[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6268-6301]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012

  The Committee resumed its sitting.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Garrett

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Kingston). It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 4 printed in part B of House Report 112-62.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

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

       (a) Declaration.--Congress declares that the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012 is hereby 
     established and that the appropriate budgetary levels for 
     fiscal year 2011 and for fiscal years 2013 through 2021 are 
     set forth.
       (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--RECONCILIATION SUBMISSIONS

Sec. 201. Reconciliation in the House of Representatives.
Sec. 202. Submission of reports on mandatory savings.

                     TITLE III--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 301. Restrictions on advance appropriations.
Sec. 302. Emergency spending.
Sec. 303. Changes in allocations and aggregates resulting from 
              realistic scoring of measures affecting revenues.
Sec. 304. Prohibition on using revenue increases to comply with budget 
              allocations and aggregates.
Sec. 305. Application and effect of changes in allocations and 
              aggregates.
Sec. 306. Budget Protection Mandatory Account.
Sec. 307. Budget discretionary accounts.
Sec. 308. Treatment of rescission bills in the House.
Sec. 309. Sense of the House regarding baseline revenue projections.
Sec. 310. Sense of the House regarding long-term budget projections.

                      TITLE IV--EARMARK MORATORIUM

Sec. 401. Earmark moratorium.
Sec. 402. Limitation of authority of the House Committee on Rules.

                            TITLE V--POLICY

Sec. 501. Policy statement on health care law repeal.
Sec. 502. Policy statement on bailouts of State and local governments.
Sec. 503. Policy statement on means tested welfare programs.
Sec. 504. Policy statement on reforming the Federal budget process.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2011 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 2011: $1,664,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $1,866,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,128,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,325,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $2,426,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $2,523,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $2,694,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $2,809,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $2,959,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,120,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,287,000,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2011: -$0.
       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.

[[Page 6269]]

       (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 2011: $2,961,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,617,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,502,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,540,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $2,624,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $2,744,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $2,808,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $2,862,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $2,975,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,067,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,154,000,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2011: $3,117,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,740,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,673,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,650,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $2,706,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $2,818,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $2,872,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $2,919,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,038,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,131,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,219,000,000,000.
       (4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget) 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2011: $1,453,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $874,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $545,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $325,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $280,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $295,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $179,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $111,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $78,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $11,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: -$68,000,000,000.
       (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 2011: $14,969,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $15,992,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $16,722,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $17,243,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $17,750,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $18,287,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $18,727,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $19,127,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $19,485,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $19,792,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $20,053,000,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2011: $10,348,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $11,208,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $11,768,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $12,100,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $12,385,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $12,678,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $12,857,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $12,976,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $13,066,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $13,106,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $13,078,000,000,000.

     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 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $733,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $696,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $646,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $662,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $674,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $687,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $699,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $711,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $723,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $735,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $747,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.

[[Page 6270]]

       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.

[[Page 6271]]

       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.

[[Page 6272]]

       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2019:

[[Page 6273]]

       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $213,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $213,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $254,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $254,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $310,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $310,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $372,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $372,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $426,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $426,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $477,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $477,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $518,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $518,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $549,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $549,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $570,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $570,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $586,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $586,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $591,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $591,000,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,015,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,904,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,667,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,486,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,546,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,363,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, 1,506,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,278,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,524,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,280,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,580,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,341,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,591,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,354,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,602,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,370,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,682,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,468,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,746,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,545,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,816,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,628,000,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (21) Global War on Terrorism and related activities (970):
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.

                  TITLE II--RECONCILIATION SUBMISSIONS

     SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

       (a) Submissions to Slow the Growth in Mandatory Spending 
     and to Achieve Deficit Reduction.--(1) Not later than 
     September 15, 2011, the House committees named in paragraph 
     (2) shall submit their recommendations to the House Committee 
     on the Budget. After receiving those recommendations, the 
     House Committee on the Budget shall report to the House a 
     reconciliation bill carrying out all such recommendations 
     without any substantive revision.
       (2) Instructions.--
       (A) Committee on agriculture.--The House Committee on 
     Agriculture shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $436,000,000,000 in outlays 
     for the period of fiscal years 2012 through 2021.
       (B) Committee on education and the workforce.--The House 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce shall report changes 
     in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the 
     level of direct spending for that committee by 
     $103,000,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years 
     2012 through 2021.
       (C) Committee on energy and commerce.--The House Committee 
     on Energy and Commerce shall report changes in laws within 
     its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $3,007,000,000,000 in outlays 
     for the period of fiscal years 2012 through 2021.
       (D) Committee on financial services.--The House Committee 
     on Financial Services shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $49,000,000,000 in outlays for 
     the period of fiscal years 2012 through 2021.
       (E) Committee on natural resources.--The House Committee on 
     Natural Resources shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $18,000,000,000 in outlays for 
     the period of fiscal years 2012 through 2021.
       (F) Committee on oversight and government reform.--The 
     House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform shall 
     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to 
     reduce the level of direct spending for that committee by 
     $28,000,000,000 in

[[Page 6274]]

     outlays for the period of fiscal years 2012 through 2021.
       (G) Committee on ways and means.--The House Committee on 
     Ways and Means shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by 
     $320,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2012 through 
     2021.
       (H) Special rule.--The chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget may take into account legislation enacted after the 
     adoption of this resolution that is determined to reduce the 
     deficit and may make applicable adjustments in reconciliation 
     instructions, allocations, and budget aggregates and may also 
     make adjustments in reconciliation instructions to protect 
     earned benefit programs.
       (b) Submission Providing for Changes in Revenue.--The House 
     Committee on Ways and Means shall report a reconciliation 
     bill not later than September 15, 2011, that consists of 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce 
     revenues by not more than $4,163,000,000,000 for the period 
     of fiscal years 2012 through 2021.
       (c) Revision of Allocations.--(1) Upon the submission to 
     the Committee on the Budget of the House of a recommendation 
     that has complied with its reconciliation instructions solely 
     by virtue of section 310(b) of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974, the chairman of that committee may file with the 
     House appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a) 
     of such Act and revised functional levels and aggregates.
       (2) Upon the submission to the House of a conference report 
     recommending a reconciliation bill or resolution in which a 
     committee has complied with its reconciliation instructions 
     solely by virtue of this section, the chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget of the House may file with the House 
     appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a) of 
     such Act and revised functional levels and aggregates.
       (3) Allocations and aggregates revised pursuant to this 
     subsection shall be considered to be allocations and 
     aggregates established by the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget pursuant to section 301 of such Act.

     SEC. 202. SUBMISSION OF REPORTS ON MANDATORY SAVINGS.

       In the House, not later than September 15, 2011, all House 
     committees shall identify savings amounting to one percent of 
     total mandatory spending under its jurisdiction from 
     activities that are determined to be wasteful, unnecessary, 
     or lower-priority. For purposes of this section, the reports 
     by each committee shall be inserted in the Congressional 
     Record by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget not 
     later than September 15, 2011.

                     TITLE III--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 301. RESTRICTIONS ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--(1) In the House, except as provided in 
     subsection (b), an advance appropriation may not be reported 
     in a bill or joint resolution making a general appropriation 
     or continuing appropriation, and may not be in order as an 
     amendment thereto.
       (2) Managers on the part of the House may not agree to a 
     Senate amendment that would violate paragraph (1) unless 
     specific authority to agree to the amendment first is given 
     by the House by a separate vote with respect thereto.
       (b) Exception.--In the House, an advance appropriation may 
     be provided for fiscal year 2013 and fiscal years 2014 for 
     programs, projects, activities or accounts identified in the 
     joint explanatory statement of managers accompanying this 
     resolution under the heading ``Accounts Identified for 
     Advance Appropriations'' in an aggregate amount not to exceed 
     $23,565,000,000 in new budget authority.
       (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance 
     appropriation'' means any discretionary new budget authority 
     in a bill or joint resolution making general appropriations 
     or continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2012 that first 
     becomes available for any fiscal year after 2012.

     SEC. 302. EMERGENCY SPENDING.

       (a) Designations.--
       (1) Guidance.--In the House, if a provision of legislation 
     is designated as an emergency requirement under this section, 
     the committee report and any statement of managers 
     accompanying that legislation shall include an explanation of 
     the manner in which the provision meets the criteria in 
     paragraph (2). If such legislation is to be considered by the 
     House without being reported, then the committee shall cause 
     the explanation to be published in the Congressional Record 
     in advance of floor consideration.
       (2) Criteria.--
       (A) In general.--Any such provision is an emergency 
     requirement if the underlying situation poses a threat to 
     life, property, or national security and is--
       (i) sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up 
     over time;
       (ii) an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring 
     immediate action;
       (iii) subject to subparagraph (B), unforeseen, 
     unpredictable, and unanticipated; and
       (iv) not permanent, temporary in nature.
       (B) Unforeseen.--An emergency that is part of an aggregate 
     level of anticipated emergencies, particularly when normally 
     estimated in advance, is not unforeseen.
       (b) Enforcement.--It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives to consider any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment or conference report that contains an emergency 
     designation unless that designation meets the criteria set 
     out in subsection (a)(2).
       (c) Enforcement in the House of Representatives.--It shall 
     not be in order in the House of Representatives to consider a 
     rule or order that waives the application of subsection (b).
       (d) Disposition of Points of Order in the House.--As 
     disposition of a point of order under subsection (b) or 
     subsection (c), the Chair shall put the question of 
     consideration with respect to the proposition that is the 
     subject of the point of order. A question of consideration 
     under this section shall be debatable for 10 minutes by the 
     Member initiating the point of order and for 10 minutes by an 
     opponent of the point of order, but shall otherwise be 
     decided without intervening motion except one that the House 
     adjourn or that the Committee of the Whole rise, as the case 
     may be.

     SEC. 303. CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS AND AGGREGATES RESULTING 
                   FROM REALISTIC SCORING OF MEASURES AFFECTING 
                   REVENUES.

       (a) Whenever the House considers a bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, motion or conference report, including measures 
     filed in compliance with section 201(b), that propose to 
     change Federal revenues, the impact of such measure on 
     Federal revenues shall be calculated by the Joint Committee 
     on Taxation in a manner that takes into account--
       (1) the impact of the proposed revenue changes on--
       (A) Gross Domestic Product, including the growth rate for 
     the Gross Domestic Product;
       (B) total domestic employment;
       (C) gross private domestic investment;
       (D) general price index;
       (E) interest rates; and
       (F) other economic variables; and
       (2) the impact on Federal Revenue of the changes in 
     economic variables analyzed under paragraph (1).
       (b) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget may make 
     any necessary changes to allocations and aggregates in order 
     to conform this concurrent resolution with the determinations 
     made by the Joint Committee on Taxation pursuant to 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 304. PROHIBITION ON USING REVENUE INCREASES TO COMPLY 
                   WITH BUDGET ALLOCATIONS AND AGGREGATES.

       (a) For the purpose of enforcing this concurrent resolution 
     in the House, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     shall not take into account the provisions of any piece of 
     legislation which propose to increase revenue or offsetting 
     collections if the net effect of the bill is to increase the 
     level of revenue or offsetting collections beyond the level 
     assumed in this concurrent resolution.
       (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to any provision of a 
     piece of legislation that proposes a new or increased fee for 
     the receipt of a defined benefit or service (including 
     insurance coverage) by the person or entity paying the fee.

     SEC. 305. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS 
                   AND AGGREGATES.

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

     SEC. 306. BUDGET PROTECTION MANDATORY ACCOUNT.

       (a)(1) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall 
     maintain an account to be known as the ``Budget Protection 
     Mandatory Account''. The Account shall be divided into 
     entries corresponding to the allocations under section 302(a) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 in the most recently 
     adopted concurrent resolution on the budget, except that it 
     shall not include the Committee on Appropriations.
       (2) Each entry shall consist only of amounts credited to it 
     under subsection (b). No entry of a negative amount shall be 
     made.
       (b)(1) Upon the engrossment of a House bill or joint 
     resolution or a House amendment to a Senate bill or joint 
     resolution (other than an appropriation bill), the chairman 
     of the Committee on the Budget shall--
       (A) credit the applicable entries of the Budget Protection 
     Mandatory Account by the amounts specified in paragraph (2); 
     and

[[Page 6275]]

       (B) reduce the applicable section 302(a) allocations by the 
     amount specified in paragraph (2).
       (2) Each amount specified in paragraph (1)(A) shall be the 
     net reduction in mandatory budget authority (either under 
     current law or proposed by the bill or joint resolution under 
     consideration) provided by each amendment that was adopted in 
     the House to the bill or joint resolution.
       (c)(1) If an amendment includes a provision described in 
     paragraph (2), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     shall, upon the engrossment of a House bill or joint 
     resolution or a House amendment to a Senate bill or joint 
     resolution, other than an appropriation bill, reduce the 
     level of total revenues set forth in the applicable 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year or 
     for the total of that first fiscal year and the ensuing 
     fiscal years in an amount equal to the net reduction in 
     mandatory authority (either under current law or proposed by 
     a bill or joint resolution under consideration) provided by 
     each amendment adopted by the House to the bill or joint 
     resolution. Such adjustment shall be in addition to the 
     adjustments described in subsection (b).
       (2)(A) The provision specified in paragraph (1) is as 
     follows: ``The amount of mandatory budget authority reduced 
     by this amendment may be used to offset a decrease in 
     revenues.''
       (B) All points of order are waived against an amendment 
     including the text specified in subparagraph (A) provided the 
     amendment is otherwise in order.
       (d) As used in this rule, the term--
       (1) ``appropriation bill'' means any general or special 
     appropriation bill, and any bill or joint resolution making 
     supplemental, deficiency, or continuing appropriations 
     through the end of fiscal year 2008 or any subsequent fiscal 
     year, as the case may be.
       (2) ``mandatory budget authority'' means any entitlement 
     authority as defined by, and interpreted for purposes of, the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       (e) During the consideration of any bill or joint 
     resolution, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall 
     maintain a running tally, which shall be available to all 
     Members, of the amendments adopted reflecting increases and 
     decreases of budget authority in the bill or joint 
     resolution.

     SEC. 307. BUDGET DISCRETIONARY ACCOUNTS.

       (a)(1) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall 
     maintain an account to be known as the ``Budget Protection 
     Discretionary Account''. The Account shall be divided into 
     entries corresponding to the allocation to the Committee on 
     Appropriations, and the committee's suballocations, under 
     section 302(a) and 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974.
       (2) Each entry shall consist only of amounts credited to it 
     under subsection (b). No entry of a negative amount shall be 
     made.
       (b)(1) Upon the engrossment of a House appropriations bill, 
     the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall--
       (A) credit the applicable entries of the Budget Protection 
     Discretionary Account by the amounts specified in paragraph 
     (2).
       (B) reduce the applicable 302(a) and (b) allocations by the 
     amount specified in paragraph (2).
       (2) Each amount specified in subparagraph (A) shall be the 
     net reduction in discretionary budget authority provided by 
     each amendment adopted by the House to the bill or joint 
     resolution.
       (c)(1) If an amendment includes a provision described in 
     paragraph (2), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     shall, upon the engrossment of a House appropriations bill, 
     reduce the level of total revenues set forth in the 
     applicable concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal 
     year or for the total of that first fiscal year and the 
     ensuing fiscal years in an amount equal to the net reduction 
     in discretionary budget authority provided by each amendment 
     that was adopted by the House to the bill or joint 
     resolution. Such adjustment shall be in addition to the 
     adjustments described in subsection (b).
       (2)(A) The provision specified in paragraph (1) is as 
     follows: ``The amount of discretionary budget authority 
     reduced by this amendment may be used to offset a decrease in 
     revenues.''
       (B) All points of order are waived against an amendment 
     including the text specified in subparagraph (A) provided the 
     amendment is otherwise in order.
       (d) As used in this rule, the term ``appropriation bill'' 
     means any general or special appropriation bill, and any bill 
     or joint resolution making supplemental, deficiency, or 
     continuing appropriations through the end of fiscal year 2012 
     or any subsequent fiscal year, as the case may be.
       (e) During the consideration of any bill or joint 
     resolution, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall 
     maintain a running tally, which shall be available to all 
     Members, of the amendments adopted reflecting increases and 
     decreases of budget authority in the bill or joint 
     resolution.

     SEC. 308. TREATMENT OF RESCISSION BILLS IN THE HOUSE.

       (a)(1) By February 1, May 1, July 30, and November 11 of 
     each session, the majority leader shall introduce a 
     rescission bill. If such bill is not introduced by that date, 
     then whenever a rescission bill is introduced during a 
     session on or after that date, a motion to discharge the 
     committee from its consideration shall be privileged after 
     the 10-legislative day period beginning on that date for the 
     first 5 such bills.
       (2) It shall not be in order to offer any amendment to a 
     rescission bill except an amendment that increases the amount 
     of budget authority that such bill rescinds.
       (b) Whenever a rescission bill passes the House, the 
     Committee on the Budget shall immediately reduce the 
     applicable allocations under section 302(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 by the total amount of 
     reductions in budget authority and in outlays resulting from 
     such rescission bill.
       (c)(1) It shall not be in order to consider any rescission 
     bill, or conference report thereon or amendment thereto, 
     unless--
       (A) in the case of such bill or conference report thereon, 
     it is made available to Members and the general public on the 
     Internet for at least 48 hours before its consideration; or
       (B)(i) in the case of an amendment to such rescission bill 
     made in order by a rule, it is made available to Members and 
     the general public on the Internet within one hour after the 
     rule is filed; or
       (ii) in the case of an amendment under an open rule, it is 
     made available to Members and the general public on the 
     Internet immediately after being offered; in a format that is 
     searchable and sortable.
       (2) No amendment to an amendment to a rescission bill shall 
     be in order unless germane to the amendment to which it is 
     offered.
       (d) As used in this section, the term ``rescission bill'' 
     means a bill or joint resolution which only rescinds, in 
     whole or in part, budget authority and which includes only 
     titles corresponding to the most recently enacted 
     appropriation bills that continue to include unobligated 
     balances.

     SEC. 309. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING BASELINE REVENUE 
                   PROJECTIONS.

       For purposes of constructing its baseline revenue 
     projections, the Congressional Budget Office should assume 
     that any tax provision which is scheduled to expire under 
     current law will be extended through the duration of any 
     budget forecast by Congressional Budget Office so as to 
     ensure that expiring tax provisions and expiring spending 
     programs (other than direct appropriations) are treated in 
     like fashion.

