[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10926-10935]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. CON. RES. 13, 
        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 371 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 371

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 13) setting forth the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for 
     fiscal year 2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels 
     for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth the appropriate 
     budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through 2014. All 
     points of order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read. The conference report shall be debatable 
     for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). 
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McGOVERN. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to 
insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.

[[Page 10927]]

  Madam Speaker, I am honored to stand here today in support of the 
fiscal year 2010 budget resolution conference report.
  I want to thank my friend, the Budget Committee Chairman, John 
Spratt, for his incredible work on this budget. He is smart, he is 
fair, and no one cares more about these issues.
  I also want to thank Ranking Member Paul Ryan. I believe he is a 
thoughtful and bright Member of this House, even though we usually 
disagree on most of the issues of the Budget Committee.
  I also want to thank the staff of the Budget Committee, Democratic 
and Republican, for their tireless effort and their commitment to 
public service.
  Madam Speaker, the budget conference report that we are considering 
today represents so much more than a clean break from the past. It is a 
blueprint for the future. It is a roadmap for economic recovery and for 
investing in national priorities that will provide the American people 
with shared prosperity in the years and decades to come.
  The conference report lays the groundwork for health care reform, 
clean energy and quality education. It will create jobs, support 
working families, strengthen our national defense and renew America's 
global leadership.
  By cutting taxes for the middle class, $1.5 trillion in tax cuts for 
over 95 percent of the American people, Madam Speaker, and investing in 
affordable health care, education and clean energy in a fiscally 
responsible way, we are taking the first critical steps to lifting our 
economy out of recession and creating good jobs for America's workers. 
For the last 8 years, President Bush flat out mismanaged the Federal 
budget. How? By enacting huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans 
that led to skyrocketing deficits, by spending hundreds of billions of 
dollars on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without paying for them, 
and by refusing to invest in the American people.
  This budget cuts the deficit by more than half by 2013. And in order 
to get us back on a fiscally sustainable path, the budget provides a 
realistic assessment of our fiscal outlook. Unlike the Bush 
administration, we actually budget for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 
instead of hiding them under the emergency spending categories. We 
budget for natural disasters that inevitably will occur.
  This conference report cuts taxes for 95 percent of Americans. Let me 
repeat that, because we will hear a lot of rhetoric from the other side 
about taxes.
  This budget cuts taxes for 95 percent of Americans. It provides 
immediate relief from the alternative minimum tax, it eliminates the 
estate tax on nearly all estates, and works to close corporate tax 
loopholes.
  You see, all of us believe in altering the Tax Code. We believe that 
we should reduce the tax burden on the middle class and those trying to 
get into the middle. We believe that corporations shouldn't be allowed 
to shirk their responsibility by hiding their profits in offshore tax 
havens.
  The other side believes we should reduce taxes for the very 
wealthiest. It's a simple difference in philosophy. Most importantly, 
this budget, the Democratic budget, actually invests in the American 
people. What a welcome change from the past 8 years.
  We invest in health care reform, not just to improve health care 
quality and improve coverage, but to reduce the crushing burden of 
health care costs on American businesses. Everybody likes to talk about 
health care reform. This budget actually lays the groundwork to get it 
done.
  We invest in clean energy in order to create jobs, improve the 
environment and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We invest in 
renewable energy and energy efficiency. Everybody likes to talk about 
energy independence, but this budget actually lays the groundwork to 
get it done.
  And we invest in education to reclaim our place as the best-educated 
workforce in the world. We work to expand early childhood education and 
to make college more affordable. Everybody likes to talk about 
improving education. This budget actually provides the basis to get it 
done.
  And this is a budget that will allow Congress, if and when the time 
comes, to vote up or down on health care reform and education reform 
and avoid the infamous obstructionism so characteristic of the other 
body and the other side of the aisle. It certainly doesn't guarantee 
passage of such reforms, but it will allow for and require a straight 
up-or-down vote in each Chamber.
  Now I know that change is hard. I know some of my colleagues want to 
cling desperately to the failed policies of the past. But the good news 
is that despite all the nasty press releases and television ads and 
talk radio attacks on the President, the American people still support 
President Obama's vision for America.
  That's why this budget is so very important. This is a budget with a 
conscience. It is a budget that believes in the American spirit, and 
it's a budget that fulfills the promises that the President made to the 
American people.
  Madam Speaker, we are at a crucial moment. Our country can meet its 
potential, our children can have a better future, our economy can once 
again create good-paying jobs. But in order to make that happen, we 
need change. We need to move in a bold, innovative new direction. We 
need to pass this budget.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this rule and the 
underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, while my colleagues didn't need to listen 
to the remarks of my distinguished colleague, I know that they will 
very much want to hear my remarks. And so I would like to make a point 
of order that the House is not in order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman makes a point of order that 
the House is not in order.
  The gentleman will suspend. The House will come to order. Members and 
staff standing and engaging in conversations will take their seats.
  Does the gentleman withdraw his point of order?
  Mr. DREIER. I just made it. I mean, you determine whether or not the 
House is in order, Madam Speaker. It didn't seem to me that it was.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will answer the question.
  Do you withdraw your point of order?
  Mr. DREIER. Sure.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will proceed.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  I thank my friend from Worcester for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes.
  It sort of feels like Groundhog Day. We just completed debate on this 
same-day rule and now here we are proceeding with the rule on the 
budget conference report itself.
  When we ended the debate just a little while ago, my friend was 
saying that those of us on this side of the aisle have no interest or 
desire to work with President Obama, that all we say is ``no'' time and 
time again. I have got to say that repeatedly we have come forward with 
alternatives, and we very much want to work in a bipartisan way. And so 
this notion of trying to claim that we as Republicans are saying ``no'' 
is preposterous. Everyone is aware of the fact in this House and in the 
executive branch that we have come forward with proposals, which is 
exactly what we did. We had two alternatives that were considered here 
on the House floor when we considered the budget, itself, and now we 
have this conference report.
  I have got to say that the underlying budget conference report, 
itself, Madam Speaker, that is before us, to quote my friend from 
Worcester, is really the same old, same old, a term that he loves to 
use, as, really, it's the same package that we looked at just 4 weeks 
ago. Democratic leadership, I know, has tweaked a few things on the 
margins, but the exact same failed policies are still fully intact on 
this budget.
  My friend correctly points to the fact that the American people are 
hurting. We know very well that we have a shared goal, but it's how we 
do it. Unfortunately, this budget recklessly spends money that we don't 
have, and

