[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6194-6237]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member 
of the Education and Workforce Committee, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, we've been hearing for 
days about how the House Republican budget is courageous and bold. But 
this budget is neither courageous nor bold. It's not courageous to 
throw poor kids out of their Head Start classrooms but continue 
subsidies to Big Oil and their record profits.
  It's not bold to slash Pell Grant scholarships to millions of 
students and to keep the incentives for companies that ship jobs 
overseas.
  It's not bold nor smart to slash funds for new clean energy research 
and make future generations of Americans more dependent, not less, on 
dictators and dangerous fossil fuels.
  And it's neither bold nor courageous to end Medicare for seniors, 
shifting thousands of dollars of costs onto the backs of the elderly to 
pay for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.
  For 45 years, seniors have relied on Medicare to provide health care 
during their retirement years. The Republican budget would end that 
guarantee. Seniors would no longer be guaranteed the coverage for basic 
health services like diabetes and cancer screenings. Instead, seniors 
would have to scrounge to find higher cost private health policies. 
What insurance company is going to write an individual policy for a 70-
year-old that is even remotely affordable?
  Because of these high costs, more and more seniors will go into debt 
under this plan. They will be forced to sell

[[Page 6195]]

their homes and rely on their children to pay for basic medical costs. 
That is not a dignified retirement. That is not America.
  Yes, we need to ensure that Medicare is sustainable for seniors and 
sustainable for the taxpayers. But one thing is certain--the Republican 
budget does not save Medicare; it ends it.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget is not bold, and it's not courageous. It 
might be easy for the Republicans to make cuts on the backs of those 
who can't afford high-priced lobbyists. But it is not easy for the 
middle class working people and seniors on whose back the burden is 
being placed.
  The Democratic budget is a fair and balanced approach, and it asks 
all Americans to share in the burdens in reducing the deficit and the 
debt and strengthening our economy.
  I urge my colleagues to vote down the Republican budget to end 
Medicare and to vote for the Democratic budget that is fair and 
balanced.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the senior 
Member from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This country's in a lot of trouble. We're facing a fiscal crisis of 
unprecedented proportions. They say the first step toward ending an 
addiction is recognizing you're an addict. After spending 10 years here 
in Washington, D.C., after witnessing runaway Federal spending by both 
political parties, one thing is clear: Washington, D.C., is addicted to 
spending.
  It's high time for Congress to own up to its spending addiction and 
institute long-term, sustainable budget and spending reforms that will 
permanently limit the size and scope of the Federal Government.
  Happily, the budget resolution today offered by the distinguished 
Chairman Paul Ryan of the committee puts our Nation back on a pathway 
toward fiscal solvency and prosperity. This Republican budget 
represents a bold step toward fiscal responsibility and limited 
government. It cuts $6.2 trillion in spending over the next 10 years, 
reins in government spending below 20 percent, includes tax reforms to 
increase competitiveness for American companies, and ensures that 
Medicare will be solvent for future retirees.
  It even ends the one-size-fits-all approach to Medicaid, giving 
States more flexibility.
  It also stands in stark contrast to the President's budget, which 
includes a $1.6 trillion tax increase on families, small businesses, 
and family farms, and adds $13 trillion to the national debt. This 
budget resolution renews our commitment to finally forcing Congress to 
live within our means. We must succeed in this cause. Because if we 
fail, the American Dream will fail.
  We will burden our children and our grandchildren with a mountain 
range of debt, robbing opportunities and prosperity, and leaving, for 
the first time in American history, the next American generation worse 
off than the generation that went before.
  This we must not do. I urge my colleagues to offer strong support for 
the Ryan budget resolution. Let's put our Nation on a pathway toward 
fiscal solvency and prosperity.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, we do need to reduce the deficit in a 
predictable, responsible way. That will require spending cuts, and it 
will also require shared sacrifice. The reason that the fiscal 
commission said that the Republican plan was unbalanced is they try and 
do it all one way. History has shown that doesn't work.
  I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

                              {time}  1840

  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, we've heard this afternoon our debt 
is unsustainable, it's a warning, it's a fiscal crisis of unprecedented 
proportions. But heaven forbid to try to solve those great problems 
that our country has right now, the problem that we have, we ask the 
wealthiest in the country to just pay a few more thousand dollars, 
those people who have seen tremendous gains. You know, cry me a river.
  Here we have David Stockman, former head of the OMB under Ronald 
Reagan, talking about the budget being presented by the Republicans: 
``It's simply unrealistic to say that raising revenue isn't part of the 
solution. It's a measure of how far off the deep end Republicans have 
gone with this religious catechism about taxes.''
  We're asking for shared sacrifice. You're getting into Medicaid, 
you're getting into Medicare, you're getting into Pell Grants, but the 
wealthiest are going to walk away not sacrificing one thing. Three wars 
we're in, and we can't ask the wealthiest to pay a few bucks.
  This ends Medicare, Mr. Chairman. Let's be honest. It ends Medicare. 
These people 55 and under, whose wages have been stagnant for 30 years, 
now when they get into the Medicare program, they're going to have a 
voucher or premium support that increases by 2.2 percent indexed to 
CPI, or 2.5 percent, and the GDP in health care will grow between 4 and 
5 percent. So every single year that this person that's 55 is in 
Medicare, they will lose 2 to 3 percent ground in being able to pay for 
their own health care.
  We need to go back and remember why Medicare started in the first 
place. It is not a good business proposition to provide health 
insurance to older people in the United States of America. You can't 
make money off it. So we're going to give these folks a voucher that 
doesn't keep up with health care inflation and send them into the 
private market and somehow think we're doing them a favor? No shared 
sacrifice.
  Again, we're putting the burden on the middle class person who has 
paid into Medicare, depends on Medicare, has been getting wages that 
have been stagnant, probably doesn't have health insurance between 55 
and 65. So you want to talk about driving up Medicare costs, now we add 
someone who doesn't have health insurance into a market that they won't 
be able to afford when they do turn 65.
  This budget is wrong. We need balance. We need shared sacrifice. And 
we need investments in the United States. This budget comes up short, 
and David Stockman says the same thing.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to 
simply say there is a new definition, and I want to explain it. Here is 
what a tax cut now means. If you're not in favor of the forthcoming tax 
increases, you're cutting taxes. That's the new math around here. What 
we don't do is we don't sign up for all these new tax increases that 
are being proposed by the President in his budget that are coming in 
the future. And so by not supporting new taxes, we're all of a sudden 
for tax cuts.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. No, I will not yield.
  What we are saying is keep the revenues where they are and fix the 
Tax Code, clear out the loopholes and the deductions so we can lower 
the rates to create jobs and economic growth.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Budget 
Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to also continue on this 
same conversation. The central question that we have to answer is do we 
have a debt and deficit problem in America or do we have a spending 
problem in America? Words like balanced approach, investment in 
America's future, and the often quoted ``shared sacrifice'' confuse the 
real issue. The focus of the House of Representatives is not about just 
reducing the deficit; it is about reducing spending so we can pay off 
the debt that we have.
  Raising taxes on Americans now would be like the man who ran up a 
huge credit card bill and then went to his boss to tell him that he 
needed a raise to pay off his bills. His boss would most likely 
respond, You don't need a raise. You need to get your family on a 
budget and cut your spending to what is essential.
  For the past 50 years, the Federal Government has taxed Americans at 
around 18.5 percent of GDP, no matter what the rate is. The current 
proposal from the President suggests a tax requirement closer to 22 
percent of GDP. To close the deficit gap, all income

[[Page 6196]]

taxes will have to double or corporate taxes will have to increase five 
fold. A tax increase on the wealthy may make some people feel better 
that they're sticking it to the man; but, historically, tax increases 
only lead to more government spending. And, ultimately, it will not 
solve the debt crisis.
  Washington likes handing out other people's money for noble causes. 
Here is a novel idea: How about dealing with our existential problem? 
We spend too much. In 2009, 140,000 new Federal employees were hired. 
During the previous 10 years there was no change in employment in the 
Federal Government. The number of Federal contractors has increased 25 
percent since 2006. In 4 years, discretionary spending has increased 25 
percent. In that same 4 years, Medicare and Medicaid spending has 
increased by 50 percent. None of that includes the special TARP or 
stimulus funding, which would make the cost to the taxpayers even 
higher.
  We cannot spend our way to prosperity. We have to get back to getting 
a handle on our debt and deficit and our basic spending. The reason the 
House budget has gained so much traction is that it does what Americans 
know in their gut must be done. It cuts spending.
  Finally, someone is saying what many have felt. We cannot solve the 
budget problems quickly without significant spending changes.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, this is simple mathematics. When you 
went from the Clinton rates for the folks at the very top and you 
dropped the tax rate, we ended up losing a lot of jobs because of the 
economy. You also lose revenue. And when you do that, you shift the 
burden onto other people, whether you do it by cutting Medicaid, 
whether you do it by terminating the Medicare guarantee, or whether you 
do it by cutting education. That's just mathematics.
  I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask a question 
of the chairman. Where in this budget is the sacrifice that is being 
made by the top 1 percent of the people? On the wealthiest 1 percent.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. First of all, we think we should go after 
corporate welfare. Let's stop subsidizing wealthy individuals and 
corporations with taxpayer dollars.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Reclaiming my time, you are lowering the corporate 
income tax. What sacrifice is being made?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Like the fiscal commission, we believe that 
it's better for economic growth to broaden the tax base and lower the 
tax rate.
  If I can continue on the gentleman's time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, there are two parts to the Tax Code. There is the 
corporate Tax Code. We need to clean up the corporate Tax Code. We 
agree with the fiscal commission. You've got to get out a lot of 
clutter, a lot of the tax breaks. In fact, we don't think you need a 
study to decide to get rid of the tax breaks that reward corporations 
for shipping American jobs overseas. We don't think you need to study 
the question about whether we get rid of big taxpayer subsidies for the 
oil companies.
  So, yes, we should take a look at the corporate Tax Code. But in the 
other part of the Tax Code, the individual Tax Code, what the 
Republican plan does is actually give the folks at the very top another 
30 percent break. We have been talking about going back to the Clinton 
rates. The Republican plan gives you another 30 percent break. You know 
what? They say we are going to do this in a revenue-neutral way. Well, 
the result is middle income taxpayers are going to pay more to give the 
folks at the top another big break.
  With that, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to somebody who knows a lot about 
this subject, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. We do not need to tear up what America has built in the 
past in order to build for the future. We should not confront present 
and future problems, including the Nation's deficit, as we must, by 
repealing America's past. The Republican budget tries to tear up and 
repeal 75 years of American experience, and the supreme example is 
Medicare. It tears it up. It repeals it. And contrary to what we've 
heard today, they would not save Medicare, but end it. They would not 
change it, but they would end it. Our Nation would be a different 
Nation without it. Millions today would be less healthy without 
Medicare.

                              {time}  1850

  One of my constituents wrote to me recently to say Medicare saved her 
life and her life savings when she was diagnosed with breast cancer, 
and there are tens of thousands of people like her in this country.
  What the Republicans want to do is to give seniors a voucher for 
health care, an underfunded voucher, for 10 years. It would double 
health care costs for seniors, a voucher that in 20 years would pay 
only a third of senior health care costs.
  There is no place to hide for anyone who votes for the Republican 
budget.
  And what happens with the savings? Tax cuts for the wealthy. The 
average income of the bottom 90 percent of the families in America have 
fallen in the last decade.
  The opposite is true for the wealthy. The top 1 percent have seen 
their incomes climb by more than a quarter of a million dollars.
  In my district alone, extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 
Americans means giving 182 households that earn more than $1 million 
annual tax cuts averaging $103,000. At the same time, future seniors 
would be paying $6,000 more in health costs.
  If what we have built in our Nation needs to be adjusted, fix it, 
don't destroy it. We must address the deficit without deepening 
deficits in the availability for our citizens of jobs, health care, and 
education.
  The choice today could not be more decisive. A vote against the 
Republican budget is a vote for basic American values. Vote ``no.''
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member of 
the Budget and Ways and Means Committees, the gentlelady from Tennessee 
(Mrs. Black).
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I stand here today as a proud member of the 
Budget Committee supporting our Path to Prosperity budget that was 
introduced on time and takes real steps to get the country's finances 
back on track focusing on real economic growth and job creation.
  Lately we have heard a lot of demagogy and scare tactics about this 
budget. First it came from the other side of the aisle, and yesterday 
we heard those same remarks by the President.
  But my constituents don't want to hear the same old partisan attacks 
and rhetoric. They want Washington to tell them the truth. The truth is 
this about our budget:
  Number one, it's a jobs budget, and in the first year this budget 
creates 1 million new jobs.
  Number 2, it cuts $6.2 trillion in government spending.
  Number 3, it eliminates duplicative government programs.
  Number 4, it preserves Medicare for the next generation.
  Number 5, it puts caps on spending for the coming year and the next 
decade.
  And, number 6, it takes us on a path to pay down our debt.
  House Republicans are working to get this country back on track on a 
sound financial footing, and I am proud to be here today as part of the 
Republican majority that will lead where the President has failed and 
restore America's future growth and prosperity.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
ranking member of the Small Business Committee, the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I rise in strong opposition to this ill-conceived, 
mean-spirited Republican budget.

[[Page 6197]]

  Mr. Chairman, all of us recognize the need to reduce the deficit, but 
it must be done responsibly. This budget fails that test, cutting 
services we need in favor of tax breaks for the wealthy.
  For New Yorkers, these cuts will be particularly unfair. Ten billion 
dollars will be taken from low-income housing programs. Rental 
assistance will be reduced, making it harder for New Yorkers to find 
affordable apartments. This at a time when we are facing the worst 
housing crisis ever.
  Housing is just one area where this budget fails our country. With 
Medicaid spending reduced by $735 billion, millions of Americans will 
find it harder to afford health care. Instead of tackling rising health 
care costs, this budget ends Medicare as we know it. Medicare is a 
promise to America's seniors. Whether we honor that promise defines us 
as a Nation.
  Just as seniors will face tough times, this budget will visit 
hardship on young people. Head Start, child care and nutritional 
assistance for low-income families will be squeezed, and 26,000 college 
students from New York's 12th Congressional District will see tuition 
assistance reduced, putting college education out of reach.
  Beyond slashing social services, this budget undermines our economic 
recovery. Small business lending would drop by $3 billion, depriving 
5,000 firms of capital they need to create jobs. Is this the way we are 
going to create jobs in this country? Twelve thousand entrepreneurs and 
9,000 veterans, those coming back from Afghanistan and Iraq, will lose 
business counseling services to help them launch or expand their 
businesses.
  Mr. Chairman, we need a serious, thoughtful discussion about how to 
cut spending. Vote ``no'' against this bill.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a member of 
the Ways and Means Committee and former member of the Budget Committee, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).
  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, this budget stops in its tracks the efforts 
of Democrat leaders to trap the American people on a high-speed train 
trip with the false promise of green jobs. This is a trip, a one-way 
ticket to bankruptcy.
  However, if you support the Ryan budget, you will help this 
government recover from a debilitating and life-threatening illness 
that started when our leaders threw out the American way of life in 
favor of a left-wing agenda. Let's be clear. We have two choices: we 
can look forward and pave a path to economic prosperity, or we can 
become the world's most heavily taxed Nation in a dangerous, dangerous 
zone of bankruptcy.
  Mr. Chairman, throughout modern history, socialists have been 
searching for the last exit to Utopia, of Big Government collectivism. 
Unfortunately, for the socialist utopians in this town that support 
President Obama's spending plan, this last exit to Utopia will remain a 
mystery, a relic of 1960s radicals.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, Republicans originally fought the 
creation of Medicare on the grounds that it was socialism. Apparently, 
they haven't changed their minds about that as they try and terminate 
it and put seniors into the private insurance market.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, health care costs are a crisis in every 
American family. Every family is one surgery, one heart attack, one 
cancer diagnosis, one aging spouse away from financial ruin. But health 
care costs are also a crisis for business, both small and large.
  General Motors pays more for health care than for steel. That is why 
the Affordable Care Act is needed, to bend the health care cost curve 
downward for all American health care consumers.
  Americans, including those who are consumers of Medicare and 
Medicaid, simply cannot afford the insurance and drug companies' 
runaway profits.
  These companies are reaping record-breaking profits. In 2009, while 
we were debating the bill, the Nation's five largest for-profit health 
insurance companies saw a combined profit of $12.2 billion, and that's 
just for five companies.
  Their executives did well, too. The top execs at these companies 
pulled in almost $200 million in compensation. At the same time, there 
were double-digit premium increases.
  So no matter where you get your health care, through Medicare, 
Medicaid, your employers's policy, wherever you get it, you can't 
afford that kind of rate increase year after year.
  These rates are going up faster than any other part of the family 
budget. For many people, these costs are crowding out housing and other 
basic needs.
  In 2009, the top 10 pharmaceutical companies made over $60 billion in 
profits, and the profit margin in this industry is out of control. In 
2007, profits ranged as high as 36 percent.
  The health care reform law also curbed some of these outrageous 
profits of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Yes, Medicare 
and Medicaid are large portions of our Federal budget, but we can only 
rein in their costs if we fully implement the Affordable Care Act and 
tackle outrageous profiteering in health care--something the Republican 
budget refuses to do.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member of 
the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the good people of Indiana want 
jobs. And we know how to create them. In Indiana, under Governor Mitch 
Daniels, we've seen a government that spends less and taxes modestly. 
We've seen that that leads to job growth. That's why Indiana, during 
these tough economic times, is a national leader in private sector job 
growth.
  The Budget Committee crafted a budget for our Federal Government 
that, like Indiana, spends less and keeps a lid on taxes. The result is 
a plan that will help create 2\1/2\ million private sector jobs by the 
end of this decade.
  Recent economic history isn't good to the big spenders. It shows that 
borrowing and spending trillions of dollars that we don't have doesn't 
create jobs. And jobs won't be created if we go along with the 
President's plan and, seemingly, the plan of sorts from the other side 
of the aisle to increase taxes.
  It's no great secret that the job creators in this country aren't 
hiring because unchecked spending, of course, leads to fears. It leads 
to fears that we're going to have to raise taxes in the future. It 
leads to fears of future inflation. And we know, of course, that it 
leads to fears that interest rates are going to go up.
  By calling for a measure of spending discipline as we do, we replace 
that fear with hope--hope that we can restore conditions where private 
sector job creators can go out and put Americans back to work. That's 
what the people of southern Indiana want.
  Now, I mentioned Indiana a minute ago and the success we've had in 
creating those private sector jobs. We didn't do it all through our 
policies with respect to spending. Instead, we also looked at tax 
policy. We understood that it just didn't make sense to jack up taxes 
during a down economy. Instead, we kept them steady and we made our tax 
code more efficient, just as some of our neighboring States were doing 
the opposite. As a result, many businesses chose to move back to 
Indiana or to move to Indiana for the first time.
  We see the reverse trend nationally. Unfortunately, many businesses 
are leaving this great country or just not getting off the ground 
because of our job-destroying Tax Code and because of our punitive 
corporate tax rates.
  Mr. Chairman, we improve upon those previous policies. We learn from 
the errors of the past. I urge my colleagues to help us create jobs by 
voting ``yes'' on the Republican budget.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, at the heart of the Republicans' budget

[[Page 6198]]

proposal is the thought, ``the number of makers diminishes and the 
number of takers grows.'' As a result, our government, economy and 
country will collapse. Forget about the impoverished view that this 
offers us, a vision of an America that can't be bothered or is unable 
to care for anyone who needs help.
  So let's have a discussion about who truly would be the ``taker'' and 
who truly would be the ``maker.''
  People who manipulate an unfair tax system at the expense of millions 
of others, makers, when you look at the Republican proposal. 
Corporations that don't invest in their own country, paying a lower tax 
rate on their profits than their employees would pay on a $40,000 
salary, those are makers under the Republican plan. Wall Street firms 
that ruined our financial system, then asked working families to bail 
them out while they pay billions in bonuses, those are also makers 
under the Republican plan.
  Yes, that's who the Republicans have identified as the makers, and it 
rewards them quite handsomely in their proposal. Their budget would 
perpetuate a taxation and employment system that has resulted in 
stagnant wages for workers and allows 5 percent of the wealthiest among 
us to enjoy 66 percent of all the wealth while 80 percent of Americans 
share only less than 13 percent.
  Now, who would be the takers under this Republican plan? The 9.4 
million students working towards a college degree so they can get a 
good job and contribute to this economy, whose Pell Grants would be 
slashed; 218,000 low-income kids and families who will be removed from 
Head Start, depriving them of a decent education, again, takers under 
the Republican plan; 2,400 schools that serve 1 million low-income 
students across the country that would have to shut their doors, takers 
under the Republican plan; countless seniors who would no longer be 
able to remain in nursing homes because of cuts in Medicaid funding. 
Those are the takers.
  You decide, America, who are the takers and who are the makers? This 
is not a Pathway to Prosperity. It's a dead end.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Rokita.
  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, where the President has failed to lead and 
be honest with us, we've had the courage to tell the truth about 
America's debt crisis. And we've proposed honest solutions required to 
fix it.
  As a new Member of Congress, I have already learned that the rules in 
Washington are stacked in favor of people who want to spend more money. 
In contrast, in Indiana, we have a balanced budget, we have a AAA bond 
rating, and we have not raised taxes because we know taxes are not the 
problem.
  The problem is, Mr. Chair, our colleagues who continue to push for 
more government spending knowing that our debt is over $14 trillion and 
growing. And they haven't offered one alternative except to confiscate 
more of the people's money.
  They have tried to scare a lot of people. But this time, Mr. 
Chairman, I don't think the people are buying it. As you can see from 
this chart, our reliance on foreign countries to supply our reckless 
spending is growing dramatically over the past decades to where nearly 
half of the debt we owe as a country we owe to foreign countries, China 
being the best.
  In fact, Mr. Chairman, China can buy three Joint Strike Fighters 
every week for the money we pay them in interest for the money they 
loan us and still have $50 million left over. Eventually, they and 
other countries are going to stop loaning us money or make us pay more 
to borrow. And as Treasury rates increase, rates on mortgages, credit 
cards and car loans are soon going to follow. We are no longer kicking 
the can down the road; we're kicking it off a cliff.
  This budget addresses the real drivers of our debt: Medicare, 
Medicaid, and Social Security. In 1970, these kinds of entitlements 
consumed 31 percent of our budget. Today they are nearly 60 percent, 
and they continue to grow. In just a few decades when our kids are 
raising their children, literally every single dollar this government 
takes in revenue will go towards paying these entitlement programs. 
This budget makes the changes necessary to save these programs so that 
they're around for my kids and your grandchildren.
  I know a little about government agencies--I used to run one. One 
that had no more employees in 2010 than it did in the early '80s. But, 
since the President took office, he has added 155,000 new bureaucrats. 
Spending on government agencies has increased 84 percent in just the 
last few years.
  This budget stops us from spending money we do not have. It brings 
spending back to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels and shrinks the 
federal bureaucrats by 10 percent over the next three years. It also 
takes the ideas of the Fiscal Commission and the Government 
Accountability Office and eliminates over $100 billion in wasteful 
spending on dozens of duplicative federal programs. Money we don't take 
from the American people, they will spend much wiser and create jobs 
along the way. Americans are finally getting an honest and fact-based 
budget that has eluded them for years.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Members will refrain from engaging in personalities 
toward the President.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, one of the other things that China is 
doing is they're investing an awful lot of their resources in clean 
energy like solar power and like wind power. The United States should 
be winning that battle and not our international competitors. Someone 
who knows a whole lot about that is the next speaker, the ranking 
member on Natural Resources, Mr. Markey of Massachusetts. I yield the 
gentleman 2 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
  The Republicans are allowing nostalgia for a time before Medicare and 
Medicaid were ever on the books to replace the idealism that we need to 
have in order to deal with the real challenges of the future. But for 
the poor, the sick, the elderly and the disabled, the past is just a 
memory and the future is their hard reality. And that's what this 
budget will be for those people, a hard reality.
  It takes no courage for the Republicans to stand here on the House 
floor and to call for an evisceration of the Medicare budget, of the 
Medicaid budget and all the other programs for the poor, the sick, the 
elderly and the disabled in our country that they opposed ever having 
been put on the books in the first place. If you kicked this budget in 
the heart, you'd break your toe. GOP used to stand for ``Grand Old 
Party.'' Now it stands for ``Get Old People.'' And that's what this 
budget is. It is a targeting of the poor, the sick and the elderly in 
our country.
  Do they ask sacrifice from the defense budget? Do they ask for the 
defense budget to go down? No, it just keeps going up year after year. 
Do they ask for sacrifice from the wealthy? No, they say tax breaks for 
the wealthy year after year after year. Who do they target? They target 
Grandma. They don't even have the ability--the courage--to stand up and 
say to the oil companies, who at $100 a barrel are making $100 billion 
in profits a year, ``We're going to take away your tax breaks.'' No. 
Tax breaks for oil companies stay on the books.
  What do they do? They say to the clean energy industry, We're cutting 
your tax breaks by 70 percent, but we're leaving the tax breaks for the 
oil industry on the books and we are slashing the programs for wind, 
for solar and for all those energy technologies that are now the 
future.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

                              {time}  1910

  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
  That's your formula. It's a formula of the past. It's a formula for 
the nostalgic amongst the Republicans who wish we could go back to a 
time before Medicare and Medicaid and wind and solar and new energy 
technologies and their taking us on to a future.

[[Page 6199]]

  Let me tell you something.
  Fifty percent of the people who are in nursing homes in our country 
have Alzheimer's, and they are on Medicaid. That's how we pay for the 
bills. You people slash the budget for those people with Alzheimer's 
who are in nursing homes. That's 50 percent. That's grandma, ladies and 
gentlemen. You don't touch the wealthy. You don't touch the Defense 
Department. This budget is so cruel that, if you kicked it in the 
heart, you'd break your toe.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the 
warm, even-handed comments of my friend from Massachusetts.
  Do you know what's really cruel, Mr. Chairman? It's if we give our 
children a lower living standard.
  Do you know what's really cruel? It's if we give our children a debt-
ridden Nation. It's if we give our children a debt that they can't 
afford.
  Do you know what's really cruel? It's if we don't save Medicare. It's 
if we don't keep the promises to our current seniors, like we do in 
this budget, so that all of these programs they've organized their 
lives around, which are going bankrupt, are preserved. Medicare goes 
bankrupt in 9 years. We're preserving it for current seniors.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Guinta).
  Mr. GUINTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in favor of The Path 
to Prosperity.
  Our budget offers more than a spending blueprint for the next fiscal 
year and beyond. It is truly a job creator. The Path to Prosperity 
provides a framework for creating nearly 1 million new private sector 
jobs next year alone. How does it do this?
  It doesn't involve advanced economic theory--just basic math. When 
you lower taxes, you put more money into people's hands. They spend it 
and it circulates, making businesses prosper and allowing them to hire 
new employees. It's just that simple. When I think of the opportunities 
that The Path to Prosperity will create, I think of countless small 
business owners who will benefit from this plan in my State. Small 
businesses are the backbone of New Hampshire's economy, much like they 
are across our great Nation.
  I think of people like Craig Leonard, who owns Bonsai Craftsmen in 
Londonderry, New Hampshire. He remodels houses and kitchens. With the 
ongoing fiscal uncertainty, people are keeping their wallets closed 
because nobody knows what the next fiscal year will bring. Craig 
recently had to lay off three employees, and barely has enough work to 
keep himself busy. Without the confidence that can come from passing 
The Path to Prosperity, there is no telling when his business will 
return to prosperity, itself, and when he can dare to hire again.
  I think of people like Charlie and Laura Morgan. They own a storage 
company in Manchester, New Hampshire. They've lost tenants in this down 
economy, causing them to reduce the rents they charge. This is simply 
keeping them from hiring additional employees and creating greater 
opportunities for our fellow Granite Staters.
  The examples of hard-pressed small business owners I've cited are 
located not just in New Hampshire but all over the country. The Path to 
Prosperity provides confidence by charting a responsible course so that 
creditors can loan with confidence and so that people can borrow money 
knowing they'll be able to repay it.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Clarke).
  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I want to talk on behalf of the 
people I represent in Michigan.
  Many of them have lost their jobs, and when they become seniors, 
they're likely going to have to survive on fixed incomes. If they get 
Medicare on vouchers, which won't fully cover the costs of their health 
services, they're going to have to pay for that out-of-pocket. Do you 
know what? Folks on fixed incomes, they don't have the money to pay for 
these services out-of-pocket. They will likely end up bankrupt.
  The other issue is that a lot of the folks I represent have got 
multiple health conditions: heart disease, diabetes, arthritis. They 
all go to different doctors, and very few of the providers actually 
talk to each other. They also don't coordinate with hospitals or with 
other long-term health care providers. All of these services by the 
Medicare providers will be coordinated under our new Affordable Care 
Act. That's why we need those provisions in place--to better coordinate 
health care.
  I urge my colleagues to table putting Medicare on the voucher. Let's 
keep our Affordable Care Act. That's the best way our seniors on fixed 
incomes can get the best health care possible.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee 
for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I was listening to my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle. The ranking member of the Budget Committee, our friend from 
Maryland, talked about the fact that, according to his poster, the Bush 
tax cuts in the years 2000 to 2006 caused the loss of an untold number 
of jobs. I have my own statistics which basically show, during that 
period of time and despite those tax cuts, we had an increased revenue 
of something like $700 billion.
  Now, I'll check my facts with his facts later on, Mr. Chairman, but 
how in the world could you produce $700 billion of additional revenue 
when you lose jobs? It's not possible. The fact is that those tax cuts 
created a broader base, albeit at a lower rate, and they generated more 
revenue. That's exactly what the chairman of the Budget Committee is 
talking about in his Path to Prosperity.
  Another one of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle stood up 
and said, according to this budget plan--at least, thank God, we have 
one. The Democrats couldn't produce one last year because of their fear 
of the political consequences--Medicare as we know it, by the year 
2022, will disappear. How is that possible when, by that time, there 
will probably be 75 million people on Medicare as we know it before we 
will go to this premium support plan that Chairman Ryan has proposed?
  Our friends on the other side keep saying, You keep giving tax breaks 
to the rich. Well, according to this plan, the people who are in the 
top 2 percent of income will only get 30 percent of the premium 
support, an average of $8,000 a year. The people in the top 8 percent 
would get 50 percent. So you keep wanting to beat on the producers in 
society that create the jobs.
  Support this plan. It's a great budget.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I would remind my friend Mr. Gingrey 
that, when Mr. Bush became President, he inherited a $5.6 trillion 
surplus. By the end of the 8 years, it was gone.
  Now, with respect to tax rates and jobs, what this chart shows is 
that, when the highest income earners in the country were paying the 
lower rates during the Bush administration, you actually lost jobs 
versus during the Clinton administration when, at the higher rates, 20 
million jobs were created.
  The point is not that higher tax rates increase jobs. The point is 
that small differences in the top tax rates are not the main drivers of 
our economy. They are not the main engines of job growth. The figures 
tell the story. Trying to tell another story is just anti-historical. 
The reality is that the numbers show, during the Clinton 
administration, we had very strong growth. During the Bush years, we 
ended up losing over 600,000 jobs. So let's at least get our history 
straight.
  With that, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from California 
(Mrs. Capps).

                              {time}  1920

  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Republicans' 
misguided budget and attack on Medicare. The issue is not whether we 
reduce the deficit, but how we do it. Simply put, the Republican plan 
uses our deficit as an excuse to end Medicare as we know it.