     SEC. 310. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING LONG-TERM BUDGET 
                   PROJECTIONS.

       For purposes of constructing its ten-year and long-term 
     budget projection reports, the Congressional Budget Office 
     should include an alternative scenario that assumes that 
     mandatory spending programs grow at the same rate as average, 
     projected nominal gross domestic product (GDP).

                      TITLE IV--EARMARK MORATORIUM

     SEC. 401. EARMARK MORATORIUM.

       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order to consider--
       (1) a bill or joint resolution reported by any committee, 
     or any amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that 
     includes a congressional earmark, limited tax benefit, or 
     limited tariff benefit; or
       (2) a bill or joint resolution not reported by any 
     committee, or any amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, that includes a congressional earmark, limited tax 
     benefit, or limited tariff benefit
       (b) Definitions.--For the purposes of this resolution, the 
     terms ``congressional earmark'', ``limited tax benefit'', and 
     ``limited tariff benefit'' have the meaning given those terms 
     in clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (c) Special Rule.--The point of order under subsection (a) 
     shall only apply to legislation providing or authorizing 
     discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other 
     spending authority, providing a Federal tax deduction, 
     credit, or exclusion, or modifying the Harmonized Tariff 
     Schedule in fiscal year 2011 or fiscal year 2012.
       (d) Inapplicability.--This resolution shall not apply to 
     any authorization of appropriations to a Federal entity if 
     such authorization is not specifically targeted to a State, 
     locality, or congressional district.

     SEC. 402. LIMITATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON 
                   RULES.

       The House Committee on Rules may not report a rule or order 
     that would waive the point of order set forth in the first 
     section of this resolution.

                            TITLE V--POLICY

     SEC. 501. POLICY STATEMENT ON HEALTH CARE LAW REPEAL.

       It is the policy of this resolution that--
       (1) the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public 
     Law 111-148), and the Health Care and Education 
     Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152) should be 
     repealed; and
       (2) in its place, health care reform that empowers patients 
     should be enacted.

     SEC. 502. POLICY STATEMENT ON BAILOUTS OF STATE AND LOCAL 
                   GOVERNMENTS.

       It is the policy of this resolution that the Federal 
     Government should not bailout State and local governments, 
     including State and local government employee pension plans 
     and other post-employment benefit plans.

[[Page 6276]]



     SEC. 503. POLICY STATEMENT ON MEANS TESTED WELFARE PROGRAMS.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that:
       (1) In 1996, President Bill Clinton and congressional 
     Republicans enacted reforms that have moved families off of 
     Federal programs and enabled them to provide for themselves.
       (2) According to the most recent projections, over the next 
     10 years we will spend approximately $10 trillion on means-
     tested welfare programs.
       (3) Today, there are currently 77 Federal programs that 
     provide benefits specifically to poor and low-income 
     Americans.
       (4) Taxpayers deserve clear and transparent information on 
     how well these programs are working, and how much the Federal 
     Government is spending on means-tested welfare.
       (b) Policy on Means Tested Welfare Programs.--It is the 
     policy of this resolution that the President's budget should 
     disclose, in a clear and transparent manner, the aggregate 
     amount of Federal welfare expenditures, as well as an 
     estimate of State and local spending for this purpose, over 
     the next ten years.

     SEC. 504. POLICY STATEMENT ON REFORMING THE FEDERAL BUDGET 
                   PROCESS.

       It is the policy of this resolution that the Federal budget 
     process should be reformed so that it is easier to reduce 
     Federal spending than it is to increase it by enacting 
     reforms included in the Spending, Deficit, and Debt Control 
     Act of 2009 (H.R. 3964, 111th Congress).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member opposed each will control 15 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Republican Study 
Committee's substitute that is now on the floor. This substitute amends 
and builds upon the great work of Chairman Ryan and the entire House 
Budget Committee.
  And while I do come to the floor and support Chairman Ryan's 
proposal, the RSC wanted to put forth a proposal on the floor today 
that went even a step further. We named our budget today the Honest 
Solutions budget because we know that what we are proposing will not be 
easy. Why? Because real solutions are not necessarily easy solutions. 
But given the dangerous conditions of our Nation's fiscal situation, we 
must recognize that tough choices must be made and must be made now.
  The RSC believes that we can do better than any of the budgets on the 
floor today. So we have a budget that will, first of all, ensure that 
our Nation spends responsibly by freezing total discretionary spending 
at 2008 levels. The RSC budget further ensures that our Nation's 
security will be met by meeting Defense Secretary Gates's defense 
request. The RSC budget puts nondefense discretionary spending on a 
sustainable path.
  In addition, the RSC budget strengthens Medicare's long-term 
finances. And most importantly, our budget, unlike any other budget on 
the floor today, will balance within our lifetime.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 15 
minutes.
  Mr. PASCRELL. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Jordan), the chairman of the Republican Study Committee.
  Mr. JORDAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  And I want to thank all the members of the Republican Study 
Committee, Mr. Chairman, for their work on this budget. I also want to 
thank Chairman Ryan for the work on his budget and the committee's work 
there too, and in particular, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Garrett), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney), and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock) for their work in putting 
this together.
  The RSC budget, as the gentleman from New Jersey has mentioned, keeps 
tax rates low because we believe in economic growth; starts the process 
of saving Medicare and Social Security; protects national defense, 
which, after all, is that area we are supposed to constitutionally 
spend taxpayer dollars on.
  But most importantly, what the Republican Study Committee budget does 
is it balances. It does what every single family, ever single small 
business owner, every single State government and local government has 
to do: it actually puts forth a budget that balances, lives within your 
means, doesn't spend more than you take in, gets to balance within a 
definable period of time. That is why we think this is appropriate, 
particularly when you think about the fiscal situation our Nation is 
in.
  So I stand here in support of the budget and commend the gentleman 
from New Jersey for the great work that he has done.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  If the Republican budget is a doubling down on the policies that 
brought us to the brink, which is contained in this budget, my brother 
from New Jersey presents a budget which I think quadruples down on the 
economic policies and lack of optimism in the American people.
  The budget believes we cannot, as President Kennedy said a little 
over 50 years ago, ``bear any burden and meet any hardship'' in order 
to better our Nation. That's what America is all about, regardless of 
your party persuasion.
  This budget gives trillions in income tax breaks to the wealthiest 
Americans, we both agree on that--you think it's a good policy, we 
think it's a horrible policy--and at the same time cuts $18 billion. 
Let me just take one example, the SCHIP program: $18 billion cut to our 
children--our own children, our grandchildren. You must be kidding me. 
This budget gives trillions in estate breaks to the wealthiest 
Americans. Many people having estates pay no taxes, yet this slashes 
funding for Pell Grants for our kids, our grandchildren to go to 
college.
  This budget gives trillions in tax breaks to corporations that have 
been shipping jobs overseas, but ask our constituents, in your district 
and my district and everybody's district, to take a 20 percent cut in 
the scheduled benefits to Social Security. It's easy to sit here as a 
Congressman waiting until you turn 70--why are you smiling?--to retire 
with benefits you've earned, but you're asking this of our asphalt 
layers, our secretaries, and our teachers.
  It comes down to a clear set of priorities, Mr. Chairman. If your 
priorities are to cut taxes for the wealthy on the backs of the 
retirees, then I think this second budget is the budget for you. But if 
you believe in an America that protects our seniors, our children, the 
disabled, our veterans, levels the playing field and invests in future 
generations, then I urge you to stand with us.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney), who recognizes the fact that we must 
live within our means now and, unlike the gentleman from New Jersey, 
does not want to put additional burdens on future generations.
  Mr. MULVANEY. To the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Chairman, I would 
say that it's not easy to do.
  Why are we here? We're here for a single purpose: we take what the 
Republican Committee has done and simply lay out for the American 
people how hard it is to balance the budget within 10 years. It is not 
easy to do. But to sit and hear these onslaughts about how we're giving 
tax breaks--from a group of people that promised they would not raise 
taxes on folks who make less than $250,000 and then repeatedly violated 
that promise over the course of the last 2 years--is simply hard to 
take.
  This is the only budget that we will get a chance to vote on this 
week that both balances the budget within 10 years and does not raise 
taxes. We take what the Republican Committee has done, we build on it 
to show exactly how deep the hole is that we have dug for ourselves and 
how hard it is to get out. But to suggest that we do it on the backs of 
the poor is simply disingenuous.

[[Page 6277]]


  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who is absolutely on target on most of these 
issues dealing with the budget as we move forward.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate my colleague's courtesy.
  The words ringing in my ears for a moment about the Democrats having 
increased taxes, there is this collective amnesia on the side of our 
Republican friends who forget that a critical part of President Obama's 
Recovery Act that was passed by the last Congress--42 percent of which 
was tax cuts or relief--included a tax cut for every working American. 
The kind of forgot about that.
  As a practical matter, Mr. Chairman, what we have done is to move 
forward under our initiative with something that will enable us to 
rebuild and renew America. What we have been given from our friends 
here with this alternative budget from my good friend from New Jersey 
which I do appreciate, this is where the Republican Party wants to go.
  The Ryan budget is bad enough. It will be dead on arrival in the 
Senate, and will be resoundingly rejected as Americans see what is 
happening, taking away the retirement, health care security of 
Americans--230 million Americans will be returned to the tender mercies 
of the private insurance market. Remember, the private insurance market 
didn't want to insure senior citizens in an affordable fashion with 
comprehensive coverage; that's why we had to have Medicaid in the first 
place. And now the trick is to provide a voucher to insurance 
companies, hoping that they will step up and fill the gap. When you 
look at how private insurance premiums have more than doubled in the 
last 10 years, you see what a hollow promise this is and what a serious 
problem it is going to be for American families trying to plan for 
their future.
  This is the vision that we have from our Republican friends, not only 
take the Republican Budget Committee, go beyond it in terms of more 
benefits for those who need it the least.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Van Hollen) will control the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McClintock), who has no amnesia but recognizes the fact 
that we do no favor for this generation by putting the burden for 
future constraints on our children and our grandchildren.

                              {time}  1040

  Mr. McCLINTOCK. This Nation is on a collision course with a sovereign 
debt crisis the magnitude of which has never been known to this 
country. This is not some moonless night on the Atlantic. We are 
barreling full speed toward that iceberg of debt in the full light of 
day, and we can all see it dead ahead.
  The Ryan budget turns the ship around just enough to avoid hitting 
that iceberg. The RSC budget does it with an added safety margin by 
incorporating more of the debt commission's recommendations and 
implementing them faster.
  Mr. Chairman, we know the challenge. We see the American dream at 
risk, and we know that we have but a fleeting moment in history to 
avoid the hardest times our Nation has ever known. We can act now, 
place our retirement systems on sound financial footings, arrest the 
debilitating spiral of debt that threatens the very survival of our 
Nation, and return our economy to the prosperity that it has known when 
it enjoyed what Jefferson called a wise and frugal government. Or we 
can continue on our present course until we crash into the ice cold and 
hard reality that we can all see dead ahead.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 3 minutes to the vice chairman of the 
Democratic Caucus, the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, budgets are a reflection of our values and 
our priorities: jobs, economic growth, fiscal discipline, fairness, 
shared sacrifice. Most Americans talk about this all the time when 
they're at their kitchen table. It's not that difficult.
  So quite honestly the question before us is not whether to reduce the 
deficit, but how. Budgets involve tradeoffs. The Republican budget that 
is presented to us today along with this Republican Study Committee 
alternative would say that we must continue the tax cuts for the 
wealthiest Americans in this country. We must continue to give a 
millionaire about $130,000 in tax cuts in this budget even though we 
are facing the largest deficits our country has experienced.
  At the same time, the choice that this Republican budget makes is to 
say to seniors, We must end Medicare as we know it; we must eliminate 
the guarantee that you, as a senior, have had for more than 35 years 
under Medicare to choose your doctor and your hospital; and we must 
impose upon you an additional $6,000 in health care costs because these 
deficits are so big.
  So as the President said a couple of days ago, under the Republican 
budget, you would need to take 22 seniors paying 6,000 additional 
dollars to cover the costs of giving one millionaire in this country 
the $130,000 tax cut. We must do that under the Republican budget.
  Democrats have said we must not do that. We must do this differently. 
And we must invest again in our people.
  On health care, we don't believe that Americans who are seniors 
should be given a coupon instead of a guarantee. But that's what the 
Republican budget does. It says, You're going to get a voucher, a 
coupon, essentially. Once you've used it, the extent of the value of 
that coupon, the rest of the money to pay for your health care, comes 
out of your pocket. That's why the President said 6,000 additional 
dollars for each senior under Medicare under the Republican plan. 
Coupon care instead of Medicare. That's what you must have under the 
Republican budget.
  Democrats say we must invest in Medicare and find the cuts to get rid 
of the waste in Medicaid that we know exists. The duplication of 
services that seniors don't need. We can do this without denying 
seniors guaranteed benefits.
  And finally, we must create jobs, but the Republican budget, most of 
the leading economists tell us, will cost us 1.7 million jobs. Not 
create. Cost us 1.7 million jobs. Under the Bush recession, 8 million 
Americans lost their job. The month that George Bush handed the keys to 
Barack Obama, we hemorrhaged nearly 800,000 jobs.
  We must do this right. Reject the Republicans' budget proposal.
  Mr. GARRETT. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Graves), who, just like the 
gentleman from California, understands that we must not sink the ship 
of state, as the other side of the aisle would do, by excessive tax 
burdens and debt.
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. You know what's great about being here today 
and talking about the Ryan plan is it's a blueprint. And blueprints you 
can do a couple things to. You can add to, and you can take away from.
  And what we've heard from the progressives a minute ago is, plunder 
the people's plan rips the pages out of the future of this Nation for 
our children and our grandchildren. But the Republican Study Committee, 
it adds to it. It actually takes it a step further. It saves the 
taxpayers more money by providing savings starting with 2006 levels and 
going to 2008 levels.
  But what we have to recognize is the debt and the deficit problems we 
have here today are not because we are taxed too little; it's because 
we have spent too much. And it is a result of 2 failed years of more 
government, more taxes, and more spending that we've seen. It's time to 
put that in history. Let's put it in the drawer.
  Let's move on, and let's pass the Republican Study Committee plan 
because I can assure you this: It doesn't go where the President and 
the liberals of this House want to go, and that's into the wallets of 
the taxpayers of this Nation.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, the bipartisan fiscal commission--no 
fringe group--said that the Republican plan was unbalanced because it 
doesn't

[[Page 6278]]

ask for shared sacrifice. It's a lopsided approach. This budget takes 
us farther off the deep end.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. There is no question that the country has to reduce the 
deficit by restraining spending. That's why we favor having Medicare 
get the same deal on prescription drugs the VA does--which would save 
$24 billion a year.
  But there is a question about the future of Medicare. And today we're 
going to take a vote. Will Medicare prosper or perish? Will Medicare 
survive or die? That's the issue before the House today.
  The fact is the Republican plan puts an insurance company between our 
seniors and their doctors--and that is wrong. The fact is that the 
Republican plan does not reduce health care costs. Hospitals will not 
charge less. Doctors will not charge less. The government will pay 
less, and seniors will pay more--$6,000 per senior per year.
  The fact is that this is all being done not to reduce the deficit, 
but to reduce taxes of the wealthiest people in America. The fact is we 
should not have this.
  And the fact is this: We can have an America that doesn't have red 
ink in its budget but does have Medicare for its seniors.
  Let's make the choice that our constituents sent us here to make. 
Yes, let's sensibly reduce spending--as we did yesterday on a 
bipartisan basis. But this is the wrong time to end Medicare. We will 
fight this effort, and we will prevail.
  Mr. GARRETT. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Huelskamp).
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the RSC budget because 
we cannot wait, as the other side seems to indicate, to get our fiscal 
house in order. And the RSC budget will put us on that path even 
faster.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people are tired of their tax dollars 
going to Washington, D.C., with nothing in return but empty promises 
and Federal strings. They are tired of adding to the National debt with 
none of the promised jobs.
  People across my State of Kansas, indeed all across the country, want 
their power back from Washington. Our Founding Fathers got this concept 
of federalism right, and it's time we return government power from 
Washington bureaucrats and politicians back to the American people.
  Block grants of Federal Medicaid dollars to the States will do just 
that by allowing States and those closest to the people to use their 
ingenuity and creativity to make Medicaid dollars work more 
effectively.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GARRETT. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. If we really care about the people, Mr. Chairman, 
there are currently 455 Medicaid waivers, and I ask that we allow the 
flexibility in the Medicaid system through a block grant system that 
returns the powers of federalism back to the States. And the RSC budget 
will do just that, Mr. Chairman. It's the right thing to do. It's the 
right time now to balance our budget in this way.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel).