[[Page 10928]]

it sets the stage for tax increases that we can't afford. It makes the 
fundamental mistake that led to our economic crisis in the first 
place--profligate, unaccountable and irresponsible behavior. And it 
allows the Democratic majority to ram through massive, complex 
legislation down the road without any pretense of consensus building.
  My friend said again that we just say ``no'' to the President. We 
want to have what the President talked about in his campaign, what the 
Speaker has repeatedly talked about. We want to work to build a 
consensus here, but, unfortunately, the budget itself lays the 
groundwork to completely obliterate any notion of bipartisanship.
  Apparently they are not content with merely shutting out Republicans 
from the legislative process. They are finding moderates within their 
own party, those who are interested in reaching across the aisle and 
finding commonsense solutions, and those people who want to do that 
apparently are being ignored in this process as well. They want to be 
able to steamroll any effort whatsoever to reach a responsible, 
bipartisan compromise on some of the most important challenges like 
health care and energy.
  This conference report will let them do just that, to ignore the 
prospect of bipartisanship. The Federal budget may be a very 
complicated thing. We all know that. But the principles that should 
govern that budget are not. They are not complicated at all.
  The budget should responsibly spend the taxpayers' money. Every 
program, Madam Speaker, should be held accountable to cut out waste, 
fraud and abuse. The budget should assume responsibility for today's 
challenges rather than pushing the hard choices and mountains of debt 
off into the future to our children and grandchildren. The budget fails 
on all these counts.
  The longer that the American public has time to examine the level of 
wasteful spending in this budget, the more deeply concerned they are. 
They wonder how we can afford this right now, how much debt will be 
left to our children and grandchildren, and will our taxes be raised to 
pay for this?
  Just a few weeks ago The Hill, the newspaper here, ran a story on the 
emerging consensus among economists of all stripes that the numbers 
just don't add up and taxes are going to have to be raised dramatically 
to pay for all of this government spending. According to these 
independent analysts, as reported by The Hill, this will mean taxes on 
the middle class. On middle-income wage earners, these analysts are 
saying that taxes will be imposed.
  Martin Sullivan, a contributing editor at Tax Analyst publications, 
is quoted as saying, ``You just simply can't tax the rich enough to 
make this all up.''

                              {time}  1700

  Another economist, Leonard Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center, 
said that, under the current tax structure, ``there's no way we're 
going to be able to pay for government.''
  Now, Madam Speaker, these are not Republican operatives. These are 
independent economists, many of whom openly supported the President 
during the campaign, who were looking at the numbers and who are saying 
that this budget will make tax increases on middle-income working 
Americans, who are trying to make ends meet, inevitable.
  This course of action is especially dangerous given our current 
economic crisis and its causes. Anyone with a little common sense can 
understand that reckless borrowing and lending led to our economic 
downturn. A little common sense is also all it takes to understand that 
raising taxes, including on middle-income wage earners, would be a 
disaster during tough economic times. Even Keynesian economists and 
economists of all stripes recognize that, Madam Speaker. Yet this 
budget continues that very reckless behavior and puts us on the path 
toward those middle class tax increases.
  The most dangerous impact of this budget will come further down the 
road. This bill employs an arcane legislative trick that will allow the 
Democratic leadership to cram through massive health care legislation 
with little scrutiny and, as I said earlier, with zero bipartisanship. 
This provision we all know called ``reconciliation'' may be a very 
technical Beltway issue, but we can all understand its implications by 
simply considering that iconic American image, Jimmy Stewart, as he 
played the role of Jefferson Smith, defiant on the floor of the other 
body on the other side of the Capitol in that movie ``Mr. Smith Goes to 
Washington.''
  For many Americans, this is the classic image of public service at 
its principled best. However, had the Democratic leadership's budgetary 
gimmicks been in place, Mr. Smith would never have been able to make 
the stand that he did in that famous movie.
  Instead, this budget ensures, Madam Speaker, that critical 
legislation can be rushed through without the hassle of principled 
debate. We've already seen what happens when 1,000-page legislation on 
very complicated issues gets crammed through the Congress. Look no 
further than to the hundreds of billions of dollars of bailout money 
that this majority has doled out, to the billions wasted, to the 
billions unaccounted for and with nothing to show for it.
  The Democratic leadership's hasty and partisan approach has a very 
poor track record. Now they want to ensure that they will be able to 
approach health care reform in the exact same way, health care accounts 
for nearly one-fifth of our entire economy, and is one of the single, 
most important factors in an individual's and in a family's quality of 
life.
  Will Americans be able to continue to choose what doctors they go to? 
Will they be able to consult their doctors on which treatments are best 
for them? Can we make health care more accessible and affordable 
without compromising quality and personal choice? These, Madam Speaker, 
are the incredibly critical questions that should be addressed in the 
health care reform debate.
  You know, if the Democratic leadership has its way, there won't even 
be a debate. They want to be able to handle it like they've handled 
nearly every other important bill: written behind closed doors and 
crammed through without an open debate. Madam Speaker, this budget puts 
the rules in place that will allow them to do that. It will also allow 
them to attach dramatic new energy taxes on every household in America 
in order to pay for their health care proposals.
  The Democratic leadership, when confronted with a question of a new 
cap-and-tax program, insisted that it is not contained in this budget. 
What they are hoping the American people will not find out until it's 
too late is that this budget will allow new energy taxes to be attached 
to the Democrats' health care legislation. Their energy tax proposal 
would mean hundreds and even thousands of new taxes each year on each 
and every single household in this country, and it's all made possible 
by this budget conference report that we're going to be voting on 
tomorrow.
  The Democratic leadership likes to defend their procedural tricks by 
saying that Republicans used the same tactics to enact welfare reform 
and tax rate reduction. I'm very proud of the fact that we were able to 
reduce the size and scope and reach of government; that we were able to 
make welfare programs more accountable; that we were able to let the 
taxpayers keep more of their own, hard-earned money; and that we were 
able to implement growth policies that gave us 55 months of job 
creation and sustained economic expansion. That was the right thing to 
do. The Democrats, on the other hand, would like to use this procedure 
to dramatically expand government bureaucracy and tax the American 
people during an economic recession. This is an absolutely disastrous 
budget under any circumstances, but it is equally and especially 
dangerous during challenging economic times.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject reckless, wasteful 
spending; to reject tax increases for the middle class; to reject a 
hasty and partisan process for crafting health care and energy 
legislation. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the 
underlying conference report.