[[Page 6200]]

  Medicare is a cornerstone of the American Dream, a promise that 
health care will always be there for our seniors and permanently 
disabled citizens. But the Republican budget takes away that guarantee, 
and what does it give our future seniors in return? No guarantee of 
coverage; a real chance of being denied insurance due to preexisting 
conditions; and around $6,000 a year in additional out-of-pocket costs, 
as well as the knowledge that the insurance companies will be well 
taken care of while they are struggling to get by on their fixed 
income. And not one aspect of the plan will do anything to reduce the 
costs of care--it just passes the buck.
  This is not a plan for our future. It is a recipe for disaster for 
our seniors. Forty-five years ago, when seniors were the most uninsured 
group in our country, we made a promise that health care for seniors 
would be guaranteed. The Republican voucher proposal breaks that 
promise.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the Republican budget proposal.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I have heard a lot of debate today about how we're slashing taxes, 
slashing revenues for the rich and for everybody else, and bad oil 
companies and things like that. Let me just show you a little chart.
  Under our budget, revenues rise. Revenues go up over $12 trillion. So 
revenues still increase. Even keeping the Tax Code where we are today, 
revenues increase.
  Now, the President's plan says he wants to raise them another $1.5 
trillion. The gentleman from Maryland's plan wants to raise them 
another $1.7 trillion. But let's not kid ourselves: Revenues, even 
under our plan, continue to increase.
  Now, we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. The 
green line is the revenue line. The red line is the spending line. 
Revenues are stable, increasing; spending is on a tear, Mr. Chairman. 
Spending is growing at an unsustainable rate. We can't keep spending 
money we don't have. If we keep doing this, we're going to have a debt 
crisis. People are going to get hurt. Interest rates will go up. We 
will have to cut indiscriminately across the board at the time it 
happens. We want to avoid that.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 1 more minute, Mr. Chairman.
  Let's talk about the Bush tax cuts, or what happened. Let's talk 
about the distribution of the tax burden. In 2001, the top 1 percent of 
earners paid 34 percent of the tax burden. Now they pay 38 percent; a 
higher tax burden. The top 5 percent in 2001 paid 53 percent of the 
taxes. Today, the top 5 percent pay 59 percent of the taxes. So on and 
so forth.
  We don't have a revenue problem, a tax problem; we have a spending 
problem. But here's the real problem. If we don't get our situation 
under control, we really go in the hole. In 2009, the Government 
Accountability Office is telling us our fiscal gap, the unfunded 
promises we are making to current Americans, was $62.9 trillion.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 1 more minute to explain, Mr. 
Chairman.
  That means we would have to take $62.9 trillion, set it aside, invest 
it at Treasury rates, just so government can keep the promises that it 
is now making to everybody in America. In 2009, we owed more than we 
were worth as total households in America. Last year, 2010, that fiscal 
gap grew to $76.4 trillion. Now, $99.4 trillion.
  We are digging our hole more than $10 trillion a year by kicking the 
can down the road. Every year we fail to fix this problem, we are 
submitting our children to a worse future, a diminished country. So the 
sooner we get our act together, the sooner we fix this problem, the 
better off we're going to be. If we keep ignoring this, if we keep 
spending on the path we are on, this fiscal gap, the pile of empty 
promises that politicians from both parties have been making to 
Americans gets that much higher.
  We have about $100 trillion of empty promises Washington is making to 
Americans. It is time we tell people the truth. It is time we get 
government to live within its means, and it is time we get Washington 
to honor its promises, fix these programs, get spending under control, 
and give our children a debt-free Nation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The gentleman is absolutely right. We need to come up with a plan 
that puts the country on a predictable, steady course of deficit 
reduction, and we need to do it in a balanced way.
  The chart the chairman showed about revenues presumed we wouldn't 
have certain changes in the revenue. For example, that we wouldn't say 
to the wealthiest, we want you to pay the same rates you were paying 
during the Clinton administration when the economy was roaring and jobs 
were being created.
  There is a reason the bipartisan fiscal commission called the 
Republican plan unbalanced. And this is what it is. Under the 
commission plan, they have a balance of spending cuts and revenue 
increases. For example, they say the folks at the top, they should be 
paying a little more. In fact, $2.5 trillion more over the next 10 
years than the Republican plan. Because they don't do what the 
commission recommended, they have to cut into Medicaid, which will hurt 
seniors in nursing homes, disabled individuals, poor kids, everybody 
who depends on that already stretched program. They have to terminate 
Medicare. So those are choices they are making. They have made a one-
sided, lopsided choice.
  I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, we are in a debate of generational 
proportions. The promises that were made during the 1960s and before 
that, and even after that, about expanding our country, making it a 
greater country, widening its embrace, are now being abdicated. We are 
seeing a budget, offered by our Budget Committee chairman, that says to 
our seniors who have cut a path for all of us younger people, You know 
what? We can't be there for you any more.
  We are seeing a budget where we say to our students, who are the 
intellectual drivers of our economy, we cannot be there for you any 
more. As a matter of fact, two-thirds of this budget, two-thirds of 
this budget, two-thirds of the cuts are from low-income programs that 
serve people who are making it, hardworking Americans who are trying to 
make it every single day. But that's where the cuts come from.
  The question on the table is: What's the proper role of government? 
We believe the proper role of government is to look after our seniors. 
They believe grandma has to figure out what she is going to do. We 
believe that young people have to have an opportunity, and things like 
the Pell Grant are going to help them and help us. They believe if you 
are smart enough to go to college, you should pay for it by yourself, 
or maybe get a high-cost loan to do that.
  We have a different vision of America. As a matter of fact, we have a 
vision that the people who are well to do and the corporations who have 
done so well should help out more. We believe in equity and a shared 
burden.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. ELLISON. We believe in equity and a shared burden. In fact, the 
big five oil companies have received profits that are enormous when you 
look at them on this chart.
  The gentleman keeps talking about tax reform. I would love to know, 
what corporate loopholes are you going to close? Are you going to close 
these Big Oil subsidies, or not?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), a senior member of the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and let me say that 
I want to be the first one to say we do want to close the tax loopholes

[[Page 6201]]

for Big Oil. In fact, for the 4 years the Democrats were in charge, 
we're not sure why they didn't take it on. We are ready to take it on 
after this 4-year negligence on it.
  Think about this, Mr. Chairman: For every dollar we spend, 40 cents 
is borrowed. Now, if that was happening in your family, you would bring 
everybody to the kitchen table and you would say, Look, we have got to 
make some changes here. We can't continue to spend money the way we are 
doing.
  Today, the national debt is 90 percent of the GDP. Spending is 
approaching 24 percent of the GDP. That's a historic high. We can't get 
to a balanced budget with a spending gap that high above revenues, and 
yet that is what we are doing. That is why the Republican budget, the 
Ryan budget, not just reduces spending by $4 trillion, but changes the 
trajectory of spending. Because unless we change the pattern and we 
make some choices for the next generation, important programs like 
Social Security, like Medicaid, like Medicare, will not be there.

                              {time}  1930

  Too often we hear from the liberals in Washington, D.C., the scare 
tactics: Well, Republicans hate seniors, they hate clean air, they hate 
education. And that's what we're seeing here tonight. In fact, 
yesterday the President tried to claim a mulligan on his budget. He 
actually introduced a budget in February and did not bring in one 
recommendation of his own deficit reduction commission. Even though 
I've seen a chart on the floor tonight about it. It sounds great, but 
it's not in the President's budget because it wasn't presented.
  We think it might be a good idea to use some of the recommendations 
of the deficit reduction commission, and that's what the Ryan budget 
does. But more importantly, it doesn't do anything to the important 
entitlement programs for anybody over the age of 55. Medicare will be 
there for them as it is today. But for younger people, it is not going 
to be there because it is going broke. That's why we need to make some 
changes. And giving them a subsidy to help them have more choices in 
Medicare is the way to save the program.
  That's just one of the many aspects of the Ryan budget, and it's well 
worth supporting.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to hear my friend is 
interested in getting rid of the subsidies for Big Oil. We can do it 
tonight or tomorrow. All you've got to do is vote for the Democratic 
alternative. And, by the way, you can, at the same time, get rid of the 
tax breaks that reward companies for shipping American jobs overseas. 
We don't have to study about it. We don't have to send it to the Ways 
and Means Committee. We can instruct them tomorrow, tonight, and we 
will get it done if you vote for the Democratic alternative.
  With that, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, as Ronald Reagan used to say, ``There you go again.''
  My Republican friends want to repeal the 20th century. They want to 
use the budget deficit to kill and destroy every program they have 
hated all these years, including Medicare and Medicaid.
  This budget would roll back 50 years of progress on Medicare and 
Medicaid and destroy these two programs, which are two of the most 
important social programs of the past century. It's unconscionable that 
we would take an ax to these programs to pay for tax cuts for 
millionaires and billionaires.
  This budget shifts the burden from the wealthiest Americans and puts 
the burden on the poor and middle class. I understand that my 
Republican colleagues want to protect their rich friends, but on the 
Democratic side of the aisle, we care about working people, the middle 
class, poor people, seniors, and children.
  The Republicans last year promised they'd focus on two things if they 
got the majority: jobs and spending. But all we have seen are repeated 
attacks on the middle class and lower-income people. We haven't seen a 
single jobs bill, and their idea of cutting spending is to kill 
Medicare and Medicaid. Instead of passing this budget, we would be more 
likely to create jobs by waving a magic wand and saying 
``abracadabra.''
  In this time of divided government, the American people want us to 
come together and compromise. But all the legislation we're seeing from 
the other side is extreme. We need to come together. We do have 
difficulty. We don't want our children to have a diminished standard of 
living. But this is not the way to do it, to try to balance the budget 
on the backs of poor people, on seniors, on children. We need to have a 
fair and balanced budget.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a 
distinguished member of the Rules and Budget Committees, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  I tell you we see a lot of shrill things here on the House floor. I 
want to have a slightly different voice. I just want to tell you how 
proud I am to be here--how proud I am to be here because, as the 
gentleman who previously said very accurately, I ran on two things: I 
ran on cutting spending and I ran on creating jobs. And tonight, 
because of the hard work of my chairman on the Budget Committee, my 
colleagues on the Budget Committee, I get to vote tomorrow to do just 
that--just that. I have been here a hundred days, and I get a vote to 
change the direction of this country, from driving us off the edge of 
the cliff to restoring the freedom and economic success that we're 
known for the world around. A hundred days and I get to make that 
choice.
  Now, I'm thrilled, in the spirit of openness, that we have some 
alternatives. If you want to raise taxes, you're going to have budgets 
to get to do that. But if you want to close $2.9 trillion in tax 
expenditures, in loopholes, in lobbyist-funded giveaways, you've got 
one budget to choose from, and that's the Ryan budget.
  We go after those items that, for whatever reason, folks hadn't gone 
after in years past. We do those things that, for whatever reason, 
people couldn't find the courage to do in years past. Vote after vote 
after vote I presume people had to vote on things they didn't like to 
vote on. They didn't want to run up spending. They didn't want to 
increase the debt limit. They didn't want to do those things. But they 
had to do it.
  Folks, tonight I'm here to talk about something I want to do. I 
cannot wait to come to this floor tomorrow and cast a vote for my 
children, for America's grandchildren, for the future of this land. And 
that's a vote in favor of the Ryan budget. I am grateful to my 
colleagues for giving me that opportunity.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I welcome our friend from Georgia, and 
I would just say that we agree on one thing: that this budget does pose 
a fundamental choice. And that's what we're here to debate about. And 
we believe that it's just wrong to be providing another round of big 
tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans when you're ending the Medicare 
guarantee, when you're cutting investments in kids' education. Those 
are choices that we shouldn't be making.
  We are going to present, and have presented, a Democratic alternative 
that we think provides a balanced approach.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. I am so glad you picked me at this time because I want to 
join the previous speaker in saying that the atmosphere and the 
attitude here is just too shrill. If we're dealing with the lives and 
the futures of the generations to follow, it should be in a different 
way. We should not just be fighting with each other.
  So I make an appeal to ministers and priests and rabbis and imams to 
try to figure out, as we go into these holy holidays, whether or not 
the screaming is going to help or whether or not we're going to find 
ourselves with the lesser among us.
  I don't know the whole story, but it runs something like: I was 
hungry, and

[[Page 6202]]

you didn't give me anything to eat; I was thirsty, and you didn't give 
me anything to drink; I was sick, and you didn't visit.
  Well, it sounds like the answer that's going to be given is: Well, I 
told the State to take care of you. I'm sorry they didn't. Or, Don't 
you remember? I'm the guy that gave you a voucher. Or, I pulled myself 
up by my own bootstraps. Why can't you do it without a scholarship?
  No, I think not. This great Nation was built to believe in God we 
trust. And it just seems to me when you're talking about the lives of 
our mothers and our grandmothers and the future of our children that 
all of the things we hoped and dreamed about, it's not going to be 
shattered by political budget ventures put together by the majority. If 
it's not stopped here, it's going to be stopped in the Senate or 
stopped in the White House. But I hope those that are listening that 
are involved in providing spiritual care, that recognize how important 
health care is for our sick and our poor, why don't you just write your 
Congressperson and share with us whether or not you think that we have 
an obligation to protect the wealthy among us rather than the lesser of 
our brothers and sisters.
  We will be going home for a couple of weeks during these Easter 
holidays, and I do hope that all of us try to find out which side are 
we on: the rich or the lesser among us.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  Mr. PEARCE. I appreciate Chairman Ryan for bringing this issue to the 
floor.
  Mr. Chairman, basically the entire discussion that we're having in 
Washington right now centers around two figures: We spend 3.5 T, 
trillion, and we bring in 2.2 T, trillion, in revenues to the 
government from taxes. Now, it's the bringing together of those numbers 
that's a difference of opinion here in Washington.
  I read the text of the President's speech yesterday--I did not get a 
chance to listen--and he says that we can close that gap by taxing the 
millionaires and billionaires. And it sounds so fluid. It comes off so 
easy. But I will tell you, it's a process that many nations have 
followed before: tax the millionaires.
  I don't know what Bill Sweat in Artesia is worth, but he tells me to 
create a job it costs $340,000 to buy a new bulldozer and he needs a 
new pickup truck. So he needs $400,000 in the bank to create a job.

                              {time}  1940

  Now our friends on the other side of the aisle--and the President's 
speech--said we need to be taxing that money away from him. Nancy 
Pelosi said a couple of years ago we need to tax the profits of the 
corporations and spend them. But what you do is you take away Mr. 
Sweat's $400,000 and he doesn't get a new bulldozer, and we don't get a 
job.
  So what we have here is this differential, $1.3 trillion in deficit 
on these top line figures. That's what we're accruing. Then that goes 
into our debt barrel, $15 trillion. That's what we have over the life 
of our country, from George Washington until today, approximately $15 
trillion, and we're bringing in 2.2.
  Now if we begin to give the tax increases that the President says, 
we're actually going to squeeze down to 2.2 because companies will not 
be hiring people. For instance, off the shore of Louisiana, we are now 
choking off those jobs. And so every job off Louisiana that the 
government kills takes one person from paying taxes and puts them up 
here receiving welfare, unemployment and food stamps.
  Economic growth is the only thing that can cure this Nation's 
economic problems. The Ryan budget does that. The President's budget 
does not do it. Let's support the Ryan budget.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I have to show us this chart again 
because I just need to remind the body that during the Clinton 
administration, when we had the folks at the very top paying a little 
bit higher rate, 20 million jobs were created. When that rate was 
dropped for the high-income earners at the beginning of the Bush 
administration, not only did it contribute to deficits going up, but at 
the end of that period over 653,000 jobs were lost.
  Now the point isn't, again, that by changing the tax rate that was 
the driver. The point is that small differences in tax rates are not 
the main engines of economic opportunity. And we need to make choices 
here. Again, they choose to provide tax breaks to the folks at the very 
top and end the Medicare guarantee.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. 
Schakowsky), who has been a champion of Medicare, Medicaid, and a whole 
number of other issues important to our seniors and Americans.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The Republicans are trying to claim the mantle of fiscal 
responsibility today. It's just ridiculous. They are the party 
responsible for a decade of fiscal recklessness with two unpaid-for 
wars, two unpaid-for tax cuts, and a blind eye to Wall Street leading 
to a disastrous recession. And as the President said yesterday, 
``There's nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the 
deficit by spending $1 trillion on tax cuts for millionaires and 
billionaires.''
  This chart illustrates that, from 1979 to 2005, the bottom 20 percent 
of households saw their incomes increase by a grand total of $200. Over 
the same period, the top .1 percent here in the red saw income growth 
of nearly $6 million each year.
  There is nothing courageous about a plan that would protect the 
wealthy and Big Oil and big corporations that ship jobs overseas at the 
expense of elderly and their Medicare and their Medicaid and the 
disabled and children.
  The Republican budget resolution does not reflect the values of 
Americans, and I urge my colleagues to reject it soundly.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Unshared prosperity, spending money on tax cuts. Mr. Chairman, the 
presumption behind that is that all the money out there made in America 
is the government's, and then the government decides who they spend it 
back to.
  We do have different philosophies. The money that people make is 
their money. And then the question is: How much of it does the 
government take?
  The money made in America by individuals, by businesses, is their 
money. It's not the government's money. So we don't spend money on tax 
cuts.
  By the way, Mr. Chairman, we're not even cutting taxes in this bill; 
we're just not raising them. So the new definition of cutting taxes 
apparently is: If you're against raising taxes, you're cutting them.
  I don't even know where to start with this, but I'm going to start by 
yielding 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), a 
member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Chairman, we clearly have a choice here in 
Washington: We can maintain the same old status quo, which favors more 
spending, more taxes, and more Washington control, or the real American 
choice, making good on promises made to voters last year by cutting 
spending and creating jobs. The choice is ours; the opportunity is now.
  The Path to Prosperity offers a long, overdue fix to Medicaid. There 
are many problems with the program, and the costs are out of control, 
hemorrhaging the budgets of State after State and our Federal 
Government. Clearly, the answer is not more money; instead, the 
solution is spending money more wisely and more efficiently.
  Governors from all across America have expressed their desires for 
more flexibility with Medicaid, and this budget offers exactly that. In 
converting Federal spending on Medicaid to block grants, folks closest 
to the American people--Governors, legislators and local officials, not 
some bureaucrat sitting in Washington--will make decisions best for 
their citizens and design programs that work best for their States and 
for their people. They will have the freedom to adapt Medicaid to their 
own State's unique needs and priorities.

[[Page 6203]]

  Also, because this budget defunds ObamaCare, we are preventing the 
Federal Government from imposing another mandate on the States. 
ObamaCare forces States to expand Medicaid eligibility but leaves it up 
to them how they will pay for it. By supporting this budget, we put a 
stop to this intrusion of the Federal Government and make Medicaid 
better for those who truly need it.
  This Path to Prosperity will increase the Medicaid budget and provide 
much needed regulatory reform for the 50 States of this great Union. 
Only those committed to the status quo--including many of our 
colleagues across the aisle--can make the ridiculous claim that somehow 
spending more taxpayer money and pushing more Washington red tape is 
somehow a solution. By lifting the heavy hand of Washington from 
Medicaid, we make this program more effective and more efficient for 
the States to manage these programs and provide compassionate care for 
the Americans who truly deserve assistance.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, hardworking American people have been 
paying their Medicare payroll taxes day in, day out, month in, month 
out. The choice we have here is whether we are going to make good on 
that Medicare guarantee or whether we're going to say to the folks at 
the very top, We just can't take you back to the tax rates that were in 
place during the Clinton administration.
  Why would we say that to people who have been putting their payroll 
taxes into Medicare? Why would we say we're going to end the Medicare 
guarantee?
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, unlike the gentleman from 
Wisconsin who just doesn't know what to do and seems to be confused on 
his side of the aisle as to what his budget is all about, I will say 
that I am getting unconfused because his budget is a destruction of the 
fabric and the way of life of all Americans.
  Do you want to know what the Republican budget does? It cuts food 
assistance for struggling families; it takes away affordable health 
care coverage for working families; and, of course, it dismantles the 
health care safety net. But also, it deals with the education of our 
children.
  As the cochair and founder of the Congressional Children's Caucus, 
let me show you what happens when we don't educate our children. We can 
see the numbers of individuals who are unemployed who have not had a 
high school degree. Our friends and the Republican budget are going to 
cut education, and they're going to wind up with increasing 
unemployment because you can see that less of our Americans are being 
able to go to college, and, therefore, without college, without a high 
school education, we just undermine a growing child's opportunity.
  Let me tell you what else we do. We go from children to their 
grandparents. I remember standing on the floor of this House trying to 
prevent the doughnut hole from coming about, but Republicans again 
established a doughnut hole that millions of seniors have fallen 
through. In fact, the Republican budget causes seniors to pay some 
$12,000 on their Medicare. Listen to me clearly, seniors, you will be 
paying an extra $12,000 with the Republican budget plan. And of course 
we will open up the doughnut hole again, the very doughnut hole that 
has been taken care of by the Affordable Care Act.
  On the other hand, the Democratic budget balances the budget, and of 
course it recognizes the value of a shared sacrifice. I just visited 
Texas soldiers, National Guard. They understand about shared sacrifice; 
they support each other. But this is a suicidal budget. It has no 
shared sacrifice, and all of the cuts come from the most vulnerable.
  The Republican plan is all about turning back the clock and throwing 
the poor people over the bridge. That is what it's all about. It is a 
disgrace. Vote for the Democratic Budget.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Republican Budget for Fiscal 
Year 2012 and beyond. Unlike the proposed Democratic Budget, the 
Republican Budget purports to reduce our nation's deficit by making 
disturbingly deep cuts to important programs and will have an adverse 
affect on our nation's families, children, and the health of women.
  The Republican Budget:
  Guts Food Assistance for Struggling Families. The budget resolution 
calls for $127 billion in cuts to SNAP (formerly called food stamps) in 
a six-year period (2015 through 2021). This proposal to block-grant and 
reduce funding represents a cut of 25 percent in food benefits for some 
of the most vulnerable Americans. States will be forced to cut benefits 
to some households or create waiting lists for needy families.
  Takes Away Affordable Health Coverage for Millions of Working 
Families. The majority's budget resolution calls for $1.4 trillion in 
savings from repealing coverage provisions of the Affordable Care Act, 
which Congress enacted a year ago to hold insurance companies 
accountable and extend health coverage to more than 30 million 
Americans who would otherwise be uninsured. This would mean repealing 
$777 billion in tax credits to help low- and middle-income families 
afford health insurance coverage.
  Dismantles Health Care Safety Net for Vulnerable Populations. The 
majority's budget devastates health security for 28 million poor 
children, 5 million seniors, and 10 million disabled individuals who 
rely on Medicaid for a basic safety net of health care.
  To protect tax cuts for the wealthy, the budget includes the absurd 
idea to dismantle the Medicaid program and to let the chips fall where 
they may, no matter who might get hurt. The real hard choices are left 
to others: state governors, who will decide which populations or health 
services to drop; health care providers, whose Medicaid payments might 
get cut so low they will have to decide whether they can afford to 
continue providing services to Medicaid beneficiaries; low-income 
families, who may have to decide between buying groceries and taking a 
sick child to a doctor; and adults with aging parents, who may have to 
decide between sending a child to college or paying for their parents' 
long-term care.
  The Democratic Budget:
  Democratic budget reduces the deficit responsibly, reaches primary 
balance by 2018. The Democratic budget reduces the deficit by $1.2 
trillion more than the President's budget over ten years.
  Includes Pell grant and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP) 
initiatives. The Democratic budget includes two mandatory initiatives 
that are fully paid for with spending reductions. First, it includes 
the President's proposed mandatory funding to sustain the maximum Pell 
grant award at $5,550, in contrast to the Republican budget, which cuts 
Pell grant funding substantially.
  The Democratic Budget protects Medicaid and the Medicare guarantee 
for seniors. The Democratic budget protects Medicare's guarantee of 
health care coverage for seniors and disabled workers. It also 
preserves the existing structure of Medicaid that provides a health 
care safety net for vulnerable children, families, seniors, and persons 
with disabilities. In contrast, the Republican budget dismantles 
Medicaid and ends Medicare by converting it into an inadequate voucher 
for the purchase of private insurance.
  I would urge all Members of Congress to oppose the Republican Budget 
and instead support the Democratic Budget to responsibly cut spending 
and give America's families, women and children a chance.

                              {time}  1950

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. 
Lankford.
  Mr. LANKFORD. This is a little surreal to walk in the Chamber and be 
able to hear that somehow Republicans are interested in throwing old 
people off the bridge and that somehow old people--that we're focused 
on all of these things: that we hate those in poverty, and we hate our 
own parents, and we hate all of these other things.
  In reality, as a newcomer walking into this body, I walk into a 
Chamber saying, We came to get things done. And the driving factor that 
I walked in this Chamber with is the reality that we have $14 trillion 
in debt. Now, that's hard to be able to wrap your head around, $14 
trillion in debt. So the way I try to wrap my head around it is with an 
old illustration from me personally.
  I remember being 9 years old watching the Voyager spacecraft take off 
and thinking it will take forever for the Voyager spacecraft to get all 
the way up to Saturn and to Jupiter. It would

[[Page 6204]]

take all of 10 years to get out there. But I remember when those 
pictures were done, and they were sent back, and how significant they 
were.
  Now, just imagine this: in 1977 when the Voyager 1 spacecraft took 
off, if it started dropping a dollar a mile from the time it took off, 
how long would it take it to drop $14 trillion? Now, remember, the 
Voyager spacecraft has been out 34 years. It is still operating. It has 
left the solar system now. It is past Pluto, headed out of the solar 
system. If it dropped a dollar a mile since the time it took off, it 
will drop $14 trillion 41,801 years from now. A spacecraft that's 
already flown out of our solar system will have to continue flying at 
the same speed another 41,801 years from now.
  It is surreal for us to stand here and to be able to not take 
seriously the amount of spending that we do and how out of control we 
really are. This is not just a tax problem. This is a long-term issue 
that's not Republican and Democrat. We have both spent too much money. 
It is time for us to pull our own budget back and to take this 
seriously.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I, too, remember the Voyager spacecraft and also the 
Apollo program and Moon launch. Great examples of things that 
individuals and corporations can't do by themselves, things that we 
have to do by coming together as a people behind a purpose.
  The Republican budget, if you look at the long-term forecast provided 
by CBO, essentially says when you project out here, given the 
assumptions they were given, you eliminate all of the Federal 
Government except defense--and even defense is at a smaller share of 
GDP when you get out there than it is today. That is the kind of result 
that you get.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. That is because GDP growth grows at a faster 
pace than government. So it is not as if government goes away. 
Government keeps spending; government keeps defense and education. It's 
just that the economy outgrows the size of government, and we're on a 
virtuous path to more prosperity, more opportunity.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Reclaiming my time, look, the issue here is what is 
the appropriate role and size of government. There is no doubt that we 
have to take what we think should be a balanced approach that involves 
both cuts and, as the fiscal commission, the bipartisan fiscal 
commission says, you've got to deal with the revenue piece if you're 
going to do deal with this problem in a realistic way.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Scott).
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you very much, Mr. Van Hollen. I 
appreciate it. Let me commend you for the excellent leadership that you 
are providing in this fight.
  Ladies and gentlemen of the Congress, this is America. This is the 
greatest country in the world. And we are great because we have certain 
values. Paramount among those values is the sense of fairness.
  Now, let me tell you what the flaw is in the Republican budget. The 
flaw in the Republican budget is it is not fair. Whatever polls we 
read, wherever we look, the American people are beginning to see it. 
How can you justify cutting seniors, cutting young people, cutting the 
low-income, cutting the middle class while at the same time giving over 
a trillion dollars to billionaires and millionaires in this country? 
That is the disconnect, Mr. Speaker.
  I don't care which side you're on or where you are in this country. 
The American people know that we, yes, must bring down our deficit and 
cut this debt. It has become a national security issue.
  For 8 years since I've been in Congress I have been arguing for that, 
standing up for paying down our debt. During the years of the Bush 
administration, which, let's tell the truth, was a primary cause of us 
being in the position that we're in now to have three wars going at the 
same time.
  And so ladies and gentlemen, in conclusion I'm just saying that the 
point we have to make is it is not fair to cut this budget on the backs 
of the poor, the elderly, and the young while at the same time giving 
billionaires over a trillion dollars.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I will give myself a minute to 
simply say again just to clear up for the record, if you're a person 
who is 55 years of age or older, there's no change in Medicare for you. 
The Medicare you're on or that you're organizing your life and getting 
ready to prepare for when you retire will be there as it is forever for 
your life under our proposal.
  Contrary to the status quo. Medicare goes bankrupt in 9 years. Status 
quo, the President has a new board called the Independent Payment 
Advisory Board; 15 people he appoints. They ration Medicare. They put 
price controls in Medicare. They decide what Medicare can do or what it 
can't do. Congress is out of the loop. Unelected bureaucrats by the 
President, his people, they do it. And the President just yesterday 
said, You know what? Go cut more. Go get more savings. That's the 
status quo.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from 
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from Wisconsin for the exceptional 
leadership he has been bringing to this House on this issue of the 
budget.
  I want to say I agree with my colleague from Georgia. We are the 
greatest country in the world. We also have the smartest people in the 
world, and they're not going to buy this demagoguery anymore.
  The President and Democratic political strategists are engaged in 
demagoguery of the worst sort. Yesterday the President accused us of 
wanting to leave sick kids to fend for themselves. But we've heard this 
before.
  On the eve of the 1996 welfare reform, Senator Frank Lautenberg 
voiced his concern that the bill would transform America into a Third 
World nation leaving ``children hungry and homeless, begging for money, 
begging for food and even at 8 and 9 years old engaging in 
prostitution.''
  Senator Carol Moseley-Braun trumped Lautenberg by wondering aloud 
whether the welfare reform bill would prompt the widespread auctioning 
of abandoned children into slavery. Jill Nelson of The Nation did them 
one better by predicting that ``working- and middle-class communities 
all over America will become scary, violent wastelands.'' 
Representative Jim McDermott made a more prosaic prediction that within 
2 years of enactment, the bill would ``put 1.5 million to 2.5 million 
children into poverty.'' Even Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned that the 
law would ``have children sleeping on grates.''