                              {time}  1050

  Mr. RANGEL. Thank you for this opportunity.
  Unlike so many of my colleagues, I don't have any charts or anything 
to point out the direction in which I would want my great country to 
go, but I do have 40 young minds that come from the Frederick Douglass 
Academy, come from my alma mater on Lenox Avenue, come from Harlem. And 
in these minds are the dreams and the aspirations of all the young 
people that want to be a part of the progress that this Nation has 
made.
  Most of them, their parents have never had an opportunity to go to 
college, but have been the recipients of Pell Grants and other kinds of 
educational benefits. Most of their parents and grandparents have 
depended on Medicaid and Medicare. Most of these kids have dreams that 
most of your kids have today. It just seems to me that when they go 
home they should not be able to say that they witnessed the protection 
of the wealthiest people in the United States; but they should go home 
to say their dreams can be acquired, our Nation can be stronger, and 
they want to be partners in making certain that America can be all that 
she can be.
  So as we welcome them, they are only symbolic, they are only 
representative of the young people of our great country, and I hope we 
can see clear to support them. Thank you for the opportunity.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), who realizes that the young people 
would do best if we not put additional tax burdens of over $40,000 or 
$50,000 on their birth coming into this country by the actions of not 
living responsibly.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in support of the RSC budget. With a deficit of $1.6 trillion, 
a debt of $14 trillion, it's no surprise that we've got to do 
something. We have to do something dramatic. This budget actually 
balances over a 9-year period, and it reforms the programs that are 
important to many Americans, to make them solvent and sustainable over 
time.
  The proposals from the other side of the aisle simply don't do that. 
They ignore the time bomb that we have in these programs. So I commend 
the RSC staff and Members for putting this together. This is a good 
budget. We ought to support it to put our Nation on a path of financial 
stability and security.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, the time bomb that's ticking is the 
time bomb on the Medicare guarantee.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Waxman), the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I can't express my concern with greater 
alarm about this budget. It is a budget that's going to inflict 
terrible harm on Americans from all walks of life, while protecting the 
wealthiest taxpayers in America, both individuals and Republicans.
  Now, if I give the benefit of the doubt to the Republican sponsors of 
their budget proposal that they're sincere, they are speaking from an 
ideological point of view, they want to try a social experiment in this 
country. But if they fail to live up to what they say they're going to 
accomplish, there is going to be tremendous harm.
  We have a social contract with seniors to provide affordable, 
accessible, comprehensive health care under Medicare. And they want to 
take Medicare and end it, and tell those people to go to private 
insurance companies. We have estimates that the average senior will 
face cost increases of $6,000 when the program begins, and it could be 
over $11,000 per beneficiary in later years. But right away, to add 
insult to injury, they would reopen the doughnut hole under the part D 
prescription drug benefit, meaning people still have to pay all of the 
cost of their drugs, reversing what the Affordable Care Act provided.
  But most of their cuts are coming from the Medicaid program. They 
want to take Medicaid and turn it into a block grant. Medicaid accounts 
for 43 percent of total long-term care spending in the U.S. Most of it 
goes to seniors and disabled people who are in nursing homes. If the 
States don't have enough money in their block grants, are they going to 
dump these people? These are human beings, and you are playing with 
their lives. This means real harm will be inflicted where Medicaid 
spending is the greatest.
  By cutting reimbursement rates, Medicaid will lose providers. Nursing 
home quality and staffing levels will decline.
  Reject this budget. Don't experiment on the most vulnerable of our 
population.
  Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose the Republican Budget Resolution for 
fiscal year 2012. Their budget inflicts terrible harm on Americans from 
all walks of life--while protecting the wealthiest taxpayers in 
America, both individuals and corporations.

[[Page 6279]]

  I am particularly disturbed by what the Republican budget does to 
Medicare and Medicaid.
  There is no other way to put it: the Republican budget is the end of 
Medicare as we know it, and it is devastating for Medicare 
beneficiaries.
  Medicare is a social contract with our seniors to provide affordable, 
accessible, comprehensive health care. The Republicans want to turn 
Medicare over to the private insurance industry, with payments to 
seniors that will fall far short of what they need to get the health 
care they deserve.
  The Congressional Budget Office analysis of the Republican budget 
shows that, over the next decade, it will more than double beneficiary 
cost for new enrollees.
  The average senior will face increased costs of over $6,000 annually 
when the program begins. And all of that extra spending by seniors and 
people with disabilities will go to private health insurance plans.
  The transfer of seniors into private plans will raise costs by over 
$11,000 per beneficiary by 2030.
  To add insult to injury, the Republican budget reopens the donut hole 
under the Part D prescription drug benefit, increasing the burden on 
seniors starting today.
  For Medicaid, the Republican budget is even worse. Medicaid covers 60 
million of the country's most vulnerable people, one in 3 low income 
children, 5 million seniors, and 10 million disabled individuals.
  It accounts for 43 percent of total long term care spending in the 
U.S.
  But the Republican budget cuts Medicaid in half by 2022, and turns it 
into a block grant for the states right away.
  And since the Medicaid block grant would grow by only 1 percent per 
year, while inflation is over 2 percent and health inflation and 
enrollment growth is even higher.
  This means real harm will be inflicted where Medicaid spending is the 
greatest: on seniors and individuals with disabilities in nursing homes 
and those receiving benefits to live independently in their home.
  By cutting reimbursement rates, Medicaid will lose health providers.
  Nursing home quality and staffing levels will inevitably decline.
  Medicaid cuts will mean job losses in the health professions.
  The Republican budget utterly fails the basic test of humane 
government. It is extreme, it is mean, and it must be defeated.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Duncan), who does not believe it's a social experiment to 
do what all families have to do: live within our means.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, folks, no prepared 
remarks, no fancy speeches. I brought with me a financial calculator. 
And regardless of how you calculate the numbers, America is spending 
too much money.
  You know, for 3 years in a row we spent over a trillion dollars more 
than we were bringing in as a Nation. We are over $14 trillion in debt. 
This budget puts us on a very clear path to paying back the national 
debt, to reducing and ending deficits in a very timely manner, to 
protecting the future for our children and our grandchildren, our most 
precious resource as Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to get behind this budget, vote for it, and 
let's put the American spending in priority. Let's stop the spending 
insanity here in Washington, D.C., and let's do what we tell the folks 
back home we are going to do, and let's get our fiscal house in order.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. We can get our fiscal house in order and do this in a 
balanced way without ending the Medicare guarantee.
  With that, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. I thank my friend from Maryland for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, every budget is about the bottom line, and here is the 
Ryan budget bottom line: If you are making over a million dollars, you 
get a $100,000 tax cut. If you are a senior on Medicare, you get an 
extra $12,000 medical bill. If you make over a million dollars, you win 
the lottery. If you are a senior citizen, you lose your Medicare.
  Mr. Chairman, they say this is about balancing the budget, but they 
are trying to balance the budget by giving tax cuts to people earning 
over a million dollars and taking Medicare away from our seniors. That 
is no way to balance the budget.
  Mr. GARRETT. May I ask the Chair how much time remains.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has 7 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Maryland has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GARRETT. At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who recognizes the fact that the solutions to 
all the problems in the world, as the other side may think, is not 
raising taxes on anyone and certainly not raising the taxes on those 
who produce the jobs in this country.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in strong support of the Republican Study Committee budget 
alternative.
  The fact of the matter is we're broke. The Federal budget deficit is 
projected to exceed $1 trillion for the next 2 fiscal years and exceed 
$800 billion annually for at least the next decade. We cannot sustain 
this path without bankrupting our country.
  Congressman Ryan's budget proposal is a great start and sets us on a 
path to bringing the budget into balance. However, that proposal takes 
28 years to do so. I support and will vote for his budget, but I am 
concerned about what will happen to it if future Congresses are not as 
willing to make the tough choices that are necessary to see this budget 
path to completion. That's why I strongly support the RSC budget, which 
balances the Federal budget within 9 years.
  Ultimately, we need a constitutional amendment to require a balanced 
budget to force all future Congresses to make these tough decisions, 
but the RSC budget does the best job of getting our fiscal house in 
order as quickly as possible. And now I urge all Members to support it.
  The RSC Budget Proposal:
  Puts forward commonsense reforms to improve Medicare and Medicaid by 
offering increased choices and improved services, and takes steps to 
save Social Security.
  Repeals ObamaCare to eliminate $677 billion in additional spending 
over 10 years.
  Freezes total discretionary spending at 2008 levels ($933 billion) 
beginning in 2013.
  Prevents any new tax increases, repeals the unaffordable $813 billion 
tax increase included in ObamaCare, and proposes a smarter tax code 
that would lower rates while broadening the tax base.
  Reduces unnecessary mandatory spending--other than Medicare, 
Medicaid, and Social Security--by $1.9 trillion between 2012 and 2021.
  Mr. GARRETT. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Pence).

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Republican 
Study Committee budget alternative. Today I want to commend the 
gentleman from New Jersey for his courageous leadership on this issue.
  You know, they say that the first step in dealing with addiction is 
recognize that you have got a problem. After 10 years of fighting 
runaway Federal spending by both political parties here in Washington, 
DC, I am convinced Washington, DC is addicted to spending, and it's 
time that we got serious.
  I am a strong supporter of the Republican budget authored by Paul 
Ryan, and I am a strong supporter of the Republican Study Committee 
alternative offered by Mr. Garrett.
  The legislation before us today would actually put us on a pathway to 
achieve a balanced Federal budget by the year 2020. There are hard 
choices in this budget, but it's time the American people broke this 
addiction. It's a time that people in both political parties came 
together and played it straight with the American people and said there 
are tough choices ahead, we can do them in a way that's humane, we can 
do them in a way that represents fiscal discipline and reform.
  But we have to act; we have to act now. I urge my colleagues to 
support this important amendment.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Rokita).
  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this budget 
amendment.

[[Page 6280]]

  As a member of the Budget Committee, I also support the Ryan budget. 
Both these budget proposals are steps in the right direction. They make 
reforms that are needed. They are honest proposals. They are not trying 
to demagog, they are not trying to fear-monger, they are not trying to 
fib to the American people.
  We have got to address, Mr. Chairman, the drivers of our debt. We 
could have no Defense Department. I could work for free; our staffs can 
work for free. We can get rid of 167 agencies, and we still wouldn't 
get rid of this debt.
  Our debt is driven by these programs of Social Security, Medicare and 
Medicaid. And the reason is because reckless politicians who came 
before this new Member made promises that can't possibly be kept. We 
are here to tell the truth, Mr. Chairman.
  These budgets do this job gradually, they do it humanely, and they 
allow people to prepare so that these programs can be saved for my kids 
and our grandkids.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time 
remains on each side.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 2 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from New Jersey has 3\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Southerland), who recognizes we must keep our promises, 
especially to the youth of tomorrow.
  Mr. SOUTHERLAND. I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey 
for the time this morning.
  I rise today in support of the RSC budget, as well as the Ryan 
budget.
  You know, my friends on the other side of the aisle make quick talk 
about the very most wealthy. Well, unfortunately, most of those file as 
individuals because they own LLCs and they own S corporations, as my 
family does. So you file those on your individual tax return. I think 
the American people deserve the truth regarding that number.
  The second thing, I will tell you something, as a new freshman to 
this body, it's amazing that we want to talk about how the Republicans 
want to harm Medicare on the heels of a health care bill that cut $500 
billion out of Medicare. I have little patience, little patience with 
such talk.
  I will tell you the American people deserve the truth. They need this 
body, rather than to propose and push forth debt, doubt and despair, 
they must, they require us to give them certainty, safety, and 
security.
  I rise in support of the Ryan budget as well as RSC budget.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would remind the body that the $500 million in Medicare reform 
savings, which we got from ending some of the big breaks to the 
insurance industry, are kept in the Republican budget. You keep those 
savings.
  What you do not do is what we did: use some of those savings to close 
the prescription drug doughnut hole. So you took the savings, but you 
left the seniors with the doughnut hole.
  I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. I strongly oppose this budget proposal. The choices the 
majority is making are ill considered and wrong.
  Instead of working to reduce the deficit in a commonsense way, this 
budget ends Medicare--it ends Medicare--throws seniors to the wolves. 
Instead of working to control health care costs, this budget shifts 
them on to seniors and families.
  The proposal repeals health care reform, dismantles Medicaid, 
throwing seniors out of nursing homes while providing giveaways to the 
insurance industry. It gives tax breaks to corporations that shift jobs 
overseas, cuts critical investments in education, research, job 
training and infrastructure. It provides subsidies to big oil 
companies, while cutting services to the most vulnerable Americans, 
including $350 billion in food stamps.
  Programs such as Medicaid, Pell Grants, WIC would be gutted. It cuts 
taxes for the wealthiest while raising taxes on the middle class. 
Millionaires, billionaires get a lower top tax rate and extended estate 
tax giveaway.
  Everyone else sees deductions and credits, like the child tax credit, 
eliminated. This budget is Robin Hood in reverse. It takes from 
seniors, the middle class, working families and gives all that money to 
the rich and to corporate special interests.
  I urge my colleagues, stand up for the middle class today and for 
America's seniors and oppose this budget.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Brooks), who actually read this amendment and understands 
that it makes absolutely no changes whatsoever for seniors 60 years of 
age and over and actually strengthens health care for seniors in 
generations to come.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, by way of background, for the listeners and 
the people in this House, I graduated from Duke University with highest 
honors with distinction in economics. I say that to give you an idea, 
to have a little bit of insight as to what I am talking about when I 
talk about the two principal economic theories of our day.
  One is free enterprise and the other is socialism. Let's talk about 
socialism for a moment. It's greater and greater government 
micromanaging our lives. It's higher taxes to pay for it.
  Let's talk about free enterprise. Free enterprise is belief in the 
individual, in freedom and opportunity. It's what has helped make 
America one of the greatest nations this world has ever seen.
  This Republican budget, the two of them--you can go with the RSC or 
you can go with the Ryan one--they are premised on free enterprise 
solutions. They will create real jobs and wealth for all Americans.
  I urge this body to go with what our Founding Fathers went with, free 
enterprise. That's the ticket to success.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I have no further requests for time, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  So we stand before you, as I said before, with clear distinctions on 
the course that this country will lead in the future. Shall we continue 
to make the same bad policy that we have made in the past which sets us 
on a fiscal crisis, which not only this side of the aisle but the 
President of the United States recently stated as well?
  Or should we change the direction of the ship of State? Should we 
direct ourselves on a path towards fiscal sanity? Should we go in the 
direction that every single family in this country has to go in, that 
is to say, that we will live within our means, that we will not put an 
additional burden on our children and our grandchildren?
  Shall we go in a direction that we can say to the seniors 60 years of 
age or older that we will not change your entitlements, we will not 
change your health care but, rather, that we will put in place today's 
programs that will make sure that they are here for you and for your 
children and future generations as well?
  Shall we go on a path that says to our children of today and of 
tomorrow that we will not put additional burdens onto you today or in 
the future by putting in programs that we cannot afford?

                              {time}  1110

  The Republican Study Committee chooses the latter. The Republican 
Study Committee decides that we should live within our means. The 
Republican Study Committee ensures that our Nation spend responsibly by 
freezing the total discretionary spending at 2008 levels, ensures our 
national security by meeting Defense Secretary Gates' defense request. 
Our budget puts non-defense discretionary spending on a sustainable 
path for the future.
  We reduce unnecessary mandatory spending other than Medicare, 
Medicaid, and Social Security as opposed to what my friends on the 
other side of the aisle say. We strengthen Medicare's long-term 
finances. This budget would slowly phase in increases to Medicare 
eligibility and make it stronger for the future.
  And most of all, unlike any other budget that will come to the floor

[[Page 6281]]

today, this budget will actually balance, we will actually come with a 
balanced budget within the lifetimes of all the Members here sitting 
today.
  Mr. Chairman, we believe that the solutions outlined in our budget 
proposal will put our Nation on a greater, surer footing, address the 
fiscal crisis and set the course for dynamic innovation, job creation, 
and economic growth for the future.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, we do need to make tough choices. The question is what 
choices do we make? You choose to give another round of tax cuts to 
millionaires at the same time you're cutting investments in our kids' 
education. You choose not to get rid of the subsidies, taxpayer 
subsidies for oil companies while you end the Medicare guarantee, while 
you immediately eliminate the effort to close the doughnut hole, and 
while you cut funding for seniors in nursing homes by slashing 
Medicaid. Those are the choices you have made.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair will remind Members that remarks in 
debate must be addressed to the Chair.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
will be postponed.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Grijalva of Arizona.
  Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for the second electronic 
vote after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Grijalva

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Grijalva) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 77, 
noes 347, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 274]

                                AYES--77

     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kucinich
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Markey
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pingree (ME)
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--347

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Andrews
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quayle
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waxman
     Webster
     Weiner
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Keating
     Lowey
     Meeks
     Olver
     Reichert
     Sewell

                              {time}  1135

  Mr. PETRI changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. WATT changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Boehner was allowed to speak out of 
order.)


                   On the Retirement of the Chaplain

  Mr. BOEHNER. I think all of the Members should be aware that today is 
Father Coughlin's last day as our Chaplain after 11 years of service.
  I think all of us, not just the Members but the officers and the 
staff, owe a giant debt of gratitude to Father Dan. He has been an 
invaluable part of our community, not just with the opening prayer but 
his counsel and his guidance that he's offered to all of us. In the 
House's darkest hours, he's been there to gently lead us back to safe 
haven. In between, when things get

[[Page 6282]]

really noisy around here, he tries to encourage us to stop, find some 
quiet time, and reflect.
  He was appointed by Speaker Hastert 11 years ago. He comes from 
Chicago, where he will return. I am sure that there's one person that's 
real happy he's returning, and that's his mother, who's 96 years young.
  So, Father Dan, on behalf of the whole House, I want to thank you for 
your service. I know we haven't always been the most cooperative 
congregation. I hope that you will keep this House and the people who 
serve here in your prayers. We will keep you in ours.
  With that, I am happy to yield to my colleague from California.
  Ms. PELOSI. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
  As is very evident by the response to your remarks in praise of 
Father Coughlin, if there's one thing that Democrats and Republicans in 
the House of Representatives agree on, it is that God has truly blessed 
us with the service of Father Coughlin as our Chaplain for the past 11 
years.
  When we talk about him being our Chaplain, it's not that he's just 
the Chaplain of the Members, he's the Chaplain for the staff, for the 
carpenter that we see in the hall, for the service employees who are 
here. He ministers to the needs of all of us here, sometimes in a very 
macro way.

