the Democrat budget assumes all of these 
tax cuts go away. So you have a $683 billion tax increase in their 
budget, the largest one in American history; and they have it in 
because if you look at their spending levels, they do nothing about 
reforming entitlement programs or putting a lid on the growth of 
domestic discretionary spending.
  So I think that the budget that the Republicans are putting forward 
here is a responsible budget, and I think, frankly, a majority of the 
American people would agree with me. We ought to keep tax rates low. We 
ought to encourage economic activity and more economic growth in 
America that would provide more opportunity for more jobs and better 
paying jobs in America, and to get the balance, do something 
constructive about Social Security and Medicare, especially, to modify 
those programs so that we can save them for future generations.
  At some point, we are going to have to ante up to the piper, and the 
sooner we begin to address the long-term problems in Social Security 
and Medicare, the better off we will be.
  So I would encourage my colleagues to look closely at the budget put 
together by Mr. Ryan and his Republican colleagues on the Budget 
Committee, and I ask all of our Members to consider supporting it.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the substitute.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Serrano). The gentleman from South Carolina 
is recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it bears remembering that 8 short years ago the 
budget of this government was $236 billion in surplus. Since 2001, we 
have experienced, on the watch of this administration, the largest 
deficits, nominal deficits, in American history, and an accumulation of 
debt that's enough to blow the mind. The debt of this country was $5.7 
trillion when Mr. Bush came to office. When he leaves office, it will 
be $10 trillion. So that explains why we are skeptical, if you will, 
and even more skeptical and dubious when we look at the substitute 
resolution that has been brought to the floor, about which the leader 
barely spoke until he got to the very end of his presentation a few 
minutes ago.
  To find the real numbers in this resolution, the leader said that 
this is addressed to deal with a spending problem, not a revenue 
problem. So as we look through the spending side of the resolution, we 
have to go all the way to an obscure account called function 920 
Allowances to find where the real action is.
  Now, this function is typically an allowance function where we have 
things we haven't decided how to assign yet and put into allowances 
because we know it is a catch-all account until some decision is made 
as to how to treat it.
  Typically, therefore, you find smaller amounts in this account; but 
in this particular case, in this particular resolution, $817 billion in 
additional cuts are called for.
  If you look at the Republican resolution, initially it seems to be 
providing current services for just about every function. But then you 
get to function 920 and you see that what has been provided is taken 
back. And when you ask where these cuts are distributed, who bears the 
brunt of $817 billion in cuts over a 5-year period of time, there is no 
real answer because they're unallocated. We've heard them say they've 
added a billion dollars to veterans health care; but once they begin 
allocating the $817 billion, that billion dollars is likely to be wiped 
out.
  The same can happen to defense and nondefense programs. We can't say, 
because $817 billion is left unresolved tucked away in this account 
called function 920. This is the first black hole in this budget.
  This budget then goes on. You can do a little arithmetic and figure 
out that $405 billion is assigned to cuts in domestic discretionary 
spending, $417 billion is assigned to mandatory cuts. Mandatory cuts 
are entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; 
and if you look at the accounts here, you will find that basically it 
appears that the Ways and Means Committee is being directed to save 
$253 billion, is presumably out of Medicare; the Energy and Commerce 
Committee is being asked, told, directed to save that $116 billion out 
of Medicaid. These are not just small cuts, minor adjustments that you 
would normally find in function 920. These are emasculating cuts for 
programs that are critically important.
  Then when we come to the reconciliation provisions, we find that the 
Republicans' substitute anticipates at least another $1.1 trillion in 
tax reduction. How that's allocated, we can't tell for sure; but the 
tax cuts have to be reconciled against the mandatory spending cuts. 
When you do that, what we find is the tax cuts equal $1.1 trillion; the 
mandatory spending cuts equal $412 as a $739 billion addition to the 
deficit. It worsens the deficit rather than improving the deficit. 
That's the second black hole in this particular budget.
  Reconciliation actually works as a problem instead of improves it. We 
know that the other side intends to repeal the alternative minimum tax 
after 3 years. We know also that they intend to extend the tax cuts 
that were enacted in 2001 and 2003. The total of these would come to 
$2.5 trillion easily over a period of 5 to 10 years; and if

[[Page 4123]]

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

                              {time}  1545

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

student loan rates in half and expand opportunities for Pell Grants and 
other scholarships, and we did so without borrowing money. What we did 
was to go after what we felt were unjustifiably high subsidies for the 
student loan banking industry. So, this example, I think, shows the 
difference in philosophies.
  In order to finance tax cuts which are skewed toward the wealthiest 
in our country, the minority would borrow a substantial amount of money 
on top of the debt it has already run up, and it would pay for it in 
part by cutting either student loans, by raising interest rates to 
students, or cutting school lunches and school breakfast programs, or 
somehow getting money out of the Pension Guaranty Corporation. We would 
not do that. What we did was to cut student loan rates in half, 
increase Pell Grants and other scholarship opportunities, and pay for 
it without borrowing money by reducing what we view as a corporate 
welfare subsidy to the student loan banking industry.
  This is a very big difference. It's a legitimate difference. We think 
it's why the gentleman's amendment should be rejected.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield myself 6

[[Page 4124]]

minutes, and I'm going address the House in the well.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to start off by thanking my 
friends from New Jersey and South Carolina. They did put together a 
credible budget that adds up. We did, too.
  Budgets are about priorities; they're about values; they're about 
what way you think the country should go on a fiscal ship. Let me walk 
through our budget and how it's different.
  Number one, my friend from New Jersey and the chairman himself said 
that by calling our budget that makes today's tax policy a permanent 
tax cut, I want to thank them for saying that. By keeping tax rates 
where they are today, which is what we propose, a tax cut, then the 
opposite of that is a tax increase. They have proven my point. Their 
budget raises taxes.
  Now, let me simply show you, Mr. Chairman. This red line is the 
baseline that the Democrats have chosen to adopt for their budget. This 
blue line is the baseline we've chosen on revenues to adopt for our 
budget. The blue line says, make the child tax credit permanent, repeal 
the marriage penalty forever, make the income tax rate not go up, keep 
the death tax repealed, keep the lowered tax rate on capital gains and 
dividends. What does the Democrat budget do? It raises taxes $683 
billion on everybody, not just rich people.
  What do we do on the alternative minimum tax? Here's what the 
Democratic budget proposes to do: It proposes to patch it for a year by 
swapping it out with another tax increase. Then, by 2009, about 30 
million people are going to get hit by it; 2010, 31 million people. On 
and on and on. We propose to make sure no new people get hit by the 
alternative minimum tax, then we phase it out completely. That's point 
two of what our budget achieves.
  Point three, and I think you're going to hear this a lot, we cut, 
cut, cut, cut, cut, cutting here, cutting there. You hear this sort of 
legislative gobbledygook about function 920. Well, as we looked at the 
Democratic budget, we really couldn't find any savings, but we did, we 
found a sliver of savings in the budget. Where was that sliver of 
savings kept? Function 920.
  What matters in a budget resolution are two numbers, the 
discretionary number, the 302(a) we call that, we do that, and the 
direction to the committees, we do that. We do it just like the 
Democrats did it. That's how we wrote our budget. But there's a 
difference. You may not be able to see this. For those who are watching 
on TV, you may have to zoom in. The CBO baseline is the red line. The 
Republican substitute is the blue line. Not a huge gap of difference in 
spending. We are simply saying let's not spend that money as fast, and 
by controlling the growth and the increase in spending, we can make 
sure we don't raise taxes on the American people. We can repeal the 
alternative minimum tax. That's the difference in values between the 
two of us.
  Let me give it to you in a different way. What we Republicans are 
proposing to do is, instead of spending $15.82 trillion over the next 5 
years, let's instead spend $15.32 trillion over the next 5 years. Don't 
spend 15.8, spend 15.3. What's the difference? We're not cutting the 
child tax credit in half. We're not bringing back the marriage tax 
penalty. We're not raising every single income tax payer's tax rates 
across the board. We're not raising the tax on pensions and 401(k)s by 
raising the tax on dividends and capital gains, and we're not going to 
keep taxing people when they die. At the end of the day, though, what 
are we doing for our children and our grandchildren? That's what we 
should be talking about in budgeting.
  Budgets are moral documents. There is a moral imperative before this 
country, before this Congress, and that moral imperative is, what are 
we doing for future generations? In just one program, in just one 
program, the Medicare program, one of the most important programs in 
the history of the Federal Government, the Democrats' budget proposes 
to increase its debt by $11 trillion. The debt for Medicare right now 
stands at $34 trillion; that's the unfunded liability. What are the 
Democrats doing by doing nothing, by going 5 years with blinders on? 
$45 trillion. That breaks down to $395,000 per household, each 
household would owe to make Medicare whole.
  What are we doing? We're reforming the program. We're making it work 
better. We're giving it changes that are needed so that we can make it 
sustainable, so we can save the program for the baby boomers.
  We lower the Medicare debt and unfunded liability by $11 trillion to 
23. The Democrats raise the debt to Medicare alone by $11 trillion; we 
reduced it by $11 trillion. At the end of the day, it's about 
priorities.
  We also call for a 1-year moratorium on earmarks. We're simply 
saying, let's just take a time-out from pork for a year in Congress. 
What do we achieve with that? By not doing earmarks for 1 year and by 
saving that money in this budget, we can make sure we don't raise taxes 
on every household by $500 per child. We can make sure we don't return 
to the days of taxing people when they're married. Just those two 
things can be accomplished by saying ``no'' to earmarks for a year, 
having a time-out, saying let's have Democrats and Republicans from 
both parties from both the Senate and the House get together and figure 
out how to clean up this system and, in the meantime, save the money. 
So we don't tax people for having kids and we don't tax people for 
being married.
  At the end of the day, you're going to hear all this rhetoric about 
cuts, about devastation, about how wrong it is and how immoral it is. 
We're simply saying, instead of spending $15.8 trillion, spend $15.3 
trillion. We're still increasing spending, but let's not increase it as 
fast as Washington has been spending it so we can save that money, so 
we can make sure we don't raise taxes on Americans. That's what our 
budget does.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, this week, or just today, rather, it was 
found out, we discovered and it was reported, that the United States is 
running a $176 billion deficit in February alone. Earlier this week, we 
also found out that the Iraqis have a surplus of over $50 billion.
  We also know that the American taxpayers have paid for 20 Iraqi 
hospitals to be refurbished and 80 health clinics to have been built 
and 60 more planned. And the Republican budget, in the area of health 
care, cuts $370 billion from Medicare and Medicaid.
  The Iraqis, due to the American taxpayers, will get 6,700 schools 
rehabbed. The Republican budget eliminates the Pell Grant increases 
that Congress proposed this year.
  We're also increasing our funding and training of the Iraqi teachers. 
The Republicans plan to reduce the military retirement and health care 
benefits by $1.3 billion. And while Iraq is running a surplus and not 
spending their resources on improving their country, the entire deficit 
over the entire period of time that the Republican budget has is a 
little over $700 billion.
  President Kennedy once said, ``To govern is to choose,'' and my 
friends on the other side have made some choices. While the Iraqis run 
a surplus, they've made sure that America runs a deficit. While Iraq 
and American taxpayers are asked to make sure that we rebuild schools 
and hospitals in Iraq, here in the United States their budget cuts 
those very investments.
  In fact, the Democratic budget turns this ship around of inheriting 
$3.8 trillion in new debt that has accumulated over the last 6 years 
and ensures that we invest in American schools, in American hospitals, 
in American health clinics, and in American teachers. And it ensures, 
also, that we have a middle class tax cut. So, it makes sure that, 
while we are doing what we are supposed to do in Iraq, we don't do it 
at the expense of what we need to do here at home. We have invested in 
Iraq, and our budget ensures that we invest in America.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just 
to simply say to my friend from Illinois, cutting military benefits? 
Where did that one come from? Not true, not even