[[Page 10929]]

  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I just want to point out, Madam Speaker, that, notwithstanding the 
constant attacks on President Obama that have come from the other side 
of the aisle on this floor since he was elected, since he was sworn in 
as President of the United States, notwithstanding the constant attacks 
by the patron saint of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh, and 
notwithstanding the attacks by former Speaker Gingrich on every TV show 
that will allow him on, a poll done by CBS recently showed that, by a 
56-32 percent margin, the American people believe that President 
Obama's budget sets the right priorities.
  I believe in the American people. I believe in their instincts. I 
think they know what they want better than my friends on the other side 
of the aisle.
  I will also point out--and my friend admitted to this because, when 
it comes to reconciliation, they like to cherry-pick--that their 
budgets in 2001 and in 2003, which allowed for these massive Bush tax 
cuts and which nearly bankrupted us--the tax cuts that went to the 
wealthiest Americans--had reconciliation instructions. In 2005, with 
reconciliation instructions that allowed them to make deep cuts in 
Medicare, they increased the deficit by an aggregate of $1.8 trillion. 
That's what they did to the economy. That's what they did to the 
American people. So we don't want the same old, same old.
  Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), a member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. McGovern for 
yielding. I want to start by thanking Chairman Spratt and his 
colleagues on the Budget Committee and the conferees for so quickly 
coming to an agreement on the conference report.
  I rise to support the rule and the underlying conference report.
  This budget resolution begins the long and painful process of digging 
out of the very deep hole that we have inherited. It makes good on 
President Obama's promise to cut in half the deficits he inherited in 5 
years. In fact, it cuts the deficits by two-thirds, and it does so even 
while we are cutting taxes for 95 percent of Americans to the tune of 
$1.7 trillion worth of tax cuts. We also invest in priorities that are 
absolutely vital to our future.
  I'd like to be specific about one of those priorities, and that is 
the investment made in higher education and in education in general 
that is accommodated by the conference report. There are significant 
investments in higher ed and an increase in the Pell Grant maximum, 
which will make it easier for hard-pressed students and their families 
to achieve their slice of the American dream. The moving from the 
Federal Family Education Loan program, the so-called ``FFEL program,'' 
to direct lending will save $97 billion over 10 years, and it will put 
money in the hands of needy students as opposed to having that money 
added to the bottom line of banks and of other loan providers. It will 
restructure the Perkins Loan Program to make it more readily available 
to students. It will create a college access and completion fund that 
will enable colleges to emulate best practices across the country so 
that students really do succeed, and it will make permanent the 
American Opportunity Tax Credit. All of these are the kinds of 
investments we need to make if we are going to have the prosperous 
future that we all want.
  With specific reference to education, Mr. Dreier made reference to 
the various alternatives that Republicans have offered to our budget 
resolution. The alternative that the Republicans offered made 
absolutely no mention of education.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. There is no mention of education. There is no 
plan to invest in higher education. There is no plan to invest in job 
training. There is no plan to invest in any of the vital services that 
our children need to put them on a path to success.
  Instead, that budget resolution made a series of very deep, 
unallocated cuts that could easily fall on education. We cannot have 
the bright future we need to have if we don't invest in our children's 
education. Our budget resolution does that.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  I would like to simply say to my colleague who brought up this issue 
of reconciliation that we were very proud of the fact that we were able 
to get people from welfare rolls to the working side of the economy in 
the mid-1990s, and we did use this procedure. I can time and time again 
remember instances of people who were saying they were so proud to be 
able to have a job. In the mid-1990s, the Republican Congress did bring 
about a bold reform of our welfare system, and it was a great, great 
accomplishment as it was in the early part of this decade when it was 
used to allow people to keep more of their own, hard-earned money in 
2001 and in 2003.
  At the same time, we were doing everything that we could to ensure 
that we had pro-growth economic policies because we were dealing with 
an economic recession then, of course with the aftermath of September 
11 of 2001, with corporate scandals, and as I said, with an economic 
recession. We did put into place pro-growth policies, and yes, we used 
that procedure.
  The really difficult thing for us to fathom is the fact that we're 
now seeing this process utilized to dramatically expand government to 
the point where this budget has, itself, got a deficit that is larger 
than what the entire Federal budget was just 10 years ago.
  I would very much like to yield to my friend. I told the gentleman 
from Springfield I would.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. Okay. I would be happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I just want the gentleman to know there are 40 million 
Americans without health insurance, and if we can get a health care 
reform package that covers them, I would be proud to cast a vote for 
that.
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, I totally agree on the issue 
of health care reform. That is a very high priority for us, and my 
friend knows that we have a solutions working group that is focusing on 
this issue, and it is a priority that does need to be addressed.
  With that, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to my friend from 
Springfield, Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Here we are. We just had a same-day rule on a bill that was available 
3 minutes till midnight last night. We're now on the rule on the 
budget, the supposed blueprint for the future, and we're going to hear 
in this debate and in the other debate that this is a budget that 
spends too much, that borrows too much and that taxes too much because 
it spends too much, it borrows too much, and it taxes too much.
  I want to talk principally about health care for a few minutes. That 
has been a topic here of the discussion already. ``Reconciliation,'' by 
definition, defines a partisan victory. I would just advance to my 
friends that health care is the worst possible place to achieve that 
victory if you can achieve something differently than that.
  There is broad agreement on what we ought to do in health care. We're 
all working hard to make that agreement become a reality. We've talked 
about tax policy. We've talked about welfare policy. Frankly, we did 
use reconciliation, but it was always to restructure something that 
government was doing. I don't think there is an example of where we 
used reconciliation to restructure the overall private economy. Both 
health care and energy would restructure an economy that will never 
come back to where they were, and that is not something you should be 
doing without lots of thought and without lots of support in a 
bipartisan way.