                              {time}  2000

  What happened? Child poverty rates fell by 1 percent per year in the 
5 years following the passage of the 1996 Personal Responsibility and 
Work Opportunity Act, and they remain below 1995 levels, even though 
the Nation is still emerging from a severe recession. Transforming 
welfare, by among other things block granting the program and giving 
States more control over its implementation, cut caseloads in half 
against a backdrop of falling poverty rates. In almost every 
particular, the critics were wrong.
  The aim of the social safety net should be to empower individuals, 
putting them in stronger position to achieve. Government can play a 
positive role in this area with policies aimed at helping those who are 
down on their luck get back on their feet.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Ms. FOXX. This budget strengthens the social safety net and promotes 
policies that help people recover from poverty and lead self-sufficient 
lives.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we ask every American to read this budget, this 
Republican budget, and see whether or not it reflects their values and 
the choices that they would make. We believe when they do that they 
will reach the same conclusion that the bipartisan

[[Page 6205]]

fiscal commission did, which is that it's simply unbalanced, it's 
simply unfair. It puts all the burden of the sacrifice on working men 
and women. And it does provide those folks at the very top once again--
we've seen it before--with a big tax break.
  When it comes to Medicare, it's a fact seniors are no longer going to 
be able to choose to stay in Medicare. They're going to be forced into 
the private insurance market with ever-increasing costs and ever-
declining support. That is rationing care. That's what insurance 
companies do. If you don't have enough money to buy the benefits that 
they are offering, you don't get them. If your doctor's not on that 
plan, tough luck.
  So those are the choices that we're making this evening. And I hope 
as we go forward the American people will look very closely at this 
proposal. I'm confident they'll reach the same conclusion the 
bipartisan fiscal commission did, which is it's just not balanced, and 
it doesn't reflect American values and priorities.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 2 minutes, Madam Chair.
  Now, let's take a look at what our drivers of the debt are: Social 
Security, Medicaid, Medicare. The health care entitlements are the 
biggest drivers. The black line here shows our revenues. These three 
programs alone take up all Federal revenues. You throw interest on top, 
which you have to pay interest, by 2035 they consume every single penny 
of every Federal tax everybody pays.
  Now, why are we proposing what we're proposing on Medicare? Because 
we have experience that this kind of thing works. Giving people more 
choices, having more competition works. Prescription drugs. That's a 
program, very successful, very popular. When that program was passed, 
it was projected to cost $634 billion over the budget window. It ended 
up costing $373 billion. It came in 41 percent below budget. Premiums 
are lower than were anticipated. Name me one other government program 
that actually came in 41 percent below cost projections. There isn't 
one. Why did this one do that? Choice, competition. The senior is in 
charge.
  We are not interested, Madam Chair, in giving control over Medicare 
to 15 unelected people to decide where, when, how, and under what 
circumstances they get their Medicare. We protect Medicare for current 
seniors. We deny the 15 people on the board the ability to ration their 
care. And we want 40 million seniors to have the choices. We want them 
to be in control of their Medicare.
  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Foxx). The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  Because what we have learned is that giving them more control, the 
senior, the beneficiary, the patient, not the government--competition 
works. We've tried so many different plans at rationing care. They 
don't work. One person does work to reduce prices: The consumer. That 
is why we are saving Medicare.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I have to say that to say this plan saves Medicare is in my view 
Orwellian. It does remind me of the phrase from many years ago that you 
have to destroy the village in order to save it. I have to say that if 
you look at what we're doing here, you're saying to seniors you've got 
to go into the private insurance market.
  Now, the chairman mentioned a couple other examples of the private 
market. But in this case we've already experimented, through Medicare 
Advantage, with that kind of private plan within Medicare. And you know 
what we discovered? That you had to subsidize them at 114 percent of 
the fee-for-service program. It cost us more for Medicare Advantage. In 
fact, one of the reforms that we made as part of the Affordable Care 
Act was to say we're not going to ask the taxpayers and folks who are 
on Medicare fee-for-service to subsidize those private plans that are 
running over cost. And you know what? In this budget our Republican 
colleagues kept that reform. If it was so great to have the Medicare 
Advantage plan, how come they took part of the savings from that plan? 
They did not.
  So it is a big mistake to say to seniors we're going to throw you 
into the private insurance market with an ever-declining voucher 
premium. The reason this isn't premium support, it doesn't support the 
premium. What Federal employees and Members of Congress have is a 
premium support system through a fair share formula. This is not a fair 
share for seniors.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, I will just simply say we do 
actually put $10 billion back into Medicare Advantage to make sure the 
program stays alive.
  I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman 
from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. Madam Chairman, as a freshman I guess I am a little 
confused here on the floor of the House listening to this debate about 
the budget. And I guess I am a little confused which party was in 
charge of this Chamber for the last 4 years as we ran up trillions and 
trillions and trillions of deficits. The concern wasn't about deficits. 
The concern was about spending and how much more could we do, and how 
much more could we throw into the economy. We look at the results 
today: Unemployment levels that we haven't seen for a long time, Madam 
Chairman.
  I guess as we debate and discuss this budget, of course we might be a 
little bit rusty. It's my understanding it's been a couple years since 
we even allowed a budget debate on the floor. I welcome that debate. 
But one thing that was mentioned, read the Path to Prosperity. I agree. 
I agree with my colleagues, please read the bill. Please do. And here 
is what you will find.
  A Path to Prosperity we believe runs not through Washington, not 
through this floor, certainly not through the other Chamber, but the 
Path to Prosperity in this country runs through the hard work of 
entrepreneurs, a flatter, fairer tax system, closed tax loopholes, 
regulatory reform, work rather than welfare.
  The result is this, Madam Chairman. We expect a million new jobs 
potentially might be created if we get Washington out of the way, as we 
see in the Path to Prosperity.
  Madam Chairman, ideas have consequences. And we believe, this plan 
believes in one thing, in the power of the American people, not 
Washington elites. This plan, this budget is about liberty and freedom, 
Madam Chairman. I hope and pray 2011 will be remembered not for what we 
do here, but for whether or not the end result of our actions will help 
us restore the American Dream in this country.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), former insurance 
commissioner for the State of California.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, for 8 years I was the insurance 
commissioner in California. And for 8 years I battled the health 
insurance industry. What we heard on the floor was that 2011, what will 
we remember? What it will be remembered for is the death of Medicare, 
the demise, the death of Medicare. The most successful insurance 
program, the most successful health insurance program in this Nation.

                              {time}  2010

  It works. It is efficient. It is effective. It is a nationwide 
standard policy available to every American 65 years of age and older 
and some of those who are younger.
  I heard the author of this bill a moment ago saying competition would 
make it better. In fact, it does not. In fact, it does not.
  The private health insurance industry is inefficient. It is 
ineffective, it is discriminatory and it clearly, clearly harms 
customers. There is a profit motive that has to be paid for. There are 
compensations for the sale and compensations for those who sell the 
insurance. All of that adds up.
  It is also extremely inefficient in that there are multiple policies, 
multiple people that have to be paid, insurance companies that have to 
be paid,

[[Page 6206]]

different deductions, different copays. All of that is out there.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. My Republican colleagues have done everything they can 
to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act, which had insurance reform in 
it. Without the insurance reform, which clearly they want to do away 
with, you are throwing senior citizens to the sharks, to health 
insurance.
  I urge us not to do that.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I would simply say we have new data from the Centers for Medicare and 
Medicaid Services on national health care expenditures. In 2009, the 
last year we have data available, Medicare costs grew by 7.9 percent. 
Private health insurance plans costs grew by 1.3 percent.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I will not yield to the gentleman.
  With that, Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).
  Mr. DUFFY. Madam Chairwoman, as a freshman in this House, it has been 
unique to sit and see one of the age-old tactics that takes place, 
scaring seniors, not to move the ball down the field, but for political 
points. The gentleman was just referencing Medicare and telling the 
American people that it's not broken, that it's going to continue to 
work.
  These are CBO charts. If you take a look at them, it's broken. We 
can't afford it.
  We have to reform this program to save it, and to deny that is trying 
to scare seniors for your own political gain, and I think that's 
shameless.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DUFFY. No, I won't.
  I think we have to be honest with the American people, come out and 
say you know what, this is a program that if we can reform it, we can 
save it for our retirees. But not only that, those who are about to 
retire, 55 and older, we can save the program for them as well. And we 
can modify the program for those of us in later generations.
  But let's not try to scare our seniors tonight and tell them that 
this plan is going to take away their care, because it's not. This 
plan, and its proposal, is that those who are 55 and older are going to 
continue to get the same plan that exists today.
  The reforms are for future generations, and with those reforms we are 
guaranteeing that current retirees get the benefits that we promised 
them. If you say you care about our seniors, you would join with us, 
and we would all work to resolve this issue and make sure our grandmas 
and our grandpas continue to get the benefits that our country has 
promised them.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 2\1/4\ minutes. The 
gentleman from Wisconsin has 7\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Chair, I am glad I had the opportunity to speak 
after my freshman colleague from Wisconsin.
  I was down on the floor earlier. I walked back to my office. I asked 
Mr. Maroney, who is answering the phones in my office, What are you 
hearing about? Are you hearing about the continuing resolution?
  He said, No. I said, Are you hearing about the budget debate? He 
said, Not really. I said, What are you hearing about? He said, I am 
hearing from seniors who are scared. I am hearing from folks on 
Medicare who are scared.
  Now, who does that surprise? It doesn't surprise me, and I don't know 
what the goal was when we went down this scare tactic path. I will say 
to the ranking member, I know you know better.
  You've got a persuasive case to make, a persuasive case to make for 
why your vision is better than our vision, but you're scaring people.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I will yield to have the gentleman tell me if anyone age 
55 or older will be affected.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Isn't it true that the Republican budget reopens the 
prescription--
  Mr. WOODALL. If the ranking member is not going to answer my 
question, I will not yield. You should be ashamed.
  I reclaim my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. And that's because you don't like the answer you're 
going to hear.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia controls the time.
  Mr. WOODALL. I reclaim my time to say we have honest debates here. We 
have honest disagreements here. But folks are scared because you're 
scaring them and you know good and well you don't need to.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I want to associate myself with Mr. Duffy's comments 
that we could get together and solve this problem, or we can just 
choose to scare people.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. If the gentleman would yield, I will answer his 
question.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I will yield to the gentleman to tell me if anyone age 
55 years of age or over will have their benefits changed in any way.
  The Acting CHAIR. Will all Members please suspend.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Yes, they will have their prescription drug benefit 
changed.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Point of order ma'am.
  The Acting CHAIR. Will Members please suspend.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, the House is not in order.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, a point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. All Members are reminded to address their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).
  Mr. MULVANEY. Madam Chairwoman, I wanted to speak very briefly to a 
topic that was raised earlier tonight by my colleague, Mr. Ellison from 
Minnesota. It is a comment, a message that has been repeated several 
times tonight and was, in fact, repeated several times during the 
committee process, which dealt with the subsidies that we give to Big 
Oil, to oil and gas.
  I will tell my folks, especially my colleague from Maryland (Mr. Van 
Hollen), that I share the frustrations that you have with those types 
of subsidies. I also share the frustrations that I have with other 
members of my conference that alternative energies receive seven times 
as many subsidies in the Tax Code as oil and gas. In fact, if you take 
the subsidy, the excise tax credit for ethanol, that number rises to 10 
times.
  So I do share your frustrations with the amount of tax credits that 
the code currently gives to oil and gas. But I am 10 times as 
frustrated, Madam Chairwoman, with the subsidies that we give to 
alternative energies.
  I would invite, Madam Chairwoman, my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle who have that same frustration to join us and vote for the 
budget. It's the best chance they are going to get this year to get rid 
of these subsidies as part of this process of closing the loopholes, 
lowering the tax rates and broadening the base.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 2\1/
4\ minutes.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. We've had a spirited debate this evening about 
fundamental choices that we need to make as a country. We all agree 
that we have to reduce our deficits in a predictable, steady way. The 
question is how do you do it, and we believe, as did the cochairs of 
the bipartisan fiscal commission, that the Republican plan is 
unbalanced; and it's unbalanced because it

[[Page 6207]]

asks very little of the folks at the very top and reduces dramatically 
our investments in our kids' education and it does end the Medicare 
guarantee.
  Seniors will no longer be able to stay in the Medicare program. They 
will be forced into the insurance program. It immediately does end the 
prescription drug benefit, something we worked hard to close, the 
doughnut hole.

                              {time}  2020

  It ends the effort that was put in place under the Affordable Care 
Act to end the doughnut hole. So I would say to the gentleman from 
Georgia who spoke earlier, those seniors who are calling his office, 
they will lose that benefit in closing the doughnut hole right away if 
this Republican budget passes.
  For other seniors and people who have been paying in the Medicare 
system through their payroll taxes, we want to make sure they have the 
benefit of the Medicare guarantee. Throwing them into the private 
insurance market and giving them a deal that Members of Congress do not 
give ourselves is wrong. It is absolutely wrong.
  We have a fair share deal, and we are asking seniors to take a raw 
deal. We have a true premium support system for Members of Congress 
where the Federal Government shares the risk of increasing costs. Under 
the Republican plan, they are asking seniors to do what they don't want 
Members of Congress to do: take all the risk of the rising costs.
  Those are not choices that reflect American values and priorities. We 
should not be giving tax breaks to the folks at the top and ending the 
Medicare guarantee.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, I yield myself the remainder of 
the time.
  First, let me say with respect to the Medicare guarantee, we keep 
hearing that. As you know, because we've said it over and over again, 
in our budget--by the way, go to budget.house.gov if you want to read 
the plan. I encourage people to please do that.
  With the new Medicare plan with people 54 and below, it's a Medicare 
guarantee. The plan you will be given to select from, just like a 
system that works like the one we have, like the prescription drug 
benefit plan, they are guaranteed plans. You are guaranteed to get them 
if you want them, and your subsidy is guaranteed.
  Now, we simply say, wealthy people shouldn't get as much of a subsidy 
as everyone else. Lower income people should get a bigger subsidy. And 
as people get sicker, they, too, should get a bigger subsidy to protect 
their premiums.
  And I would simply say the greatest danger, enemy and threat to 
Medicare is the status quo. Medicare goes insolvent in 9 years.
  But let me look at this from a different perspective. We've had a lot 
of debt before in our country. When you buy a house or a car or get a 
business loan, you get debt. What matters is how big is your debt 
relative to your ability to pay it. What also matters is: Who are you 
borrowing it from? Are you borrowing it from your local community bank? 
Are you borrowing it from your brother-in-law? Fine.
  Where are we borrowing our money from? We used to lend it to 
ourselves. Americans would buy T bills and lend it to ourselves. In 
1970, 5 percent was held by foreigners, 95 percent by Americans. In 
1990, 19 percent of our debt was held by foreigners. Today, 47 percent 
of our debt is held by other countries. Number one is China. We are 
borrowing 42 cents of every dollar today, and half of that from other 
countries, the number one being China.
  Look at where we're headed. We have a crushing burden of debt. The 
debt goes to double the size of the economy, then triple the size of 
the economy, to eight times the size of the economy. The CBO tells us 
the economy crashes in 2037. Their computers can't figure out how the 
American economy can grow past the year 2037 because of the debt 
burdens.
  We can't keep borrowing money from other countries to cash flow our 
government. We are giving them our sovereignty. We are losing control 
of our own destiny. We are giving our children a debt prison.
  Why is this happening? Because politicians from both political 
parties have been making promises and promises that are empty. We need 
to get government to live within its means. We can't keep spending 
money we don't have.
  By the way, you don't fix this by raising taxes and raising taxes and 
raising taxes. You fix this by cutting spending--novel idea. I know it 
is in Washington.
  So we're going to start. We're going to start by cutting $6.2 
trillion in spending. We're going to start by putting the right 
policies in place to grow the economy. We're going to start by keeping 
the promise to people who have retired so that their Medicare and 
Social Security is there for them. We're going to start by saving these 
programs for future generations so they're not empty promises. We're 
going to start by preserving our social safety net and making it more 
adaptive, resilient and sustainable for the 21st century.
  We want to repair the social safety net so it works. And we want to 
gear it not toward keeping people on welfare, but getting them back on 
their feet into lives of self-sufficiency so they, too, can flourish 
and reach the American Dream. We're going to start by passing this 
budget so that we can give our children a debt-free nation, so we can 
maintain the legacy of America, which every generation prior to ours 
upheld, which has given the next generation a more prosperous America, 
a better chance, a better chance at securing the American Dream.
  If we don't do this, if we don't fix this, if we don't make the tough 
choices now to get this under control, we will be the first generation 
to sever that legacy. And, Madam Chair, that's a disgrace. It is within 
our control. We see this coming. We know what's happening. We know why 
it's happening. And if we don't fix this before it gets out of control, 
shame on us.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) each will control 30 minutes on 
the subject of economic goals and policies.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Chair, on behalf of the Joint Economic 
Committee, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  This country is starved for truth-tellers, people in Congress who 
will just tell them what the problems are that this country faces, give 
them options and help them make the right choice, people who are strong 
enough to lead and bold enough to lead at a time when the country needs 
leadership. When it comes to the budget, when it comes to the economy 
where the President has failed, House Republicans will lead.
  The Paul Ryan budget helps spur job creation in America today. It 
stops spending money the government doesn't have. It lifts the crushing 
burden of debt. This plan puts the budget on the path to balance in 
paying down the debt over the long term, and it puts the economy on the 
path to prosperity.
  Let's talk about the economy. It is the number one concern of most 
people, and the debt and deficit have a lot to do with it.
  We are undergoing one of the worst recoveries we've seen in a long 
time. It is two to three times slower than the Reagan recovery, and 
there is reason for that. We were told by the President and 
congressional Democrats that if we just spent money, spend it in the 
stimulus and spend it in increased deficits, that the economy would 
recover. And they were wrong. After spending hundreds of billions of 
dollars on the stimulus, we have 2 million fewer jobs in America today 
than when the stimulus began. We have fewer jobs today than when all 
that spending took off.
  We were told if Congress passed all the stimulus bills that our 
unemployment rate today would be 6.8 percent. It's 8.8 percent. And 
it's only that low because so many people have given up simply looking 
for work anymore. They've lost hope. And then finally, for those who 
say we just spend more to create this economy, they were off, their 
predictions, by 7 million American jobs.

[[Page 6208]]

  It's time to stop listening to the economists who got it wrong and 
start listening to economists who got it right.

                              {time}  2030

  Let's take a look at what spending has done to our economy in 
America. Here is a chart. It looks back on the last 40 years in 
America, and it tracks Federal Government spending against job creation 
along Main Street, not government jobs but jobs in the private sector, 
the small-, medium-, and large-sized businesses that our economy 
depends upon. The blue line is government spending. The red line 
represents jobs along Main Street. You can tell with the blue line. 
Look at how different job creation is. In fact, over each of these four 
decades, not only is there no correlation between Federal spending and 
jobs along Main Street, but it's a negative correlation in each of the 
4 decades. As government spending goes up, jobs along Main Street go 
down.
  Look at this next chart. We also went back the last four decades in 
America and asked about private business investment. What happens when 
companies large and small buy new equipment, buy new software, buy new 
buildings, and invest back in the economy? Here is the chart. The blue 
is the private, fixed investment from business. The red is job creation 
along Main Street. As you can tell, it's a very close correlation.
  In fact, there is no substitute in America for private investment in 
the economy--no substitute, no rebates, no stimulus, no shovel-ready 
projects. Nothing is a substitute for creating jobs like getting 
businesses to invest back in their workforces, in their workplaces and 
in the economy.
  Recently, I had the Joint Economic Committee take a look at the 
economic studies over the last 40 years of our competitors around the 
world, competitor countries that got themselves into debt trouble but 
that worked their way out of it. You would be interested in the results 
of this study, and there are three key points to it.
  One is that the countries that were most successful in getting their 
debt down, in getting ahold of their financial paths, didn't do it by 
raising taxes. That didn't succeed. They did it by reducing spending. 
That's how they best and most successfully got ahold of their debt. 
There were 21 times that 10 different of our global competitor 
countries got a handle on their debt successfully by reducing spending.
  The second takeaway from this study, called ``Spend Less, Owe Less, 
Grow the Economy,'' was that countries that got ahold of their debt the 
right way also grew the economy as well. Economists agree that the 
countries that get their financial houses in order grow their economies 
over the long term. What this study shows is that, with our 
competitors, if you get a handle on your spending the right way, you 
grow your economy in the short term as well.
  Here is Canada. Neighboring Canada got themselves in financial 
trouble. Their economy was growing at a paltry pace, less than 1 
percent a year. They lowered their debt as a nation by about 12 
percentage points, and their economy took off. For almost 16 years, 
they've averaged economic growth of almost 3\1/2\ percent.
  Sweden, another developed country with an economy like ours, actually 
had an economy that was shrinking. It was actually contracting. They 
got ahold of their financial house and put that in order as well, 
reducing their debt by more than 11 percentage points. Their economy 
took off, growing 3\1/2\ percent a year, on average, for almost a 
decade. New Zealand did the same.
  You may say, Look, we're not Canada; we're not New Zealand; we're not 
Sweden. Yet 26 times, nine of our competitor countries around the world 
that lowered their debt by reducing spending grew their economies 
strongly, not just in the long term but in the short term. They didn't 
grow them a little. Those countries rocketed to the top quarter of 
economic growth in the world. Countries that reduce their spending and 
do it the right way grow their economies.
  Here is a third and another, again, telling point about this, which 
is that not all spending cuts are the same. When it comes time to grow 
the economy, not all spending cuts are the same.
  What these economists showed is that the nations that grew their 
economies the most successfully undertook cuts that were large, 
credible and difficult to reverse. So they made cuts in savings that 
mattered, and the cuts in savings that grew their economies made sense. 
They shrunk their Federal workforces. They right-sized them to what 
they could afford. They eliminated duplicate programs, obsolete 
programs--as a business would--programs that waste money. They reduced 
subsidies to corporations which were interfering in the free 
marketplace. Finally, they tackled their entitlement reforms in health 
care and in pensions. What is interesting is that, even if the reforms 
they made in their entitlements didn't affect their current 
beneficiaries and even if they phased those reforms in over time, the 
reforms sent the right signals to the marketplace.
  Then what happened in each of these countries is that businesses, in 
no longer facing higher taxes because of all that spending, felt 
comfortable getting to reinvest back into their workforces, back into 
their countries' economies. Households like ours, in no longer facing 
higher taxes to pay for all these spending sprees, felt more 
comfortable buying larger ticket items, like cars and houses. As we 
know, when businesses invest, jobs along Main Street grow. It has been 
made clear time and time and time again, like businesses, countries 
that can get ahold of their debt, that can do it the right way and that 
can put themselves on financially sound paths grow. America's economy 
can grow as well.
  The budget resolution presented tonight by Chairman Paul Ryan meets 
the test that spending reductions must be large, credible and difficult 
to reverse once made to boost our economy:
  The Ryan budget attacks the medical entitlements that are driving 
Federal spending higher. It attacks corporate welfare by phasing out 
government guaranties to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It eliminates 
subsidies for green energy, and it reduces agriculture subsidies by $30 
billion over the next decade. The Ryan budget rolls back non-security 
discretionary spending to its 2008 levels and then freezes it for 5 
years.
  It adopts a number of the recommendations from the President's own 
fiscal commission to eliminate waste and to achieve real savings in our 
budget. It eliminates agencies and programs identified by our own 
government as wasteful and duplicative. That alone will save over $100 
billion in the next decade.
  It reduces the Federal workforce. It right-sizes the Federal 
workforce by 10 percent over the next 5 years by attrition, simply by 
hiring only one new Federal employee for every three employees who 
leave or retire. Together, that saves almost $400 billion.
  The Ryan budget envisions a pro-growth tax reform that lowers the top 
income tax rate for both individuals and companies to 25 percent and 
makes us competitive again in this world.
  The Ryan budget is a fiscally responsible plan that accelerates 
economic growth and job creation. It is a game-changer for this Nation 
and tells the truth about our challenges, and addresses them with ideas 
and proven solutions that move us forward.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, I think it's very important for us to understand and 
remember how the economy here grew and how it became much more positive 
and progressive during those 8 years of the Clinton administration. The 
deficit that Clinton inherited when he came into office was 
dramatically reduced and brought back a surplus. When he left office, 
the national debt was in the neighborhood of a little over $5 trillion. 
By the time the next President left, George W. Bush, the deficit was 
about $10.7 trillion. So it's important for us not to have the same 
kind of experience now that the opposition here on

[[Page 6209]]

the other side of the aisle is trying to push on us.
  The most critical challenge that we face as a country, of course, is 
the need to create new jobs. If Congress hopes to get the economy 
moving at the right pace, we are going to have to take this challenge 
of job creation very seriously. The question is: What should we do? 
What should we not do to reform government so that we can better 
compete in the world economy and yield strong, sustainable, long-term 
growth and prosperity?
  After 100 days, Republicans have failed to put forward a single plan 
to create jobs. Instead, they have laid out a budget plan that shows us 
exactly what not to do.

                              {time}  2040

  We must remember how we got into this budget mess in the first place. 
While my friends on the other side would like to pretend that our 
economic woes began the very second that President Obama took his hand 
off the Bible and was sworn into office, we know that is not the truth 
at all.
  In fact, it was quite the opposite. The things he did as President 
were positive for the economy, and we are seeing that today. We are 
seeing the economy growing. We are seeing unemployment declining. We 
are seeing employment going up, all of that as a positive effect of the 
actions of this President.
  My friends on the other side pushing this budget are the same people 
who carried President George W. Bush's agenda through Congress, and in 
doing so nearly doubled our national debt, as I said, from about $5.7 
trillion to $10.7 trillion over the 8 years of the Bush Presidency.
  We need to make sure that they are not able to do that again. They 
did so then by recklessly lowering taxes on the wealthy with the 
promise that doing so would create jobs and strengthen our economy. 
Well, we know that neither of those happened. In fact, just the 
opposite occurred. They did so by passing a prescription drug plan that 
is a major giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry without finding a 
way to pay for it. And they did so by taking us into Iraq under false 
pretenses and committing us to what will ultimately be several 
trillions of dollars.
  Now we are seeing economic inequality at record levels. The 
wealthiest 10 percent of the population here in the United States of 
America receives nearly half of all income in our country. And the 
richest 1 percent has seen its share of the national income increase by 
nearly 10 percent; and they are now at about 35 percent of all income, 
all of that increasing for the richest and declining for working people 
across this country.
  This trend has consequences, and it is no coincidence that the last 
time we saw inequality at this level was during the Great Depression in 
the 1930s. But instead of working to correct this problem, the House 
Republican proposal acts as a huge wealth transfer program from the 
working class Americans to the rich. Overall, two-thirds of the cuts 
the Republicans propose take dead aim at working class Americans to 
lower their economy and lower their economic conditions.
  The Republicans' budget plan eliminates Medicare, forcing seniors to 
buy insurance in the private marketplace, using a coupon that barely 
covers a fraction of the cost of care. It cuts food stamps, Pell 
Grants, and low-income housing. And at the same time, our friends 
across the aisle here, their plan would give away $2.9 trillion in tax 
cuts to the hugest, biggest corporations and to the wealthiest 
Americans.
  This is the exact wrong approach, and it will severely damage our 
economy, hurt the middle class, and impoverish senior citizens.
  Let's take a closer look at how this plan hurts seniors. Their budget 
eliminates Medicare. It eliminates Medicare and creates a new voucher 
program that would saddle seniors with a large portion of their health 
care costs. They would then be more responsible for it, and the whole 
health care system would decline.
  The Republican budget also makes prescription drugs more expensive 
for seniors. The health care law we passed last year is gradually 
eliminating the gaps in prescription drug coverage. The Republican plan 
undoes this essential reform, forcing seniors to pay out of pocket. The 
Republican budget also threatens to make nursing home care unaffordable 
by cutting $771 billion from Medicaid over a 10-year period. Medicaid 
currently covers nearly half of all long-term care costs, and we know 
what would happen if their plan was to be successful. All of that would 
be essentially eliminated. The Republican budget also cuts $10 billion 
from Social Security's administrative budget, which will impact service 
to seniors.
  What this plan does to America's seniors is absolutely unacceptable; 
but the worst part of it is that while they cut Medicare and Medicaid 
and they cut prescription drug coverage and the Social Security 
Administration, they also cut taxes on the very wealthy, reducing 
substantially the amount of taxes that the wealthiest people in this 
country pay while at the same time raising taxes on everyone else.
  Now, 10 years ago, the conservative Heritage Foundation projected 
that in 2011, 1.6 million more Americans would be working as a result 
of the Bush tax cuts. They were wrong. They were wrong then, and they 
are wrong now. We know what happened then, just the opposite of what 
they predicted.
  The Republican debate isn't about good policy or the facts. It is 
about a dogmatic approach to governing and doing what's best for the 
very rich, doing what's best for the very rich regardless of how it 
affects everyone else who are the main promoters of the economy. 
Working class people, middle-income people are the people who drive the 
economic growth here in America. If they are forced to decline their 
economic conditions, then the whole economy of this country declines. 
All of that is needed to be understood, and the actions that they are 
proposing must be avoided.
  Even President Reagan's budget director, David Stockman, recently 
said that he finds it ``unconscionable that the Republican leadership, 
faced with a $1.5 trillion deficit, could possibly believe that good 
public policy is to maintain tax cuts for the top 2 percent of the 
population.''
  We know that isn't the case. We know that is going to be just the 
opposite. We know that tax cuts for the wealthiest, making the 
wealthiest people in this country even wealthier and driving down the 
economy of the working people, is going to have a deadly effect on the 
economic circumstances across this country.
  Tax rates are now lower than they were, even under President Reagan; 
and yet the Republicans are actually proposing to cut taxes again for 
the very rich, lower the corporate rate, and keep special tax earmarks 
for Big Oil, tax earmarks for Big Oil which is now growing to be one of 
the highest growing economic aspects of this country that we have to 
deal with. Tax earmarks for Big Oil and for the biggest companies, and 
the biggest companies particularly that export jobs overseas, 
continuing to give tax cuts to those economic companies that take jobs 
out of the United States and exports them to other countries. What a 
big mistake that is in the context of rescinding this economy.
  Overall, the Republican budget plan for 2012 will not balance the 
budget; and while it does not balance the budget, it eliminates 
Medicare by replacing it with a private voucher program that will make 
it impossible for seniors to get health care. It also provides huge new 
tax breaks for the wealthy while cutting key investments in our 
economy.
  All of these proposals that we are facing here are clearly deadly. If 
they were to be successful, the economic circumstances that are now 
just getting better in this economy as a result of the actions by the 
Obama administration would be reversed, and it would be reversed 
dramatically, and we would see a downslide in the economic 
circumstances here in our country.