                              {time}  1140

  When 9/11 struck, or in Tucson most recently, or with the anthrax 
threat, those kinds of things had an impact on all of us. Father was 
there for us as a group, and he was there for us individually. We never 
know what joys or pain our colleagues or our workers here are 
undergoing or suffering. Father Dan knows more than most of us, and his 
discretion is something that we all value and respect.
  Father Dan has ministered to the needs of the poor with the 
Missionaries of Charity in Calcutta, India. He has meditated with the 
Trappist monks in the monastery, and I think he's going back to do some 
of that again. He has been a scholar-in-residence at the North American 
College in Rome, exchanging ideas there. He has ministered to the needs 
of his parishioners in LaGrange, Illinois, and that probably serves him 
best for ministering to the diverse needs of the flock that he 
shepherds here. We are very, very, very honored.
  Last year, many of us in a bipartisan way stood up and sang the 
praises. It seems so recent, but it was a year ago. Then after that, 
Father was honored in Illinois for serving as a priest for 50 years. 
For some of us, it was really a special source of pride. Although we 
respect all of our Chaplains, it was a source of personal pride that he 
was the first Roman Catholic Chaplain in the House of Representatives, 
and he showed that he could minister to the needs of all of the Members 
of all faiths here.
  So, yes, we are very blessed by his service in the Congress. We are 
going to miss him a great deal. We wish him well as he goes forth. The 
legacy that he left us is one that was not only of opening prayer each 
day to inspire us and lift us to a higher place in our deliberations, 
but he set an example of civility in the Congress of confidentiality of 
relationships. He was a great Chaplain. We will miss him greatly, and 
we are enormously grateful to him.
  Thank you, Father Coughlin.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Father Dan, may God be with you.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Garrett

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Gingrey of Georgia). Without objection, 5-
minute voting will continue.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Garrett) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 119, 
noes 136, answered ``present'' 172, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 275]

                               AYES--119

     Akin
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Culberson
     Denham
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guinta
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hunter
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latta
     Long
     Lummis
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Pence
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Roe (TN)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Walberg
     Walsh (IL)
     West
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Woodall

                               NOES--136

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Black
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Braley (IA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Camp
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Herrera Beutler
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Jones
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCotter
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Miller (MI)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Rivera
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Schilling
     Schock
     Schrader
     Scott (SC)
     Sensenbrenner
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Stivers
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Watt
     Webster
     Whitfield
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                       ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--172

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne

[[Page 6283]]


     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Giffords
     Keating
     Meeks
     Olver
     Reichert


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). Less than 2 minutes remain in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1158

  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS, Mrs. BONO MACK and Mr. DREIER changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. GALLEGLY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  Messrs. ELLISON, TIERNEY, GUTIERREZ, DINGELL, SARBANES, BECERRA, 
RICHMOND, GRIJALVA, DeFAZIO, FRANK of Massachusetts, GEORGE MILLER of 
California, McDERMOTT, PAYNE, HONDA, LYNCH, McNERNEY, WAXMAN, CLYBURN, 
ROTHMAN of New Jersey, PASCRELL, MICHAUD, Ms. McCOLLUM, and Messrs. 
LIPINSKI and RUSH changed their vote from ``no'' to ``present.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Van Hollen

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in part B of House Report 112-62.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to put in order the Democratic 
substitute budget.
  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.--Congress declares that this resolution is 
     the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012 
     and that this resolution sets forth the appropriate budgetary 
     levels for the 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--RESERVE FUNDS

Sec. 201. Reserve fund for job creation through investments and 
              incentives.
Sec. 202. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for increasing energy 
              independence.
Sec. 203. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for America's veterans and 
              servicemembers.
Sec. 204. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for Medicare improvement.
Sec. 205. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for Transitional Medical 
              Assistance.
Sec. 206. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for initiatives that benefit 
              children.
Sec. 207. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the reauthorization of Trade 
              Adjustment Assistance.
Sec. 208. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the Affordable Housing Trust 
              Fund.
Sec. 209. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for college affordability.
Sec. 210. Reserve fund for additional tax relief for individuals and 
              families.

                   TITLE III--ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. Point of order against advance appropriations.
Sec. 302. Adjustments to discretionary spending limits.
Sec. 303. Costs of overseas contingency operations and emergency needs.
Sec. 304. Budgetary treatment of certain discretionary administrative 
              expenses.
Sec. 305. Application and effect of changes in allocations and 
              aggregates.
Sec. 306. Exercise of rulemaking powers.

                            TITLE IV--POLICY

Sec. 401. Policy of the House on Social Security reform that protects 
              workers and retirees.
Sec. 402. Policy of the House on protecting the Medicare guarantee for 
              seniors.
Sec. 403. Policy of the House on affordable health care coverage for 
              working families.
Sec. 404. Policy of the House on Medicaid.
Sec. 405. Policy of the House on health care for military 
              servicemembers and their families and veterans.
Sec. 406. Policy of the House on overseas contingency operations.
Sec. 407. Policy of the House on national security.
Sec. 408. Policy of the House on tax reform and deficit reduction.
Sec. 409. Policy of the House on agriculture spending.

                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: $1,874,821,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,160,696,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,427,909,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $2,617,442,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $2,766,457,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $2,912,862,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,088,525,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,265,724,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,440,495,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,621,001,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2012: -$16,590,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: -$194,259,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: -$242,966,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: -$213,460,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: -$204,735,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: -$262,449,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: -$245,937,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: -$237,092,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: -$240,015,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: -$262,582,000,000.
       (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: $3,019,682,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $3,020,663,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $3,211,158,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $3,343,359,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,558,413,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,724,776,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,883,519,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $4,098,979,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $4,314,542,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $4,497,789,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2012: $3,056,448,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $3,077,023,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $3,199,401,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $3,342,246,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,549,501,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,691,037,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,828,322,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $4,056,925,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $4,258,952,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $4,452,330,000,000.
       (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: $1,181,627,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $916,327,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $771,492,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $724,804,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $783,044,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $778,175,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $739,797,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $791,201,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $818,457,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $831,329,000,000.
       (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: $16,316,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $17,417,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $18,385,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $19,336,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $20,362,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $21,403,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $22,433,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $23,505,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $24,622,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $25,784,000,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2012: $11,533,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $12,463,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $13,241,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $13,972,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $14,753,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $15,533,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $16,282,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $17,087,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $17,936,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $18,810,000,000,000.

     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.

[[Page 6284]]

       (B) Outlays, $598,671,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $602,362,000,000.
       (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, $631,159,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $618,331,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $644,397,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $633,353,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $656,009,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $642,314,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $668,081,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $650,535,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $680,295,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $667,865,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $692,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $679,939,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $705,330,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $692,242,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,212,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,595,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,982,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,638,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,518,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,105,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,252,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,081,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,452,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,002,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,018,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,049,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,083,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,820,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,194,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,325,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,327,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,348,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,511,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,299,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,566,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,940,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,473,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,783,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,616,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,378,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,380,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,367,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,049,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,151,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,711,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,970,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,471,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,819,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,235,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,695,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,079,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,607,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,875,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,878,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,240,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,720,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,682,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,280,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,103,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,188,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,477,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,262,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,723,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,267,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,827,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,408,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,953,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,667,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,923,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,686,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,857,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,825,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,974,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,368,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,740,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,981,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,587,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,157,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,448,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,225,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,306,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,218,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,184,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,031,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,714,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,456,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,871,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,229,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,583,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,599,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,772,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,066,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,309,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,035,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,419,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,260,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,047,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,309,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,942,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,463,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,863,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,564,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,980,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,518,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,889,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,795,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,144,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,052,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,384,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,267,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,598,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,549,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,889,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,201,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,682,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,610,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,036,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,159,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,079,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,124,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$4,620,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,693,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$7,122,000,000.
       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, $28,482,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,763,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,746,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,194,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $92,997,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $92,985,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $93,428,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $93,367,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $93,560,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $93,954,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $94,344,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $95,487,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $95,319,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $96,910,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $96,329,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $98,070,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $97,374,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $99,368,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $98,462,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $100,766,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $99,607,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $103,033,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $100,797,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $104,951,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,768,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,957,000,000.

[[Page 6285]]

       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,850,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,312,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,136,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,510,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,432,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,044,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,752,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,581,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,132,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,527,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,726,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,905,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,027,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,410,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,694,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,802,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $111,660,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $117,278,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $103,601,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $105,183,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $106,767,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $105,243,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $111,512,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $110,265,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $118,367,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $115,349,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $122,925,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $120,086,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $124,810,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $123,162,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $126,741,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $125,134,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $128,251,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $126,917,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $130,037,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $128,515,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $356,454,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $358,345,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $371,025,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $368,610,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $452,921,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $435,868,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $518,204,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $506,510,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $565,854,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $570,405,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $612,933,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $615,828,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $654,725,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $652,292,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $700,813,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $697,785,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $755,915,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $742,356,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $799,717,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $795,946,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $483,906,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $483,575,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $520,906,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $521,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $548,999,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $548,921,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $571,619,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $571,471,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $618,727,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $618,926,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $640,386,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $640,268,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $663,131,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $662,959,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $722,938,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $723,130,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $775,021,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $774,897,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $829,118,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $828,970,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $536,350,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $531,078,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $523,956,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $522,361,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $520,920,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $519,386,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $518,437,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $516,335,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $525,765,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $527,558,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $526,227,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $523,584,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $530,452,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $523,054,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $546,089,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $543,158,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $557,719,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $554,766,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $570,308,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $567,314,000,000.
       (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, $29,094,000,000.
       (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, $128,339,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $128,114,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $130,024,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $130,024,000,000.
       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.
       (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, $55,182,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,072,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,315,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,008,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,543,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,426,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,239,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,230,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,732,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,823,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,411,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,808,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,848,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,743,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,427,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,080,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,045,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $65,430,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,682,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,039,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,419,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,492,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,927,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,930,000,000.

[[Page 6286]]

       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,510,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,103,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,157,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,464,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,173,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,198,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,798,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,598,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,502,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,191,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,275,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,735,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,841,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,377,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,511,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,931,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $373,659,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $373,659,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $439,991,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $439,991,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $519,615,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $519,615,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $598,459,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $598,459,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $678,904,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $678,904,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $756,129,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $756,129,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $827,473,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $827,473,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $890,592,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $890,592,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $953,210,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $953,210,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,006,915,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,006,915,000,000.
       (19) Non-Security Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, -$20,374,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$13,539,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, -$16,513,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$10,639,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, -$22,316,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$18,381,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, -$22,402,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$19,208,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, -$25,768,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$23,209,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$28,411,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$26,537,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$30,325,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$29,013,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$32,186,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$31,172,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$33,734,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$32,954,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$35,241,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$34,708,000,000.
       (20) 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.
       (21) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, -$77,923,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$77,923,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, -$80,329,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$80,329,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, -$81,798,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$81,798,000,000.
       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.
       (22) Overseas Contingency Operations (970):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $126,544,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $118,036,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $92,862,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $65,077,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $0,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,301,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $0,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,179,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $0,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,497,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $0,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,201,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $0,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $515,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $0,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $250,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $0,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $100,000,000.

                        TITLE II--RESERVE FUNDS

     SEC. 201. RESERVE FUND FOR JOB CREATION THROUGH INVESTMENTS 
                   AND INCENTIVES.

       The chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise the 
     allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this 
     resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or 
     conference report that provides for a robust Federal 
     investment in America's infrastructure, incentives for 
     businesses, and support for communities that creates jobs for 
     Americans and boosts the economy. The revisions may include 
     measures that:
       (1) Provide for additional investments to improve energy 
     efficiency, develop renewable energy sources, and provide the 
     training for workers in these industries (``clean energy 
     jobs'') by the amounts in such measure if such measure would 
     not increase the deficit for either of the following time 
     periods, fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2016 or fiscal year 
     2011 to fiscal year 2021.
       (2) Reauthorize Federal highway and transit programs by 
     providing new contract authority by the amounts provided in 
     such measure if such measure establishes or maintains a 
     solvent Highway Trust Fund over the period of fiscal years 
     2012 through 2017. ``Solvency'' is defined as a positive cash 
     balance. Such measure may include a transfer into the Highway 
     Trust Fund from other Federal funds, as long as the transfer 
     of Federal funds is fully offset.
       (3) Create a National Infrastructure Bank to pool Federal, 
     State, local, tribal, and private-sector resources for a wide 
     range of investments of national or regional significance by 
     the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would 
     not increase the deficit for either of the following time 
     periods, fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2016 or fiscal year 
     2011 to fiscal year 2021.
       (4) Provide for additional investments in rail, aviation, 
     harbors, seaports, public housing, broadband, energy, water, 
     and other infrastructure by the amounts provided in such 
     measure if such measure would not increase the deficit for 
     either of the following time periods, fiscal year 2011 to 
     fiscal year 2016 or fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2021.
       (5) Provide additional incentives, including tax 
     incentives, to small businesses, nonprofits, States, and 
     communities to expand investment and to train, hire, and 
     retain private-sector workers and public service employees by 
     the amounts provided in such measure if such measure does not 
     increase the deficit for either of the following time 
     periods, fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2016 or fiscal year 
     2011 to fiscal year 2021.

     SEC. 202. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR INCREASING ENERGY 
                   INDEPENDENCE.

       The chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise the 
     allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this 
     resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or 
     conference report that--

[[Page 6287]]

       (1) provides tax incentives for or otherwise encourages the 
     production of renewable energy or increased energy 
     efficiency;
       (2) encourages investment in emerging energy or vehicle 
     technologies or carbon capture and sequestration;
       (3) limits and provides for reductions in greenhouse gas 
     emissions;
       (4) assists businesses, industries, States, communities, 
     the environment, workers, or households as the United States 
     moves toward reducing and offsetting the impacts of 
     greenhouse gas emissions; or
       (5) facilitates the training of workers for these 
     industries (``clean energy jobs'');

     by the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would 
     not increase the deficit for either of the following time 
     periods, fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2016 or fiscal year 
     2011 to fiscal year 2021.

     SEC. 203. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR AMERICA'S VETERANS 
                   AND SERVICEMEMBERS.

       The chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise the 
     allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this 
     resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or 
     conference report that--
       (1) enhances health care for military personnel, military 
     retirees, or veterans;
       (2) maintains the affordability of health care for military 
     personnel, military retirees, or veterans;
       (3) improves disability benefits or evaluations for wounded 
     or disabled military personnel or veterans, including 
     measures to expedite the claims process;
       (4) expands eligibility to permit additional disabled 
     military retirees to receive both disability compensation and 
     retired pay (concurrent receipt); or
       (5) eliminates the offset between Survivor Benefit Plan 
     annuities and veterans' dependency and indemnity 
     compensation;

     by the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would 
     not increase the deficit for either of the following time 
     periods, fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2016, or fiscal year 
     2011 to fiscal year 2021.

     SEC. 204. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR MEDICARE 
                   IMPROVEMENT.

       The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report that make improvements to 
     Medicare, including making reforms to the Medicare payment 
     system for physicians that build on delivery reforms 
     underway, such as advancement of new care models, and--
       (1) change incentives to encourage efficiency and higher 
     quality care in a manner consistent with the goals of fiscal 
     sustainability;
       (2) improve payment accuracy to encourage efficient use of 
     resources and ensure that patient-centered primary care 
     receives appropriate compensation;
       (3) support innovative programs to improve coordination of 
     care among all providers serving a patient in all appropriate 
     settings; and
       (4) hold providers accountable for their utilization 
     patterns and quality of care;

     by the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would 
     not increase the deficit for either of the following time 
     periods, fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2016 or fiscal year 
     2011 to fiscal year 2021.

     SEC. 205. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR TRANSITIONAL 
                   MEDICAL ASSISTANCE.

       The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report that extends the Transitional 
     Medical Assistance program in title XIX of the Social 
     Security Act through fiscal year 2012, by the amounts 
     provided in such measure if such measure would not increase 
     the deficit for either of the following time periods, fiscal 
     year 2011 to fiscal year 2016 or fiscal year 2011 to fiscal 
     year 2021.

     SEC. 206. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR INITIATIVES THAT 
                   BENEFIT CHILDREN.

        The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report that improves the lives of 
     children by the amounts provided in such measure if such 
     measure would not increase the deficit for either of the 
     following time periods, fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2016 
     or fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2021. Improvements may 
     include:
       (1) Extension and expansion of child care assistance.
       (2) Changes to foster care to prevent child abuse and 
     neglect and keep more children safely in their homes.
       (3) Changes to child support enforcement to encourage 
     increased parental support for children, particularly from 
     non-custodial parents, including legislation that results in 
     a greater share of collected child support reaching the child 
     or encourages States to provide access and visitation 
     services to improve fathers' relationships with their 
     children. Such changes could reflect efforts to ensure that 
     States have the necessary resources to collect all child 
     support that is owed to families and to allow them to pass 
     100 percent of support on to families without financial 
     penalty. 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.

     SEC. 207. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE 
                   REAUTHORIZATION OF TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE.

       The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report that extends Trade Adjustment 
     Assistance and the 2009 reforms to Trade Adjustment 
     Assistance, which expired earlier this year, by the amounts 
     provided in such measure if such measure would not increase 
     the deficit for either of the following time periods, fiscal 
     year 2011 to fiscal year 2016 or fiscal year 2011 to fiscal 
     year 2021.

     SEC. 208. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE AFFORDABLE 
                   HOUSING TRUST FUND.

       The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report that capitalizes the existing 
     Affordable Housing Trust Fund by the amounts provided in such 
     measure if such measure would not increase the deficit for 
     either of the following time periods, fiscal year 2011 to 
     fiscal year 2016 or fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2021.

     SEC. 209. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR COLLEGE 
                   AFFORDABILITY.

       The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report that makes college more 
     affordable, including efforts to maintain the maximum Pell 
     grant award, by the amounts provided in such measure if such 
     measure would not increase the deficit for either of the 
     following time periods, fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2016 
     or fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2021.

     SEC. 210. RESERVE FUND FOR ADDITIONAL TAX RELIEF FOR 
                   INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES.

       The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report that provides additional tax 
     relief to individuals and families, such as expanding tax 
     relief provided by the refundable child credit, by the 
     amounts provided in such measure if such measure would not 
     increase the deficit for either of the following time 
     periods, fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2016 or fiscal year 
     2011 to fiscal year 2021.

                   TITLE III--ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS

     SEC. 301. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--In the House, except as provided in 
     subsection (b), any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or 
     conference report making a general appropriation or 
     continuing appropriation may not provide for advance 
     appropriations.
       (b) Exceptions.--Advance appropriations may be provided--
       (1) for fiscal year 2013 for programs, projects, 
     activities, or accounts identified in the joint explanatory 
     statement of managers to accompany this resolution under the 
     heading ``Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations'' in 
     an aggregate amount not to exceed $28,852,000,000 in new 
     budget authority, and for 2014, accounts separately 
     identified under the same heading; and
       (2) for the Department of Veterans Affairs for the Medical 
     Services, Medical Support and Compliance, and Medical 
     Facilities accounts of the Veterans Health Administration.
       (c) 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 2012 that first becomes 
     available for any fiscal year after 2012.