[[Page 4125]]

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

                              {time}  1600

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

[[Page 4126]]

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

                              {time}  1615

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

[[Page 4127]]

agree with us, and we had to do what the President would agree to so 
that, essentially, without restraint, the Republicans have had, for the 
last 7 years, the authority to do whatever they wanted to do.
  The first 8 years I was here, Ronald Reagan was President. He ran $1 
trillion in deficits. Then George Bush became President, a little over 
$1 trillion. This President, a little over $1.6 trillion. President 
Clinton was President for 8 years, only 8 years that we have had the 
Presidency, and America ran a net surplus.
  So when you hear the protestations of the distinguished ranking 
member of the Budget Committee and the gentleman who just spoke from 
Texas, listen to them, but verify. Look at the record of Republican 
fiscal irresponsibility undiminished in the 27 years I have been here.
  Mr. Ryan, for whom I have a great deal of respect, and I have very 
substantial differences on how you get from here to there, is he 
correct that we need to look at our entitlement system? He is 
absolutely correct. As a matter of fact, as he knows, I went to the 
Senate and testified on behalf of a resolution that does that. There is 
a resolution here that does that, as well. We have to do that. There is 
no alternative.
  Have they done that over the last 7 years of this Presidency? They 
did not. Did we do it in 1983 with Ronald Reagan as President, Tip 
O'Neill as Speaker of the House? We did. And we made Social Security 
secure for the next 60 years. But when we were running up those 
deficits that Ronald Reagan said we were not going to run up, the 
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid crisis that confronts us was 
decades away.
  Today, the gentleman from Wisconsin is correct. It is years away. 
However, the solution is not to cut medical services for senior 
citizens and to cut education for our college students. The solution is 
not to put the car in reverse. The solution, as Ross Perot said, is to 
lift up the hood and fix it. And that is what the Spratt budget is 
doing. The Spratt budget is saying to all the Members of this House and 
to this Congress, we must act responsibly. Responsibly is not only 
acting fiscally responsibly, but also investing responsibly in the 
future of our country.
  I would urge my colleagues to reject this tired, tired, tired 
shibboleth about ``the biggest tax increase in history.'' Frankly, the 
biggest per capita real tax increase in my tenure was under Bob Dole 
and Ronald Reagan in 1982. And then, of course, George Bush was 
defeated, presumably because he tried to help balance the budget. And 
in fact, George Bush made a significant contribution because it was the 
George Bush agreement on pay-as-you-go, the 1997 Newt Gingrich-Bill 
Clinton agreement on pay-as-you-go that got us those 4 years of surplus 
of which I have spoken.
  John Spratt was involved in the leadership of that effort. Tom Kahn 
of the committee was involved in that effort. And as a result of that 
effort, we brought surpluses, 4 years. Surprisingly, one of those years 
was a real surplus. And when I say ``real surplus,'' notwithstanding 
the Social Security income that we are counting to get to either 
balance or surplus which is really not what we should be doing, I agree 
with that, on either side of the aisle.
  But ladies and gentlemen, John Spratt's budget meets the test of 
verification. It meets the test of reality. It meets the test of saying 
we need to pay for what we buy and not pass it along to our children 
and grandchildren. The budget vote is one of the most important that we 
make. Not because the American people really will look closely at the 
budget or because they think it has great consequence in their lives. 
It is very difficult to see the consequence of the budget because the 
budget then needs to be carried out in appropriations, authorizations, 
and policy.
  But ladies and gentlemen of this House, we know that it speaks to 
whether or not we have the courage of our appropriations. The gentleman 
that spoke before me from Texas talked about earmarks. I am always 
interested to hear Republicans talk about earmarks. They came to 
Congress and quadrupled, quadrupled, four times, the number of 
earmarks.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Will the gentleman yield for a friendly point 
on that?
  Mr. HOYER. I am always pleased to yield to a friendly point. Do I get 
to make the judgment as to how friendly it is?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. The gentleman is right. Earmarks proliferated 
under Republican watch. You're right about that. Both parties are 
guilty. That is why we should have a moratorium and clean the system 
up.
  Mr. HOYER. I am reclaiming my time.
  The tears, the crocodile tears that flow from the eyes of the ranking 
member of the Budget Committee about this awful thing that we called 
``congressional investments.'' It is so sad that for 6 years they were 
unable to discipline themselves. And by the way, last year, they were 
unable to discipline themselves. And guess what? This year they wanted 
a moratorium for 6 months.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Will the gentleman yield on that point? This 
budget is a 1-year, for-the-rest-of-the-Congress moratorium.
  Mr. HOYER. You have gone much longer than your caucus wanted to go. I 
understand that. But the conference wanted to go for 6 months.
  I thought it was such an interesting proposal because it meant ``we 
will go just long enough until we really do appropriations and when it 
really means something.'' Too often, ``hypocrisy, thy name is 
ourselves.'' I say it on both sides of the aisle.
  Now, I'm for, as everybody knows, congressional initiatives. But I am 
for paying for them. When we quadrupled them, we borrowed for them from 
the Chinese, from the Germans, and from the Saudis. As a matter of 
fact, this President, as my friend knows, has borrowed more money from 
foreign governments than all of the other Presidents combined. Trust 
but verify.
  Every year that I have been here, ranking members have risen, one of 
whom is now the chairman of the OMB, and told me what a bright future 
it would be if their budgets were adopted. Now, the problem is that 
sometimes they can't get agreement between Senate Republicans and House 
Republicans on what that beautiful budget ought to be. We passed a 
budget last year. We lived within that budget last year. We need to do 
so this year. And we are trying to pay for things. We had a stimulus we 
didn't pay for. Some of us were concerned about that, but you can't 
stimulate and depress at the same time.
  So my colleagues in the House, Republicans and Democrats, vote for 
our children and future generations today. Vote for the John Spratt 
Democratic budget. Reject this budget that pretends it's going to bring 
you balance but has never done so once, not once in the 27 years that I 
have been here. Vote for the Spratt budget. It is good for our country. 
It is good for our people. It is good for our future.
  Let me first thank the chairman of the Budget Committee, John Spratt 
of South Carolina, for all of his hard work, patience and intelligence 
in producing this Democratic budget resolution--which is nothing less 
than a blueprint of our values and priorities.
  Let me also thank my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus and 
Progressive Caucus for offering their important budget alternatives--
alternatives that reflect our shared commitment to the American people 
and a stronger America.
  Now, before I discuss what I believe to be the vastly superior and 
realistic Democratic budget, let me briefly address the Republican 
budget substitute that we are now debating.
  I both like and respect the gentleman from Wisconsin, the ranking 
member on the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan. He is a thoughtful, diligent 
Member.
  And, I believe that were it up to him, he might actually try to 
implement the provisions in the Republican budget substitute.
  But the problem, of course, is that he would be fighting a lonely, 
losing, untenable battle.
  This we know: many, many Republicans would not support the deep, 
draconian cuts to domestic programs called for in their own budget.
  The fact is, this Republican budget only reaches balance in 2012 by 
slashing funding for mandatory programs by $412 billion.