[[Page 10930]]

  I would advance to my friends that that is a huge mistake. Certainly, 
if you restructure energy for 5 or 10 years or you restructure health 
care for 5 or 10 years, we're never coming back to the competitive 
marketplace that needs to be improved but not tossed aside, and I'm 
fearful that that's what happened.
  Here we are. We're at the end of April. If there is a Secretary of 
HHS, that's only because she will be confirmed this week. I don't think 
there is a Secretary there. Even if there is, the others in that 
Department who support the Secretary are not there. No Secretary. No 
bill. No plan to get this done within the calendar. The calendar makes 
it virtually impossible to get this done before that reconciliation 
instruction has to be used.
  Frankly, for those who want to go to a single-payer, government-run 
system, having reconciliation out there is every reason in the world 
not to have a bipartisan compromise. This is an area where we need to 
have two-thirds of the Members of the House and two-thirds of the 
Members of the Senate going from that vote, saying we believe the 
country is headed in the right direction.

                              {time}  1715

  If we have a 51-49 sort of victory and we have a 5-year debate on 
whether we have health care rationing or government-run health care, 
that is a bad thing for America, Madam Speaker. We need a health care 
system that's affordable, that's accessible, that has better quality. I 
think we can all reach agreement on those issues. But not, I would 
advance, if we have this option out there of one party doing it one 
way.
  This is a blueprint that doesn't work the way it should work. The 
budget doesn't. The taxes, the inflation, the interest rates that are 
absolutely in the country's future in the way of recovering the economy 
are part of the problem of the future. They will stand in the way of 
that recovery.
  I urge that we vote against this rule and against this budget.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  First of all, when people talk about partisanship, I recall my 
friends on the other side of the aisle giving us the prescription drug 
bill, which was probably one of the most partisan health care votes I 
can recall ever having here. Our hope is not to have a partisan health 
care bill. President Obama has already had a summit at the White House 
where he invited not just Democratic leaders but Republican leaders to 
come and to provide their input to try to figure out how we can do this 
together.
  But the deal is we are going to get health care reform this year. My 
friends on the other side of the aisle, they have had 8 years. If it's 
such a priority, why haven't they done it in 8 years? The number of 
people that have fallen into the ranks of the uninsured has increased 
dramatically while they were in control of the Congress and the White 
House. So no one's talking about trying to create a partisan vote.
  What we're trying to do is get what the American people want 
accomplished. And, quite frankly, I think the onus is on the other side 
of the aisle to demonstrate that they are, in fact, sincere about 
working in a bipartisan way. I think this President has done everything 
humanly possible to reach out the hand of friendship and bipartisanship 
to try to work with the other side of the aisle.
  I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania 
(Ms. Schwartz).
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. I just wanted to follow up on the previous speaker.
  It is absolutely clear, and hopefully we will pass this budget this 
week, but the budget sets out a process by which we can work and should 
work in a bipartisan way. It is simply not good enough for the other 
side of the aisle to say, ``We would love to work with you on health 
care reform. We just can't guarantee that we can do it before October 
15 and therefore we aren't sure we're going to do it at all.'' That is 
not what the American people are asking us to do. What they're asking 
us to do is get to work.
  The fact is that we did more on health care in the first 8 weeks of 
this administration than we did for 8 years before. That's what the 
American people are asking us to do. That's what this budget does. It 
says we're going to get to work on health care. We're going to look to 
do it in a bipartisan way. It's going to be public-private partnership. 
That's what the President wants. That's what we're going to do. It is 
not going to be a wholly public system. They can keep saying so on the 
other side of the aisle, but that's not what's going to happen.
  Let's get to work. This is a moment when the American people are 
saying one of the major challenges before us in this country is for 
economic competitive reasons and because every family is demanding it, 
is to do health care reform. Let's get it done. This budget puts us on 
a path to do it.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding to 
me.
  I rise, Madam Speaker, today in support of this rule and fully 
support the fiscal year 2010 budget as well.
  President Obama has laid out an extremely ambitious budget this year 
that will resonate for decades to come. From health care to climate 
change to education, this budget will improve our Nation in significant 
ways, and I am proud to support it.
  For health, this lays the groundwork for health care reform. Forty-
seven million people living without any health insurance is a national 
disgrace. For energy, this goes towards the way of reducing our 
dependence on foreign oil. This budget would increase funding for 
renewables by nearly 20 percent over the '09 budget. And for education, 
Mr. Bishop spoke about all the things. I agree with him. It builds upon 
the funding we provided for education in the recent stimulus package.
  Now, as any large bill, it's not perfect, and it can be improved. And 
I just want to highlight a few areas that I hope we can improve on in 
the future.
  One is foreign aid. I am disappointed at the level of the funding for 
international relations and foreign aid. As the chairman of the Western 
Hemisphere Subcommittee, I've seen firsthand the benefits of foreign 
aid. This budget is a lot better. The conference report is a lot better 
than the initial budget. The Senate budget included the entire $53.4 
billion of the President's request. This compromise is $51 billion, 
better than the original House $48.5 billion, but I hope we can up it 
in the future.
  I want to talk about the $250,000 income threshold. The budget 
resolution uses this $250,000 threshold as a way to raise revenue. I 
think it's too low and needs to be raised. If you come from a high-
cost-of-living State as I do, this $250,000 threshold is inappropriate. 
Raising taxes on these people, I believe, is not good at this time. But 
I think overall the budget is good.
  Finally, I want to talk about the AMT, because in New York, you 
cannot deduct anything if you're caught in the AMT. I am happy this 
budget includes a 1-year AMT patch. Without this patch, 2.8 million 
middle-class families in New York alone would be swept into it. But 
every year, we're going to run into difficulty. We need a permanent AMT 
fix, and I hope we can do that.
  But I do support the budget. It's a good budget. It calls for the 
change that President Obama spoke about, and I hope we vote for it.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the 
underlying budget conference report that we are considering today.
  As a member of the Budget Committee and a budget conferee, I was 
proud to have worked with Chairman Spratt and the other members of the 
committee on a 2010 budget resolution that reinvests in America and 
reinvests