     SEC. 302. ADJUSTMENTS TO DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

       (a) Program Integrity Initiatives.--
       (1) Social security administration program integrity 
     initiatives.--In the House, prior to consideration of any 
     bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report 
     making appropriations for fiscal year 2012 that appropriates 
     $315,000,000 for continuing disability reviews and 
     Supplemental Security Income redeterminations for the Social 
     Security Administration and provides an additional 
     appropriation of up to $623,000,000, and that amount is 
     designated for continuing disability reviews and Supplemental 
     Security Income redeterminations for the Social Security 
     Administration, the allocation to the House Committee on 
     Appropriations shall be increased by the amount of the 
     additional budget authority and outlays resulting from that 
     budget authority for fiscal year 2012.
       (2) Internal revenue service tax compliance.--In the House, 
     prior to consideration of any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report making appropriations for

[[Page 6288]]

     fiscal year 2012 that appropriates $7,233,000,000 for the 
     Internal Revenue Service for enhanced enforcement to address 
     the Federal tax gap (taxes owed but not paid) and provides an 
     additional appropriation of up to $1,257,000,000, to the 
     Internal Revenue Service and the amount is designated for 
     enhanced tax enforcement to address the tax gap, the 
     allocation to the House Committee on Appropriations shall be 
     increased by the amount of additional budget authority and 
     outlays resulting from that budget authority for fiscal year 
     2012.
       (3) Health care fraud and abuse control program.--In the 
     House, prior to consideration of any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report making appropriations for 
     fiscal year 2012 that appropriates up to $581,000,000, and 
     the amount is designated to the health care fraud and abuse 
     control program at the Department of Health and Human 
     Services, the allocation to the House Committee on 
     Appropriations shall be increased by the amount of additional 
     budget authority and outlays resulting from that budget 
     authority for fiscal year 2012.
       (4) Unemployment insurance program integrity activities.--
     In the House, prior to consideration of any bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, or conference report making 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2012 that appropriates 
     $10,000,000 for in-person reemployment and eligibility 
     assessments and unemployment insurance improper payment 
     reviews for the Department of Labor and provides an 
     additional appropriation of up to $60,000,000, and the amount 
     is designated for in-person reemployment and eligibility 
     assessments and unemployment insurance improper payment 
     reviews for the Department of Labor, the allocation to the 
     House Committee on Appropriations shall be increased by the 
     amount of additional budget authority and outlays resulting 
     from that budget authority for fiscal year 2012.
       (b) Procedure for Adjustments.--Prior to consideration of 
     any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report, 
     the chairman of the House Committee on the Budget shall make 
     the adjustments set forth in this subsection for the 
     incremental new budget authority in that measure and the 
     outlays resulting from that budget authority if that measure 
     meets the requirements set forth in this section.

     SEC. 303. COSTS OF OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS AND 
                   EMERGENCY NEEDS.

       (a) Overseas Contingency Operations.--In the House, if any 
     bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report makes 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2011 or fiscal year 2012 for 
     overseas contingency operations and other activities and such 
     amounts are so designated pursuant to this paragraph, then 
     the allocation to the House Committee on Appropriations may 
     be adjusted by the amounts provided in such legislation for 
     that purpose up to the amounts of budget authority specified 
     in section 102(22) for fiscal year 2011 or fiscal year 2012 
     and the new outlays resulting therefrom.
       (b) Emergency Needs.--If any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report makes appropriations for 
     discretionary amounts and such amounts are designated as 
     necessary to meet emergency needs pursuant to this 
     subsection, then new budget authority and outlays resulting 
     therefrom shall not count for the purposes of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, or this resolution.

     SEC. 304. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF CERTAIN DISCRETIONARY 
                   ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

       (a) In General.--In the House, notwithstanding section 
     302(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, section 
     13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and section 4001 
     of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, the joint 
     explanatory statement accompanying the conference report on 
     any concurrent resolution on the budget shall include in its 
     allocation under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 to the House Committee on Appropriations amounts 
     for the discretionary administrative expenses of the Social 
     Security Administration and of the 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.

     SEC. 305. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS 
                   AND AGGREGATES.

       (a) Application.--In the House, 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) Applicability.--Clause 10 of rule XXI of the Rules of 
     the House of Representatives shall not apply to measures for 
     which the chairman of the Committee on the Budget has made an 
     adjustment contemplated under title II of this resolution.
       (d) Adjustments.--The chairman of the House Committee on 
     the Budget may adjust the aggregates, allocations, and other 
     levels in this resolution for legislation which has received 
     final congressional approval in the same form by the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, but has yet to be presented 
     to or signed by the President at the time of final 
     consideration of this resolution.

     SEC. 306. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

       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.

                            TITLE IV--POLICY

     SEC. 401. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM THAT 
                   PROTECTS WORKERS AND RETIREES.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) Social Security is America's most important retirement 
     resource, especially for seniors, because it provides an 
     income floor to keep them, their spouses and their survivors 
     out of poverty during retirement--benefits earned based on 
     their past payroll contributions;
       (2) in 2010, 53 million people relied on Social Security;
       (3) Social Security benefits are modest, with an average 
     annual benefit for retirees of about $14,000, while the 
     average total retirement income is only about $25,000 per 
     year;
       (4) diverting workers' payroll contributions toward private 
     accounts undermines retirement security and the social safety 
     net by subjecting the workers' retirement decisions and 
     income to the whims of the stock market;
       (5) diverting trust fund payroll contributions toward 
     private accounts jeopardizes Social Security because the 
     program will not have the resources to pay full benefits to 
     current retirees; and
       (6) privatization increases Federal debt because the 
     Treasury will have to borrow additional funds from the public 
     to pay full benefits to current retirees.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of this resolution that 
     Social Security should be strengthened for its own sake and 
     not to achieve deficit reduction. Because privatization 
     proposals are fiscally irresponsible and would put the 
     retirement security of seniors at risk, any Social Security 
     reform legislation shall reject partial or complete 
     privatization of the program.

     SEC. 402. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON PROTECTING THE MEDICARE 
                   GUARANTEE FOR SENIORS.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) senior citizens and persons with disabilities highly 
     value the Medicare program and rely on Medicare to guarantee 
     their health and financial security;
       (2) in 2010, more than 40 million people relied on Medicare 
     for coverage of hospital stays, physician visits, 
     prescription drugs, and other necessary medical goods and 
     services;
       (3) the Medicare program has lower administrative and 
     program costs than private insurance for a given level of 
     benefits;
       (4) excess health care cost growth is not unique to 
     Medicare or other Federal health programs, it is endemic to 
     the entire health care system;
       (5) destroying the Medicare program and replacing it with a 
     voucher or premium support for the purchase of private 
     insurance that fails to keep pace with growth in health costs 
     will expose seniors and persons with disabilities on fixed 
     incomes to unacceptable financial risks; and
       (6) shifting excess health care cost growth onto Medicare 
     beneficiaries would not reduce overall health care costs, 
     instead it would mean beneficiaries would face higher 
     premiums, eroding coverage, or both.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that the 
     Medicare guarantee for seniors and persons with disabilities 
     should be preserved and strengthened, and that any 
     legislation to end the Medicare guarantee and shift rising 
     health care costs onto seniors by replacing Medicare with 
     vouchers or premium support for the purchase of private 
     insurance should be rejected.

     SEC. 403. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE 
                   COVERAGE FOR WORKING FAMILIES.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) making health care coverage affordable and accessible 
     for all American families will improve families' health and 
     economic security, which will make the economy stronger;
       (2) the Affordable Care Act signed into law in 2010 will 
     expand coverage to more than 30,000,000 Americans and bring 
     costs down for families and small businesses;
       (3) consumers are already benefiting from the Affordable 
     Care Act's provisions to hold

[[Page 6289]]

     insurance companies accountable for their actions and to end 
     long-standing practices such as denying coverage to children 
     based on pre-existing conditions, imposing lifetime limits on 
     coverage that put families at risk of bankruptcy in the event 
     of serious illness, and dropping an enrollee's coverage once 
     the enrollee becomes ill based on a simple mistake in the 
     enrollee's application;
       (4) the Affordable Care Act reforms Federal health 
     entitlements by using nearly every health cost-containment 
     provision experts recommend, including new incentives to 
     reward quality and coordination of care rather than simply 
     quantity of services provided, new tools to crack down on 
     fraud, and the elimination of excessive taxpayer subsidies to 
     private insurance plans, and as a result will slow the 
     projected annual growth rate of national health expenditures 
     by 0.3 percentage points after 2016, the essence of ``bending 
     the cost curve''; and
       (5) the Affordable Care Act will reduce the Federal deficit 
     by more than $1,000,000,000,000 over the next 20 years.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that the law of 
     the land should support making affordable health care 
     coverage available to every American family, and therefore 
     the Affordable Care Act should not be repealed.

     SEC. 404. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON MEDICAID.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) Medicaid is a central component of the Nation's health 
     care safety net, providing health coverage to 28 million low-
     income children, 5 million seniors, and 10 million disabled 
     individuals who would otherwise be unable to obtain health 
     insurance;
       (2) senior citizens and persons with disabilities account 
     for two-thirds of Medicaid program spending and consequently 
     would be at particular risk of losing access to important 
     health care assistance under any policy to sever the link 
     between Medicaid funding and the actual costs of providing 
     services to the currently eligible Medicaid population;
       (3) Medicaid pays for 43 percent of long-term care services 
     in the United States, providing a critical health care safety 
     net for senior citizens and disabled individuals facing 
     significant costs for long-term care; and
       (4) at least 70 percent of persons over age 65 will likely 
     need long-term care services at some point in their lives.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that the 
     important health care safety net for senior citizens, persons 
     with disabilities, and other vulnerable populations provided 
     by Medicaid should be preserved and should not be dismantled 
     by converting Medicaid into a block grant that is incapable 
     of responding to increased need that may result from trends 
     in health care costs or economic conditions.

     SEC. 405. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON HEALTH CARE FOR MILITARY 
                   SERVICEMEMBERS AND THEIR FAMILIES AND VETERANS.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that active duty military 
     servicemembers and their families value the high-quality 
     health care they receive through Tricare and other programs 
     run by the Defense Department, and veterans rely on the 
     health service network run by the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs to address their unique health needs.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that the 
     Congress should reject legislation that would damage the 
     excellent care provided to the men and women who are serving 
     and who have served the country in uniform; and that any 
     future health care legislation that eliminates quality 
     Federal health care programs for military servicemembers and 
     veterans and replaces them with vouchers or premium support 
     for the purchase of private insurance should be rejected.

     SEC. 406. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY 
                   OPERATIONS.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) it is the stated position of the Administration that 
     all troops will be redeployed from Iraq by the end of 2011; 
     and
       (2) it is the stated position of the Administration that 
     Afghan troops will take the full lead for security operations 
     in Afghanistan by the end of 2014.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of this resolution that--
       (1) consistent with the Administration's stated position, 
     no funding shall be provided for operations in Iraq and 
     Afghanistan through the Overseas Contingency Operations 
     budget beyond 2014; and
       (2) any future operations should be funded through the base 
     budget.

     SEC. 407. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON NATIONAL SECURITY.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) the country's national security depends upon a well-
     coordinated strategy that involves the Department of Defense, 
     the National Nuclear Security Administration, the Department 
     of Homeland Security, and international affairs programs--
     including those at the Department of State and the Agency for 
     International Development;
       (2) a growing economy is the foundation of our security and 
     enables the country to provide the resources for a strong 
     military, sound homeland security agencies, and effective 
     diplomacy and international development;
       (3) because it puts our economy at risk, the Nation's debt 
     is an immense security threat to our country, just as 
     Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen has 
     stated, and we must have a deficit reduction plan that is 
     serious and realistic;
       (4) the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal 
     Responsibility and Reform and the bipartisan Rivlin-Domenici 
     Debt Reduction Task Force concluded that a serious and 
     balanced deficit reduction plan must put national security 
     programs on the table;
       (5) the House Budget Committee voted and passed on a 
     bipartisan vote of 33-5 an amendment to the 2012 budget 
     resolution recognizing that national security programs should 
     be considered as part of a serious deficit reduction plan;
       (6) the national security recommendations of the National 
     Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform contained a 
     number of suggestions for savings that could be made without 
     jeopardizing our troops, military families, veterans, or the 
     country's security and global standing;
       (7) more can be done to rein in wasteful spending at the 
     Nation's security agencies, including the Department of 
     Defense--an agency that has been unable to pass a clean 
     audit--and the Department of Homeland Security, such as the 
     elimination of programs the Government Accountability Office 
     recently reported as duplicative, which could save billions 
     of dollars;
       (8) effective implementation of weapons acquisition reforms 
     at the Department of Defense can help control excessive cost 
     growth in the development of new weapons systems and help 
     ensure that weapons systems are delivered on time and in 
     adequate quantities to equip our servicemen and servicewomen;
       (9) the Department of Defense should continue to review 
     defense plans to ensure that weapons developed to counter 
     Cold War-era threats are not redundant and are applicable to 
     21st century threats;
       (10) the State Department, the U.S. Agency for 
     International Development (USAID), and other U.S. 
     international affairs agencies can save money and improve 
     cost-effectiveness by ensuring that their workforces have the 
     appropriate mix of direct-hire personnel and contractors, as 
     identified by the Administration's 2010 Quadrennial Diplomacy 
     and Development Review;
       (11) the Department of Defense and the Department of 
     Homeland Security should perform a comprehensive review of 
     the role that contractors play in their operations, including 
     the degree to which contractors are performing inherently 
     governmental functions, to ensure they have the most 
     effective mix of government and contracted personnel;
       (12) ballistic missile defense technologies that are not 
     proven to work through adequate testing and that are not 
     operationally viable should not be deployed, and that no 
     funding should be provided for the research or development of 
     space-based interceptors;
       (13) cooperative threat reduction and other 
     nonproliferation programs (securing ``loose nukes'' and other 
     materials used in weapons of mass destruction), which were 
     highlighted as high priorities by the 9/11 Commission, need 
     to be funded at a level that is commensurate with the 
     evolving threat; and
       (14) the Department of Defense should make every effort to 
     investigate the national security benefits of energy 
     independence, including those that may be associated with 
     alternative energy sources and energy efficiency conversions.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of this resolution that after 
     thorough review, the Committee on Appropriations shall 
     determine savings within the Nation's security programs as 
     identified in subsection (a)(1) below the levels in the 
     President's 2012 budget equal to the amounts in section 
     102(20).

     SEC. 408. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON TAX REFORM AND DEFICIT 
                   REDUCTION.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) the House must pursue deficit reduction through reform 
     of the tax code, which contains numerous tax breaks for 
     special interests;
       (2) these special tax breaks can greatly complicate the 
     effort to administer the code and the taxpayer's ability to 
     fully comply with its terms, while also undermining our basic 
     sense of fairness;
       (3) the corporate income tax does include a number of 
     incentives that help spur economic growth and innovation, 
     such as extending the research and development credit and 
     clean energy incentives;
       (4) but tax breaks for special interests can also distort 
     economic incentives for businesses and consumers and 
     encourage businesses to ship American jobs and capital 
     overseas;
       (5) the President's National Commission on Fiscal 
     Responsibility and Reform observed that the corporate income 
     tax is riddled with special interest tax breaks and 
     subsidies, is badly in need of reform and proposed to 
     streamline the code, capturing some of the savings in the 
     process, to achieve deficit reduction in a more balanced way.
       (b) Policy.--
       (1) In general.--This resolution's revenue policies achieve 
     the same net savings as the revenue policies in the 
     President's budget. It does not endorse any of the 
     President's specific proposals unless expressly stated in 
     this resolution.
       (2) Policy on individual income taxes.--
       (A) The President and this resolution extend the middle 
     class tax cuts, provide long-term relief from the Alternative 
     Minimum

[[Page 6290]]

     Tax for tens of millions of middle class American families, 
     and provide estate tax relief at the 2009 levels.
       (B) The President and this resolution apply President 
     Clinton's top two tax rates to persons with adjusted gross 
     incomes above $200,000 ($250,000 for married couples). The 
     National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform plan 
     also assumes revenue from returning to those top two tax 
     rates for top earners.
       (C) The President and this resolution extend policies that 
     support saving and capital formation.
       (D) This resolution encourages the House Committee on Ways 
     and Means to consider the various proposals made by the 
     National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to 
     limit tax expenditures and raise revenue for deficit 
     reduction; and expressly rejects the approach in the 
     Republican resolution that provides millionaires with even 
     larger tax cuts at the expense of middle-income taxpayers. 
     This resolution protects middle-income taxpayers and 
     encourages the House Committee on Ways and Means to consider 
     tax expenditure reform proposals that would apply to 
     households with over $1 million in adjusted gross income, 
     consistent with the National Commission on Fiscal 
     Responsibility and Reform's proposals to limit tax 
     expenditures.
       (3) Policy on corporate income taxes.--
       (A) The President and this resolution assume elimination of 
     subsidies for the major integrated oil and gas companies, and 
     pernicious tax breaks that reward U.S. corporations that ship 
     American jobs--rather than products--overseas.
       (B) This resolution adopts those and other pro-growth 
     corporate tax incentives in the President's budget, such as 
     extending the research and development credit and clean 
     energy incentives.
       (C) This resolution therefore urges the House Committee on 
     Ways and Means to consider the full range of different 
     corporate tax reform proposals to determine which one can 
     most effectively optimize economic growth and provide for 
     necessary revenues.