                              {time}  2050

  We need to oppose this effectively, and we need to have a policy that 
is going to focus its attention on working

[[Page 6210]]

class people, on the need to create more jobs, and to create more jobs 
more effectively.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Chair, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I would remind the listeners that it was Democrats who fought the 
prescription drug program for our seniors; who last year slashed a 
half-trillion dollars from our seniors programs, which will hurt our 
local hospitals, our nursing homes, our hospice programs. They're going 
to drive 7 million American seniors out of their Medicare Advantage 
plan. And yet they failed to lead to preserve Medicare for every 
generation once and for all. They failed; we're going to lead.
  At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to a new member of the 
Joint Economic Committee, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Mulvaney).
  Mr. MULVANEY. Madam Chair, when I travel my district, I have tried to 
figure out a way to explain to people, and to myself, how to make sense 
out of these trillions of dollars. And I do it this way. I put it in 
numbers that I can understand.
  I tell folks to assume that you're a family who brings home $46,000 a 
year, and you sit down at the beginning of the year to do your budget, 
and when you add up all of the things that you spend money on, you're 
spending $78,000. And then I say to them, When you're doing that and 
you're making $46,000 and you're spending $78,000, I want you to 
realize the Visa bill in the drawer is $281,000. And that's where we 
are as a Nation.
  And I tell them, as we try to figure out a way to save money, I 
remind them that the first thing that we did in this Congress was we 
cut $35 million from our own budgets. To lead by example, we cut our 
own budgets in this House by $35 million. And in that world where 
you're making $46,000 and you're spending $78,000, and you're trying to 
find $32,000 of savings in your household, that $35 million represents 
70 cents.
  That's how big the numbers are. And I think the folks back home have 
started to grasp it. I certainly have started to grasp it.
  But I do get some good questions when I give that presentation on the 
road. Some folks will ask me and say, If I was in that position at my 
household, not only would I try to cut expenditures, but I'd also try 
to get another job. I'd try to make a little bit more money.
  And I said, That's a really good point and that's what most families 
would do. With government it's different. With government the only 
chance they have to get that additional job, to get more money to come 
in, is to raise taxes. And when they ask me why don't we just raise 
taxes, I say because it simply doesn't work. It simply does not work. 
It has never worked.
  This graph shows the top marginal tax rates going back to the 1950s. 
For those of you who were around or studied the era, the top marginal 
rates in the 1950s were actually above 90 percent. The top marginal 
income tax rate in the 1950s was above 90 percent. And the government 
was still only able to take from the economy about 20 percent of the 
economy; 18\1/2\ percent is the average over the course of the last 50 
years. So even when tax rates were as high as 90 percent, the 
government took only about 18, 19 percent of the economy out in taxes.
  That number has stayed bizarrely stable over the course of the last 
50 years. We've lowered marginal tax rates; we've raised marginal tax 
rates. Yet the government only takes out 18, 19, at the most 20 
percent.
  Raising taxes does not bring in more money to the government over the 
long haul. It may for a short period of time. It may for a year or two. 
But the world doesn't work on a static model. The world works on a 
dynamic model. And when you raise taxes, the economy grows slower, and 
eventually we get back to this 18, 19 percent average.
  By the way, I made this presentation in a debate to a former member 
of the Clinton administration. And the moderator, after I had mentioned 
that we've never been able to get more than 18, 19 percent out of the 
economy, turned to that member of the administration and said, Is that 
true? How do you respond to that?
  And the member of the Clinton administration said, You know, he's 
absolutely right. We have not been able to figure out a way to do it in 
the United States of America, even with high top marginal tax rates.
  But they do it in Europe. They do it in Europe. In Europe the 
governments can get 30, 40, even 50 percent of the economy away from 
the private sector, away from people, and put it in the pockets of the 
government.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. MULVANEY. And I put it to you, Madam Chairwoman, that that's what 
this debate is really about. That's what this debate is really about. 
Are we going to maintain the American system, or are we trying to move 
towards a European system? And I will tell you that that's really what 
this fight is all about.
  And the budget that we're here defending tonight, as members of the 
Joint Economic Committee, is the budget that defends the American 
system, that defends the system that says the government really should 
only take 18 or 19 percent away from the private sector, that that's 
enough, that we don't want to be Europe, where people pay VAT taxes and 
people pay much higher rates of taxation. The government takes 30, 40, 
or 50 percent. And what the opposition is offering is a European-style 
model.
  So I simply ask my friends on both sides to consider what kind of 
country we want to be. Do we want to continue on as the America that 
we've known for years, or do we want to become Europe? And I suggest, 
Madam Chair, that the former is the better course of action.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, we've heard a lot of discussion here this 
evening about what economic policy works, where do the deficits come 
from. Let's just figure it out.
  Beginning with this man over here--I think we would all recognize 
him--that would be Ronald Reagan. After every year, at the end of the 
year, the Congressional Budget Office, nonpartisan, makes a projection 
of what's going to happen in the next 10 years. At the end of Ronald 
Reagan's period, they did their projection, and they said, voila, a 
$1.4 trillion deficit in the years ahead. Followed by George Bush the 
senior. At the end of his 4 years, they did another estimate: What's 
going to happen in the next 10 years? Well, let's see. That says a $3.3 
trillion deficit. How about that?
  We were just talking about some economic policy here a minute ago. 
Well, let's talk about the Clinton period. At the end of the Clinton 
period, 8 years, another projection was made by the Congressional 
Budget Office: What's going to happen in the next 10 years? A $5.6 
trillion surplus, enough to pay off all of the American debt.
  How did it happen? How did it happen?
  It happened this way: Early in his administration, they set about to 
deal with the deficit. There was a tax increase. It cost my Democratic 
colleagues the House. But they did it. They put it in place. And they 
also put in place PAYGO and the balanced budget amendment. What 
happened was that in those 8 years was the largest job growth in 
America's history except in the 1950-1960 period. It was enormous job 
growth. More than 20 million jobs were created and extraordinary 
revenue growth.
  So much for the argument we just heard.
  In fact, a combination of holding tight on the budget together with a 
tax increase worked. I was part of that administration, and we were 
told to reinvent government. We did. At the Department of the Interior, 
we reduced the number of employees from 90,000 to 75,000, and we 
maintained and actually increased the efficiency and the effectiveness 
of that Department. It can and it was done.
  However, let's take a look at George W. Bush, the most recent Bush 
presidency. At the end of his presidency, the

[[Page 6211]]

Congressional Budget Office did their estimate, and they came up with 
an $11.5 trillion deficit in the years ahead.
  How did it happen? It happened this way: He cut taxes year one, 2001, 
cut taxes. Year two, 2002, cut taxes. Two wars unpaid for, borrowed 
money from China, and then backed away from all regulation of Wall 
Street, and the great crash. The result: An $11.5 trillion deficit. The 
day Barack Obama came into office, he was handed a $1.3 trillion bill 
due. That's what the Republican President gave to this Nation and to 
this Congress. So we've set about solving it.
  Now I want to move to another issue here, which happens to be this 
debate about Medicare. You're not going to solve the Medicare problem, 
which is one of ever-increasing cost in the underlying health sector of 
America. When I first got into this in 1991 as insurance commissioner, 
9 percent of the American economy was in medical services. This year 
it's approaching 18 percent. You cannot solve this problem by throwing 
senior citizens off Medicare. It does not solve it.

                              {time}  2100

  Do not throw the seniors to the wolves. The wolves are the insurance 
companies. I know. I was the insurance commissioner for 8 years, and I 
fought those characters every year I was in office. I know what they 
will do to seniors. They will rip them off, they will deny benefits, 
they will deny coverage, and they will not control cost.
  In California this year, insurance companies are raising costs by 20 
to 40 percent. Medicare went up 6 percent. Medicare is efficient. 
Medicare is efficient. It is a nationwide policy. You can get it 
anywhere in this Nation. There is no administrative cost that even 
comes close to what the insurance companies' administrative costs are, 
perhaps 30 percent of the premium. Profit, sales, expenses, all of 
those things added up, and that includes the chaos at the delivery, the 
medical delivery. We need to change that.
  You want to deal with something more? Take a look at this. This is 
Medicaid. In Medicaid, the Republican budget intends to cut Medicaid by 
three-quarters of $1 trillion in the next decade. Who gets Medicaid? 
Senior citizens and the disabled. The aged, blind and disabled get 
Medicaid. And this is immediate.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I'm just getting warmed up.
  Who gets Medicaid? The aged, the blind and the disabled get Medicaid.
  The Republican budget cuts Medicaid three-quarters of $1 trillion. 
Seniors will be--not 10 years from now, but immediately, as those 
budget reductions take place, according to the Republicans--thrown out 
of nursing homes.
  I just finished a conversation not more than 2 hours ago with the 
owner of nursing homes in California. He said, Don't let them do it. 
We're just hanging on. Any further reductions, any reductions in the 
Republican bill will force us to send out of our nursing homes the 
Medi-Cal, which are people covered by Medicaid.
  Who are these children? These are the children in poverty. The 
children in poverty get medical services from Medicaid, and Medi-Cal in 
California, 20 percent. Are those the people you want to throw out in 
the street? You will do it.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Yielding myself 30 seconds, I would remind our 
colleagues that are Democrats that Congress slashed a half trillion 
dollars from our seniors' care, including nursing homes, just last 
year. I will also remind our colleagues that Medicare is insolvent. The 
biggest threat to our seniors today is to do nothing.
  Democrats and the President failed to lead. Republicans are not only 
going to preserve Medicare as it is today for those 55 and older, but 
for the younger generation, we are going to give them the choices and 
the options to preserve that program for them for their entire life.
  Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to a new member of the Joint Economic 
Committee who understands that government doesn't create jobs, it is 
the private sector that creates jobs, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Duffy).
  Mr. DUFFY. Madam Chairwoman, in reference to one of the charts we 
just saw from the gentleman from California, I found it interesting 
that he laid out many different debts and deficits from prior 
Presidents, but the one he failed to present to this House was the one 
from President Obama. On the day that the President took office, we 
were projected, over the course of 10 years, to borrow $1.8 trillion, 
from the CBO, and today we are projected to borrow $9.4 trillion. We 
have inherited now a fiscal mess.
  Let's review where we're at. This country owes $14 trillion. This 
year we are going to borrow $1.6 trillion. Last year we borrowed over 
$1 trillion. The year before that we borrowed over $1 trillion. Let's 
look out 10 years. For the next 10 years, on average, we're going to 
borrow $1 trillion every single year. This is unsustainable. We cannot 
continue on this course.
  Listen, I wasn't a big fan of President Bush's spending, but his 
biggest year of deficit spending was $460 billion. That pales in 
comparison to the $1.6 trillion we're going to borrow today. I mean, I 
know we've all seen these charts so often, but this is our debt chart 
from the CBO. We have a sea of red, a sea of debt that we are going to 
leave off to the next generation. This is unconscionable.
  What does this mean for future generations? This means higher 
interest rates. This means massive tax increases. This means a lower 
standard of living for our next generation. And I guess I will present 
to this House, if you were to ask your grandma and grandpa what they 
thought about leaving this off to our next generation, they would be 
outraged. They would be furious that this is their legacy, that this is 
what their grandchildren are going to inherit. We need to fix the 
problem.
  Let's talk about the budget proposal that has been made.
  Congressman Paul Ryan and the Budget Committee, they propose reducing 
spending by $6.2 trillion over the course of 10 years. Yes, they also 
talk about tax reform, a fair, flatter Tax Code. And you know what? We 
have to realize this isn't 1980. We are in a global marketplace. We 
compete against China and India, Mexico, Vietnam.
  And you know what? This isn't just against Kansas and Kentucky. We 
have to engage. We have to have an environment where our businesses can 
compete, succeed, and win. And when they do, who benefits? The people 
that benefit are our families because they have jobs, they have 
opportunity. But if we build walls around this country with more 
mandates and more regulation and more taxes, we are going to see more 
businesses go overseas and fewer jobs for our families. And as we've 
been talking about tonight, we will have less revenue in the Federal 
Reserve.
  I've heard a lot this evening, Madam Chairwoman, about Medicare and a 
lot of demagoguery across the aisle about what it's going to do. Let's 
be clear with the American people. Let's be honest with the American 
people that if we don't reform Medicare, the CBO says it's going broke 
in 9 years. We have to fix it. We have to fix it to make sure we can 
preserve it for our current seniors. So let's not sit here and scare 
people and tell our seniors we're taking away their Medicare. We are 
not. We are working on solutions that are going to preserve it.
  And so when we talk about reform, to be clear, we're not talking 
about reform for our current seniors or even those who are about to 
retire. The reforms we are talking about are for my generation. And 
what's beautiful about this is if we reform Social Security, we get to 
guarantee the benefits for our current seniors, but then you allow me 
to plan for the benefits I'm going to have when I retire. And if we do 
it, we can succeed in this reform.
  We've heard a lot about taxes as well. And so we all know here that 
the top tax rate, 35 percent, and a family who makes $350,000 a year 
falls into that tax category. And so I would, Madam Chairwoman, suggest 
to my friends on

[[Page 6212]]

the left, why don't we do this. Let's bump that tax rate up--not to 35 
percent, maybe 50 percent. No, let's go 100 percent. Let's take every 
dollar of a family that makes $350,000 a year or more, let's take every 
single dollar from them. And if we do that, we still can't balance the 
budget. So let's go to the next level. Let's go to the next highest 
rung of income earners, those who make $200,000 or more as a family. A 
mom makes $100,000; a dad makes $100,000. We would all agree they're 
wealthy. Let's take 100 percent of every dollar they make as well.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. DUFFY. And if you do that, you still can't balance the budget.
  You cannot tax your way out of this problem. We have to reduce our 
spending. If we reduce our spending and we reform our Tax Code, we can 
bring prosperity back to this country. But to sit here in this House 
and tell the American people that we can tax our way out, the bottom 
line is you can tax every penny of every profit of the wealthiest 
Americans and you can't balance the budget.
  Madam Chairwoman, I think we have to take a serious look at 
Congressman Ryan's budget. I'm willing to consider other commonsense 
solutions that are going to get this country back on track, but ones 
where we are going to demagogue plans and say we just have to raise 
taxes and not reform are not real solutions. That is going to give us 
more of the same.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 12 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague.
  The gentleman from Texas mentioned the fact that as part of the 
Affordable Care Act last year we made some reforms in Medicare. Yes, we 
did. We got rid of the overpayments to the private plans, the Medicare 
Advantage plans. Why did we do that? Because they were costing the 
taxpayer 114 percent of the fee-for-service, which is why this notion, 
frankly, that by saying to seniors you can't stay in Medicare now, 
you've got to go into the private insurance market, has been disproven 
by our experience most recently.

                              {time}  2110

  So we said we're not going to overpay them. And you know what? We 
used some of those savings to close the prescription drug doughnut hole 
that seniors fall in. We used some of those savings.
  Now, it's important to understand that the Republican budget, even 
though there was a lot of demagoguery about that, you kept those 
savings, but what you didn't do is continue to close the doughnut hole. 
Immediately upon passage of the Republican budget, that doughnut hole 
will stop closing for seniors.
  I want to pick up on a point Mr. Garamendi made about Medicaid 
because, as this chart indicates, the great majority of funds for 
Medicaid go to seniors and individuals with disabilities. Make no 
mistake, this happens immediately. We're not talking about 10 years 
from now, 8 years from now. This happens right away.
  Now, Medicaid is a program where actually the costs of care have 
grown much slower than the rest of the health care market, including 
the private market, and yet it is a program that is stretched very 
thin. You take $700 billion-plus out of that system, you are going to 
be putting people at serious risk, already overstretched programs.
  So what choice did you make? Well, this is what choice you made with 
respect to Medicaid.
  You cut about $771 billion. Guess what? You returned to the tax rates 
that were in effect on the top 2 percent income earners during the 
Clinton administration; over 10 years, $800 billion. Those are the 
choices you're making. Put all of these individuals at risk--seniors in 
nursing homes, assisted living facilities, poor kids--so that you can 
provide that tax break.
  I've heard it said on the floor that, oh, boy, if we do that, if we 
go back to the Clinton-era tax rates, that's going to really hurt the 
economy. That's going to hurt jobs.
  Look at this. Here's the Clinton-era tax rate: 20 million jobs were 
created during that period of time. Here's the current tax rate, end of 
the Bush administration: 653,000 jobs lost.
  The history tells the story. The reason is because there are lots of 
factors that go into decisions by businesses how to invest. And while, 
obviously, tax rates are a part of it, they are not the major driver in 
the economy.
  I've heard it said that this is going to hurt small businesses. I 
hope one thing that we can agree on is that small businesses are the 
engine of our economy. They're what make this economy go.
  And so we always hear from our Republican colleagues, well, you go 
back to the Clinton era rates for the top, you're going to hurt small 
businesses. Well, I hope everybody will look at the Joint Committee on 
Taxation. What they say is that there are only 3 percent of small 
businesses who fall into that higher income category, because we're 
talking about taxable income. Only 3 percent of small businesses fall 
into those rates.
  Now, we hear from our Republican colleagues, oh, that's true it's 
only 3 percent, but it's 50 percent. Well, here. Fifty percent of the 
income comes from those 3 percent. Why do you think that is? Well, look 
at the same Joint Committee on Taxation report. Many such businesses 
are hardly ``small.''
  In 2005, over 12,000 S corporations and over 6,000 partnerships 
grossed more than $50 million. There's your mom-and-pop store. There's 
your mom-and-pop store working hard as a small business trying to make 
ends meet. Those are what Republicans are calling small businesses.
  I'm going to give you some examples of those small businesses. And 
there are lots of them, but just to give people an idea of the 
Republican definition of small businesses: major Wall Street investment 
house KKR; one of the big four accounting firms, Pricewaterhouse--these 
are S corporations--Fortune 100; Pipeline Company; Enterprise GP 
Holdings; Washington law firms.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Washington law firms.
  I want to point out, these firms are doing good work. There is 
nothing wrong with what these firms are doing. But don't tell the 
American people that these are small businesses. Over $50 million a 
year. They can help do their share to get our deficit under control.
  Go back to the Clinton administration rates. Let's have a balanced 
approach. Yes, we need to do cuts. We understand that. But as the 
bipartisan fiscal commission said, you've got to do revenues, too, and 
if you don't, here's what happened:
  President Bush inherited a $5.6 trillion surplus from the Clinton 
administration, and where did it go? When President Obama was sworn in, 
the day he put his hand on the Bible, he faced a deficit in that year 
of over $1.3 trillion and a 10-year deficit of over $10 trillion.
  Let's have a balanced approach. Let's have shared sacrifice. Let's be 
serious about getting our deficits under control.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Yielding myself 30 seconds, I can't help but 
think many Democrats are eager for everyone else to sacrifice. What 
about government? Why can't government sacrifice a little? All of those 
obsolete agencies and all of those wasteful programs, the money they 
spit away on stimulus programs and to bail out anyone who needs it. 
Maybe it is time for shared sacrifice, and it can start with the big, 
fat, bloated Federal Government.
  At this time, I'd like to yield 5 minutes to a physician who has 
delivered

[[Page 6213]]

more than 3,000 babies in his life, is a valued member of the Joint 
Economic Committee, and expert on health care and many of our health 
care entitlements, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for the recognition, and it is an 
important debate that we're having tonight. Madam Chairwoman, I hope 
that people are watching the debate because this really does set the 
tone, set the course, set the compass for the future of our country. 
And this is a debate that really should not be partisan, although we 
certainly have heard some partisan references. I may even make one or 
two myself.
  But right now intergenerational expectations are down. And in that 
murky environment, we now have Paul Ryan come forward and bringing us a 
fact-based budget that provides a pathway for America's future. 
Everyone knows the rising cost of health care is a serious threat--not 
just to our Federal Government but to our prosperity in general. 
Unfortunately, the President last year, and the Democratic majority 
that was present in Congress last year, made the problem worse.
  Here's the simple truth. Instead of reforming Medicaid and Medicare 
and using the savings for deficit reduction, the Democrats spent every 
penny of savings, every single penny of savings and then a lot more on 
a new entitlement program. Incredibly, they accelerated the crisis, and 
Medicare and Medicaid are even more in peril today than they were 
before this all started in 2009. They found a fire, and they put it out 
with gasoline, and is it a surprise that it's worse?
  In contrast, the budget that we're debating tonight, the Ryan budget, 
saves Medicare and Medicaid for future generations and uses reforms to 
make the programs financially sustainable.
  Now, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the Democratic 
plan that we know as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
would increase spending by almost $1\1/2\ trillion, primarily by 
expanding Medicaid and creating new subsidies to buy health insurance. 
The so-called Affordable Care Act would increase coverage for the 
insured and uninsured, provide coverage for the uninsured, but that 
also is going to create greater demand for health care. But at the same 
time we put in constraints. We limit physician education and training. 
We limit testing and patents for drugs and devices. We restrict the 
very supply of health care. And, consequently, much of the increased 
demand will in fact deliver us higher prices, not more services.
  The Congressional Budget Office and chief actuary at the Center for 
Medicare and Medicaid Services who scored the legislation readily admit 
that they did not include the price effects of the increased demand for 
services.

                              {time}  2120

  In fact, the chief actuary at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid 
Services, his report wasn't even released until 3\1/2\ weeks after you 
passed the bill a little over a year ago and signed it into law. Thus, 
the official budget estimates understate the true cost of the amount of 
spending that was contained within this health care law.
  Secondly, the available budget estimates ignore the negative impact 
of higher taxes on economic growth. An almost 4 percent surtax on 
interest, dividends, and capital gains for those earning over $250,000 
a year will reduce business investment and employment. Thus, the new 
tax will reduce economic growth and generate less revenue than 
expected. This problem cannot be fixed by simply raising taxes on the 
American people.
  Thirdly, the budget estimates assume a 29 percent across the board 
reduction in Medicare physician payments in 2012 and beyond, as well as 
continual reductions in other Medicare provider payments, but both the 
CBO and the Medicare actuary have called the reductions unrealistic. In 
fact, Chief Actuary Foster said if you believe this, then I have got 
good news for you about the future of Medicare. But we all know that 
the reality does not match the expectations.
  Then here is the other problem, the Independent Payment Advisory 
Board. And I have got a great deal of sympathy with my colleagues on 
the Democratic side of the aisle. When you passed the Affordable Care 
Act the first time, you did not include the Independent Payment 
Advisory Board because you saw through that. You saw that as a trick, a 
trap. Yet when you got the bill from the Senate that you in turn felt 
you had to pass, it contained the Independent Payment Advisory Board.
  What does the Independent Payment Advisory Board do? Well, it gets 15 
people, goodness knows who they are, goodness knows who selects them, 
and they are going to deliver to Congress a menu of cuts. We either get 
to vote them up or down. Sure enough, we get to participate in that. 
But if we vote them down, we have got to come forward with an identical 
dollar figure on cuts. And if we are unable to do that, and when has 
that ever happened in this body, if we are unable do that, the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services the following April 15, that is 
tomorrow, gets to implement those cuts anyway.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. BURGESS. Then what happened yesterday? The President, in talking 
about his vision for the budget--by the way, his second vision for the 
budget this year--doubled down on the Independent Payment Advisory 
Board and said it's such a good idea we're going to do even more.
  You know Elias Zerhouni, the former head of the National Institutes 
of Health, talked about a day medicine is going to become much more 
personalized, personalized, predictive, therefore more preventive and 
requiring more participation by patients. Wouldn't it be great, 
following Chairman Ryan's vision, that we personalized Medicare to 
match that personalized medicine that our children and our 
grandchildren are going to enjoy in the future?
  Instead, we are going to end up with more of the same, which is a 
benevolent, albeit benevolent central planner, moving those data points 
around on a spreadsheet. Why not put the power back in the hands of the 
American people? That's what the Ryan budget plan does. We ought to 
support his effort and be grateful for its presence.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Chair, can you tell us how much time we have left 
on both sides?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 6 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chair, one of the great companies in this Nation, and a big 
company in Vermont, is International Business Machines. This year they 
are about to celebrate their 100th anniversary. I was speaking to some 
folks from IBM in my office a few days ago, and they told me the story 
of what happened to them in 1992.
  The world was turning upside down in the tech industry. Companies 
that wanted to survive had to make big decisions. They had 400,000 
employees, and there was some question as to whether they were going to 
make payroll. They had to make changes. They did two things. They 
looked at every single element of their operation. They looked at every 
single line item in their spending. In every single place they could 
make a cut, tough as it was, they did. They made cuts. But they also 
said where do we have to be in 10 years, and what do we have to do to 
get there?
  As nerve-wracking as it was for those folks at IBM, they made 
decisions to invest money in acquisitions, in research and development, 
to meet a plan that required investment, that required spending at a 
time when they were doing every single thing they could to save every 
single nickel.
  Now IBM is stronger than ever, and it's going to celebrate its 100th 
anniversary. This country has to make similar decisions. We have to 
cut. There is not an argument here. I listened to Paul Ryan when he 
gave his

[[Page 6214]]

opening statement, and he said we have to leave this country and its 
fiscal state better off for our kids and grandkids. He is right. There 
is no question about it. That means like companies that look at a 
balance sheet, we have to look every single place we can to save money.
  The criticism about many governmental programs you know is right, we 
know is right. Wherever we can find that waste, fraud, or abuse, let's 
get rid of it. That serves nobody, Republican or Democrat. But on the 
other hand, we have to make investments. There are places we in fact do 
have to spend money. And we have seen that in the history of our 
country. So judgments have to be made.
  My question about the Republican budget is basically the premise in 
the budget. It's not the goal. Mr. Ryan stated that well. He speaks for 
me when he says about that obligation to leave our kids better off. But 
there are two premises in the budget as I see it. One is that lower 
taxes are always better and will lead to growth. Sometimes that's true, 
but not always. We have to have revenues to pay for infrastructure, to 
pay for things like broadband deployment, to pay for the National 
Institute of Science, things that we might argue about where is the 
best priority, but we need revenues to do things like a company needs 
revenues to make investments.
  The second premise is that less spending is always better than more 
investment. Those, as I see it, are the two premises that are in the 
Ryan budget. And those are debatable.
  Now, the other aspect of the budget that in my view, Madam Chair, is 
lacking is what's off the table. It's not what's on the table. I don't 
agree with the Medicare proposal in the Ryan budget. But it's fair to 
put Medicare on the table for debate. We've got to make that more 
affordable.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. WELCH. What is the problem is that the Pentagon is off the table, 
the war in Iraq and Afghanistan are still on the credit card and off 
the table. Whatever our positions are on some of these matters, 
including military, we will all stand up, we have to pay our way.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, I want to speak directly to the senior 
citizens of America and to those who want to become senior citizens. 
The Republican budget destroys, terminates Medicare as we know it 
today. Under the Republican budget, in 10 years Medicare will no longer 
exist as it is today, a guaranteed benefit available to every American 
who turns 65. It will be over. Instead, you will be given a voucher, a 
voucher that will be insufficient to pay for your health insurance, and 
there is no guarantee what that health insurance will be.
  Let me speak also to those who are on Medicare today. The Republican 
budget over the next 10 years removes three-quarters of a trillion 
dollars, $771 billion, from Medicaid. Medicaid provides services to the 
aged, blind, and disabled. Those senior citizens that are in nursing 
homes stand the risk of being thrown out of the nursing homes.
  I want to now speak to those who want to become 65, who want to live 
long enough to get into Medicare. If you are 55 years of age and 
younger, you will not have Medicare if the Republican budget becomes 
law. It is over. It is terminated. It is gone. Instead, you will be 
given a voucher to go talk to the insurance companies. And what will 
you talk about? You will talk about pain, pain, pain.
  They say that there is no tax shift in this. In fact, there is a 
$6,000 tax equivalent to every person 55 and younger. You are going to 
wind up paying an additional $6,000.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Chair, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I would remind our listeners that it was our Democrats who fought the 
prescription drug program that has been so critical for seniors to buy 
their medicine. They slashed half a trillion dollars from Medicare to 
pay for the new ObamaCare plan, and they did nothing to preserve 
Medicaid for our seniors.
  The exaggerations today that are flying through this Chamber really 
are shameful. What the Republicans are intent on doing is preserving 
Medicare for every generation. We are not going to bury our heads in 
the sand.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.
  The Democrats have failed to lead on these important entitlement 
programs. They had their chance. They failed. The Republicans will 
lead, and we will preserve those programs.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Chair, how much time remains?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The circumstance that we are dealing with is to continue the progress 
that we have made. We have provided health care for people through 
Medicare and Medicaid.
  The opposition here in this district wants to eliminate that. They 
want to cut back on Medicare and make it more difficult and more 
expensive.
  We have expanded the opportunity for people to get jobs. They want to 
eliminate that. We have tried to make this whole system more equitable, 
more fair, and more genuine. They are trying to provide more funding 
for the wealthiest people and less for the working people and fewer 
opportunities for the working people.
  For all of those reasons, we oppose this legislation, and we hope 
that most of the population of this district will oppose it as well.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Chair, how many Americans really think this 
country is heading in the right direction? How many Americans, middle 
class Americans, believe that these deficits, trillion-dollar deficits, 
can go on and on as far as the eye can see? Although Americans believe 
that they have better lives and opportunities than their parents, how 
many of them question whether their children will have the same 
opportunities in America today?
  You know, we can't continue to go down this path, and that's what the 
Ryan Republican budget is all about, a new direction for America where 
we no longer hide our heads in the sand and ignore the problems facing 
America.
  Paul Ryan and the Republican budget tell the truth to the American 
public about how serious a problem we face as a Nation. It offers real 
commonsense solutions to address them. It gives them ideas that work, 
solutions that work. It creates economic growth and job creation by 
fostering the right business climate for growth in America.
  It tackles our spending, dangerous spending deficits, by reducing 
those over time, implying and imposing discipline on our Federal 
Government. So they have to live within the same means our families and 
small businesses have to. It provides real security for our seniors and 
Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security.
  More importantly, it offers hope for young people who don't think 
those programs will ever be around again. Paul Ryan and the Republican 
budget offer some hope that they don't have today, and it repeals this 
terrible ObamaCare and gives America hope again.
  I strongly support this budget.
  Mr. COOPER. Madam Chair, I believe that America should solve its 
biggest problems in a bipartisan fashion. It takes Democrats, 
Republicans and Independents working together to find the best 
solutions. This is particularly true of budgets, which determine so 
much of the future of our great Nation. Unfortunately, budget season is 
one of the most partisan times in Congress, despite the fact that the 
public has been demanding that we stop the bickering.
  I have been working hard to offer this House the chance to vote on a 
budget that is

[[Page 6215]]

modeled on the President's Fiscal Commission, known as the Bowles-
Simpson Report. I support this approach to budgeting because it is, so 
far at least, the only serious, bipartisan plan for reducing our 
runaway federal budget deficits. The Bowles-Simpson Commission received 
the support of Commission members as diverse as the liberal Democratic 
Senator Dick Durbin and the conservative Republican Senator Tom Coburn. 
The Commission received such widespread support because it did three 
things:

  Cut the deficit by $4 trillion over the next ten years;
  Shared the sacrifice: put every federal program on the table; and
  Provided a balanced approach: 2/3 spending cuts and 1/3 tax reform.

  While there are many other important features of the Bowles-Simpson 
Report, it is important to understand that budget resolutions never 
include detailed recommendations of any reform plan. Budget resolutions 
only include a broad framework and mandate that the committees of 
jurisdiction figure out ways to achieve the necessary savings and 
reform. That's why the Cooper Substitute makes House committees reduce 
the deficit by as much as Bowles-Simpson recommends, but does not tell 
them exactly how to do it.
  I am proud to have the full support and vote of my Republican 
colleague, the gentleman from Virginia Frank Wolf, who worked with me 
to pass the Cooper-Wolf SAFE Commission Act to form a Fiscal Commission 
last Congress. The SAFE Act became the model for the Bowles-Simpson 
Commission. Frank Wolf has worked harder than any member I know to get 
the leadership of both parties, in both houses, and the White House, to 
take our budget deficit problems seriously and to act promptly in order 
to reduce their burden on future generations. Frank Wolf is a true 
leader, and he is, in my opinion, a genuine American hero on fiscal 
responsibility.
  I appreciate the Rules Committee making the Cooper Substitute in 
order. I hope that this return to more open debates in the House 
becomes the norm so that the best ideas, not just the most partisan 
ideas, can reach the House floor. Chairman Dreier has already taken 
important steps in this regard so that the House can once again work 
its will, regardless of politics or party.
  Madam Chair, I had hoped to offer my Substitute tonight, even though 
the hour is late, not believing that it ever had a ghost of a chance of 
passage, but believing that the votes deserved to be counted on this 
important proposal. The timing is not right, however, for several 
unforeseeable reasons.
  Yesterday, the President made an important speech on the budget that, 
temporarily at least, has inflamed partisan passions on both sides of 
the aisle, making a vote tomorrow less likely to be a reasoned one. I 
think the President should be complimented for moving the debate in a 
positive direction, regardless of the spin that each side has given it. 
For example, if the President had called for $4 trillion of deficit 
reduction as recently as two months ago, he would have been denounced 
by many people. Yesterday, he was more favorably received. I give 
Republicans, particularly my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin and 
Chairman of the Budget Committee Paul Ryan, credit for having moved the 
debate so far. Mr. Ryan, just like the President, has been unfairly 
vilified, which does nothing to reduce the debt burden on future 
generations. Finger-pointing does not solve problems.
  Another crucial development is the sensitive nature of the quiet 
Senate negotiations on deficit reduction, particularly the so-called 
Gang of Six. We all realize that, because the other body is less 
partisan than today's House, a comprehensive solution is more likely to 
originate in that chamber. The fact that Senators ranging from Durbin 
to Coburn have already supported Bowles-Simpson is proof. I do not 
think it is wise to risk doing anything to derail or impair those 
behind-the-scenes negotiations, which I am told by key senators in both 
parties could be the result of a premature House vote.
  The day will come, probably with the necessary debt ceiling increase 
this summer, for a comprehensive, bipartisan solution to our deficit 
problem. For that to happen, the partisan passions of this budget 
debate must burn out. Members must go back home and brag about their 
favorite budget before they get realistic and agree on a spending plan 
that can actually pass the House and Senate and be signed into law by 
the President. Every day we wait to solve these problems costs us 
dearly; by some estimates, as much as $8 billion a day. I wish that 
this cycle of additional politics were not necessary--and I have done 
everything I can to avoid it--but there are no shortcuts in a 
democracy.
  The time spent on the Cooper Substitute has not been wasted. 
Countless members in both parties have learned the contents of the 
Bowles-Simpson Report because they thought they might have to vote for 
a budget that embodies spending cuts of such size and tax reforms of 
such nature that it would actually make a difference. Nothing so 
concentrates the mind as the fear of voting. Numerous members of both 
parties have told me that they intended to support Bowles-Simpson 
either on a stand-alone basis or in addition to supporting another 
budget of their choice. I appreciate the interest and genuine goodwill 
that so many members have shown in asking questions, comparing 
alternatives, and making the tough decisions that are required by 
budgeting. I think that the work that I, and my allies like Frank Wolf, 
have done is important for laying the groundwork for an eventual 
bipartisan budget that will be required, no later than this summer, in 
order to start solving our Nation's deficit problems.
  Madam Chair, this Congress must act very soon indeed to start solving 
our Nation's fiscal problems. I wish today were that day. I voted today 
for $38 billion in cuts to appropriations for the remaining few months 
of this year, but that is only a tiny beginning and only affects 12% of 
our federal budget. Serious reform means getting the House to pass 
something as large, as important, and as bipartisan as Bowles-Simpson-
sized reforms. Bowles-Simpson is not the only solution for our 
problems, but it is the fastest, fairest, and most feasible solution 
that we know of today. As soon as this House is able to consider it 
calmly and sensibly, the House must do so.