[[Page 10931]]

in hardworking middle-class families that make up the backbone of this 
country.
  As we all know, the voters spoke this fall overwhelmingly, voting for 
change and a reorientation of our priorities so that, in fact, we are 
strengthening the middle class and making the critical investments 
needed to build a better tomorrow.
  We began to bring that desired change with the economic recovery 
program, and we continue on that path by providing a blueprint in this 
budget that will bring tax relief to hardworking families across this 
Nation and make investments in health care, education, energy, and 
elsewhere that are needed to move this economy from recovery to long-
term growth.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle will decry this budget 
claiming that it will burden future generations with crippling debt. 
But let's be clear. It was under their leadership that a $5.6 trillion 
surplus turned into the historic budget deficit that President Obama 
and this Congress inherited, a deficit of well over $1 trillion in 
2009. If you listen to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 
they were missing in action over this last 8 years. It is hard to 
believe that they were in charge. It is a little bit like ``see no 
evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil.'' They were gone from the 
playing field over these last 8 years.
  We will also hear the other side rail against the instructions that 
are included in this resolution--to bring about what? Education and 
long-awaited health care reform, despite the fact that they used this 
same procedure to pass massive tax cuts for the wealthiest people in 
this Nation.
  When it comes to health care reform, the American people have watched 
as Congress has failed since 1993 to make a serious attempt to fix our 
broken system. Health care reform, making health care coverage 
affordable, available to all, improving safety and quality, and 
providing Americans with a choice of health plans and physicians, 
including the choice of keeping their current health plan, is long, 
long overdue.
  We will work to craft bipartisan legislation, but the American people 
are not interested in process. They are interested in results. We will 
not let a party of ``no'' stand in the way of a reformed health care 
system that the majority of Americans so desperately want.
  Along with health care, this budget also invests in education by 
expanding access and increasing funds for early childhood education, 
creating a new tax credit to help cover college costs, and raising the 
Pell Grant award.
  It invests in energy, builds a framework for developing and producing 
new energy and jobs, modernizing the electricity grid to make it more 
efficient, secure and reliable, increasing the efficiency of Federal 
buildings, and helping to make State and local governments more energy 
efficient.
  This conference agreement invests in rebuilding America, including 
the establishment of a national infrastructure bank which would allow 
the government to objectively consider a wide range of infrastructure 
projects and leverage the private sector to fund those with the most 
significant economic, social and environmental benefits.
  Finally, this budget plan reflects on the economic recovery program 
that we passed, including its provisions to provide tax relief to 
middle-income families. This includes room to expand the refundable 
child tax credit. By lowering the eligibility threshold to $3,000 in 
the Recovery Act, we provided relief to the hardworking families of 
nearly 16 million children, including 5.5 million newly eligible 
children.
  This budget builds on our efforts to create jobs and rebuild the 
economy through the economic recovery plan by providing a forward-
looking economic blueprint that makes the strategic investments 
necessary to move from recovery to long-term economic growth while 
putting us back on a path to fiscal sustainability.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule, to support the underlying 
resolution and do not let our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, who had 8 years--and what did they do in those 8 years? They 
brought this Nation to its economic knees. It's time to look to the 
future. Support this resolution.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I say to my very good friend from Connecticut that it's fascinating 
that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to talk 
about nothing but the last 8 years. And I find it interesting because 
no one seems to be willing to talk about what it is that's before us: a 
budget that is dealing with the next 5 years. It's a $17.8 trillion 
budget over the next 5 years. That's what we need to focus on. That's 
what this debate is all about.
  With that, I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to our hardworking and 
very thoughtful chair of the Republican Conference, the gentleman from 
Columbus, Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I come to the floor today in the midst of a debate and 
rise in opposition to the conference report on the Democratic budget.
  I do so following after the quite typically forceful remarks of the 
gentlelady from Connecticut, whom I respect as a colleague. She, as the 
gentleman from California just said, focused a great deal on the last 8 
years. As someone who in this body through the course of the last 8 
years was, as my colleagues know, a harsh and public and consistent 
critic of runaway Federal spending under Republican control, allow me 
to stipulate that the gentlelady makes a point.
  The truth is in the 8 years of the Bush administration's tenure, 
under Republican control 6 of those years, we did manage to double the 
national debt. And that was a disappointment to millions of Americans, 
me included. And I believe it was part and parcel why the American 
people in 2006 showed us the door because they know we can't borrow and 
spend our way to a healthy America. So I will stipulate to that point, 
Madam Speaker.
  But it doesn't follow or stand to reason that coming to the floor as 
the gentlelady from Connecticut did and as others have today and 
complaining about overspending under Republican control of Congress, 
that the answer would be this budget which would--on top of what has 
already happened--double the national debt in 5 years and triple the 
national debt in 10.