     SEC. 409. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON AGRICULTURE SPENDING.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) the current looming Federal deficit threatens our 
     Nation's economic security and continued growth;
       (2) the Committee on Agriculture reduced spending in 
     programs under its jurisdiction when writing the 2008 farm 
     bill;
       (3) as directed by the 2008 Farm Bill, the Department of 
     Agriculture realized an additional $6 billion in crop 
     insurance savings by renegotiating the Standard Reinsurance 
     Agreement;
       (4) soaring crop prices and a booming farm sector make 
     agriculture subsidies--particularly those originally designed 
     to be temporary--difficult to defend in a time of fiscal 
     constraint; and
       (5) farm policy is vital to rural communities and protects 
     food and energy security around the country.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of this resolution that the 
     Committee on Agriculture should reduce spending in farm 
     programs that provide direct payments to producers even in 
     robust markets and in times of bumper yields. The Committee 
     should also find ways to focus assistance away from wealthy 
     agribusinesses and toward struggling family farmers in a 
     manner that protects jobs and economic growth while 
     preserving the farm and nutrition safety net.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and a Member opposed each will control 
15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, our top priority in this Congress 
should be to support a robust economic recovery and put America back to 
work. That is what the Democratic plan does. It reduces the deficit in 
a steady, predictable way without slashing important investments in our 
kids' education and strategic national investments, without ending the 
Medicare guarantee, and without putting seniors, disabled individuals 
and kids at risk who rely on Medicare, and it reduces the deficit in a 
balanced way by $1.2 trillion more than the President's budget and 
achieves primary balance in the year 2018.
  The Republican plan we've been discussing is a narrow vision of 
America--a place with no shared sacrifice, a place where those who have 
benefited the most from what our country has to offer give little in 
return.
  The Democrats have a different vision for our country. We believe our 
strength springs not only from the undisputed benefits of a free people 
pursuing their ambitions and their dreams but also from sometimes 
harnessing those talents for important national purposes.
  We believe America's greatness is rooted not only in a collection of 
individuals acting alone but from our capacity to work together for the 
common good. We believe that is a patriotic vision of America. We do 
not see the government as an enemy but as the imperfect instrument by 
which we can accomplish together as a people what no individual or 
single corporation can do alone.
  Small business owners recognize that they must make certain 
investments to build a successful enterprise. Similarly, our Nation 
must make the strategic national investments necessary to keep our 
country strong in an increasingly global economic marketplace. Our plan 
does that.
  We also believe we can do that while making cuts, and we make 
sensible, targeted cuts. But we do it in a smart way, not with a meat 
ax that threatens the fragile recovery.
  We also agree with the fiscal commission that security spending 
should be part of this debate. Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, has stated, and I quote, that the most 
significant threat to our national security is our national debt. There 
is growing bipartisan consensus that those security agencies must 
themselves be part of our effort to reduce our debt and strengthen our 
country.
  Our approach is a balanced one. We take cuts in the discretionary and 
bring down that part of the budget to the lowest point as a percentage 
of the economy since the Eisenhower administration. We take cuts in 
other areas. We take cuts in mandatory programs, including agriculture 
subsidies.
  But we make different choices than the Republican budget. We end the 
subsidies to Big Oil rather than keeping those as we cut education for 
our kids. We ask the folks at the very top to pay the same tax rate 
they paid during the Clinton administration rather than end the 
Medicare guarantee and slash funding for seniors in nursing homes and 
others who rely on that support.
  We make very different choices in this budget, but we accomplish the 
goal in a fiscally responsible way.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  First of all, I want to start off by commending Mr. Van Hollen. It's 
not always that the minority offers an alternative budget. In fact, I 
know there are a lot of pressures not to do that. So I think Mr. Van 
Hollen is to be commended, and his very capable staff, for actually 
proposing an alternative. That's important. It's important that we 
bring ideas to the table so we can have a real debate about ideas. I 
want to start with saying that.
  Number two, we just have a different definition of ``fiscal 
responsibility,'' I suppose. This budget, relative to the mark, to the 
base budget we're talking about, increases spending by $4.5 trillion, 
raises taxes by $2 trillion, and it adds $2.4 trillion to the deficit 
compared to the base bill we're talking about here.
  It does exceed the President's budget in debt reduction, in deficit 
reduction, and so the gentleman is to be commended for that, but I 
personally think the President's budget is a pretty low water mark. It 
exceeds it by raising taxes another $210 billion and also cutting 
defense by $614 billion above the cuts that are in the base, our 
budget, and in the President's budget.
  Secretary Gates has warned us that such cuts would leave the military 
unable to meet its current missions. And using his words: ``Setting 
indiscriminate targets to scrimp on defense is math, not strategy.''
  I think it's very important that we recognize our priorities. Number 
one, national defense is the primary responsibility of the Federal 
Government. When our war fighters tell us this doesn't allow them to 
have the tools to keep them safe, the equipment they need to prosecute 
their jobs, I think that's not responsible.
  When our economy is struggling to get out of a very deep recession, 
over $2

[[Page 6291]]

trillion in tax increases I just don't think is responsible.

                              {time}  1210

  On the alternative, I think what we are offering is responsible. Our 
budget does four basic things. It gets the economy growing. It keeps 
taxes where they are and prevents massive tax increases. It saves our 
Medicare and Medicaid programs. It fulfills the mission of health and 
retirement security for all Americans by guaranteeing that people who 
have retired and are about to retire keep what they have, what they 
have organized their lives around, and then reforms these programs so 
that they're solvent and sustainable for the next generation. Number 
three, it repairs our social safety net so that it works. And it, 
number four, pays off our debt. That's what we do.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, the fiscal commission said of the 
Republican plan it was an unbalanced approach. Our approach is a 
balanced approach. Secretary Gates' comments were directed to the 
fiscal commission's recommendations. Our proposals are in line with 
what the President outlined just the other day. I would point out that 
Governor Haley Barbour said, ``If we Republicans don't propose some 
savings of money on defense, we will have no credibility on anything 
else.'' Of course the Pentagon has never passed a GAO budget, and I 
think everybody who does budgets recognizes there is some savings to be 
found there.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished assistant leader, 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).
  Mr. CLYBURN. I thank my friend from Maryland for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard from our Republican friends that they're 
transforming Medicare. They call it a move to premium support. They 
also say they're just fixing the flaws in Medicaid. They say they're 
being brave, and finally tackling entitlement reform. But earlier 
today, on one of the morning shows, I heard my friend from Texas, Jeb 
Hensarling, being finally candid about the Republicans' view of 
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. He called them cruel Ponzi 
schemes. So there we have it.
  This isn't about being brave, or transformative, or making a few 
changes to save the economy. Republicans are pushing the same agenda 
they have always had, ending the safety net programs that they view as 
fraudulent. And the Republican budget does exactly that. It ends 
Medicare, results in a huge cost shift, and forces seniors to pay 
$6,000 per year out of pocket.
  It block grants Medicaid, slashes nursing home aid, and would lead to 
50 different benefit programs across the country. That takes us back to 
my childhood, when benefits in our country were determined by what 
State you may have been fortunate or unfortunate to have been born in.
  But the greatest fraud being committed is that these drastic and 
unfair changes don't even bring the Republican budget to balance. In 
fact, the Republican budget adds $8 trillion to the deficit over the 
next decade. Then where is all that money going, one might ask. While 
Republicans are gutting Medicare and Medicaid with one hand, they're 
giving tax breaks to big oil companies and making tax cuts for the 
wealthy with the other hand. That's what I call a Ponzi scheme.
  Now, if you're wealthy or a special interest group, this is surely a 
pathway to prosperity. But if you're in your golden years, it's the 
Road to Ruin. Democrats have a plan to reduce the deficit in a steady, 
responsible way as we build a foundation for shared prosperity and 
long-term economic growth. In fact, the Democratic budget achieves 
primary balance by fiscal year 2018, and cuts the deficit by $1.2 
trillion more than the President's budget. I proudly support the 
Democratic alternative budget.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).
  Mr. McCOTTER. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding.
  We have heard from the minority party that their budget seeks to 
harness the American people. Why? They have already saddled the 
American people with record spending deficits and debt. Just say 
``neigh.''
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin).
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say a few 
words about Medicare if I can. First and foremost, I want to make it 
very clear that if you are 55 and over, there are no changes to you 
whatsoever. We hear a lot about Medicare as we know it. Unfortunately, 
Medicare as we know it is going bankrupt. If you are for the status quo 
with regard to Medicare, you're on the side of the elimination of 
Medicare as we know it.
  Another point I want to make is, we hear a lot about cuts. These are 
Washington cuts. This is Washington cut-speak. Where I'm from, if you 
get $5 on a Monday and the next day you get $10, that's an increase, 
not a cut. Most Americans would be appalled to know, Mr. Chairman, that 
the increases we are seeing are being called cuts. And I'm going to 
explain it to my folks when I get back to Arkansas. Medicare has not 
one penny of cuts in this budget. It continues to grow.
  With regard to the language about vouchers, there is no voucher here. 
We're trying to give the folks that are 55 and under health care like 
Members of Congress have. Have you ever, Mr. Chairman, heard anyone in 
Congress describe their own health care plan as a voucher? No. Of 
course you haven't. Because it's not. That word has been rolled out 
with the other tested words, ``privatization,'' all this other 
nonsense, for the purposes of politics. You don't want the American 
people, Mr. Chairman, to have the same health care that you have.
  I support this budget because it will keep our promise to seniors, it 
will save Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and it will preserve 
this country for my kids.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I urge Republican Members to read their 
own budget. It does not give seniors the same deal as Members of 
Congress. Members of Congress have a fair share formula. Seniors do not 
under their bill. Seniors get an immediate cut to the prescription drug 
benefit to the extent that we closed the doughnut hole, and they don't. 
Let's get our facts straight.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Democratic 
Caucus, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I want to thank Chairman Van Hollen and I 
want to thank Mr. Ryan for the conduct of this debate that's taking 
place. They are two exemplary examples of how debate and discussion 
should move forward and emanate here in the House of Representatives.
  Harry Truman said, ``Every segment of our population, and every 
individual, has a right to expect from his government a fair deal.'' I 
rise in strong support of the fair deal that's being proposed by the 
Democratic side in this debate. I rise because it helps us out with 
jobs and the economy, and recognizes that we must deal with the 
deficit, but deal with it in a manner that makes sense.
  In my hometown we go to a place called Augie & Ray's. In Augie & 
Ray's, they want to know, whose side are you on in this? When you take 
Medicare and end the program as we know it, and shift the burden of the 
deficit at a time when we need shared sacrifice to the elderly, it is 
just flatly unfair. The social contract that the governed, that the 
people have with their government is about shared sacrifice, but it's 
also about the guarantee.

                              {time}  1220

  This is not about charts and statistics and flow charts; it's about 
people at the end of the day who are impacted by the decisions that we 
make; not by some economist's theory, but about a guarantee from their 
government, a guarantee that if they pay in, at the end of the day they 
are going to receive the benefits they have worked so hard for all of 
their lives.
  That guarantee shouldn't be two-tiered. That guarantee shouldn't cut

[[Page 6292]]

off benefits immediately to some and postpone it for others. That's a 
guarantee we should be working to fix, not to end. That is the 
fundamental difference in what's going on here today.
  My distinguished colleague, the leader, Mr. Clyburn, said let's 
recognize what's going on here, the extreme differences that have 
existed in this party since Roosevelt became President. An end of 
Social Security, an end of Medicare, an end to Medicaid, that has been 
the goal of the other side.
  I stand in strong support of the Democratic alternative.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our 
distinguished chief deputy whip, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Roskam).
  Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  My colleague from Connecticut talked about a guarantee. Well, there 
is one guarantee that is for sure, Mr. Chairman, and that is the 
guarantee that Medicare as we know it is a pipe dream into perpetuity. 
It's going broke. The guarantee that the Democratic House has brought 
us in the past is a guarantee that says 47 percent of our debt 
obligations are to foreigners.
  We are guaranteed right now to borrow 40 cents on every dollar unless 
we do something about it. So what do we do about it? There are famous 
themes in literature that fast-forward into the future. You get a 
glimpse of the reality of the future, and then we always love it when 
the hero comes back and says, Oh, here's what's going on. There's a 
choice. Let's make a good choice and let's move forward.
  Well, we don't need fiction today. What we need is the clear-eyed 
reality of what these numbers present to us, and they present to us a 
choice:
  We can either choose to do nothing, and I would say that is choosing, 
or we can choose to do something. We can choose to do a historic plan 
that brings a brightness to the economy, that creates jobs and 
opportunity, that doesn't mortgage our children's future to China and 
ultimately puts the U.S. on a global competitive basis, the likes of 
which the world will have never seen.
  This is a time of choosing. Let's move forward and choose the House 
Republican plan, which makes guarantees and makes promises that we can 
keep with.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, this is a time of choosing. Our budget 
chooses to make investments in our kids rather than choosing to provide 
even bigger tax breaks to the very wealthy, and we choose to get rid of 
subsidies for oil companies instead of cutting nursing homes funding 
through Medicare for seniors and disabled individuals.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished ranking member of 
the Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Berman).
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget cuts the President's 
2012 request for international affairs by $20 billion. That's 39 
percent of the amount in diplomacy and development outside of Iraq, 
Afghanistan and Pakistan. While diplomacy and development account for 
only about 1 percent of the overall budget, under the Republican plan 
this tiny portion of the budget would absorb a wildly disproportionate 
share of the cuts.
  Here's what it means on the ground: Taking AIDS patients off 
lifesaving medication, withholding bed nets from children in malaria 
zones, and standing idly by during humanitarian emergencies.
  I know the chairman of the committee, I know he doesn't want to see 
those things happen, but the effect of his plan would make them happen.
  The Democratic alternative takes a wise and responsible approach to 
reducing the deficit. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, let's talk about Medicare for a moment. It's not as if 
we don't have a problem. We know Medicare is going broke in 9 years. We 
want to make sure that the people who have retired and who are 10 years 
away from retiring can bank on the promises that have been made for 
them.
  But to keep that promise, we have to reform it and save it for the 
next generation. So that's why we have a plan that says for people 54 
and below, you too will have a plan of guaranteed Medicare coverage 
from guaranteed Medicare plans that you get to choose from. Choice and 
competition works.
  A prescription drug benefit, a bunch of plans that compete against 
each other for the seniors' business, came in 41 percent below cost 
projections. Why? Because it's not a government-run program. It's not a 
bunch of bureaucrats.
  What is the President proposing? What are the Democrats proposing? 
Here's what they have proposed for current seniors. The President just 
gave us a glimpse of it 2 days ago. He wants to take this board of 15 
people he appoints on this rationing board, and they make the 
decisions. They price-control Medicare. They ration Medicare, $480 
billion, almost $10,000 per senior on current seniors.
  We are saying, don't do this to seniors, get rid of the rationing 
board and don't delegate Medicare decision-making to 15 people 
appointed by the President with no congressional oversight. Let the 40 
million seniors in Medicare be in charge of their Medicare program. 
More importantly, we save Medicare, prevent its bankruptcy.
  What does the other side do? They sit by and watch the program go 
bankrupt.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I would remind my colleagues that the 
reason Medicare was created in the first place was because the private 
insurance industry wouldn't cover seniors' affordable care. That's what 
they want to go back to.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Democratic 
resolution.
  Last week on the floor of the House, the Republican leader, Eric 
Cantor, asked a very important question. He asked, How did we get here? 
So I took the challenge. I went back and have carefully chronicled a 
series of vote steps and quotes from Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, John 
Kasich and others who argued against the Clinton plan for balancing the 
budget.
  Remember when Clinton left office, the clock in Times Square had been 
turned off. Alan Greenspan said, you're paying down the debt too 
quickly.
  We've had five balanced budgets since 1969; four of them came with 
Bill Clinton. The prescription that was offered on January 20 of the 
Bush inauguration was massive tax cuts and the invasion of Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  And our Republican friends ask, How did we get here?
  I am very optimistic about engaging in this conversation now and as 
we get to the debt ceiling. When Clinton walked out on January 19, 
2001, 22 million jobs had been created. Economic growth averaged 4 
percent per quarter. It was the greatest period of economic prosperity 
in the history of America. And our friends on the other side of the 
aisle want to turn the clock back on that reality.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member of 
the Budget Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Lankford).
  Mr. LANKFORD. I do appreciate the conversation about the balanced 
budgets in the past.
  Yes, Bill Clinton was the President there. He did sign that budget. 
But as this House knows, above any other place, this House is very 
aware that budgets originate in the House of Representatives. So 
Republicans were leading the House of Representatives pulling that 
budget together.
  We are proposing a similar thing again, that a Republican House can 
propose a budget, send it to a Democrat President, and we work together 
to start balancing the budget again.
  So that formula that we just discussed, I believe, is a very good 
formula. We should initiate that again and say, once again, a 
Republican House, do a great budget, send it over to a Democrat 
President, and be able to work their way through it.
  I would disagree with the cuts in defense. I think it is a very 
common statement that we can look and say there are issues with defense 
systems. There are issues with our acquisition process in defense.

[[Page 6293]]



                              {time}  1230

  Where I would disagree is we should then take our defense and where 
we find savings, then move it over to deficit reductions. I represent 
an area around Tinker Air Force Base in Midwest City. It is a great 
base that is strategic to us. Those planes that fly out of there are 
50-plus years old. There are some airmen that are flying with the same 
tail number that their grandfather flew 50 years ago. This is a moment 
when we should not be robbing from defense and saying we are going to 
use that for deficit reduction that we need to be reinvesting.
  Robert Gates, our Secretary of Defense, has said there's $178 billion 
that he can find, and $78 billion of that savings is applied to deficit 
reduction in the Republican plan, and $100 billion of it is reinvested 
back into the Defense Department. There are good ways to do this that 
leave America safe and that make strategic sense. We think we should do 
those things.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. May I inquire as to how much time remains?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 1\3/4\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin has 6\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. 
Mulvaney.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to start by thanking my own 
chairman, Mr. Ryan, and also the ranking member, Mr. Van Hollen, for 
the entire process. It has been my first year. I have enjoyed it. We've 
had some spirited debates. I know that we have disagreed more than we 
agree, but I have appreciated the opportunity to do this.
  I'll close with this. This will be the last opportunity I'll have to 
speak on this year's budget. We've heard a lot about the benefits that 
accrued to this Nation during the Clinton administration. I for one am 
willing to give partial credit to the President at that time. It was a 
Democrat President. Yes, it was. It was a House of Representatives 
controlled by my party. And I think it was a formula that worked for 
the Nation.
  We've heard a lot of things, though, about the importance of raising 
the tax rates back to the Clinton era in order to solve our problems. I 
would suggest to you it was not the tax rates during the Clinton era 
that drove our prosperity at the time.
  Let me show you what President Clinton did to the size of the 
government workforce. President Clinton was elected right about here. 
There was a dramatic reduction in the size of the Federal workforce, a 
dramatic reduction in the size of Federal spending on people who work 
for the Federal Government. In fact, unprecedented in the last 30 
years, done again under a Democrat President and a Republican House.
  What happened as a result? As spending as a percentage of our economy 
went down, the unemployment rate went down. As the government spent 
less, more people went back to work. As we sit here, we all agree that 
the discussion is really about jobs. There's nothing more telling than 
what happened during the Clinton administration as a formula for how to 
create jobs--the government needs to spend less.
  My question to my esteemed colleagues on this side of the aisle is, 
where is this type of leadership out of the White House these days? 
Where is this generation's Bill Clinton saying let's spend less on 
government spending so that people go back to work? If we put President 
Obama's proposals, his current budget, up here, it would be almost the 
exact opposite of what your party proposed only 20 years ago. Where is 
that type of leadership out of the White House?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a 
distinguished member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Garrett of New 
Jersey.
  Mr. GARRETT. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Democrat substitute 
amendment. Let me just quickly here sum up. The Democrats' 
prescription, if you will, for our Nation's fiscal troubles basically 
includes what? More spending, more debt and more taxes, more taxes on 
hardworking families and small businesses. And so while the Democrat 
budget has lower deficits than, well, the President's budget, you 
really need to take a closer look at how they achieve this and how they 
achieve the deficit reduction compared to the White House's budget.
  Let's take a look at it. First, well, they raise taxes again. How 
much? By $208 billion more than the President's budget on all 
Americans. Then what do they do next? They cut the defense budget. By 
how much? By $614 billion again relative to the President's budget over 
the 10-year window. Now, at the same time, you already had Secretary 
Gates who has said that we need to cut the Defense budget by $78 
billion. They want to cut Defense by $614 billion on top of that.
  What about in addition to that? Well, in their budget, if you go into 
it and look, there's about $400 billion in unspecified savings. 
Unspecified? Here at the 12th hour they still can't decide how they 
want to try to rein in spending? Of course not, because they really 
honestly don't want to do so.
  I believe that budgets must be credible, and the Democrats' budget 
doesn't pass that test at all. The only specific savings in the budget 
come from how? Raising taxes again on Americans and cutting the defense 
budget. The Democrat budget does not tackle even the drivers behind our 
deficits. What are they? It does not address the pending bankruptcy--
yes, bankruptcy--of Medicare and Medicaid. The Democrat budget is 
nothing more than punting, which is exactly what the administration and 
the White House have been doing as well.
  Now, look, the American people want Congress to do the right thing. 
The American people want us to get spending, want us to get deficits, 
and they want us to get our debt here in Washington under control, just 
as American families have to get their spending, deficit and debt under 
control, just as small businesses across this country have to get it 
under control. The Democrats' budget is frankly an embarrassment and 
shows that the other side is not serious about taking our fiscal 
challenges seriously.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself 45 seconds.
  What we heard just doesn't fit the facts. In fact, our budget does 
make cuts to domestic programs, but we do not do it in a meat ax way. 
We make cuts to agriculture subsidies. We do tax reform as the 
commission recommended, getting rid of a lot of clutter in the Tax Code 
for special interests. That is what we do.
  With respect to defense, our numbers track what the President was 
saying the other day, but we do get rid of a so-called overseas 
contingency fund which we think our Republican friends would like to 
join us on which gives the executive branch a blank check to undertake 
any military operations whatsoever for the next 10 years and doesn't 
have to ask Congress. That's what we do.
  What we don't do? We don't end the Medicare guarantee. What we don't 
do is we don't keep giving subsidies to oil companies while we cut 
education for kids. That's what we don't do.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the very 
distinguished Democratic leader, Ms. Pelosi.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Ms. PELOSI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding. I commend him and the members of 
the Budget Committee for their hard work to bring legislation to the 
floor to enable us to have this debate yesterday and today and I think 
for a long time to come.
  We have said it over and over again: A Federal budget should be a 
statement of our national values. It should reflect what is important 
to us as we allocate the resources of investments for the future. Much 
has been said about this deficit, and I want to join the distinguished 
ranking member before I go any further in correcting the record.