                        COOPER BUDGET SUBSTITUTE

       The Cooper Budget Substitute takes the benchmarks set by 
     the President's bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal 
     Responsibility and Reform and puts them into a budget 
     resolution framework. It would reduce the deficit by $4 
     trillion over the next 10 years with 2/3 spending cuts and 1/
     3 tax reform. The Commission proposed a series of specific 
     recommendations for achieving these benchmarks, but these are 
     not included in the Cooper Substitute. Instead, like all 
     budgets, this resolution provides a blueprint for committees 
     of jurisdiction to determine how spending cuts of this size 
     should be made.
       The Cooper Substitute embodies the only bipartisan approach 
     for getting America back on track. The U.S. federal budget is 
     on an unsustainable path. For years, members have talked 
     about fiscal responsibility. It's time for those who claim to 
     be fiscally responsible to walk the walk, not just talk the 
     talk.


                                OVERVIEW

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              2021 Deficit  2021 Debt as
                                                as % GDP        % GDP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan........................................        -1.6%         67.5%
Cooper......................................        -1.6%         69.4%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Details of the Cooper Budget Substitute are as follows:
     Shared sacrifice: everything is on the table
     Big enough to matter: Cuts the deficit by over $4 trillion 
         over the next 10 years
     Balanced approach: Achieves deficit reduction with 2/3 
         spending cuts, 1/3 tax reform
     Fast enough to matter: Reaches primary balance in 2015
     Reduces the size of government: Returns to 2008 spending 
         levels by 2013
     Caps revenue at 21% of GDP; gets spending below 22% and on a 
         path to 21% of GDP
     Bipartisan cooperation to ensure 75-year solvency of Social 
         Security
       Tax reform:
       Reduces tax rates for individuals, small businesses, and 
         corporations
       Reduces the $1.1 trillion in annual tax expenditures and 
         tax give-aways

  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Republican's ``Road to Ruin'' Budget Resolution for a variety of 
reasons, including because it will destroy hundreds of thousands of 
American transportation jobs--jobs lost in every state--and will 
severely jeopardize our Nation's economic competitiveness.
  This Budget slashes investments in our people--from ending Medicare 
as we know it to destroying the family-wage jobs of highway 
construction--all the while, providing a double-digit percentage tax 
break for millionaires that most of them will not even notice. It makes 
Big Oil smile from ear to ear knowing that they can exploit $40 billion 
in tax loopholes, yet the Budget completely neglects millions of 
American potholes.
  As the Ranking Member on the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, and given that Congress faces major surface 
transportation reauthorization legislation this year, let me focus for 
a moment on what this Budget does to highway and transit infrastructure 
investment.
  Consider this for a moment. Today, China spends nine percent of its 
GDP per year on infrastructure. India spends five percent of its GDP 
per year on infrastructure. Yet, the

[[Page 6216]]

United States of America only spends 1.9 percent of its GDP per year on 
infrastructure. Woefully inadequate as it stands.
  Yet, the Republican Budget cuts highway, highway safety, and transit 
investment by about one-third: one-third less bridge repair, one-third 
less safety improvement, and one-third less bus service is where this 
Budget leads us--destroying family-wage highway and transit 
construction jobs all along the way. And placing us in an even less 
competitive position than we already are against countries like China 
and India. Incredible. Simply incredible.
  Over the next six years, the current budget baseline investment level 
for highway, highway safety, and public transit investments is $331 
billion, including $316 billion of contract authority from the Highway 
Trust Fund and $15 billion from the General Fund.
  Based on the assumptions included in the Republican Budget, the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Republican 
Budget provides only $219 billion of Highway Trust Fund funding over 
the next six years. In effect, the Republican Budget slashes surface 
transportation investment by more than $100 billion over the next six 
years.
  Let me repeat that, because I want my colleagues to be very aware of 
what this budget proposes to do in this area. Today is the 100th day 
that the Republicans have been in control of the House and today they 
are proposing to cut more than $100 billion from investments in 
America's future. Investments that keep our economy moving and help to 
ensure that America remains a good place to do business. One hundred 
days in control of the House and they want to slash $100 billion from 
transportation investments. They haven't brought a single jobs bill to 
the Floor of this House, and yet, today, to mark their 100th day 
anniversary, here we are debating a Budget that will destroy half a 
million highway jobs. Amazing.
  According to a CBO analysis of the Republican Budget assumptions, 
this Budget will slash current year highway funding from $41.1 billion 
to approximately $27 billion in fiscal year 2012. A 34 percent cut in 
year one of the reauthorization bill will destroy more than 490,000 
jobs over the coming years. West Virginia cannot afford a $143 million 
cut in highway investment next year. This investment and its 5,000 
good-paying jobs are critical to our mountain economy and ensuring that 
rural America shares in the great opportunities provided by our 
country. Put simply, middle class Americans cannot afford the 
Republican ``Road to Ruin'' budget.
  Finally, the Republican Budget destroys any pretext that Republicans 
will restore the highway and transit budget firewalls that they wiped 
away on the first day of their new majority in the 112th Congress. When 
Congress enacted those firewalls in 1998 to restore the trust to the 
Highway Trust Fund and keep faith with the traveling public, I stood 
shoulder-to-shoulder with former Republican Committee Chairman Bud 
Shuster. We lost that battle on the Budget at 3:00 a.m. in May 1997, 
but, one year later, won the war with enactment of the Transportation 
Equity Act for the 21st Century establishing the budget firewalls, 
which have served the traveling public for the past 14 years. As their 
very first act in the majority, Republicans broke the ``trust'' of the 
Highway Trust Fund.
  There was a time when Republicans were proud of their heritage in 
leading the way on infrastructure investment. They were the party of 
Lincoln and Eisenhower.
  To my good friends across the aisle, do not let infrastructure 
investment become a mere footnote in the legacy of your party.
  Join with me and let us rebuild America.
  Let us provide the building blocks to ensure that every community and 
all of our people have an opportunity to succeed.
  I urge my colleagues to join with me and defeat H. Con. Res. 34, the 
Republican Budget Resolution.

               REPUBLICAN BUDGET RESOLUTION STASHES FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT
                      [FY 2012 Highway Cuts Destroy More than 490,000 Jobs, April 15, 2011]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Jobs Lost
                                                                                                       under
                                      FY 2011  Estimated        FY 2012       FY 2011  Estimated    Republican
                State                    (P.L. 112-5 &     Republican Budget     & Republican         Budget
                                          H.R. 1473)        Res.  (H. Con.        Budget Res.       Resolution
                                                               Res. 34)           Difference       (FY 2012 Cuts
                                                                                                       Only)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.............................        $723,817,235         462,250,406           -,566,829          -9,097
Alaska..............................         428,269,900         285,374,201        -142,895,699          -4,970
Arizona.............................         693,234,143         447,806,436        -245,427,707          -8,536
Arkansas............................         482,477,889         308,255,243        -174,222,646          -6,059
California..........................       3,431,126,457       2,171,036,650      -1,260,089,807         -43,825
Colorado............................         510,719,211         322,886,021        -187,833,190          -6,533
Connecticut.........................         471,433,185         301,400,538        -170,032,647          -5,914
Delaware............................         158,128,144          99 887,076         -58,241,068          -2,026
District of Columbia................         153,577,571          95,065,701         -58,511,870          -2,035
Florida.............................       1,789,644,393       1,165,594,138        -624,050,255         -21,704
Georgia.............................       1,220,785,141         791,842,153        -428,942,988         -14,918
Hawaii..............................         162,407,438         101,173,351         -61,234,087          -2,130
Idaho...............................         271,135,551         174,914,534         -96,221,017          -3,346
Illinois............................       1,351,823,020         863,482,496        -488,340,524         -16,984
Indiana.............................         901,039,828         585,100,712        -315,939,116         -10,988
Iowa................................         457,309,004         287,486,787        -169,822,217          -5,906
Kansas..............................         363,077,071         225,819,716        -137,257,355          -4,774
Kentucky............................         632,175,735         404,926,310        -227,249,425          -7,904
Louisiana...........................         647,903,984         410,682,482        -237,221,502          -8,250
Maine...............................         178,205,952         109,980,962         -68,224,990          -2,373
Maryland............................         573,449,606         361,042,525        -212,407,081          -7,387
Massachusetts.......................         583,187,497         363,290,346        -219,897,151          -7,648
Michigan............................       1,003,912,719         637,456,986        -366,455,733         -12,745
Minnesota...........................         600,731,686         382,954,688        -217,776,998          -7,574
Mississippi.........................         452,174,362         286,047,250        -166,127,112          -5,778
Missouri............................         858,241,416         549,923,220        -308,318,196         -10,723
Montana.............................         364,842,726         236,468,527        -128,374,199          -4,465
Nebraska............................         276,860,675         173,666,205        -103,194,470          -3,589
Nevada..............................         345,191,710         221,019,688        -124,172,022          -4,319
New Hampshire.......................         157,856,187          99,692,079         -58,164,108          -2,023
New Jersey..........................         945,386,072         603,896,272        -341,489,800         -11,877
New Mexico..........................         341,222,251         217,735,976        -123,486,275          -4,295
New York............................       1,606,218,296       1,010,339,801        -595,878,495         -20,724
North Carolina......................         987,134,805         634,033,049        -353,101,756         -12,281
North Dakota........................         237,776,846         149,197,373         -88,579,473          -3,081
Ohio................................       1,250,956,575         800,549,144        -450,407,431         -15,665
Oklahoma............................         605,192,291         383,540,118        -221,652,173          -7,709
Oregon..............................         468,329,024         294,096,576        -174,232,448          -6,060
Pennsylvania........................       1,568,798,108         991,784,840        -577,013,268         -20,068
Rhode Island........................         207,603,230         128,123,683         -79,479,547          -2,764
South Carolina......................         595,668,018         383,573,586        -212,094,432          -7,376
South Dakota........................         262,505,740         167,067,361         -95,438,379          -3,319
Tennessee...........................         785,406,105         504,632,610        -280,773,495          -9,765
Texas...............................       2,987,661,091       1,933,957,611      -1,053,703,480         -36,647
Utah................................         307,014,758         195,286,348        -111,728,410          -3,886
Vermont.............................         191,887,512         118,612,958         -73,274,554          -2,548
Virginia............................         948,805,255         608,667,388        -340,137,867         -11,830
Washington..........................         634,850,084         395,948,876        -238,901,208          -8,309
West Virginia.......................         407,534,178         264,177,667        -143,356,511          -4,986
Wisconsin...........................         686,452,037         445,591,025        -240,861,012          -8,377
Wyoming.............................         232,719,377         147,196,966         -85,522,411          -2,974
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Lands and Other Allocated         $4,603,138,911      $3,695,463,345       -$907,675,566         -31,568
 Programs...........................
                                     ===========================================================================

[[Page 6217]]

 
    Total...........................      $41,107,000,00     $27,000,000,000     -14,107,000,000        -490,627
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table was prepared by Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Democratic Staff based on
  technical assistance from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The FY 2011 Estimated column represents
  the state-by-state distribution of the Federal-aid Highway obligation limitation assuming enactment of H.R.
  1473. Based on the Highway Trust Fund parameters included in H. Con. Res. 34, the Congressional Budget Office
  estimates that the FY 2012 Federal-aid Highway obligation limitation would be $27 billion. The FY 2012
  Republican Budget Resolution column reflects the state-by-state distribution of these funds under current FHWA
  apportionment factors. The Jobs Lost column is based on the 2007 FHWA model on the correlation between highway
  infrastructure investment and employment: $1 billion of Federal-aid Highway investment creates or sustains
  34,779 jobs over a seven-year period.

  Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Chair, the Republican budget for FY 2012 
continues the reckless Republican fiscal policy. It takes a slash and 
burn approach to the budget, rather than going line by line to see 
where we can afford to cut and where we cannot. This is a budget that 
favors Big Oil over the middle class, asks for sacrifice from seniors 
who can barely make ends meet, and fundamentally alters the social 
contract in our America.
  The budget would open an enormous hole in our country's social safety 
net by turning Medicare into a voucher program. These fixed-value 
vouchers do not account for the yearly increases in health care costs 
and will increase seniors' annual out-of-pocket expenses by nearly 
$7,000. Their budget would decimate our primary assistance to the poor 
by turning Medicaid into a block grant. This is the Republican vision: 
to balance the budget on the backs of the seniors and the poor.
  Madam Chair, Democrats have a better way. We understand that our 
current economic situation calls for a balanced approach that protects 
our fragile recovery. Our plan would take on our deficits in a 
responsible way, while continuing to invest in the things that make our 
country strong: education, health care, innovation, and clean energy. 
Democrats will balance the budget without reneging on the bedrock 
promise of Social Security and Medicare.
  Madam Chair, this Republican budget moves us backwards. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in voting against it and taking a more sensible 
approach.
  Mr. CARNAHAN. Madam Chair, my Republican colleagues have introduced a 
bill to end Medicare as we know it in order to pay for tax giveaways to 
millionaires and profitable companies.
  Listening to the President's speech yesterday, and to my colleagues 
on the floor today, I'm convinced that this debate is about no less 
than the values we hold as Americans. As the President said, the 
Republican budget is less about reducing the deficit than it is about 
changing the basic social compact in America.
  Do we want to live in an America where opportunity is snatched away 
from young people who want an education, or one where any student who 
works hard enough can find a way to succeed?
  Do we want to live in an America where our seniors can retire with 
dignity after a lifetime of hard work, or one where the elderly must 
ask their children for the spare room they might not even have to give?
  Much of what the President has proposed has yet to be fleshed out in 
detail, and I hope we can come together to develop a serious budget 
plan.
  But for now, let us debate the values underpinning this discussion--
the fundamental choice between a vision that offers extreme ideology, 
out-of-touch with the everyday struggles and hopes of American 
families, versus one that offers a path to future competitiveness in 
the global economy, and a renewed opportunity to achieve the American 
Dream.
  I know which one I'll choose.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I would like to draw your attention to a 
letter from Secretary Sebelius on the impact of H. Con. Res. 34.

                                           The Secretary of Health


                                           and Human Services,

                                   Washington, DC, April 14, 2011.
     Hon. Henry A. Waxman,
     Ranking Member, House Energy and Commerce Committee, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Ranking Member Waxman: We received your letter today 
     requesting our assessment of the impact of the enactment of 
     House Concurrent Resolution 35 (H. Con. Res. 35) on Medicare, 
     Medicaid, and the other affected health programs at the 
     Department of Health and Human Services. We have not yet had 
     an opportunity to fully evaluate the extensive impact that 
     the language of the resolution would have, but offer a few 
     initial observations.
       As you know, the Affordable Care Act modifies and improves 
     almost every Medicare payment system--including the inpatient 
     hospital prospective payment system, the outpatient hospital 
     prospective payment system, the physician fee schedule, 
     Medicare Advantage plan payments, and prescription drug plan 
     payments. If this resolution were enacted, the Centers for 
     Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) would not be able to use 
     any funds to carry out these payment provisions based on any 
     rate calculated on the basis of provisions of the Affordable 
     Care Act--which is to say virtually all rates.
       In a system in which millions of claims are paid each week, 
     millions of claims would accumulate, which CMS and its 
     contractors would be prohibited from paying. As a result, 
     providers and suppliers of services to Medicare 
     beneficiaries--many of which are small businesses--would 
     experience significant disruption.
       H. Con. Res. 35 would adversely affect health care in rural 
     areas as well. As an example, as a means to encourage 
     physicians to provide services in rural areas, the Affordable 
     Care Act established a new 10 percent bonus payment for 
     primary care services furnished by primary care practitioners 
     and for major surgical procedures furnished by general 
     surgeons in shortage areas. Without available funding, CMS 
     would no longer be able to provide the bonus to primary care 
     and general surgery physicians for eligible services.
       The Affordable Care Act also gives CMS new tools to fight 
     fraud and helps us move from a pay-and-chase system to a 
     comprehensive prevention-focused strategy. By precluding the 
     use of funds for such efforts, H. Con. Res. 35 would 
     substantially impede CMS's proven and successful efforts to 
     reduce fraud and waste in the health care system resulting in 
     increased erroneous payments. H. Con. Res. 35 would 
     effectively require CMS to cease enforcing new screening and 
     enrollment standards, diminish CMS's ability to suspend 
     payments when credible allegations of fraud are uncovered, 
     and reduce resources that have been made available for 
     investments in anti-fraud work.
       The Affordable Care Act also includes numerous other 
     policies to make health care more affordable, accessible, and 
     accountable for seniors, individuals with disabilities, 
     children, and all other Americans, as well as businesses 
     large and small. Its improvements are already woven into the 
     fabric of our health care system. A broad prohibition on the 
     use of funds would halt, among other things, the operation of 
     the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program, the Pre-existing 
     Condition Insurance Plan, and the health insurance rate 
     review, consumer assistance, and health insurance Exchange 
     grant programs.
       I hope this information is helpful. We would be pleased to 
     answer any additional questions you may have. I have sent an 
     identical letter to Ranking Member Levin.
           Sincerely,
                                                Kathleen Sebelius.

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chair, there is no doubt in the mind of 
anyone in this Chamber that America is the greatest country the world 
has ever known. America has the most innovative people and continues to 
be a lure to others seeking greater opportunities and a better and 
brighter life in the largest and most spectacular economy in the world.
  I'm sure many of us know the story of something else that was 
considered to be the largest and most spectacular thing the world has 
ever seen. It was considered to be UNSINKABLE. While there has been a 
lot of talk about America's ``Sputnik moment,'' I think we should be as 
focused on the possibility of facing America's TITANIC moment, today 
being the 99th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic.
  It may be a coincidence that we are debating America's future on this 
anniversary However, we must keep this disaster in mind as we debate 
America's fiscal future, Mr. Chair, because unsinkable ships do sink! 
If we do not pass Chairman Ryan's budget then America will continue 
down a path that will sink the most vibrant economy that has served as 
a beacon for people looking for a brighter future.
  Mr. WOLF. Madam Chair, as we debate the House budget resolution 
today, I ask my colleagues: are you here to make a point, or are you 
here to make a difference?
  We have reached a tipping point in our country's financial future. 
Our nation is pushed to the edge of a fiscal cliff. We are over $14 
trillion in debt. CBO projects that the President's budget request will 
cause net interest payments to skyrocket over the next 10 years--from 
$260 billion in 2012 to $931 billion in 2021. If we continue on our 
current path, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest 
payments to service the debt will consume all government revenues 
within 14

[[Page 6218]]

years. We're borrowing 41 cents on every dollar. And we're borrowing 
from nations such as China and Saudi Arabia that do not share our 
values or national priorities. Moody's has warned that our coveted AAA 
bond rating could be at risk in as little as a year. We've seen what a 
downgrade can do to foreign economies, and we must not let that happen 
here.
  Seeing the signs about our nation's financial future, I introduced 
legislation almost five years ago--during the last Republican House 
majority--to create an independent bipartisan commission to address 
unsustainable federal spending, putting everything on the table for 
discussion--entitlements, all other spending programs and tax policy--
and like the Department of Defense's Base Realignment and Closure 
Commission process, Congress would be required to vote up or down on 
the commission's recommendations. An iteration of this legislation 
became the blueprint for President's National Commission on Fiscal 
Responsibility and Reform, or the Bowles-Simpson Commission.
  The President appointed the Bowles-Simpson Commission. He established 
their working parameters in a manner that, quite frankly, I believed 
was designed to doom it to failure. Despite this, the report released 
last December by the commission was supported by a bipartisan majority 
of the commission's 18 members. It makes clear that addressing the debt 
and the deficit isn't just a simple exercise in rooting out waste, 
fraud and abuse, eliminating earmarks, and reining in discretionary 
spending. Those, to be sure, are important reforms, but alone don't 
come close to solving the debt and the deficit crisis. Reform must 
begin with entitlements and other mandatory spending and must also 
include all other sacred cows, including tax reform and defense 
spending.
  Until two days ago, the President barely acknowledged the work of his 
commission. He didn't help them assemble the necessary 14 votes to send 
their recommendations to Congress. Then, he walked away from his 
commission's recommendations, first by not expressing any views on 
their report, then silence during the State of the Union, and again 
silence in his FY 2012 budget request. On Wednesday, the President 
finally started to recognize the seriousness of this problem. His 
leadership is needed. But I was disappointed that he failed to offer 
specific solutions, and seemed more interested in staking out political 
positions than finding common ground. I hope his call for negotiations 
across the aisle to develop a legislative framework are successful, but 
this seems like yet another instance where the President is 
sidestepping the recommendations of his own fiscal commission.
  I believe that the Bowles-Simpson proposal offers the way forward for 
the most comprehensive and realistic solution to our nation's fiscal 
problems. I have repeatedly said that, while there are some changes I 
would make in the plan, if a version of the Bowles-Simpson plan were 
given a vote on the House floor, I would vote for it. But we don't have 
that choice in the House.
  My friend Jim Cooper, whom I have partnered with over the past four 
years to offer a bipartisan way forward to address the nation's 
financial crisis, initially planned to offer the principals of the 
Bowles-Simpson proposal as a substitute amendment to be considered 
today. Recognizing that the President's recent speech has inflamed 
partisan passions, he withdrew the amendment so as not to undercut 
efforts underway in the Senate by the so-called Gang of Six. Had the 
Cooper substitute been offered, I would have voted for it, even though 
I did not agree with every part of it, such as the reconciliation 
instructions Mr. Cooper had for the committee of jurisdiction over the 
federal workforce. I would have voted yes to indicate my continued 
support for the principals of the Bowles-Simpson commission. Mr. Cooper 
has engaged in the kind of bipartisan cooperation that we must have, 
the kind of forthright, realistic conversation about our nation's 
fiscal future in which we must engage across the aisle, across the 
Capitol and down Pennsylvania Avenue if we are to have any hope of 
coming up with a credible plan to protect the future of our children 
and grandchildren.
  I see the Ryan proposal as an honest attempt to provide a blueprint 
to continue the conversation on our country's financial future and move 
forward so that a conference with the Senate can produce a budget plan 
that ensures our national security and protects the programs on which 
so many Americans rely. The Ryan bill may not pass the Senate, but I 
commend the chairman of the House Budget Committee for his courage in 
putting forth a bold proposal to address our nation's skyrocketing and 
unfunded financial obligations. While his focus is not the ``everything 
on the table'' approach I prefer, I believe Mr. Ryan could provide an 
opening to force both chambers and the President to deal with 
entitlement spending that is consuming the federal budget. He deserves 
credit for taking on an issue so many in Congress would rather continue 
to kick down the road.
  It's easy to stand in the well of the House and criticize any 
legislation. As I look at Chairman Ryan's measure, I don't agree with 
every provision. I believe there are some critical issues that are 
missing and things that must be changed, and there are several things 
that I do not support and will not support if authorizing legislation 
is offered to implement his budget blueprint.
  As I have stated, I believe everything must be on the table for 
discussion, starting with all entitlement spending, discretionary 
program spending, and tax policy. But we have reached the moment of 
truth for the kind of country we will leave to our children and 
grandchildren. Therefore, I will vote for the Ryan budget so that we 
can continue to move this process forward and continue the discussion.
  This proposal would put our nation on course to reduce all of the 
publicly held debt by 2060, a feat not reached since Andrew Jackson's 
presidency. Relative to the President's proposal, it cuts $6.2 
trillion. Under this plan, within four years, we would reach primary 
balance on our debt, which the President's proposal never attains.
  Reaching primary balance, which is when revenue is greater than 
spending less interest payments, is an important milestone that reduces 
a grave national security threat. This budget blueprint calls for 
significant reductions in discretionary spending, for reduced tax 
rates, and for repeal of the health care reform law. Significantly, Mr. 
Ryan's plan says we can no longer ignore the trillions of dollars in 
unfunded liabilities that consume our budget. There may be disagreement 
on the significant changes in Medicare and Medicaid entitlement 
programs that he proposes, and while his plan is silent on changes 
needed to reform Social Security entitlements, it does recognize that 
need. Mr. Ryan has pulled the curtain back on the mandatory spending 
elephant in the room that we can no longer ignore.
  As I have stated, I will vote for the Ryan budget so that we can move 
forward to fulfill our responsibility to come up with a budget for this 
fiscal year. We must avoid the recent fiasco we endured which brought 
us to the brink of a government shutdown because of the failure by the 
majority in the last Congress to produce a budget.
  That being said, I believe the Ryan budget comes up short in a number 
of areas. I will mention just a few.
  First, it misses an opportunity by not fully addressing the Social 
Security program's growing deficit. For the first time this year, with 
the Baby Boom generation starting to retire, more is being paid out in 
benefits than is coming in. I always ask students whether or not they 
expect to receive Social Security benefits upon retirement. Three years 
ago, one or two students would answer in the affirmative. Now, no one 
does. In calling for Social Security to be on the table, my sole 
motivation is to protect all those in or near retirement and to ensure 
that the Social Security program remains strong for future generations. 
The Ryan budget is lacking here.
  Second, the Ryan plan, I believe, unfairly targets the federal 
workforce. I believe that federal employees know that spending must be 
reduced to ensure that our country's financial future remains strong, 
and I believe that public servants would be the first in line to make 
the sacrifices needed. But the massive budget situation we face, I 
believe, calls for shared sacrifice that does not single out any one 
area of the federal budget.
  I regret that the Ryan proposal seeks to make government service an 
unattractive career choice by freezing pay levels, which the President 
has already frozen for two years, for an additional three years; by 
imposing drastic hiring restrictions, and by changing retirement plans. 
Unlike their counterparts in state government, federal employees pay 
Social Security taxes and contribute to their pensions. The Civil 
Service Retirement and Disability Fund is not facing insolvency.
  Federal employees are on the front lines working to ensure that our 
government is running as efficiently and effectively as possible to 
provide the services taxpayers expect. We must be careful in budget 
plans that we first do no harm in our vital efforts to attract, recruit 
and retain the best and brightest for public service. Day in and day 
out, federal employees make our nation a safer and better place.
  The FBI agent working to find a kidnapped child, the DEA agent 
keeping drugs out of schools, the DOJ attorney prosecuting a child 
molester, other law enforcement and intelligence agents risking their 
lives every day on

