Amendment Text: H.Amdt.84 — 110th Congress (2007-2008)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (03/29/2007)

This Amendment appears on page H3312-3320 in the following article from the Congressional Record.


[Pages H3283-H3338]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cohen). Pursuant to House Resolution 275 
and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 99.

                              {time}  1015


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 99) revising the congressional 
budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2007, 
establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government 
for fiscal year 2008, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels 
for fiscal years 2009 through 2012, with Mrs. Tauscher (Acting 
Chairman) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Wednesday, March 28, 2007, all time for general debate had expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the concurrent resolution is considered read 
for amendment under the 5-minute rule.
  The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 99

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

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2008.

       (a) Declaration.--The Congress determines and declares that 
     the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2007 
     is revised and replaced and that this is the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008, including 
     appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2009 through 
     2012.
       (b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.

                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 the State Children's Health Insurance 
              Program.
Sec. 202. Reserve fund for reform of the alternative minimum tax.
Sec. 203. Reserve fund to provide for middle-income tax relief and 
              economic equity.
Sec. 204. Reserve fund for agriculture.
Sec. 205. Reserve fund for higher education.
Sec. 206. Reserve fund for improvements in medicare.
Sec. 207. Reserve fund for creating long-term energy alternatives.
Sec. 208. Reserve fund for affordable housing.
Sec. 209. Reserve fund for equitable benefits for Filipino veterans of 
              World War II.
Sec. 210. Reserve fund for Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
              Determination Act reauthorization.
Sec. 211. Reserve fund for receipts from the Bonneville Power 
              Administration.
Sec. 212. Reserve fund for Transitional Medical Assistance.

                     TITLE III--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 301. Program integrity initiatives.
Sec. 302. Advance appropriations.
Sec. 303. Overseas deployments and emergency needs.
Sec. 304. Application and effect of changes in allocations and 
              aggregates.
Sec. 305. Adjustments to reflect changes in concepts and definitions.
Sec. 306. Compliance with section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act 
              of 1990.
Sec. 307. Exercise of rulemaking powers.

                            TITLE IV--POLICY

Sec. 401. Policy on middle-income tax relief.
Sec. 402. Policy on defense priorities.
Sec. 403. Policy on college affordability.

                      TITLE V--SENSE OF THE HOUSE

Sec. 501. Sense of the House on servicemembers' and veterans' health 
              care and other priorities.
Sec. 502. Sense of the House on the Innovation Agenda: A commitment to 
              competitiveness to keep America #1.
Sec. 503. Sense of the House on homeland security.
Sec. 504. Sense of the House regarding the ongoing need to respond to 
              Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Sec. 505. Sense of the House regarding long-term sustainability of 
              entitlements.
Sec. 506. Sense of the House regarding the need to maintain and build 
              upon efforts to fight hunger.
Sec. 507. Sense of the House regarding affordable health coverage.
Sec. 508. Sense of the House regarding extension of the statutory pay-
              as-you-go rule.
Sec. 509. Sense of the House on long-term budgeting.
Sec. 510. Sense of the House regarding pay parity.
Sec. 511. Sense of the House regarding waste, fraud, and abuse.
Sec. 512. Sense of the House regarding the importance of child support 
              enforcement.
Sec. 513. Sense of the House on State veterans cemeteries.

                        TITLE VI--RECONCILIATION

Sec. 601. Reconciliation.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2007 through 2012:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,904,706,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,050,797,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,106,926,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,163,721,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,394,551,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,597,096,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be adjusted are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2007: $0.
       Fiscal year 2008: $0.
       Fiscal year 2009: $0.
       Fiscal year 2010: $0.
       Fiscal year 2011: $0.
       Fiscal year 2012: $0.
       (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 2007: $2,380,614,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,495,291,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,516,301,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,569,952,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,684,936,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,716,188,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2007: $2,300,065,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,465,888,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,565,305,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,600,718,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,691,358,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,700,809,000,000.
       (4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget) 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2007: -$395,359,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: -$415,091,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: -$458,379,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: -$436,997,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: -$296,807,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: -$103,713,000,000.
       (5) Debt subject to limit.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate 
     levels of the debt subject to limit are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2007: $8,927,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $9,461,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $10,036,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $10,591,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $11,001,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $11,231,000,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2007: $5,042,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $5,269,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $5,524,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $5,743,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $5,805,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $5,663,000,000,000.

     SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2007 through 2012 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $525,797,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $534,270,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $506,995,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $514,401,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $534,705,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $524,384,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $545,171,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $536,433,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $550,944,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $547,624,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $559,799,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $548,169,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,795,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,308,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,675,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,096,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:

[[Page H3284]]

       (A) New budget authority, $35,428,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,557,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,623,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,687,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,083,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,006,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,530,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,613,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,079,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,516,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,611,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,472,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,641,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,411,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,844,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,485,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,103,00,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,089,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,438,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,367,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,943,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,369,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,240,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,092,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,051,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,454,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,136,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,641,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,228,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,697,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,307,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,997,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,332,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,919,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,813,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,864,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,529,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,332,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,483,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,574,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,152,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,952,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,194,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,543,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,471,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,738,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,381,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,549,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,933,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,059,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,138,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,112,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,156,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,436,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,402,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,863,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,515,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,522,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,158,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,985,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,973,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $996,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,775,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,460,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,822,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,931,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,822,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,097,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $81,282,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $74,739,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $82,657,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $80,802,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $76,343,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $83,948,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $77,261,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $86,127,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $78,289,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $87,018,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $79,169,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $88,761,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,717,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,281,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,032,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,017,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,928,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,474,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,129,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,220,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,328,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,649,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,528,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,131,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $92,780,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $92,224,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $92,461,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $91,119,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $96,810,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $93,978,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $98,333,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $96,041,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $98,409,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $97,276,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $98,654,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $96,909,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $267,892,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $268,197,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $286,767,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $286,261,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $307,842,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $305,984,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $325,885,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $325,716,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $347,621,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $346,553,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $370,780,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $369,739,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $365,152,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $370,180,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $389,586,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $389,696,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $416,731,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $416,382,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $442,369,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $442,589,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $489,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $489,109,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $468,828,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $486,440,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $360,365,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $364,204,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $379,927,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $383,546,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $391,073,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $393,458,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $401,429,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $402,422,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $417,016,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $416,907,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $402,874,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $402,130,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,089,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,089,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,644,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,644,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,518,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,518,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,701,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,701,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,009,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,009,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,898,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,898,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $73,896,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $72,342,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $85,192,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $82,772,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $87,787,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $87,681,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $90,414,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $89,710,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $96,033,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $95,410,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $93,325,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $92,599,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2007:

[[Page H3285]]

       (A) New budget authority, $45,504,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,659,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,940,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,155,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,111,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,311,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,168,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,504,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,379,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,164,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,610,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,207,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,193,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,574,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,614,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,998,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,264,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,328,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,886,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,765,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,647,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,370,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,359,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,193,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $344,431,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $344,431,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $369,454,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $369,454,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $389,194,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $389,194,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $413,140,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $413,140,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $431,192,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $431,192,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $442,528,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $442,528,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $785,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $755,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $30,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$69,714,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$69,714,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$70,979,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$70,979,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$66,560,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$66,569,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, -$66,933,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$66,933,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, -$69,575,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$69,595,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, -$71,857,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$71,860,000,000.
       (21) Overseas Deployments and Other Activities (970):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $124,310,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,506,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $145,163,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $114,914,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $109,425,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $42,324,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $13,561,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $4,485,000,000.

                        TITLE II--RESERVE FUNDS

     SEC. 201. RESERVE FUND FOR THE STATE CHILDREN'S HEALTH 
                   INSURANCE PROGRAM.

       In the House, with respect to a bill or a joint resolution 
     (or an amendment to or a conference report submitted on such 
     a bill or joint resolution) reported from the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce that increases new budget authority that 
     would result in no more than $50,000,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal years 2008 through 2012 for expanding coverage and 
     improving children's health through the State Children's 
     Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) under title XXI of the 
     Social Security Act and the program under title XIX of such 
     Act (commonly known as medicaid), the chairman of the 
     Committee on Budget may make the appropriate adjustments in 
     allocations of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in 
     budget authority and outlays of other committees as may be 
     necessary pursuant to such adjustment for the Committee on 
     Energy andCommerce, and budgetary aggregates, but only to the 
     extent that such bill or joint resolution (as amended, in the 
     case of an amendment) in the form placed before the House by 
     the Committee on Rules would not increase the deficit or 
     decrease the surplus for the period of fiscal years 2007 
     through 2012 and the period of fiscal years 2007 through 
     2017. The adjustments may be made whenever a rule providing 
     for consideration of such a bill or joint resolution is 
     filed, such a bill or joint resolution is placed on any 
     calendar, or an amendment is offered or considered as adopted 
     or a conference report is submitted on such a bill or joint 
     resolution.

     SEC. 202. RESERVE FUND FOR REFORM OF THE ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM 
                   TAX.

       In the House, with respect to any bill or joint resolution 
     (or an amendment thereto or conference report thereon) that 
     provides for reform of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by 
     reducing the tax burden of the alternative minimum tax on 
     middle-income families, the chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget may make the appropriate adjustments in allocations of 
     a committee or committees and budgetary aggregates, but only 
     to the extent that such bills or joint resolutions (as 
     amended, in the case of an amendment) in the form placed 
     before the House by the Committee on Rules would not increase 
     the deficit or decrease the surplus for the period of fiscal 
     years 2007 through 2012 and the period of fiscal years 2007 
     through 2017. The adjustments may be made whenever a rule 
     providing for consideration of such bills or joint 
     resolutions is filed, such bills or joint resolutions are 
     placed on any calendar, or an amendment is offered or 
     considered as adopted or a conference report is submitted on 
     such bills or joint resolutions.

     SEC. 203. RESERVE FUND TO PROVIDE FOR MIDDLE-INCOME TAX 
                   RELIEF AND ECONOMIC EQUITY.

       In the House, with respect to any bill or joint resolution 
     (or an amendment thereto or conference report thereon) that 
     provides for tax relief for middle-income families and 
     taxpayers and enhanced economic equity, such as extension of 
     the child tax credit, extension of marriage penalty relief, 
     extension of the 10 percent individual income tax bracket, 
     modification of the Alternative Minimum Tax, elimination of 
     estate taxes on all but a minute fraction of estates by 
     reforming and substantially increasing the unified credit, 
     extension of the research and experimentation tax credit, 
     extension of the deduction for State and local sales taxes, 
     and a tax credit for school construction bonds, the chairman 
     of the Committee on the Budget may make the appropriate 
     adjustments in allocations of a committee or committees and 
     budgetary aggregates, but only to the extent that such bills 
     or joint resolutions (as amended, in the case of an 
     amendment) in the form placed before the House by the 
     Committee on Rules would not increase the deficit or decrease 
     the surplus for the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2012 
     and the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2017. The 
     adjustments may be made whenever a rule providing for 
     consideration of such bills or joint resolutions are filed, 
     such bills or joint resolutions are placed on any calendar, 
     or an amendment is offered or considered as adopted or a 
     conference report is submitted on such bills or joint 
     resolutions.

     SEC. 204. RESERVE FUND FOR AGRICULTURE.

       In the House, with respect to a bill or a joint resolution 
     (or an amendment thereto or conference report thereon) that 
     provides for the reauthorization of the programs of the Food 
     Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 or prior Acts, 
     authorizes similar programs, or both, that increases new 
     budget authority by no more than $20,000,000,000 for the 
     period of fiscal years 2007 through 2012, the chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget may make the appropriate adjustments 
     in allocations of a committee or committees and budgetary 
     aggregates, but only to the extent that such bill or joint 
     resolution (as amended, in the case of an amendment) in the 
     form placed before the House by the Committee on Rules would 
     not increase the deficit or decrease the surplus for the 
     period of fiscal years 2007 through 2012 and the period of 
     fiscal years 2007 through 2017. The adjustments may be made 
     whenever a rule providing for consideration of such a bill or 
     joint resolution is filed, such a bill or joint resolution is 
     placed on any calendar, or an amendment is offered or 
     considered as adopted or a conference report is submitted on 
     such a bill or joint resolution.

     SEC. 205. RESERVE FUND FOR HIGHER EDUCATION.

       In the House, with respect to a bill or a joint resolution 
     (or an amendment thereto or conference report thereon) that 
     makes college more affordable through reforms to the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965, the chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget may make the appropriate adjustments in allocations of 
     a committee or committees and budgetary aggregates, but only 
     to the extent that such bill or joint resolution (as amended, 
     in the case of an amendment) in the form placed before the 
     House by the Committee on Rules would not increase the 
     deficit or decrease the surplus for the period of fiscal 
     years 2007 through 2012 and the period of fiscal years 2007 
     through 2017. The adjustments may be made whenever a rule 
     providing for consideration of such a bill or joint 
     resolution is

[[Page H3286]]

     filed, such a bill or joint resolution is placed on any 
     calendar, or an amendment is offered or considered as adopted 
     or a conference report is submitted on such a bill or joint 
     resolution.

     SEC. 206. RESERVE FUND FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN MEDICARE.

       In the House, with respect to a bill or a joint resolution 
     (or an amendment thereto or conference report thereon) that 
     improves the medicare program for beneficiaries and protects 
     access to care, through measures such as increasing the 
     reimbursement rate for physicians while protecting 
     beneficiaries from associated premium increases and making 
     improvements to the prescription drug program under part D, 
     the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may make the 
     appropriate adjustments in allocations of a committee or 
     committees and budgetary aggregates, but only to the extent 
     that such bill or joint resolution (as amended, in the case 
     of an amendment) in the form placed before the House by the 
     Committee on Rules would not increase the deficit or decrease 
     the surplus for the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2012 
     and the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2017. The 
     adjustments may be made whenever a rule providing for 
     consideration of such a bill or joint resolution is filed, 
     such a bill or joint resolution is placed on any calendar, or 
     an amendment is offered or considered as adopted or a 
     conference report is submitted on such a bill or joint 
     resolution.

     SEC. 207. RESERVE FUND FOR CREATING LONG-TERM ENERGY 
                   ALTERNATIVES.

       In the House, with respect to a bill or a joint resolution 
     (or an amendment thereto or conference report thereon) that 
     fulfills the purposes of section 301(a) of H.R. 6, the Clean 
     Energy Act of 2007:
       (1) The chairman of the Committee on Budget may make the 
     appropriate adjustments in allocations of a committee or 
     committees and budgetary aggregates, but only to the extent 
     that such bill or joint resolution (as amended, in the case 
     of an amendment) would not increase the deficit or decrease 
     the surplus for the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2012 
     and the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2017. The 
     adjustments made under this paragraph may be made whenever a 
     rule is filed for a bill or joint resolution that attributes 
     the offsets included in H.R. 6 to the bill or joint 
     resolution.
       (2) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget may make 
     appropriate adjustments to the allocations provided for under 
     section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to the 
     Committee on Appropriations to the extent a bill or joint 
     resolution in the form placed before the House by the 
     Committee on Rules provides budget authority for purposes set 
     forth in section 301(a) of H.R. 6 in excess of the amounts 
     provided for those purposes in fiscal year 2007. Any 
     adjustments made under this paragraph shall not include 
     revenues attributable to changes in the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 and shall not exceed the receipts estimated by the 
     Congressional Budget Office that are attributable to H.R. 6 
     for the year in which the adjustments are made.

     SEC. 208. RESERVE FUND FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

       In the House, with respect to a bill or a joint resolution 
     (or an amendment thereto or conference report thereon) that 
     provides for an affordable housing fund, offset by reforming 
     the regulation of certain government-sponsored enterprises, 
     the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may make the 
     appropriate adjustments in allocations of a committee or 
     committees and budgetary aggregates, but only to the extent 
     that such bill or joint resolution (as amended, in the case 
     of an amendment) in the form placed before the House by the 
     Committee on Rules would not increase the deficit or decrease 
     the surplus for the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2012 
     and the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2017. The 
     adjustments may be made whenever a rule providing for 
     consideration of such a bill or joint resolution is filed, 
     such a bill or joint resolution is placed on any calendar, or 
     an amendment is offered or considered as adopted or a 
     conference report is submitted on such a bill or joint 
     resolution.

     SEC. 209. RESERVE FUND FOR EQUITABLE BENEFITS FOR FILIPINO 
                   VETERANS OF WORLD WAR II.

       In the House, with respect to a bill or a joint resolution 
     (or an amendment thereto or conference report thereon) that 
     would provide for or increase benefits to Filipino veterans 
     of World War II, their survivors and dependents, the chairman 
     of the Committee on the Budget may make the appropriate 
     adjustments in allocations of a committee or committees and 
     budgetary aggregates, but only to the extent that such bill 
     or joint resolution (as amended, in the case of an amendment) 
     in the form placed before the House by the Committee on Rules 
     would not increase the deficit or decrease the surplus for 
     the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2012 and the period 
     of fiscal years 2007 through 2017. The adjustments may be 
     made whenever a rule providing for consideration of such a 
     bill or joint resolution is filed, such a bill or joint 
     resolution is placed on any calendar, or an amendment is 
     offered or considered as adopted or a conference report is 
     submitted on such a bill or joint resolution.

     SEC. 210. RESERVE FUND FOR SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY 
                   SELF-DETERMINATION ACT REAUTHORIZATION.

       In the House, with respect to a bill or a joint resolution 
     (or an amendment thereto or conference report thereon) that 
     provides for the reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools 
     and Community Self-Determination Act (Public Law 106-393), 
     the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may make the 
     appropriate adjustments in allocations of a committee or 
     committees and budgetary aggregates, but only to the extent 
     that such bill or joint resolution (as amended, in the case 
     of an amendment) in the form placed before the House by the 
     Committee on Rules would not increase the deficit or decrease 
     the surplus for the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2012 
     and the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2017. The 
     adjustments may be made whenever a rule providing for 
     consideration of such a bill or joint resolution is filed, 
     such a bill or joint resolution is placed on any calendar, or 
     an amendment is offered or considered as adopted or a 
     conference report is submitted on such a bill or joint 
     resolution.

     SEC. 211. RESERVE FUND FOR RECEIPTS FROM THE BONNEVILLE POWER 
                   ADMINISTRATION.

       In the House, with respect to a bill or a joint resolution 
     (or an amendment thereto or conference report thereon) that 
     prohibits the Bonneville Power Administration from making 
     early payments on its Federal Bond Debt to the Department of 
     the Treasury, the chairman of the Committee on Budget may 
     make the appropriate adjustments in allocations of a 
     committee or committees and budgetary aggregates, but only to 
     the extent that such bill or joint resolution (as amended, in 
     the case of an amendment) in the form placed before the House 
     by the Committee on Rules would not increase the deficit or 
     decrease the surplus for the period of fiscal years 2007 
     through 2012 and the period of fiscal years 2007 through 
     2017. The adjustments may be made whenever a rule providing 
     for consideration of such a bill or joint resolution is 
     filed, such a bill or joint resolution is placed on any 
     calendar, or an amendment is offered or considered as adopted 
     or a conference report is submitted on such a bill or joint 
     resolution.

     SEC. 212. RESERVE FUND FOR TRANSITIONAL MEDICAL ASSISTANCE.

       In the House, with respect to a bill or a joint resolution 
     (or an amendment thereto or conference report thereon) that 
     extends the Transitional Medical Assistance program, included 
     in title 19 of the Social Security Act, through fiscal year 
     2008, the chairman of the Committee on Budget may make the 
     appropriate adjustments in allocations of a committee or 
     committees and budgetary aggregates, but only to the extent 
     that such bill or joint resolution (as amended, in the case 
     of an amendment) in the form placed before the House by the 
     Committee on Rules would not increase the deficit or decrease 
     the surplus for the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2012 
     and the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2017. The 
     adjustments may be made whenever a rule providing for 
     consideration of such a bill or joint resolution is filed, 
     such a bill or joint resolution is placed on any calendar, or 
     an amendment is offered or considered as adopted or a 
     conference report is submitted on such a bill or joint 
     resolution.

                     TITLE III--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 301. PROGRAM INTEGRITY INITIATIVES.

       (a) Adjustments to Discretionary Spending Limits.--
       (1) Continuing disability reviews and supplemental security 
     income redeterminations.--If a bill or joint resolution is 
     reported making appropriations for fiscal year 2008 that 
     appropriates $264,000,000 for continuing disability reviews 
     and Supplemental Security Income redeterminations for the 
     Social Security Administration, and provides an additional 
     appropriation of up to $213,000,000 and the amount is 
     designated for continuing disability reviews and Supplemental 
     Security Income redeterminations for the Social Security 
     Administration, then the allocation to the House Committee on 
     Appropriations shall be increased by the amount of the 
     additional budget authority and outlays flowing from that 
     budget authority for fiscal year 2008.
       (2) Internal revenue service tax compliance.--If a bill or 
     joint resolution is reported making appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2008 that appropriates up to $6,822,000,000 to the 
     Internal Revenue Service and the amount is designated to 
     improve compliance with the provisions of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 and provides an additional appropriation 
     of up to $406,000,000, and the amount is designated to 
     improve compliance with the provisions of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986, then the allocation to the House 
     Committee on Appropriations shall be increased by the amount 
     of the additional budget authority and outlays flowing from 
     that budget authority for fiscal year 2008.
       (3) Healthcare fraud and abuse control program.--If a bill 
     or joint resolution is reported making appropriations for 
     fiscal year 2008 that appropriates up to $183,000,000 and the 
     amount is designated to the healthcare fraud and abuse 
     control program at the Department of Health and Human 
     Services, then the allocation to the House Committee on 
     Appropriations shall be increased by the amount of additional 
     budget authority and outlays flowing from that budget 
     authority for fiscal year 2008.
       (4) Unemployment insurance improper payments.--If a bill or 
     joint resolution is reported making appropriations for fiscal 
     year

[[Page H3287]]

     2008 that appropriates $10,000,000 for unemployment insurance 
     improper payment reviews for the Department of Labor, and 
     provides an additional appropriation of up to $40,000,000 and 
     the amount is designated for unemployment insurance improper 
     payment reviews for the Department of Labor, then the 
     allocation to the House Committee on Appropriations shall be 
     increased by the amount of the additional budget authority 
     and outlays flowing from that budget authority for fiscal 
     year 2008.
       (b) Procedure for Adjustments.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Chairman.--After the reporting of a bill or joint 
     resolution, or the offering of an amendment thereto or the 
     submission of a conference report thereon, the chairman of 
     the Committee on the Budget shall make the adjustments set 
     forth in subparagraph (B) for the incremental new budget 
     authority in that measure (if that measure meets the 
     requirements set forth in paragraph (2)) and the outlays 
     flowing from that budget authority.
       (B) Matters to be adjusted.--The adjustments referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) are to be made to--
       (i) the allocations made pursuant to the appropriate 
     concurrent resolution on the budget pursuant to section 
     302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974; and
       (ii) the budgetary aggregates as set forth in this 
     resolution.
       (c) Oversight of Government Performance.--In the House, all 
     committees are directed to review programs within their 
     jurisdiction to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in program 
     spending, giving particular scrutiny to issues raised by 
     Government Accountability Office reports. Based on these 
     oversight efforts and committee performance reviews of 
     programs within their jurisdiction, committees are directed 
     to include recommendations for improved governmental 
     performance in their annual views and estimates reports 
     required under section 301(d) of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 to the Committee on the Budget.

     SEC. 302. ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--In the House, except as provided in 
     subsection (b), a bill or joint resolution making a general 
     appropriation or continuing appropriation, or an amendment 
     thereto may not provide for advance appropriations.
       (b) Advance Appropriation.--In the House, an advance 
     appropriation may be provided for fiscal year 2009 or 2010 
     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 
     $25,558,000,000 in new budget authority.
       (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 continuing 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2008 that first becomes 
     available for any fiscal year after 2008.

     SEC. 303. OVERSEAS DEPLOYMENTS AND EMERGENCY NEEDS.

       (a) Overseas Deployments and Related Activities.--In the 
     House, any bill or joint resolution or amendment offered or 
     considered as adopted or a conference report thereon, that 
     makes appropriations for fiscal year 2008 or fiscal year 2009 
     for overseas deployments and related activities, and such 
     amounts are so designated pursuant to this subsection, then 
     new budget authority, outlays or receipts resulting therefrom 
     shall not count for the purposes of titles III and IV of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       (b) Emergency Needs.--In the House, any bill or joint 
     resolution, or amendment offered or considered as adopted or 
     conference report thereon, that makes appropriations for 
     nondefense discretionary amounts, and such amounts are 
     designated as necessary to meet emergency needs, then the new 
     budget authority, outlays, or receipts resulting therefrom 
     shall not be counted for the purposes of titles III and IV of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

     SEC. 304. 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) Committee on the Budget Determinations.--For purposes 
     of this resolution, the levels of new budget authority, 
     outlays, direct spending, new entitlement authority, 
     revenues, deficits, and surpluses for a fiscal year or period 
     of fiscal years shall be determined on the basis of estimates 
     made by the Committee on the Budget.

     SEC. 305. ADJUSTMENTS TO REFLECT CHANGES IN CONCEPTS AND 
                   DEFINITIONS.

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

     SEC. 306. COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 13301 OF THE BUDGET 
                   ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1990.

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

     SEC. 307. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

       Congress adopts the provisions of this title--
       (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House and 
     as such they shall be considered as part of the rules of the 
     House, and such rules shall supersede other rules only to the 
     extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and
       (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     the House 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.

                            TITLE IV--POLICY

     SEC. 401. POLICY ON MIDDLE-INCOME TAX RELIEF.

       It is the policy of this resolution to minimize fiscal 
     burdens on middle-income families and their children and 
     grandchildren. It is the policy of this resolution to provide 
     immediate relief for the tens of millions of middle-income 
     households who would otherwise be subject to the Alternative 
     Minimum Tax (AMT) under current law in the context of 
     permanent, revenue-neutral AMT reform. Furthermore, it is the 
     policy of this resolution to support extension of middle-
     income tax relief and enhanced economic equity through 
     policies such as--
       (1) extension of the child tax credit;
       (2) extension of marriage penalty relief;
       (3) extension of the 10 percent individual income tax 
     bracket;
       (4) elimination of estate taxes on all but a minute 
     fraction of estates by reforming and substantially increasing 
     the unified tax credit;
       (5) extension of the research and experimentation tax 
     credit;
       (6) extension of the deduction for State and local sales 
     taxes;
       (7) extension of the deduction for small business 
     expensing; and
       (8) enactment of a tax credit for school construction 
     bonds.
     This resolution assumes the cost of enacting such policies is 
     offset by reforms within the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     that promote a fairer distribution of taxes across families 
     and generations, economic efficiency, higher rates of tax 
     compliance to close the ``tax gap'', and reduced taxpayer 
     burdens through tax simplification.

     SEC. 402. POLICY ON DEFENSE PRIORITIES.

       It is the policy of this resolution that--
       (1) recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist 
     Attacks Upon the United States (commonly referred to as the 
     9/11 Commission) to fund cooperative threat reduction and 
     nuclear nonproliferation programs at a level commensurate 
     with the risk is a high priority, and the President's budget 
     should have requested sufficient funding for these programs;
       (2) ensuring that the TRICARE fees for military retirees 
     under the age of 65 remain at current levels;
       (3) funds be provided for increasing pay to ensure 
     retention of experienced personnel and for improving military 
     benefits in general;
       (4) the Missile Defense Agency should be funded at an 
     adequate but lower level and the elimination of space-based 
     interceptor development will ensure a more prudent 
     acquisition strategy, yet still support a robust ballistic 
     missile defense program;
       (5) satellite research, development, and procurement be 
     funded at a level below the amount requested for fiscal year 
     2008, which amounts to a 26 percent increase above the 
     current level, but at a level sufficient to develop new 
     satellite technologies while ensuring a more prudent 
     acquisition strategy;
       (6) sufficient resources be provided to implement 
     Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommendations, such 
     as improving financial management and contracting practices 
     at the Department of Defense (DOD), and that substantial 
     savings should result from the identification of billions of 
     dollars of obligations and disbursements and Government 
     overcharges for which the Department of Defense cannot 
     account;
       (7) that the Department of Defense should do a more careful 
     job of addressing the 1,378 Government Accountability Office 
     recommendations made to the Department of Defense and its 
     components over the last six years that have yet to be 
     implemented,

[[Page H3288]]

     which could produce billions of dollars in savings; and
       (8) accruing all savings from the actions recommended in 
     paragraphs (4) through (7) should be used to fund higher 
     priorities within Function 050 (Defense), and especially 
     those high priorities identified in paragraphs (1) through 
     (3) and to help fund recommendations of the bipartisan 
     ``Walter Reed Commission'' (the President's Commission on 
     Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors) and other 
     United States Government investigations into military 
     healthcare facilities and services.

     SEC. 403. POLICY ON COLLEGE AFFORDABILITY.

       It is the policy of this resolution that the reconciliation 
     directive to the Committee on Education and Labor shall not 
     be construed to reduce any assistance that makes college more 
     affordable for students, including but not limited to 
     assistance to student aid programs run by nonprofit state 
     agencies.

                      TITLE V--SENSE OF THE HOUSE

     SEC. 501. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON SERVICEMEMBERS' AND VETERANS' 
                   HEALTH CARE AND OTHER PRIORITIES.