[[Page 4128]]

  This Republican budget would cut Medicare and safety-net programs; 
cut Medicaid, thereby jeopardizing health care for more than 50 million 
children, parents, seniors and disabled Americans; cut--and possibly 
eliminate--the recently enacted increase in Pell Grants; and cut 
funding for military retirement and health care.
  Furthermore, the Republican budget implies very deep cuts in 
discretionary programs, devastating public health, education, safety 
net and infrastructure programs.
  This Republican budget fails to reflect the values and priorities of 
the American people.
  In contrast, the Democratic budget continues to move our Nation in a 
new direction and to clean up the fiscal train wreck caused by failed 
Republican economic policies over the last 7 years.
  Remember, in just 86 months, Republicans have turned projected budget 
surpluses into record deficits--including a projected $386 billion this 
year and another $340 billion next year--and added more than $3 
trillion to the national debt, which today stands at $9 trillion.
  Our Democratic budget restores fiscal responsibility, adhering to 
pay-as-you-go budget rules and bringing the Federal budget back to 
balance by 2012.
  It rejects the drastic funding cuts in the Republican substitute and 
the President's budget, which includes cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, 
State and local law enforcement programs, and environmental protection.
  It strengthens our economy, providing crucial funding for our 
innovation agenda, efficient and renewable energy programs, education, 
and infrastructure.
  It provides tax relief for hard-working Americans, including a 
reconciliation instruction that provides offsets for a new one-year 
patch of the alternative minimum tax.
  And, our Democratic budget makes America safer, providing for a 
robust defense, boosting homeland security funding, and rejecting the 
President's cuts to first responder programs.
  This is a budget that we can be proud of. And, it stands in stark 
contrast to the irresponsible fiscal policies of the current 
administration and former Republican majorities in Congress.
  I urge all of my colleagues:
  Vote for fiscal responsibility, and a bright future for our children.
  Vote for the budget that reflects our values--and meets the needs of 
the American people.
  Vote for this Democratic budget.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield myself 1 
minute simply to praise the majority leader before he leaves because he 
has been a man who has sincerely discussed and talked about the need to 
reform entitlements most of his career. And we need to talk to each 
other more often. I want to praise him for his leadership on 
entitlements.
  I also want to say that this budget proposes to borrow more in one 
year from foreign governments than any has in history. Also, Mr. 
Chairman, let's take a look at the 2003 taxes.
  Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield on his last point?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I agree with him, and the reason for that, of course, is 
while you cut revenues, you didn't cut spending when you were in 
charge.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Reclaiming my time, my point is the Democrats' 
budget, the Spratt budget, has the single largest increase in national 
debt in any given year, which comes from largely foreign governments 
these days.
  My other point was I understand why my friends on the other side of 
the aisle are so dismissive of these tax cuts in 2003. Only three 
Democrats who are here today voted for them. All but three of them 
voted against them. They voted against reducing the marriage tax 
penalty. They voted against expanding the child tax credit. They voted 
against lowering tax rates across the board. They voted against 
lowering dividends and capital gains and repealing the death tax.
  I simply would say that, as this chart shows you, even after all of 
those tax cuts, look what happened. Receipts went up. Four straight 
years of income tax receipts increased. Do you know why? People went to 
work. They got jobs. They paid taxes. Economic growth, even at those 
lower tax rates.
  At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. HOYER. It is too late to ask you to yield, I take it, on the 
employment issue.
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the ranking member for yielding, and I thank him 
for his extraordinary leadership on this budget. Mr. Chairman, I rise 
in support of fiscal responsibility, and my conscience therefore 
demands that I rise in support of the Republican budget.
  Now, the American people deserve to know the truth. We have a $9.3 
trillion national debt, but that is not the whole story. The American 
people also deserve to know that we have some $53 trillion in unfunded 
liability in Social Security and Medicare over the next 75 years. 
Frankly, if this government were a business back in Indiana, it would 
have to file bankruptcy.
  Republicans are offering an alternative budget to deal with this 
fiscal crisis at the national level based on spending restraint and 
entitlement reform. It balances the budget without taxes and without 
earmarks.
  But the answer from the Democrat majority? Get this: The largest 
budget in American history, $3.1 trillion. The largest 1-year increase 
in the public debt in American history, some $646 billion. Higher taxes 
and nothing to reform earmarks or the very entitlement spending that 
threatens the economic vitality of our children and our grandchildren's 
future.

                              {time}  1630

  In 2006, the American people voted for change in Washington, D.C., 
but they weren't referring to what would be left in their pockets after 
the Democrats took control. We must balance the Federal budget with 
fiscal discipline and reform, not with more spending and more taxes. We 
must reject the policies of the new liberal Democratic majority in 
Congress and reject their budget.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for fiscal discipline and reform, to end 
earmarking as usual, and to stand for fundamental entitlement reform in 
Washington, DC. Vote for the budget priorities of the Republican 
minority in Congress. They are, I believe with all my heart, the budget 
priorities of the overwhelming majority of the American people.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I want to inquire of the time, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Capuano). Both sides currently have 10 
minutes each.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  We have heard throughout this debate the charge repeatedly that we 
are raising taxes by as much as any tax increase since the history of 
time. The charge won't really bear itself out. But let me just turn to 
third parties. Don't take it from me, let me turn to third parties who 
have a tremendous interest in the Federal budget and in the deficit in 
particular. None is more respected or more truly nonpartisan than the 
Concord Coalition, and here is what the Concord Coalition says:
  ``Allowing some of the tax cuts to expire would not be the result of 
Congress' raising taxes. It would be the result of sunsets that were 
included when those tax cuts were originally enacted to avoid the level 
of fiscal scrutiny that PAYGO is designed to ensure.''
  Now, I have a chart here which is a replica of our famous eye chart 
to test your visual acuity. I am not sure whether you can see it, but 
the bottom line is instructive. We will reach surplus, starting from a 
CBO baseline, our budget will take us to surplus by the year 2012. That 
surplus will continue throughout time, 2012, 2013. And if you total 
that surplus up between 2012 and 2018, the total amount you get is $1.4 
trillion.
  Out of that $1.4 trillion in surpluses, a lot of money can be derived 
if we so choose to offset tax cuts. And toward that end, we have 
pledged ourselves as specifically and explicitly as we possibly can in 
the budget resolution before you in commitment to the middle-income tax 
relief. And anyone who has any doubt of this should come and read this 
paragraph in our budget resolution itself, not in the report, it is in 
the budget resolution itself, which says the following:
  ``It is the policy of this resolution to minimize the fiscal burdens 
on middle-

[[Page 4129]]

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

[[Page 4130]]

  Our budget is also a plan for a stronger America that begins to 
restore military readiness and better protect Americans against 
terrorism. Many of you know that the distinguished chairman of the 
Budget Committee is also the second-highest ranking Democrat on the 
Armed Services Committee, so he brings to this budget process a full 
knowledge of our national security needs, a full commitment to our 
military and their families, and dedication to our veterans which has 
been unsurpassed.
  In this bill in terms of national security, ours is a plan to make 
Americans safer and stands in stark contrast to the President's 
priorities in Iraq. That misguided war has badly strained our military, 
distracted us from the fight against terrorism, and damaged our 
reputation in the world. In fact, the funds committed to that war, some 
say $3 trillion, huge amounts of money, not only are an opportunity 
cost for investments here at home in our own education and 
reconstruction and military readiness, but the deep debt that we are 
incurring because of the war in Iraq is damaging to our economy. We 
cannot continue to borrow to pay for the war in Iraq and not see it 
have an impact on our economy, and that is in addition to the rising 
cost of oil prices that are related to the war in Iraq as well.
  We begin in our national security to reestablish America's strength 
by rebuilding our military, investing in equipment and training that 
our military requires, and making caring for our troops, veterans, and 
military families a top priority.
  Our plan stands in stark contrast to the President's priorities and 
the Republican budget, which would undermine health care for seniors 
and working families by cutting Medicare and Medicaid over half a 
trillion dollars over the next 10 years and charge veterans and 
military retirees more than $18 billion in new fees over 5 years. Our 
budget does not do that. The Republican budget puts the burden of 
additional fees on our veterans.
  The Republican budget eliminates essential funding for State and 
local law enforcement and cuts EPA grants that would help protect our 
planet and our health.

                              {time}  1645

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

[[Page 4131]]