[[Page 6219]]

the front lines side by side with our armed forces in Iraq, 
Afghanistan, and other fronts in the Global War on Terror--all are 
federal employees. The first American killed in Afghanistan, Mike 
Spann, was a CIA agent and a constituent from my congressional 
district. Imagine how a CIA employee or an FBI agent working side by 
side in Afghanistan with the U.S. military would feel knowing that his 
or her pay would be frozen for five years. A year ago January, I 
attended funerals for some of the seven CIA agents who were killed by a 
Taliban suicide bomber at Forward Operative Base Chapman near the 
Afghanistan-Pakistan border. The Washington Post has reported on ``the 
post 9/11 brain drain at the CIA.''
  The Border Patrol agent shot and killed in Arizona this past December 
who was working to stop the flow of illegal immigrants across our 
southern border, the Immigration and Custom Enforcement agent who was 
killed and the two who were shot this past February outside of Mexico 
City, doctors who tend to our veterans and wounded warriors in veterans 
hospitals and who are developing new prosthetic devices to help them 
recover, medical researchers at NIH working to develop cures for 
cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, and autism--all are dedicated federal 
employees who I'm sure could find more lucrative jobs in the private 
sector, but who are committed to public service. Dr. Francis Collins, 
the physician who mapped the human genome and serves as director of the 
National Institutes of Health, is a federal employee. The National 
Weather Service meteorologist who tracks hurricanes, the SBA staffer 
who helps a new business start up, the FDA inspector working to stop a 
salmonella outbreak--all are federal employees. As we consider ways to 
find budget savings, it is important to remember the jobs federal 
employees perform.
  The third area in which I believe the Ryan budget could be improved 
is providing for the needs of the most vulnerable in our society. As 
the Congress deals with the budget, we must always do it in a way that 
does not neglect the needs of the poor. Scripture (Proverbs 19:17) 
tells us, ``He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord.'' And in the 
New Testament Jesus talks a lot about the poor. In Matthew 25 he says 
that if we ignore the poor and hungry it is the same as ignoring him.
  Are we giving false hope to the neediest of our society by refusing 
to acknowledge that society's safety nets have such gaping holes in 
their finances that they will collapse within 20 years? We must 
carefully consider proposals that impact the most vulnerable. The 
budget before us assumes that program cuts can be absorbed by 
projecting that unemployment levels will drop to an unheard of 2.8 
percent in 10 years. This would be the lowest levels since 1953. I 
believe this is unrealistic when considering the unemployment rate has 
historically been 5 percent.
  The fourth area of concern with the Ryan budget is its lack of a 
reform plan to make the tax code fairer and simpler. This budget takes 
some steps forward, but it could be improved by forcefully calling for 
a closer examination of tax expenditures, as was detailed by the 
Bowles-Simpson Commission.
  Our colleagues across the Capitol may have the comprehensive Bowles-
Simpson plan as a budget choice, and I applaud the efforts of six 
senators who are working across the aisle to translate this proposal 
into legislative text. I wholeheartedly support the work of Saxby 
Chambliss, Republican of Georgia; Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia; 
Mike Crapo, Republican of Idaho; Richard Durbin, Democrat of Illinois; 
Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, and Kent Conrad, Democrat of North 
Dakota.
  It is disappointing that some have attacked these senators for daring 
to engage in a discussion putting everything on the table. Regretfully, 
this seems to be a tried and true technique whenever an attempt to 
reform the tax code is made.
  Senator Tom Coburn is an honest, ethical, decent, member of Congress 
with whom I served when he was in the House. One of our nation's 
leading conservative budget hawks, who may have as good, if not a 
better record than most members of the House and Senate on tax policy, 
he is currently leading an effort to eliminate one of the more 
recognizable tax expenditures, the credit given to the producers of 
ethanol. This is a tax credit that many, such as the editorial board of 
the Wall Street Journal, think should be eliminated. Ethanol, through 
tax credits, tariffs, and friendly regulations, is one of the most 
subsidized industries in the United States. The government has created 
a perverse policy in which farmers are incentivized to grow corn to 
produce a ``dirty fuel.'' Food prices rise because this domestic crop 
does not enter our food supply.
  Yet Americans for Tax Reform, led by Grover Norquist, has been 
engaging in bullying tactics designed to stop Senator Coburn's effort 
and exert undue influence on this process. This is the same Grover 
Norquist who, according to Senate Report 109-325, ``Gimmie Five--An 
Investigation of Tribal Lobbying Matters, allowed disgraced and 
convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff to use ATR as a conduit to finance 
grassroots lobbying campaigns. When this occurred, ATR kept a cut for 
itself. Watch the documentary Casino Jack It's all there.
  We will never be able to reform the tax code if any attempt to 
eliminate a tax expenditure--spending through the tax code--is equated 
to a tax increase. Senator Coburn has called out ATR and Mr. Norquist, 
pointing out that by this logic, ``reducing provisions in the code such 
as the Earned Income Tax Credit would constitute a violation of your 
pledge [to oppose tax increases] unless it was `offset' by another so-
called `tax cut,' such as an expansion of the ethanol subsidy. That is 
hardly sound conservative economics.''
  On March 24, the New York Times reported that General Electric, which 
posted a profit of $14.2 billion, of which $5.1 billion came from 
operations within the United States, did not pay any taxes to the 
federal government. Not only did they owe nothing to the federal 
government, they claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion. Many provisions 
used by their accountants were initially designed as short-term tax 
breaks to spur economic growth. But as frequently happens, such as with 
the ethanol subsidy, once a tax cut is enacted, it is nearly impossible 
to eliminate. If this is not an example of the need to fully reexamine 
our tax code, I don't know what is. That's why everything in our budget 
discussion must be on the table.
  There is never a convenient time to make hard decisions, but the 
longer we put off fixing the problem, the worse the medicine will be 
and greater the number of Americans will be hurt.
  America is living on borrowed dollars and borrowed time. As a nation 
we are moving closer and closer to the edge of the financial cliff. A 
few steps forward and we will start a free fall into a canyon of debt 
which could be the economic death of America as we know it.
  Is that what we want for our children and grandchildren?
  Have we lost the national will to make tough decisions that may 
require sacrifice?
  Have we lost the political courage to reject the partisan and special 
interest demands and do what is right for our country?
  This is an American issue; not a Republican issue or a Democrat 
issue. I will continue to work to try to achieve balance in our budget 
plan. Our goal must be a bipartisan document that can pass the House 
and the Senate. Is the Ryan plan perfect? No. But it at least 
recognizes the road that we must take. How we get there is the 
conversation we must continue to have because the financial future for 
our children and grandchildren is at stake.
  I urge my colleagues to heed the wisdom of the father of our country 
at his farewell address in 1796. President George Washington admonished 
his fellow countrymen: ``We should avoid ungenerously throwing upon 
posterity the burden of which we ourselves ought to bear.''
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Chair, Congressman Paul Ryan's budget 
goes beyond what is necessary to restore fiscal solvency. It unfairly 
targets our nation's low income communities and senior citizens, while 
protecting the interests of the wealthiest Americans.
  My colleague's budget, which has been embraced by his party returns 
to the ``trickle down'' economics that contributed to the recent 
recession by cutting the tax rate for the wealthiest individuals and 
corporations from 35 to 25%.
  This ten percent decrease represents $800 billion dollars in new tax 
cuts for the wealthiest among us at a time when so many are struggling. 
The $800 billion in tax cuts represents $115 billion dollars cut from 
healthcare, $119 billion from income security, $223 billion from 
education, job training and social services, and $276 billion dollars 
in cuts to transportation initiatives that provide jobs.
  There is absolutely no justification for these huge tax cuts. The 
wealthiest tax brackets should not profit at the expense of programs 
keeping struggling families from poverty.
  The Economic Policy Institute states that ``A study just released by 
the Heritage Center for Data Analysis projects that The Path to 
Prosperity [Republican Budget Plan] will help create nearly one million 
new private-sector jobs next year, bring the unemployment rate down to 
4% by 2015, and result in 2.5 million additional private-sector jobs in 
the last year of the decade.'' This is an overwhelmingly presumptuous 
estimation.
  Unemployment fell to 4% for only one relatively brief episode in 
recent memory, and that was after nearly a decade of strong economic 
growth. So the Heritage Center's claim is very bold.

[[Page 6220]]

  The Congressional Budget Office predicts that the unemployment rate 
will be 5.9% in 2015. The Heritage Center's forecasts for the Ryan plan 
are even bolder in the out years: It predicts unemployment will fall to 
an unprecedented 2.8% by 2021. Simply put, this is incredible and 
wholly unrealistic.
  The Economic Policy Institute calls ``the Ryan budget a job killer,'' 
and goes on to say, ``The chances that this plan would drive the U.S. 
economy to 2.8% unemployment are near zero, but the chances of it 
repeating the mistakes of the Bush tax cuts and driving the economy 
into a ditch are very real.''
  The Republican's 2012 budget cuts $2 trillion dollars more than 
President Obama's Debt Commission advised, and those cuts come from 
vital social services and safety nets for low income families, children 
and seniors.
  Since 1965, Americans have relied on the Federal government to 
provide healthcare security. The changes and cuts to Medicare proposed 
in this budget deeply threaten the security of our senior citizens. The 
proposed repeal of guaranteed eligibility means that Americans who are 
54 years old today will not be guaranteed to receive Medicare when they 
turn 65.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that these changes to 
Medicare will triple the cost for new beneficiaries by 2030 and 
increase costs for current recipients, including the 2.9 million people 
in Texas who received Medicare in 2010.
  The Republican proposal will enact damaging changes to Medicaid, 
threatening healthcare resources for the 60 million people, half of 
them children that rely on this program to stay healthy. A block grant 
for funding or a cap on federal Medicaid spending would increase the 
cost for states and the low income families who benefit from the 
program.
  Harris County has one of the highest Medicaid enrollment records in 
Texas. Limits and cuts to Medicaid funds would significantly hurt the 
citizens of Texas's 18th District. Harris County averages between 
500,000 and 600,000 Medicaid recipients monthly, thousands of people 
who may not have access to healthcare under this budget.
  Changes to Medicaid advocated by Republicans would be devastating to 
senior citizens who rely on the Medicaid safety net for long term care 
and nursing home costs not covered by Medicare. The AARP estimates 
cutting this safety net would put 54,000 Texas nursing home residents 
in jeopardy.
  The Majority party's budget cuts do not just impact those who rely on 
Medicaid and Medicare; they also prevent 32 million Americans from 
obtaining health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. By inserting 
a repeal of this historic legislation into a budget, Republicans 
threaten millions seeking insurance, including the 6.2 million Texans 
who do not have health care coverage.
  Underserved and low income Americans will see deep cuts to the 
programs that keep them safe and healthy, like the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which provides food assistance to 
44.3 million people, would be transferred to a block grant under the 
Republican plan. Shifting the cost to the states would force them to 
cut benefits to current recipients or create a waiting list of families 
that can't afford food on their own. This would certainly harm the 
554,000 people in Harris County receiving SNAP benefits in December of 
2010.
  This legislation would cut Federal housing aid, and impose unfair 
work or job training requirements that give no consideration to job 
market diversity or extenuating circumstances. It will also deeply 
reduce the LIHEAP contingency fund will affect the 500,000 low income 
households in Houston that were receiving heating and energy discounts 
last year.
  Republicans may be willing to pass a budget that reduces Pell Grants 
by 60%. They may be comfortable eliminating $75 million dollars to 
provide housing and other services to homeless veterans, but I cannot 
support a budget that leaves so many Americans behind.
  In order to move America forward, we must give all citizens equal 
opportunity for success. We must invest in future generations by 
funding education and job training programs, not cutting this funding 
by $250 billion dollars. We need to invest in clean energy, and 
environmentally sound technology that will foster job growth, and 
continue to improve our infrastructure.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
Republican budget plan.
  The federal budget should reflect the priorities and values of our 
nation, but the Republican plan instead looks out for the likes of big 
corporations who would get enormous tax breaks. What's more, the 
Republicans are asking America's seniors to pay for it. In fact, the 
Republican budget would end Medicare as we know it. And it would 
devastate Medicaid. Moreover, the Republican budget hurts our economy 
and in particular investments in innovation.
  Madam Chair, the Republican budget proposal will severely unravel our 
nation's gains in the clean energy economy. At the same time, it 
proposes significant tax subsidies for Big Oil. There is something not 
right with that picture. In fact, I believe the Republican budget is 
severely short-sighted. It offers our competitors, China and Germany, a 
free-pass to dominate an ever-growing clean energy manufacturing 
economy and job creation.
  The Sacramento area has over 220 clean energy companies, and I can 
tell you that many of those small business CEOs are seeking continued 
investment and support from this Congress.
  Madam Chair, we should be promoting policies like the Make It in 
America agenda to boost America's manufacturing industry and make 
products here this country. In order for America to remain competitive, 
innovative, and a global leader, we must make responsible choices.
  Unfortunately, the Ryan budget does not. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this misguided Republican budget plan.
  Ms. HIRONO. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 
34, the FY 2012 Budget Resolution. Instead of having the wealthiest pay 
their fair share, this budget just helps the ``haves'' at the expense 
of everyone else.
  The Republican majority has brought this bill to the floor for a vote 
today, claiming that this budget will resolve our fiscal crisis and 
lead our country back on the ``path to prosperity.'' Sadly, this path 
to prosperity only applies to those who already have a lot and don't 
need more. Millionaires and billionaires will like the tax breaks that 
they'll get from this budget. The wealthiest Americans will get the 
Bush tax cuts permanently extended to the tune of $1 trillion. Big Oil 
companies will get tens of billions of dollars in subsidies. Special 
interests that send jobs overseas will also like this budget's tax 
giveaways.
  What should scare us most about this FY2012 budget is that it pays 
for all of these tax breaks--over $4 trillion in tax cuts--on the backs 
of working and middle-class people. It asks those who are struggling 
the most to sacrifice even more.
  The recession has increased the child poverty rate in Hawaii to its 
highest level in years. This reverse Robin Hood budget would 
drastically cut food programs for poor children, Head Start, and child 
care for working families. Today, my staff and I are fasting in 
solidarity with the 50 million people in America who don't know where 
their next meal is coming from. HungerFast.org is coordinating this 
effort with over 30,000 people, including Members of Congress, 
Ambassador Tony Hall, faith leaders, MoveOn and SEIU members, Moby, and 
others.
  H. Con. Res. 34 ends Medicare as we know it. All of you under the age 
of 55 will not be able to enroll in the original Medicare program. In 
Hawaii, the under-55 population is slightly less than a million. When 
you are age 67--yes, that's right, Republicans are raising the Medicare 
enrollment age by two more years--you will receive a voucher that you 
will use to buy insurance from a private company. We don't know what 
the amount of the voucher will be or whether it will keep up with the 
rising costs of health care. This scheme privatizes Medicare.
  You're 67 years old. Is trying to buy health insurance with your 
voucher what you want to be doing? Every year? And who knows if the 
doctor you like is even going to participate in your private insurance 
plan. One thing is for certain--privatizing Medicare will mean more 
business for the insurance companies.
  The Republican plan doesn't take on the 48 million Americans already 
on Medicare or those that will enter the program in 10 years because 
the Republicans know that this voucher plan would make these seniors 
mad as hell. Many of you have parents on Medicare. My mom is on 
Medicare. Without Medicare, we would be worried sick about how our 
parents will pay for health care.
  Before Medicare became law in 1965, half of all seniors had no health 
insurance. The Republican budget is not only out of step with the 
priorities of the nation, but it is also a step backwards when it comes 
to health care for those who need it the most.
  This budget also takes away important health care reform benefits for 
seniors who are already on Medicare. It repeals the gradual elimination 
of the Medicare ``donut hole'' in prescription drug coverage. It also 
repeals free access to key preventive services and annual checkups. 
Over 48 million seniors with Medicare, including 208,500 in Hawaii, 
would have to pay more if they want to stay healthy by getting regular 
check-ups.

[[Page 6221]]

  Another group most in need of medical care in our country--the poor--
would see cuts of about $771 billion from Medicaid over 10 years. 
Medicaid would be converted into a block grant program, which won't 
reflect the actual need for Medicaid services. Converting Medicaid into 
a fixed funding stream would raise the cost of nursing home care for 
millions of families, potentially reducing the quality of care. It 
would also impact seniors and disabled individuals who want home- or 
community-based support as opposed to expensive institutional care.
  Seventeen governors, including our former colleague and now Governor 
of Hawaii Neil Abercrombie, have written to the Speaker in opposition 
to the Republican plan to block grant Medicaid. They know that this 
would place an unfair burden on the cost of health care on the states. 
Under the Republican plan, Hawaii alone would lose $2.8 billion in 
federal Medicaid dollars over 10 years. This means that 29,600 seniors 
could lose their Medicaid coverage or see reduced benefits due to the 
proposed Republican cut, resulting in 161,500 children losing their 
Medicaid coverage.
  In addition to the problematic changes that this budget makes to 
Medicare and Medicaid, this short-sighted budget prevents us from 
investing in our workforce and growing our economy. The Republican 
budget cuts education and job training by more than 25 percent below 
current levels. Pell grants, funding for low-income elementary and 
secondary schools, and workforce training programs would be targeted 
for steep cuts. The bill also makes drastic cuts to local law 
enforcement and first responder programs at a time when many states, 
including Hawaii, are dealing with severe budget deficits.
  This short-sighted budget also fails to invest in infrastructure or 
create jobs in the transportation sector. While I'm working with my 
colleagues in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to 
approve a new multi-year highway and transit program, this Republican 
budget withdraws about $318 billion in resources from highway, transit, 
and other transportation initiatives over the next 10 years. In the 
meantime, commuters are paying higher gas prices at the pump, seeking 
alternative modes of transportation, and dealing with congestion on our 
nation's roads, which along with our public transportation, were given 
a grade of ``D'' by the American Society of Civil Engineers.
  The resolution offered by the Republicans further fails to make 
critical investments in research and development (R&D) in science, 
health, and renewable energy, undermining our global competitiveness in 
R&D. Hawaii's families pay higher energy costs than anyone else in the 
country. Under this bill, oil companies can continue to get subsidies 
while making record profits. Funding for development of renewable 
energy sources is slashed by 60 percent, ensuring that we will remain 
dependent on imported fossil fuels and sending a signal to the markets 
that clean energy jobs are not a priority.
  Instead of supporting the draconian cuts proposed by this Republican 
plan, I will vote for the fairer and more balanced plans proposed as 
alternatives to H. Con. Res. 34. These alternatives address our deficit 
in a more responsible way by assisting our most vulnerable during a 
time of fragile economic recovery. I will support investments that will 
create jobs and ensure that our country remains the leader in 
innovation and the engine driving the global economy.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against H. Con. Res. 34.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Ryan budget. There are many reasons to oppose this budget.
  Among them is the unconscionable provision that ends the Medicare 
guarantee of health care for our nation's seniors.
  Since many of my colleagues have already spoken about the serious 
negative impact the Ryan Budget will have on Medicare, I will focus my 
comments on another egregious provision that unravels the Medicaid 
safety net.
  The Republican budget before this House cuts support for seniors in 
nursing homes, disabled individuals and low-income children who depend 
on Medicaid.
  This proposal to starve Medicaid of funds is nothing more than a 
heartless assault on America's poorest and most vulnerable--our 
children, seniors, the disabled and minority communities who rely on 
Medicaid for their health care.
  Last year alone, 60 million Americans were served by Medicaid. Thirty 
million of those were children.
  According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, if the 
Republican budget were to become law, states which are already buried 
in debt would face significant challenges in achieving enough cost 
savings to mitigate the loss of Federal funding.
  As a result: states would likely begin to limit eligibility; Medicaid 
enrollees would have limited access to care and higher out-of-pocket 
costs and health care providers would lose money due to more 
uncompensated care and lost coverage.
  In my district, where more than 250,000 residents are uninsured and 
tens of thousands more rely on Medicaid for their health care, this 
extreme Republican budget will be disastrous.
  There are better and fairer ways to address our country's deficit 
that will protect the Medicaid safety net, create jobs, protect our 
seniors and invest in our children and the future of our country.
  It is a mystery to me why Republicans are willing to fight to protect 
the tax cuts for big oil and the super wealthy and sacrifice millions 
of the poorest and most vulnerable Americans who will lose their 
medical and long-term care.
  Democrats will fight to ensure this proposal is never enacted, and I 
encourage all my colleagues to oppose this cruel and shortsighted 
budget.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chair, I rise today to 
speak in opposition to the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Resolution that is 
before the House today, H. Con. Res. 34. As a senior member of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and as a Texan that cares 
deeply about adequately providing for our Nation's Transportation 
system, I cannot support the Republican Budget proposal that has been 
brought before us today.
  I share my colleague's concern regarding our national debt but this 
irresponsible bill makes drastic cuts to our Nation's infrastructure 
that will harm the American economy in the long run. This bill cuts 
nationwide funding for highway, safety, and public transportation 
investments over the next six years from $331 billion to $219 billion.
  This drastic cut of more than $100 billion over six years of Highway 
funding means that the State of Texas alone will lose over $1.9 billion 
in Highway funding at a time when revenue from the Highway Trust Fund 
is stretched thinner than ever.
  Additionally, assuming the widely accepted 2007 Federal Highway 
Administration model that every $1 billion of federal highway-aid 
investment creates or sustains 34,779 jobs over a seven-year period, 
this bill would destroy more than 490,000 jobs at a time when Congress 
should be helping grow and strengthen our economy, not stifling it as 
this Republican budget does.
  I am proud to support the Congressional Black Caucus Alternative 
Budget for 2012 that does honor our country's commitment to support and 
invest not only in transportation and infrastructure but also in 
education, job training, and research and development for Science and 
Technology.
  I must emphasize that our future economic growth, and therefore our 
ability to reduce our debt in the future, is tied very strongly to the 
investments we make in science and innovation today.
  Although the cuts to our Nation's Science programs are much less 
severe in the FY 2011 Continuing Resolution than H.R. 1, they still are 
damaging to our Science agencies, especially considering that current 
fiscal year is already half over.
  Across the world, growth in jobs in Science and Technology are 
increasing at a high rate and America should be supplying an adequate 
education and training for talented people to enter these industries.
  We are jeopardizing our country's future by threatening funding for 
programs which are helping American students develop the right 
combination of skills for these jobs.
  Madam Chair, we cannot afford to shut the doors on America's ability 
to compete in these growing industries and we cannot afford to stifle 
maintaining and growing our transportation system by neglecting much 
needed investment in these sectors. I urge my colleagues to support the 
Democratic alternative budget that is before us and reject the 
Republican budget that destroys jobs and is no plan for the future.
  Mr. GRIMM. Madam Chair, I applaud Chairman Paul Ryan for his bold 
leadership in finally addressing solutions to our debt crisis in terms 
of deficit reduction and entitlement reform. There is no question that 
our health care entitlement programs are on an unsustainable path, and 
bold action must be taken if we are going to improve our nation's 
financial stability and preserve these health safety nets for future 
generations. Medicare costs are growing twice the speed of our economic 
growth, and elected officials who choose to turn a blind eye to our 
nation's economic distress are doing current and future beneficiaries 
an enormous disservice.
  Chairman Ryan's budget plan shows a clear vision of our choice 
between two futures. I believe he has found innovative solutions to 
curb

[[Page 6222]]

the unsustainability of Medicare and Medicaid, balance the budget, and 
pay off the debt, without raising taxes. Our social safety net is 
clearly ripping at the seams and reforms must be made if we intend to 
protect our most vulnerable populations. Many governors have urged 
Congress to instate block grants for their state health programs in 
exchange for more flexibility and freedom to find efficient, effective 
ways to cut Medicaid costs without denying essential health care 
services for those most in need.
  Health care is clearly not a one-size-fits-all issue. In my home 
state of New York, Governor Cuomo has already shown leadership and 
found innovative ways to control Medicaid costs in his Medicaid 
Redesign Team. New York has an extremely diverse demographic in our 
Medicaid pool, and transforming the federal government's role into a 
solid Medicaid block program could seriously hamper efforts by state 
agencies that are already working hard to redesign the program and cut 
costs on their own. A block program in New York could result in 
additional cuts in Medicaid reimbursement for hospitals and physicians, 
and possibly cut services to institutions that serve the disabled. In 
the last two years, the state has cut Medicaid reimbursement by $5.3 
billion, and further cuts would only create more hurdles in their 
efforts to provide quality health care to New Yorkers who need it.
  If a block grant is adopted, I believe states should have the ability 
to opt out of the program in exchange for benchmarks to cut costs. New 
York should have a chance to continue their efforts to fundamentally 
redesign the Medicaid system. If New York is forced into a block 
program, the state may not have time to truly fix the system for the 
long haul. Nearly 686,000 hospital and health system jobs fuel New 
York's economic activity in communities across the state. Officials 
must balance the need for reform, and pragmatic approaches to secure 
services for current Medicaid beneficiaries.
  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Madam Chair, the good people of Indiana want 
jobs. And you know what? We know how to create them. In Indiana, under 
Gov. Mitch Daniels, we've seen a government that spends less and taxes 
modestly. And we've seen that lead to job growth. That's why Indiana, 
during these tough economic times, is a national leader in private 
sector job growth. The Budget Committee crafted a budget for our 
Federal Government that, like Indiana, spends less and taxes less. The 
result is a plan that will help create 2.5 million jobs by the end of 
this decade. Recent economic history isn't good to the big spenders. It 
shows that borrowing and spending trillions of taxpayer dollars we 
don't have doesn't create jobs. And jobs won't be created if we go 
along with the President's plan, or the plan from the other side of the 
aisle, to increase taxes. It's no great secret that the job creators in 
this country aren't hiring because unchecked spending, of course, leads 
to fears. It leads to fears that we're going to have to raise taxes in 
the future. It leads to fears of future inflation. And it leads to 
fears that interest rates are going to go up. By calling for a measure 
of spending discipline, as we do, we replace fear with hope--hope that 
we can restore conditions where job creators can go out and put 
Americans back to work. That's what the people of southern Indiana 
want. Now, I mentioned Indiana a minute ago and the success we've had 
there in creating private sector jobs. We didn't do it all with respect 
to our policies on spending. Instead, we also looked at tax policy. We 
understood that it just didn't make sense to jack up taxes during a 
down economy. Instead, we kept them steady, and we made our tax code 
more efficient--just as some of our neighboring States were doing the 
opposite. As a result, many businesses chose to move back to Indiana, 
or to move to Indiana for the first time. We see the reverse trend 
nationally, unfortunately. Many businesses are leaving this great 
country, or are not getting off the ground because of our job-
destroying tax code and our punitive corporate tax rates. Madam Chair, 
we improve upon those previous policies, we learn from the errors of 
the past. I urge my colleagues to help us create those jobs by voting 
yes on this House Republican budget.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in part A of House Report 112-62 is considered as an original 
concurrent resolution for the purpose of amendment and is considered 
read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 34

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

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2012.

       (a) Declaration.--The Congress determines and declares that 
     this concurrent resolution establishes the budget for fiscal 
     year 2012 and sets forth appropriate budgetary levels for 
     fiscal years 2013 through 2021.
       (b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

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

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

Sec. 201. Policy statement on long-term budgeting.

                 TITLE III--RESERVES AND CONTINGENCIES

Sec. 301. Costs of the global war on terrorism.
Sec. 302. Effective date.
Sec. 303. Reserve fund for health care reform.
Sec. 304. Reserve fund for the sustainable growth rate of the Medicare 
              program.
Sec. 305. Reserve fund for deficit-neutral revenue measures.
Sec. 306. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for rural counties and schools.

                      TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 401. Discretionary spending limits.
Sec. 402. Limitation on advance appropriations.
Sec. 403. Concepts and definitions.
Sec. 404. Adjustments of aggregates and allocations for legislation.
Sec. 405. Limitation on long-term spending.
Sec. 406. Budgetary treatment of certain transactions.
Sec. 407. Application and effect of changes in allocations and 
              aggregates.
Sec. 408. Fair value estimates.
Sec. 409. Exercise of rulemaking powers.

                            TITLE V--POLICY

Sec. 501. Policy Statement on Medicare.
Sec. 502. Policy Statement on Social Security.
Sec. 503. Policy statement on budget enforcement.

                TITLE VI--SENSE OF THE HOUSE PROVISIONS

Sec. 601. Sense of the House on a responsible deficit reduction plan 
              must consider all programs, including those at the 
              Pentagon and the other national security agencies.
Sec. 602. Sense of the House regarding the importance of child support 
              enforcement.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2012 through 2021:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2012: $1,866,454,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,127,981,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,324,503,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $2,425,363,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $2,522,695,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $2,693,493,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $2,807,893,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $2,958,678,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,119,794,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,286,942,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2012: -$25,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: -$227,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: -$346,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: -$406,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: -$448,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: -$482,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: -$527,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: -$544,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: -$561,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: -$597,000,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,858,545,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,835,737,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,905,952,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $2,970,061,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,114,578,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,224,937,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,330,942,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,490,088,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,639,728,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,767,274,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,947,916,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,915,241,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,902,944,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $2,949,301,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,097,060,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,193,477,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,271,881,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,450,742,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,587,701,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,726,564,000,000.
       (4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget) 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2012: $1,081,462,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $787,260,000,000.

[[Page 6223]]

       Fiscal year 2014: $578,441,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $523,938,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $574,365,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $499,984,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $463,988,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $492,064,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $467,907,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $439,622,000,000.
       (5) Debt subject to limit.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate 
     levels of the public debt are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2012: $16,204,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $17,177,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $17,951,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $18,697,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $19,503,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $20,245,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $20,968,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $21,699,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $22,408,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $23,102,000,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2012: $11,418,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $12,216,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $12,797,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $13,319,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $13,876,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $14,351,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $14,787,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $15,242,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $15,673,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021; $16,068,000,000,000.

     SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2011 through 2021 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $582,626,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $593,580,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $600,283,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $597,211,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $616,451,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $606,903,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $628,847,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $618,837,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $641,976,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $635,475,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $653,695,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $643,275,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $665,679,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $650,246,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $677,884,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $666,959,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $690,273,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $679,088,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $702,903,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $691,494,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,575,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,102,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,653,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,545,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,694,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,178,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,316,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,613,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,356,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,161,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,729,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,926,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,978,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,594,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,824,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,487,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,698,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,123,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,572,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,740,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,452,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,798,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,316,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,242,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,312,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,763,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,312,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,469,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,311,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,506,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,652,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,646,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,341,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,114,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,049,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,684,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,758,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,344,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,472,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,946,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,996,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,174,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,850,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,053,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,215,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,547,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,101,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,360,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,021,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $340,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,010,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $460,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,075,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $539,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,211,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $497,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,179,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $470,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,195,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $476,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,921,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,818,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,414,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,386,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,296,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,943,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,893,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,271,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,231,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,070,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,156,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,307,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,618,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,308,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,956,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,439,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,787,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,990,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,756,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,992,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,819,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,559,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,396,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,989,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,717,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,469,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,355,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,688,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,235,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,505,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,859,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,069,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,025,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,180,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,159,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,283,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,469,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,579,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,755,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,873,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,317,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,275,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,040,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,611,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $508,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$13,986,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,609,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$19,417,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, -$3,260,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$23,459,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$293,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$23,592,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$261,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$25,981,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$222,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$17,547,000,000.

[[Page 6224]]

       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$128,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$17,992,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$196,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$19,650,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,316,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $80,431,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,515,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $71,264,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,265,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $67,722,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,377,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,084,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,563,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $65,957,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,916,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $67,036,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $70,578,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $67,451,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,719,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,869,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,472,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $71,551,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,936,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $76,853,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,572,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,559,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,344,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,609,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,280,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,127,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,206,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,176,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,117,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,257,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,219,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,231,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,497,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,860,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,779,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,028,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,065,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,294,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,354,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,524,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,122,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $100,012,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,887,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $73,071,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,076,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,044,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,446,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $70,450,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $73,314,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $73,310,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $75,371,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $75,665,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $76,798,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $77,013,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $78,314,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $78,385,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $79,629,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $79,806,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $80,952,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $81,047,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $341,873,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $346,636,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $343,733,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $340,608,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $338,064,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $320,444,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $327,012,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $315,117,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $320,409,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $325,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $339,663,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $342,703,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $349,840,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $347,303,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $371,826,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $368,558,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $395,908,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $382,056,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $404,674,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $400,682,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $481,521,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $481,816,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $519,903,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $520,406,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $550,105,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $550,248,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $573,252,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $573,333,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $618,945,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $619,385,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $637,938,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $638,059,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $657,067,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $657,111,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $711,486,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $711,897,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $758,271,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $758,376,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $809,106,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $809,201,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $501,664,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $501,006,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $487,498,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $487,248,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $457,308,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $456,072,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $431,150,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $429,143,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $436,659,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $438,896,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $436,985,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $434,795,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $441,467,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $434,302,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $457,183,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $454,448,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $468,308,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $465,565,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $480,687,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $477,942,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,439,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,624,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,096,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,256,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,701,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,776,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,261,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,311,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,171,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,171,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,263,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,263,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,717,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,717,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,508,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,508,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,552,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,552,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,053,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,053,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $128,339,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $127,140,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $130,024,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $130,025,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $134,143,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $134,055,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $138,167,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $137,851,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $147,410,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $146,868,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $146,323,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $145,704,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $145,412,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $144,751,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $155,091,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $154,407,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $159,680,000,000.

[[Page 6225]]

       (B) Outlays, $158,979,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $164,381,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $163,622,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,946,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,931,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,326,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,482,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,093,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,664,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,928,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,337,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,009,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,519,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,731,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,650,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,669,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,957,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,768,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,649,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,848,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,415,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,863,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,407,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,762,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,205,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,185,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,460,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,232,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,619,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,183,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,021,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,217,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,643,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,453,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,718,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,979,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,016,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,559,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,295,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,915,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,606,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,356,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,024,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $372,558,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $372,558,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $435,109,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $435,109,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $508,435,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $508,435,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $578,063,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $578,063,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $648,083,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $648,083,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $712,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $712,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $769,605,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $769,605,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $818,115,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $818,115,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $864,371,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $864,371,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $899,690,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $899,690,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, -$6,299,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,626,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, -$4,386,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$5,545,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, -$10,247,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$11,263,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, -$16,340,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$16,946,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, -$22,243,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$22,809,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$27,786,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$27,637,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$33,072,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$32,959,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$38,404,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$38,286,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$43,684,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$43,594,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$49,060,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$48,947,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, -$84,517,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$84,517,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, -$81,449,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$81,449,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, -$82,695,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$82,695,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, -$84,857,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$84,857,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, -$85,946,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$85,946,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$91,248,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$91,248,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$97,099,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$97,099,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$101,718,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$101,718,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$105,645,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$105,645,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$110,174,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$110,174,000,000.
       (21) Global War on Terrorism and related activities (970):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $126,544,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $117,835,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $92,661,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,878,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,401,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,929,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,147,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,851,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,784,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,769,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,769,000,000.