       It is the sense of the House that--
       (1) the House supports excellent health care for current 
     and former members of the United States Armed Services, who 
     have served well and honorably and have made significant 
     sacrifices for this Nation;
       (2) this resolution provides $43,055,000,000 in 
     discretionary budget authority for 2008 for Function 700 
     (Veterans Benefits and Services), including veterans' health 
     care, which is $6,598,000,000 more than the 2007 level, 
     $5,404,000,000 more than the Congressional Budget Office's 
     baseline level for 2008, and $3,506,000,000 more than the 
     President's budget for 2008;
       (3) this resolution provides funding to implement, in part, 
     recommendations of the bi-partisan ``Walter Reed Commission'' 
     (the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning 
     Wounded Warriors) and other United States Government 
     investigations into military and veterans health care 
     facilities and services;
       (4) this resolution assumes the rejection of the enrollment 
     fees and co-payment increases in the President's budget;
       (5) this resolution provides additional funding above the 
     President's inadequate budget levels for the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs to research and treat veterans' mental 
     health, post-traumatic stress disorder, and traumatic brain 
     and spinal cord injuries; and
       (6) this resolution provides additional funding above the 
     President's inadequate budget levels for the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs to improve the speed and accuracy of its 
     processing of disability compensation claims, including 
     funding to hire additional personnel above the President's 
     requested level.

     SEC. 502. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON THE INNOVATION AGENDA: A 
                   COMMITMENT TO COMPETITIVENESS TO KEEP AMERICA 
                   #1.

       (a) It is the sense of the House to provide sufficient 
     funding that our Nation may continue to be the world leader 
     in education, innovation and economic growth. This resolution 
     provides $450,000,000 above the President's requested level 
     for 2008, and additional amounts in subsequent years in 
     Function 250 (General Science, Space and Technology) and 
     Function 270 (Energy). Additional increases for scientific 
     research and education are included in Function 500 
     (Education, Employment, Training, and Social Services), 
     Function 550 (Health), Function 300 (Environment and Natural 
     Resources), Function 350 (Agriculture), Function 400 
     (Transportation), and Function 370 (Commerce and Housing 
     Credit), all of which receive more funding than the President 
     requested.
       (b) America's greatest resource for innovation resides 
     within classrooms across the country. The increased funding 
     provided in this resolution will support important 
     initiatives to educate 100,000 new scientists, engineers, and 
     mathematicians, and place highly qualified teachers in math 
     and science K-12 classrooms.
       (c) Independent scientific research provides the foundation 
     for innovation and future technologies. This resolution will 
     put us on the path toward doubling funding for the National 
     Science Foundation, basic research in the physical sciences 
     across all agencies, and collaborative research partnerships; 
     and toward achieving energy independence through the 
     development of clean and sustainable alternative energy 
     technologies.

     SEC. 503. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON HOMELAND SECURITY.

       It is the sense of the House that--
       (1) this resolution assumes additional homeland security 
     funding above the President's requested level for 2008 and 
     every subsequent year;
       (2) this resolution assumes funding above the President's 
     requested level for 2008, and additional amounts in 
     subsequent years, in the four budget functions: Function 400 
     (Transportation), Function 450 (Community and Regional 
     Development), Function 550 (Health), and Function 750 
     (Administration of Justice) that fund most nondefense 
     homeland security activities; and
       (3) the homeland security funding provided in this 
     resolution will help to strengthen the security of our 
     Nation's transportation system, particularly our ports where 
     significant security shortfalls still exist and foreign 
     ports, by expanding efforts to identify and scan all high-
     risk United States-bound cargo, equip first responders, 
     strengthen border patrol, and increase the preparedness of 
     the public health system.

     SEC. 504. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE ONGOING NEED TO 
                   RESPOND TO HURRICANES KATRINA AND RITA.

       It is the sense of the House that:
       (1) Critical needs in the Gulf Coast region should be 
     addressed without further delay. The budget resolution 
     creates a reserve fund that would allow for affordable 
     housing that may be used to focus on areas devastated by 
     Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, as well as new funding for 
     additional recovery priorities.
       (2) Additional oversight and investigation is needed to 
     ensure that recovery efforts are on track, develop 
     legislation to reform the contracting process, and better 
     prepare for future disasters. Those efforts should be made in 
     close consultation with residents of affected areas. The 
     budget resolution provides additional 2007 funding for the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency, some of which may be 
     used for this purpose.

     SEC. 505. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING LONG-TERM 
                   SUSTAINABILITY OF ENTITLEMENTS.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) The aging of the United States population is going to 
     put unprecedented pressure on the Nation's retirement and 
     health care systems.
       (2) The long-term strength of social security would be 
     improved through a fiscally responsible policy of reducing 
     the deficit and paying down the debt that has accumulated 
     since 2001, thus reducing debt service payments and freeing 
     up billions of dollars that can be dedicated to meeting 
     social security's obligations.
       (3) A policy of reducing and eventually eliminating the 
     deficit and paying down the debt is a key factor in improving 
     the long-term strength of the economy as a whole, because a 
     lower debt burden frees up resources for productive 
     investments that will result in higher economic growth, 
     provide a higher standard of living for future generations, 
     and enhance the Nation's ability to meet its commitments to 
     its senior citizens.
       (4) The most significant factor affecting the Nation's 
     entitlement programs is the rapid increase in health care 
     costs. The projected increasing costs of medicare and 
     medicaid are not unique to these programs but rather are part 
     of a pattern of rising costs for the health sector as a 
     whole.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     the growing cost of entitlements should be addressed in a way 
     that is fiscally responsible and promotes economic growth, 
     that addresses the causes of cost growth in the broader 
     health care system, and that protects beneficiaries without 
     leaving a legacy of debt to future generations.

     SEC. 506. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE NEED TO MAINTAIN 
                   AND BUILD UPON EFFORTS TO FIGHT HUNGER.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) More than 35 million individuals (12.4 million of them 
     children) are food insecure, uncertain of having, or unable 
     to acquire enough food. 10.8 million Americans are hungry 
     because of lack of food.
       (2) Despite the critical contributions of the Department of 
     Agriculture nutrition programs and particularly the food 
     stamp program that significantly reduced payment error rates 
     while increasing enrollment to partially mitigate the impact 
     of recent increases in the poverty rate, significant need 
     remains.
       (3) Nearly 25 million people, including nine million 
     children and three million seniors, sought emergency food 
     assistance from food pantries, soup kitchens, shelters, and 
     local charities last year.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     the Department of Agriculture programs that help fight hunger 
     should be maintained and that the House should seize 
     opportunities to enhance those programs to reach people in 
     need and to fight hunger.

     SEC. 507. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING AFFORDABLE HEALTH 
                   COVERAGE.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) More than 46 million Americans, including nine million 
     children, lack health insurance. People without health 
     insurance are more likely to experience problems getting 
     medical care and to be hospitalized for avoidable health 
     problems.
       (2) Most Americans receive health coverage through their 
     employers. A major issue facing all employers is the rising 
     cost of health insurance. Small businesses, which have 
     generated most of the new jobs annually over the last decade, 
     have an especially difficult time affording health coverage, 
     due to higher administrative costs and fewer people over whom 
     to spread the risk of catastrophic costs. Because it is 
     especially costly for small businesses to provide health 
     coverage, their employees make up a large proportion of the 
     nation's uninsured individuals.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     legislation consistent with the pay-as-you-go principle 
     should be adopted that makes health insurance more affordable 
     and accessible, with attention to the special needs of small 
     businesses, and that lowers costs and improves the quality of 
     health care by encouraging integration of health information 
     technology tools into the practice of medicine, and promoting 
     improvements in disease management and disease prevention.

[[Page H3289]]

     SEC. 508. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING EXTENSION OF THE 
                   STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO RULE.

       It is the sense of the House that in order to reduce the 
     deficit Congress should extend PAYGO in its original form in 
     the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.

     SEC. 509. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON LONG-TERM BUDGETING.

       It is the sense of Congress that the determination of the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government and the 
     President's budget request should include consideration of 
     the Financial Report of the United States Government, 
     especially its information regarding the Government's net 
     operating cost, financial position, and long-term 
     liabilities.

     SEC. 510. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING PAY PARITY.

       It is the sense of the House that rates of compensation for 
     civilian employees of the United States should be adjusted at 
     the same time, and in the same proportion, as are rates of 
     compensation for members of the uniformed services.

     SEC. 511. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING WASTE, FRAUD, AND 
                   ABUSE.

       It is the sense of the House that all committees should 
     examine programs within their jurisdiction to identify 
     wasteful and fraudulent spending. To this end, section 301 of 
     this resolution includes cap adjustments to provide 
     appropriations for three programs that accounted for a 
     significant share of improper payments reported by Federal 
     agencies in 2006: Social Security Administration Continuing 
     Disability Reviews, the Medicare/Medicaid Health Care Fraud 
     and Abuse Control Program, and Unemployment Insurance. 
     Section 301 also includes a cap adjustment for the Internal 
     Revenue Services for tax compliance efforts to close the 
     $300,000,000,000 tax gap. In addition, the resolution's 
     deficit-neutral reserve funds require authorizing committees 
     to cut lower priority and wasteful spending to accommodate 
     new high-priority entitlement benefits. Finally, section 301 
     of the resolution directs all committees to review the 
     performance of programs within their jurisdiction and report 
     recommendations annually to the Committee on the Budget as 
     part of the views and estimates process required by section 
     301(d) of the Congressional Budget Act.

     SEC. 512. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE IMPORTANCE OF 
                   CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT.

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

     SEC. 513. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON STATE VETERANS CEMETERIES.

       It is the sense of the House that the Federal Government 
     should pay the plot allowance for the interment in a State 
     veterans cemetery of any spouse or eligible child of a 
     veteran, consistent with the pay-as-you-go principle.

                        TITLE VI--RECONCILIATION

     SEC. 601. RECONCILIATION.

       (a) Instructions.--The House Committee on Education and 
     Labor shall report changes in laws to reduce the deficit by 
     $75,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2012.
       (b) Mandatory Savings.--Not later than September 10, 2007, 
     the House Committee on Education and Labor shall submit its 
     recommendations to the House of Representatives.
       (c) Submission of Revised Allocations.--Upon the submission 
     to the House of a reconciliation bill or conference report 
     thereon, that complies with this reconciliation instruction, 
     the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may file with the 
     House appropriately revised allocations and budgetary 
     aggregates. Such revisions shall be considered to be the 
     allocations and aggregates established by the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget pursuant to section 301 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the concurrent resolution is in 
order except the amendments printed in House Report 110-79. Each 
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may 
be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question.


Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 1 Offered By Ms. Kilpatrick

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in House Report 110-79, which is debatable for 40 minutes.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 1 offered by 
     Ms. Kilpatrick:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2008.

       The Congress declares that the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2008 is hereby established and that 
     the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2009 
     through 2012 are set forth.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2008 through 2012:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,125,897,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,195,626,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,257,721,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,434,651,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,618,596,000,000.00.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be reduced are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2008: $75,100,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2009: $88,700,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2010: $94,000,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2011: $40,100,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2012: $21,500,000,000.00.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,563,074,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,569,841,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,612,809,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,719,483,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,746,964,000,000.00.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,503,314,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,620,443,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,647,959,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,730,582,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,734,344,000,000.00.
       (4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget) 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2008: $-377,417,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2009: $-424,817,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2010: $-390,237,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2011: $-295,931,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2012: $-115,749,000,000.00.
       (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 2008: $9,423,000,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2009: $9,965,000,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2010: $10,473,000,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2011: $10,882,000,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2012: $11,124,000,000,000.00.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2008: $5,231,000,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2009: $5,452,000,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2010: $5,625,000,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2011: $5,686,000,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2012: $5,556,000,000,000.00.

     SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2008 through 2012 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $506,955,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $514,401,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $534,705,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $524,384,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $545,171,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $536,433,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $550,944,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $547,624,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $559,799,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $548,169,000,000.00.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,745,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $34,785,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,577,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $34,660,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,127,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $34,466,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,136,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $34,405,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,267,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $34,592,000,000.00.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,772,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $26,561,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,754,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $28,521,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,923,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $29,578,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,158,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $30,162,000,000.00.

[[Page H3290]]

       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,477,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $31,418,000,000.00.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,494,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $1,194,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,229,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $1,627,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,260,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $1,800,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,315,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $1,821,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,368,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $2,084,000,000.00.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,895,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $35,459,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,286,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $36,073,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,013,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $36,201,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,180,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $36,256,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,214,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $36,653,000,000.00.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,945,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $19,972,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,328,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $20,496,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,414,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $20,418,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,349,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $20,650,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,537,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $21,013,000,000.00.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,610,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $3,074,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,989,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $2,121,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,486,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $4,248,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,320,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $2,482,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,171,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $1,483,000,000.00.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $83,657,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $81,202,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $77,043,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $84,628,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $77,751,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $86,753,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $78,632,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $87,506,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $79,409,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $89,103,000,000.00.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,166,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $22,551,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,422,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $21,488,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,175,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $20,463,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,060,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $18,946,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,040,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $16,039,000,000.00.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $121,203,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $101,179,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $121,552,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $119,883,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $120,276,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $120,003,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $117,706,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $118,433,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $116,785,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $115,930,000,000.00.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $302,810,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $298,678,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $322,072,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $320,093,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $338,846,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $339,499,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $359,694,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $359,503,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $382,231,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $381,804,000,000.00.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $389,886,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $389,996,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $417,031,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $416,682,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $442,669,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $442,889,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $489,400,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $489,409,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $487,128,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $486,740,000,000.00.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $384,558,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $387,232,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $394,570,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $397,238,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $404,132,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $405,323,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $419,163,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $419,193,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $404,632,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $403,985,000,000.00.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,644,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $19,644,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,518,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $21,518,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,701,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $23,701,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,009,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $27,009,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,898,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $29,898,000,000.00.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $88,602,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $85,330,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $90,174,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $90,324,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $92,085,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $91,560,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $97,203,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $96,705,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $94,144,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $93,505,000,000.00.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,267,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $47,900,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,740,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $49,114,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,308,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $48,766,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,177,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $49,048,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,169,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $49,826,000,000.00.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,114,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $19,373,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,614,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $19,716,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,131,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $20,036,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,819,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $20,560,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,479,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $21,326,000,000.00.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $368,582,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $368,582,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $386,707,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $386,707,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $408,810,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $408,810,000,000.00.

[[Page H3291]]

       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $425,770,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $425,770,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $437,358,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $437,358,000,000.00.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,985,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $2,269,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,090,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $2,313,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,463,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $1,619,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,024,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $1,134,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $717,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $793,000,000.00.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $-70,979,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $-70,979,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $-66,560,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $-66,569,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $-66,933,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $-66,933,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $-69,575,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $-69,595,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $-71,857,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $-71,860,000,000.00.
       (21) Overseas Deployments and Other Activities (970):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $145,163,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $114,914,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $109,425,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $00.00.
       (B) Outlays, $42,324,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $00.00.
       (B) Outlays, $13,561,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $00.00.
       (B) Outlays, $4,485,000,000.00.

                   TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 201. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--_
       (1) between 2001 and 2006, GAO provided the Department of 
     Defense with 2544 recommendations, many related to improving 
     their business practices and, to date, the Department of 
     Defense has implemented 1014 recommendations and closed 152 
     recommendations without implementation; and
       (2) the GAO estimates that the 1014 implemented 
     recommendations have yielded the Department of Defense a 
     savings of $52.7 billion between fiscal years 2001 and 2006.
       (b) Assumption; Report.--
       (1) Assumption.--This resolution assumes $300,000,000 to be 
     used by the Department of Defense to implement the remaining 
     1378 recommendations of the Government Accountability Office.
       (2) Report.--The Secretary of Defense should submit a 
     report to Congress within 90 days that demonstrates how each 
     such recommendation will be implemented, and, in the case of 
     any such recommendation that cannot be implemented, a 
     detailed reason for such inability to implement such 
     recommendation.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) 
and a Member opposed each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Madam Chairman, at this time we are very happy to present our 
Congressional Black Caucus budget for 2008. Our budget is balanced. It 
takes us to surplus in 5 years. It reduces the deficit, and it invests 
in America's families.
  We are happy today to present to you a budget. The full budget is 
$2.9 trillion. That would be $3 trillion if it were rounded off.
  The Ways and Means Committee that handles the entitlements will 
handle Medicare for over 44 million seniors' health insurance; Medicaid 
for over 45 million disabled, low-income seniors' programs; and our 
veterans programs. Our Appropriations Committee will handle $930 
billion of those dollars in our 2008 discussions on this budget.
  I am happy to present to you a balanced budget from the Congressional 
Black Caucus that takes care of our veterans, that invests in the war, 
that makes sure that our seniors are taken care of, and that our 
children and their SCHIP program for children's health care is fully 
funded so that all children in America can have an adequate health care 
system.
  Madam Chairman, the Congressional Black Caucus budget is a good 
budget. I would urge our colleagues to accept it, to vote for the CBC 
budget.
  Madam Chairman, I am proud that Congress is considering an amendment 
that I, along with my colleague Robert Scott from Virginia, am 
introducing that will change course, confront crises, and continue the 
legacy of not only the Congressional Black Caucus, but of America. This 
budget changes our fiscal course from a sea of debt, deficit and 
despair to financial stability and responsibility. The Kilpatrick/Scott 
amendment confronts the crises faced by our senior citizens who will 
not have enough money to heat their homes in the winter or cool them in 
the summer; it will confront the crises faced by our veterans and those 
wounded warriors who do not have adequate health care, mental health 
treatment, or physical therapy; the Kilpatrick/Scott amendment to the 
budget continues the legacy of this Nation's historic mission of caring 
for the least of our sisters and brothers.
  As the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, and as an 
appropriator, I know that the American people demanded a change last 
year. Rounding out for even numbers, we have a $2.9 trillion dollar 
budget. Six hundred billion of that spending will go to defense. A 
little more than 300 hundred billion will go to the people. We can do 
better. The Kilpatrick/Scott amendment will do just that. It ensures 
that our Nation is safe; it takes care of all Americans; and it gets 
America on the path to fiscal stability.
  The Kilpatrick/Scott amendment is fiscally responsible.
  The Kilpatrick/Scott amendment eliminates tax cuts for the top two 
income brackets. Studies show that 99.7 percent of the benefits of the 
tax cuts go to those households with incomes over $200,000, 86 percent 
go to households with incomes above $500,000, and 65 percent go to 
households with incomes above $1 million. The CBC budget would rescind 
those tax cuts and restore the more fiscally responsible tax rates that 
were in place in 2001 and throughout much of the economic boom of the 
1990s. This results in $90.6 billion over 5 years for the American 
people.
  The Kilpatrick/Scott amendment eliminates the capital gains and 
dividend tax cuts. Again, 70 percent of the benefits of these tax cuts 
go to households with more than $200,000 in income. This results in $98 
billion over 5 years for the American people. The bill applies more 
than $6 billion to reduce the deficit created by these unfair tax cuts 
and the war.
  The Kilpatrick/Scott amendment, for fiscal years 2008-2012, has a 
total deficit that is $339 billion less than the President's budget and 
$107 billion less than that of the House Committee on the Budget. These 
are savings that not only reduce our debt to foreign nations, but 
allows more money to be used to the needs of the American people.
  The Kilpatrick/Scott amendment protects Social Security.
  The Congressional Black Caucus strongly opposes private accounts. 
Privatizing what is arguably the most successful social insurance 
program in the world would only divert resources from the Social 
Security Trust Fund and generate trillions of dollars in new debt over 
the next few decades. Furthermore, the Congressional Black Caucus is 
strongly opposed to the use of the Social Security surplus to finance 
the deficit in the rest of the budget. The Kilpatrick/Scott amendment 
protects Social Security by opposing the use of the Social Security 
surplus to finance the deficit in the budget.
  The Kilpatrick/Scott amendment fights for our warriors at home and 
abroad.
  The amendment also reallocates $300 million in savings in the 
Department of Defense, using recommendations from the General 
Accounting Office. These savings will be used to implement the GAO's 
recommendations for: health facility renovation upgrades at bases; 
mental health services for post traumatic stress disease; public school 
Initiatives, aka the Troops to Teachers initiative; cancer research; 
tuberous sclerosis research; and Parkinson's disease research.
  The Kilpatrick/Scott amendment will take care of our veterans, by 
fully funding the construction of new and improved VA hospitals, 
providing more funds for more VA workers, and the local clinic 
initiative for non-urban areas. It is simply shameful that those who 
have volunteered or were drafted to fight for this country cannot have 
the best in health care our country has to offer.
  The Kilpatrick/Scott amendment improves the international stature of 
America.
  Our reputation as an international savior has taken a significant hit 
over the past 6 years. The Kilpatrick/Scott amendment addresses our 
stature and improves our relationship with our global partners. As you 
know, the Congressional Black Caucus has focused on issues of interest 
on the continent of Africa. The fact

[[Page H3292]]

that we have not addressed the issues of Darfur, global AIDS, 
tuberculosis and malaria is a shame on America and the Congress. The 
Kilpatrick/Scott amendment addresses these challenges with more than $3 
billion going to the Darfur Initiative; the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, 
Tuberculosis and Malaria; Child Survival and Health, and International 
Family Planning Programs.

Darfur Initiative..........................................+$50,000,000
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria......+1,000,000,000
HIV/AIDS--Latin America and the Caribbean...................+50,000,000
Child survival and health................................+1,040,000,000
Migration and refugee assistance............................+80,000,000
Contributions to international peacekeeping................+600,000,000
International family planning programs.....................+100,000,000
UNFPA.......................................................+50,000,000

  The Kilpatrick/Scott amendment helps all Americans.
  Social needs have taken a back seat to tax cuts and this war for far 
too long. Among other things, the CBC amendment will fully fund the 
Community Development Block Grant at $1.5 billion; provide $1 billion 
for the construction of new and technologically advanced elementary and 
secondary schools; fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act, the first 
time in that program's history that it will be fully funded. This full 
level of funding will include the complete funding of the science and 
math program, a program that trains teachers in math and science, and 
emphasizes math and science in our Nation's elementary, secondary and 
high schools. The amendment fully funds the Pell grant program, the 
SCHIP health care program for poor and low income children, the 
Women's, Infants and Children's--WIC--program, Head Start and the Food 
Stamp program.
  For a balanced budget; for funds that will address the needs of our 
Nation's wounded warriors from wars in the past, present and future; 
for fiscal responsibility and accountability; for the protection of our 
Nation's children, safety and seniors, a responsible vote is a vote for 
the Kilpatrick/Scott amendment on the budget.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 
20 minutes.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chairman, at this time I would like to 
address why we are here today. We are here to balance the budget, and 
what is very good about this debate we are having here today is we are 
talking about not if we should balance the budget; we are talking about 
how to balance the budget.
  So for that point we have come to a good part of this debate, where I 
believe, based on the numbers I have seen, all of these amendments we 
are going to experience today and the base Democrat budget balances by 
2012. That is a good start. So now we here in Congress are agreeing, 
let us balance the budget. That is good.
  The question then becomes how do we balance the budget. This is where 
there are enormous differences between the two parties.
  The three budgets on the other side of the aisle, the Progressive 
budget, the Congressional Black Caucus budget and the base Democrat 
budget, all have one big thing in common: they raise taxes. They raise 
a lot of taxes, anywhere from $400 billion to $1 trillion just over the 
next 5 years.
  What kind of taxes are we talking about? Well, let's look at the tax 
relief that occurred. In 2003, if you take a look at what happened to 
our country in 2001 with 9/11, with the Enron scandals, with the dot-
com bubble bursting, the fact that we went to war and we went into a 
recession, we lost a lot of jobs. We were losing over 100,000 jobs a 
month at that time. We went into a recession. Three years of revenues 
declined. We had a big deficit. So while revenues went down because 
people lost jobs, we went into deficit and spending went up.
  Why? Because we had unemployment. We had programs to help people who 
lost their jobs. We had war costs, and so what ended up happening was 
we needed to get people back to work. We needed to get this economy 
growing again.
  So what did we do? At that time, we were in the majority. We decided 
we needed a package of reforms, of tax cuts to get the economy growing 
again, to get people working again. So we cut taxes on families, cut 
taxes on small businesses, cut taxes on business investment.
  What happened? 7.6 million new jobs were created since those tax cuts 
in 2003. We went from growing our economy at an anemic 1.1 percent 
prior to the tax cuts to growing our economy at an average of 3.5 
percent. We went to creating about 160,000 jobs per month since those 
tax cuts.
  What also happened? Revenues went up. Revenues went up for double 
digits the 2 years following. This year so far the revenues are up 
about 10 percent. So revenues came in, why? Because we actually cut 
taxes. We have lower tax rates, but we have higher revenues because 
people went back to work. People went to work, to jobs and paid more 
taxes.
  What happened? The deficit went as high as $412 billion. Now it is as 
low as $176 billion. I would like to say that it is because we did a 
great job on controlling spending. No, that is not the case. The reason 
the deficit for the most part went down is because revenues went up, 
because the economy grew, people went back to work, paid their taxes.
  So, Madam Chairman, we do not have a revenue problem in Washington. 
Revenues are coming in fast. We have a spending problem in Washington, 
and this is the difference between our philosophies, our budgets.
  We believe that the money people make really is their money, not the 
government's money. We believe that when someone starts a business, 
when someone goes to work, that is the fruit of their own labor and 
they ought to keep more of their hard-earned money, because at the end 
of the day, if government takes more money out of the person's 
paycheck, you are taking more freedom out of their lives. If you take 
more money out of a family budget, you are taking more freedom away 
from that family. That is the difference.
  We believe that people ought to keep more of what they earn. We 
believe that small businesses, which are the engine of economic growth 
in this society, which create all these jobs, should not be taxed at 
tax rates higher than large corporations, but that is what will happen 
if any of these three budgets pass, if the Progressive budget, the 
Congressional Black Caucus budget, or the Democrat budget passes.
  We believe that we need to focus on spending and not on raising 
taxes, because more important than that, I want to show you one chart, 
Madam Chairman. If you take a look at these revenue lines, even if we 
take the low line, the blue line, that is the line of revenues coming 
in if we don't raise taxes. That is the line the Republicans are using 
for our budget, and we balance our budget by controlling spending 
instead of raising taxes, and we control spending to the point where we 
stop the raid on the Social Security trust fund and we pay down $100 
billion in debt in the fifth year alone.
  The red line, not much higher, but the red line says, let's raise 
taxes by $400 billion. That is the smallest of the tax increases we are 
looking at of these budgets today. That still shows, but it is a lot 
lower than the green line, the spending line.
  Spending is the problem. If we do nothing to control spending, by the 
time my children are my age, the Federal Government will double in size 
simply by growing on the current path that it is on.
  This has to be dealt with, Madam Chairman. This has to be dealt with, 
and no matter how much you propose to raise taxes, no matter how much 
you want to raise taxes on small businesses, take away the per-child 
tax credit, bring back the marriage penalty, reinstate the death tax, 
raise taxes on businesses and capital investment and seniors and 
dividends and capital gains, no matter how much you want to raise taxes 
here, if you pass one of these other three budgets, we still will not 
have enough to meet the spending line, the spending appetite, the 
spending trajectory of this Federal Government. That has to be dealt 
with.
  Why does that have to be dealt with? Because we do not want to pass 
onto our children and our grandchildren a mountain of debt. The debt 
has increased. Sadly, over the last 8 years, it went up $3 trillion. I 
think you are going to hear that from other people. I have got news for 
you, Madam Chairman, just Social Security alone by doing nothing to 
address this program

[[Page H3293]]

over the next 5 years, that debt will go up by $3 trillion.
  Medicare, if we do not address Medicare's growth, if we do not reform 
and maintain and save Medicare, the debt to just Medicare will go up 
almost $20 trillion over the next 5 years by doing nothing.
  So, Madam Chairman, let's not raise taxes. Let's work on spending, 
and let's reform these programs.
  I want to reserve the balance of my time, but I want to say one thing 
before I do, and that is these three programs which we commonly refer 
to as our entitlements are the most important domestic programs in the 
Federal Government. Medicare helps people who are an older age get 
health care. Medicaid helps people who are low income get health care. 
Really, really important missions, Madam Chairman. And Social Security 
helps provide people with retirement security.
  These programs are too important to let slip into bankruptcy. These 
programs are too important to go for five more years without any 
reforms designed to extend their solvency and make them work better and 
be more responsive to the needs of the American people.
  I think that is where we should place our efforts.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, the Congressional Black Caucus does 
not raise taxes, the budget does not, and it protects Social Security 
and will not privatize it.
  I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott), the chairperson of our Congressional Black Caucus.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Michigan 
for her leadership in the Congressional Black Caucus.
  We first need to start off with the Congressional Black Caucus of 
where we are. We were in a ditch in 1993 and Democratic policies dug us 
out of the ditch, and Republican policies put us right back into the 
ditch. This is where we are, and this is what we are trying to dig 
ourselves out of.
  Now, we have gotten in this ditch. We just need to respond a little 
bit. We heard that we created all these jobs. Go back, this 
administration, count them up, add them, subtract them, add them up, 
tied for worst job performance since Herbert Hoover. This is what they 
are bragging about.
  They talk about economic growth. The Dow Jones Industrial Average for 
the last 4-year increments, this administration's 6 years has not done 
what anybody since 1980 has been able to do in 4 years.
  They talk about increased revenues: you cut taxes, you increase 
revenues. Since 1960, only 2 years did we not set a brand-new revenue 
record, and then we set a new record the following year until we get to 
this policy. We have gone 6 consecutive years without new record 
revenues, three consecutive years in decline. That has never happened 
since they started keeping records in 1934.
  What we do is we repeal part of what got us in the mess. This is one 
of the tax cuts we repeal, and you want to look and see, we call it tax 
cuts for the wealthy. They get mad, but this is who gets $20 billion in 
tax cuts that we repeal: over $1 million, $200,000 to $1 million, 
$100,000 to $200,000, under that zero. This is what you get. This is 
one of those that we repeal. We are able, after we repeal that, we use 
part of it for fiscal responsibility.
  The Congressional Black Caucus deficit is better than the President's 
deficit every year. We balance and go into surplus in the fifth year. 
In the fifth year, we save $14 billion in interest alone compared to 
the President.
  Now, we use the rest of that money to address our priorities: health 
care that we hear about, education, veterans, justice, making our 
communities safer, diplomacy.
  Madam Chairman, just to close, let's see what we would have to do to 
go from the Congressional Black Caucus' responsible budget to the 
President's budget. We would have to cut $150 billion out of education. 
We would have to cut $100 billion out of child care, eliminating the 
promised health care for all children, putting 9 million children out 
in the street without any health care. We would have to whack $42 
million out of the veterans' budget and many other priorities that we 
are going to describe in a few minutes.