  I am very fortunate to have very bright, very talented, and very 
dedicated coworkers on the Budget Committee. I also want to thank the 
chairman for being a gentleman and for his staff for being professional 
as well.
  I have a problem with the budget the chairman has brought to the 
floor. We have a different vision. It's good that we have these 
choices. We owe the American people a choice. We owe them two different 
visions to choose from in this country.
  That's what's good about elections. Lately, the differences have been 
muddled. I'm glad we are making them more clear. What do we want to do 
with our budget?
  We believe that we should do a few things. We should balance the 
budget, number one, and we shouldn't raise taxes. We think that it's 
really tough for people to afford just the cost of living today. You 
are filling up your gas pump at the highest prices you have ever paid 
before. You are paying health care costs the highest you have probably 
ever paid before. Food prices are up $70 a month for the average family 
these days.
  The last thing the American taxpayer needs is a big tax increase, an 
average of $3,000 per family per year. That's what the Democrat budget 
has.
  Now, the Democrats like to say they have this policy document in 
their budget. On page 48, it's the policy that we don't want these 
taxes to go up. Then they say, later on, but we are balancing the 
budget.
  The first 27 pages are ones that matter in this budget, the numbers. 
They can't have it both ways. They can't look the American people in 
the eye and say we are balancing the budget and we are not raising 
taxes, because the only way they balance the budget, you can bring out 
all these left-of-center experts that tell you otherwise, but according 
to the numbers, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the only 
way they balance the budget is by enacting the largest tax increase in 
American history.
  So the question is, at this time of economic uncertainty, at this 
time of job loss, at this time where we possibly could go into a 
recession, at this time of high prices of living, can we afford the 
Democrats' tax hike? I would like to know. I would like to get e-mails 
and calls from people to know, can we afford this?
  What is our vision? Our vision is to balance the budget without 
raising taxes. The key thing is we have got to save money. We are not 
even proposing to cut spending. We are saying instead of spending 
$15.832 trillion over the next 5 years, let's spend $15.32 trillion 
over the next 5 years. Instead of growing spending at 5.2 percent, 
let's grow it at 3.8 percent.
  In that, we are saying let's put a down payment for reform on our 
children and grandchildren so we can make Medicare and Social Security 
more solvent, so we can say to the seniors of this country we want 
Social Security and Medicare to last for you and for our kids.
  But we also say, this Congress is broken. Most people get that. We 
don't call earmarks congressional initiatives or investments; it's 
pork. If we just do away with the pork for 1 year, we can put a down 
payment on making sure we don't have our taxes increased. For 1 year, 
we can make sure we don't raise taxes on everybody who has children by 
$500 per child. We can make sure we are not going to tax people simply 
because they are married if Congress just says ``no'' for pork for a 
year.
  So what's the question? Do we want pork or paychecks? More money in 
workers' paychecks or more pork up here in Washington?
  I agree that earmarks are necessary and are a function of this branch 
of government. It's out of control. It's broken. It needs to be fixed.
  Let's stop them for a year, fix this problem so that it has the 
integrity and the faith that the American people deserve. While we are 
doing that, let's balance the budget without raising taxes. That is 
what our budget does.
  Yet you hear this same old thing in Washington every year. What they 
always say is, if you are doing anything other than spending as much as 
they want, you are cutting spending. If you are not throwing all this 
money at new programs, you are cutting spending, you are hurting the 
veterans, you are hurting children, you are hurting people, you are 
doing this, you are doing that. We are simply saying we need to control 
our spending in this town.
  You see, Washington doesn't have a tax revenue problem. Plenty of 
money is coming in. Washington has a spending problem. We have got to 
get our handle on that spending.
  By controlling that spending, by growing it at a slower pace, by 
putting a down payment on reform, by making Medicare more solvent, we 
can do those things while we balance the budget without raising taxes.
  That's the choice. We can have their plan with the largest tax 
increase in history, more and more and more spending, more earmarks, 
more pork, less money in our paychecks, or we can have our plan: 
control spending, balance the budget, keep more money in your 
paychecks.
  Because you know what? Paychecks aren't going as far as they used to. 
They don't cover as much groceries, as many gas tanks. They don't cover 
as much of health care bills as they used to. We believe it's the 
people's money; they believe it's Washington's money. That's the basic 
difference at the end of the day.
  We believe people ought to keep more of their own money because it is 
their money. They believe it's Washington money, and they want more of 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, for purpose of closing, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, like Mr. Ryan, I want to express my heartfelt gratitude 
to the staff on both sides: Tom Kahn, Sarah Abernathy, Ellen Balis, 
Arthur Burris, Linda Bywaters, Barbara Chow, Marsha Douglass, Stephen 
Elmore, Chuck Fant, Jason Freihage, Jose Guillen, Jennifer Hanson-
Kilbride, Dick Magee, Sheila McDowell, Diana Meredith, Gail Millar, 
Morna Miller, Namrata Mujumdar, Kimberly Overbeek, Kitty Richards, 
Diane Rogers, Scott Russell, Marcus Stephens, Naomi Stern, Lisa Venus, 
Greg Waring, Andrea Weathers, and interns Les Braswell and Tina Shah.
  We have had a fast track on which to bring this resolution out of 
committee onto the floor to passage. Without their assistance, long 
nights, weekends, you name it, we certainly could not have done it. We 
certainly could not have done it without the presentation we put on the 
last 2 days. To them, I am deeply indebted for all of their help, both 
sides of the aisle, my staff in particular, which I think is one of the 
best committee staffs of any committee on the Hill in either House.
  If I had a chart of my choice, I would have a counterpart to Mr. 
Ryan's chart, which said, can we afford the Democrats' tax? It would 
say, can our children afford the Republicans' debt tax? Because the 
legacy of this administration, 8 years, is nearly $5 trillion in 
additional debt, a phenomenal increase in debt that will have to be 
borne by our children.
  When I say that our first objective in taking on this budget was to 
move it to balance, that's not some economic goal. That's not some 
green eyeshade objective. That's because I think we are morally wrong 
in leaving this mountain of debt to our children and our grandchildren.

                              {time}  1700

  If I had a chart, it would say just that, because I would assign the 
blame, the primary blame, to our Republican colleagues for the last 7 
years.
  We have brought to this floor a budget resolution, the base bill on 
which we will vote. After we vote on the Ryan amendment, we will vote 
on the base bill. I would ask for a vote against the Ryan amendment and 
for the base bill, H. Con. Res. 312, which is the Democratic-reported 
budget resolution.
  We set as our first objective balancing the budget within a 
reasonably foreseeable period of time. The day we chose was 2012, and 
we hit that day. In fact, by our calculations, using CBO numbers, we 
will have a surplus that year under certain assumptions of $178

[[Page 4132]]

billion. That surplus will grow as time moves on; and by the year 2018, 
we will have accumulated $1.4 billion in surpluses. Now, I know they 
will be dissipated and used for other purposes, but I am suggesting 
here and have been suggesting that is one of the ways that we will pay 
for the tax cuts, particularly the middle-income tax cuts to which we 
have explicitly committed ourselves. That is one way we will make 
certain that they are cared for and extended.
  Secondly, even though we are committed to balancing the budget, we 
are also morally committed to doing other things that shouldn't be held 
up or put aside while we try to bring our books in order, one of which 
is the education of our children. The President's budget basically flat 
funds education for the next 5 years.
  I am proud to say that our budget provides $7.3 billion, $7.1 billion 
more than the President requested in his budget for the education of 
our children.
  And watch out for education when they begin to, if you adopt the Ryan 
resolution, when they begin to distribute these undistributed, 
unallocated cuts, because education is right there in the bore sights.
  Secondly, veterans health care. Of all of the promises government 
makes, the promises we make to our veterans ought to be upheld. And 
right now we have an increasing caseload. Therefore, we are proposing 
$3.6 billion over and above current services in order to pay for the 
additional case loads.
  CHIP, children's health insurance. I am proud to claim a little 
paternity there. I was involved in 1997 when we created the program in 
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Now we are saying that we can balance 
our budget and still balance our priorities by seeing that our 
children, all of our children who don't have health insurance, can get 
health insurance. We provide for that. We provide for that in this 
budget resolution.
  Finally, we provide for innovation, competitiveness, energy, 
research, things that will keep our economy on a competitive edge. For 
all of these reasons, we think we have brought to the floor a good 
budget resolution which is worthy of the support of not just the 
Democrats on this side, but Republicans as well. It moves us toward 
balance, and it has balanced priorities. It is good for America and 
good for our economy.
  I, therefore, request a vote in favor of the Spratt resolution, H. 
Con. Res. 312, which is the base bill and against the Ryan resolution 
which, if it were adopted, and I don't think it will be, but were it to 
be adopted, it would displace our bill. Vote for the base bill, H. Con. 
Res. 312, and vote to do these things that are so important to our 
economy, our country, our families, and our children. This is a good 
bill and I commend it to you for your support today.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 140]

                               AYES--157

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

                               NOES--263

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

                             NOT VOTING--15

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

                              {time}  1730

  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Messrs. GUTIERREZ, SAXTON, Ms. LINDA 
T. SANCHEZ of California, Messrs. HOYER, COHEN, FRELINGHUYSEN, FATTAH, 
TURNER and Mrs. SCHMIDT changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''

[[Page 4133]]