                              {time}  1730

  It just simply doesn't make sense.
  I would expect, Madam Speaker, that anyone that is looking in, that 
in the midst of these difficult times--a time when the American people 
are hurting, when every family and small business and family farmer 
across this country are sitting down around kitchen tables and metal 
desks and offices and figuring out how to make ends meet, they are 
making sacrifices, they are putting off until tomorrow what they don't 
have to spend today--here they see Democrat majorities in the House and 
the Senate bringing to the floor the most fiscally irresponsible budget 
in American history. And I say again, according to the numbers--and we 
can get lost in the numbers--outlays of $3.5 trillion for fiscal year 
2010, $1.2 trillion in deficits in 2010. The deficits over this period 
never fall below $500 billion. A number that was roundly criticized 
when the Bush administration and Republicans hit that number is now 
accepted to be the norm.
  As I mentioned, public debt by the year 2014 will rise to more than 
two-thirds as a share of the economy. It is astonishing to point out 
that the European Union requires countries to keep their debt below 60 
percent of their economy.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. I yield my friend an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. PENCE. If this administration and the Democrat majority have 
their way, the United States of America, by 2014, wouldn't even qualify 
under the criteria of the European Union--not that I would ever want to 
join. It just gives a perspective here, Madam Speaker, that what we 
have before us today is a budget that is out of step with the American 
people. It is a budget that does not embrace the sacrifice

[[Page 10932]]

and the resilience and the demonstrated virtue that millions of 
American families and millions of small businesses are practicing 
today.
  The truth is, we can do better. The truth is, the American people 
know that this Congress has the capacity, even during these difficult 
times, to do the right thing, to take our jackets off, to roll our 
sleeves up, to do the hard work.
  I look across the aisle and I see a gentleman with whom I serve that 
I personally and deeply respect. And I have to believe there are many 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle that also know this we ought 
not to do. After a so-called stimulus bill that spent $1 trillion, an 
omnibus bill that increased spending by 8 percent for last year's 
business, and now the most fiscally irresponsible budget in American 
history, enough is enough.
  The American people want this Congress to begin to practice fiscal 
discipline and reform. We ought to do so by rejecting this conference 
report, and I urge my colleagues to do so.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me say to the gentleman from Indiana, whom I respect, I agree 
with half of what he said. I agree that his party did mess up and leave 
us with a terrible economy at this particular juncture. But I think 
here's where we may disagree philosophically. The question is, how do 
you dig yourself out of this ditch? Is it more cuts? Is it throwing 
more people off the health care rolls? Is it creating more joblessness? 
Is it cutting back on educational programs? Is it cutting back on 
infrastructure programs? I mean, is that how we get out of this? Or, as 
I think we are suggesting, is it that maybe in the short term there 
needs to be some investment upfront to try to stimulate and resuscitate 
this economy, to create more jobs, to create more revenue, to try to 
get this economy back on the right track?
  We are in deep trouble. We have inherited the worst economy since the 
Great Depression. Now, the gentleman and others have spoken as if we 
are not concerned about the deficit or the debt. First of all, we have 
joined with the gentleman from Indiana over the last 8 years 
complaining about the size of the debt. And we were told repeatedly by 
some of my friends on the other side of the aisle that the deficits 
don't matter, the debt doesn't matter; well, now all of a sudden it 
does.
  The fact of the matter is, in the budget that we are proposing, we 
cut the deficit by nearly two-thirds in 4 years. That is our promise. 
That is our pledge in this budget.
  I will briefly yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, Mr. McGovern went through this litany of options and 
the challenges that we have faced and things that should be done. He 
never mentioned that the solution that is being put before us is to 
dramatically increase the size and scope and reach of government, to 
impose taxes that will--as these independent economists about whom I 
referred earlier have said--will impose this tax burden on middle-
income wage earners.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I reclaim my time. First of all, there is not a single 
tax increase in the budget. The budget that we propose cuts taxes for 
middle-income families by more than $1.7 trillion over 10 years. And 
again, our budget cuts the deficit by nearly two-thirds in 4 years.
  I am proud to defend our budget. I have talked about how it is going 
to create jobs. I have talked about how it is going to cut taxes. I 
have talked about how it is cutting nondefense discretionary spending. 
I have talked about how it is going to invest in affordable health care 
and college affordability and clean energy. I am out here very proudly 
defending this budget that we have.
  So all I am simply saying is that what the other side has proposed, 
quite frankly, in our opinion, is unacceptable. It will hurt more 
middle-income families. It will cause more people to fall into the 
ranks of poverty, more people without health care. It will cut back on 
education, on investments in our infrastructure. Those were the 
proposals that were presented. I think that is the wrong way to go.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Boccieri).
  Mr. BOCCIERI. ``Johnny, what have you done?'' I remember my mom 
asking me that as a young boy, ``What have you done?'' Well, she asked 
me this weekend, ``Johnny, what have you done to help middle class 
families? What are you doing in Congress to put the middle class first 
for a change?'' And I said, Mom, some great things are happening in 
Washington, D.C. Can you imagine this? The Democratic Party is about to 
enact the largest tax reduction in our country's history for middle 
class families. Imagine that. Can you imagine that Democrats are going 
to cut the budget in half, by two-thirds by 2013? And can you believe 
that we are finally going to have an honest accounting for all the mess 
that we have inherited over the last decade, the mess that includes 
bailing out banks, bailing out Freddie and Fannie, and also dishonest 
war funding, money that should be included in the budget but yet we 
were not strong enough to put that in the President's budget? Can you 
believe that the Bush tax reduction was for the wealthiest Americans, 
and that our tax reduction is going to be for middle class families?
  Madam Speaker, this House is in order. And we are investing in 
America. We are investing in our country and in our jobs. Do you 
remember in 2004, when President Bush's Secretary of Health and Human 
Services, Tommy Thompson, flew to Iraq with one of many billion dollar 
checks in hand to make sure that every man, woman, and child in Iraq 
had universal health care coverage? And all we hear now from our 
opponents on the other side is that Americans don't deserve health 
care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. BOCCIERI. But all we hear from those detractors is that Americans 
are not worthy of having health care that works for every family and 
for every child.
  I say enough is enough. We need to invest in our country, in our 
people, in our future. And that is exactly what this budget does; it 
invests in education, in green energy jobs, and cuts the budget 
deficit.
  Are we going to be leaders or are we going to be blockers? Are we 
going to say ``yes,'' or are we going to say ``no?'' Are we going to 
invest in American families or Iraqis?
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this juncture I am happy to yield 3 
minutes to our hardworking friend from Savannah, Georgia (Mr. 
Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I must say that 
if I had just arrived here from out of town, I would think I was in a 
college literature class listening to Orwellian doublespeak at its best 
and examples thereof.
  When they talk about investments, this new big government order, that 
really means tax increases and increases in spending. When they talk 
about bold, swift action, that means more ``big government'' power 
grabs. When they talk about probusiness regulation and modernization of 
energy, that is just more government dictating to the private sector. 
When they talk about rebuilding America and new modern job creation, 
those jobs are coming from the government. Those are government jobs. 
They talk about health care reform. That is just plain old socialized 
medicine.
  And then they talk about cutting the deficit, but they don't tell you 
it is their own deficit. If the gentleman from Massachusetts can tell 
me what the deficit is today, as I sit here and listen, then all I have 
to do is divide that by half. But that is not true at all. What you are 
doing is increasing spending and then, based on some phony ``we're 
going to grow the government next year by 4 percent, then we're going 
to cut the deficit,'' come on, guys, that doesn't sell and you know it.