                              {time}  1030

  Then we would have to borrow $339 billion, mostly from foreign 
countries, in order to fund tax cuts that primarily benefit that 
portion of a family's income over $200,000, that portion of the income 
under $200,000 virtually unaffected. To fund the tax cuts that put us 
in the mess that we are in, we would have to cut education, health 
care, veterans, other things, and then borrow $339 billion from foreign 
countries. That is a bad choice.
  Fiscally responsible and address our priorities, that is the 
Congressional Black Caucus budget. We are proud of it and would hope 
that you would support it.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  May I inquire about the time allotment remaining between the two 
parties.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 12 minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from Michigan has 15\1/2\ minutes.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, at this time, I would like to yield 2 
minutes to the medical doctor in our caucus, the gentlewoman from the 
Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
  (Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Chairman, unlike the Ryan budget, which cuts 
just about every important health program and would hurt working 
families, we have a good budget in the Democratic base budget. But 
because it does not restore funding drained from this country's needs 
to provide tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, it can't go far enough 
to meet the needs of the poor, rural families, African Americans and 
other people of color which have been neglected for far too long.
  After the war and tax cuts have created huge deficits and 
unprecedented debt, after corporations and the rich have gotten theirs, 
the neediest in this country are being told to wait. We are not willing 
to wait any more for a decent education for our children, for quality 
health care, for adequate housing, for communities with clean air and 
housing, or for jobs.
  That is why the CBC budget is so important. With the additional 
funding, it creates the environment for healthier families, for 
healthier communities and for a healthier nation. We invest 
significantly more in health care for children and pregnant women, for 
mental care and substance abuse, for the training of minority and other 
professionals, to end the AIDS epidemic in our own country and abroad 
and for research and community health centers. We help our sickest 
communities to help themselves with health empowerment zones and 
provide a health equity fund that would close the deficits that would 
allow over 100,000 people of color to die, who should not, every year 
in this, the richest country in the world. It still balances the budget 
by 2012 and creates a $141 billion surplus.
  Vote for a stronger, a better America. Vote for the CBC budget.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, this is an important moment for 
our time of fiscal responsibility in America. I would like to read from 
a few quotes. We have had great hearings in the Budget Committee. I 
want to compliment the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for 
holding great hearings. In all of these hearings, we had fiscal experts 
coming to testify from both parties, from nonpartisan organizations 
like the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability 
Office, from the Federal Reserve.
  I would like to read a few quotes about the fiscal condition that is 
staring us in the face that this budget should be addressing today.
  On the urgency of entitlement reform, we had Ben Bernanke, the 
chairman of the Federal Reserve, come in and say, ``Without early and 
meaningful action to address entitlements, the U.S. economy could be 
seriously weakened, with future generations bearing much of the cost.''
  Then we had the Comptroller General, Mr. Walker, on 60 Minutes say, 
``Health care is the number one fiscal challenge for the Federal and 
State governments. If there is one thing that

[[Page H3294]]

can bankrupt America, it is health care. We need dramatic and 
fundamental health care reforms.'' That's at a hearing.
  On 60 Minutes, he said, ``The rising cost of government entitlements 
is a fiscal cancer that threatens catastrophic consequences for our 
country and could bankrupt America.''
  Here is what Mr. Walker is talking about. If you take a look at this 
chart, it shows you that, consistently, our government has been taxing 
the American economy at about 18 percent of our gross domestic product. 
What that means is, basically, since about 1960, to finance our Federal 
government, we have had to tax the American economy, families, 
businesses, all those things, at about 18 percent of our economic 
output. It has been remarkably consistent.
  Because of the unsustainable growth of government spending programs, 
of our entitlement programs, they are growing at such a quick pace that 
by the time my 5-, 3-, and 2-year-olds are in my age bracket, they will 
have to tax the American economy at 40 percent just to pay the bills.
  Let me put it another way around. We have very important programs. We 
call them our entitlement programs. They meet critical missions of the 
Federal Government. When they were set up, they made sense at the time 
the way they were financed. They were called pay-as-you-go. Current 
workers pay taxes, particularly payroll taxes, to pay the benefits for 
current retirees, for current beneficiaries. It worked fine for many 
years.
  Not now, though. Because as the baby boomers begin to retire, which 
begins next year, we will double the amount of retirees in this 
country; and we will only increase the amount of workers coming to this 
country by 17 percent. For all of those who had kids during that baby 
boom generation, they had a lot of kids; and it was wonderful. Our 
birth rates went up. But, since then, we haven't had as many kids.
  Heck, in my own hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin, where I come from 
an Irish Catholic family, I had 65 cousins in just Janesville, 
Wisconsin. But I am a Generation Xer; and at my family level, we didn't 
have as many kids. That is what is happening across the world and 
across the country.
  Why am I saying all of this? What did it mean? It means that these 
programs are going to double the amount of consumers to the programs 
and not double the amount of payers into the programs.
  We have to reform these programs. We have to make them work better, 
and we have got to prevent our kids from having their taxes doubled. 
That is what this is about at the end of the day, Madam Chair. It is 
about our children and our grandchildren.
  Now, this seems to be a cliche thing that everybody says when they 
get up to a microphone. But, quite honestly, if we don't get a handle 
on our fiscal situation, if we don't recognize the fact that if all you 
do is raise taxes to balance the budget in 2012, you are going to go 
right back into deficit soon thereafter if we don't control spending, 
if we don't reform government, if we don't fix our entitlement perhaps. 
If we don't do this, the debt we have today will pale, pale in 
comparison to the debt we are going to be passing on to our children 
and our grandchildren.
  We have new economic challenges and threats unlike any we have ever 
seen before in this country. We don't have oceans that separate us 
anymore. We have broadband, Internet, digital technology. We have to 
compete with workers on a daily basis from countries like China and 
India overnight.
  We have real economic challenges facing us, and we can't survive and 
thrive in this era of globalization. We can't continue to be America's 
economic superpower, the world's economic superpower, if we are going 
to double the taxes on future generations.
  You can't tax your way into prosperity. We already today tax our 
businesses, our capital, more than any other country in the 
industrialized world except for one, Japan. They just finished two 
decades of recession.
  We have got to wise up to the fact that we have to be lean and mean 
and compete with China and India and these other countries. We have got 
to make sure that the way we run our health care system works for 
patients, that the way we have our entitlement benefits gives us income 
security, retirement security, health security. We have got to make 
sure that it doesn't do it in such a way that it literally doubles the 
entire tax burden on the American economy, on the American family. If 
we do that, we will push more jobs overseas. We will lose our standard 
of living, the great gift of America of a generation to the next.
  The legacy of the American Dream is that each generation bequeaths 
unto the next a higher and better standard of living. That is exactly 
what my parents and grandparents told me. We are at risk of severing 
that tie. We are at risk of discontinuing that legacy of giving our 
kids and our grandkids a better standard of living, a better economy, 
things better off than when we found them.
  Budgets matter, and the budget that we have before us today, whether 
it's the CBC budget, the Progressive budget or the Democrat budget, 
raises taxes by anywhere from $400 billion to $1 trillion over the next 
4 years and does absolutely nothing, nothing, nothing to control 
spending, to reform government, to prevent this mountain of debt going 
onto our children's backs.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chair, I yield myself 20 seconds.
  The Congressional Black Caucus does not raise taxes. I would like to 
remind the gentleman that if it were not for the permanent tax cuts for 
1 percent of the wealthiest and the cost of this ill-advised war, we 
could fund all the major programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the Congresswoman from Dallas, 
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Let me thank our chairwoman of 
the Congressional Black Caucus, Ms. Kilpatrick, and Mr. Scott, our 
colleagues, for their unwavering support for the development of the CBC 
alternative budget that encompasses progressive and visionary funding 
motivated by principle and compassion.
  I also would like to thank all of the members of the CBC and their 
staffs for helping to complete this very important task. I appreciate 
and applaud their efforts on issues important to all of us.
  Madam Chairman, the CBC alternative budget understands that our 
Nation's transportation system is the backbone of our economy and our 
way of life. We could not afford to shortchange our transportation 
system, nor ignore the need for greater competitiveness in science and 
technology.
  As a senior member of the Science Committee, I feel the CBC budget 
supports these initiatives to invest in our children's future, our 
future, our Nation's future. Federal entitlements such as NASA and the 
National Science Foundation need funding to inspire today's youth so 
that we can have a future in research and competitiveness. The science 
budget funds our scientific and engineering workforce, supports teacher 
enrichment programs and helps inspire future generations of 
researchers.
  Our Nation's future depends more and more on the quality of our 
innovative ideas. The fruits of these investments meet vital national 
needs and improve the quality of life for all Americans. The CBC 
alternative budget also provides funding for the minority health 
initiatives, health insurance for the uninsured, child nutrition 
programs, job creation programs, the SBA, and the extension of 
unemployment insurance benefits and the elimination of the disabled 
veterans tax.
  I urge my colleagues to support this budget, and don't listen to the 
rhetoric of taxes being raised. We have different priorities.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining. The 
gentlewoman from Michigan has 11\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes at this time to 
the Congresswoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)

[[Page H3295]]

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairwoman, let me thank the 
chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, Carolyn Kilpatrick, and 
Mr. Bobby Scott for joining with us as the Congressional Black Caucus 
so that we could really emphasize what compassion and the American 
dream is all about and equate it to the Congressional Black Caucus 
budget that really responds to the tragedy that has occurred under this 
administration.
  The surplus, as you can see, that we had in 2000 under the Bush 
administration declines $8.4 trillion. That is what we attack.
  In fact, the Congressional Black Caucus budget reduces the deficit 
$107 billion less of a deficit than even the Democratic budget and $339 
billion less cumulative deficit than the President's budget. In fact, 
we saved some $18.3 billion less in interest than the Democratic budget 
and $27.7 billion in interest than the President's budget. We take this 
deficit and turn it around. We save the country this enormous burden 
that they have with respect to the deficit and the interest.
  In addition, as you can see, interest payments on the debt weren't 
the priority under this President's budget and under this 
administration. They have gotten completely out of control. That is why 
we are feeling the pinch, and the Congressional Black Caucus budget 
responds to that immediately.
  Now, let me talk specifically about what we do, why we represent the 
American dream, why we focus on real compassion, and we do it in a 
fiscally secure and responsible manner.
  We look at this map, we will see the numbers of children that are 
uninsured in America. Some of the States that we would think are 
prosperous States, such as Florida and Texas, the President's own 
State, my State, has over 12% and going as high as 40 percent of the 
children are uninsured; California, 12 percent or more are uninsured. 
Vote for the Compassionate Budget and for the CBC budget and vote for 
the Democratic Budget that strongly represents the needs of Americans.

                              {time}  1045

  Numbers of us in these different colors here, 8 to 12 percent are 
uninsured.
  The Congressional Black Caucus budget is compassionate. Why? Because 
we provide resources for housing. We provide resources for 
transportation. We don't leave any firefighter or law enforcement 
officers behind. And we ensure homeland security.
  But we are the compassionate budget. We are the American Dream. We 
ensure that children, who are our precious resources, have the ability 
to get complete children's health insurance.
  I ask my colleagues to support a budget that ensures compassion and 
the American Dream and believes in eliminating the deficit. Vote for 
the Congressional Black Caucus Budget.
  Madam Chairwoman, I rise to support H. Con. Res. 99, the 
Congressional Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2008. But more than 
that, I rise to welcome a new day. For the past six years, the federal 
budgets put forward by the Bush Administration and the Republican 
Congress have cut funds for critical American priorities and, 
incredibly, turned a $5.4 trillion surplus into a $8.8 trillion deficit 
over the same period. Starting today, the new Democratic majority in 
the House leads America in a new fiscal direction. And we do it without 
raising taxes. In fact, Madam Chairwoman, thanks to the treatment and 
applicability of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) called for in the 
budget resolution, 19 million Americans will pay less in taxes that 
they otherwise would. This week we will pass a fiscally responsible 
budget with the right priorities for the American people, present and 
future.
  For that, I wish to thank the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. 
Spratt, a man of uncommon grace and mastery of budgetary arcane. I wish 
to thank our great Speaker, Ms. Pelosi, for never letting us forget 
that we are here for one reason only, and that is to address the real 
needs and priorities of real Americans confronting the real problems of 
their real lives in the real world. Finally, let me thank the 
remarkable leadership team which has worked long, hard, and tireless to 
keep us informed, cooperative, and united in our resolve to do the 
necessary work to America better.
  Madam Chairwoman, H. Con. Res. 99, better reflects the priorities and 
values of the American people. After all, a budget is much more than a 
balance sheet, an income statement, a financial scorecard. Rather, it 
the expression in fiscal terms of who we are and what we believe. In 
short, a budget is a financial reflection of our national character. 
And as it is by a person's character that you know her, so too it is 
with a nation. Look at a nation's budget and you will see how it treats 
its children in the dawn of life; its elderly in the twilight of life; 
its poor and disabled and helpless in the shadows of life; and the 
earth, the sustainer of life. Look closely at the choices it makes 
regarding the neediest and most vulnerable of its people, and you will 
know the true character of a nation.
  Madam Chairwoman, America and the world can be proud of the choices 
we make in this budget resolution. Unlike the budgets of the last six 
years, the budget brought to the floor by the new House majority 
reflects the best angels of our nature. As I discuss in more detail, H. 
Con. Res. 99 expands health care for our children. It provides our 
soldiers and veterans with the care worthy of their sacrifice; it is 
faithful to President Lincoln's injunction ``to care for him who has 
borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan.'' This budget 
resolution supports education for a 21st century workforce and a 
growing economy. It invests in renewable energy for an energy 
independent America that faces up to the challenge of global warming.
  Equally important, Madam Chairwoman, the majority's budget resolution 
represents a return to fiscal responsibility and budgetary 
accountability. I am proud to support a budget that reflects the care 
and fidelity of a wise steward of the taxpayers' hard-earned money. The 
American people can be assured that the new majority in Congress will 
not be profligate with the public treasury.
  The new Democratic-led Congress has instituted ``pay as you go'' or 
``PAYGO'' budgeting, requiring that new spending be offset, which in 
the 1990s helped turn deficits to surpluses. We have also reformed the 
earmark process, cutting in half the number of budget ``earmarks'' for 
specific Member projects, requiring transparency in the process, and 
exposing such earmarks as the infamous ``Bridge to Nowhere.''
  Madam Chairwoman, nothing engenders more public cynicism than the 
shameful conduct of some to avoid paying taxes legitimately owed. The 
overwhelming majority of Americans obey the law, play by the rules, pay 
their taxes, and work to improve their communities. There is, however, 
a small but significant percentage of Americans and corporations that 
do not. That is going to end. In this budget, we invest in an increased 
effort to make sure that taxpayers pay the taxes they owe. The Internal 
Revenue Service has estimated that the tax gap--the amount of taxes 
owed under current law but not collected--has ballooned to $345 billion 
since 2001. This has left middle-class families picking up the tab for 
those who refuse to obey the law. It is shocking to think, Madam 
Chairwoman, that amount of taxes owed by these scofflaws approximates 
the costs Americans have paid to date to finance the Iraq War.

  The new Democratic-led Congress also will save millions by investing 
in efforts to identify and eliminate wasteful spending and improve 
government efficiency in Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment 
insurance. Every dollar invested in conducting Social Security ongoing 
disability reviews results in $10 of savings. The savings could total 
$3 billion.
  Madam Chairwowan, this budget resolution correctly assumes that 
substantial savings can be realized from more vigorous efforts by the 
Defense Department (with increased Congressional oversight) to root out 
fraud, abuse, and wasteful spending. It is totally unacceptable that 
unlike the typical taxpayer, small business, or large corporation, the 
Defense Department still cannot pass a standard audit. The Pentagon 
cannot adequately track what it owns or spends. We just know that it's 
a lot. Defense auditors estimate that more than one of six dollars they 
have audited for Iraq is suspect, including $2.7 billion in sole-
source, single-bidder contracts.
  The American people can have confidence that lax financial controls 
and fiscal mismanagement are a thing of the past now that Democrats are 
the majority party in Congress. Under this budget resolution, House 
Committees will conduct performance reviews to make sure that 
government programs are working as intended. We will work to eliminate 
unnecessary and wasteful spending. We know that oversight and financial 
controls work. Similar efforts produced 385 recommendations for smarter 
ways to improve government services, saving billions during the Clinton 
Administration.
  Madam Chairwoman, the new House majority pledged that we would work 
together to restore our economic health, reclaim our leadership 
position in the world, advance our national security, and invest in the 
future. We promised to restore fiscal responsibility and began by 
instituting tough pay-as-you-go rules. And we have been delivering.
  For example, in the first 100 hours of the 110th Congress, we passed 
with bipartisan support procedures imposing discipline and transparency 
in congressional spending. With

[[Page H3296]]

bipartisan support, we also passed legislation to implement 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, increased the minimum wage, 
paved the way for lower prescription drug costs, cut student loan 
costs, and redirected oil subsidies towards investments in renewable 
energy. We did all of this while maintaining our commitment to fiscal 
discipline.
  The 2008 budget resolution advances these priorities. The budget 
balances in 2012 while accommodating additional tax relief for millions 
of middle-income families. It allocates funding for national priorities 
like children's health care and education. It begins to reverse six 
years of disinvestment in education, infrastructure, and innovation. 
The budget resolution is the crucial next step to realizing the 
initiatives we have developed to move the country forward and to set us 
on a course to build the future we want for our children and 
grandchildren.
  And, as I have stated, it does all this without raising taxes.
  Madam Chairwoman, discretionary spending, or the amount available to 
be allocated through the annual appropriations process, accounts for 
about one-third of all federal spending. The budget resolution provides 
the Appropriations Committee with $954.9 billion in discretionary 
budget authority in FY 2008, $22.1 billion more than the 
administration's request as re-estimated by the Congressional Budget 
Office (CBO). The Appropriations Committee will subdivide this amount 
(known as a 302(a) allocation) among the various appropriations bills.
  In addition to the $954.9 billion in regular FY 2008 appropriations, 
the resolution assumes $145.2 billion in emergency appropriations for 
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for FY 2008, as requested by the 
administration. When this emergency funding is added to the $954.9 
billion in regular appropriations, a total of $1.1 trillion in 
discretionary spending could be available in FY 2008 under the 
resolution. I think it important that the American people know where 
and how their money will be spent.


                         Defense Appropriations

  The resolution calls for defense discretionary budget authority or 
appropriations at the levels recommended by the Administration for 
fiscal years 2008 through 2012. Thus, the resolution calls for defense 
appropriations of $503.8 billion in FY 2008, $531.6 billion in FY 2009, 
$542.0 billion in FY 2010, $548.0 billion in FY 2011, and $566.9 
billion in FY 2012. The totals include funding for the Defense 
Department as well as nuclear-weapons-related activity in the Energy 
Department.

  The resolution also assumes $145.2 billion in emergency funds in FY 
2008--that would not count against the cap on discretionary spending--
for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as recommended by the 
administration. When added to the $503.8 billion in regular defense 
appropriations, total defense spending under the resolution would be 
$649 billion in FY 2008. Like the Administration, the resolution 
assumes $50 billion for these wars in FY 2009.
  While the resolution assumes the same total amount of spending for 
defense as the Administration recommends, it does not propose to spend 
the funds the same way. Specifically, the resolution assumes that 
nuclear non-proliferation programs will be given a greater priority and 
higher funding than the administration proposes.
  Madam Chairwoman, in our resolution health care for active duty 
forces is a very high priority, as will be caring for those who return 
wounded from combat. Specifically, the resolution rejects the 
administration's proposals for increased fees for Tricare, the military 
health program, and calls for a substantial increase in the veterans' 
health care system.
  The resolution assumes continued funding of missile defense and 
satellite procurement programs, but at a lower level than proposed by 
the administration. The budget resolution recognizes the need for the 
Defense Department to root out wasteful spending with far more 
diligence, noting that the Defense Department has awarded contracts for 
its foreign deployments that have been grossly more wasteful than 
domestic contracts, especially in Iraq.


                   Non-Defense Discretionary Spending

  The resolution calls for a non-defense discretionary budget authority 
of $451.1 billion in FY 2008, which is $22 billion (5 percent) more 
than the Administration's request. This includes an additional $2 
billion in advance FY 2009 appropriations that would be available for 
appropriation in FY 2008, resulting in a total non-defense 
discretionary total of $453.1 billion, $24 billion more than the 
administration's request. This non-defense discretionary total includes 
funding for international affairs programs as well as for domestic.
  The resolution's FY 2008 level for non-defense discretionary spending 
is about $10 billion more than the FY 2007 level, adjusted for 
inflation. For fiscal years 2009 through 2012, the level of non-defense 
discretionary spending generally increases at the rate of inflation.


           Education, Training, Employment & Social Services

  Funding for education, training, employment and social services 
programs has lagged during the past six years, so the resolution 
attempts to compensate by increasing such funding by 11 percent ($82.3 
billion in FY 2008) over the president's budget.
  Madam Chairwoman, we reject the president's proposed cuts to 
education programs, including rejection of his proposals to eliminate 
many education programs. We also reject the president's proposed steep 
cuts in job training and social service programs, including the 
Community Services Block Grant and the Social Services Block Grant.
  The increased spending can and should be used for several purposes, 
including Head Start, Title I Compensatory Education program, and job 
training and national service programs. It could also be used to 
increase the federal share of the cost for educating handicapped 
children, and to help improve access to colleges, and broadening access 
to Hispanic Serving and Historically Black Colleges and Universities.


                                 Health

  The resolution proposes $54.2 billion in budget authority in FY 2008 
for discretionary health programs, and higher levels of spending for 
these programs in each of the four succeeding years. By FY 2012, 
funding for these programs under the measure would increase to $58.9 
billion. The FY 2008 discretionary level for this function is $2 
billion (4 percent) more than recommended by the president.
  Discretionary health spending does not include the federal 
government's main health care spending programs, such as Medicaid and 
Medicare, both of which are mandatory spending programs.


                    Veterans' Benefits and Services

  The resolution calls for the budget authority of $43.1 billion in FY 
2008 for discretionary veterans' programs, which consist mainly of 
veterans' health programs--$3.5 billion (9 percent) more than the 
president's request. The resolution calls for increased funding 
for these veterans' programs in each of the succeeding four years. By 
FY 2012, funding for these veterans' programs would reach $48.3 
billion.

  The resolution rejects the president's proposals to increase 
enrollment fees in veterans health care programs and rejects his 
proposals to increase co-payments. The resolution assumes funding to 
implement the recommendations of the bipartisan ``Walter Reed 
Commission'' as well as the recommendations of other investigations 
into military and veterans' health care facilities and services.
  The increases above the president's proposed level would address 
veterans' mental health, post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic 
brain injury, and spinal cord injury. Additional funding could also be 
used to reduce the backlog of disability claims.


                          Low-Income Programs

  Madam Chairwoman, other reason I support this resolution is that it 
provides $52 billion, nearly $3 billion (6 percent) more than the 
president recommends, for low-income programs, including unemployment 
compensation, low-income housing assistance (including Section 8 
housing), food and nutrition assistance (including food stamps and 
school lunch subsidies), and other income-security programs.


                             Transportation

  The resolution provides $25.4 billion, an increase of $2.1 billion 
over the president's budget, for transportation funding, which includes 
non-homeland-security funds for the Federal Highway Administration; the 
Federal Transit Administration; Amtrak; highway, motor-carrier and 
rail-safety programs; the Federal Aviation Administration; the 
aeronautical activities of the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA); the Coast Guard; and the Maritime 
Administration.
  The resolution provides full funding of the highway, safety, and 
transit programs authorized by the 2005 surface transportation law 
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 
legacy for Users. We also maintain Amtrak, provide for additional 
funding for grants to airports and reject the president's proposed cuts 
to aviation programs in NASA.


                   Community and Regional Development

  The community and regional development function includes programs 
that provide federal funding for economic and community development in 
both urban and rural areas, including Community Development Block 
Grants (CDBG) and the non-power-related activities of the Tennessee 
Valley Authority (TVA).
  The measure proposes to spend $13.7 billion in budget authority in FY 
2008 on community and regional development programs, with increases of 
$200 million in each succeeding year, reaching $14.5 billion in FY 
2012.
  The FY 2008 funding level for discretionary programs in this function 
is $2.7 billion (24 percent) more than the president's request. The 
measure rejects the president's proposed cuts to the CDBG program. It 
assumes additional funding for this program as well as for rural 
development and disaster preparedness programs.


                   Natural Resources and Environment

  The resolution calls for $31.4 billion in discretionary budget 
authority in FY 2008 for natural resources and environmental programs,

[[Page H3297]]

$2.6 billion (9 percent) more than the president's request. The 
resolution rejects the president's proposed cuts to the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, Fish and Wildlife Service's wildlife refuge system, 
the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) grants to state sand tribe 
for water and aid quality and other EPA programs. The resolution 
accommodates the president's proposed increases in funding to National 
Park operations and maintenance.


                                 Energy

  The budget resolution provides for funding civilian energy and 
environmental programs of the Energy Department, the Rural Utilities 
Service of the Agriculture Department, the TVA, the U.S. Enrichment 
Corporation, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission. It does not include the Energy Department's 
national security (nuclear weapons) activities of the National Nuclear 
Security Administration or its basic research and science activities.
  The resolution provides $4.6 billion in funding for discretionary 
energy programs in FY 2008, about $300 million (7 percent) more than 
the president's request. The resolution generally calls for spending 
between $4.6 billion and $4.8 billion in each year covered by the 
resolution.


                         International Affairs

  The international affairs function includes international development 
and humanitarian assistance, international security assistance, the 
conduct of foreign affairs, foreign information and exchange 
activities, and international financial programs. Major agencies in 
this function include the State and Treasury departments, the U.S. 
Agency for International Development, and the Millennium Challenge 
Corporation which administers special assistance to developing 
countries that meet certain political and economic standards set by the 
U.S. government.

  For international affairs, the resolution calls for $35.3 billion in 
discretionary budget authority in FY 2008, $2 billion more than the 
amount needed to maintain purchasing power at the FY 2007 level. 
Compared to the president's request, the resolution provides $1.2 
billion less than the request. The resolution assumes the president's 
request for overseas military deployments and the Emergency Plan for 
AIDS Relief, which includes the Global HIV/AIDS Initiative. The 
committee report also notes the importance of adequate funding for U.S. 
development assistance.
  The resolution assumes full funding to continue the U.S. agreements 
with Israel and Egypt made in 1998 on military financing and economic 
support. The measure also assumes additional funding for the McGovern-
Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program.


                     Science, Space and Technology

  The function contains general science funding, including the budgets 
for the National Science Foundation and the fundamental science 
programs of the Energy Department, and programs at NASA, except for 
aviation programs.
  The resolution calls for $27.5 billion in budget authority in FY 2008 
for discretionary science, space and technology programs, about $200 
million more than the president's request. The resolution projects 
gradually increasing levels of discretionary funding for these 
programs, reaching $32.3 billion in FY 2012.
  For all 5 years covered by the resolution, the space funding is 
higher than the president's recommendations and the levels required to 
maintain purchasing power at the previous year's level.


                       Administration of Justice

  For federal judicial and law enforcement activities, the measure 
calls for $44.7 billion in discretionary budget authority in FY 2008--
$1 billion (2 percent) more than the president's request. The 
resolution calls for increases in each of the succeeding 4 years, 
reaching $49.3 billion in FY 2012.
  The resolution rejects the president's proposals to cut local law 
enforcement and first responders programs, including his proposed cuts 
to the Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants program. Increases 
above the president's requested level could also be used to fund 
recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission.