  Messrs. FLAKE, EHLERS, FRANKS of Arizona, SHULER and McINTYRE changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota: Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H. Con. 
Res. 312 and congratulate Chairman Spratt for putting forward a budget 
that reflects the values of American families.
  Again this year, President Bush proposed a reckless, fiscally 
irresponsible budget that would have neglected key investments and made 
significant cuts to critical services while driving up an already 
unsustainable deficit. Democrats reject Republican policies that have 
led to record debt and a weakened economy and today offer a budget that 
invests in families, makes America safer, strengthens our economy and 
improves our global competitiveness.
  This budget proposal recognizes that smart investments in our country 
today will result in significant savings in the long run. H. Con. Res. 
312 invests in renewable energy and ``green collar jobs''. Record gas 
prices are straining family, business and government budgets. This 
investment in the Midwest will reduce our dependence on oil, reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions, and create new jobs in our communities.
  While the President proposed to cut education, the Democrats budget 
provides for a significant investment in our children by including $7.1 
billion above the President's request. This funding will provide needed 
increases for No Child Left Behind, Head Start and Special Education. 
The underfunding of these programs under Republican leadership has led 
to reduced opportunities for our students and increased taxes for 
homeowners. The Democratic budget makes an important step in living up 
to the federal government's promises on education funding. It also 
provides funding for the America COMPETES Act, allowing for the 
education of the teachers, scientists, engineers and mathematicians we 
need to remain competitive in the global economy.
  The Democratic budget invests in health care. It provides health care 
for all children and makes significant investments in health research 
and public health. Importantly, this budget rejects the draconian cuts 
to Medicare and Medicaid proposed by the President. Democrats recognize 
that access to health care includes access to quality health care 
providers.
  In contrast to claims made by my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, this budget does not raise taxes on the middle class families. 
It fact, it includes a 1-year fix for the Alternative Minimum Tax and 
extends middle class tax cuts including the child tax credit, the 
marriage penalty relief, and the deduction for state and local sales 
taxes. It also calls for immediate action on the foreclosure crisis and 
provides for an affordable housing trust fund to help families find 
safe, stable housing and to begin to create wealth.
  Democrats support investing in our communities. This budget 
recognizes the declining status of our nation's infrastructure and 
makes it a priority to invest in the necessary rebuild and expansion. 
In Minnesota, because of the tragic bridge collapse last August, we are 
all too aware of the need for upgrade and repair to our infrastructure. 
In addition, families are spending too much time and too much money 
commuting. This budget will allow for investment in transportation--
both to increase options and to improve safety.
  I also commend the Congressional Black Caucus and the Progressive 
Caucus for putting forward alternative budget proposals. I strongly 
support the emphasis on diplomacy and investments in global health 
proposed in these amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, the Democratic budget reflects America's priorities and 
will put this country back on track by reducing our debt and investing 
in our future. I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 312.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, this budget is a commitment to restoring 
fiscal responsibility while providing for programs that boost economic 
growth, create new jobs, and provide tax relief to millions of middle-
class families.
  When the President presented the last budget proposal of his 
administration last month, he cemented his legacy of fiscal 
irresponsibility. Since January 2001, a $5.6 trillion 10-year surplus 
has been converted into record deficits and mounting debt.
  The budget, which will outline Congressional spending for the next 
fiscal year, rejects the President's original proposal of cutting 
Medicare/Medicaid, key education programs, and the COPS law enforcement 
agency grant programs.
  In contrast to the Administration's budget proposal, this budget 
passed by the House reaches a balance by FY 2012. It ensures that, 
under the adopted pay-as-you-go principles, any new spending is offset 
and does not add to the deficit.
  With over 20 million middle-class American families facing the burden 
of paying the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT, we have included fiscally 
responsible legislation that will provide a one-year `patch' and 
provide AMT relief to those families.
  This is a budget that defends our Nation and provides for our 
Nation's veterans and wounded heroes. It increases veterans funding for 
FY 2009 by $3.6 billion above current levels and $38 billion over the 
next 5 years. Our budget also allows the Department of Veterans Affairs 
to treat 5.8 million patients in 2009 and rejects the $2.3 billion in 
health care fee increases imposed by the President's budget proposal.
  The budget also prioritizes resources to restore military readiness 
that has been worn down by repeated deployments and more than 6 years 
of war. As chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee of the House Armed 
Services Committee, I am fully aware of the need to restore the 
strength of our military and protect our country from future attacks.
  Despite the President's insistence on not expanding children's health 
insurance program, CHIP, this budget includes a reserve fund to provide 
up to $50 billion for CHIP. The President's budget proposal also cuts 
Medicaid by $94 billion over 10 years and a whopping $479 billion from 
Medicare over the same period. That is unacceptable and Congress 
rejects those cuts.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this fiscally responsible budget 
that properly funds our nation's priorities.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I support this budget 
resolution, which will lay the foundation for the decisions about 
spending and taxes that we must make this year.
  Our first responsibility as Members of Congress is to provide for our 
national defense and homeland security, in order to safeguard the lives 
and liberties of the American people.
  For that reason, and as a Member of the Armed Services Committee, I 
am glad to be able to say that this budget meets that responsibility by 
providing $537.8 billion for national defense, which is in line not 
only with the amounts requested but also the recommendation of our 
committee.
  I also support the budget because it puts the needed priority on 
moving to restore the capabilities so seriously eroded by repeated 
deployments and more than 6 years of war. And, even more important, it 
includes instructions to properly care for the men and women in uniform 
by rejecting TRICARE fee increases, providing funding to continue 
addressing problems such as those at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, 
and calling for enhanced pay and benefits to improve the quality of 
life of our troops and their families. It also calls for allocating 
$4.9 billion more than in the current fiscal year for veterans' health 
care.
  But that is not the end of our responsibility. We also need to act 
responsibly to change the policies that over the last seven years have 
brought us deeper budget deficits and massive increases in the national 
debt even as we make needed investments in our society here at home.
  This budget meets that responsibility as well. It lays out a path 
that can bring the budget back to balance. It includes an essential 
aspect of fiscal responsibility by following the ``pay-as-you-go'' 
approach now embodied in our House rules, requiring that any 
entitlement spending increases or revenue reductions be offset, so that 
the bottom line of the budget is not worsened.
  At the same time it allows for funding priority investments in 
education, children's health care, veterans' health care, and 
innovation but also accommodating tax relief for middle-income 
Americans. It rejects President Bush's proposed cuts in Medicare, 
Medicaid, and assistance to local law-enforcement agencies while 
accommodating $50 billion over 5 years for the State Children's Health 
Insurance Program (SCHIP). It also allows for substantially greater 
appropriations that the president has requested for education, and 
energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.
  And it includes a deficit-neutral reserve fund to accommodate middle-
income tax cuts, such as extension of the child tax credit, marriage 
penalty relief, extension of the 10 percent individual income tax 
bracket, elimination of most estate taxes, extension of the research 
and experimentation tax credit, extension of the deduction for state 
and local sales taxes, and a tax credit for school construction bonds. 
In addition, through a reconciliation instruction to the Ways and Means 
Committee, it allows for action to protect more than 20 million middle-
income taxpayers from exposure to the alernative minimum tax, which was 
never intended to apply to them.
  As a member of the Committee on Science and Technology, I applaud the 
fact that the

[[Page 4134]]

budget will allow an additional $1.98 billion over the amounts 
appropriated for this fiscal year for science, space, and technology.
  That amount will fully accommodate the commitments made in the 
America COMPETES Act--a measure I was proud to cosponsor and champion 
in the conference committee--for the National Science Foundation and 
the Department of Energy Office of Science.
  Further, the budget includes increased budget authority for energy 
technology research programs such as those at the Advanced Research 
Projects Agency for Energy, ARPA-E and the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, which include help for small manufacturers 
and technology companies through the Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership and Technology Innovation Program.
  These programs have great potential to increase our economic growth 
and to foster innovation. As the global marketplace becomes more 
competitive, it is essential that we compete on the basis of improved 
skills and greater productivity, rather than follow the destructive 
path of trying to compete solely on cost with the half of the world's 
workers who earn less than $2 a day.
  That is the purpose of the America COMPETES Act, and why it is so 
important that we provide adequate funding for it. And it also the 
point of the resolution's provision saying the House should provide 
sufficient funding so that our Nation may continue to be the world 
leader in education, innovation, and economic growth and so we can stay 
on a path toward doubling funding for the National Science Foundation, 
basic research in the physical sciences, and collaborative research 
partnerships, and toward achieving energy independence through the 
development of clean and sustainable alternative energy technologies.
  In addition, as a member of the Natural Resources, and as a 
westerner, I also support the budget because it will allow for an 
increase of more than $6 billion in the amounts available for 
protection of our water and air and the sound management of our public 
lands and other natural resources.
  Mr. Chairman, it is said that to govern is to choose--and today's 
debate demonstrates the truth of that adage because the House must 
choose among four competing proposals for how the budget should be 
shaped in the years ahead.
  Before deciding to support the resolution approved by the Budget 
Committee, I carefully reviewed the three competing alternatives, and 
in each I found some things that I think have considerable merit. For 
example, I liked the additional investments in education, job training, 
and employment included in the alternative advanced by the 
Congressional Black Caucus, as well as the provisions regarding 
unemployment insurance, food stamps, and housing assistance highlighted 
in the Progressive Caucus alternative. And the Republican alternative 
includes procedures for a legislative line-item veto similar to 
legislation (H.R. 595) I have introduced under the name of the 
Stimulating Leadership in Limiting Expenditures (or ``SLICE'') Act and 
would place a moratorium on spending earmarks pending review of the 
earmarking process by a bipartisan panel--two ideas that I think could 
result in worthwhile reforms.
  But, on balance, I have concluded that the version now before us, 
developed in the Budget Committee under the able leadership of its 
distinguished Chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr Spratt, 
is the best choice. It is a sound proposal that will enable our 
government to meet its responsibilities, at home and abroad, in a way 
that is fiscally sound and respectful of the need to provide tax relief 
for middle-income Americans and promoting a sound economy.
  I will vote for it and I urge its approval by the House.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of North Carolina's children 
and our working families, I rise in support of this budget resolution 
and I congratulate you, Chairman John Spratt for your visionary 
leadership in crafting this important document.
  With this budget resolution, the Democratic majority will succeed 
where our Republican predecessors failed. To budget is to govern, and 
this resolution will produce a balanced budget with balanced 
priorities.
  As the only former State schools chief serving in Congress, I am 
particularly pleased about this measure's provisions for education and 
innovation. Specifically, rather than continue the Republicans' record 
of passing a crushing debt burden on to future generations, the Spratt 
resolution contains tough budget discipline for a new direction for the 
Federal budget. The Spratt resolution rejects the President's proposed 
education cuts and instead provides greater investment in our Nation's 
schools, including the school construction bonds Chairman Rangel and I 
have been working on for nearly a decade and increased Impact Aid for 
federally impacted local public schools. It provides $50 billion for 
children's health insurance. And it protects millions of middle income 
families from the onslaught of the alternative minimum tax.
  As a Member of the Committee on Homeland Security, I am pleased that 
after 7 years of this Administration failing to address fully some of 
our most pressing security needs, the Chairman's mark provides the 
necessary resources to meet critical threats to the Nation. 
Specifically, the Chairman's mark places high priority on rejecting the 
President's cuts to first responder support. This includes the State 
Homeland Security Grant Program through which States may direct grants 
to local law enforcement, firefighters, emergency medical services, and 
other preparedness officials to address a wide array of public safety 
needs. The Administration proposed cutting this proven security 
initiative by $705 million, and the Spratt budget rejects that 
misguided cut. The Chairman's mark also rejects these other mistaken 
budget cuts: $463 million from firefighter assistance grants that give 
local firefighters the tools they need to do their dangerous jobs 
protecting the public; $173 million from Byrne Justice Assistance 
Grants flexible funding for local criminal justice efforts; $599 
million from the Community Congress Oriented Policing Services COPS 
funds that help local communities hire, train and retain police 
officers and to improve law enforcement technology. I strongly believe 
the homeland security starts with hometown security, and I strongly 
support the Chairman's mark as it provides essential services for local 
first responders. Unbelievably, for the sixth year in a row, the 
President's budget proposes to eliminate the State Criminal Alien 
Assistance fund of $417 million which helps States cope with the costs 
of incarcerating undocumented aliens who commit crimes. I am pleased 
the Chairman's mark rejects this misguided budget cut.
  I was disappointed to see the President's proposed budget contains 
the failed Social Security privatization plan, and the leading 
Republican Presidential candidate just this week embraced this risky 
plan. When the President first proposed privatizing Social Security, I 
toured the country to oppose this risky gamble with Social Security. 
The American people have spoken loud and clear that they want their 
Social Security benefits to be an ironclad guarantee instead of a risky 
gamble like the Republicans continue to propose. The Bush/McCain plan 
is a bad idea. I am pleased the Chairman's mark rejects this risky 
Social Security privatization scheme.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I have become increasingly concerned about the 
legacy of debt this Administration is passing on to future generations. 
The $5.6 trillion projected surplus that the Administration inherited 
when it took office has been transformed into a $3.2 trillion deficit. 
More than 80 cents of every dollar of new debt since 2001 is owed to 
foreign investors, including foreign governments. The high level of 
indebtedness to foreign investors heightens the American economy's 
exposure to potential instability or even from financial threat from 
unfriendly foreign governments, and places additional burdens on our 
children and grandchildren. It is a massively irresponsibly tax on 
posterity.
  There are many reasons to support this resolution, but in my brief 
allotment of time, I want to say that I support this resolution on 
behalf of my grandchildren and all the children of this country and 
their families who deserve a budget that puts their needs first. That's 
the definition of a budget that's truly balanced.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 
312, the Budget Resolution for fiscal year 2009. This proposal fulfills 
an important commitment that we have made to the American people by 
investing in fiscally responsible tax relief to millions of households 
and in programs that strengthen the economy, make America safer, and 
help families struggling to make ends meet in an economic downturn.
  On February 6, I expressed my strong concerns over the misguided 
budget request that the President transmitted to Congress. I am very 
pleased to see that the budget before us today restores many of the 
important programs that the President proposed to cut, while achieving 
balance by 2012. It is more vital than ever that we remain responsive 
to the needs of the American people, while maintaining strong fiscal 
stewardship to ensure our financial obligations are not passed along to 
our children and grandchildren.
  Any budgetary blueprint that we expect to bolster the economy must 
also include an investment in education and job training programs that 
will promote new employment and ensure our workforce can adapt to the 
jobs of the future. Unfortunately, those programs were