[[Page 10933]]

  And we hear over and over again this is George Bush, Dick Cheney, 
Halliburton, Blackwater, and everybody else's fault but the Democrat 
Party. But who has been in charge for 2 years? It was you guys, that 
under your watch, $29 billion spent on AIG; $200 billion last year on 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; $168 billion for a stimulus bill last year, 
a year ago; $85 billion going up to $140 billion for AIG in September; 
$700 billion in October for Wall Street; and then, just in January, 
$790 billion for a stimulus bill followed by a $410 billion omnibus 
bill which had over 9,000 earmarks--which the new President was going 
to cut every earmark out and not accept any.
  At what point are Democrats going to go ahead and admit, you own the 
House, you own the Senate and the White House? This stuff all happened 
under your watch. Get over George Bush. You are now in charge.
  And I want to say this, as an Appropriations Committee member during 
the period of time when George Bush was President and we were in the 
majority----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield my friend 1 additional minute.
  Mr. KINGSTON. We never had one appropriation bill that spent enough 
money for you guys. And you know it. And the records show it in the 
appropriations debate over and over again; it didn't spend enough 
money.
  So now we are hearing that your fiscal discipline--I just think it is 
laughable to think about this--your budget spends too much, taxes too 
much, and borrows too much. We will be borrowing more money from the 
Chinese. Indeed, the new Secretary of State's first trip was over to 
China to say, please continue to lend us money. The deficits that go on 
will never fall below $500 billion. But I understand you are going to 
jack up spending so you can say you have cut it in half, and that's the 
way you want to do business.
  Tax increases; $1.5 trillion in tax increases. And a lot of it will 
fall on the backs of farmers and small businesses, the very people you 
have the nerve to say that you are trying to help. And the total 
spending outlay of $3.5 trillion in the year 2010.
  This budget should be rejected. It spends too much, borrows too much, 
and taxes too much.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, you have 
had your chance. We did it your way for 8 years, and we have the worst 
economy since the Great Depression. We have more people in poverty, we 
have the worst job creation since the Great Depression, we have more 
people who are hungry in America, we have more people without health 
insurance. I mean, give me a break.
  The bottom line is we have tried it your way for 8 years, and you 
have failed. And the American people sent my friends a message loud and 
clear on Election Day that enough is enough.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I will yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Who took over the Congress in 2006?
  Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time. Yes, the Democrats did, but 
unfortunately with a President who vetoed every decent piece of 
legislation that we tried to pass, vetoing children's health care, and 
a whole bunch of other things that would have helped the economy.
  Right now we have a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President, 
and we are going to pass a budget that reflects what the American 
people want, the values of the American people. We are going to get 
this economy back on the right track. Enough. Eight years of failed 
policies is enough. The same old, same old doesn't work anymore.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my friend 
from Savannah.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman from California.
  I was going to ask my friend from Massachusetts, is it not true that 
the President vetoed Democrat spending, and did come to compromise on 
things like children's health care, but the first go-round you guys 
spent too much money, and that is why he was vetoing it? I mean, I can 
see, blame it on the President and Republicans for 6 years, fair and 
square. But you guys have been in charge for 2 years now, and the only 
vetoing that he did was when you were spending too much money.
  I just think it is time to go ahead and say, you know, we are in 
charge, we are going to take responsibility. And, if anything, we need 
to start talking checks and balances in this town because I don't think 
we have any with all this runaway spending.
  Again, I think this budget spends too much, taxes too much, and 
borrows too much. And I thank the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 4\1/2\ 
minutes. The gentleman from California has 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. That is all I need to respond, just very 
briefly, to my good friend from Savannah/Brunswick when he asked and 
says that too much money was what the previous President vetoed.