                               CONCLUSION

  Madam Chairwoman, correcting the fiscal course of the country cannot 
be achieved overnight. The fiscal outlook we are confronting has 
deteriorated dramatically over the past 6 years. In 2001, the 
Administration inherited a projected 10-year (2002-2011) budget surplus 
of $5.6 trillion. Within 2 years, that surplus was gone and the United 
States began accumulating a mountain of national debt, adding $2.8 
trillion to our federal debt burden since 2001. Most of this debt has 
been purchased by foreign investors, making the U.S. economy more 
susceptible to economic and political pressure from abroad.
  Madam Chairwoman, we have a responsibility to clean up the fiscal 
mess that we have inherited. The choice to live beyond our means comes 
at the expense of our children and grandchildren who will have to pay 
off that debt. Deficits also hurt economic growth by depressing 
national saving, generating less capital for investment for the future. 
This leads to lower productivity and wages.
  The President's budget continues the fiscal approach that has brought 
us large deficits and growing debt. By contrast, our budget resolution 
takes the necessary steps toward eliminating our long-term budget 
deficit by adhering to the pay-as-you-go principle.
  But a balanced budget must be accompanied by balanced priorities. 
While regaining control over our economic future is critical, we must 
do so within the context of honoring our obligations. This budget is a 
critical first step toward fulfilling our commitments to the American 
people. We will balance the budget. We will be fiscally responsible. We 
will defend our country. We will put children and families first. We 
will grow the economy. We will cherish and protect our environment. We 
will conduct the Nation's affairs in an accountable and efficient 
manner.
  Madam Chairwoman, last November the American people entrusted us with 
the responsibility of leading our country in a new direction. The part 
we have charted in this budget resolution will lead to a brighter 
future for children and better America for generations to come. It 
reflects very well on our national character. For all these reasons, I 
stand in strong support of H. Con. Res. 99. I urge all members to 
support the resolution.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, I would now like to yield 2\1/2\ 
minutes to our first Vice Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, the 
gentlewoman from Oakland, California, Congresswoman Lee.
  Ms. LEE. Madam Chairman, first let me thank our chairwoman of the 
Congressional Black Caucus for her tremendous leadership on this issue 
and so many other issues. And I want to salute you, Congresswoman 
Kilpatrick and Congressman Bobby Scott, for your hard work, your 
diligent work in putting forth a budget that we can all be proud of. 
And also I want to thank our staffs for their dedication and their 
expertise in putting this together.
  A budget is a road map that identifies and invests in the critical 
priorities of a Nation, and I am pleased to say that this budget does 
exactly that.
  For example, this budget takes the very important step, and this is 
important, to address the waste, fraud and abuse at the Department of 
Defense by urging the implementation of GAO's recommendations to the 
Department of Defense. By incorporating just a fraction of GAO's 
suggestions, DOD, for example, has saved over $52 billion over the last 
few years. Imagine how much more could be saved by fully implementing 
these recommendations which are included in the Congressional Black 
Caucus budget.
  While addressing critical reforms at the Defense Department, this 
will go a long way also in shoring up our national security. I am 
pleased to say that this budget shows an understanding that really the 
Republicans have never shown during their years in power, namely, that 
domestic security is national security.
  This budget invests in our communities. It invests in our health 
care. It invests in our future. It helps to lift the 37 million people 
living in poverty into a standard of living which each and every 
American deserves, living in the wealthiest and most powerful country 
in the world.
  It puts $1.5 billion into HOPE VI, into public housing and homeless 
assistance programs. It allocates another $1.5 billion to the Community 
Development Block Grants and brownfields redevelopment. These are all 
critical plus-ups that strengthen and add value to our communities and 
provide that national security and economic security of our people.
  This balanced budget also adds over $1.3 billion to the Ryan White 
CARE Act and the Minority AIDS initiative, and $10 billion into 
children's health to ensure that no child is without health care in 
this country.
  Madam Chairman, this takes a good budget, our Democratic budget, and 
makes it simply much better. This budget is balanced. It is fair, it 
truly is a moral document, which budgets should be.
  So, Madam Chair and Mr. Scott, I want to thank you for giving our 
country really a moral document.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, I would like to yield myself 2 
minutes.
  This bill does not raise taxes. This bill does rescind the permanent 
tax cut

[[Page H3298]]

for the 1 percent of the wealthiest Americans and then reinvests that 
money into American families.
  This bill balances the budget. We reduce the deficit that the other 
party got us in over the last decade, the highest budget deficit in the 
history of our country.
  This budget takes care of our troops, protects Americans. This budget 
is fiscally responsible. We make sure, in our budget, that we invest in 
health care for all the children of America. We also take care of those 
seniors who find themselves in need of adequate health care. Yes, and 
we fund and make sure Medicare, the health insurance for 44 million 
seniors, and Medicaid, programs for low-income and disabled Americans, 
are taken care of.
  Have we spent too much? No, we haven't. Is the budget in balance? 
Yes, it is. We want to make sure in our Congressional Black Caucus 
budget that we are leaders. We come here as 43 Members of Congress 
representing 26 States and 40 million Americans. Ten of our Members 
have districts that are not majority African Americans. We represent 
Asian Americans, Latino Americans, European Americans, Indian 
Americans.
  We are the conscience of the Congress. We bring to you a budget that, 
we believe, is balanced. It is the best budget, and we ask for your 
support.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, I reserve the right to close, and 
I think that they still have more speakers, so I will just reserve my 
time.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, I would like to yield the balance of 
our time to the gentleman from Virginia, Congressman Bobby Scott, the 
chairperson of the Congressional Black Caucus budget, the gentleman who 
has worked tirelessly with our staff, with the Members, is a member of 
the House Budget Committee, and knows the needs of our country.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chairman, we need to review, again, 
where we are, because we have heard lectures about fiscal 
responsibility, and this chart shows where we are in fiscal 
responsibility, way down in the ditch.
  In fact, in 2001, we were on a trajectory to pay off the entire 
national debt by 2013.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin had a chart that showed that by 2040 we 
would almost have enough money to pay interest on the national debt and 
a little bit of Social Security, and that was it. Well, the main change 
in that was interest on the national debt. There would be zero interest 
on the national debt if we hadn't gotten into this mess.
  In fact, at this point, the gentleman talked about what he called 
entitlement reform. For those that aren't aware what entitlement reform 
means, that means cutting Social Security.
  Well, in 2001, we had a 10-year surplus of $5.5 trillion. We needed 
$4 trillion at that point to make sure that we had enough money to pay 
Social Security for the next 75 years without cutting benefits. So we 
had entitlement reform covered.
  The gentleman mentioned jobs that have been created: remind him, 
worst job performance since Herbert Hoover. The gentleman mentioned 
economic development: worst Dow performance in a quarter of a century. 
The gentleman mentioned all these revenues we have gotten: worst 
revenue performance in the history of recordkeeping back to 1934.
  We repeal some of the policies, some of the policies that got us in 
the mess to begin with. This is one of the tax cuts that got us in the 
problem, and you can see who gets the benefits. But not only do we 
eliminate some of the tax cuts that put us in the mess, we are fiscally 
responsible. We use that to improve the deficit. Our deficit has 
improved, over the Democratic budget, $100 billion, over the 
President's budget, $300 billion.
  And, finally, we saved so much that we saved interest on the national 
debt, $14 billion in the last year of the budget. And we are able to 
fund children's health care, enough money in our budget to fund health 
care for all children in America, enough in our budget to fund $158 
billion more on education than the President's budget.
  $158 billion. If you have a city, 300,000, $158 billion is enough for 
$158 million in additional funding for education over 5 years. Imagine 
what your city could do with $158 million.
  We have enough for veterans, $42 billion more than the President's 
budget. We make sure that our cities and communities are secure with 
investments in gang prevention, juvenile justice, COPS and other 
programs in the justice area. We help our communities with community 
development grants, billions of dollars. Diplomacy.
  That is a compassionate budget. It is compassionate, but it is also 
fiscally responsible.
  Madam Chairman, we have a budget that gets us out of the mess that we 
got into. It compassionately invests in our priorities. It is a proud 
budget.
  On behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus, I ask for your support 
for the Congressional Black Caucus budget. I thank the gentlelady from 
Michigan for her leadership on this budget and particularly her 
leadership in the Congressional Black Caucus.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, I will address the House for the 
remainder of my time from the well.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, I wish to compliment the 
Congressional Black Caucus with their budget today because they are 
bringing a serious budget to the floor. They are bringing a budget that 
does achieve balance. They are bringing a budget that reflects their 
philosophies and their policies, and that is important. I commend the 
Black Caucus under the leadership of Ms. Kilpatrick for that.
  This is what we do. We come to the floor with our budgets to 
encapsulate our priorities and what are the visions we have for the 
future of our country.
  This budget does raise taxes. You simply can't get around the fact 
that it calls for $711.9 billion in additional tax revenues over the 
next 5 years to make the budget balance. But that is fine.
  I wish to talk, at this time, about the underlying Democrat budget. 
And let me just quote from The Washington Post this morning. The 
article in The Washington Post this morning, in talking about the 
Democrat budget says: ``And while the House Democrats say they want to 
preserve key parts of Bush's signature tax cuts, they project a surplus 
in 2012 only by assuming that all of these tax cuts expire on schedule 
in 2010.''
  Now, we understand that people say, on the other side of the aisle, 
they don't want to raise taxes. I hear those words. I even hear that 
they say they have these sort of mythical reserve funds, which is 
really nothing more than a wish list.
  So we had all these votes in the Budget Committee. We said, okay, if 
you really don't want to raise these taxes, then let's put it into the 
budget. Let's make it clear. Let's put it into the numbers of the 
budget so that we clearly can tell the American people we are not going 
to raise your taxes.
  So we had a whole series of votes in the Budget Committee to amend 
the budget to make sure taxes weren't being raised. We had an amendment 
to make sure that we didn't increase marginal tax rates. We had an 
amendment to make sure we didn't eliminate the $1,000 per-child tax 
credit. We had an amendment to make sure we didn't eliminate marriage 
tax penalty relief. We had an amendment to make sure we didn't 
eliminate the capital gains and dividends tax relief. We had an 
amendment to make sure we didn't eliminate the State and local sales 
tax relief which applies to States like Texas and Tennessee and 
Florida. We had an amendment to make sure we didn't bring back the 
death tax. Amendment after amendment after amendment, which would have 
made this clear and simple that we weren't going to raise taxes was 
defeated, every single one of them, by party-line votes. The Democrats 
defeated every single amendment in attempts to stop these tax increases 
from coming into this budget.
  Now, let's take a look at what kind of tax increases we are talking 
about. The Democrat budget only reaches balance because of this. This 
is how their budget achieves balance.

                              {time}  1100

  They have $32.5 billion in higher taxes coming from higher tax rates 
on dividends and capital gains. They have $40 billion in higher 
revenues because they cut in half the per child tax credit. They bring 
back the marriage tax

[[Page H3299]]

penalty, which makes people pay taxes simply because they are married. 
They get $91 billion in extra tax revenues by bringing the death tax 
back in full force, and they gain another $78 billion by taking away 
the lower 10 percent bracket for low-income Americans. They bring into 
the government an extra $104 billion by raising all other marginal tax 
rates, and that is also the tax rate that small businesses pay.
  So small businesses, which are the engine of economic growth of 
America, and most jobs come from small businesses, under their plan 
small businesses will pay a tax rate at about 40 percent, when we are 
going to actually be giving a tax rate to the largest companies in 
America, IBM, Exxon, Microsoft, at 35 percent.
  This is how their budget balances: Raise taxes on businesses, raise 
taxes on small businesses, raise taxes on investment in seniors' 
pension funds, raise taxes on people with children, raise taxes on 
people who get married, raise taxes on people who die, and raise taxes 
on low-income Americans. That is the only way, the only reason, the 
only ability that the Democrat budgets actually achieve balance.
  We can do better, Madam Chairman, and the reason we can do better is 
because we have to attack out-of-control spending.
  Washington does not have a revenue problem, Madam Chairman. Money is 
coming in as fast as it ever has. Money is going out too fast. Both 
parties are to blame for this. I am not going to be here and 
sanctimoniously say that our party has been wonderful on spending. No, 
we have not. What I am saying is we have to agree spending is out of 
control. That is the problem. Let's control spending.
  The budget we are bringing to the floor later on does just that. We 
give the tools to get rid of pork. We give the tools to let the 
American people see exactly how their tax dollars are being spent. We 
bring more accountability and transparency to the Federal budget 
process. We reform our entitlement programs so we can extend their 
solvency, so we can make sure that people can better count on Medicare 
and Medicaid. These are the things that we have got to do so we don't 
crank up our debt, raise our taxes, and put a huge burden on our 
children and grandchildren.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of 
the Congressional Black Caucus Alternative Budget offered today. The 
CBC budget will change a 6 year Republican policy that I call Reverse 
Robin Hood, stealing from the poor to give to the rich.
  You might ask why the Democratic Budget, which I support, needs 
improvement. The Democratic Budget needs improvement because when 
America has a cold, African-Americans have pneumonia. The CBC budget 
reverses the deep cuts that have been made in the programs that serve 
the neediest Americans.
  Over a 5 year period, compared to the President's budget the CBC 
spends: $158 billion more on education, training, employment and social 
services; $101 billion more on healthcare; $19 billion more on 
community and regional development; $42 billion more on veterans 
benefits and services; $12 billion more on administration of justice; 
$21 billion more on homeland security; and $5.8 billion more on 
international affairs.
  Even after funding these priorities, the CBC alternative budget still 
manages to balance the budget in Fiscal Year 2012 and in fact, creates 
a surplus of $141 billion.
  As an African American woman who represents one of the poorest 
districts in the state of Florida, I am proud to say that the 
Congressional Black Caucus's Budget demonstrates that fiscal 
responsibility and spending on programs that are important to the 
African-American people are not mutually exclusive. I encourage all my 
colleagues to support the CBC Budget.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
CBC budget and feel extremely proud to do so. This budget raises 
revenue by rescinding the tax cuts for the top two income tax rates. It 
rescinds the capital gains and divided tax cuts, eliminates the phase 
out and repeal of PEP (personal exemption phase out) and PEASE, (which 
makes more wealthy income subject to taxation). It eliminates corporate 
tax incentives for offshoring jobs, closes corporate tax loopholes, 
abusive tax shelters and methods of tax avoidance and closes the tax 
gap. The CBC budget is balanced in FY12 and in fact creates a surplus 
of $141 billion dollars.
  The CBC Budget provides adequate resources to deal with the shortage 
of nurses in this country by providing training resources, it protects 
Hospital Graduate Medical Education and increases funding for the 
National Family Caregivers Support Services Program by $8 million 
dollars. The CBC budget shifts some of the resource allocation from the 
military industrial complex, to domestic spending to deal more 
appropriately and realistically with domestic needs. It is a rational, 
logical common-sense budget which prioritizes peace and economic 
development rather than war and military action.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Tauscher). All time for debate on the 
amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 115, 
noes 312, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 209]

                               AYES--115

     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson
     Castor
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Ellison
     Engel
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Langevin
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Markey
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller (NC)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sires
     Solis
     Stark
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--312

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Gene
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Keller
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)

[[Page H3300]]


     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Ortiz
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Davis, Jo Ann
     Faleomavaega
     Hobson
     Kanjorski
     Lampson
     McCrery
     Millender-McDonald
     Murtha
     Slaughter
     Visclosky
     Watt


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 2 minutes 
remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1129

  Messrs. Altmire, Petri, Young of Alaska, Stupak and Cuellar and Mrs. 
Gillibrand changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. Rodriguez, Becerra, Rush, Serrano, Hinchey, Crowley and 
Rothman changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 209, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``aye.''

                              {time}  1130


  Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 2 Offered by Ms. Woolsey

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 110-79, which is debatable for 40 minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment made in order by the 
rule.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 2 offered by 
     Ms. Woolsey:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2008.

       The Congress declares that the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2008 is hereby established and that 
     the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2009 
     through 2017 are set forth.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2008 through 2017:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,150,937,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,222,766,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,310,761,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,540,991,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,644,436,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,734,699,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,865,665,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $3,006,549,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,156,674,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,317,482,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be increased are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2008: $100,140,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $115,840,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $147,040,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $146,440,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $47,340,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $27,640,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $27,440,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $27,140,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $27,140,000,000
       Fiscal year 2017: $27,140,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,353,935,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,442,610,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,535,026,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,652,452,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,717,674,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,828,667,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,937,865,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $3,055,071,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,217,325,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,322,445,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,402,616,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,465,058,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,538,061,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,646,858,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,697,966,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,810,051,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,918,322,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $3,034,657,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,202,993,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,303,257,000,000.
       (4) Deficits or surpluses (on-budget).--For purposes of the 
     enforcement of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits 
     (on-budget) are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2008: $-251,678,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $-242,291,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $-227,299,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $-105,868,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $-53,530,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $-75,352,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $-52,656,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $-28,107,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $-46,320,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $14,224,000,000.
       (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 2008: $9,295,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $9,654,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $10,000,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $10,219,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $10,399,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $10,599,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $10,778,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $10,934,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $11,102,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $11,209,000,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2008: $5,104,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $5,142,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $5,152,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $5,023,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $4,831,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $4,653,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $4,448,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $4,215,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $4,000,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,727,000,000,000.

     SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2008 through 2017 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $398,744,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $493,286,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $409,871,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $446,218,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $421,524,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $430,322,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $433,189,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $435,605,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $445,237,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $435,975,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $457,936,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $451,495,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $470,915,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $464,070,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $484,527,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $477,291,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $497,989,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $495,508,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $512,131,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $504,943,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,558,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,562,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,617,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,046,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,138,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,298,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,936,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,663,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,714,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,721,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,548,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,368,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,435,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,018,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,261,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,822,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,033,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,603,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,898,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,403,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):

[[Page H3301]]

       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,619,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,449,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,126,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,764,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,656,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,764,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,192,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,669,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,732,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,182,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,298,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,731,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,868,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,291,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,468,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,871,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,047,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,453,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,654,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,045,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,126,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,764,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,937,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,691,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,022,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,250,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,114,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,583,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,193,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,883,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,288,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,858,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,381,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,182,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,479,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,417,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,573,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,532,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,679,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,649,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,713,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,681,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,429,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,798,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,383,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,769,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,052,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,963,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,094,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,443,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,066,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,441,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,147,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,536,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,843,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,189,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,159,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,481,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,384,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,664,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,481,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,047,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,033,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,146,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,238,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,207,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,256,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,534,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,502,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,963,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,843,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,341,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,323,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,813,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,855,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,376,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,478,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,959,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,072,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,478,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,847,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,836,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,652,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $189,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,616,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $222,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,641,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,822,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $557,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,952,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $563,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,002,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $358,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,226,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $264,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,271,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,397,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,090,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $92,701,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $85,871,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $84,918,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $91,260,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $85,736,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $93,558,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $86,664,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $94,170,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $87,544,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $95,773,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $88,465,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $97,245,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $89,401,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $99,052,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $90,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $101,080,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $91,406,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $103,132,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $92,440,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $105,218,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,792,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,590,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,755,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,471,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,028,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,599,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,218,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,571,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,455,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,854,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,519,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,141,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,344,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,441,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,626,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,730,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,927,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,029,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,230,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $114,824,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $102,279,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $118,436,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $112,310,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $122,096,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $117,654,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $124,407,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $121,544,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $127,025,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $123,668,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $129,926,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $126,517,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $133,423,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $129,974,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $137,070,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $133,574,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $140,884,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $137,381,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $144,874,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $141,298,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $310,767,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $305,039,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $331,814,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $328,766,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $349,838,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $349,457,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $311,549,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $370,401,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:

[[Page H3302]]

       (A) New budget authority, $394,682,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $393,687,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $405,069,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $403,648,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $432,515,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $430,676,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $462,190,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $459,904,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $494,433,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $491,703,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $534,065,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $531,073,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $389,566,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $389,685,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $416,710,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $416,364,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $442,347,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $442,569,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $489,077,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $489,087,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $486,804,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $486,417,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $540,509,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $540,743,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $578,438,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $578,437,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $621,256,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $620,761,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $697,785,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $698,014,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $729,187,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $729,166,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $384,578,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $388,437,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $397,573,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $399,481,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $408,429,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $409,273,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $424,216,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $424,074,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $410,474,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $409,717,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $426,369,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $425,129,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $438,065,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $436,839,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $449,761,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $448,287,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $466,647,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $465,168,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $473,677,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $471,998,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,644,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,644,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,518,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,518,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,701,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,701,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,009,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,009,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,898,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,898,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,656,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,656,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,652,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,652,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,535,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,535,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,483,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,483,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $90,207,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $90,887,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $91,641,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $91,619,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $93,063,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $93,024,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $97,416,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $97,409,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $128,472,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $128,297,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $132,946,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $132,770,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $134,557,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $134,405,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $136,261,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $136,087,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $141,593,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $141,562,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $140,005,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $140,030,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,220,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,091,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,797,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,024,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,968,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,258,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,179,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,941,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,410,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,998,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,659,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,142,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $51,959,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,440,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,434,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,893,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,153,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,619,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,826,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,276,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,126,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,058,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,776,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,752,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,398,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,292,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,159,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,890,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,871,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,706,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,578,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,177,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,299,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,888,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,885,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,498,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,638,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,418,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,415,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,984,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $365,581,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $365,581,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $376,713,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $376,713,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $390,894,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $390,894,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $399,750,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $399,750,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $405,529,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $405,529,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $411,266,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $411,266,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $418,293,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $418,293,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $424,021,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $424,021,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $429,637,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $429,637,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $432,297,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $432,297,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $820,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $808,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $854,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $852,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $884,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $883,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $921,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $921,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $957,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $957,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $996,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $996,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,033,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,033,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,075,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,075,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,115,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,115,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,160,000,000.

[[Page H3303]]

       (B) Outlays, $1,160,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $-70,979,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-70,979,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $-66,560,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-66,569,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $-66,933,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-66,933,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $-69,575,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-69,595,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $71,857,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-71,860,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $-75,557,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-75,555,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $-77,982,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-77,979,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $-81,282,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-81,279,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $-84,781,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-84,780,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $-94,228,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-94,228,000,000.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) 
and a Member opposed each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  It is really important that Americans hear every side of the budget 
argument. That is why I am proud to rise today to bring before the 
House the Congressional Progressive peace and security budget 
alternative.
  The peace and security budget balances by the year 2010, which is 2 
years ahead of the Democratic budget, 2 years ahead of the Republican 
substitute, and light years ahead of the administration's budget, a 
budget that doesn't balance anywhere in a 10-year horizon.
  This chart, Madam Chairman, shows the Progressive budget, it shows 
the Congressional House budget, and it shows the President's budget. 
Very clear, indeed. This is about domestic spending, and we will get to 
that later.
  Now, let's look at exactly what happens when we meet our deficit and 
when we go into balance.
  This is the Progressive budget. This is the President's budget. Here 
we are. Here he is. We are light years ahead of the President's budget, 
and 2 years ahead of the Democratic budget.
  The peace and security budget cuts defense spending by $108 billion 
below the President's budget, all the while keeping America safe. 
Actually, the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget spends $395 
billion on defense. That is a lot of money. At the same time, the CPC 
alternative increases domestic discretionary spending to $483 billion, 
and this is this chart. Our spending is $89 billion over the President, 
$58 billion over the Democrats, and if you can believe this, it is $33 
billion more than the social justice groups have been asking for.
  So here you are. We have the President's budget spending on domestic 
funding, we have the Democrats, and we have the Progressive Caucus.
  How do we get there? It's not as hard as you may think. You can vest 
in domestic programs if you aren't spending precious tax dollars on a 
misguided occupation of another nation. Because of this, we assume an 
end to the occupation of Iraq by the end of 2007. This will save us 
hundreds of billions of dollars in the next year alone.
  We also roll back the Bush tax cuts for the top 1 percent of income 
earners. That's people who make over $1 million a year. And we target 
waste, fraud and abuse at the Department of Defense, including savings 
of $60 billion a year by eliminating and reducing Cold War era relics 
that are still being produced in this country. With these savings, we 
are able to put money where it is most needed.
  The peace and security budget keeps its promise to a strong public 
education by fully funding No Child Left Behind, title I, which would 
expand services about $30 billion a year, and it also fully funds our 
commitment to special education, to IDEA.
  Our substitute moves us closer to the promise of a universal health 
care system by putting $75 billion over 5 years into SCHIP to cover all 
eligible children.
  We support a leaner, smarter and more effective national security 
program by investing in emphasizing greater diplomacy and less combat. 
Our budget makes the veterans health care an entitlement, including 
mental health services.
  The progressive budget invests $30 billion a year over 10 years to 
completely transform our energy policy to ensure that our children and 
our grandchildren will have clean and renewable energy sources.
  And, finally, we increase spending for domestic priorities like HIV/
AIDS, section 8 housing, and Community Development Block Grants.
  Madam Chairman, it is time we stand up and challenge what is possible 
in a Federal budget. The alternative prepared and brought here today by 
the Congressional Progressive Caucus does that and does it boldly. It 
puts money where we need it, it cuts programs that have for so long 
been sacred cows, and it says to our country, we want to take your tax 
dollars and invest them in the people of this Nation.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 20 
minutes.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, we have three different versions of essentially the 
same Democrat budget that is being presented today. They are all 
fiscally irresponsible. They all promote the Federal budget over the 
family budget. They all compromise the future of our children and 
grandchildren.
  Let me tell you, Madam Chair, what they have in common. Each one 
would represent the single largest tax increase in the history of the 
United States of America.
  Now this particular chart, Madam Chairman, because I didn't have the 
numbers available in the Progressive budget, shows what the Democrat 
Conference budget would do: Almost $400 billion of new taxes on working 
families; single largest tax increase in America's history. What did 
the Democrats do last time they were in power, Madam Chair? Well, that 
was back in 1993. And guess what? They gave us the single largest tax 
increase in America's history. This particular version of the Democrat 
budget, see that red there? I would have to have another chart to 
represent that tax increase because I believe they actually double what 
the Democrat Conference budget is doing.
  And, Madam Chairman, people need to know that every time you are 
increasing the Federal budget, you are decreasing some family budget. 
Some hardworking family in America is trying to make ends meet. Many of 
those families are in my district, the Fifth Congressional District of 
Texas.
  I heard from one of those families recently. I heard from Linda, I 
will use her first name, in Roulette, Texas. And she writes:
  ``Dear Congressman, that tax increase would mean the difference of 
whether my daughter and her husband would be able to purchase a car or 
not. For my husband and I, it helps us to continue for his radiation 
treatments for his prostate cancer. It allows us to continue to provide 
in-home assistance for my elderly parents, one who has Parkinson's and 
one who has dementia. Please allow us to retain this money for our 
needs. Please don't allow our government to take additional tax dollars 
from us. Please allow us to decide how this money will be spent.''
  Madam Chairman, again, when they take money to fuel the Federal 
budget, to fuel the Federal bureaucracy, they are taking money away 
from hardworking families. They need that money for their educational 
needs, for their health care needs, for their housing needs.
  When is it that you ever have enough of the taxpayers' money? Already 
in Washington we are spending over $23,000 per American household for 
the first time in American history since World War II. We must protect 
the family budget from the Federal budget and prevent this single 
largest tax increase in American history from being imposed on 
hardworking American families.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman

[[Page H3304]]

from California, Barbara Lee, the co-Chair of the Progressive Caucus.
  Ms. LEE. Madam Chairman, first, I would like to thank my friend and 
colleague, our co-Chair of the Progressive Caucus, Congresswoman 
Woolsey, for her leadership on this issue and so many issues that 
relate to peace and security.
  Also to our executive director, Mr. Goold, for all of your hard work 
and all of our staff. You all have done a phenomenal job in putting 
this together.
  As I said with regard to the Congressional Black Caucus budget, a 
budget is a moral document. It defines what we as a community, as a 
Nation, as a society hold as sacred. That is why I am pleased that this 
Progressive Caucus budget also is a reflection of our values and our 
priorities.
  There are several key elements in this budget I would like to focus 
on, especially five main items.
  First, this budget will save up to $623 billion over the next 10 
years by ending the occupation of Iraq and bringing our troops home 
starting at the end of the year. The costs are simply untenable. CRS 
estimates that we will have spent over a half trillion dollars by the 
end of fiscal 08 on this unnecessary occupation of Iraq. This rate of 
expenditure, not to mention the cost in lives and cost to our 
international stability and credibility, is simply untenable.
  Next, this budget takes steps at reducing our bloated military budget 
without compromising, actually, in fact, it enhances our national 
security. It accounts for eliminating obsolete Cold War era weapon 
systems and saves $600 billion over the next 10 years.
  Additionally, this budget would save tens of billions of dollars over 
the next 10 years by implementing recommendations by the Government 
Accountability Office, which they have actually made, to eliminate 
waste, fraud and abuse at the Department of Defense, which our 
taxpayers should not allow to occur any longer.
  This budget increases funding for critical components to help rebuild 
our communities, including those ravaged by Hurricane Katrina. For 
example, our budget increases funding to the Community Development 
Block Grants to $4.1 billion in 2008, whereas the President has 
repeatedly targeted this program for cuts.
  This budget also invests an additional $1.6 billion per year in 
section 8 housing vouchers to ensure decent and affordable housing for 
all of those who need housing assistance.
  Fourth, this budget contributes to our national security interests by 
doing more to meet the growing humanitarian needs throughout the world, 
especially with regard to increasing our contribution to the Global 
Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. We increased this by 
$100 billion.
  Also, let's just say our Nation's security is predicated on a strong 
and healthy domestic population. It is critically important to 
adequately fund prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS in the United 
States.
  The statistics, as it relates to HIV/AIDS here in America, are 
staggering. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 
racial and ethnic minorities represent 71 percent of new AIDS cases and 
64 percent of Americans living with HIV/AIDS. African Americans 
represent 50 percent of new AIDS cases, although only 12 percent of our 
population. Latinos account for 19 percent of new AIDS cases, although 
14 percent of the population.
  I urge our colleagues to support this budget. It clearly is a budget 
that is fiscally responsible and is a moral document.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, at this time, I would like to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. HERGER. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the 
alternative budget before us now and the Democrat budget. The Democrat 
majority party seems intent on raising taxes and increasing spending. 
American families, seniors, and small businesses would all experience 
major tax hikes. Virtually no American would be spared.
  The budget before us ignores the benefits of the tax relief passed 
since 2001. This tax relief has spurred economic growth and created 
literally millions of new jobs. Meanwhile, tax revenue to the Federal 
Treasury is surging, helping to reduce the deficit. Their budget also 
ignores the out-of-control growth in entitlement spending. This is 
deeply irresponsible. The tax-tax/spend-spend philosophy supported by 
my friends across the aisle is bad economics and bad for the American 
people. Vote ``no.''
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California, the Chair of the Veterans' Committee, Bob Filner.
  Mr. FILNER. I thank the gentlelady, and I thank the leadership of Ms. 
Woolsey and Ms. Lee of the Progressive Caucus.
  Madam Chair, I rise this morning as the Chair of the House Veterans' 
Affairs Committee in proud support of the Progressive Caucus budget.
  Other budgets fund the war; this budget funds the warrior. I am going 
to repeat that: Other budgets fund the war; this budget funds the 
warrior.
  Most of us in the Progressive Caucus are against the war in Iraq, but 
we are united in our view that when these young men and women come home 
and all the other young men and women who came home in the past, that 
they get all the care, the support, the honor, the dignity, the love 
that a grateful Nation can bestow.
  We are united in saying we will honor those who come home. They have 
done everything we have asked, they have been brave and courageous, 
they have had incredible wounds both physically and mentally, and we 
are going to give them the care, love, respect, and honor that they 
deserve.
  This is the only budget before us today that says we will have what 
is called ``mandatory funding'' of veterans health care. Mandatory 
funding means we don't have to wait 5 months like the Republicans did 
last year when they didn't fund the Veterans Administration for the 
first 5 months of the fiscal year. Assured funding, mandatory funding, 
means that they will be funded on the first day of the fiscal year, and 
they will get automatic funding that doesn't have to go through a 
political fight.
  We have a President that says support the troops, support the troops, 
support the troops. The speakers on the other side say support the 
troops, support the troops, support the troops. But when they get home, 
who is supporting them? Who is supporting these brave young men and 
women when they come back? We saw what happened at Walter Reed. We saw 
what happened to Bob Woodruff when he had traumatic brain injury--and 
those who were less fortunate than he didn't get the treatment they 
needed. We heard about the young marine who went to a Minnesota 
hospital saying he had PTSD and was thinking about committing suicide, 
and they said he was number 28 on the waiting list, come back in a 
month. He went home and he committed suicide. That is not a Veterans 
Administration, that is not a country that is welcoming its troops 
home. It is time that we fund the warrior and not just the war. Vote 
for the Progressive Caucus budget.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, the Republican budget allocates more to 
veterans than the Democrat Conference budget.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise 
today in opposition to the Progressive Caucus budget.
  This debate today could be described as a debate about the good, the 
bad, and the ugly. A kinder way you could describe it is the 
responsible, the irresponsible, and the reckless.
  We are going to have the House Republican budget brought forward on 
this floor today, brought forward by our chairman, Mr. Ryan, a 
responsible budget, a good budget, a budget that comes to balance in 5 
years without raising taxes and tries to address the challenge that we 
face in the category of entitlements.
  We have the Democrat leadership budget that is going to be brought 
forward, a budget that has the biggest tax increase in our Nation's 
history, and a budget, I might add, that not only includes significant 
increases in spending, but as well makes no effort to deal with the 
challenge of entitlements. I will just quote from the chairman of the 
Federal Reserve, Chairman Bernanke, who said, ``Without early