[[Page 6294]]

  I listened with great interest as Members on the other side are 
taking credit for the Clinton administration balanced, or budgets in 
surplus. And I remind them or tell them, because many of them may not 
know, that those budgets were a result of the 1993 budget vote that we 
took on this floor of the House without one Republican vote which was 
the source of that fiscal discipline and job creation, again, as other 
speakers have said, over 20 million jobs created.
  So when I hear the Republicans say it was the Clinton Presidency and 
the Republican Congress, no, it was the Democratic Congress, because we 
know that deficit reduction is essential. We had to stop the budget 
deficits that President Clinton inherited, and now we have to stop the 
budget deficits that President Obama inherited.
  Budget deficits, I've heard our colleagues say, are immoral. I quite 
agree. We have a responsibility and an obligation to our children and 
our grandchildren not to send them any bills, personal or official. And 
we do not intend to do so. But they were immoral during the Bush years, 
too, when they were giving tax cuts to the rich, two unpaid-for wars 
and a prescription drug benefit that gave away the store to the private 
sector and sent the bill to the taxpayer.
  So here we are with a choice on the floor. Some of it was spoken; a 
vision of it was shared with the Nation by President Obama the other 
day. He talked about an America of greatness that cared about its 
people. He talked about the essential need for us to reduce the 
deficit. He talked about growth, investments, and job creation.

                              {time}  1240

  He talked about being fair to our seniors and keeping our promise to 
them. In the budgets that we have before us today, one presented by Mr. 
Van Hollen, one presented by the Republicans, we see a sharp contrast, 
one that supports the vision that the President puts forth, and one 
that definitely does not.
  Mr. Chairman, we are talking about the budget deficit; but we also in 
doing so, if we are going to do right by the American people, have to 
recognize that there are other deficits. We have a deficit in 
education. We have a deficit in innovation because innovation begins in 
the classroom. We have a deficit in investments in our infrastructure. 
All of these investments have a payoff back to us. They create growth. 
They bring revenue to the Treasury, and they help reduce the deficit.
  It is a false economy to think that we can write a budget that cuts 
serious investments in education, infrastructure, innovation and the 
rest and think that we are going to end the deficit. You cannot cut 
your way out of it. You cut, you grow, and you increase revenue. That's 
a subject I will hold for when we talk about the Republican budget more 
specifically.
  What is important to note, if you had one thing to know about the 
difference between the Democrats and the Republicans in terms of these 
budgets, if you had just one thing, it would be on the subject of 
Medicare. The Republican budget breaks the promise that this country 
has made to seniors that after a lifetime of work, they will be able to 
depend on Medicare to protect them in retirement. But the plan here 
ends Medicare as we know it and dramatically reduces benefits for 
seniors. It forces seniors to buy their insurance from the health 
insurance companies where the average senior would be forced to pay 
twice as much for half the benefit--as much for some as $20,000 a year.
  I want to call the attention of my colleagues to this chart, ``Senior 
Citizens Health Cost Skyrockets Under Republican Budget.'' Blue is the 
government share, red is the beneficiary share. Health care spending 
for a typical 65-year-old in 2022 dollars, the Republican budget would 
have $8,000 from the Federal Government, $12,500 from the individual, 
which is more than twice what the Medicare cost should be to a senior, 
$6,150; twice as much for less in benefit.
  Now, this chart is not our chart. This information was conveyed to 
the Republican chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan, by the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office, in a letter to him describing what the 
cost would be to seniors under his plan. I just don't think that is 
fair to our seniors. This plan has the wrong priorities. It is focused 
on helping corporate special interests and Wall Street, not reducing 
the deficit or helping the country.
  It raises taxes for the middle class while cutting them for the 
wealthiest in our country. It repeals Wall Street reforms for the big 
banks. It abolishes Medicare as we know it, cuts funding for education, 
health care, alternative energy and job training programs, and uses the 
money not for reducing the deficit but to help the most privileged, 
help the most privileged and negate what we did in our health care 
bill, which was to start to close the doughnut hole.
  If you are a senior and you see that your prescription drug costs 
will come down under the health care bill and the doughnut hole will 
close, this budget reverses that.
  There are so many reasons for seniors and people with disabilities 
and people who care about Medicare to be concerned. Medicare is a 
bedrock of stability for our seniors, for their health, for their 
economic security, and for those with disabilities who depend on it. We 
must make sure that it is solvent, but we must not charge seniors more 
while giving bigger tax cuts to the wealthy.
  Just remember these three points. First of all, it abolishes Medicare 
as we know it, increasing costs to seniors, while it gives tax breaks 
of tens of billions of dollars to Big Oil.
  Changes in Medicaid will send seniors out of nursing homes while we 
give tax breaks to companies that send jobs overseas. This Ryan budget, 
the Republican budget, will hurt education, cut the education of our 
children, increase the cost of higher education for young adults, 10 
million young adults, while we give tax cuts to the wealthiest. That's 
just not the American way.
  The President said in his remarks that we are about shared 
responsibility and shared sacrifice. We are about a sense of community 
in our country. And so as we want to reduce the deficit, the fiscal 
deficit, and we must, and we have proven, Democrats have proven that we 
can, this proposal does not.
  But what Mr. Van Hollen is proposing in the positive sense is 
recognizing that we need to reduce the deficit, growth is a part of 
that and so we have investments in education and the innovation that 
springs from that, and other initiatives that grow our economy, that 
strengthen the middle class, that creates jobs as it reduces the 
deficit.
  I urge our colleagues to vote ``yes'' on Mr. Van Hollen's budget and 
``no'' on the Ryan budget to strengthen the middle class.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  First, let me start off by saying that the only way the word ``oil'' 
is mentioned in this budget--it is not in the Tax Code--it is that we 
want to drill for more of it in this country so we can lower gas prices 
and get ourselves off foreign oil.
  Let me address Medicare briefly. I have here the Federal Employee 
Benefit Handbook that everybody in Congress, every Federal employee 
has. Nowhere in this book does it say voucher. Look at all of these 
plans we get to choose from: Kaiser, Aetna, Humana, Blue Cross/Blue 
Shield, Coventry, pages and pages of choices and options. This is what 
we're talking about for people 54 and below.
  Guess what, the biggest threat to Medicare is the status quo. 
Medicare goes bankrupt in 9 years. And so, is this exactly like the 
Federal employee health plan? No, it is not. It is the same kind of 
plan because what we say is in the future, people who are wealthy don't 
need as much of a subsidy. People who are sick need more, people who 
are low-income need more, and they get complete out-of-pocket coverage. 
More for the sick, more for the poor, less for the wealthy, and a 
solvent Medicare system.

[[Page 6295]]

  But more importantly, the people choose. Medicare beneficiaries 
choose. What's the President's plan? What's the Democrats' plan? 
Appoint 15 people to do the choosing. It is a different philosophy. 
Should we have 15 unelected bureaucrats run Medicare, ration Medicare, 
or should we allow 40 million to 50 million seniors make the decision?
  Let's talk about taxes. Look at all of these budgets we've been 
looking at today. By the way, our budget doesn't even cut taxes. I wish 
I could say it does. Revenues still rise, about $12 trillion under this 
budget. We just don't want to go up and up and up.
  The budget we have here is a $2 trillion tax increase; the plan we 
had before, the Progressive plan, a $16 trillion tax increase; the 
Congressional Black Caucus budget, a $6 trillion tax increase.
  This budget cuts defense $619 billion; the Progressive budget, $1.2 
trillion; the CBC budget cuts defense $469 billion.
  The CBC budget increases spending on domestic spending $4.1 trillion. 
The Progressive Caucus increases domestic spending $11.4 trillion. The 
Democratic budget increases, relative to the mark, $4.6 trillion.
  So we've got it. We know where they are. More spending. More spending 
on everything, but cut and gut defense, and raise taxes a lot.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
Democratic alternative budget for FY 2012. With this budget, 
Congressman Van Hollen has offered a responsible alternative to the 
dangerous Republican approach.
  The Democratic alternative offers a dramatically different vision of 
America's future. It takes on our deficits, but not in a reckless way. 
It does so responsibly, so that we can continue investing in our 
economy and our people. It took us years to get into this fiscal 
challenge, and economists agree that it would be disastrous to try to 
get out of it overnight. But that is exactly what Republicans want to 
do. Democrats believe in a balanced approach that keeps our economy 
growing while getting us back to living within our means.
  The Democratic alternative also allows us to keep the promise of 
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to our seniors, the disabled, 
and the poor. What our country needs is to get on a more responsible 
fiscal path. But we cannot afford to remake the social contract in a 
way that harms the least advantaged in our society. Democrats want to 
strengthen these programs--not destroy them.
  Mr. Chairman, the Democratic budget is a responsible alternative to a 
Republican plan that would fundamentally alter the kind of society that 
we live in. Democrats reject the false choice between fiscal 
responsibility and our values. We are offering an opportunity to get 
serious about our deficits without turning our backs on those who can 
least afford it.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Democratic budget.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 166, 
noes 259, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 276]

                               AYES--166

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--259

     Adams
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peters
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Waters
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Aderholt
     Bishop (UT)
     Giffords
     King (IA)
     Meeks
     Olver
     Reichert

                              {time}  1312

  Mr. COBLE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. RICHMOND, Ms. BALDWIN, Messrs. POLIS, COSTELLO, and Ms. CLARKE of 
New York changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 276, I was detained by 
two (2) elevators which were in use by non-Members during votes. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

[[Page 6296]]

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bass of New Hampshire). Pursuant to the rule, 
it is now in order to consider 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.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished majority 
whip.
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by first 
thanking the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan, and the entire 
Budget staff. I would also like to thank the Democrat members on the 
Budget Committee as well.
  What we are taking up today is the point of where this country goes. 
Because this debate has gone on for quite some time, there is probably 
not one person in America that has not watched the news and watched the 
clock of our debt of $14 trillion.
  I want you all to imagine for one moment, just imagine for one 
moment, what the future of this country would hold in the dreams if 
that clock was zero. What could we invest in? What could we build? And 
what would our children become? But because that clock does not say 
zero and that clock continues to climb in the wrong direction, that's 
why we are here today. But it is a good day because today is the day 
that we turn that clock back around.
  We have a plan and a Path to Prosperity that will create jobs--even 
those on the outside that looked at it said there will be more than 1 
million jobs, a plan that will make us energy independent, but also a 
plan that does something the rest of America has to do as well: tighten 
our belts.
  So today, when we come and have to put our card in the voting slot, I 
want you to think of one thing: Today could be the day that we create 
the great America comeback, or it could be the day that America goes 
into the long fade into history. The floor is made up of a microcosm of 
America, and all of America knows that we have to control the situation 
we are in.
  So today, a ``yes'' vote is for jobs, for energy independence, and a 
new Path to Prosperity.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair notes a disturbance in the gallery which 
is in contravention of the laws and rules of the House. The Sergeant at 
Arms will remove those persons responsible for the disturbance and 
restore order to the gallery.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, we are turning back the clock. We're 
turning back the clock on progress and we're turning back the clock--


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will suspend.
  The Chair notes a disturbance in the gallery which is in 
contravention of the laws and rules of the House. The Sergeant at Arms 
will remove those persons responsible for the disturbance and restore 
order to the gallery.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, what the Republican budget does is turn 
back the clock on a fair deal for the American people.
  Every person in this body today loves this great Nation of ours and 
believes it's a special place. We have to maintain the dynamism and 
exceptionalism of this country. We see different paths and make 
different choices to accomplish that goal.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair notes a disturbance in the gallery which 
is in contravention of the laws and rules of the House. The Sergeant at 
Arms will remove those persons responsible for the disturbance and 
restore order to the gallery.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois will state his point of 
order.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, my question is about the 
clarification of the rules. The rules also, for our visiting guests, 
allow the Sergeant at Arms to clear the Chamber, if necessary. Is that 
correct, Mr. Chairman?
  The Acting CHAIR. It is within the authority of the Chair to clear 
the gallery.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the Chairman.
  I would just encourage those to continue the civil conversation that 
we are having about a very difficult conversation in our country.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, if I----


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair notes a disturbance in the gallery which 
is in contravention of the laws and rules of the House. The Sergeant at 
Arms will remove those persons responsible for the disturbance and 
restore order, and would affirm to all Members that the Chair has the 
authority to clear the gallery.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time 
remains.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 9\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, we all agree we have to act now to put 
in place a plan to reduce our deficit.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair notes a disturbance in the gallery which 
is in contravention of the laws and rules of the House. The Sergeant at 
Arms will remove those persons responsible for the disturbance and 
restore order to the gallery.

                              {time}  1320

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to begin my 
remarks from the beginning and reset the clock.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues.
  As I said, nobody doubts that every person in this Chamber loves this 
country and wants to do the right thing.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair notes a disturbance in the gallery, which 
is in contravention of the laws and rules of the House. The Sergeant-
at-Arms will remove those persons responsible for the disturbance and 
restore order to the gallery.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I'm tempted to reserve my time and yield it back to the other----


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair notes a disturbance in the gallery which 
is in contravention of the laws and rules of the House. The Sergeant-
at-Arms will remove those persons responsible for the disturbance and 
restore order to the gallery.
  The Chair makes this announcement for purposes of possible 
prosecution.
  The gentleman from Maryland may proceed.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  As I said, I was tempted to reserve my time and allow my colleague to 
proceed. But as I understand the Chamber is now quiet, let me begin 
where I left off and say that all of us agree, everybody in this 
Chamber agrees, we need to put in place a plan to reduce our deficit in 
a predictable, steady manner. The question throughout this debate has 
been not whether, but how we do that. And as the bipartisan fiscal 
commission has indicated, any responsible effort requires a balanced 
approach.
  And the Republican plan simply fails on that score. And that's what 
the cochairs of the bipartisan fiscal commission said. They said it, 
``falls short of

[[Page 6297]]

the balanced, comprehensive approach needed for a responsible plan.'' 
And when you peel off the layers, what you find is the Republican plan 
is not bold. It's just the same old, tired formula we've seen before of 
providing big tax breaks to the very wealthy and powerful special 
interests at the expense of the rest of America--except this time it's 
dressed up with a lot of sweet-sounding talk of reform. But at the end, 
it's the same old ideological agenda--except this time on steroids.
  To govern is to choose. Each of us is sent here to make difficult 
choices, and the choices that are made in the Republican plan we 
believe are wrong for America.
  We do not believe it's courageous to protect tax giveaways to big oil 
companies and other special interests when we're slashing investments 
in our kids' education, scientific research, and critical investments 
in the future.
  We don't think it's bold to provide another tax break to millionaires 
while ending the Medicare guarantee for seniors and sticking seniors 
with the bill for ever-rising health care costs.
  We do not believe it's visionary to award corporations that ship 
American jobs rather than American products overseas while we're 
terminating affordable health care for tens of millions of Americans 
right here at home.
  And we don't think it's brave to give Governors a blank check of 
Federal taxpayer dollars and then a license to cut support for seniors 
in nursing homes, individuals with disabilities, and poor kids.
  And we don't think it's fair to raise taxes on middle-income 
Americans to pay for additional tax breaks for the folks at the very 
top.