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

     SEC. 201. POLICY STATEMENT ON LONG-TERM BUDGETING.

       The following are the recommended budget levels for each of 
     fiscal years 2030, 2040, and 2050 as a percent of the gross 
     domestic product of the United States:
       (1) Federal revenues.--The appropriate levels of Federal 
     revenues are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2030: 19 percent.
       Fiscal year 2040: 19 percent.
       Fiscal year 2050: 19 percent.
       (2) Budget outlays.--The appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2030: 20.75 percent.
       Fiscal year 2040: 18.75 percent.
       Fiscal year 2050: 14.75 percent.
       (3) Deficits.--The appropriate amounts of deficits are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2030: -1.75 percent.
       Fiscal year 2040: 0.25 percent.
       Fiscal year 2050: 4.25 percent.
       (4) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2030: 64 percent.
       Fiscal year 2040: 48 percent.
       Fiscal year 2050: 10 percent.

                 TITLE III--RESERVES AND CONTINGENCIES

     SEC. 301. COSTS OF THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM.

       In the House, if any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or 
     conference report makes appropriations for fiscal year 2012 
     for the global war on terrorism and other activities and such 
     amounts are so designated pursuant to this paragraph, then 
     the allocation to the House Committee on Appropriations and 
     the discretionary spending limits set forth in section 401 
     may be adjusted by the amounts provided in such legislation 
     for that purpose up to the amounts of budget authority 
     specified in section 102(21) for fiscal year 2012 and the new 
     outlays resulting therefrom.

     SEC. 302. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Section 3(c) of House Resolution 5 (112th Congress) shall 
     have force and effect through May 31, 2011.

     SEC. 303. RESERVE FUND FOR HEALTH CARE REFORM.

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

[[Page 6226]]



     SEC. 304. RESERVE FUND FOR THE SUSTAINABLE GROWTH RATE OF THE 
                   MEDICARE PROGRAM.

       In the House, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for the budgetary effects of any 
     bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that 
     includes provisions amending or superseding the system for 
     updating payments under section 1848 of the Social Security 
     Act, if such measure does not increase the deficit in the 
     period of fiscal years 2012 through 2021.

     SEC. 305. RESERVE FUND FOR DEFICIT-NEUTRAL REVENUE MEASURES.

       If any bill reported by the Committee on Ways and Means, or 
     amendment thereto or conference report thereon, decreases 
     revenue, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may adjust 
     the allocations and aggregates of this concurrent resolution, 
     if such measure would not increase the deficit over the 
     period of fiscal years 2012 through 2021.

     SEC. 306. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR RURAL COUNTIES AND 
                   SCHOOLS.

       In the House, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in this 
     resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, 
     amendments, motions, or conference reports that make changes 
     to or provide for the reauthorization of the Secure Rural 
     Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 2000 (Public 
     Law 106-393) or make changes to the Payments in Lieu of Taxes 
     Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-565), or both, by the amounts 
     provided by that legislation for those purposes, provided 
     that such legislation would not increase the deficit or 
     direct spending over either the period of the total of fiscal 
     years 2012 through 2021 or the period of the total of fiscal 
     years 2012 through 2016, or for fiscal year 2012.

                      TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 401. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

       (a) Discretionary Spending Limits.--Spending limits for 
     total discretionary Federal spending are--
       fiscal year 2012--
       (1) new budget authority, $1,019,402,000,000; and
       (2) outlays, $1,170,384,000,000;
       fiscal year 2013--
       (1) new budget authority, $1,027,896,000,000; and
       (2) outlays, $1,113,298,000,000;
       fiscal year 2014--
       (1) new budget authority, $1,038,537,000,000; and
       (2) outlays, $1,094,740,000,000;
       fiscal year 2015--
       (1) new budget authority, $1,046,680,000,000; and
       (2) outlays, $1,089,081,000,000;
       fiscal year 2016--
       (1) new budget authority, $1,055,779,000,000; and
       (2) outlays, $1,093,043,000,000;
       fiscal year 2017--
       (1) new budget authority, $1,067,794,000,000; and
       (2) outlays, $1,098,357,000,000;
       fiscal year 2018--
       (1) new budget authority, $1,085,259,000,000; and
       (2) outlays, $1,105,668,000,000;
       fiscal year 2019--
       (1) new budget authority, $1,103,802,000,000; and
       (2) outlays, $1,126,521,000,000;
       fiscal year 2020--
       (1) new budget authority, $1,122,611,000,000; and
       (2) outlays, $1,145,102,000,000; and
       fiscal year 2021--
       (1) new budget authority, $1,141,640,000,000; and
       (2) outlays, $1,167,939,000,000.
       (b) Enforcement.--In the House, it shall not be in order to 
     consider any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto 
     or conference report thereon, that causes discretionary 
     budget authority to exceed any level set forth in subsection 
     (a).

     SEC. 402. LIMITATION ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--In the House, except as provided in 
     subsection (b), any bill, joint resolution, an amendment 
     thereto or conference report thereon, making a general 
     appropriation or continuing appropriation may not provide for 
     advance appropriations.
       (b) Exceptions.--An advance appropriation may be provided 
     for programs, projects, activities, or accounts referred to 
     in subsection (c)(1) or identified in the report to accompany 
     this resolution or the joint explanatory statement of 
     managers to accompany this resolution under the heading 
     ``Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations''.
       (c) Limitations.--For fiscal year 2013, the aggregate 
     amount of advance appropriation shall not exceed--
       (1) $52,541,000,000 for the following programs in the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs--
       (A) Medical Services;
       (B) Medical Support and Compliance; and
       (C) Medical Facilities accounts of the Veterans Health 
     Administration; and
       (2) $28,852,000,000 in new budget authority for all other 
     programs.
       (d) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance 
     appropriation'' means any new discretionary budget authority 
     provided in a bill or joint resolution making general 
     appropriations or any new discretionary budget authority 
     provided in a bill or joint resolution making continuing 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2013.
       (e) Adjustments.--The chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget may adjust the list referred to in subsection (b) or 
     the amount set forth in subsection (c)(2) to accommodate the 
     enactment of general or continuing appropriation Acts for 
     fiscal year 2011.

     SEC. 403. CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS.

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

     SEC. 404. ADJUSTMENTS OF AGGREGATES AND ALLOCATIONS FOR 
                   LEGISLATION.

       (a) Enforcement.--For purposes of enforcing this 
     resolution, the revenue levels shall be those set forth in 
     the March 2011 Congressional Budget Office baseline. The 
     total amount of adjustments made under subsection (b) may not 
     cause revenue levels to be below the levels set forth in 
     paragraph (1)(A) of section 101 for fiscal year 2012 and the 
     period comprising fiscal years 2012 to 2021.
       (b) Adjustments.-- (1) The chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget may adjust the allocations and aggregates of this 
     concurrent resolution for--
       (A) the budgetary effects of measures extending the 
     Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001;
       (B) the budgetary effects of measures extending the Jobs 
     and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003;
       (C) the budgetary effects of measures that adjust the 
     Alternative Minimum Tax exemption amounts to prevent a larger 
     number of taxpayers as compared with tax year 2008 from being 
     subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax or of allowing the use 
     of nonrefundable personal credits against the Alternative 
     Minimum Tax, or both as applicable;
       (D) the budgetary effects of extending the estate, gift, 
     and generation-skipping transfer tax provisions of title III 
     of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, 
     and Job Creation Act of 2010;
       (E) the budgetary effects of measures providing a 20 
     percent deduction in income to small businesses;
       (F) the budgetary effects of measures implementing trade 
     agreements;
       (G) the budgetary effects of measures repealing the tax 
     increases set forth in the Patient Protection and Affordable 
     Care Act and the Health Care and Education Affordability 
     Reconciliation Act of 2010;
       (H) the budgetary effects of measures reforming the Patient 
     Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and 
     Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010; and
       (I) the budgetary effects of measures reforming the tax 
     code and lowering tax rates.
       (2) A measure does not qualify for adjustments under 
     paragraph (1)(H) if it--
       (A) increases the deficit over the period of fiscal years 
     2012 through 2021; or
       (B) increases revenues over the period of fiscal years 2012 
     through 2021, other than by--
       (i) repealing or modifying the individual mandate (codified 
     as section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986); or
       (ii) modifying the subsidies to purchase health insurance 
     (codified as section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986).
       (c) Other Adjustments.--If a committee other than the 
     Committee on Appropriations reports a bill or joint 
     resolution, or an amendment thereto or a conference report 
     thereon, providing for a decrease in direct spending (budget 
     authority and outlays flowing therefrom) for any fiscal year 
     and also provides for an authorization of appropriations for 
     the same purpose, upon the enactment of such measure, the 
     chairman of the Committee on the Budget may decrease the 
     allocation to such committee and increase the allocation of 
     discretionary spending (budget authority and outlays flowing 
     therefrom) to the Committee on Appropriations for fiscal year 
     2012 and the applicable discretionary spending limits by an 
     amount equal to the new budget authority (and the outlays 
     flowing therefrom) provided for in a bill or joint resolution 
     making appropriations for the same purpose.

     SEC. 405. LIMITATION ON LONG-TERM SPENDING.

       (a) In General.--In the House, it shall not be in order to 
     consider a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee 
     (other than the Committee on Appropriations), or an amendment 
     thereto or a conference report thereon, if the provisions of 
     such measure have the net effect of increasing mandatory 
     spending in excess of $5,000,000,000 for any period described 
     in subsection (b).
       (b) Time Periods.--(1) The applicable periods for purposes 
     of this section are any of the first four consecutive 10-
     fiscal-year periods beginning with the first fiscal year 
     following the last fiscal year for which the applicable 
     concurrent resolution on the budget sets forth appropriate 
     budgetary levels.
       (2) In this paragraph, the applicable concurrent resolution 
     on the budget is the one most recently adopted before the 
     date on which a committee first reported the bill or joint 
     resolution described in paragraph (1).

     SEC. 406. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 302(a)(1) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, section 13301 of the Budget 
     Enforcement Act of 1990, and section 4001 of the Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, the joint explanatory 
     statement accompanying the conference report on any 
     concurrent resolution on

[[Page 6227]]

     the budget shall include in its allocation under section 
     302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to the 
     Committee on Appropriations amounts for the discretionary 
     administrative expenses of the Social Security Administration 
     and the United States Postal Service.
       (b) Special Rule.--For purposes of applying section 302(f) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, estimates of the 
     level of total new budget authority and total outlays 
     provided by a measure shall include any off-budget 
     discretionary amounts.
       (c) Adjustments.--The chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget may adjust allocations and aggregates for legislation 
     reported by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 
     that reforms the Federal retirement system, but does not 
     cause a net increase in the deficit for fiscal year 2012 and 
     the period comprising fiscal years 2012 to 2021.

     SEC. 407. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS 
                   AND AGGREGATES.

       (a) Application.--Any adjustments of allocations and 
     aggregates made pursuant to this resolution shall--
       (1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
       (2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
       (3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as 
     practicable.
       (b) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised 
     allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments 
     shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates included in 
     this resolution.
       (c) Budget Committee Determinations.--For purposes of this 
     resolution, 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 Committee on the Budget.
       (d) Exemptions.--Any legislation for which the chairman of 
     the Committee on the Budget makes adjustments in the 
     allocations and aggregates of this concurrent resolution on 
     the budget and complies with the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 shall not be subject to the points of order set forth in 
     clause 10 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives or section 405.

     SEC. 408. FAIR VALUE ESTIMATES.

       (a) Request for Supplemental Estimates.--Upon the request 
     of the chairman or ranking member of the Committee on the 
     Budget, any estimate prepared for a measure under the terms 
     of title V of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, ``credit 
     reform'', as a supplement to such estimate of the 
     Congressional Budget Office shall, to the extent practicable, 
     also provide an estimate of the current actual or estimated 
     market values representing the ``fair value'' of assets and 
     liabilities affected by such measure.
       (b) Enforcement.--If the Congressional Budget Office 
     provides an estimate pursuant to subsection (a), the chairman 
     of the Committee on the Budget may use such estimate to 
     determine compliance with the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 and other budgetary enforcement controls.

     SEC. 409. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

       (a) In General.--The House adopts the provisions of this 
     title--
       (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of 
     Representatives and as such they shall be considered as part 
     of the rules of the House, and these rules shall supersede 
     other rules only to the extent that they are inconsistent 
     with other such rules; and
       (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     the House of Representatives to change those rules at any 
     time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as in the 
     case of any other rule of the House of Representatives.
       (b) Limitation on Application.--The following provisions of 
     H. Res. 5 (112th Congress) shall no longer have force or 
     effect:
       (1) Section 3(e) relating to advance appropriations.
       (2) Section 3(f) relating to the treatment of off-budget 
     administrative expenses.
       (3) Section 3(g) relating to a long-term spending point of 
     order.

                            TITLE V--POLICY

     SEC. 501. POLICY STATEMENT ON MEDICARE.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) More than 46 million Americans depend on Medicare for 
     their health security.
       (2) The Medicare Trustees report has repeatedly recommended 
     that Medicare's long-term financial challenges be addressed 
     soon. Each year without reform, the financial condition of 
     Medicare becomes more precarious and the threat to those in 
     and near retirement becomes more pronounced. According to the 
     Congressional Budget Office--
       (A) the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be exhausted in 
     2020 and unable to pay scheduled benefits; and
       (B) Medicare spending is growing faster than the economy. 
     Medicare outlays are currently rising at a rate of 7.2 
     percent per year, and under CBO's alternative fiscal 
     scenario, mandatory spending on Medicare is projected to 
     reach 7 percent of GDP by 2035 and 14 percent of GDP by 2080.
       (3) Failing to address this problem will leave millions of 
     American seniors without adequate health security and younger 
     generations burdened with enormous debt to pay for spending 
     levels that cannot be sustained.
       (b) Policy on Medicare Reform.--It is the policy of this 
     resolution to protect those in and near retirement from any 
     disruptions to their Medicare benefits and offer future 
     beneficiaries the same health care options available to 
     Members of Congress.
       (c) Assumptions.--This resolution assumes reform of the 
     Medicare program such that:
       (1) Current Medicare benefits are preserved for those in 
     and near retirement, without changes.
       (2) For future generations, when they reach eligibility, 
     Medicare is reformed to provide a premium support payment and 
     a selection of guaranteed health coverage options from which 
     recipients can choose a plan that best suits their needs.
       (3) Medicare will provide additional assistance for lower-
     income beneficiaries and those with greater health risks.
       (4) Medicare spending is put on a sustainable path and the 
     Medicare program becomes solvent over the long-term.

     SEC. 502. POLICY STATEMENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) More than 50 million retirees and individuals with a 
     disability depend on Social Security for a key part of their 
     income. Since enactment, Social Security has served as a 
     vital leg on the ``three-legged stool'' of retirement 
     security, which includes employer provided pensions as well 
     as personal savings.
       (2) The Social Security Trustees report has repeatedly 
     recommended that Social Security's long-term financial 
     challenges be addressed soon. Each year without reform, the 
     financial condition of Social Security becomes more 
     precarious and the threat to seniors and those receiving 
     Social Security disability benefits becomes more pronounced:
       (A) In 2018, the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund 
     will be exhausted and will be unable to pay scheduled 
     benefits.
       (B) In 2037, the combined Federal Old-Age and Survivors 
     Insurance Trust Fund and Federal Disability Insurance Trust 
     Fund will be exhausted, and will be unable to pay scheduled 
     benefits.
       (C) With the exhaustion of the Trust Funds in 2037, 
     benefits will be cut 22 percent across the board, devastating 
     those currently in or near retirement and those who rely on 
     Social Security the most.
       (3) The current recession has exacerbated the crisis to 
     Social Security. The most recent CBO projections find that 
     Social Security has entered into permanent cash deficits.
       (4) Lower-income Americans rely on Social Security for a 
     larger proportion of their retirement income. Therefore, 
     reforms should take into consideration the need to protect 
     lower-income Americans' retirement security.
       (5) Americans deserve action by their elected officials on 
     Social Security reform. It is critical that the Congress and 
     the administration work together in a bipartisan fashion to 
     address the looming insolvency of Social Security. In this 
     spirit, this resolution creates a bipartisan opportunity to 
     find solutions by requiring policymakers to ensure that 
     Social Security remains a critical part fo the safety net.
       (b) Policy on Social Security.--It is the policy of this 
     resolution that Congress should work on a bipartisan basis to 
     make Social Security permanently solvent. This resolution 
     assumes reform of a current law trigger, such that--
       (1)(A) if in any year the Board of Trustees of the Federal 
     Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal 
     Disability Insurance Trust Fund in its annual Trustees' 
     Report determines that the 75-year actuarial balance of the 
     Social Security Trust Funds is in deficit, and the annual 
     balance of the Social Security Trust Funds in the 75th year 
     is in deficit, the Board of Trustees should, not later than 
     September 30 of the same calendar year, submit to the 
     President recommendations for statutory reforms necessary to 
     achieve a positive 75-year actuarial balance and a positive 
     annual balance in the 75th year; and
       (B) such recommendations provided to the President should 
     be agreed upon by both Public Trustees of the Board of 
     Trustees;
       (2)(A) not later than December 1 of the same calendar year 
     in which the Board of Trustees submits its recommendations, 
     the President shall promptly submit implementing legislation 
     to both Houses of Congress, including recommendations 
     necessary to achieve a positive 75-year actuarial balance and 
     a positive annual balance in the 75th year; and
       (B) the Majority Leader of the Senate and the Majority 
     Leader of the House should introduce such legislation upon 
     receipt;
       (3) within 60 days of the President submitting legislation, 
     the committees of jurisdiction to which the legislation has 
     been referred should report such legislation, which should be 
     considered by the full House or Senate under expedited 
     procedures; and
       (4) legislation submitted by the President should--
       (A) protect those in and near retirement;
       (B) preserve the safety net for those who rely on Social 
     Security, including survivors and those with disabilities;
       (C) improve fairness for participants; and
       (D) reduce the burden on, and provide certainty for, future 
     generations.

     SEC. 503. POLICY STATEMENT ON BUDGET ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) The President's fiscal year 2012 budget requests a $13 
     trillion increase in the debt subject to limit over the 
     period of years covered by the budget.
       (2) Under the President's fiscal year 2012 budget, 
     according to the Congressional Budget Office, debt held by 
     the public will rise to 69 percent of gross domestic product 
     in 2011 and will

[[Page 6228]]

     reach 87.4 percent of gross domestic product by 2021.
       (3) The Congressional Budget Office, the Federal Reserve, 
     the General Accountability Office, the President's National 
     Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, and ten 
     former Chairmen of the Council of Economic Advisors all 
     concluded that debt is growing at unsustainable rates and 
     must be brought under control.
       (4) Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
     Staff, stated, ``Our national debt is our biggest national 
     security threat.''.
       (5) According to the Congressional Budget Office, if 
     entitlements are not reformed, entitlement spending on Social 
     Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will exceed the historical 
     average of revenue collections as a share of the economy 
     within forty years.
       (6) According to the Congressional Budget Office, under 
     current policies, debt would reach levels that the economy 
     could no longer sustain in 2037 and a fiscal crisis is likely 
     to occur well before that date.
       (7) To avoid a fiscal crisis, Congress must enact 
     legislation that makes structural reforms to entitlement 
     programs.
       (8) Instead of automatic debt increases (the ``Gephardt 
     rule'' was repealed by the House in House Resolution 5) and 
     automatic spending increases, Congress needs to put limits on 
     spending with automatic reductions if spending limits are not 
     met.
       (9) The adoption of a conference report on this concurrent 
     resolution will not cause the automatic passage of an 
     increase in the debt limit by the House of Representatives.
       (10) Changes in debt levels assumed in this resolution are 
     contingent upon its proposed spending reductions being 
     achieved.
       (11) From 1990 to 2002, there were statutory enforceable 
     limits on discretionary spending.
       (12) The budget lacks controls over spending in the short-
     term and the long-term. Greater transparency and controls, 
     particularly for entitlement spending in the long-term, are 
     needed to provide Congress with tools to tackle this growing 
     threat of a fiscal crisis.
       (b) Policy on Debt Controls.--It is the policy of this 
     concurrent resolution on the budget that in order to begin to 
     bring debt under control the following statutory spending and 
     debt controls are needed:
       (1) Enforceable statutory caps on discretionary spending at 
     levels set forth in this fiscal year 2012 concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for the period of fiscal years 2012 
     through 2021.
       (2) Any increase in the statutory debt limit be accompanied 
     by the enactment of a budget enforcement mechanism to ensure 
     that if spending reductions are not achieved there would be--
       (A) an across-the-board reduction in spending at the end of 
     the year;
       (B) a fast-track process or failsafe mechanism to give 
     Congress the ability to expedite consideration of legislation 
     to reduce spending and avoid the automatic across-the-board 
     spending reductions; and
       (C) an exemption of Social Security from these enforcement 
     mechanisms, with Social Security solvency ensured as provide 
     in section 502.
       (3) Limits on total spending with long-term structural 
     reforms that--
       (A) require--
       (i) the Office of Management and Budget and the 
     Congressional Budget Office to make long-term budget 
     projections (similar to the timeframes of projections made by 
     the Social Security and Medicare trustees);
       (ii) the inclusion of the estimated long-term fiscal impact 
     of the President's budget in the President's annual budget 
     submission;
       (iii) in the Congressional Budget Office's reestimate of 
     the President's budget, an estimate of the long-term impact 
     of the President's budget; and
       (iv) in Congressional Budget Office estimates on 
     legislation, an estimate of the long-term impact of 
     legislation that has a significant impact on the long-term 
     budget;
       (B) require enactment of enforceable caps on total spending 
     as a share of gross domestic product as set forth in this 
     resolution;
       (C) require the review by Congress of Congressional Budget 
     Office projections relative to the statutory caps and 
     enactment of legislation to reduce spending to meet those 
     caps;
       (D) require enactment of an enforcement mechanism to ensure 
     that if these spending reductions are not achieved, there 
     would be an across-the-board reduction in spending at the end 
     of the year;
       (E) require enactment of a fast-track process or failsafe 
     mechanism to provide Congress with the ability to expedite 
     consideration of legislation to reduce spending and avoid the 
     automatic across-the-board spending reductions; and
       (F) exempt Social Security from these enforcement 
     mechanisms, with Social Security solvency ensured as provided 
     in section 501.

                TITLE VI--SENSE OF THE HOUSE PROVISIONS

     SEC. 601. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON A RESPONSIBLE DEFICIT 
                   REDUCTION PLAN MUST CONSIDER ALL PROGRAMS, 
                   INCLUDING THOSE AT THE PENTAGON AND THE OTHER 
                   NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCIES.

       It is the sense of the House that the Nation's debt is an 
     immense security threat to our country, just as Admiral 
     Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has stated; 
     the Government Accountability Office has recently issued a 
     report documenting billions of dollars of waste and 
     duplication at Government agencies, including the Department 
     of Defense, and the Department of Defense has never passed a 
     clean audit; the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal 
     Responsibility and Reform and the bipartisan Rivlin-Domenici 
     Debt Reduction Task Force were correct in concluding that all 
     programs, including national security, should be ``on the 
     table'' as part of a deficit reduction plan; and any budget 
     plan serious about reducing the deficit must follow this 
     precept to consider all programs, including national security 
     programs, the largest segment of discretionary spending.

     SEC. 602. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE IMPORTANCE OF 
                   CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT.

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

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B of the 
report.
  Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall 
be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
and shall not be subject to amendment.
  After conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for 
amendment, there shall be a final period of general debate which shall 
not exceed 20 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Cleaver

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in part B of House Report 112-62.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk in order 
under the rule.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2012.

       (a) Declaration.--The Congress determines and declares that 
     this concurrent resolution establishes the budget for fiscal 
     year 2012 and sets forth appropriate budgetary levels for 
     fiscal years 2013 through 2021.
       (b) Table of Contents.--

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2012 through 2021:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,205,595,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,508,371,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,802,758,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $3,010,095,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,178,229,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,338,407,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,492,151,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,651,546,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,828,074,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $4,015,043,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2012: $314,184,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $153,416,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $131,883,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $179,193,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $207,037,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $163,096,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $157,689,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $148,730,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $147,564,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $131,460,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2012: $3,140,298,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $3,050,251,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $3,232,125,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $3,401,789,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,607,488,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,760,946,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,897,468,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $4,096,228,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $4,294,254,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $4,459,973,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2012: $3,114,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $3,109,045,000,000.

[[Page 6229]]

       Fiscal year 2014: $3,218,907,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $3,363,248,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,573,640,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,706,838,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,830,523,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $4,043,926,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $4,228,332,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $4,402,622,000,000.
       (4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget) 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2012: $908,405,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $600,674,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $416,149,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $353,153,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $395,411,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $368,431,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $338,372,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $392,380,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $400,258,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $387,579,000,000.
       (5) Debt subject to limit.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate 
     levels of the public debt are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2012: $16,060,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $16,845,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $17,548,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $18,037,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $18,675,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $19,305,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $19,932,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $20,604,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $21,301,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $22,018,000,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2012: $11,276,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $11,891,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $12,315,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $12,673,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $13,066,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $13,435,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $13,781,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $14,186,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $14,615,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021; $15,043,000,000,000.

     SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2012 through 2021 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $585,002,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $598,671,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $602,632,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $598,619,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $618,636,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $606,563,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $613,259,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $618,381,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $644,497,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $633,438,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $656,109,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $642,414,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $668,181,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $650,635,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $680,395,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $667,965,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $692,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $679,989,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $705,330,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $692,257,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,212,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,294,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,982,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,193,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,518,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,033,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,252,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,515,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,452,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,087,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,018,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,239,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,083,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,852,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,194,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,320,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,327,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,343,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,511,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,294,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,566,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,511,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,473,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,569,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,802,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,528,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,475,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,587,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,149,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,411,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,905,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,190,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,682,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,969,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,439,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,695,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,227,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,607,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,944,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,289,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,201,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,610,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,719,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,602,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,449,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,288,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,127,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,262,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,069,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,267,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,782,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,408,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,983,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,667,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,871,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,686,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,802,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,825,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,918,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,299,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,305,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,382,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,729,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,871,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,794,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,796,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,803,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,709,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,616,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,289,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,044,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,449,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,817,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,161,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,184,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,347,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,651,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,884,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,466,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,821,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,880,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,750,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,220,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,857,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,773,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,172,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,973,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,388,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,027,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,397,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,303,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,652,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,559,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,891,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,873,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,204,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,154,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,494,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,301,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,782,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,460,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,886,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,909,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$329,000,000.

[[Page 6230]]

       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,724,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,102,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,193,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$5,647,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,275,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$6,557,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,584,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$7,780,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,922,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,830,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,282,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,645,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,546,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,019,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $164,397,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $107,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $118,785,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $115,243,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $124,490,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $117,996,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $131,785,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $122,061,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $138,597,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $126,993,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $145,552,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $132,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $142,463,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $135,940,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $144,362,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $139,111,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $146,317,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $141,571,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $148,332,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $142,908,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,304,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,416,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,284,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,635,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,460,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,894,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,745,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,920,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,152,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,873,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,584,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,244,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,038,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,038,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,509,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,401,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,967,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,844,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,475,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,316,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $127,785,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $122,797,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $110,681,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $116,536,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $116,163,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $115,420,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $120,943,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $119,708,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $127,863,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $124,875,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $131,741,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $129,545,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $133,533,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $132,131,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $135,410,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $133,923,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $137,767,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $135,540,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $138,562,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $137,127,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $369,493,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $365,443,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $384,710,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $380,637,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $458,629,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $445,506,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $524,185,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $153,567,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $572,119,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $576,975,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $615,385,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $618,309,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $657,150,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $654,695,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $703,207,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $700,159,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $758,257,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $744,694,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $802,020,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $798,239,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $484,111,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $483,780,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $520,430,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $520,624,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $548,261,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $548,183,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $570,614,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $570,466,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $617,637,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $617,836,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $639,232,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $639,114,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $661,919,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $661,747,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $721,678,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $721,870,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $773,720,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $773,596,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $827,773,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $827,625,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $567,181,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $556,666,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $534,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $532,449,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $532,748,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $530,980,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $530,252,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $527,489,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $537,507,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $538,348,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $537,892,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $534,372,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $542,056,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $533,620,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $557,509,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $553,333,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $569,122,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $564,783,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $581,727,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $577,158,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,745,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,930,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,094,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,256,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,699,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,776,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,259,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,311,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,171,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,171,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,265,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,263,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,721,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,717,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,514,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,508,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,560,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,552,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,063,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,053,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $133,332,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $132,353,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $135,012,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $134,811,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $139,125,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $138,965,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $143,143,000,000.