[[Page H3305]]

and meaningful action to address entitlements, the U.S. economy could 
be seriously weakened, with future generations bearing much of the 
cost.''
  Now, the budget alternative that we have right now in front of us I 
would describe as the ugly or the reckless or the completely 
irresponsible, because not only does it include the biggest tax 
increase in our Nation's history and significant increases in spending; 
it runs up entitlement spending even further. And the part that I think 
is the most egregious, it actually calls the effort of our brave women 
and men fighting in Afghanistan, fighting in Iraq to establish a beacon 
of liberty in that dark area of the world, it calls that effort the 
single largest waste of taxpayers' money and the biggest current drain 
on the U.S. Treasury today.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this alternative budget and 
vote ``yes'' on the Republican budget.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to bring to the gentleman from Florida's attention that 
his budget actually cuts Medicare and Medicaid by $250 billion, taking 
almost $98 billion out of Energy and Commerce and $154 billion out of 
Ways and Means.
  And then when he speaks about veterans and what our budget does or 
does not do in supporting veterans, I would like to remind him that the 
Progressive Caucus budget makes veterans' health care, including mental 
health, an entitlement. It no longer throws veterans out there to be 
debated every year, whether they deserve what we know we have promised 
them and they more than deserve.
  At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, 
Hilda Solis, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the 
Environmental and Hazmat Subcommittee.
  Ms. SOLIS. I thank the gentlewoman from California and my colleagues 
of the Progressive Caucus.
  Madam Chair, I rise today in support of this budget resolution. And 
as you know, Members, this budget marks a new direction for our 
country. It reflects the values of millions of hardworking people 
across the country. And I am proud that this budget rejects the 
President's cuts to core public health and environmental programs. 
These core programs include Superfund programs, land and water 
conservation funds, drinking water State revolving funds, State and 
tribal assistance grants, Leaking Underground Storage Tank programs, 
environmental justice programs, and brownfield programs.
  Under the misguided priorities of the Bush administration, funding 
for these programs at the EPA, if you didn't know this, have been 
dramatically cut back by 22 percent, and our communities continue to 
suffer. Under the President's fiscal year 2008 budget, States will have 
lost over $1 billion in Federal funds since 2004 and may be forced to 
lay off numerous staff, leave vacancies unfilled, shut down existing 
air monitors, or otherwise curtail monitoring programs. Regional or 
contract personnel are making judgments about water safety systems 
despite not even being qualified. And environmental justice, those 
programs are on the chopping block right now. Two-thirds of already 
overburdened cities that are working to create economic opportunities 
by revitalizing formerly blighted communities in our country known as 
the brownfields programs have not received sufficient funding.
  Our budget, this budget, rejects these cuts by appropriating $31.4 
billion for these programs, $2.6 billion over the President's budget. 
This is a down payment so that we can begin to reinvest in our 
neighborhoods and communities, and we are doing it without raising 
taxes for the middle class. I am proud that this budget will help 
improve health care for all our families, secure education, address 
global warming issues, and keep our promise to our Nation's veterans. I 
strongly urge my colleagues to support the health, well-being, and 
economic security of all working families in our country, and I support 
this budget.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to a coauthor of the 
American Taxpayer Bill of Rights, the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. 
Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding.
  You know, it is so interesting as we always debate these budgets. It 
seems that the liberal elites always think they are smarter than 
everybody else in America, and that they need to have the authority to 
come down here and decide how our communities are going to spend their 
money, how families are going to spend their money, because government 
never gets enough of your money. That is one thing you can count on. 
They want government to have it all.
  Well, let me tell you, I have got a little box in my office on my 
desk; it is a tax box. And if you don't think you are paying enough, 
come to 509 Cannon, write out how much you want to give the government, 
and stick it in there. There is nothing that is stopping you. But the 
Democrat budget increases taxes on Tennesseans $2,611 a year. The 
Progressive budget is going to increase it about $6,000 a year. They 
just can't get enough of the taxpayers' money.
  And the fact that they would cut military spending and call it the 
single largest waste, you know what, Madam Chair, if it were not for 
the brave men and women in the U.S. military, there would be no need 
for us because we would not be a free, secure Nation. We are free. We 
remain free because we are ever vigilant. That is the cost of freedom. 
And to deny what they need and to say it is a waste, I am very sorry to 
see that. And at the same time, to increase domestic spending with new 
programs when our friends across the aisle have repeatedly said they 
were going to cut it out, they were going to cut programs, they were 
going to cut spending, that is unfortunate.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois, Jan Schakowsky, who is a valued progressive voice in this 
Congress and a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the 
Global Warming Select Committee.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, budget resolutions give us the 
opportunity to debate national priorities, the vision that we have not 
just for the next 5 years, but for our future. And nothing is more 
important for that future than providing opportunities for our 
children.
  Over the past weeks, many of my constituents have called and written 
to ask that we reject the President's budget priorities, particularly 
in the area of children's health. Nine million children are uninsured. 
Every 46 seconds, a baby is born without health coverage. In the 
richest country in the history of the world, every day children are 
forced to go without the medical care that they need. The President's 
budget doesn't solve this crisis. It doesn't even come close.
  The President wants to cut Medicaid, and his budget provides $7 
billion less than what is needed just to maintain current caseloads in 
the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Shortfalls would 
continue. States would have to put more children on waiting lists. 
Benefits would be reduced.
  The Progressive Caucus believes that no child should be forced to 
stand in a long line when it comes to health care. Our budget provides 
enough funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program to cover 
every eligible child. Our budget truly puts children first. Like the 
Spratt budget, which provides an additional $50 billion in SCHIP money, 
we are setting the priorities that will keep American children healthy 
and make our country strong.
  The Republicans care about families all right, rich families. And 
they care about children. It just doesn't happen to be the children of 
ordinary working families in this country. The Progressive Caucus 
budget does take care of those families.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Campbell), the chairman of the Budget and Spending 
Task Force of the Republican Study Committee and the coauthor of the 
American Taxpayer Bill of Rights.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
from Texas for yielding.
  You know, I would like to give some credit to my colleague from 
California, the author of this particular budget. It raises taxes; it 
raises taxes a whole, whole bunch.
  But the lady from California, my colleague, stood up here and 
admitted

[[Page H3306]]

that. She said, yeah, we're raising taxes in this budget. That's what 
we're doing.
  Raising taxes is a legitimate policy decision. It is something, Madam 
Chair, that people can make a decision to do. And in all three 
Democratic budgets, the authors have made the decision to raise taxes. 
They have made the decision to raise taxes. But in this budget, the 
people behind this are standing up here and are proud about it. We 
admit it, we're proud of it, and that's what we're doing. They are 
standing behind that policy decision to raise taxes. They are raising 
taxes on almost everyone, and they are proud to do that.
  I think it is not a particularly good policy decision, but it is a 
legitimate one. They are raising taxes in all three of these budgets 
anywhere from $3,000 per taxpayer to $7,500 per taxpayer per year. It 
is a legitimate policy decision. I think it happens to be not a 
particularly good one, but at least they are standing up and saying, 
that's what we want to do, and that's what we're going to do, and 
that's how we're going to raise the budget.
  Democrats have put together these three budgets that are raising 
taxes. Be proud that you are raising taxes if that's what you want to 
do, because that's what you're doing. Be proud of it. Stand behind it. 
Don't pretend like you're not doing it.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, I would like first to yield for a unanimous 
consent request to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the 
Democratic budget resolution.
  The best word to describe this budget is ``balanced.''
  First, it balances our Nation's books by bringing our country back to 
surplus by 2012, thanks in large part to the PAYGO rules this Chamber 
passed as part of our fiscal responsibility package.
  This budget also balances our Nation's many priorities by providing 
adequate funding for our defense and homeland security, while also 
paying much-needed attention to our deserving domestic priorities and 
social programs.
  This budget proves that Democrats pay more than lip service to our 
Nation's veterans by providing $6.6 billion over last year's funding 
for veterans' services.
  As a member of Energy and Commerce, I would like to thank the Budget 
Committee for including a $50 billion reserve fund for the expansion of 
the S-CHIP program.
  Of course, we understand that our reauthorization bill will be 
subject to PAYGO rules, but this reserve fund is an important first 
step in increasing access to health care for the nearly 6 million 
children who are eligible for S-CHIP but not enrolled.
  I applaud the Budget Committee for rejecting the administration's 
cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.
  I also appreciate the budget's refusal to incorporate the 
administration's cuts to LIHEAP, which should be further expanded to 
ensure that millions of low-income folks in southern States receive the 
assistance they need to cool their homes during the oppressive summer 
months.
  What a difference a year makes, Madam Chair, and I am proud to 
support Chairman Spratt and this budget, which strikes the right 
balance between investing in the American people and their future and 
keeping our fiscal houses in order.
  I urge my colleagues to support this budget.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Rush from 
Illinois, a leader on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. RUSH. Madam Chair, I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
California and the other gentlewoman from California for their stellar 
and steadfast leadership on these and other matters that the American 
people are facing.
  Madam Chair, as a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and 
both the Congressional Black Caucus and the Progressive Caucus, I am 
pleased to come to the floor in support of three budget alternatives 
that reflect the Democratic priorities and values.
  Today, I want to highlight the value added to the Democratic budget 
by the two alternatives and thank my colleagues who supported the CBC 
budget alternative. The CBC and Progressive budget alternatives offer 
to the American people and to this Congress rational budgets that are 
fiscally sound and morally responsible.
  The Congressional Black Caucus and Progressive Caucus alternative 
budgets invest Federal resources in programs that benefit the 
constituencies of all the Members of this House: education, health 
care, economic opportunity, retirement security, and homeland security.
  The CBC and Progressive alternative budgets make these investments 
while reducing the Federal deficit, which has spiraled out of control 
and out of sight over the last 6 years of Republican rule.
  The CBC and Progressive Caucus alternatives make necessary 
investments in minority health care and for community health centers 
that provide critical health services to urban-based congressional 
districts like mine, and rural-based congressional districts as well, 
and investment in the care and treatment of victims of HIV and AIDS.
  The CBC and Progressive Caucus alternatives invests in our Nation's 
veterans by restoring the cuts the President's budget proposed in the 
veterans health care and veterans benefits.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the 
American people and in support of the CBC and Progressive Caucus 
alternative budgets.
  As a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and both the 
Congressional Black Caucus and the Progressive Caucus, I am pleased to 
come to the floor in support of three budget alternatives that reflect 
the Democratic priorities and values.
  For the first time in more than 13 years, the Budget Committee's 
resolution fulfills many of the critical commitments that Democrats 
made to the American people in the last election: that we would reduce 
the Federal deficit and make investments in the key domestic programs 
that are so important to our constituents, and I will be proud to 
support it. Today, I want to highlight the value added to the 
Democratic budget by the two alternatives.
  The CBC and Progressive Caucus alternatives offer to the American 
people and to this Congress rational budgets that are fiscally sound 
and morally responsible. The CBC and Progressive Caucus alternative 
budgets invest Federal resources in the programs that benefit the 
constituencies of all of the Members of this House: education, health 
care, economic opportunity, retirement security and homeland security. 
The CBC and Progressive Caucus alternative budgets makes these 
investments while reducing the Federal deficit--which has spiraled out 
of control and out of sight over the last 6 years.
  The Congressional Black Caucus and Progressive budget alternatives 
focus on addressing the disparities that exist in America's communities 
and invest in the future of this Nation by fully funding the No Child 
Left Behind Act, expanding the Head Start programs, and funding the 
SCHIP program so that every uninsured child can have access to medical 
care. The CBC alternative also provides needed funds to rebuild schools 
and colleges damaged by Hurricane Katrina.
  The CBC and Progressive Caucus alternatives make necessary 
investments in minority health and for Community Health Centers that 
provide critical health services to urban-based congressional districts 
like mine and rural-based congressional districts as well, and 
investments in the care and treatment of the victims of HIV and AIDS.
  The CBC and Progressive Caucus alternatives invest in our Nation's 
veterans by restoring the cuts the President's budget proposed in 
veterans' health care and benefits. To meet these critical needs of 
America and its citizens, the CBC and Progressive alternatives repeal 
some of the tax cuts to the two top income brackets. Even after funding 
our domestic priorities, both of these alternatives achieve significant 
deficit reduction.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the 
American people and in support of the CBC and Progressive Caucus 
alternatives.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  (Mr. CONAWAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Chair, I want to speak against this Progressive 
Caucus budget in the strongest terms available.
  Over the last couple of weeks, I have somewhat tongue in cheek talked 
about when the Defeat in Iraq Caucus and when the Defeat in Afghanistan 
Caucus get their way that it won't be long before they declare a defeat 
dividend.
  As you recall in the 1990s when the Soviet Union failed, this Chamber 
and others declared a peace dividend. They took money that would have 
otherwise

[[Page H3307]]

supported our troops in the fight and spent it somewhere else.
  I thought it would take until the defeat actually occurred, but I 
come today and find that the Progressive Caucus has already declared a 
$781 billion defeat dividend.
  We have men and women in harm's way right now giving their lives for 
this country. Whether you agree with it or not, that is what they are 
doing. Where was this group last week when they said let's keep them in 
the fight for 17 more months? Why did you stand up and say that was 
okay and yet call what they are doing the single largest waste of 
taxpayer money in American history? You cannot have it both ways.
  Vote your convictions. Get them out of Iraq now. That is a legitimate 
position to defend. But to say we are going to keep them there for 17 
more months, strip them of $781 billion in flak jackets and up-armored 
Humvees and all of the things you would take away from them is simply 
unfair and unconscionable.
  I encourage my fellow colleagues to vote against this Progressive 
Caucus budget over and over. This is wrongheaded. It is not the way to 
lead this country. It sends a terrible message to our soldiers in the 
Armed Forces who are fighting this fight on our behalf.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, how much time do we have on both sides?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California has 2 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 8 minutes.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, of all of the budgets before Congress, this 
one hits the taxpayers the hardest.
  Over 5 years, the Progressive Caucus budget will raise taxes by 
$949.3 billion. Over 10 years, the Progressive Caucus budget will raise 
taxes by $2.4 trillion. Over the next 10 years, they will essentially 
double the budget.
  There is nothing progressive about Democrats raising taxes. That has 
been their only fiscal strategy over the last 70 years. This budget 
spends $643 billion over 5 years and new entitlement spending over and 
above what the President has asked.
  It also spends far less when it comes to military spending on our 
national defense. It drastically cuts military spending by $781 billion 
over 5 years. This is unconscionable.
  Beyond that, it says that Iraq and Afghanistan and our global war 
against Islamic extremists is the largest single waste of U.S. taxpayer 
money. That is coming from their budget. Their budget assumes a dream 
world where we are not fighting a global war on terror. It is the 
ostrich approach, where you stick your head in the sand and hope 
everything goes away. It is ridiculous, and it is not safe for the 
American people.
  Alternatively, the Republican budget that we propose here today takes 
Social Security off-budget, stops the raid on Social Security, and 
achieves balance while not raising taxes. It is a huge difference 
between what Republicans are proposing and the liberal left of the 
Democrat Caucus is proposing here on the House floor.
  Beyond that, what the Democrats are saying with their full budget on 
the floor, as well as this Progressive Caucus budget, that they are 
going to punt on entitlement reform. Every known economist says we must 
reform entitlements. I oppose this budget.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, who has the right to close?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas has the right to close.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, in that case, I am very honored at this 
time to yield 4 minutes to the author of the Republican budget that 
will balance the budget, preserve the Social Security surplus without 
raising taxes, the ranking member on the Budget Committee, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want 
to thank the gentleman from Texas for his wonderful expertise on budget 
issues. He has been a leader on this issue.
  I also want to compliment the Progressive Caucus for coming to the 
floor with an earnest budget and for putting a budget together. These 
are not easy things to do. The Progressives have put together a budget 
that embodies their philosophies, their opinions, and I think that is 
good.
  I completely disagree with the direction of the budget, deep cuts to 
defense, incredible increases in spending across the board, and a $949 
billion tax increase. I think it is the wrong recipe for our economy, 
but I compliment the Progressives for bringing a budget to the floor 
that actually achieves balance, albeit by raising taxes.
  Madam Chair, I want to give a little foreshadowing of our next 
budget. You are going to hear the word ``cut'' and the words ``drastic 
cuts'' and things like that. I think we are going to hear that from the 
other side of the aisle because they propose to control no spending. 
Those chose to cut nothing, not even controlling the growth of 
spending. Rather, they choose to raise taxes.
  On Medicaid, our budget will propose, yes, to increase spending, 
albeit not as fast as it is going right now. This will extend the 
solvency of Medicaid. We propose to increase spending even faster than 
medical inflation.
  What about Medicare? Again, our red line below the blue line, we 
propose to increase Medicare spending and reform the program.
  What will our budget achieve? It will achieve savings that will 
extend the life and solvency of Medicare.
  What does the Democrat budget achieve? An exacerbation of the 
problem.
  Here is what our budget proposes to do on all entitlements. I don't 
even know if the viewer can see the difference between the blue line, 
which is the current trajectory of entitlement spending, and the red 
line.
  We propose to increase entitlement spending each year at 4.1 percent 
a year, instead of 4.7 percent a year. Is that a drastic cut? Is that a 
terrible, awful cut to programs? Let me repeat it one more time. We are 
increasing entitlement spending 4.1 percent a year, instead of 4.7 
percent. That is above inflation.
  Here is the legacy of the Democrat budget. Right now, today, 
according to the Government Accountability Office, the current unfunded 
liability of Medicare and Social Security is $37 trillion. That will go 
to $62 trillion of money that we would have to set aside today to make 
these programs work for the next two generations, my generation and my 
children's generation, by 2012. By doing nothing to save Medicare, 
Medicaid and Social Security, the Democratic budget is actually 
increasing the liability of these programs. The Democrat budget is 
making matters worse by postponing the necessary reforms that must 
occur.
  But there is one thing the Democrat budget does, and it was very well 
described in the Washington Post this morning. Let me quote: ``While 
the House Democrats say they want to preserve key parts of Bush's 
signature tax cuts, they project a surplus in 2012 only by assuming 
that all of these tax cuts expire on schedule in 2010.'' That means cap 
gains, dividends, income tax rates, per child tax credit, marriage tax 
penalty, all of those tax cuts go away.
  Let me make it very clear. We use the Congressional Budget Office by 
law to develop our budgets, and this red line shows you that, in 2010, 
tax cuts go away, taxes increase, and revenues go up. That is the line 
that the Democrats are writing their budget based on. Their budget 
requires, assumes, legislates, needs these tax increases for them to 
balance the budget.
  The green line is the line we use to write our budget. We balance the 
budget without raising taxes, and they raise taxes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, I would like to know how many more speakers 
they have on the Republican side?
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, I will close for our side as I 
understand I have the right to close.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee), the co-Chair of the Progressive Caucus.
  Ms. LEE. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  I want to reiterate the point that this Progressive Caucus makes, and 
that is that our domestic security here in our own country is an 
integral part of our national security.

[[Page H3308]]

  We have added $4.8 billion to our COPS program for local law 
enforcement efforts. We have provided additional funds for gang 
violence prevention efforts; and, also, we have provided additional 
funding for job training and after-school programs. In many of our 
communities, our young African American boys and Latino young boys are 
dropping out of schools in unbelievable numbers.

                              {time}  1215

  We need a strong, robust after-school program with tutoring, and our 
Progressive Caucus provides for that.
  The American taxpayers are compassionate people. They want to see 
their tax dollars spent to eliminate poverty, to provide health care, 
for energy independence, to educate our children. The Progressive 
Caucus budget does just that. It is a document that reflects the 
morality of this country, the ethics of this country, and I am proud to 
support it.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Madam Chairman, this budget, the Progressive Caucus budget, proves 
without a doubt you can keep our Nation safe while investing needed 
necessary funds for domestic programs and you can do it and balance the 
budget at the same time. Our budget balances before the Democratic 
budget, before the Republican budget, and the President's budget does 
not ever balance, it appears.
  We can do that, and at the same time we fully fund title I of No 
Child Left Behind, our investment and our promise to IDEA. We make 
veterans health care an entitlement.
  Madam Chairman, it is time we stand up to the challenge that is 
possible in a Federal budget. This alternative provides that challenge 
to the Democrats and Republicans of the House of Representatives.
  Please vote for this Congressional Progressive budget.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time is remaining 
on our side.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. There are 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Madam Chair, all of the Democrats' budgets are breathtakingly bad and 
fiscally irresponsible for what they do. They impose the single largest 
tax increase in American history on hardworking American families. They 
each represent the highest level of spending in the history of our 
Nation at a time when we are taking $23,000 away, spending $23,000 per 
family for only the first time since World War II.
  But as breathtakingly bad as they are for what they do, they are even 
worse for what they do not do because, Madam Chair, they are absolutely 
stone cold silent on the number one fiscal issue facing this Nation, 
facing the next generation, and that is, reforming entitlement 
spending, which will plunge the next generation into trillions and 
trillions of dollars of debt.
  Don't take my word for it. Take the word of the Comptroller General, 
the chief fiduciary officer of the United States of America, who has 
said that we are on the verge of being the first generation to leave 
the next generation with a lower standard of living. I mean, think 
about that, Madam Chair, because we are spending so much of the 
people's money that these programs that have been vital to people for 
generations will go away. If you do not reform Medicare and Social 
Security and Medicaid, they will not be here for the next generation.
  Madam Chair, as the father of a 5-year-old daughter and a 3-year-old 
son, I cannot sit idly by and let that happen. We must keep faith with 
prior generations by keeping faith with future generations.
  Let's reform entitlement spending. Let's give the next generation 
more opportunity and more freedoms. Vote down this Democrat budget.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
The Congressional Progressive Caucus Fiscal Year 2008-17 ``Peace & 
Security'' Budget Alternative. The American people spoke loud and clear 
last November. They wanted change, accountability, and a new course of 
action. This budget is a direct answer to the demands of the American 
people and steers us in a new direction. With this budget we can usher 
in a new era of fiscal responsibility that this current administration 
has failed to adhere to. The budget is morally sound, as it redirects 
funding to domestic spending programs that benefit the American middle 
class, the backbone of our great Nation. Most importantly this budget 
meets our moral obligation to all of our veterans. This budget ends the 
war and brings our troops home and moves this country toward an agenda 
of peace and security.
  The news of the horrible living conditions at Walter Reed Army 
Medical Center raised our national consciousness regarding the need to 
do more--much more--for wounded and injured service members and to 
upgrade the administrative systems that support them. Simply put, this 
budget treats the heroic young men and women who sacrifice life and 
limb with the respect and dignity they deserve. This budget guarantees 
full funding for health care (including mental health care) for all 
veterans. The Progressive Caucus budget makes veterans' health care a 
new federal entitlement. It will require the U.S. Secretary of the 
Treasury to make mandatory appropriations for VA health care based upon 
the following formula: the amount of funds available for VA medical 
care in FY2008 would equal 130 percent of the total obligations made by 
the VA for medical care programs in FY2005.
  Let us send the right message to our young men and women returning 
home from Iraq and Afghanistan. They deserve better, we owe it to them, 
and we have a duty to answer the will of the American people.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the Progressive Caucus budget and I do so for a number of good reasons.
  First off, all budgets are a way of assessing need and determining 
priorities and when one takes a serious look at the Progressive Caucus 
budget it:
  (1) Projects complete U.S. military redeployment out of Iraq during 
2007, saving at least $187 billion dollars over the next 2 years.
  (2) You should not spend money if you do not have it, therefore the 
Progressive Caucus budget repeals the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 
1 percent of taxpayers due to expire in 2010 saving at least $348 
billion dollars.
  (3) It fully funds NCLB and IDEA and improves teacher corp and job 
training.
  (4) It adequately funds Medicare and Medicaid so that more Americans 
can have access to affordable quality healthcare.
  (5) This budget helps to rebuild America's communities by 
substantially increasing funding for community development block 
grants, community policing, and clean up of underground storage tanks.
  Madam Chairman, this is a budget I can take home to any constituent 
and they will say, right on.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, looking beyond all the rhetoric for a 
moment, we have a responsibility here as the elected stewards of the 
people's treasury to deliver a budget that honors our values and keeps 
our promises--and the proposal put together by my good friend from 
Wisconsin, Mr. Ryan, does exactly that.
  Sadly, the Democrat majority has squandered its first opportunity in 
over a decade to set our fiscal priorities.
  Despite the pledges of fiscal responsibility that echoed through this 
chamber at the start of this Congress, it did not take long for the 
heirs of tax-and-spend liberalism to return to their roots.
  Just a few weeks into the new Congress, the majority took a victory 
lap for passing an omnibus spending bill that contained about $500 
million in hidden earmarks.
  And then last week, they patted themselves on the back for loading up 
an emergency troop funding bill with enough pork barrel projects to 
make Donald Trump blush.
  And if it was not enough to use our young men and women in combat as 
oxen to carry that wagon load of pork across the President's desk, this 
budget will saddle their generation with a greater tax burden to bear 
and unbearable choices to make.
  The Democrat budget takes the tax hammer to 115 million Americans--
from married couples and families with children to senior citizens and 
small business owners.
  We have got millions of Floridians filing their 2006 tax returns 
right now--these are folks still in need of significant property tax 
relief. And I am going to head down there soon and let them know that 
they better start getting their ducks in a row because not too long 
from now, the new Democrat Congress will slam them with an average tax 
increase of $3,039.
  The proposal put together by Mr. Ryan protects caps gains and 
dividend tax relief, maintains the new, low 10-percent tax bracket, 
takes any marriage penalty rollback off the table, and keeps the death 
tax in the ground--where it belongs.
  In addition, Mr. Ryan's proposal exerts discipline on the government 
spending machine--so we can have a ba1anced budget and a smaller, 
smarter, more efficient government that can deliver much-needed reforms 
on the fly.