[[Page 4135]]

not priorities for this Administration. Under the President's proposal, 
Rhode Island would see $1.5 million less for after-school programs and 
a cut of almost $6 million for career and technical education. In 
contrast, the Democratic budget resolution would provide $7.1 billion 
more than the President for vital education, job training, and social 
services programs nationwide in 2009.
  I am pleased that this resolution addresses the President's failure 
to make higher education affordable for students with economic 
challenges, especially in Rhode Island, where college tuition has risen 
45 percent in 4 years. This measure also includes crucial funding for 
the Democratic innovation agenda and the America COMPETES Act, which 
will enhance our edge in math and science education and research. To 
maintain our economic advantage in the coming years, our Nation must 
invest more in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, STEM, 
education.
  Also critical to America's economic prosperity is a budget that 
promotes fiscally responsible tax relief to millions of families 
struggling to make ends meet. In particular, this measure includes a 1-
year patch to keep millions of hard-working, middle-class Americans 
outside the ever-widening net of the alternative minimum tax, AMT, and 
it is fully offset. In addition, the Democratic budget will extend the 
R&D tax credit, which will spur economic growth, create new jobs, and 
help struggling small businesses regain their competitive edge.
  Community development and social services programs will play an 
important role for businesses and families as we attempt to reclaim our 
economic prosperity, and I am proud to support a budget that funds 
these initiatives. This budget restores community and regional 
development programs, like the Community Development Block Grant, CDBG, 
program, which provides vital funding for economic and community 
development in both urban and rural areas nationwide. The House 
Democratic budget resolution also reverses cuts to the Low Income Home 
Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, and the Weatherization Assistance 
Program, which helps people actually reduce their energy consumption. 
These programs are vital to places like Rhode Island where families are 
struggling with astronomical heating costs.
  This budget resolution also includes $1.2 billion more than the 
President's budget for energy programs. As families face unprecedented 
costs to heat their homes and put gas in their cars, it is imperative 
that we fund efficient and renewable energy programs. H. Con. Res. 312 
does this by encouraging the production of renewable energy 
alternatives, increasing energy efficiency, investing in new energy and 
vehicle technologies, and training workers for ``green collar'' jobs. 
This resolution also encourages mass transit by increasing funding for 
Amtrak. I am proud that Rhode Island has already started many of these 
initiatives, but Democrats recognize that we need to support them on a 
broad, nationwide basis.
  Equally important during this challenging economic time is the 
continued need for strong health care funding. The Democratic budget 
measure rejects the President's proposed 10-year cut of over $500 
billion to both Medicare and Medicaid, two vital safety net programs 
serving our Nation's elderly, low-income, and disabled citizens. It 
also provides an increase over the President's proposed discretionary 
health care budget to fund programs that emphasize support for disease-
prevention, food safety, and access to quality health care for 
underserved populations. I am also very pleased to see that this budget 
will accommodate up to a $50 billion increase to expand children's 
health insurance to cover millions of uninsured children.
  Health care also remains the highest priority for our Nation's 
veterans and the brave men and women currently serving in our Armed 
Forces. This resolution appropriately addresses veterans' needs by 
rejecting the President's proposed new fees and increasing veterans 
funding by $3.6 billion relative to the amount needed to keep pace with 
inflation. This will provide increased resources for the VA to treat 
5.8 million patients in 2009, including 333,275 Iraq and Afghanistan 
war veterans. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the VA will play a 
larger role in the coming years as more servicemembers return from 
ongoing conflicts.
  As the Chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emerging 
Threats, Cybersecurity, Science and Technology, I am proud to support a 
budget that properly invests in our homeland security. Unlike the 
President's budget, this resolution provides robust funding for 
programs important to State and local law enforcement in Rhode Island, 
including the State Homeland Security Grant Program, which awarded 
$34.8 million to Rhode Island from 2004 to 2007, and the Law 
Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, LETPP, from which Rhode 
Island received $11.5 million from 2004 to 2006. By passing the 
Democratic budget, we can give local law enforcement officials in Rhode 
Island the tools they need to continue to keep our citizens safe.
  The Democratic budget resolution also makes America safer by 
investing in our Nation's transportation systems, including highways 
and waterways, providing sufficient funding as well as a reserve fund 
to facilitate new infrastructure initiatives. This budget also meets 
the President's funding level for the Department of Defense, but shifts 
resources to high priorities such as nuclear nonproliferation programs, 
which was a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. Finally, this 
resolution responds to the current hardships faced by our 
servicemembers by funding quality of life improvements for the troops 
as well as their families.
  In this time of uncertainty, the American people are relying on us as 
decisionmakers to put forth a plan that will restore our economic 
prosperity, strengthen our national security, provide relief where it 
is needed, and promote fiscal discipline. Today, I am pleased to rise 
in support of a Democratic proposal that will accomplish each one of 
these goals. This budget resolution represents a new roadmap toward 
achieving the true priorities of Americans, and I urge my colleagues to 
join me in voting yes on this measure.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, let me take this means to congratulate 
Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt, also a senior and well-respected 
member of the House Armed Services Committee, for crafting a strong, 
balanced budget for fiscal year 2009. I am pleased to support this bill 
that would provide for a strong national defense, would put our country 
on a path to budget surpluses in 2012, would promote tax relief for 
middle-class American families, and would invest in programs that have 
been priorities for those living in rural Missouri.
  On defense, the House Budget Resolution would prioritize resources to 
restore military readiness that has been worn down by repeated 
deployments and more than 6 years of war. The resolution would reject 
TRICARE fee increases, provide funding to continue addressing problems 
such as those identified at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and would 
call for enhanced pay and benefits to improve the quality of life of 
our troops and their families.
  On rural affairs, the House Budget Resolution would bolster commodity 
support, agricultural research, and animal and plant inspection 
programs. It would assume sufficient resources for the Farm Bill, which 
provides Missouri farmers with a secure economic safety. It would also 
set aside critical funds for rural development, for food and nutrition 
programs, and for conservation.
  Also important to Fourth District residents are commitments in the 
House Budget Resolution to infrastructure improvements, to local police 
and firefighters, to the health care needs of Missouri's senior 
citizens and low-income children, to education, and to our cherished 
veterans.
  The resolution would provide immediate and long-term relief from the 
alternative minimum tax and provide for additional middle-class tax 
relief and enhanced economic equity through tax policies. And, 
importantly, it would adhere to the ``pay-as-you-go'' rule adopted by 
House Democrats early in 2007. That rule requires new entitlement 
spending or revenue reductions to be offset so the budget remains in 
balance.
  On behalf of the rural Missourians I am privileged to represent, I am 
pleased to support Chairman Spratt's work product.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this budget 
blueprint for the priorities it sets and the fiscal sanity it restores 
to our Nation's Capitol.
  Seven years after President Bush inherited a projected 10-year $5.6 
trillion year budget surplus, the Congressional Budget Office now 
reports that the FY 08 budget deficit will be $396 billion and the FY 
09 budget deficit will total $342 billion. These are the second and 
fourth largest budget deficits in U.S. history. Not coincidentally, the 
first and third largest budget deficits in U.S. history were also 
recorded during the Bush administration.
  During the same period, our national debt has exploded by $3.9 
trillion to well over $9 trillion--or more than $30,000 for every 
citizen in the United States. In fact, each taxpayer is now paying over 
$3000 every year just to pay the interest on their share of the 
national debt.
  Astonishingly, this budget deterioration has coincided with dangerous 
disinvestment in our Nation's health, education, public safety, energy 
independence, veterans and basic scientific research--among other 
critically important priorities.