                              {time}  1330

  Yet those are the choices that are made in the Republican budget. 
Where is the shared sacrifice? We have American men and women putting 
their lives on the line in Iraq, in Afghanistan, while others hide 
their income in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland and refuse to pay 
their fair share to support our national efforts. And that is why the 
bipartisan commission, among other reasons, said that the Republican 
plan is just not balanced. It's not.
  Let's say ``no'' to the Republican plan. Let's say ``yes'' to finding 
a balanced way to reduce our deficits in a way that protects the values 
and priorities of the American people and in a way that gets our 
economy moving and America back to work.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished chairman of the House Republican Conference, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, earlier this week, USA Today reported 
that we have the fewest participants in our workforce than at any time 
in 30 years. And my Democratic colleagues announced their plan to 
increase taxes $1.5 trillion on our economy, much of it on our small 
businesses.
  The Congressional Budget Office has announced that Medicare is going 
broke in 2020. And my Democratic colleagues announced their plan to 
double down on the rationing of health care for our seniors.


                    Announcement By the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair notes a disturbance in the gallery in 
contravention of the law and rules of the House. The Sergeant at Arms 
will remove those persons responsible for the disturbance and restore 
order to the gallery.
  The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Budget Office has 
announced that Social Security will go broke in 2037. And my Democratic 
colleagues have announced this is not a problem. We're ready to 
implement the 22 percent benefit cut that's already in our statute.
  Survey after survey shows that our fellow citizens believe that their 
children will be worse off than they are, and yet my Democrat 
colleagues announced their plan to add $9.1 trillion to the national 
debt.
  Mr. Chairman, it's time to quit spending money we don't have. It's 
time to quit borrowing 42 cents on the dollar, much of it from the 
Chinese, and then send the bill to our children and grandchildren.
  The Republican budget will help us create jobs with fundamental tax 
reform in preventing these tax increases. It will save our social 
safety net programs. Programs that have been of a great comfort to my 
parents and grandparents before our eyes are morphing into cruel Ponzi 
schemes for my third-grade daughter and my first-grade son. And, Mr. 
Chairman, the Republican budget will put us on the path to pay off the 
national debt.
  Mr. Chairman, I heard from one of my constituents recently. He said, 
I never felt so embarrassed and ashamed of anything I have done in my 
life as I do about leaving this mess in the laps of Tyler and Caitlyn, 
my precious grandkids. I have written them both a heartfelt apology for 
them to read when they get old enough to understand what I allowed our 
country's governing authority to do to them.
  Mr. Chairman, I have got a message for Mr. Calhoun. Put that letter 
away. House Republicans are going to stand for Tyler and Caitlyn. We're 
going to put America back to work. We're going to save the social 
safety net and preserve the American Dream for ourselves and our 
posterity.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, it's hard to see how someone would 
define saving the social safety net by ending the Medicare guarantee 
for seniors, by slashing Medicaid by over $750 billion, a program that 
disproportionately helps seniors in nursing homes and disabled 
individuals. It's really hard to understand how that is preserving the 
social safety net. It reminds me of that strange statement we once 
heard that you have to destroy the village in order to save it.
  Now, let's understand what happens under this budget to Medicare. 
This budget ends the Medicare guarantee for seniors. It doesn't reform 
Medicare; it deforms and dismantles it because it forces seniors off 
the Medicare program, into the private insurance market.
  And it does nothing, as it dumps the seniors into the private 
insurance market, to control the rate of increase in health care costs. 
Instead, it transfers to the senior all those risks and all those 
costs. Seniors will pay a lot more, while the insurance companies will 
get all their Medicare payroll taxes. They'll get a bonanza out of this 
thing, but seniors will be left holding the bag.
  If your voucher amount, call it whatever you want, is not sufficient 
to pay for the increased cost, you eat it. And we saw earlier the fact 
that by the year 2022 seniors will have to pay more than $6,000 above 
what they would have had to pay under the regular Medicare program. If 
your doctor's not on a private plan that you can afford, tough luck. 
This is rationing health care by income, nothing more.
  And I want to say something just to clear the record one more time. 
We keep hearing that they're offering seniors exactly what Members of 
Congress get. It simply is not true. What Members of Congress get is 
what's called a fair share deal. I encourage my colleagues on all sides 
of the aisle just to look at the Federal Employees Benefit Plan. And 
you look in the Office of Personnel and it says: ``This formula is 
known as the fair share formula because it will maintain a consistent 
level of government contributions as a percentage of program costs 
regardless of what plan the enrollees elect.'' And it says that the 
government contribution equals the lesser of 72 percent of the amounts 
OPM determines are program-wide, or 75 percent.
  The point is Members of Congress get a fair share formula. The 
Republican budget does not give a fair share formula to seniors on 
Medicare. It just doesn't. In fact, the way it saves money is to give 
them an unfair deal. It unconnects the support we give to seniors from 
rising health care costs. That's why seniors will end up paying so much 
more and more and more, because you make the savings--health care costs 
are going up like this, and the support, if you want to call it 
support, it's really not coming from the Medicare program or the 
Federal Government, is going like this. That's why

[[Page 6298]]

the seniors are having to eat those additional costs. That is what the 
Republican budget does. At the same time they do provide additional tax 
breaks for the folks at the very top.
  If you want to get rid of some of the junk in the Tax Code, you can 
support the Democratic plan, because we got rid of subsidies for the 
oil companies. We got rid of those perverse tax incentives to reward 
corporations that are shipping American jobs instead of American 
products overseas.
  So if you want to start with tax reform, vote for the Democratic 
plan. Those are the choices we made, not ending the Medicare guarantee.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) for his outstanding leadership and all the hard 
work he has shown in leading this effort to put together a budget for 
this House. I also want to commend the hard work of his members in the 
committee for bringing this forward.
  Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government is broke. We borrow nearly 40 
cents of every dollar we spend. Our debt is more than $14 trillion and 
is averaging yearly trillion-dollar deficits. We simply cannot afford 
to keep spending money we don't have, and we must bring down the debt.
  Now, for years this House, including legislators on both sides of the 
aisle, has kicked the can down the road. Americans were led to believe 
that we could spend hundreds of billions of dollars that we don't have 
and that there would be no consequences. And when it came to fostering 
an environment where American business could compete in a global 
economy, we became complacent. This must stop.

                              {time}  1340

  It's time to be honest with the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, we stand at a crossroads. Before us lie two divergent 
paths: one defined by crushing debt, slow growth and diminished 
opportunity; and one defined by achievement, innovation and American 
leadership.
  By demonstrating courage and directly confronting our challenge at 
this critical moment, we can fulfill the promise of America and pass on 
to our children a Nation that offers everyone a fair shot at earning 
their success.
  The House Republican budget is an honest, fact-based proposal that 
details our vision for managing down our debt and growing our way back 
to prosperity.
  First, we will stop spending money that we don't have. This budget 
cuts non-security discretionary spending to below 2008 levels and 
freezes it for 5 years. Overall, we reach $6.2 trillion in savings 
against the President's budget.
  Second, we will lead where the President has failed by finally 
addressing our insolvent entitlement programs. We know that these 
programs are the biggest drivers of our debt, and the Congressional 
Budget Office acknowledges that if we don't take action, these 
important safety net programs will go broke.
  We cannot afford to ignore this oncoming fiscal train wreck any 
longer. While it may be seen by some as politically risky, we 
Republicans are willing to lead, because, to be frank, complacency is 
not an option.
  To be clear, our plan will not touch benefits for today's seniors and 
those nearing retirement. For those of us 54 and below, it calls for 
reforms that will restructure Medicare and Medicaid to ensure that 
these safety nets will still be there for those who need it, not for 
those who don't.
  Unlike the lofty outline the President gave in his speech this week, 
our budget is not a political document. We do not dream up imaginary 
savings and dodge specifics in an effort to lull people into the belief 
that they can actually get things for nothing. Our budget is a concrete 
plan for getting our fiscal house in order, and we do not resort to tax 
increases on the very small businesses and job creators we need to put 
America back to work.
  Bringing down the debt sends a message to American families. It sends 
a message to businessmen and -women, to entrepreneurs and to investors. 
It gives them the confidence that they won't face a future plagued by 
inflation, higher taxes and higher interest rates.
  We understand that cutting spending alone is not enough. That's why 
our budget calls for pro-growth policies to get our economy growing and 
get people back to work.
  Families and small business people are struggling, and today, Tax 
Day, millions of them will send their hard-earned money to Uncle Sam. 
The last thing we should be asking them to do is to send yet again 
more. Instead, our budget calls for a more competitive tax system that 
will encourage the economy to grow, create jobs and spur investment in 
the private sector.
  We call for the end of crony capitalism that allows privileged 
industries to gain competitive advantage in our Tax Code, and we call 
for a more simple system that lowers rates for all but makes sure 
everyone pays their fair share.
  Mr. Chairman, with this budget, House Republicans are changing the 
culture in Washington from one of spending to one of savings.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, America will see that it can get its fiscal 
house in order after years of mismanagement. We are finally doing what 
families and small business people have been doing for years: 
tightening the belt and learning how to do more with less.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Ryan and his committee for 
their outstanding leadership.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the Speaker 
of the House, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, the American people understand that we 
can't continue to spend money that we don't have. Our national debt has 
now surpassed $14.2 trillion, and it's on a track to eclipse the entire 
size of our economy.
  This massive debt that we are incurring hurts private sector job 
creation, eroding confidence, spreading uncertainty amongst employers 
big and small, and discouraging private investment in our economy that 
is sorely needed in order for us to create jobs.
  This debt is also a moral threat to our country. In my opinion, it is 
immoral to rob our children's and grandchildren's future and leave them 
beholden to countries around the world who buy our debt. We have a 
moral obligation to speak the truth and to do something about it.
  Yesterday, we took the first step in beginning to address this 
massive debt by passing legislation that will reduce our deficit by 
$315 billion over the next 10 years. It was an imperfect bill, but it 
was a positive step that has cleared the decks and allowed us to focus 
on cutting trillions of dollars, not just billions.
  Chairman Ryan and the members of the Budget Committee have done an 
excellent job of putting together a budget that's worthy of the 
American people. This budget will help job creation today, lift the 
crushing burden of debt that threatens our children's future, and 
preserve and protect programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Most 
importantly, the budget shows families and small businesses that we're 
serious about dealing with America's spending illness so we can put our 
country on a path to prosperity.
  The Ryan budget sets the bar for the debate going forward. President 
Obama had an opportunity to match it. Unfortunately, he gave a partisan 
speech about the need for more spending, more taxing, and more 
borrowing. He said he wants to target our debt problem through a so-
called ``debt fail-safe,'' but exempts the major entitlement programs 
that account for most of the long-term debt problems. And he proposed 
yet another commission, though he ignored the recommendations of this 
last one.
  Instead of offering serious solutions, the President asked Congress 
to raise

[[Page 6299]]

the debt limit without addressing Washington's spending problem. The 
President wants a clean bill, and the American people will not tolerate 
it.
  Now, let me be clear: There will be no debt limit increase unless 
it's accompanied by serious spending cuts and real budget reforms.
  We delivered this message on Wednesday morning to the President. We 
cannot continue to borrow recklessly and dig ourselves a deeper hole 
and mortgage the future of our children and grandchildren. The American 
people are looking for leadership to address this debt crisis. 
Unfortunately, the President has failed to put a serious proposal on 
the table. If the President won't lead, we will.

                              {time}  1350

  No more kicking the can down the road. No more whistling past the 
graveyard. Now is the time to address the serious challenges that face 
the American people. And we will.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that even if we adopt 
the Republican budget, we're going to have to lift the debt ceiling for 
years and years to come. So let's not play Russian roulette with the 
economy and the full faith and credit of the United States Government.
  Now, on the question of jobs--the question of jobs--during the 
Clinton administration, we asked the very wealthiest for a little bit 
more sacrifice than they have today. And do you know what happened to 
jobs? Twenty million jobs were created during the Clinton 
administration. Under the current tax rates, after 8 years of George 
Bush, the private sector lost 630,000 jobs.
  So you see the pattern here. During the Clinton administration, 
economic growth was booming, and 20 million jobs were created. During 
the 8 years of the Bush administration, there was a net loss of 653,000 
jobs. We need to continue to invest in this country and make sure that 
the entrepreneurs of this country can continue to thrive. We need to do 
this in a balanced way.
  I would point out that the folks who said that this Republican plan 
we are debating would increase jobs are the same people who predicted 
that the Bush tax cuts would create jobs. That's the blue line. That's 
the prediction of the Heritage Foundation about what would happen. The 
red is the reality. If we want to create jobs and reduce the deficit, 
we need to do it in a balanced way. That's what the fiscal commission 
said. That's what the Democratic plan does.
  We urge everyone, respectfully, to vote ``no'' on the Republican 
plan. It's the wrong choice for America.
  With that, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished 
Democratic leader, Ms. Pelosi.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Ms. PELOSI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for bringing a budget 
proposal to the floor today that is a statement of our national values 
and about what we care about: investing in our children, honoring our 
seniors, creating jobs, growing the economy and strengthening the 
middle class. Thank you, Mr. Van Hollen, for your great leadership in 
that regard.
  Mr. Chairman, today we will be taking a vote that is very, very 
important for the health and security of American seniors. A great deal 
is at stake. I'm just going to focus on one part of this Republican 
budget. I want to say to my Republican colleagues, Do you realize that 
your leadership is asking you to cast a vote today to abolish Medicare 
as we know it? Because that is the vote that we have. This is not about 
an issue; this is about a value. This is about an ethic. Medicare is a 
core value of our social compact with the American people. Yet this 
budget shreds that contract which is part of the strength of our 
country. The Republican proposal breaks the promise that our country 
has made to our seniors that after a lifetime of work, they will be 
able to depend on Medicare to protect them in retirement.
  This plan, the Republican plan, ends Medicare as we know it and 
dramatically reduces benefits for seniors. It forces them to pay more 
to buy their insurance from health insurance companies, where the 
average senior will be forced to pay twice as much for half the 
benefit. I want to repeat that: the Republican plan forces seniors to 
buy their insurance from health insurance companies where the average 
senior will be forced to pay twice as much for half the benefits, as 
much as $20,000 per year more for some seniors.
  This plan has the wrong priority for our seniors and for all 
Americans. Just remember these three things about the Republican 
budget: It ends Medicare as we know it as it gives big tax breaks and 
subsidies--tens of billions of dollars--to Big Oil. This budget reduces 
Medicaid for our seniors in nursing homes, sending them away from 
nursing homes, while it gives tax breaks to companies that send jobs 
overseas. This budget hurts our children's education. In fact, it 
increases the cost of higher education for nearly 10 million of our 
young adults, while it gives tax breaks to America's wealthiest 
families. That's just not fair. It is just not the American way.
  Here we are. Yesterday, we observed the 100th day of the Republican 
majority in Congress. In those 100 days, not one job has been created. 
Not one job agenda is in the works. And what are we doing? We are here 
to abolish Medicare instead.
  I have heard our colleagues say that the budget deficit is immoral. 
It's been immoral for the 8 years of the Bush administration, and I 
didn't hear anybody say ``boo'' while we were giving tax cuts to the 
rich, having two wars unpaid for, and giving prescription drug bills to 
the private sector.
  Democrats are committed to reducing the deficit. We have demonstrated 
that we can during the Clinton administration, and we will. We are 
committed to strengthening the middle class, to growing our economy as 
we reduce the deficit, and to creating jobs. The Republican budget 
fails to do that, and the Republican budget will not have Democratic 
support.
  We are here, and as one of the previous speakers said, now is the 
time. Now is the time to preserve Medicare. And Democrats will. I urge 
a ``no'' vote on the Republican plan.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank our staffs, the 
Democratic staff and the Republican staff, for all of their hard work 
in getting us to this moment.
  I want to ask my colleagues a question. I want to ask the American 
people a question. I remember one of the worst moments I had in 
Congress was the financial crisis of 2008. It seems like it was 
yesterday. We had the Treasury Secretary and we had the Federal Reserve 
chairman coming here talking about crisis and talking about bank 
collapses. And what came out of that was really ugly legislation that 
we passed on a bipartisan basis but no one enjoyed. That crisis caught 
us by surprise. It was unpredictable. We didn't see it coming.
  Let me ask you this. What if your President and your Member of 
Congress saw it coming? What if they knew why it was happening, when it 
was going to happen, and more importantly, they knew what to do to stop 
it and they had time to stop it, but they didn't? Because of politics? 
What would you think of that person?
  Mr. Chairman, that is where we are right now.
  This is the most predictable economic crisis we've ever had in the 
history of this country. Yet we have a President who is unwilling to 
lead. We have too many politicians worried about the next election and 
not worried about the next generation. Every politician in this town 
knows we have a debt crisis. They know that we are in danger.
  We cannot avoid this choice. To govern is to choose. We are making a 
choice even if we don't act. And that's the wrong choice. In the words 
of Abraham Lincoln, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and 
this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. Will we 
be remembered as the Congress that did nothing as the Nation sped 
toward a preventable debt crisis and irreversible decline? Or will

[[Page 6300]]

we instead be remembered as a Congress that did the hard work of 
preventing that crisis, the one that chose this Path to Prosperity? 
This Path to Prosperity charts a different course. It gets us off this 
wrong track.
  It achieves four objectives:
  Number one, grow the economy and get people back to work.
  Number two, fulfill the mission of health and retirement security. We 
don't want to ration Medicare. We don't want to see Medicare go 
bankrupt. We want to save Medicare.
  Number three, repair the social safety net. Get it ready for the 21st 
century. We don't want a welfare system that encourages people to stay 
on welfare. We want them to get back on their feet and into 
flourishing, self-sufficient lives. So let's reform welfare for people 
who need it, and let's end corporate welfare for people who don't need 
it.

                              {time}  1400

  Number four, let's do the work of lifting this crushing burden of 
debt from our children.
  This is what we achieve. We have a choice of two futures, but we have 
to make the right choice. We must not leave this Nation in decline. We 
must not be the first generation of this country to leave the next 
generation worse off. Decline is antithetical to the American idea. 
America is a Nation conceived in liberty, dedicated to equality and 
defined by limitless opportunity. Equal opportunity, upward mobility, 
prosperity; this is what America is all about.
  In all the chapters of human history, there has never been anything 
quite like America. This budget keeps America exceptional. It preserves 
its promise for the next generation. Colleagues, this is our defining 
moment. We must choose this Path to Prosperity.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Smith of Nebraska) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bass of New Hampshire, 
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, and, 
pursuant to House Resolution 223, reported the concurrent resolution 
back to the House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the concurrent 
resolution.
  Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235, 
nays 193, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 277]

                               YEAS--235

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--193

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Giffords
     Meeks
     Olver
     Reichert

                              {time}  1423

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

[[Page 6301]]



                          ____________________