[[Page H3309]]

  And look, you can support the Democrat budget and spend all the 
taxpayer money you want on new programs, but if the generational crisis 
of runaway entitlement spending that looms over the horizon is not 
sufficiently addressed, we will not be able to have any of them--not a 
one.
  The Congressional Budget Office has told us that if we do not 
implement significant entitlement reforms, then our shared goal of 
balancing the budget in the next 5 years is nothing more than a pipe 
dream.
  If we wish to continue keeping the promises our government has made, 
but do not act soon, then we will have a choice to make: either raise 
taxes every year until they are nearly 60 percent higher than they are 
today or eliminate every single government program except Medicare, 
Medicaid, and Social Security by 2045.
  This is a coming crisis, and appallingly, it is one born of our 
indecision.
  That's why I applaud Mr. Ryan for putting together a proposal that 
reforms our largest and least sustainable entitlement programs, 
achieving $279 billion in savings over 5 years.
  That is a far cry from the budget resolution Democrats are putting 
forward today, which does not make a single courageous choice--it is an 
incubator of gimmicks and schemes designed to pass the buck to future 
Congresses and the bucket to tomorrow's taxpayers.
  There is no fiscal responsibility to be found in a budget that makes 
our children foot the bill for our inability to make tough choices.
  The sound fiscal blueprint laid out by Mr. Ryan shows that we can 
have a budget that holds us accountable for the choices that need to be 
made to ensure lasting prosperity for future generations.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my concern with 
certain provisions of the Republican Budget Substitute Amendment 
offered by Representative Ryan. I strongly support the tax provisions 
included in the Ryan Amendment. Republican tax relief has led to 
unprecedented economic growth and dropped the unemployment rate. More 
importantly, tax relief gives back to Americans their own money. The 
robust economic growth in this Nation over the past few years is proof 
that individual Americans use and invest their dollars much more wisely 
than the Federal Government does. I am pleased that the Ryan Amendment 
makes the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 permanent and recognizes the 
reality of our Nation's fiscal situation by addressing the out-of-
control growth of entitlement spending.
  However, I want to make clear my views regarding certain budget 
process reforms included in the Ryan amendment. I am strongly opposed 
to giving any U.S. President the power to use a line item veto. Our 
Founding Fathers wisely attempted to curtail the power of each branch 
of the Federal Government by instituting a system of checks and 
balances. Granting the President additional power to veto specific 
portions of a bill instead of the bill as a whole cedes too much 
authority to the executive branch and could lead to unfair and 
unilateral power. I am very disappointed that the Ryan Amendment 
includes a provision granting the President this unconstitutional 
power.
  While I strongly oppose the line-item veto provision and other 
attempts to reduce Congress's constitutional power of the purse 
included in the Ryan Amendment, it is clear to me that this proposal is 
preferable to an alternative that raises taxes by an average of $2,597 
for each of my constituents.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my objections 
to the budget put forward by the new majority in the Congress. Their 
budget proposes the largest tax increase in American history and it 
presses the accelerator on government spending.
  What Washington has is not a revenue problem, but a spending problem. 
Revenues from taxes flowing into the U.S. Treasury have been flowing at 
record levels. Even when you factor in the $1 trillion dollar tax 
relief that was enacted by President Bush and a Republican Congress, 
the taxes that came into the Treasury in 2006 were exactly what the 
Congressional Budget Office projected they would be back in March 
2000--nearly 9 months before President Bush proposed such tax relief. 
Clearly, Washington's problem is not a revenue problem. Washington has 
a spending problem.
  Yet the Democrat budget plan fails to recognize this and instead they 
choose more taxes and more spending. They fail to extend important tax 
relief that has given Americans more control over their lives and 
businesses. It will put the breaks on the economic expansion that has 
put the United States in the enviable position of having the most 
vibrant and growing economy over the last 4 years. We have led the 
developed world in the creation of new jobs over the past 4 years--
creating 7.6 million new jobs for Americans.
  Not only does the Democrat budget impose the largest tax increase in 
our Nation's history, but it also puts spending on an upward trajectory 
that will further imperil our children's future, saddling them with 
even more debt. Not only does the Democrat budget fail to address the 
growth of entitlement spending that is imperiling our children's 
future, but also it makes the problem worse by putting off needed 
changes and by increasing domestic discretionary spending at a rate 
that exceeds the rate of inflation.
  With regard to tax increases, Democrats had a time during the House 
Budget Committee meeting to adopt amendments protecting the tax relief 
that Americans are enjoying today. The Democrats voted lock step 
against each and every amendment that would have protected the tax 
relief that Americans are currently enjoying and that is spurring our 
economy.
  Don't take my word for it, just look at the Washington Post. They sum 
it up in today's paper:

       ``Democrats say they want to preserve key parts of Bush's 
     signature tax cuts, they project a surplus in 2012 only by 
     assuming that all of the cuts expire on schedule in 2010.''
       ``But the [Democrat budget] proposal, set for a vote today, 
     requires either that millions of middle-class families be hit 
     with higher taxes next spring or that somebody else pay an 
     extra $50 billion. . . . That stark choice is the result of 
     the inexorable expansion of the alternative minimum tax, a 
     parallel tax structure that adds $6,800, on average, to a 
     family's tax bill. Next month, an estimated 4.2 million 
     Americans will pay the tax. Next spring, that number will 
     balloon to 23 million unless Congress takes action.

  Sadly, the Democrat's budget has no plan for addressing the 
Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Someone will face a $50 billion tax 
increase under the Democrats budget--we will have to see who is next on 
their hit list as they have already taken aim to repeal most all of the 
tax relief provided to Americans since 2001. Just what tax increases 
are already in store for Americans?
  The Florida sales tax deduction is repealed in this budget. 
Floridians will be hit harder than most Americans by the Democrats tax 
plan, as Floridians will no longer be afforded the opportunity to 
deduct sales taxes. While resident's of states that have a state income 
tax can deduct those costs from their taxes, Floridians have no such 
deduction, so I was pleased when we were finally able to give 
Floridians equal treatment by allowing a sales tax deduction--about 
$650 dollars for a family of 5 earning $40,000 per year. The Democrat 
bill repeals this tax deduction.
  Taxes on dividends will increase. This will hit senior citizens the 
hardest as they often rely on safe and secure investments to supplement 
their Social Security benefits in their golden years.
  The child tax credit is cut in half falling from $1,000 per child to 
$500 per child as if the cost of raising and caring for children is 
going down.
  Democrats resurrect the marriage tax penalty forcing married couples 
to pay more in taxes that those living together out of wedlock.
  The death tax will be resurrected making it difficult for mom and pop 
businesses to be handed down to their children.
  Marginal tax rates will increase for all Americans. The lowest wage 
income tax payers will see their tax bill increase by 50 percent, 
paying a 15 percent tax rate rather than a 10 percent tax rate.
  Capital gains tax rates will be raised significantly. For any student 
of the recent economic growth in our Nation knows that the capital 
gains tax cuts have been a significant driver of economic growth in the 
U.S. over the past 4 years. And, the stimulative effect that the cut in 
capitals gains has had on our economy has actually resulted in more 
revenue flowing into the U.S. Treasury than would have flowed with out 
the cut in capital gains taxes. Raising these taxes, as the Democrats 
are doing will put the breaks on our economy and slow economic growth.
  If there is any doubt about where the heart of the Democrat party in 
Congress lies on taxes and spending, only consider the votes that we 
just held. Over half of the Democrats in the House of Representatives 
just voted for the substitute budget offered by Representative 
Kilpatrick. That budget proposal raised taxes by more than $919 
billion--more than 2 times the amount in the underlying Democrat 
budget. This is not really surprising given that the underlying 
Democrat budget is still $200 billion below the amount of increased 
taxes they will need to carry out their spending plans in their budget. 
So, Americans should be prepared, this proposed $400 billion budget 
that the Democrats are poised to approve today is just the opening 
shot. More tax hikes are in store.
  I would like to briefly address the spending side of the Democrat 
budget. Their budget favors higher spending. They put both entitlement 
spending and spending through annual appropriations bills (known as 
discretionary spending) on a path to receive automatic increases each 
and every year.

[[Page H3310]]

  Earlier this year, the Medicare Board of Trustees issued their report 
on the financial status of Medicare. They stated that Medicare will go 
bankrupt in a couple of years. Yet, rather that seeking to address this 
issue, the Democrats simply ignore the realities and pretend that this 
problem does not exist. It is irresponsible for the Democrats to simply 
stick their head in the sand and pretend that Medicare will not run out 
of money, but that is the path they have chosen--their budget does 
nothing to address this looming bankruptcy. I believe our seniors 
deserve better. If we simply allowed entitlement programs to grow at 
4.1 percent a year rather than the 4.7 percent a year proposed in the 
Democrats budget, we could save Medicare and Social Security for future 
generations.
  Their PAYGO rules continue not only to favor automatic increases in 
spending and higher taxes, but they also allow them to spend now and 
pay for the spending later. By spending now, they also increase the 
baseline budget so that it is easier to continue increased spending in 
future years.
  The Democrat budget also eliminates the domestic emergency reserve 
fund contained in the current law, and provides no criteria for 
domestic emergency spending--which is exempt from budget disciplines. 
Absent a reserve fund, Democrats are destined to repeat in 2008, what 
they just did this month--designate another $28 billion in ``emergency 
spending'' bypassing all of the budgetary discipline rules. If there is 
any doubt about the Democrats' lack of budgetary discipline the fact 
that the majority of their caucus just voted for substitute budgets 
that increase taxes by between $950 and $717 billion. That is more than 
twice the tax increase in their base bill. And on the spending side, 
these alternative budgets would have increased spending by hundreds of 
billions of dollars more.
  Another unrealistic assumption in the Democrat budget plan is their 
assumption that they will receive over $392.5 billion in new tax 
revenue that they will be able to use for spending and reducing the 
deficit by closing the mystical tax gap. Yet The Commissioner of the 
Internal Revenue Service has testified the IRS could collect, at best, 
about $20 billion of these taxes 5 years after implementing specific 
policies recommended in the President's budget.
  The Democrats remove the firewall between defense and non-defense 
spending enabling them to cut the defense spending further and spend 
the money on other programs.
  If there was ever any doubt about that Congressional Democrats are 
the party of ``Tax and Spend'' those doubts are put to bed today, as 
they have come out in spades for both.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for Mr. 
Ryan's budget alternative. While I maintain that we could have done a 
better job balancing the budget in a shorter timeframe, it is a good 
first step in tackling runaway entitlement spending.
  This debate is more that just a debate about numbers. It is a debate 
about who we are as Americans, what we believe and hold sacred, and 
what we want the future to hold for our children. It is also about how 
Congress spends hard working taxpayer's dollars.
  Democrats and Republicans differ philosophically on these issues. 
John Locke, who inspired our Founding Fathers, wrote that one of the 
ends of political society is the preservation of one's property.
  The Democrat budget violates this principle by redistributing your 
hard earned tax dollars to their favorite projects. They spend at a 
deficit rate, running up your national credit card, and the taxpayers 
end up getting the bill.
  The big spending Pelosi budget maintains that more government is 
better government. In fact, if the Pelosi budget were a McDonald's 
combo meal, the Democrats would be saying--Super size me! And they are 
sticking you with the bill for their lunch. To protect taxpayers we 
need self-control and moderation. The Pelosi budget does nothing to 
curb the appetite for bigger government or trim Federal spending. True 
courage is taking a tough stand and choosing to cut spending.
  I believe in limited government, not a government without limits on 
runaway spending and high taxes. I believe increased taxation chips 
away at our freedom to spend or save our own money.
  As a small businessman who built his business from the ground up, I 
know that it is individuals who put their hard work and innovation to 
the test--not government.
  I believe that the best way to balance the budget is to control 
spending--not to raise taxes. This Pelosi budget marks the largest tax 
increase in American history--raising taxes on the hard working 
American taxpayer by $400 billion. Each of my constituents in Iowa will 
have to pay an additional $2,777.00 annually in taxes.
  One in five Americans has little to no personal property or savings. 
Additional taxation hurts American families who are trying to save for 
their retirement and children's education, to purchase a home, or to 
purchase a car. The Pelosi budget eliminates the 10 percent bracket 
that helps millions of low-income workers. Raising taxes on capital 
gains and dividends discourages investment and savings. Families will 
suffer from the Pelosi budget slashing the child tax credit in half and 
reinstating the marriage penalty.
  We are told that when we die that ``you can't take it with you.'' 
This is true, but we all hope that we can pass on our nest eggs to our 
children without penalty. The Pelosi budget allows the elimination of 
the death tax in 2010 to expire.
  We must keep American business competitive in the face of economic 
pressure from countries like China and India. Democrats, especially the 
gentlelady from Northwestern Ohio, like to keep a corporate casualty 
list of jobs lost, in the United States. They mention Hershey, Hoover, 
Stanley, Champion, Ford, Chrysler, Huffy, Zebco, Levis and Maytag, as 
companies who have shipped thousands of U.S. jobs to other countries. 
Some of these companies could no longer compete globally and were 
eventually bought out or shut down.
  The Pelosi budget will accelerate this process and will burden 
American businesses, which employ and create new jobs for American 
workers. It will usher in the largest tax hike in history. It will 
raise taxes on our small businesses and the manufacturers making it 
that much harder for them to compete in the world economy. Our 
businesses already pay the second highest tax rates in the entire 
world.
  Mr. Chairman, I implore my colleagues to stop this runaway spending, 
financed by a massive tax hike on American taxpayers. Let us turn 
around the ship and head for dry land. This Pelosi budget is a sinking 
ship, full of spending loopholes and budget gimmicks. I have no problem 
with Captain Pelosi going down with the ship--just do not take America 
down in the process.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on the amendment has 
expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the 
last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman is 
recognized.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Chairman, today this new Congress will put 
America's fiscal house in order. It will do so by presenting and voting 
on the Democratic budget as designed by Mr. Spratt, the chairman of the 
Budget Committee, and the House Democrats. I wish that it were coming 
to the floor with bipartisan support in the Congress. I know it has 
bipartisan support in the country.
  I commend Mr. Spratt for his exceptional leadership in bringing to 
the floor a budget for the future, a budget that will initiate an era 
of accountability in government spending and in government 
accountability on our priorities. It is a budget that will come to 
balance in both the spending and also in terms of its priorities.
  This putting our house in order is necessary because for the last 6 
years the Bush administration and the Republicans in Congress have 
increased spending while giving tax cuts to the wealthiest few in our 
country, leaving our country awash in red ink, mortgaging our 
children's future. It is just not right.
  When President Bush took office, he inherited a budget situation 
because of the PAYGO principles adopted by the Clinton administration 
with the Democrats in the Congress. Because of those principles, the 
last four Clinton budgets were budgets in surplus. Because of those 
PAYGO principles, coming out of the Clinton years, we were on a 
trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus, $5.6 trillion in surplus on our 
way to ridding ourselves of the national debt.
  Because of the irresponsible budgeting of the Republicans in Congress 
and in the White House, we are now on a trajectory of $3 trillion in 
deficit, a swing of approximately $9 trillion. This is historic, and, 
again, it is wrong. It is wrong for our children. It mortgages their 
future. It is wrong for our economy.
  The fiscal unaccountability will be corrected today with the passage 
of this budget, and I commend Chairman

[[Page H3311]]

Spratt and the Democrats on the committee for taking us to this place. 
Just imagine, we were on our way to ridding ourselves of the national 
debt. We are now on our way to increasing it.
  The budget put forth by the chairman is one that honors our 
responsibilities to the American people. A budget should be a statement 
of our national values. Our Federal budget should reflect what is 
important to us as a Nation. That is how we should allocate our 
resources. We should do it in an ethical way and a fiscally sound way 
and the most honest and open way. And we must do it always with an eye 
to the future, and that is what this budget does.
  It honors our responsibility first and foremost to protect the 
American people, and that is why it has the endorsement of almost every 
veterans group, and they are actively supporting this legislation and 
advocating a ``yes'' vote.
  It honors our commitment to grow our economy, to create good paying 
jobs for the future by investing in innovation, and that is why it has 
the support of the Council of Competitiveness and almost any entity 
that is geared to the future, to innovation and to make keeping America 
number one.
  It honors our commitment to our children, how they are cared for, 
with their health care, with their education and the economic strengths 
of their families. That is why it has the support of so many 
organizations, religious organizations, who see a budget as a moral 
document.
  It honors our commitment to preserve our planet for the future, and 
that is why it has the support right to left, Democratic and 
Republican, nonpartisan, nonconflict, any entity that you can name 
involved in preserving our planet, in energy independence and 
respecting God's creation, which nature is, honoring our commitment to 
nature and to the future, preserving the planet. This budget does that.
  Again, it does it all in a fiscally sound way. No new deficit 
spending; pay-as-you-go.
  Think about what was inherited by this Congress. Think about what was 
inherited by this Congress 6 years ago and the President, $5.6 trillion 
in surplus, now we are $3 trillion in a trajectory of deficit. It is 
just not right. We can reverse it today.
  Again, the support outside this Congress indicates that the American 
people are so far ahead of the Congress of the United States when they 
think about our values and how our budget should reflect those values, 
about accountability and how responsible we should be for the 
taxpayers' dollars and about the future.
  So I urge my colleagues to support the Spratt House Democratic 
budget. To vote ``aye'' on that is a vote for the future. It is a vote 
for a new era of accountability. It is a vote for a moral statement, a 
statement of our national values. I thank Mr. Spratt for his 
leadership.


  Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 2 Offered by Ms. Woolsey

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the 
unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) 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 CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 81, 
noes 340, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 210]

                                AYES--81

     Abercrombie
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Blumenauer
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     Delahunt
     Doyle
     Ellison
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kilpatrick
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lynch
     Markey
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller, George
     Moore (WI)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Price (NC)
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Schakowsky
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Stark
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson
     Waxman
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--340

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Gene
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Kucinich
       

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Boyda (KS)
     Cardoza
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Faleomavaega
     Hooley
     Hunter
     Kanjorski
     Lampson
     Lewis (CA)
     Millender-McDonald
     Moran (VA)
     Oberstar
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Smith (TX)
     Watt


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 
2 minutes remaining in this vote.

[[Page H3312]]

                              {time}  1249

  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Mr. BOOZMAN and Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. POMEROY. Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 210, I was unavoidably 
detained on an important constituent matter and arrived at the House 
floor after the time for voting had expired. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''
  Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 210, I missed 
this vote because I was meeting with constituents from Kansas. I 
arrived moments after the vote was closed. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``no.''
  Ms. HOOLEY. Madam Chairman, on rollcall 210, on House Concurrent 
Resolution 99, on the budget for the fiscal year 2008, had I been 
present I would have voted ``no.''


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  March 29, 2007--On Page H3312 the following appeared: Ms. 
HOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, on
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: Ms. HOOLEY. 
Madam Chairman, on


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 



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

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Thompson of California). It is now in order 
to consider amendment No. 3 printed in House Report 110-79, which is 
debatable for 40 minutes.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2008.

       (a) Declaration.--The Congress declares that the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008 is hereby 
     established and that the appropriate budgetary levels for 
     fiscal years 2009 through 2012 are set forth.
       (b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

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

                        TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

Sec. 201. Reconciliation in the House of Representatives.

                      TITLE III--POLICY STATEMENTS

Sec. 301. Policy of the United States Congress on taxation.
Sec. 302. Policy of the United States Congress on entitlement spending.

                  TITLE IV--GENERAL BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 401. Restrictions on advance appropriations.
Sec. 402. Contingency operations related to the global war on terrorism 
              and for unanticipated defense needs.
Sec. 403. Application and effect of changes in allocations and 
              aggregates.
Sec. 404. Adjustments to reflect changes in concepts and definitions.
Sec. 405. Compliance with section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act 
              of 1990.
Sec. 406. Exercise of rulemaking powers.
Sec. 407. Adjustments for tax legislation.
Sec. 408. Repeal of the Gephardt rule.
Sec. 409. Budget compliance statements.
Sec. 410. Cost estimates for conference reports and unreported 
              measures.
Sec. 411. Roll call votes for new spending.
Sec. 412. Budget process reform.
Sec. 413. Treasury Department study and report.
Sec. 414. Assistance by Federal agencies to standing committees of the 
              Senate and the House of Representatives.
Sec. 415. Budgetary treatment of the National Flood Insurance Program.

                    TITLE V--EMERGENCY RESERVE FUND

Sec. 501. Nondefense reserve fund for emergencies.
Sec. 502. Emergency criteria.
Sec. 503. Development of guidelines for application of emergency 
              definition.
Sec. 504. Committee notification of emergency legislation.
Sec. 505. Up-to-date tabulations.

             TITLE VI--LEGISLATIVE LINE ITEM VETO AUTHORITY

Sec. 601. Presidential recommendations.
Sec. 602. Procedures in United States Congress.
Sec. 603. Identification of targeted tax benefits.
Sec. 604. Additional matters.
Sec. 605. Expiration.
Sec. 606. Sense of Congress on deferral authority.
Sec. 607. Sense of Congress on abuse of proposed cancellations.

                    TITLE VII--EARMARK TRANSPARENCY

Sec. 701. Prohibition on obligation of funds for earmarks included only 
              in congressional reports.
Sec. 702. Definitions.

                       TITLE VIII--PAY-AS-YOU-GO.

Sec. 801. Pay-as-you-go point of order.

                TITLE IX--DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

Sec. 901. Discretionary spending limits in the House.

                      TITLE X--SENSES OF CONGRESS

Sec. 1001. Sense of the House regarding the importance of child support 
              enforcement.
Sec. 1002. Sense of the House on State veterans cemetaries.
Sec. 1003. Sense of Congress on health insurance reform.
Sec. 1004. Sense of the House on the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2008 through 2012:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,002,088,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,097,634,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,148,718,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,244,002,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,374,337,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be decreased are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2008: $48,912,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $9,366,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $15,282,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $150,998,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $222,663,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,452,253,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,432,323,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,464,843,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,575,993,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,613,919,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,427,922,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,484,251,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,468,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,529,608,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,530,737,000,000.
       (4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget) 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2008: $425,834,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $386,617,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $319,682,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $285,609,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $156,400,000,000.
       (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 2008: $9,476,349,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $9,979,952,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $10,418,522,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $10,820,002,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $11,105,786,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2008: $5,284,759,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $5,467,610,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $5,570,986,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $5,624,371,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $5,537,610,000,000.

     SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2008 through 2012 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $648,770,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $617,792,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $584,705,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $626,892,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $550,790,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $561,384,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $564,117,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $536,057,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $579,375,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $525,407,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,989,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,637,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,387,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,263,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,199,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,873,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,268,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,679,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,336,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,774,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,461,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,413,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,083,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,674,000,000.

[[Page H3313]]

       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,083,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,531,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,083,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,915,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,083,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,894,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,513,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $488,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,751,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,258,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,754,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,340,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,748,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,294,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,726,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,499,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,564,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,425,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,411,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,958,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,754,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,365,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,129,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,250,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,890,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,330,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,401,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,183,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,412,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,988,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,120,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,502,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,876,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,099,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,645,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,127,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,237,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,020,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-413,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,731,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-638,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,486,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-1,105,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,384,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-845,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $79,363,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $79,252,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $73,326,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $80,458,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $73,419,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $80,553,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $73,445,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $79,371,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $73,441,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $79,041,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,376,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,123,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,020,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,179,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,930,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,106,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,968,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,695,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,052,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,306,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $84,465,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $84,263,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $87,802,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $86,146,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $88,652,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $86,697,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $87,541,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $86,709,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $87,560,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $85,480,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $276,635,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $277,551,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $289,549,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $289,960,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $301,940,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $302,472,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $316,550,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $317,366,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $332,483,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $334,000,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $379,676,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $379,821,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $398,904,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $398,592,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $414,261,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $414,518,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $450,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $450,147,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $436,189,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $435,845,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $376,258,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $381,323,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $383,853,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $383,617,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $392,348,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $391,046,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $406,091,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $403,954,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $405,114,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $402,614,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,644,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,644,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,518,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,518,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,701,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,701,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,009,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,009,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,898,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,898,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $84,493,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $84,512,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $89,019,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $89,033,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $92,397,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $90.798,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $98,286,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $96,779,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $96,528,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $94,838,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,765,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,432,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,471,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,631,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,742,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,466,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,995,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,323,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,198,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,166,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,873,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,353,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,844,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,013,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,270,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,262,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,801,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,649,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,264,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,230,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $370,521,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $370,421,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $388,836,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $387,436,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $410,258,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $405,258,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $431,411,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $421,411,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $450,561,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $434,561,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,439,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,544,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $-11,795,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-6,242,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $-5,709,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-6,972,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $-150,000,000.

[[Page H3314]]

       (B) Outlays, $-3,007,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,167,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,286,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $-71,009,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-71,009,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $-66,578,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-66,587,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $-71,869,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-71,869,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $-69,623,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-69,643,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $-72,789,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-72,792,000,000.

                        TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

     SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

       (a) Submission To Provide for the Reform of Mandatory 
     Spending.--(1) Not later than June 8, 2007, 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 substantive 
     revision.
       (2) Instructions.--
       (A) Committee on agriculture.--The House Committee on 
     Agriculture shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending by 
     $452,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, $3,277,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2012, and $9,849,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
     2008 through 2012.
       (B) Committee on armed services.--The House Committee on 
     Armed Services shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending by 
     $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, $100,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2012, and $410,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
     2008 through 2012.
       (C) Committee on education and labor.--The House Committee 
     on Education and Labor shall report changes in laws within 
     its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending by 
     $3,456,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, $400,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2012, and $4,906,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
     2008 through 2012.
       (D) Committee on energy and commerce.--The House Committee 
     on Energy and Commerce shall report changes in laws within 
     its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending by 
     $8,344,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, $30,602,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2012, and $97,359,000,000 for the period of 
     fiscal years 2008 through 2012.
       (E) Committee on financial services.--The House Committee 
     on Financial Services shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending by 
     $00,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, $140,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2012, and $400,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
     2008 through 2012.
         (F) Committee on foreign relations.--The House Committee 
     on Foreign Relations shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending by 
     $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, $90,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2012, and $250,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2008 
     through 2012.
         (G) Committee on the judiciary.--The House Committee on 
     the Judiciary shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending by 
     $265,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, $1,010,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2012, and $3,515,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
     2008 through 2012.
         (H) Committee on natural resources.--The House Committee 
     on Natural Resources shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending by 
     $1,507,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, $535,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2012, and $4,647,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
     2008 through 2012.
         (I) Committee on transportation and infrastructure.--The 
     House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure shall 
     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to 
     reduce direct spending by $460,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, 
     $1,063,000,000 for fiscal year 2012, and $4,272,000,000 for 
     the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2012.
         (J) Committee on ways and means.--The House Committee on 
     Ways and Means shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending by 
     $10,109,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, $41,543,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2012, and $153,122,000,000 for the period of 
     fiscal years 2008 through 2012, sufficient to reduce revenues 
     by not more than $48,912,000,000 for fiscal year 2008 and by 
     not more than $447,221,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
     2008 through 2012.
         (b) Submission of Revised 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(c) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the chairman of that 
     committee may file with the House appropriately revised 
     allocations under section 302(a) of such Act and revised 
     functional levels and aggregates.
         (2) Upon the submission to the House of a conference 
     report recommending a reconciliation bill or resolution in 
     which a committee has complied with its reconciliation 
     instructions solely by virtue of this section, the chairman 
     of the Committee on the Budget 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.

                      TITLE III--POLICY STATEMENTS

     SEC. 301. POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS ON TAXATION.

       The United States Congress reaffirms the statement of 
     principle that the Federal Government should not raise taxes 
     on American families or reverse the policies that have led to 
     strong growth in the United States economy, and instead 
     should move towards balancing the budget by reigning in the 
     Federal Government's spending; it is further the policy 
     assumption underlying this resolution that the tax relief 
     enacted in 2001 and 2003 should be continued.

     SEC. 302. POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS ON ENTITLEMENT 
                   SPENDING.

       (a) Findings.--
       (1) Entitlement growth is unsustainable. Entitlements are 
     currently growing at 6 percent per yearsignificantly faster 
     than our entire economy, and more than twice the rate of 
     inflation.
       (2) Entitlements currently consume more than half of the 
     entire Federal budget. If simply left on ``auto-pilot'' 
     (assuming no new entitlement spending or benefits):
       (A) By 2015 in less than a decade
       (B) By 2040 social security, medicare, and medicaid alone 
     will consume 20 percent of our economy
       (C) By 2040 Americans will have to pay twice the current 
     rate of taxes
       (3) Entitlements must be reformed to survive with the 
     retirement of the baby boomers, the situation will only get 
     worse, making the necessary reforms more sudden and severe.
       (4) Entitlements aren't all that's at risk. If left 
     unreformed, these programs will also impose a crushing burden 
     on both the budget and the economy. Our now strong economy, 
     which has created millions of jobs and been the key factor in 
     reducing the deficit. Entitlements will eventually crowd out 
     all other priorities such as education, veterans, science, 
     agriculture, environment, even defense and homeland security.
       (5) The rising costs of government entitlements are a 
     ``fiscal cancer'' that threaten ``catastrophic consequences 
     for our country'' and could ``bankrupt America'' said 
     America's chief accountant, U.S. Comptroller General David 
     Walker.
       (6) Without ``early and meaningful action'' to address the 
     rapid growth of entitlements, ``the U.S. economy could be 
     seriously weakened, with future generations bearing much of 
     the cost'' warned Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke.
       (7) Spending is the problem. Massive Tax Hikes are Not the 
     Solution. Even if taxes are raised to balance the budget in 
     the short term, entitlements would quickly drive the Federal 
     Government back into deficit.
       (8) The U.S. Comptroller General testified that the United 
     States Government ``cannot grow [its] way out of this 
     problem; eliminating earmarks will not solve the problem; 
     wiping out fraud, waste, and abuse will not solve the 
     problem; ending the war or cutting way back on defense will 
     not solve the problem''.
       (9) The budget must drive entitlement reform. Entitlement 
     programs are well-intended, and provide a critical safety net 
     for millions of Americans, but their costs are out of 
     control, and growing worse every yeartypically without 
     regular reform or congressional oversight. Congress must use 
     the budget process to promote reforms that will make these 
     programs better, more efficient, and more sustainable for the 
     long term.
       (b) Policy on Entitlements.--It is the policy of this 
     resolution that Congress must immediately address the out-of-
     control growth of entitlement spending that may do 
     substantial harm to the United States economy and hurt the 
     standard of living of future generations. Furthermore, 
     Congress must also commit itself to consider during this 
     fiscal year fundamental reform packages to secure the long-
     term solvency of medicare, medicaid and social security.