                              {time}  1745

  I wonder how much, Madam Speaker, is too much money to care for sick 
children in America or to ensure that children do not get sick in 
America?
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute 
to our colleague from Mesa, Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, a lot has been said about the last 8 years. And just 
to make it known, there were a lot of us who weren't happy with the 
level of spending that went on during that time. We were headed for a 
fiscal cliff. We knew that. A lot of us knew that, and a lot of us 
weren't shy in saying it. A lot of us voted against a lot of 
appropriations bills because they spent too much money.
  But when you're headed toward a fiscal cliff, you don't step on the 
accelerator. And that's what this budget does. We all know or we should 
know, or we'll claim we knew it when it happens, that the next crisis 
will be when we try to auction off some Treasury bills that nobody 
buys. What do we do then? What do we do when nobody wants to lend us 
money? And we're going to get there, we know we are, because this 
budget puts us on the track to get there a lot sooner than we would 
have been otherwise.
  That's why this budget needs to be rejected. It's simply too big. I 
think people know that. And as we go through the appropriations 
process, I think that will become even clearer.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, this is an interesting debate that has preceded, and I 
have to say that I believe that there is great bipartisan concern about 
where this country is headed. Democrats and Republicans alike both want 
to get our economy back on track.
  As I look at small businesses in Southern California, it's not a 
Democratic or Republican issue. Small businesses are closing down and 
people are suffering. As I look at homeowners who are losing their 
homes, it's not a Democratic or Republican issue. They very much want 
to be able to enjoy the American dream of owning their home. As I look 
at people who have lost their jobs, it's not a Democratic or Republican 
issue. So I believe that Democrats and Republicans alike want us to 
make sure we get this economy growing again. The question is how do we 
do it?
  It's fascinating as I listen to my friends on the other side of the 
aisle

[[Page 10934]]

decry deficit spending under President Bush and then argue that we 
should dramatically increase the size and scope and reach of 
government. And very sincerely that is what they've done. As I listened 
to my friend from Ft. Lauderdale, that is what he has just advocated. I 
congratulate him for being consistent in making that argument. But 
there are others who say that the policies of the past 8 years have 
created the problem that we have right now.
  I also want to clarify the record on issues that were raised. I have 
argued that we could have done better during the time that we were in 
the majority. But, Madam Speaker, I think it's important to note that 
with the exception of the Department of Defense, the Department of 
Homeland Security, and veterans, there were real dollar spending cuts 
that took place in appropriations bills over the last few years when we 
were in the majority. I think that the record needs to show that. We 
did work to try to reduce spending. We could have done better than we 
did. I will acknowledge that.
  But, again, here we are looking at a proposal which dramatically 
increases the size and scope and reach of the Federal Government.
  And I know that President Obama is popular. I like President Obama. 
I've been enjoying working with him on things in the past. But I'm very 
troubled in seeing the implementation of what he calls the 
``transformation,'' the ``transformation of government.'' I don't 
believe that it's what the American people want. What they want to do 
is they want to see us implement policies that will create jobs, that 
will allow them to keep their homes, that will keep small businesses 
thriving. That's what they want to see happen. The best way to do that 
is to use the model that was put forth by John F. Kennedy when, in 
1961, he said, you can't encourage economic growth by increasing public 
expenditures; you can only do it by increasing private investment.
  Reject this rule and reject the underlying conference report.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, President Kennedy also said if a free 
society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who 
are rich. And that's been the problem over the last 8 years is that the 
emphasis has been on the rich. The tax cuts, the extravagant tax cuts, 
for the wealthiest individuals that have contributed to our deficit; 
spending on the war that they wouldn't even pay for that was covered up 
under emergency spending procedures so it would mask the size of our 
growing debt. Yes, they made cuts in programs that helped kids and 
veterans and our elderly and investments in job creation and things 
that would help stimulate this economy. I don't think that's a record 
to be proud of.
  So we're turning the page. We're actually going to a new chapter 
here. We have a budget before us that I am proud to defend. This is a 
budget that creates jobs with targeted investments in affordable health 
care, clean energy, education. It cuts taxes for middle-income families 
by more than $1.7 trillion over 10 years. It cuts the deficit by nearly 
two-thirds in 4 years, and it paves the way for an affordable health 
care plan.
  Forty million of our fellow citizens are without health care. That's 
a national scandal. And you know what? That reality is one of the 
reasons why health care costs are soaring. We need to get that under 
control. We need to deal with the issue of college affordability so we 
have the best trained, best educated workforce in the entire world. We 
need to invest in clean energy so we can actually make this transition 
to clean, renewable sources of energy so we're not dependent on foreign 
oil, we're not dependent on the same old, same old kind of energy that 
we have here, that we have relied on for so many years in this country.
  So we can either do what my friends on the other side of the aisle 
have done for 8 years or we can go in a very different direction. And I 
urge my colleagues that it's time to move in a different direction.
  Madam Speaker, I will be offering an amendment to the rule. The 
amendment provides for timeout authority in this rule which will allow 
the debate on this conference report to take place over 2 days, giving 
Members adequate time to read this important report before voting. I 
hope Members will vote ``yes'' on the amendment and on the previous 
question and on the rule.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Mc Govern

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I have an amendment to the rule at the 
desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read the amendment, as follows:

       Insert at the end the following new section:
       ``Sec. 2. The Chair may postpone further consideration of 
     the conference report to such time as may be designated by 
     the Speaker.''

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on adoption of the amendment will be followed 
by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 371, if ordered; and 
motion to suspend the rules on H.R. 1595, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 240, 
nays 179, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 213]

                               YEAS--240

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

[[Page 10935]]



                               NAYS--179

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Clay
     Edwards (TX)
     Fallin
     Granger
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Massa
     McKeon
     Meeks (NY)
     Stark
     Wu

                              {time}  1819

  Messrs. EHLERS and SOUDER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. FALLIN. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 213 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as 
amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234, 
nays 185, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 214]

                               YEAS--234

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--185

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Clay
     Edwards (TX)
     Granger
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Massa
     McKeon
     Melancon
     Stark
     Watt
     Wu


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1828

  So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________