[[Page 6231]]

       (B) Outlays, $142,792,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $152,382,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $151,805,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $151,311,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $150,657,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $150,399,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $149,703,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $160,078,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $159,359,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $164,666,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $163,930,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $169,367,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $168,573,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,432,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,751,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,315,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,121,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,543,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,513,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,239,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,275,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,732,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,852,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,411,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,803,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,848,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,738,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,427,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $63,075,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,045,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,425,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,682,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,034,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,320,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,424,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,002,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,997,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,090,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,666,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,356,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,609,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,943,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,951,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,226,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,019,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,614,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,324,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,098,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,557,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,450,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,952,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,860,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,266,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $373,298,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $373,298,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $429,008,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $429,008,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $495,067,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $495,067,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $556,504,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $556,504,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $617,248,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $617,248,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $673,242,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $673,242,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $723,073,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $723,073,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $765,358,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $765,358,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $806,789,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $806,789,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $838,786,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $838,786,000,000.
       (19) Security Allowances (930):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, -$15,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$8,592,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, -$20,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$15,405,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, -$25,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$21,052,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, -$30,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$26,235,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, -$35,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$31,385,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$35,692,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$33,860,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$36,409,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$35,217,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$37,142,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$36,167,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$37,884,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$36,982,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$38,653,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$37,728,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, -$79,779,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$79,779,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, -$81,619,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$81,619,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, -$85,164,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$85,164,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, -$90,854,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$90,854,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, -$92,630,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$92,630,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$93,926,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$93,926,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$99,730,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$99,730,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$104,303,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$104,303,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$108,178,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$108,178,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$112,645,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$112,645,000,000.
       (21) Overseas contingency operations (970):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,544,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $88,028,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $48,016,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $16,911,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $5,271,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $1,535,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $587,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $351,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $265,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $250,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $100,000,000.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver) and a Member opposed each will control 15 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Madam Chair, the Congressional Black Caucus has offered 
an alternative resolution to the budget proposals every year since 
1981. This year marks the 40th anniversary of the Congressional Black 
Caucus, and we have over those years served as the conscience of this 
body.
  I stand in front of you today to say that this is perhaps the most 
important of all of the alternative budgets offered by the 
Congressional Black Caucus. And the reason is, Madam Chairman, that we 
believe someone must stand up for the vulnerable population. The 
vulnerable population is not what we generally like to think; it's not 
the stereotypical view of a person who doesn't work and is shiftless 
and is a parasite.
  The vulnerable population today consists of firefighters, police 
officers, municipal workers, State workers, factory workers who have 
been laid off through no fault of their own because of this weak 
economy. Those men and women have been struggling trying to make it.
  Somebody must stand up for them. They are black, white, brown, they 
are elderly. Some of them are at an age where it will be difficult for 
them to get another job. And so somebody must stand up for them, and we 
have decided that it will be us.
  Now, let me just say that these are some weird times. We do have a 
budget

[[Page 6232]]

deficit, and we would not at all suggest that we don't need to deal 
with the budget deficit. What we need to do, however, is deal with it 
in a way that will protect the vulnerable populations.
  Madam Chair, I have a left knee that is artificial, it is a 
prosthetic, the result of football injuries. And once I recovered and 
left the hospital after the surgery, my brain automatically forced the 
rest of my body to pay attention to the sick side of my body. So I 
automatically, even though I tried not to, did everything I could do to 
protect my left knee. I even put most of my weight on my right knee.
  What I am saying is that our bodies provide us with a message that 
when some part of our body is vulnerable, is weak, the other part, the 
strong part, needs to do everything it can to protect the weak part.
  The Congressional Black Caucus is saying that our alternative budget 
does exactly that when you consider the fact that the gap in after-tax 
income between the richest 1 percent of Americans and the middle and 
poorest fifths of our country more than doubled between 1979 and 2009.
  So we can see that the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting 
poorer. And when I hear people say we must have shared sacrifice, I 
disagree.
  The poorest people don't need to sacrifice. I am not sure that you 
can find a single poor person who is responsible for the economic 
collapse of the last 2 years. Mark Zandi, an economist with 
unimpeachable Republican credentials, said that 1.7 million people will 
lose their jobs in the first 2 years if this budget is enacted.
  So, Madam Chair, we intend to present our budget now to demonstrate 
how this body can protect its weak side and still maintain the best of 
this Republic for the protection of its people.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2140

  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 15 
minutes.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Madam Chair, I am so glad that we are going through this process this 
year. I think this is a healthy part of what we do as the United 
States, what separates us from a lot of other countries. And I'm glad 
that we are actually doing this. This is my second term in Congress. So 
last Congress last year, we didn't even go through this process. I 
think this is healthy.
  I think we all care deeply, and we are very patriotic about this 
country, but I happen to have a vision that says that the proper role 
of government is somewhat limited and that there is a proper role for 
government, and that we need to adhere to that proper role.
  It's funny, sometimes I hear opposition to the Republican proposal or 
the Republican budget, and I hear that we're going to sacrifice this 
and we're going to cut all that. Let's also understand that we're still 
going to spend $3.5 trillion with a capital T. That's a lot of money. 
People often ask me, they say how much is $1 trillion? It's kind of a 
hard number to get your arms around, but if you were to spend $1 
million a day, every day, it would take you almost 3,000 years to get 
to $1 trillion, to $1 trillion.
  Well, we're $14 trillion in debt. We're paying more than $600 million 
a day in interest on that debt. It's on its way to $1 billion a day in 
just the interest on that debt, and we're going to have to deal with 
the fact that we've got to pay that debt. We've got to cut up the 
government credit card. We have spent far too much money.
  What I like about what we have proposed in the Republican budget is 
that we start to rein in the out-of-control spending; yet we still 
fulfill a lot of the obligations that we have to this country, 
particularly for seniors and others. We will still spend an exorbitant 
amount of money, but over the course of time, we will be on the proper 
trajectory to live within our means.
  I think that is one of the foundations of this country, the idea of 
personal responsibility, the idea that we have to live within our 
means, that we are self-sufficient. And we have to deal with the fact 
that in Congresses previous, in generations previous, they have racked 
up this debt. And we go through and blame each other for that. But the 
reality moving forward is we have to put ourselves on a trajectory to 
balance the budget and pay off the debt. And that, I think, is one of 
the great moral responsibilities that we have in the United States 
Congress, the adult conversation that we have.
  There are a lot of needs in this country, but we're broke, ladies and 
gentlemen. We're broke. And we have got to rein in the spending. And we 
have got to make the United States as competitive as we can possibly 
be. Because when we're competitive on the world stage--the United 
States of America is still the greatest country on the face of the 
planet--but if we're going to be the military and economic superpower, 
we have a responsibility to live within our means and to become self-
sufficient.
  I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Chair.
  Mr. CLEAVER. I yield myself 10 seconds to just say, when progress is 
made, someone is always left behind. And my concern is that it's always 
the vulnerable.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Bobby Scott.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, the Congressional Black Caucus 
has a long history of submitting fiscally responsible budget 
alternatives regardless of who may be sitting in the White House or 
which party holds the majority in Congress.
  This year's budget alternative continues this long tradition by 
putting forth a plan that significantly reduces our deficit over the 
next decade while increasing economic opportunities and promoting job 
creation in every corner of our society.
  Unlike the Republican budget, the CBC budget brings the deficit to 
1.4 percent of GDP by 2015, better than so-called primary balance, 
which was the goal of the President's fiscal commission, and achieves 
primary balance even earlier than the commission, itself. While I 
commend the Republican chairman of the Budget Committee for proposing a 
budget that reduces our long-term debt, he only achieves this by 
shifting medical costs to lower-income Americans and seniors.
  The CBC budget is much more responsible. Our budget makes tough 
choices. But unlike the Republican budget, it doesn't jeopardize Social 
Security, undermine Medicaid by turning it into a block grant, or shift 
Medicare costs to seniors by creating a voucher program that doesn't 
keep pace with medical inflation. Our budget protects these vital 
programs, and compared to the Republican budget, it has $1.3 trillion 
more in deficit reduction over the next decade.
  The CBC budget proposes responsible revenue increases by closing 
corporate loopholes and preferences, deterring aggressive stock 
speculation, which helped contribute to the 2008 financial crisis, and 
ensuring that the wealthiest Americans who benefited most from the tax 
cuts and bailouts in the last decades pay their fair share.
  Now, with the additional revenues and assuming some of the cuts 
proposed in the President's budget, the CBC budget uses 80 percent of 
the additional revenue for deficit reduction, and then invests the rest 
to protect from making the cuts in our safety net programs, like WIC or 
Community Health Centers, avoiding cuts in investments in our future 
like Head Start, Pell Grants, high-speed rail, and NASA, reducing cuts 
in critical functions like clean water, FBI agents and food 
inspections, and has more for national defense, homeland security and 
our veterans. Our budget also fully funds an additional 14 weeks of 
emergency unemployment benefits for those who have exhausted their 
benefits, often referred to as the 99ers.
  Now, Madam Chair, the CBC budget protects our social safety net. It 
invests in our future. It maintains essential services in national 
security. It does all of this and has more deficit reduction than the 
underlying Republican budget. So we have a choice. We can have lower 
deficits and a better future, or we can have tax cuts for multi-
millionaires and oil companies.

[[Page 6233]]

  I urge my colleagues to make the right choice and support the Cleaver 
amendment.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the freshman 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).
  Mr. LANKFORD. Madam Chair, the House budget that we're proposing 
tonight from Republicans is a budget that will take discretionary 
spending back to the pre-2008 level and begin to deal with our spending 
issue that we have as a Nation. We have increased our discretionary 
spending 25 percent over the last 2 years. We're trying to move it back 
to where we were a few years ago and then allow that to be able to grow 
with inflation.
  We're focusing on freezing in the Federal workforce. It's a 
recommendation done by the President's own debt commission. And taking 
that issue on that the President and the debt commission gave to say, 
how do we need to handle our Federal workforce? It has increased by 
140,000 just in a single year. And it begins to walk through the 
process of what do we do with our social safety net to make sure that 
the social safety net is still there in the years to come.
  We believe there needs to be a social safety net, but as our chairman 
has said multiple times, that social safety net should be a safety net 
and not a hammock. And it should allow people to be able to go through 
that process to find a safe place and a safe harbor for a period of 
time until they're able to get back on their feet. That's a good thing 
for us to be able to do as Americans, and we need to find ways to be 
able to protect that in the days to come.
  But part of the struggle that we have with that is finding ways that 
that doesn't become a place where people are trapped indefinitely. So 
we would like to be able to implement some of the reforms of the 
Clinton-era time when temporary assistance for needy families was 
transitioned in, and it has become such a great success on helping 
families be able to transition into work. The best way we can take care 
of families that are in the poverty area is not through a program from 
the government; it is with a great job so they have great self-esteem 
and they can be engaged and be a part of our ongoing economy.
  The President's own debt commission made the comment that the Nation 
is broke, and what we need to do is focus on reducing spending and 
dealing with how we handle what we do as a Nation and what we're trying 
to accomplish.
  As far as the issues about Medicare, we've been very clear through 
this process. We're dealing with Medicare changes for those that are 54 
years old and younger. And for those that are in poverty and facing 
disability, those individuals would have full coverage, and as they're 
more wealthy, yes, we would means test that. We have an expectation 
that wealthier senior adults would be able to help cover more of their 
own Medicare; but for those that are in poverty or near the poverty 
range, they would be supplemented more to make sure that we're taking 
care of them, and it would be a guaranteed coverage like they have now 
so that they don't have to worry about not being able to get Medicare. 
They would be able to have it, and that would be secured for them.
  We have one more major thing that we've all discussed. We all want 
taxes to be more simple in the process. Tomorrow is April 15, all of 
our favorite day in America, dealing with the taxes and dealing with 
the process. And it's not a matter of being a great citizen. It's just 
a matter of going through the tax forms. We need to simplify this 
process and make it more flat, more level and more fair for people 
across the board. So that's a major part of it. We're not talking about 
raising taxes $6 trillion. We're talking about keeping tax rates where 
they are and finding a way to be able to honor people and honor 
families.

                              {time}  2150

  Mr. CLEAVER. Madam Chair, how much time remains, please?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri has 8\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CLEAVER. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Wisconsin, 
Ms. Gwendolynne Moore.
  Ms. MOORE. The Congressional Black Caucus, the conscience of the 
Congress, rejects cuts that wage war on the poor and war on the working 
class. There are 43 of us from 21 States, and we represent over 30 
million people. We are aggrieved that two-thirds of the Republican 
budget cuts come from programs that serve low-income and working class 
people while there is no sacrifice from the uber-wealthy class.
  It is our job to be a voice in the wilderness and to point out that 
it is downright immoral to choose tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans 
and billions of dollars of tax breaks and tax subsidies rather than 
preserving the dignity of a life with decent housing, food security, 
and access to health care for all Americans.
  The gentleman who spoke previously just pointed out that they're 
cutting welfare because they believe that people need self-esteem. 
Well, you cannot eat self-esteem, and you cannot live in a house built 
on self-esteem. We want you to know that half of all Americans in this 
country are barely making it without any governmental support, and they 
need Medicaid. They don't need you to block grant it. ``Block 
granting'' means a cut. ``Block granting food stamps'' means a cut. 
Privatizing Medicare is a cut. Inflicting deep cuts to the Low Income 
Home Energy Assistance Program and denying extended benefits to the 
unemployed is a cut.
  Yet the Congressional Black Caucus prioritizes controlling the debt 
and deficit. We cut it by $4 trillion over 10 years. We, the CBC, 
submit that conservative fiscal policy is compatible with compassion 
for the invisible, voiceless majority of Americans who need their 
government to respond.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Madam Chair, there has been much discussion 
today about shared sacrifice. The notion of shared sacrifice, let's 
disaggregate that for a moment.
  We might have shared sacrifice for the next generation. We certainly 
are contemplating that right now if we fail to act in a responsible 
manner and address our Nation's debt crisis.
  Shared sacrifice for the currently unemployed and underemployed in 
our country, that is what we are contemplating. If our solution to our 
Nation's problems is merely to increase taxes, we're going to see a 
decrease in job creation in this country. We will actually see our 
going the other direction in terms of employment in this country if we 
implement, as is proposed in this substitute, a tax increase of almost 
$6 trillion as compared to the budget that we are embracing on the 
Republican side.
  We are imposing all manner of unnecessary sacrifice under this 
substitute on those Americans who are currently working and middle 
class. It contemplates a tax increase on capital gains and dividends at 
ordinary income rates. What that means, essentially, is we're thinking 
of taxing pensions and mutual funds at a rate as high as 49 percent. 
That would adversely impact our seniors. It's not the responsible thing 
to do.
  Here in this proposal, we are also contemplating allowing all tax 
provisions of the 2001 and 2003 deals to expire for all taxpayers. In 
other words, this is a proposed tax increase on middle class Americans. 
I don't think that's the right thing to do right now.
  Let's remind ourselves that we cannot tax our way out of this 
spending problem. Washington, once again, does not have a tax problem. 
We are not in this mess because we're not taxing the American people 
enough. Instead, we are in this mess because we're spending far too 
much.
  This will become a familiar chart for Americans around the country, I 
hope, but let's look at this:
  This is the ski slope of future spending projections, according to 
our Office of Management and Budget and Congressional Budget Office, if 
we do nothing. Those on the other side are seemingly proposing that we 
continue along this course or that we try and remedy

[[Page 6234]]

 this situation through job-constraining tax increases. That's not the 
way to go.
  Finally, one statistic that was cited earlier tonight bears 
reiterating. If we were to tax everyone in this country who makes 
$250,000 or more--every family in this country, so that's just two 
income earners--at the $125,000 level and at 100 percent of their 
incomes, we still could not improve our financial situation enough to 
restore private sector job creation and put ourselves back on the path 
to prosperity. That is why I think we need to embrace this Ryan budget.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas, Al Green.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, the American people are 
confronting a dilemma, and the dilemma is simply this: to privatize or 
not to privatize. When all is said and done, that's the dilemma that we 
face based upon what the opposing party proposes.
  The simple solution to education is to simply privatize and to give 
them vouchers. The simple solution to Social Security is to privatize 
and to place it in the stock market. The simple solution to health care 
is to privatize and to give them vouchers. For every complicated 
problem, there is a simple solution that's usually wrong.
  As the economy continues to emerge from the worst recession in 
generations, the CBC budget understands the increased need for income 
security programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 
(SNAP), Unemployment insurance, Medicaid, and Section 8 housing 
vouchers.
  As a member of the House Financial Services Committee, I have worked 
hard over many years to ensure adequate funding levels for housing and 
community development programs, such as the Fair Housing Initiatives 
program and the HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing program. I am 
pleased that the CBC budget supports investment in these key programs.
  For Fiscal Year 2012, the Administration has requested $75 million 
for new HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) vouchers, which 
will end homelessness for an estimated 11,538 of our nation's veterans.
  HUD-VASH combines tenant-based voucher assistance for homeless 
veterans with case management and clinical services provided by the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) at its medical centers in local 
communities.
  Public housing authorities who are awarded HUD-VASH vouchers develop 
partnerships with VA medical centers to help homeless veterans find 
permanent supportive housing.
  It is estimated that approximately 60,000 homeless veterans will need 
HUD-VASH vouchers. A recent report issued by HUD and the VA indicated 
that on a single night in January 2009, 75,609 veterans were homeless.
  Over the past three fiscal years, Congress has appropriated $75 
million a year for 10,000 new vouchers--for a total of 30,000 vouchers.
  To continue moving towards the goal of ending veterans' homelessness, 
Congress should provide an additional 11,538 vouchers in FY 2012.
  I am pleased that the CBC Budget makes homeless veterans a priority 
by providing additional funding to Section 8 which will ultimately 
ensure adequate vouchers in FY 2012.
  The CBC Budget also provides additional funding for community and 
regional development programs. I am pleased that the Fair Housing 
Initiatives Program is listed among programs targeted to receive 
additional support.
  This week marked the forty-third anniversary of the signing of the 
federal Fair Housing Act which was signed into law because of the 
efforts of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to bring civil rights and justice 
in housing to all Americans. The Fair Housing Act outlawed 
discrimination in housing based upon race, color, religion, and 
national origin.
  Despite its passage more than 40 years ago, approximately 4 million 
fair housing violations are estimated to occur each year, many of which 
involve veterans and military personnel.
  However, according to the National Fair Housing Alliance, just 30,000 
are reported to federal, state, and local fair housing authorities and 
only a handful are investigated with less than 120 actually resulting 
in charges.
  This number appears low given that housing discrimination is 
perceived to be one of the root causes of the current foreclosure 
crisis.
  Fair housing education and enforcement, primarily provided by 
private, non-profit fair housing organizations, play an important role 
in fighting housing discrimination and predatory lending.
  With support from the federal Fair Housing Initiatives Program 
(FHIP), these organizations investigate over half of the nation's 
reported housing discrimination complaints, counsel people who have 
been victims of housing discrimination, and enforce fair housing laws 
through housing testing programs.
  The President's Budget proposes $42.5 million in funding for the FHIP 
program in FY2012 which provides level funding from the previous year.
  FHIP is a key federal program that provides funds to enforce the 
nation's fair housing laws, combat housing discrimination and ensure 
equal housing opportunities at the state and local level.
  Given the ongoing foreclosure crisis, which has forced many families 
to enter the rental market, strengthened fair housing programs are more 
important than ever.
  As the housing market slowly recovers, the need for sustained funding 
for fair housing enforcement is critically important. I am pleased that 
the CBC budget recognizes the importance of this program by providing 
additional funding for it as well.
  In addition, I have introduced H.R. 284, the Veterans, Women, 
Families with Children, and Persons with Disabilities Housing Fairness 
Act of 2011, which aims to provide the necessary enforcement to 
guarantee equal opportunities and prosecute housing discrimination, as 
well as to be a deterrent for this kind of behavior.
  It is my hope that these combined efforts will bring us closer to 
ending housing discrimination, especially against disabled persons and 
particularly against our veterans.
  I ask my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on final passage of the 
Congressional Black Caucus Alternative Budget for Fiscal Year 2012.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
in order to say that we don't offer a proposal to privatize Social 
Security. We do not do the things that were just said on this floor.
  Nevertheless, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Rokita).
  Mr. ROKITA. Madam Chair, I rise tonight to also talk a little bit 
about the size and the scope and the number of employees that this 
Federal Government has. Earlier tonight, I talked about the State from 
which I come, Indiana--a AAA bond rating, not raising taxes on anybody, 
and a budget that year after year has been in the black.
  As Secretary of State for Indiana for the last 8 years, I had 
operated a bureaucracy, and I know a little bit about them. What we had 
in Indiana, at least in the Secretary of State's office, was a pretty 
darned good one. We had no more employees in the Indiana Secretary of 
State's office than we did in the early '80s, and we were running on a 
1987 budget, unadjusted for inflation.
  I can tell by the reaction of some of the Members here in the House 
tonight that it's one of derision. It's one of scoffing. It can be 
done. The States know how to do it. Let's look to them.
  In contrast to Indiana, what do we see here at the Federal level? We 
see 155,000 more bureaucrats than just a few years ago, an 80-plus-
percent increase in the size and scope of this Federal Government, 
Madam Chairman--and that's just the personnel. We can have cuts in each 
of these departments. Every bureaucrat we don't hire after one retires 
will cause a 10 percent decrease in the Federal workforce over just a 
few years. That's responsible governing, especially when you're talking 
about a $14 trillion debt--$1 trillion year after year deficits.
  As the previous Republican speaker pointed out, my friend Todd Young, 
it's just getting worse. The red menace is upon us, and it's the red 
ink produced in this Federal Government, right here from the well of 
this House, to begin with. The Ryan proposal that came out of the 
Budget Committee addresses this in a responsible manner. The smaller we 
make this Federal Government, the more the private sector grows. It's 
correlational. It's definitional.

                              {time}  2200

  I urge my colleagues to pass this budget proposal, the Ryan proposal.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Clarke).
  Ms. CLARKE of New York. Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of the 
Congressional Black Caucus budget alternative which lays out what I 
truly believe to be a more responsible way forward. In stark contrast 
to the irresponsible and reckless cuts proposed by the majority in the 
Ryan budget, the

[[Page 6235]]

CBC budget alternative recognizes that not only can we not cut and 
slash our way to prosperity on the backs of our Nation's most 
vulnerable while protecting tax cuts for multimillionaires, but we also 
must invest in our Nation's future.
  Our proposal creates jobs by investing in the green economy, 
diminishing our dependence on foreign oil, invests in our future by 
supporting programs that make education from the cradle to college more 
affordable, and protects the most vulnerable Americans.
  Madam Chair, it is time we have an honest conversation with the 
American people about where we are: the greatest wealth transfer from 
the poor and the middle class to the rich and the wealthy in our 
lifetime. How we got here: Bush tax cuts, subprime scamming, and 
financial sector greed. And how we get to fiscal solvency: By 
supporting the CBC budget alternative. We are the conscience of the 
Congress.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Chair, I would like to inquire of the remaining 
time. We have no additional speakers except myself.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah has 3 minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from Missouri has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), a certified physician.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Chair, I rise today in strong support of the 
Congressional Black Caucus' budget, which is responsible and responsive 
to the needs of all Americans, especially those who have been ignored 
and underserved in these hard economic times.
  We reject the Republican budget that, while providing giveaways to 
the rich and corporations, sends seniors and people with disabilities 
out into the private insurance market with vouchers that will not 
cover, and so will increase, their costs, and that reopens the dreaded 
doughnut hole.
  The CBC budget preserves Medicare, strengthens and extends it, and 
ends the doughnut hole. Republicans would cut Medicaid, denying health 
care to Americans who need prevention and care most, continuing the 
spiral of excess disabilities, illness, and premature death.
  Our budget fully funds Medicaid and the Prevention and Public Health 
Fund, ensuring health care and the chance for wellness which many would 
not have without them.
  We robustly fund HIV/AIDS, WIC, maternal and child health, and other 
programs to close gaps and bring better health to minorities, the poor, 
and Americans in rural areas and the territories.
  Unlike the Republicans budget, we create millions of jobs, bring down 
costs, and further reduce the deficit. Vote for the CBC budget. Reject 
the harmful Republican budget.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in 
strong support of the Congressional Black Caucus budget. As a senior 
member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and as a 
former chairman of the committee's Subcommittee on the Coast Guard and 
Maritime Transportation, I know that budget cuts do not build bridges. 
They also do not repair roads, and they do not expand our transit 
systems.
  Unlike the majority's proposed budget which threatens to bring our 
transportation networks to a standstill, the Congressional Black Caucus 
alternative budget invests $20 billion above the President's budget in 
highways, transit, high-speed rail, and bridges. Such an investment in 
our Nation's infrastructure will move our recovering economy forward 
while creating at least 1 million jobs. Such investments will also 
ensure the mobility of our constituents so they can keep moving 
forward.
  The CBC alternative budget makes investments in economic growth, and 
our Nation's needs, and I urge all Members to vote in favor of the 
Congressional Black Caucus budget.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLEAVER. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to 
the Ryan plan and in favor of the CBC budget. The CBC budget invests 
heavily in the education of our youngest citizens, from preschool to 
graduate school. This investment is necessary to ensure that all 
children receive the world class education they so greatly need and 
rightly deserve.
  This investment is necessary to build the early childhood education 
system. We need to improve school readiness and reduce achievement gaps 
among students from different backgrounds. This investment is necessary 
to teach critical math and science skills, to improve graduation rates, 
and to provide for crucial college preparation programs such as TRIO 
and GEAR UP, all of which are essential for success in our 
technological world.
  Madam Chair, education is a civil rights issue, and unless we educate 
all of our children, this country will never be what it ought to be. I 
support the CBC budget.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Chair, I understand the gentleman has additional 
speakers. I am happy to yield an additional minute to the gentleman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri now controls 2\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. CLEAVER. I thank the gentleman from Utah, and I yield 1 minute to 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from 
Utah for yielding to the CBC.
  The CBC budget saves $325 billion in interest over 10 years which the 
Republican budget does not. I am glad to stand here and talk about 
ports and public transit, but I am even more glad to talk about the $5 
billion that goes into general sciences, space and technology, and the 
$5 billion for community development.
  The reason I want to say that is for all of the tax cuts to the 
wealthy, $800 billion, the CBC budget understands that they can invest 
in health, income security, education, and transportation.
  In addition, may I say to you that this is the face of what we are 
trying to fight for: a hardworking nurse and a beautiful child. This is 
what America is all about. And I would just say to my good friends, the 
CBC budget does not engage in slash-onomics. It does not engage in 
losing jobs, jobs, jobs. We create jobs through community block grants, 
through space, science, and technology, through transportation. And all 
the bill for the Republicans will do to America is slash jobs; slash-
onomics. Vote for the CBC budget.
  Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Congressional Black Caucus 
Alternative Budget for Fiscal Year 2012. The CBC Alternative Budget 
provides a far superior alternative to the Republican Budget in general 
and especially in the areas of job creating area of transportation and 
infrastructure.


                               IN GENERAL

  The CBC Alternative Budget for FY 2012 puts forth a plan that reduces 
the deficit over the next decade, and increases economic opportunities 
and job creation while ensuring sustained investments in education, job 
training, transportation and infrastructure, and advanced research and 
development.
  Deficit reduction and the path to fiscal sustainability must not be 
on the backs of the vulnerable. We cannot win the future by leaving our 
most vulnerable behind. Our success as a nation is interwoven in the 
success of every community. The CBC Alternative Budget is an honest and 
responsible path to prosperity.
  Unlike the Republican Budget, the CBC Budget achieves all this by 
making tough but responsible decisions to raise new revenue by 
broadening the tax base, make our tax system fairer, and close 
corporate tax loopholes and preferences that have only contributed to 
the loss of American jobs. Instead of recklessly swinging the budget 
axe like the Republican leadership, the CBC budget makes targeted 
investments that will pay dividends for decades.

[[Page 6236]]

  Compared to the President's budget, the CBC budget saves $5.7 
trillion on the deficit over the next decade.
  Compared to the Republican budget, the CBC budget saves $1.3 trillion 
on the deficit over the next decade.


                               EDUCATION

  The CBC budget invests $20 billion over the President's Budget in 
Education and Job Training Programs.
  The CBC Budget support the President's targeted investments towards 
education programs, but also restores the proposed cuts to the 
Community Services Block Grant and the $7.6 billion cut to year round 
Pell grants.


                    JOB CREATION & SOCIAL SAFETY NET

  In the name of cutting spending, Republicans in Congress have 
recklessly swung the axe at programs that help vulnerable Americans. 
The blade did not spare Community Development Black Grants, food 
assistant programs, etc. The Republican budget all but wipes out these 
necessary programs at the time when more and more families are being 
pushing into poverty.
  CBC budget provides states with the resources necessary to continue 
to preserve the social safety net while promoting sustainable job 
creation and economic growth. This proposed investment in 
infrastructure is supported by business, specifically the United States 
Chamber of Commerce.
  CBC budget also provides $16 billion for H.R. 589, the Emergency 
Unemployment Compensation Expansion and $2.5 billion for the TANF 
Emergency Contingency Fund.


                           DEFICIT REDUCTION

  For FY 2012, the CBC Budget sets aside $283.4 billion for deficit 
reduction. Over a 10 year period, the CBC budget sets aside $3.96 
trillion of deficit reduction. Compared to the Republican budget, the 
CBC budget save $172 billion on the deficit in FY2012 and $1.34 
trillion over the next decade.


                             TRANSPORTATION

  The CBC budget provides $20 billion for Transportation Investment.


                    COMMUNITY & REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  The CBC budget provides $5 billion for Community & regional 
Development.


                               CONCLUSION

  By investing in infrastructure and other job creating areas, the CBC 
Alternative Budget offers the best and most fiscally responsible 
proposal to take America forward to economic prosperity.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Madam Chair, in closing, I am not accusing anybody of 
being mean-spirited and wanting to hurt people. I am absolutely 
convinced that those who support the Republican budget are good and 
decent Americans. They want the best things for this country. I will 
never stand on this floor and do that.
  But what I am saying is I believe and our caucus believes that their 
program, their budget, is one that does damage to the vulnerable 
population of this country. We believe that somebody must stand up and 
speak for those who are hurting and cannot speak for themselves.

                              {time}  2210

  A budget is a moral document. It is a photograph of what we believe. 
It is a look into the somebodiness of the United States of America. And 
when we look at this budget that this Congress will ultimately approve, 
some budget, it is who we are. It is a biography of who we are. And I 
am absolutely convinced that the wrong budget--and I think that the 
budget that is before us is the wrong budget--could create a gash on 
the soul of America and leave a scar for a long, long time.
  Madam Chair, this is a time that we must be careful because if we are 
not, great damage will be done to the people who can afford the damage 
the least. I'm talking about children. I'm talking about the elderly. 
And I'm talking about Americans who live next door to us, people who 
sit on the pew with us in church. These are people who are going to be 
hurt by this budget. And I think that the American public, when they 
come to understand this budget, will come to the conclusion that we're 
right.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Chair, the United States of America is the 
greatest country on the face of the planet. We have overcome challenge 
after challenge for hundreds of years.
  What makes America great is that entrepreneurial spirit, that can-do 
attitude, that idea that was inspired in the Constitution. See, I 
believe that the Constitution is an inspired, sacred document. But if 
we are going to continue to maintain our being the world's economic and 
military superpower, we're going to have to change the trajectory in 
which we are doing business.
  Taxing, spending, borrowing money--that is not the pathway to 
prosperity. The American Dream is built upon the ideal that people need 
to take care of themselves. There is a proper role of government. And 
what we truly need in this country is fiscal discipline, limited 
government, accountability, and a strong national defense.
  The Republican budget that has been put forward puts us on that 
trajectory, to retain and regain that fiscal sanity that we so 
desperately need in this country. Not only does our budget balance over 
the course of time, but it actually pays off the debt. And that, I 
think and I believe, is what we should be doing and what this budget 
that is put forth by the Budget Committee on the Republican side of the 
aisle truly does.
  We have a moral obligation to leave this country better than how we 
found it. And if we are going to truly drive jobs and the economy 
forward, we are going to have to recognize that we need to empower the 
individual. We need to empower the entrepreneur so that they can be the 
very best they can in a very competitive global climate.
  So, Madam Chair, I would urge the passage of the Republican budget, 
and I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this alternative that 
has been put forward during this last half hour.
  I have enjoyed the debate. That's what makes this country great.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of the 
alternative budget of the Congressional Black Caucus. This budget makes 
smart investments in our future by focusing on education, workforce 
training, and advanced research and development for clean energy 
technologies.
  As you all know, minority communities took the hardest hit during the 
economic recession. In my district, we suffer from rates of 
unemployment and home foreclosure that are significantly higher than 
the rest of the country. Although our nation's economy is showing 
positive signs of growth, we must continue to make critical investments 
in our communities to facilitate our recovery. The CBC's alternative 
budget does this by investing $20 billion more than the President's 
Budget in education and job training programs that will prepare our 
young leaders to win the future.
  While the CBC recognizes the importance of creating a budget that is 
fiscally responsible, we cannot slash spending and investment on the 
backs of the most vulnerable Americans. The CBC's alternative budget 
reduces the deficit over the next decade and makes smart investments in 
education, job creation, and transportation and infrastructure. Without 
these investments, the United States will lose its competitive edge.
  Unlike the Republican budget proposal, the CBC's alternative budget 
protects Medicare and Medicaid, and ensures that the most vulnerable in 
our society have access to quality healthcare services. The CBC's 
alternative budget also restores cuts to programs like the Low Income 
Heating Assistance Program, Community Development Block Grants and Pell 
Grants for students.
  The CBC's alternative budget will also provide $20 billion more than 
the President's Budget for needed transportation and infrastructure 
projects. These investments will help to create jobs, facilitate the 
movement of goods, and help keep our economy moving forward.
  I urge my colleagues to support the CBC's alternative budget plan, 
which reduces our deficit responsibly over the next decade and invests 
in the future prosperity of every American.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri 
will be postponed.
  The Chair is advised that amendment No. 2 printed in part B of House 
Report 112-62 will not be offered.

[[Page 6237]]


  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Chaffetz) having assumed the chair, Ms. Foxx, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the concurrent 
resolution (H. Con. Res. 34) establishing the budget for the United 
States Government for fiscal year 2012 and setting forth appropriate 
budgetary levels for fiscal years 2013 through 2021, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________