     SEC. 303. BONNEVILLE POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATION.

       It is the policy of this resolution that it does not 
     specifically assume any savings from the President's proposal 
     related to the Bonneville Power Marketing Administrations and 
     the Energy and Commerce Committee will determine its own 
     policies subject to the applicable numerical allocation 
     limits and reconciliation directives.

                  TITLE IV--GENERAL BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 401. 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) Advance Appropriation.--In the House, an advance 
     appropriation may be provided for the fiscal years 2009 and 
     2010 for

[[Page H3315]]

     programs, projects, activities, or accounts identified in the 
     joint explanatory statement of managers accompanying this 
     resolution under the heading ``Accounts Identified for 
     Advance Appropriations'' in an aggregate amount not to exceed 
     $23,565,000,000 in new budget authority in each year.
       (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance 
     appropriation'' means any new budget authority provided in a 
     bill or joint resolution making general appropriations or any 
     new budget authority provided in a bill or joint resolution 
     making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2008 that 
     first becomes available for any fiscal year after 2008.

     SEC. 402. CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS RELATED TO THE GLOBAL WAR ON 
                   TERRORISM AND FOR UNANTICIPATED DEFENSE NEEDS.

       (a) Exemption of Contingency Operations Related to the 
     Global War on Terrorism and for Unanticipated Defense 
     Needs.--In the House, if any bill or joint resolution is 
     reported, or an amendment is offered thereto or a conference 
     report is filed thereon, that makes appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2008 for contingency operations directly related to the 
     global war on terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-
     related operations, then the new budget authority, new 
     entitlement authority, outlays, or receipts resulting 
     therefrom shall not count for purposes of titles III or IV of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       (b) Current Level.--Amounts included in this resolution for 
     the purpose set forth in this section shall be considered to 
     be current law for purposes of the preparation of the current 
     level of budget authority and outlays and the appropriate 
     levels shall be adjusted upon the enactment of such bill.

     SEC. 403. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS 
                   AND AGGREGATES.

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

     SEC. 404. ADJUSTMENTS TO REFLECT CHANGES IN CONCEPTS AND 
                   DEFINITIONS.

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

     SEC. 405. COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 13301 OF THE BUDGET 
                   ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1990.

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

     SEC. 406. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

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

     SEC. 407. ADJUSTMENTS FOR TAX LEGISLATION.

       In the House, if the Committee on Ways and Means reports a 
     bill or joint resolution, or an amendment is offered thereto 
     or a conference report is submitted thereon, that amends the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by extending the expiration 
     dates for Federal tax policies that expired during fiscal 
     year 2008 or that expire during the period of fiscal years 
     2008 through 2012, then the chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget may make appropriate adjustments in the allocations 
     and aggregates of budget authority, outlays, and revenue set 
     forth in this resolution to reflect the budgetary effects of 
     such legislation, but only to the extent the adjustments 
     would not cause the level of revenue to be less than the 
     level of revenue provided for in this resolution for the 
     period of fiscal years 2008 through 2012 and would not cause 
     the deficit to exceed the appropriate level of deficits 
     provided for in this resolution for the period of fiscal 
     years 2008 through 2012.

     SEC. 408. REPEAL OF THE GEPHARDT RULE.

       With respect to the adoption by the Congress of a 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008, the 
     clerk of the House shall not prepare an engrossment of a 
     joint resolution increasing or decreasing, as the case may 
     be, the statutory limit on the public debt.

     SEC. 409. BUDGET COMPLIANCE STATEMENTS.

       Each report of a committee on a public bill or public joint 
     resolution shall contain a budget compliance statement 
     prepared by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, if 
     timely submitted prior to the filing of the report, which 
     shall include assessment by such chairman as to whether the 
     bill or joint resolution complies with the requirements of 
     sections 302, 303, 306, 311, and 401 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974.

     SEC. 410. COST ESTIMATES FOR CONFERENCE REPORTS AND 
                   UNREPORTED MEASURES.

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

     SEC. 411. ROLL CALL VOTES FOR NEW SPENDING.

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

     SEC. 412. BUDGET PROCESS REFORM.

       Before September 30, 2007, the chairman or ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Budget of the House of 
     Representatives shall introduce, and the committee shall 
     conduct hearings on, budget reform legislation that includes 
     the following provisions:
       (1) Statutory discretionary spending limits.
       (2) Provisions to slow the growth of entitlement spending 
     by requiring offsets for new benefits, and examining programs 
     with annual increases higher than the rate of inflation.
       (3) Presidential legislative line item veto authority that 
     preserves Congress' constitutional power of the purse by 
     requiring an expedited up or down vote on the President's 
     proposals.
       (4) Enforcement tools that restrict the definition of 
     ``emergency'' so that emergency supplemental appropriation 
     bills include only needs that are sudden, urgent, unforeseen, 
     unpredictable, unanticipated, and temporary in nature.
       (5) Accrual accounting of the Government's long-term 
     obligations.
       (6) Periodic reporting from the Government Accountability 
     Office that examine the causes of long-term deficits and 
     present options to reduce these deficits.
       (7) Annual audit summaries from the Federal Accounting 
     Standards Advisory Board for all departments of the 
     Government that represent more than 20 percent of 
     discretionary spending, with recommendations on how to 
     improve the quality of financial information available to 
     Congress.

     SEC. 413. TREASURY DEPARTMENT STUDY AND REPORT.

       (a) Request.--Not later than June 1, 2007, the chairman or 
     ranking member of the Committee on the Budget of the House of 
     Representatives shall submit a request to the Secretary of 
     the Treasury for a study of the impact of the current United 
     States tort system on global competition and gross domestic 
     product (GDP) growth.
       (b) Submission of Study.--The results of the study 
     described in subsection (a) shall be submitted by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury to the Committee on the Budget of 
     the House of Representatives not later than September 30, 
     2007.

     SEC. 414. ASSISTANCE BY FEDERAL AGENCIES TO STANDING 
                   COMMITTEES OF THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF 
                   REPRESENTATIVES.

       (a) Information Regarding Agency Appropriations Requests.--
     To assist each standing committee of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate in carrying out its 
     responsibilities, the chairman of each authorizing committee 
     of the House and Senate shall request the head of each 
     Federal agency which administers the laws or parts of laws 
     under the jurisdiction of such committee, to provide to such 
     committee such studies, information, analyses, reports, and 
     assistance.
       (b) Information Regarding Agency Program Administration.--
     To assist each standing committee of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate in carrying out its 
     responsibilities, the chairman of each authorizing committee 
     of the House and Senate shall request of the head of any 
     agency under

[[Page H3316]]

     his committee's jurisdiction, to furnish to such committee 
     documentation, containing information received, compiled, or 
     maintained by the agency as part of the operation or 
     administration of a program, or specifically compiled 
     pursuant to a request in support of a review of a program, as 
     may be requested by the chairman and ranking minority member 
     of such committee.
       (c) Summaries by Comptroller General.--Within thirty days 
     after the receipt of a request from a chairman and ranking 
     minority member of a standing committee having jurisdiction 
     over a program being reviewed and studied by such committee 
     under this section, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall furnish to such committee summaries of any 
     audits or reviews of such program which the Comptroller 
     General has completed during the preceding six years.
       (d) Congressional Assistance.--Consistent with their duties 
     and functions under law, the Comptroller General of the 
     United States, the Director of the Congressional Budget 
     Office, and the Director of the Congressional Research 
     Service shall continue to furnish (consistent with 
     established protocols) to each standing committee of the 
     House of Representatives or the Senate such information, 
     studies, analyses, and reports as the chairman and ranking 
     minority member may request to assist the committee in 
     conducting reviews and studies of programs under this 
     section.

     SEC. 415. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Treatment.--For purposes of the allocations and 
     aggregates in this resolution, the reconciliation directives 
     established by this resolution, and for any other purpose 
     under titles III and IV of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, the budgetary effects of any bill or joint resolution, 
     amendment thereto, or conference report thereon, or any 
     recommendations submitted pursuant to section 201 that 
     includes the reforms set forth in subsection (b) shall be 
     scored without regard to the obligations resulting from the 
     enactment of Public Law 109-208. Such estimate shall assume 
     the liquidating of the National Flood Insurance Fund's 
     remaining contractual obligations resulting from claims made 
     as a result of floods that occurred in 2005.
       (b) Legislation.--The legislation referred to in subsection 
     (a) shall--
       (1) establish more actuarially sound rates on policies 
     issued by the National Flood Insurance Program; and
       (2) end flood insurance subsidies on pre-FIRM structures 
     not used as primary residences.

                    TITLE V--EMERGENCY RESERVE FUND

     SEC. 501. NONDEFENSE RESERVE FUND FOR EMERGENCIES.

       (a) Nondefense Set Aside.--
       (1) Discretionary set aside fund.--In the House and except 
     as provided by subsection (b), if a bill or joint resolution 
     is reported, or an amendment is offered thereto (or 
     considered as adopted) or a conference report is filed 
     thereon, that provides new discretionary budget authority 
     (and outlays flowing therefrom), and such provision is 
     designated as an emergency pursuant to this section, the 
     chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall make 
     adjustments to the allocations and aggregates set forth in 
     this resolution up to the amount of such provisions if the 
     requirements set forth in section 504 are met, but the sum of 
     all adjustments made under this paragraph shall not exceed 
     $6,450,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
       (2) Other adjustments.--In the House, if a bill or joint 
     resolution is reported or a conference report is filed 
     thereon, and a direct spending or receipt provision included 
     therein is designated as an emergency pursuant to this 
     paragraph, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may 
     make adjustments to the allocations and aggregates set forth 
     in this resolution.
       (b) Additional Adjustment Procedures.--In the House, before 
     any adjustment is made pursuant to this section for any bill, 
     joint resolution, or conference report that designates a 
     provision an emergency, the enactment of which would cause 
     the total amount of the set aside fund set forth in 
     subsection (a)(1) for fiscal year 2008 to be exceeded:
       (1) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall 
     convene a meeting of that committee, where it shall be in 
     order, subject to the terms set forth in this section, for 
     one motion described in paragraph (2) to be made to authorize 
     the chairman to make adjustments above the maximum amount of 
     adjustments set forth in subsection (a). If the Chairman does 
     not call such a meeting within 24 hours of a committee 
     reporting such a measure, any member of the Committee may 
     call such a meeting.
       (2) The motion referred to in paragraph (1) shall be in the 
     following form: ``I move that the chairman of the Committee 
     on the Budget be authorized to adjust the allocations and 
     aggregates set forth in the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2008 by the following amount: $_____ 
     for fiscal year 2008.'', with the blank being filled in with 
     amount determined by the chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget. For any measure referred to in subsection (a)(1), 
     such amount shall not exceed the total amount for fiscal year 
     2008 designated as an emergency in excess of the applicable 
     amount remaining in the set aside fund.
       (3) The motion set forth in paragraph (2) shall be open for 
     debate and amendment, but any amendment offered thereto is 
     only in order if limited to changing an amount in the motion.
       (4) Except as provided by paragraph (5), the chairman of 
     the Committee on the Budget may not make any adjustments 
     under subsection (a) or subsection (b) unless or until the 
     committee filing a report or joint statement of managers on a 
     conference report on a measure including an emergency 
     designation fulfills the terms set forth in section 504.
       (5) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall make 
     any adjustments he deems necessary under this section if he 
     determines the enactment of the provision or provisions 
     designated as an emergency is essential to respond to an 
     urgent and imminent need, the chairman determines the 
     exceptional circumstances referred to in rule 3 of the rules 
     of the committee are met and the committee cannot convene to 
     consider the motion referred to in this section in a timely 
     fashion.
       (c) Application of Adjustments.--The adjustments made 
     pursuant to subsection (a) or (b) shall
       (1) apply while that bill, joint resolution, conference 
     report or amendment is under consideration;
       (2) take effect upon the enactment of that legislation; and
       (3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as 
     practicable.

     SEC. 502. EMERGENCY CRITERIA.

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

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

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

     SEC. 504. COMMITTEE NOTIFICATION OF EMERGENCY LEGISLATION.

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

     SEC. 505. UP-TO-DATE TABULATIONS.

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

             TITLE VI--LEGISLATIVE LINE ITEM VETO AUTHORITY

     SEC. 601. PRESIDENTIAL RECOMMENDATIONS.

       (a) Proposed Cancellations.--If, within 45 calendar days 
     after the enactment of any bill or joint resolution providing 
     any discretionary budget authority, item of direct spending, 
     limited tariff benefit, or targeted tax benefit, the 
     President proposes, in the manner provided in subsection (b), 
     the cancellation of any dollar amount of such discretionary 
     budget authority, item of direct spending, or targeted tax 
     benefit, such recommendation shall be introduced as a 
     freestanding measure consistent with the terms of this title 
     and shall be eligible for the expedited procedures set forth 
     herein. If the 45 calendar-day period expires during a period 
     where either House of Congress stands adjourned sine die at 
     the end of a Congress or for a period greater than 45 
     calendar days, the President may propose a cancellation under 
     this section and transmit a special message under subsection 
     (b) on the first calendar day of session following such a 
     period of adjournment.
       (b) Transmittal of Special Message.--
       (1) Special message.--
       (A) Contents of special message.--Each special message 
     shall specify, with respect to the discretionary budget 
     authority, items of direct spending proposed, limited tariff 
     benefits, or targeted tax benefits to be canceled--

[[Page H3317]]

       (i) the dollar amount of discretionary budget authority, 
     the specific item of direct spending (that OMB, after 
     consultation with CBO, estimates to increase budget authority 
     or outlays as required by section 1017(9)), the limited 
     tariff benefit, or the targeted tax benefit that the 
     President proposes be canceled;
       (ii) any account, department, or establishment of the 
     Government to which such discretionary budget authority is 
     available for obligation, and the specific project or 
     governmental functions involved;
       (iii) the reasons why such discretionary budget authority, 
     item of direct spending, limited tariff benefit, or targeted 
     tax benefit should be canceled;
       (iv) to the maximum extent practicable, the estimated 
     fiscal, economic, and budgetary effect (including the effect 
     on outlays and receipts in each fiscal year) of the proposed 
     cancellation;
       (v) to the maximum extent practicable, all facts, 
     circumstances, and considerations relating to or bearing upon 
     the proposed cancellation and the decision to propose the 
     cancellation, and the estimated effect of the proposed 
     cancellation upon the objects, purposes, or programs for 
     which the discretionary budget authority, item of direct 
     spending, limited tariff benefit, or the targeted tax benefit 
     is provided;
       (vi) a numbered list of cancellations to be included in an 
     approval bill that, if enacted, would cancel discretionary 
     budget authority, items of direct spending, limited tariff 
     benefit, or targeted tax benefits proposed in that special 
     message; and
       (vii) if the special message is transmitted subsequent to 
     or at the same time as another special message, a detailed 
     explanation why the proposed cancellations are not 
     substantially similar to any other proposed cancellation in 
     such other message.
       (C) Duplicative proposals prohibited.--The President may 
     not propose to cancel the same or substantially similar 
     discretionary budget authority, item of direct spending, 
     limited tariff benefit, or targeted tax benefit more than one 
     time under this Act.
       (D) Maximum number of special messages.--The President may 
     not transmit to the Congress more than 5 special messages 
     under this subsection related to any bill or joint resolution 
     described in subsection (a), but may transmit not more than 
     10 special messages for any omnibus budget reconciliation or 
     appropriation measure.
       (2) Enactment of approval bill.--
       (A) Deficit reduction.--Amounts of budget authority, items 
     of direct spending, limited tariff benefit, or targeted tax 
     benefits which are canceled pursuant to enactment of a bill 
     as provided under this section shall be dedicated only to 
     reducing the deficit or increasing the surplus.
       (B) Adjustment of levels in the concurrent resolution on 
     the budget.--Not later than 5 days after the date of 
     enactment of an approval bill as provided under this section, 
     the chairs of the Committees on the Budget of the Senate and 
     the House of Representatives shall revise allocations and 
     aggregates and other appropriate levels under the appropriate 
     concurrent resolution on the budget to reflect the 
     cancellation, and the applicable committees shall report 
     revised suballocations pursuant to section 302(b), as 
     appropriate.
       (C) Trust funds and special funds.--Notwithstanding 
     subparagraph (A), nothing in this title shall be construed to 
     require or allow the deposit of amounts derived from a trust 
     fund or special fund which are canceled pursuant to enactment 
     of a bill as provided under this section to any other fund.

     SEC. 602. PROCEDURES IN UNITED STATES CONGRESS.

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

     SEC. 603. IDENTIFICATION OF TARGETED TAX BENEFITS.

       (a) Statement.--The chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
     Means of the House of Representatives and the chairman of the 
     Committee on Finance of the Senate acting jointly (hereafter 
     in this subsection referred to as ``the chairmen'' shall 
     review any revenue or reconciliation bill or joint resolution 
     which includes any amendment to the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 that is being prepared for filing by a committee of 
     conference of the two Houses, and shall identify whether such 
     bill or joint resolution contains any targeted tax benefits. 
     The chairmen shall provide to the committee of conference a 
     statement identifying any such targeted tax benefits or 
     declaring that the bill or joint resolution does not contain 
     any targeted tax benefits. Any such statement shall be made 
     available to any Member of Congress by the chairmen 
     immediately upon request.
       (b) Statement Included in Legislation.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other rule of the 
     House of Representatives or any rule or precedent of the 
     Senate, any revenue or reconciliation bill or joint 
     resolution which includes any amendment to the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 reported by a committee of conference of 
     the two Houses may include, as a separate section of such 
     bill or joint resolution, the information contained in the 
     statement of the chairmen, but only in the manner set forth 
     in paragraph (2).
       (2) Applicability.--The separate section permitted under 
     subparagraph (A) shall read as follows: ``Section 1021 of the 
     Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
     shall ______ apply to ______,______,000,000'', with the blank 
     spaces being filled in with--
       (A) in any case in which the chairmen identify targeted tax 
     benefits in the statement required under subsection (a), the 
     word ``only'' in the first blank space and a list of all of 
     the specific provisions of the bill or joint resolution in 
     the second blank space; or
       (B) in any case in which the chairmen declare that there 
     are no targeted tax benefits in the statement required under 
     subsection (a), the word ``not'' in the first blank space and 
     the phrase ``any provision of this Act'' in the second blank 
     space.
       (c) Identification in Revenue Estimate.--With respect to 
     any revenue or reconciliation bill or joint resolution with 
     respect to which the chairmen provide a statement under 
     subsection (a), the Joint Committee on Taxation shall--
       (1) in the case of a statement described in subsection 
     (b)(2)(A), list the targeted tax benefits in any revenue 
     estimate prepared by

[[Page H3318]]

     the Joint Committee on Taxation for any conference report 
     which accompanies such bill or joint resolution, or
       (2) in the case of a statement described in section 
     13(b)(2)(B), indicate in such revenue estimate that no 
     provision in such bill or joint resolution has been 
     identified as a targeted tax benefit.
       (d) President's Authority.--If any revenue or 
     reconciliation bill or joint resolution is signed into law--
       (1) with a separate section described in subsection (b)(2), 
     then the President may use the authority granted in this 
     section only with respect to any targeted tax benefit in that 
     law, if any, identified in such separate section; or
       (2) without a separate section described in subsection 
     (b)(2), then the President may use the authority granted in 
     this section with respect to any targeted tax benefit in that 
     law.

     SEC. 604. ADDITIONAL MATTERS.

       (a) Definitions.--
       (1) Appropriation law.--The term ``appropriation law'' 
     means an Act referred to in section 105 of title I, United 
     States Code, including any general or special appropriation 
     Act, or any Act making supplemental, deficiency, or 
     continuing appropriations, that has been signed into law 
     pursuant to Article I, section 7, of the Constitution of the 
     United States.
       (2) Approval bill.--The term ``approval bill'' means a bill 
     or joint resolution which only approves proposed 
     cancellations of dollar amounts of discretionary budget 
     authority, items of new direct spending, limited tariff 
     benefits, or targeted tax benefits in a special message 
     transmitted by the President under this part and--
       (A) the title of which is as follows: ``A bill approving 
     the proposed cancellations transmitted by the President on 
     ____'', the blank space being filled in with the date of 
     transmission of the relevant special message and the public 
     law number to which the message relates;
       (B) which does not have a preamble; and
       (C) which provides only the following after the enacting 
     clause: That the Congress approves of proposed cancellations 
     ____, the blank space being filled in with a list of the 
     cancellations contained in the President's special message, 
     as transmitted by the President in a special message on ____, 
     the blank space being filled in with the appropriate date, 
     regarding ____, the blank space being filled in with the 
     Public Law number to which the special message relates;
       (D) which only includes proposed cancellations that are 
     estimated by CBO to meet the definition of discretionary 
     budgetary authority or items of direct spending, or limited 
     tariff benefits, or that are identified as targeted tax 
     benefits pursuant to section 1014;
       (E) if any proposed cancellation other than discretionary 
     budget authority or targeted tax benefits is estimated by CBO 
     to not meet the definition of item of direct spending, then 
     the approval bill shall include at the end: The President 
     shall cease the suspension of the implementation of the 
     following under section 1013 of the Legislative Line Item 
     Veto Act of 2006: ____, the blank space being filled in with 
     the list of such proposed cancellations; and
       (F) if no CBO estimate is available, then the entire list 
     of legislative provisions proposed by the President is 
     inserted in the second blank space in subparagraph (C).
       (3) Calendar day.--The term ``calendar day'' means a 
     standard 24-hour period beginning at midnight.
       (4) Cancel or cancellation.--The terms ``cancel'' or 
     ``cancellation'' means to prevent--
       (A) budget authority from having legal force or effect;
       (B) in the case of entitlement authority, to prevent the 
     specific legal obligation of the United States from having 
     legal force or effect;
       (C) in the case of the food stamp program, to prevent the 
     specific provision of law that provides such benefit from 
     having legal force or effect; or
       (D) a limited tariff benefit from having legal force or 
     effect, and to make any necessary, conforming statutory 
     change to ensure that such limited tariff benefit is not 
     implemented; or
       (E) a targeted tax benefit from having legal force or 
     effect, and to make any necessary, conforming statutory 
     change to ensure that such targeted tax benefit is not 
     implemented and that any budgetary resources are 
     appropriately canceled.
       (5) CBO.--The term ``CBO'' means the Director of the 
     Congressional Budget Office.
       (6) Direct spending.--The term ``direct spending'' means--
       (A) budget authority provided by law (other than an 
     appropriation law);
       (B) entitlement authority; and
       (C) the food stamp program.
       (7) Dollar amount of discretionary budget authority.--(A) 
     Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the term ``dollar 
     amount of discretionary budget authority'' means the entire 
     dollar amount of budget authority--
       (i) specified in an appropriation law, or the entire dollar 
     amount of budget authority or obligation limitation required 
     to be allocated by a specific proviso in an appropriation law 
     for which a specific dollar figure was not included;
       (ii) represented separately in any table, chart, or 
     explanatory text included in the statement of managers or the 
     governing committee report accompanying such law;
       (iii) required to be allocated for a specific program, 
     project, or activity in a law (other than an appropriation 
     law) that mandates the expenditure of budget authority from 
     accounts, programs, projects, or activities for which budget 
     authority is provided in an appropriation law;
       (iv) represented by the product of the estimated 
     procurement cost and the total quantity of items specified in 
     an appropriation law or included in the statement of managers 
     or the governing committee report accompanying such law; or
       (v) represented by the product of the estimated procurement 
     cost and the total quantity of items required to be provided 
     in a law (other than an appropriation law) that mandates the 
     expenditure of budget authority from accounts, programs, 
     projects, or activities for which budget authority is 
     provided in an appropriation law.
       (B) The term ``dollar amount of discretionary budget 
     authority'' does not include--
       (i) direct spending;
       (ii) budget authority in an appropriation law which funds 
     direct spending provided for in other law;
       (iii) any existing budget authority canceled in an 
     appropriation law; or
       (iv) any restriction, condition, or limitation in an 
     appropriation law or the accompanying statement of managers 
     or committee reports on the expenditure of budget authority 
     for an account, program, project, or activity, or on 
     activities involving such expenditure.
       (8) Item of direct spending.--The term ``item of direct 
     spending'' means any provision of law that results in an 
     increase in budget authority or outlays for direct spending 
     relative to the most recent levels calculated consistent with 
     the methodology used to calculate a baseline under section 
     257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 
     of 1985 and included with a budget submission under section 
     1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, in the first year or 
     the 5-year period for which the item is effective. However, 
     such item does not include an extension or reauthorization of 
     existing direct spending, but instead only refers to 
     provisions of law that increase such direct spending.
       (9) Limited tariff benefit.--The term ``limited tariff 
     benefit'' means any provision of law that modifies the 
     Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States in a manner 
     that benefits 10 or fewer entities (as defined in paragraph 
     (12)(B)).
       (10) OMB.--The term ``OMB'' means the Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget.
       (11) Omnibus reconciliation or appropriation measure.--The 
     term ``omnibus reconciliation'' or ``appropriation measure'' 
     means--
       (A) in the case of a reconciliation bill, any such bill 
     that is reported to its House by the Committee on the Budget; 
     or
       (B) in the case of an appropriation measure, any such 
     measure that provides appropriations for programs, projects, 
     or activities falling within 2 or more section 302(b) 
     suballocations.
       (12) Targeted tax benefit.--
       (A) The ``term targeted tax benefit'' means any revenue-
     losing provision that provides a Federal tax deduction, 
     credit, exclusion, or preference to ten or fewer 
     beneficiaries (determined with respect to either present law 
     or any provision of which the provision is a part) under the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in any year for which the 
     provision is in effect;
       (B) For purposes of subparagraph (a).--
       (i) all businesses and associations that are members of the 
     same controlled group of corporations (as defined in section 
     1563(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) shall be 
     treated as a single beneficiary;
       (ii) all shareholders, partners, members, or beneficiaries 
     of a corporation, partnership, association, or trust or 
     estate, respectively, shall be treated as a single 
     beneficiary;
       (iii) all employees of an employer shall be treated as a 
     single beneficiary;
       (iv) all qualified plans of an employer shall be treated as 
     a single beneficiary;
       (v) all beneficiaries of a qualified plan shall be treated 
     as a single beneficiary;
       (vi) all contributors to a charitable organization shall be 
     treated as a single beneficiary;
       (vii) all holders of the same bond issue shall be treated 
     as a single beneficiary; and
       (viii) if a corporation, partnership, association, trust or 
     estate is the beneficiary of a provision, the shareholders of 
     the corporation, the partners of the partnership, the members 
     of the association, or the beneficiaries of the trust or 
     estate shall not also be treated as beneficiaries of such 
     provision;
       (C) For the purpose of this paragraph, the term ``revenue-
     losing provision'' means any provision that is estimated to 
     result in a reduction in federal tax revenues (determined 
     with respect to either present law or any provision of which 
     the provision is a part) for any one of the two following 
     periods--
       (i) the first fiscal year for which the provision is 
     effective; or
       (ii) the period of the 5 fiscal years beginning with the 
     first fiscal year for which the provision is effective;
       (D) the ``term targeted tax benefit'' does not include any 
     provision which applies uniformly to an entire industry; and
       (E) the terms used in this paragraph shall have the same 
     meaning as those terms have generally in the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986, unless otherwise expressly provided.

[[Page H3319]]

     SEC. 605. EXPIRATION.

       This title shall have no force or effect on or after 
     October 1, 2012.

     SEC. 606. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON DEFERRAL AUTHORITY.

       It is the sense of Congress that legislation providing the 
     authority to temporarily defer spending on proposed 
     rescissions should be enacted.

     SEC. 607. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON ABUSE OF PROPOSED 
                   CANCELLATIONS.

       It is the sense of Congress that no President or any 
     executive branch official should condition the inclusion or 
     exclusion or threaten to condition the inclusion or exclusion 
     of any proposed cancellation in any special message under 
     this title upon any vote cast or to be cast by any Member of 
     either House of Congress.

                    TITLE VII--EARMARK TRANSPARENCY

     SEC. 701. PROHIBITION ON OBLIGATION OF FUNDS FOR EARMARKS 
                   INCLUDED ONLY IN CONGRESSIONAL REPORTS.

       (a) Requirement That Earmarks Must Be in Legislative 
     Text.--Notwithstanding any other rule of the House, in 
     addition to the requirements set forth in clause 9 of rule 
     XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, it shall 
     not be in order to consider any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment thereto, or conference report thereon, unless the 
     list of congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, and 
     limited tariff benefits, required by clause 9(a)of rule XXI 
     are also set forth in the text of such measure.
       (b) Availability on the Internet.--Notwithstanding any 
     other rule of the House, in addition to the requirements set 
     forth in clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives, it shall not be in order to consider any 
     bill, joint resolution, or conference report thereon, unless 
     the lists required by paragraphs (1), (2), and (4) of clause 
     9 of rule XXI are made available on the Internet in a 
     searchable format to the general public for at least 48 hours 
     before consideration.