[[Page 4136]]

  This budget document changes all that. It rejects the President's 
misguided cuts in health care for seniors and lower-income citizens. It 
increases our national investment in education and lifelong job 
training. It restores funding for State and local law enforcement. It 
prioritizes the development of next generation renewable energy and 
energy efficiency technologies. It spares veterans the President's 
proposed fee increases for health care they have rightfully earned. And 
it provides robust funding for the Democratic innovation agenda to 
enhance our Nation's position in the global marketplace.
  Importantly, this budget accomplishes these objectives while 
providing middle class tax relief to millions of hard-working Americans 
by patching the Alternative Minimum Tax and extending the child tax 
credit, marriage penalty relief and the 10 percent income tax bracket. 
Consistent with the PAYGO rules adopted by this House, this document 
achieves these public policy goals with no new deficit spending. And it 
brings our budget into balance in 2012.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget represents a properly prioritized, fiscally 
responsible blueprint for the Nation's future. I urge its adoption and 
encourage my colleagues' support.
  Mr. HALL of New York. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly voted against the 
substitute budget offered by Ms. Lee of California. I express that 
reluctance because this substitute included a number of individual 
provisions that I am very proud to support.
  I strongly applaud the fact that the substitute budget included full 
funding for vital education programs, including No Child Left Behind. I 
believe Congress must continue working toward the goal of eliminating 
unfunded mandates. For too long, President Bush and his Republicans 
supporters have forced local communities to bear the brunt of the cost 
of No Child Left Behind's mandates. This has caused undue stress on 
local government's budgets, and led to an unacceptable increase in 
local property taxes in the nineteenth district of New York and across 
the country.
  I'm also proud to support the commitment this bill has for full, 
guaranteed funding for veterans' healthcare. The ongoing wars in Iraq 
and Afghanistan have created a new generation of veterans with new 
healthcare needs. We must make sure that the VA healthcare system will 
accommodate this new influx of patients, while continuing to provide 
high quality care for veterans from previous generations. As a member 
of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am committed to the fact that 
the VA must honor the pact we make with our soldiers; if they fight to 
defend our Nation, our Nation will always make sure they have the care 
they need.
  I was also pleased that the substitute budget included additional 
steps to provide more immediate help to those people struggling to deal 
with our troubled economy. I was proud to support the bipartisan 
economic stimulus package when it passed the House earlier this year, 
and while it was a good start, I believe we need more relief 
specifically targeted to working and middle class families who are 
feeling the worst right now. Relief for these people will only come 
from our commitment to increasing assistance for unemployment 
insurance, food stamps, Federal Medical Assistance Percentage payments 
to states, and housing assistance as is contained in the substitute 
budget.
  Although I've highlighted these specific provisions, there are a 
number of other highly commendable parts of this amendment I would have 
been proud to support. The proposal includes much-needed provisions to 
crack down on corporate welfare and a commitment to expand health 
coverage to all Americans, which I wholeheartedly support. It also 
includes the repeal of the Bush tax cuts, which have helped to put us 
on the path to fiscal ruin while providing no relief for working 
families.
  I strongly support these provisions, and would embrace the 
opportunity to vote for them. Unfortunately, after years of Republican 
rule, our Nation finds itself in the midst of a fiscal nightmare, and I 
believe the only way to restore some semblance of financial discipline 
is through the admirable budget that chairman Spratt has put together. 
It is a difficult decision, but one I do not make lightly. I am also 
concerned that the substitute amendment failed to include much needed 
reform of the AMT. The AMT unnecessarily burdens over 30,000 families 
in my district and threatens to dip further into the middle class. Any 
budget that fails to deal with the AMT fails to deal with one of our 
most pressing national concerns.
  The underlying budget resolution, which I did vote for, contains 
significant funding increases for many of the programs I have 
discussed. The resolution also balances the budget and provides vital 
AMT relief for taxpayers. In light of our difficult fiscal situation, I 
believe that the underlying budget represents a strong step forward, 
and I believe it was deserving of my support.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 
312, the House Budget Resolution for fiscal year 2009.
  There are a number of reasons why the President's budget was 
considered ``dead on arrival'' by Members of this House. I can think of 
five off of the top of my head--(1) $200 billion in cut funding over 5 
years from Medicare and Medicaid; (2) $570 million in cut funding from 
the Low Income Home Heating Assistance Program; (3) $800 million cut 
from the Federal-Aid Highways Administration; (4) $85 million from the 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership and 5) $59 million cut from the 
Migration and Refugee Assistance. The icing on the cake--the President 
proposed freezing spending for the Consumer Product Safety Commission 
and the National Institutes of Health.
  If this is not a sign that this President is out of tune with the 
American people, then I would advise this President that he spend more 
time reading the mail that comes to his office and less time on his 
ranch in Crawford.
  With today's budget resolution, the House is holding true to its 
commitment to the American people and the priorities of our families. 
Frankly, there is no excuse to continue to neglect the families that 
need help from their government.
  Recently the Congressional Budget Office projected that under the 
current policies of this administration the budget deficit will reach 
$396 billion in 2008 and $342 billion in 2009. These are the second and 
fourth largest deficits ever. I would remind my colleagues that when 
this administration took office we were fortunate to have a projected 
$5.6 trillion 10-year surplus. For a President who continues to 
advocate for fiscal responsibility, it appears to me that he has not 
followed his own advice.
  Currently, 80 cents of every dollar of new debt since 2001 is owed to 
foreign investors. This is not a trend that we will let continue. 
Unlike the Bush administration, the Democratic Budget will be balanced 
by 2012 and will remain in balance in 2013. Furthermore, we will reduce 
the deficits over the next 5 years while continuing to follow pay-as-
you-go.
  The Democratic Budget also holds true to its commitment to our 
veterans by increasing funding for 2009 by $3.6 billion above the 
current level. At the same time that the administration is demanding 
more and more from our troops, they have also shamefully proposed $18 
billion over 5 years in new fees for veterans and military retirees. 
Our troops have served in Iraq and Afghanistan honorably and dutifully 
and they deserve to come home to quality health care and strong 
education benefits. This budget will allow the VA to treat 5.8 million 
patients in 2009, 333,275 of which are Iraq and Afghanistan war 
veterans.
  On January 20, the Commission on the Guard and Reserve issued a 
report announcing that the military is not ready for a catastrophic 
attack on the country. More worrisome is the conclusion that the 
National Guard is ill-trained and ill-equipped to handle the job. The 
Democratic budget addresses this issue by focusing on improving 
military readiness and enhancing the pay and benefits for our troops in 
order to improve their quality of life.
  In the last 7 years, this Administration has failed to support our 
first responder programs, firefighter assistance grants and the 
Community Oriented Policing Services. The Democratic budget proposes to 
reverse this trend by placing a high priority on restoring funding. It 
is imperative that while we are assisting those abroad with their 
security needs, that we are also supporting our own domestic security 
needs.
  I am proud to say that this budget proposal will also follow through 
on our commitment to expand children's health insurance coverage by 
providing a $50 billion increase to the State Children's Health 
Insurance Program (SCHIP) so that we can provide healthcare to millions 
more children who otherwise would go uninsured. As we all witnessed 
last year, the President vetoed legislation expanding SCHIP on two 
occasions. In my home state of Michigan we have seen the number of 
uninsured increase to 10.7 percent of Michigan's population. Rather 
than making healthcare coverage less accessible, Congress must be doing 
everything it can to ensure that every individual who wants healthcare 
coverage has the means to get it.
  The Democratic budget also rejects the proposed $500 billion in cuts 
to Medicare and Medicaid. There is no doubt that this President does 
not place the health of our families on the top of his priority list, 
however, his budget did ensure that his fat cat friends in the 
insurance industry would still receive the overpayments to private 
managed care plans. I am

[[Page 4137]]

pleased to say that the House has proposed $1.9 trillion in mandatory 
spending programs, including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
  As we have seen college costs and tuitions skyrocket, this President 
has proposed freezing funding to the Department of Education. The 
President has again failed to provide funding for No Child Left Behind 
(NCLB), providing only $24.6 billion for 2009, making the cumulative 
shortfall for NCLB $85.6 billion. On top of this, the President has 
proposed cutting Teacher Quality State Grants by $100 million. At a 
time when we are asking our teachers and schools to meet rigorous 
standards of NCLB, how can we cut funding from a program designed to 
assist with professional development?
  The Democratic budget rejects these cuts by providing $7.1 billion 
for education and job training above the President's proposal. If we 
want to turn our economy around we must have workers that are well-
trained and equipped to compete in the global market. However, to do so 
we must address rising college costs. In the last year the average 
tuition and fees to attend a four-year in-state public college 
increased 6.6 percent to $6,185, and for a four-year private college 
families are facing a bill of $23,712. This budget resolution will help 
parents and students pay for college raising the maximum Pell grant and 
continuing Perkins Loans and Supplemental Opportunity Grants.
  The Democratic budget provides funding that is crucial for job 
creation. As we have seen here at home, our economy is heading towards 
a recession. From 2001-2006 alone, Michigan lost 235,000 jobs, many of 
them high-paying manufacturing jobs. With the rising unemployment rate, 
it is clear that we need to invest in our workers and new industries 
that would promote job creation here at home.
  This budget provides critical funding for the America COMPETES Act 
increasing funding for math and science education and research. The 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which was drastically cut under 
the President's budget, will receive continued funding which will help 
to retain 37,000 jobs. It also supports the trade adjustment assistance 
program, which would provide 130,000 workers with both income support 
and access to training.
  In the past year we have witnessed the danger of our neglected 
infrastructure in the tragedy of the Minneapolis bridge collapse. Until 
the next surface transportation bill, we must ensure that our roads and 
bridges are receiving the funding and support needed to be safe and 
secure for our communities. We must also address the negative effects 
of the rising costs in fuel. Congestion on our roads has resulted in 26 
gallons of wasted fuel per person, costing our constituents $78 billion 
annually.
  Over the years we have heard time and again from the President that 
we must decrease our dependence on foreign oil, yet he has proposed 
cutting funding for our highway and transit programs, mass transit 
expansions and Amtrak by $2 billion below authorized levels. The 
Democrats will not stand for this and instead propose increasing the 
investment in transportation infrastructure by $41.2 billion for 
highway programs, $10.3 billion for transit, $1.3 billion for highway 
safety and $3.9 billion in airport improvement grants. This will save 
our constituents delays on the roads and in the airports and reduce 
pollution and fuel needs.
  Just this week it was announced that Michigan is sixth in the nation 
for foreclosures; nationally almost 2.8 million homeowners are at risk 
of losing their homes to foreclosures. Last year the House passed 
legislation that would create an affordable housing fund, which is 
currently awaiting Senate consideration. This budget takes a step 
forward by providing needed funding for the $2.8 billion shortfall for 
the project-based rental assistance program at the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development and provides funding for tenant-based 
rental assistance.
  The Democratic budget would also help those that are struggling with 
home heating costs by rejecting the President's cut to the Low-Income 
Home Energy Assistant Program. Since 2001, home heating costs have gone 
up by 80 percent. There is no reason our families should be choosing 
between groceries and heat during the tough winter months.
  While the President can propose cutting funding, Congress will 
continue to provide funding for bipartisan programs such as our water 
and natural resources programs. This budget rejects the proposed $2.9 
billion in cuts and instead invests in water infrastructure that will 
promote and protect our clean and safe drinking water supplies.
  The Democratic budget provides tax relief for the middle class 
families that need it most. The Democratic budget will continue the tax 
cuts for the middle class, while also preventing 20 million families 
from being subject to the alternative minimum tax.
  Finally, earlier this year, I wrote a letter to Chairman Spratt 
requesting that he keep in mind the plight of the millions of Iraqi 
refugees and internally displaced persons when preparing the budget 
priorities for this year. I am happy that he was able to include 
language in the Committee Report accompanying the budget document 
recognizing this humanitarian crisis.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to say that not only have we received the 
last budget proposal from this Administration, but it is also the last 
budget of empty promises. I look forward to passing the Democratic 
budget resolution proving Congress's commitment to our American 
families. More importantly, I look forward to working next year with my 
colleagues and the next Administration to develop a fiscally 
responsible budget that will finally put the needs of our country 
first.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Progressive Caucus Budget Substitute.
  This week, many of my constituents are visiting Washington, DC. They 
are here asking for more funding for important Federal programs.
  I keep explaining to them, that I will do my best; we all will do our 
best. We will fight for them; we will fight with them.
  But the problem is the war in Iraq. Every penny we spend on this war 
is another penny that will cost our children, our grandchildren, our 
great grandchildren. Every cent we spend on this war in an emergency 
supplemental is off-budget. But every dollar we invest in health care, 
unemployment insurance, housing, in child welfare is subject to 
devastating cuts. This administration believes that we have an endless 
pot of money for war, but no money for hard-working Americans.
  Across the country people are struggling. They are struggling to keep 
up with their bills. Struggling to pay their mortgages, pay for 
college, pay for food, pay for gas. They come here and ask us to invest 
in their needs. They ask us to provide funding not for the war but for 
their communities.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget amendment does just that. We provide nearly 
$132 billion more than the President to assist struggling Americans. 
This proposal responds to our constituents. It says we found a way to 
fund what is important to you.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the Democrats proposed 
budget is tax and spend all over again.
  Instead of preserving tax relief for Americans, the Democrat budget 
includes a $683 billion tax increase. This is $683 billion dollars the 
majority plans to take from everyday American, who are already feeling 
the pinch from rising gas prices, increasing food costs, and credit 
card debt. These horrendous tax increases are meant to pay for the tens 
of billions in wasteful, new Federal spending proposed in the Democrat 
budget.
  And where is the entitlement reform that we so desperately need to 
ensure our children and grandchildren are not saddled with the price of 
our inaction? It is nowhere to be found in the Democrat budget.
  For a majority leadership that sailed into power under the guise of 
change, it is terribly obvious that what this budget represents is 
merely more of the same--more of the same wasteful spending and tax 
increases to pay for it all. Washington does not have a revenue 
problem. It has a spending problem. The Democrat budget has got it 
backwards.
  In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget 
September 11th.
   Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Fiscal 
Year 2009 Democratic Budget Resolutions.
   Once again this year, the President's budget proposal made a number 
of cynical choices and cut or eliminated programs that make a real 
difference in people's lives. The President's budget calls for more 
than $1 trillion in tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans over 10 
years at the expense of vital domestic programs that benefit millions 
of people. The President's cuts include $479 billion of Medicare cuts, 
and $94 billion in cuts to Medicaid over 10 years; more than $18 
billion over 5 years in new fees for veterans and military retirees; 
cuts to EPA grants that help protect public health and maintain 
environmental quality; and the elimination of several state and local 
law enforcement programs, including Byrne Grants and COPS funding.
   The President has already taken a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 
trillion and turned it into a $3.2 trillion deficit. Now the President 
wants to slash funding for crucial domestic programs while he continues 
to spend $10.3 billion a month for the war in Iraq--a war that

[[Page 4138]]

has already cost more than $495 billion and which may cost more than $3 
trillion by the end of our involvement. This war has cost Americans far 
too much--most importantly, in terms of lives.
   The President's budget also misses the boat by choosing not to fund 
programs which would stimulate economic growth and benefit all 
Americans. For example, the President's budget does not include much-
needed increases for things such as rehabilitating our Nation's 
crumbling schools and highways, securing our ports, investing in 
renewable energy, and helping lower the cost of healthcare for millions 
of children and seniors. And I was also dismayed to see the number of 
cuts in the President's budget that come at the expense of our Nation's 
poorest citizens. To cite just one example, the budget eliminates the 
Community Services Block Grants which reduce poverty and provide 
assistance for individuals dealing with housing, health, nutrition, 
energy, and substance abuse problems.
   I am proud that the Democratic budget resolutions restore sanity to 
our Nation's fiscal policy. Our budget increases veterans funding for 
2009 by $3.6 billion (8 percent) above current services; provides 
additional resources to address long-standing domestic priorities 
within a fiscally responsible framework, including increased funding 
for scientific innovation and energy initiatives, and education, 
training, and social services; and it rejects the President's proposed 
cuts, including cuts to environmental protection, first responders, and 
Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. It also makes room for the 
expansion of children's health insurance coverage, and includes reforms 
to improve Medicare for beneficiaries and reforms of the Higher 
Education Act to make college more affordable.
   H. Con. Res. 312 is not perfect. I wish it included less spending on 
unnecessary, outdated weapons programs, and more spending on domestic 
priorities for relief for the millions of Americans who are struggling 
to make ends meet amidst higher energy, healthcare, and food costs; and 
for the people in our society who need the most help. However, I am 
grateful to Chairman Spratt for crafting a budget that rejects the 
President's cuts.
   I am also proud to support the Congressional Progressive Caucus 
substitute, which provides over $550 billion for domestic non-military 
discretionary spending in FY09--over $130 billion above President's 
request--to restore the President's harmful cuts. This budget contains 
a second economic stimulus package that would include an extension of 
unemployment insurance, an increase in assistance for food stamps, 
Medicare payments to states, and foreclosure relief, as well as over 
$300 billion to rebuild our Nation's crumbling schools and roads. It 
also provides $1.22 trillion to cut the poverty rate in half over the 
next decade, starting with redress and reconstruction for Gulf Coast 
victims of Hurricane Katrina. It does this by cutting down on waste, 
fraud in the Pentagon and by eliminating certain cold war weapons 
systems; as well by closing egregious corporate tax loopholes and 
rolling back the President's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
   Mr. Chairman, the President's last budget is no more than a sad 
continuation of his failed fiscal policies. I'd like to thank Chairman 
Spratt once again for all of his hard work on the budget, and am proud 
to stand with my Democratic colleagues to support a budget that rejects 
the President's cuts and reinvests in our domestic priorities.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. There being no further amendments, under the 
rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. 
Tauscher) having assumed the chair, Mr. Capuano, Acting Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the concurrent 
resolution (H. Con. Res. 312) revising the congressional budget for the 
United States Government for fiscal year 2008, establishing the 
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 
2009, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 
2010 through 2013, pursuant to House Resolution 1036, he reported the 
concurrent resolution back to the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the concurrent resolution.
  Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on adoption of 
the concurrent resolution will be followed by a 5-minute vote on the 
motion to suspend the rules on House Resolution 991.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 212, 
nays 207, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 141]

                               YEAS--212

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

                               NAYS--207

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton

[[Page 4139]]


     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

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


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1750

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

                          ____________________