     SEC. 702. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) Congressional Earmark.--The term ``congressional 
     earmark'' means a provision or report language included 
     primarily at the request of a Member, Delegate, Resident 
     Commissioner, or Senator providing, authorizing or 
     recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget 
     authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for 
     a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or 
     other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a 
     specific State, locality or Congressional district, other 
     than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or 
     competitive award process.
       (b) Limited Benefits.--
       (1) Limited tariff benefit.--The term ``limited tariff 
     benefit'' means any provision of law that modifies the 
     Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States in a manner 
     that benefits 10 or fewer entities (as defined in paragraph 
     (12)(B)).
       (2) Limited tax benefit.--(A) The term ``limited tax 
     benefit'' means any revenue-losing provision that provides a 
     Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion, or preference to 
     ten or fewer beneficiaries (determined with respect to either 
     present law or any provision of which the provision is a 
     part) under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in any year for 
     which the provision is in effect;
       (B) For purposes of subparagraph (A)--
       (i) all businesses and associations that are members of the 
     same controlled group of corporations (as defined in section 
     1563(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) shall be 
     treated as a single beneficiary;
       (ii) all shareholders, partners, members, or beneficiaries 
     of a corporation, partnership, association, or trust or 
     estate, respectively, shall be treated as a single 
     beneficiary;
       (iii) all employees of an employer shall be treated as a 
     single beneficiary;
       (iv) all qualified plans of an employer shall be treated as 
     a single beneficiary;
       (v) all beneficiaries of a qualified plan shall be treated 
     as a single beneficiary;
       (vi) all contributors to a charitable organization shall be 
     treated as a single beneficiary;
       (vii) all holders of the same bond issue shall be treated 
     as a single beneficiary; and
       (viii) if a corporation, partnership, association, trust or 
     estate is the beneficiary of a provision, the shareholders of 
     the corporation, the partners of the partnership, the members 
     of the association, or the beneficiaries of the trust or 
     estate shall not also be treated as beneficiaries of such 
     provision;
       (C) For the purpose of this paragraph, the term ``revenue-
     losing provision'' means any provision that is estimated to 
     result in a reduction in federal tax revenues (determined 
     with respect to either present law or any provision of which 
     the provision is a part) for any one of the two following 
     periods--
       (i) the first fiscal year for which the provision is 
     effective; or
       (ii) the period of the 5 fiscal years beginning with the 
     first fiscal year for which the provision is effective;
       (D) the term ``limited tax benefit'' does not include any 
     provision which applies uniformly to an entire industry; and
       (E) the terms used in this paragraph shall have the same 
     meaning as those terms have generally in the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986, unless otherwise expressly provided.
       (c) Special Rule.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     the Rules of the House, the definitions set forth in this 
     section shall apply for congressional earmarks, limited 
     tariff benefits, and limited tax benefits.

                       TITLE VIII--PAY-AS-YOU-GO.

     SEC. 801. PAY-AS-YOU-GO POINT OF ORDER.

       (a) Point of Order.--
       (1) In general.--It shall not be in order in the House or 
     the Senate to consider any direct spending legislation, 
     excluding the impact of any revenue provisions, that would 
     increase the on-budget deficit or cause an on-budget deficit 
     for any 1 of 4 applicable time periods as measured in 
     paragraphs (5) and (6).
       (2) Applicable time periods.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term ``applicable time period'' means any 1 
     of the 4 following periods:
       (A) The current fiscal year.
       (B) The budget year.
       (C) The period of the 5 fiscal years following the current 
     fiscal year.
       (D) The period of the 5 fiscal years following the 5 fiscal 
     years referred to in subparagraph (C).
       (3) Direct spending legislation.--For purposes of this 
     subsection and except as provided in paragraph (4), the term 
     ``direct spending legislation'' means any bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that 
     affects direct spending as that term is defined by, and 
     interpreted for purposes of, the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       (4) Baseline.--Estimates prepared pursuant to this 
     subsection shall--
       (A) use the most recent baseline estimates supplied by the 
     Congressional Budget Office consistent with section 257 of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
     used in considering a concurrent resolution on the budget; or
       (B) after the beginning of a new calendar year and before 
     consideration of a concurrent resolution on the budget, the 
     most recent baseline estimates supplied by the Congressional 
     Budget Office consistent with section 257 of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       (5) Prior surplus.--If direct spending or revenue 
     legislation increases the on-budget deficit or causes an on-
     budget deficit when taken individually, it must also increase 
     the on-budget deficit or cause an on-budget deficit when 
     taken together with all direct spending and revenue 
     legislation enacted since the beginning of the calendar year 
     not accounted for in the baseline under paragraph (5)(A), 
     except that direct spending or revenue effects resulting in 
     net deficit reduction enacted in any bill pursuant to a 
     reconciliation instruction since the beginning of that same 
     calendar year shall never be made available on the pay-as-
     you-go ledger and shall be dedicated only for deficit 
     reduction.
       (b) Determination of Budget Levels.--For purposes of this 
     section, the levels of new budget authority, outlays, and 
     revenues for a fiscal year shall be determined on the basis 
     of estimates made by the Committees on the Budget.
       (c) Point of Order Protection in the House.--In the House, 
     it shall not be in order to consider a rule or order that 
     waives the application of subsection (a). As disposition of a 
     point of order under this paragraph, the Chair shall put the 
     question of consideration with respect to the rule or order 
     that waives the application of subsection (a). The question 
     of consideration shall be debatable for 10 minutes by the 
     Member initiating the point of order and for 10 minutes by an 
     opponent, but shall otherwise be decided without intervening 
     motion except one that the House adjourn.

                TITLE IX--DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

     SEC. 901. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS IN THE HOUSE.

       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the House 
     to consider any bill or joint resolution, or amendment 
     thereto, that provides new budget authority that would cause 
     the discretionary spending limits to be exceeded for any 
     fiscal year.
       (b) Discretionary Spending Limits.--In the House and as 
     used in this section, the term ``discretionary spending 
     limit'' means--
       (1) with respect to fiscal year 2008, for the discretionary 
     category: $1,079,593,000,000 in new budget authority and 
     $1,127,623,000,000 in outlays;
       (2) with respect to fiscal year 2009, for the discretionary 
     category: $1,004,865,000,000 in new budget authority and 
     $1,121,730,000,000 in outlays;
       (3) with respect to fiscal year 2010, for the discretionary 
     category: $977,058,000,000 in new budget authority and 
     $1,050,106,000,000 in outlays;
     as adjusted in conformance with subsection (c).
       (c) Adjustments.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Chairman.--After the reporting of a bill or joint 
     resolution, the offering of an amendment thereto, or the 
     submission of a conference report thereon, the chairman of 
     the Committee on the Budget may make the adjustments set 
     forth in subparagraph (B) for the amount of new budget 
     authority in that measure (if that measure meets the 
     requirements set forth in paragraph (2)) and the outlays 
     flowing from that budget authority. The chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget may also make appropriate adjustments 
     for the reserve funds set forth in this resolution.
       (B) Matters to be adjusted.--The adjustments referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) are to be made to--
       (i) the discretionary spending limits, if any, set forth in 
     the appropriate concurrent resolution on the budget;

[[Page H3320]]

       (ii) the allocations made pursuant to the appropriate 
     concurrent resolution on the budget pursuant to section 
     302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974; and
       (iii) the budgetary aggregates as set forth in the 
     appropriate concurrent resolution on the budget.
       (2) Amounts of adjustments.--The adjustment referred to in 
     paragraph (1) shall be an amount provided and designated as 
     an emergency requirement;
       (3) Application of adjustments.--The adjustments made for 
     legislation pursuant to paragraph (1) shall--
       (A) apply while that legislation is under consideration;
       (B) take effect upon the enactment of that legislation; and
       (C) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as 
     practicable.
       (4) Application of this section.--The provisions of this 
     section shall apply to legislation providing new budget 
     authority for fiscal years 2008 through 2010.
       (d) Enforcement in the House of Representatives.--
       (1) Waiver protection.--It shall not be in order in the 
     House of Representatives to consider a rule or order that 
     waives the application of this section.
       (2) Consideration in the house.--
       (A) This subsection shall apply only to the House of 
     Representatives.
       (B) In order to be cognizable by the Chair, a point of 
     order under this section must specify the precise language on 
     which it is premised.
       (C) As disposition of points of order under this section, 
     the Chair shall put the question of consideration with 
     respect to the proposition that is the subject of the points 
     of order.
       (D) A question of consideration under this section shall be 
     debatable for 10 minutes by each Member initiating a point of 
     order and for 10 minutes by an opponent on each point of 
     order, but shall otherwise be decided without intervening 
     motion except one that the House adjourn or that the 
     Committee of the Whole rise, as the case may be.
       (E) The disposition of the question of consideration under 
     this subsection with respect to a bill or joint resolution 
     shall be considered also to determine the question of 
     consideration under this subsection with respect to an 
     amendment made in order as original text.
       (3) Extension of spending limits.--It shall not be in order 
     in the House of Representatives to consider a concurrent 
     resolution on the budget as described in section 301 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 unless such resolution 
     incudes discretionary spending limits that are in the same 
     amounts or less than those included in this section.

                      TITLE X--SENSES OF CONGRESS

     SEC. 1001. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE IMPORTANCE OF 
                   CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT.

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

     SEC. 1002. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON STATE VETERANS CEMETARIES.

       It is the sense of the House that the Federal Government 
     should pay the plot allowance for the internment in a State 
     veterans cemetery of any spouse or eligible child of a 
     veteran, consistent with the pay-as-you-go principle.

     SEC. 1003. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM.

       It is the sense of the Congress that legislation should be 
     considered that does the following:
       (1) Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow individual 
     taxpayers a refundable tax credit for health insurance costs 
     paid for the benefit of the taxpayer, the taxpayer's spouse, 
     and dependents.
       (2) Requires business taxpayers who receive payments for 
     certain employee health insurance coverage to file 
     informational returns.
       (3) Directs the Secretary of the Treasury to make advance 
     payments of health insurance tax credit amounts to health 
     insurance providers.
       (4) Limits the tax exclusion for employer-provided health 
     care coverage.

     SEC. 1004. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 
                   1986.

       (a) Sense of Congress on the Termination of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.--No tax shall be imposed by the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986--
       (1) for any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2010; 
     and
       (2) in the case of any tax not imposed on the basis of a 
     taxable year, on any taxable event or for any period after 
     December 31, 2010.
       (b) Exception.--It is further the sense of the House of 
     Representatives that legislation enacted pursuant to 
     subsection (a) shall not apply to taxes imposed by--
       (1) chapter 2 of such Code (relating to tax on self-
     employment income);
       (2) chapter 21 of such Code (relating to Federal Insurance 
     Contributions Act); and
       (3) chapter 22 of such Code (relating to Railroad 
     Retirement Tax Act).
       (c) Structure of a New Federal Tax System.--Congress 
     declares that any new Federal tax system should be a simple 
     and fair system that--
       (1) applies a low rate to all Americans;
       (2) provides tax relief for working Americans;
       (3) protects the rights of taxpayers and reduces tax 
     collection abuses;
       (4) eliminates the bias against savings and investment;
       (5) promotes economic growth and job creation; and
       (6) does not penalize marriage or families.
       (d) Timing of Implementation.--In order to ensure an easy 
     transition and effective implementation, the Congress hereby 
     declares that any new Federal tax system should be approved 
     by Congress in its final form no later than July 4, 2010.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and a 
Member opposed each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, we are coming to the end of 2 
days of debate on how to organize our Nation's finances; how do we want 
to prepare the budget for the next 5 years for our country.
  This is a big debate. It is a debate that really underscores the 
different philosophies between our two parties.
  The Democrats have chosen the path of higher spending and a lot 
higher taxes. The three Democrat budgets we had before us here on the 
floor today, one raised taxes by $400 billion, another raised taxes by 
$711 billion and a third one raised taxes by $949 billion.
  The last tax increase we had was the last time the Democrats had the 
majority, and that was a $241 billion tax increase. Now, 3 months into 
their new majority, they are proposing anywhere from a $400 billion to 
a $1 trillion tax increase.
  We don't believe that we should take more money out of the pockets of 
hardworking Americans. We don't believe we should tax, tax, tax and 
then tax more the American economy and the American family and the 
American workers.
  We believe Washington has a spending problem, and that is why we are 
proposing to control spending, and that is how we achieve the balanced 
budget. Not only do we achieve a balanced budget, but we stop the raid 
of the Social Security trust fund and pay down $100 billion in debt in 
the fifth year of our budget.
  Now, here is the difference. The blue line is our line, the revenue 
line, where we keep the tax cuts intact. The red line is the line where 
the Democrats raise the taxes. The green line is the current trajectory 
of spending.
  We have to control spending if we are going to ever fully balance the 
budget. Even if we accept the Democrats' tax increases, the balance 
they achieve in 5 years will only last for a couple of short years 
because we will go right back into deficits if we do nothing to control 
spending.
  Now, you are going to hear a lot of words about our budget in the 
next few minutes. Cut this, cut that, we are savaging this, we are 
taking a chain saw to that. We are pitting Medicare and Medicaid.
  Let's be really clear. Medicare, spending goes up every year from 
here to the next to the next. Medicaid spending under our budget will 
go up faster than health care inflation. But we are going to reform the 
program so that it works better, doesn't cost as much, and extends its 
solvency so that it is there for people.
  Medicare. Are we cutting Medicare? No, we are not cutting Medicare. 
We are growing Medicare. We are growing Medicare, not as fast as it is 
currently scheduled to grow because we are reforming Medicare. And what 
do we do? We extend the solvency of Medicare.
  Overall, if you take a look at the difference in spending we propose 
over the next 5 years, on entitlement spending we propose growing, 
increasing, adding entitlement spending at 4.1 percent a year for the 
next 5 years, instead of 4.7 percent a year.
  Now, at the end of the day, it is about how we get our fiscal house 
in order. Here is the devastation of the Democrat budget. And I am just 
going to pick one program.
  Medicare, the unfunded liability of Medicare is $32 trillion. $32 
trillion is how much money we would have to set aside today in current 
dollars to make sure that Medicare is there for my children when they 
receive Medicare.

[[Page H3321]]

  Under the Democrat budget, the Medicare unfunded liability will go to 
$52 trillion. That means doing nothing to reform Medicare. Doing 
nothing to reform Medicare at all will actually lead to adding a huge 
debt onto the problem. It will mean that our children and grandchildren 
will have another $22 trillion in debt thrown onto them if we decide 
not to do a thing for the next 5 years to reform our entitlement 
programs. But that, in fact, is what the Democrat budget does.
  The actual household burden today on Medicare is $282,400. That is 
what we would have to set aside today, per household, to make sure 
Medicare is there for my children when they retire. If we do nothing 
for the next 5 years, as the Democrats propose, that goes up to almost 
$476,000 a household.
  We have got to fix these programs. We have got to reform these 
programs. We have got to reform them so that they work better. They 
were written in the 1960s. We are now in the 21st century. We can make 
these programs work better. We can better meet the mission of Medicare, 
Medicaid and Social Security, income security, health security; and we 
can do it without bankrupting our children.
  The problem is, we can't put our heads in the sand for 5 years and do 
nothing. That is what the Democrat budget proposes to do. Absolutely no 
savings, no spending control, no reform.
  We have to reform these programs, Mr. Chairman, because if we don't, 
our debt gets higher. We go back into deficits, and there isn't another 
tax you can raise to get out of that hole.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized 
for 20 minutes.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).
  Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you very much, Mr. Spratt, for yielding me the 
time. And I want to thank you for putting together one of the most 
responsible documents that I have seen in my almost 15 years here in 
the House of Representatives.
  This Democrat budget is a giant step in the right direction. This 
budget lowers taxes on middle-class families. It does not contain one 
penny of new taxes. Instead, our budget explicitly provides middle-
income tax credits, including the marriage penalty, child tax credit, 
the 10 percent bracket, and the deduction for State and local taxes.
  This House budget provides immediate relief for 23 million middle-
income families who would otherwise be subjected to the alternative 
minimum tax and provides for a permanent fix.
  I will tell you what I am particularly appreciative of in this 
budget. This budget responds to the ongoing recovery for the people of 
the gulf coast region here in our country. It creates a reserve fund of 
$3.4 billion and provides an additional $1 billion that could be used 
to meet urgent recovery needs.
  This budget maintains the President's tax cuts for 2008, for 2009 and 
for 2010; and it says, explicitly, that we can extend tax cuts beyond 
the sunset that the Republicans put in for 2010. But if we extend these 
tax cuts, we must subject these tax cuts to the same PAYGO rules that 
we subject new programs to. So there is no cut here. There is 
responsibility here. And I thank John Spratt for meeting that 
responsibility.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Mr. Chair, I would like to yield 
2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California, a member of 
the Budget Committee, Mr. Lungren.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong 
support of the Republican substitute. There is a clear difference 
between the two proposals on the table.

                              {time}  1300

  The Democratic plan, despite the protestations of its proponents, 
does, in fact, contain the largest tax increase in American history. We 
have heard time and again their referring to the language that is in 
their bill which talks about tax cuts. But I would suggest their tax 
cut promises are written with invisible ink. They talk about how they 
want to do it, but there is no means by the way they will do it. And 
they also promise to have a balanced budget and yet, without the tax 
increases inherent in their proposal, they cannot reach it. We have no 
tax increases, period. None in this budget.
  In the Democratic budget, they include a $22 billion increase in 
nondefense spending above the President's request, on top of the $22 
billion of unrequested spending in the supplemental and $6 billion in 
the omnibus.
  Our budget includes a freeze on nondefense, nonsecurity spending, 
while providing additional funds for veterans, for the war on 
terrorism, for Community Development Block Grants, for NIH, and Science 
and Technology.
  In entitlements, they criticize us for attempting to look at 
entitlements and to bring across savings. We admit we attempt to do 
that, because we recognize the obligation we have as stewards of the 
people's money and stewards of the future of our children and 
grandchildren.
  So come out here and criticize us for attempting to look at these 
entitlement programs to begin, just to begin, to get the courage to 
deal with what we know we have to deal with.
  Now, our budgets can either be made so flimsy that they will fly away 
in the wind, or they can actually have some weight to them so that we 
begin the tough process, and it is a tough process, of dealing with 
reform of entitlements so that we do the job that is expected of us by 
our constituents and, more importantly, by our children and our 
grandchildren.
  I rise in strong support of this substitute by the Republicans.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, to talk just a bit about what is truly 
contained in this budget resolution, the devastating cuts it imposes on 
sensitive areas, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Dicks, the chairman of the 
Interior Subcommittee of Appropriations.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation, which, thankfully, reverses years of decline in Federal 
Government spending on environmental programs. John Spratt has made 
wise decisions on Function 300.
  Last month, I testified before the Budget Committee, urging increased 
spending on these important programs. The chairman said he would 
consider my request, and he is a man of his word. I am pleased to say 
that the programs included in Function 300 will be funded at a level 
$2.6 billion, or 9 percent above what the President requested in his 
budget, and $15.7 billion between 2008 and 2012.
  This budget resolution rejects the President's proposal to further 
cut the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Fish and Wildlife Service 
Refuge Program, and EPA's Clean Water Assistance Program. In addition, 
the budget resolution accepts the best idea in the President's budget, 
and that is to increase funding for the national parks. The Ryan 
amendment in 2008 would cut $1.5 billion below current services and 
$4.6 billion between 2008 and 2012.
  Many of the numbers contained in the President's budget were bleak. 
The President proposed a budget for these programs which was $2.8 
billion less than what is required to maintain current levels of 
service. For example, funding for EPA faced a reduction of $508 
million, the Forest Service down $343 million. The funding for the Park 
Service would have been reduced by $237 million. And, worse, the 
President's proposed cuts after 7 years of steady decline are severe. 
The Interior Department has been cut by 16 percent, EPA by 29 percent, 
the Forest Service by a whopping 35 percent. These cuts have evidently 
led to declines in services for visitors to our parks, refuges, and 
forests and to dramatic reductions in assistance to State and local 
communities for environmental and conservation activities.
  I urge you to vote against the Ryan amendment and vote for the Spratt 
budget if you care about the environment of our country.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to 
yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, 
Mr. McCrery of Louisiana.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, unlike the budget put forward by the 
Democratic majority, the Republican alternative offered by Mr. Ryan 
avoids the largest tax increase in our Nation's history and begins to 
deal with the long-term problem of growing entitlements.

[[Page H3322]]

  This chart here gives us an idea of the difference in the scenarios 
between the Republican budget, this line for tax revenues; and the 
Democratic budget, this top line for revenues. If you look at it in 
terms of the percentage of GDP consumed by Federal revenues, you should 
know that this year Federal revenues constitute about 18.6 percent of 
GDP. Under the Republican budget alternative, the bottom line, that 
stays about the same. About 10 years from now, it is approximately the 
same percent of GDP. But the Democratic budget, this top line, that 
figure is going to go up to over 20 percent of GDP, over 20 percent. 
Only once since 1962 has Federal revenues constituted that high a 
percentage of our GDP. Our economy is certain to drag under the weight 
of those kinds of tax increases.
  And the worst will be yet to come, because the Democrats' budget 
ignores demographic reality and offers no reform of entitlements, no 
savings from entitlements. In 2009, the Social Security surplus will 
begin to decline. In 2017, we will have to pay out more money in Social 
Security benefits than we take in in taxes. The problem gets worse 
after that with more baby boomers in retirement, fewer workers to 
support them; and the difficulties facing Social Security are 
relatively manageable compared to those facing Medicare and Medicaid.
  I shouldn't need to reiterate these facts. Everyone in this House 
should be familiar with them, but somehow the Democrats, budget ignores 
those facts completely.
  The Republican budget would freeze nondefense discretionary and 
reform entitlements. Please reject the Democratic budget and support 
the Ryan budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Boyd).
  Mr. BOYD of Florida. I thank my friend Mr. Spratt for yielding.
  I rise today, Mr. Chairman, in strong support for the Democratic 
budget resolution.
  Mr. Chairman, the Blue Dogs didn't submit our own budget this year 
because the Democratic budget under Chairman Spratt's leadership 
includes many of the priorities that we advocate for and Mr. Spratt put 
into the bill.
  First, it adheres strictly to PAYGO rules, and this is the biggest 
difference between this budget and the failed budgets of the past 6 
years. Our budgets put an end to new deficit spending. PAYGO has a 
proven record of success. It was instrumental in the return of budget 
surpluses during the 1990s. It has worked in the past, and it will work 
again. And this Congress let PAYGO expire in 2002.
  Secondly, the Democratic budget will reach a glide path to balance by 
2012, and it does so without using budgeting gimmickry or tricks.
  You have heard a lot from the other side criticizing our budget and 
talking about debt, but let me tell you something. The Republicans in 
the past have refused to adopt PAYGO rules, and spending has 
skyrocketed under their leadership. They financed their plan by 
borrowing $3 trillion over the last 6 years from countries like China, 
and many times in the past the appropriations bills have not been 
enacted and we have had to do omnibus bills. Eighty percent of those 
were not enacted last year.
  In short, Mr. Chairman, we have to return to fiscal sanity. We have 
created a mess in the last 6 years, and it is going to take this 
Congress working hard together in a bipartisan way to come up with a 
plan that will put us back on a glide path to balance. Mr. Spratt's 
bill, the budget resolution, which we have a chance to vote on today, 
is the best start for us to return to that path; and I want to applaud 
him for his resolution and ask for your support for that resolution.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Sutton).
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Spratt for his leadership 
and for yielding me this time.
  As the only freshman Democrat on the Budget Committee, I rise to urge 
my fellow freshmen and all of my colleagues to support the Democratic 
budget.
  Mr. Chairman, last November, the American people made it clear that 
they are ready for a government that will be fiscally responsible. This 
Nation spoke loud and clear when they elected us and put a new party in 
power in Congress. They are asking for responsibility and a new 
direction in our fiscal priorities. Education, health care, the care of 
our children and our seniors and our veterans, these are issues that 
Americans care about.
  Our budget restores common sense to our national spending and sanity 
to our national priorities. It restores the President's attempt to cut 
children's health care programs and community block grants. It puts 
forth the single largest increase in veteran spending in our Nation's 
history and not a moment too soon. It funds math and science programs 
for our kids, programs like Head Start and Pell grants that provide 
access to education that so many of our children need. And this budget 
concerns itself with the need to create jobs and build a bright 
economic future. It restores funding for job training programs, and it 
does so while adhering to the PAYGO rules.
  It has been a long 6 years for this Nation. Just 6 years ago, we were 
looking at a projected $5.6 trillion surplus. That has collapsed into a 
$9 trillion deficit. Every American in this country owes $29,000 worth 
of debt.
  Under Republican leadership, the budget became woefully out of 
balance fiscally and out of balance with the priorities of the American 
people. The people elected us to take this country in a new direction. 
This budget will do so, and it will do so in a fiscally responsible 
manner.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time for Congress to be accountable to the 
American people again.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, budgets are about values and vision. Where your 
treasure is, the Bible says, there also is your heart. But if you cut 
through all of the arcane detail, all the numbers, it is hard to find 
the heart in the Ryan resolution.
  Buried in this budget resolution, if you dig deep enough, are some 
enormous cuts exceeding anything that has ever been proposed, much less 
passed, in the past, particularly with respect to health care, in which 
people are totally dependent. These cuts are so extreme, so deep that 
they go to the reality of this whole resolution. It turns on these 
cuts, and the real question is whether or not they are politically or 
practically possible.
  These cuts are dictated by an extraordinary process called 
reconciliation. Here is what the cuts amount to: Our committee, the 
Budget Committee, if this resolution were adopted, would be dictating 
to the Energy and Commerce Committee, with jurisdiction over Medicare 
and Medicaid, cuts of $97 billion over the next 5 years.
  With respect to Medicare, this committee, if this resolution were 
adopted, would direct that the Ways and Means Committee go back to 
Medicare and cut another $153 billion out of Medicare or, if they 
couldn't get that much out of Medicare, cut it out of the safety net 
programs that are in the province of the Ways and Means Committee, 
shredding the safety net for SSI, for TANF, and other programs.
  Altogether, the cuts in the health care entitlements in this 
resolution come to $266 billion. And not just the health care 
entitlements are in jeopardy.

                              {time}  1315

  Education and labor, $4.9 billion. Where does that come from? Student 
loans, Pell Grants.
  Natural resources. You heard Mr. Dicks a moment ago. Where does that 
come from? Clean water, Environmental Protection Agency, conservation. 
$22 billion less than we provide over 5 years.
  Education, $46 million over 5 years for Function 500 less than we 
provide. There is a huge difference.
  But it also goes to the veracity, the practical reality of this 
resolution, and begs the question: If cuts of this enormity have never 
been proposed before, why do we believe that they would be enacted now?
  Instead, we have a sneaking suspicion that when all of these cuts are 
put together, we are going to be right back where we have been for the 
last 6

[[Page H3323]]

years, that is, deeper in deficit. That is because in addition to 
making spending cuts that total $278 billion, the same reconciliation 
instructions call for tax cuts, tax decreases, of $447 billion; and 
when you net the spending cuts against the tax cuts, you get an impact 
of $168.5 billion on the deficit. It makes it worse.
  If this budget resolution would come back to the House as a 
concurrent budget resolution with these provisions, we would invoke the 
rule we passed on the House floor to the effect that you cannot abuse 
the process of reconciliation and use it for the purpose of worsening 
the deficit. It can only be used to improve the deficit, to use these 
extraordinary powers to improve the deficit.
  That is why we say the Ryan resolution should be defeated. We think 
it is a sham. We don't think it will achieve its stated purposes. We 
think it will put us right back on this track of debt accumulation in 
which we have seen $3.1 trillion added to the national debt over the 
last 6 years.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I have always believed that government should live 
within its means. No one was a harsher critic of runaway Federal 
spending under Republican control than me. When our majority faltered, 
I said we didn't just lose our majority, we lost our way. But thanks to 
the leadership of the gentleman from Wisconsin, this Republican 
substitute budget alternative should be entitled ``Lessons Learned.''
  The contrast between the Democrat plan and the Republican plan is 
startling. Under the Republican budget alternatives, no tax increases, 
period; a courageous freeze on non-defense/non-security spending; $279 
billion in savings through commonsense reform of entitlements; and real 
budget process reform.
  The contrast? The Democrat budget allows for the largest tax increase 
in American history. It includes $22 billion in increases in non-
defense spending and completely ignores budget process reform or the 
looming entitlement crisis that our Nation faces.
  Mr. Chairman, the voters spoke last fall. Democrats promised voters a 
return to fiscal discipline and reform. But this budget proves only one 
party got the message.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the Democrat majority's effort to 
return us to the tax-and-spend policies of the past and vote ``yes'' on 
the Republican substitute budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member of 
our leadership, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, in listening to the debate, I can't help but think 
about 5\1/2\ years ago and the 9/11 attacks and the simultaneous 
bursting of the technology bubble here in this country. It was the Bush 
tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 that provided a desperately needed shot in 
the arm, lifting us from our malaise and dispelling fears that the 
economy was sliding irrevocably into recession. But, today, after years 
of steady economic growth marked by a surging stock market, low 
inflation and low unemployment, a deflated housing market has shaken 
confidence in this economy.
  With the tax cuts set to expire in 2010, the last thing investors and 
the American people need right now is the largest tax hike in the 
history of our country, and that is the reality they are smart enough 
to see, despite claims on the other side of the aisle otherwise.
  The real difference between the Ryan budget and that of the majority 
is whether you believe that tax cuts expiring is a tax hike. I do, and 
I think the American families who will bear the brunt of a $400 billion 
tax increase will likewise.
  In my State of Virginia, the effects are particularly acute, with 
taxpayers on average facing $3,120 in additional taxes each year. 
Around the country, 45 million families with children will be hit by an 
average tax increase of $2,864. Again, this is because the majority 
does not agree that expiring tax cuts are a tax hike. I do.
  Instead of choking our economy, we need to make the tax cuts 
permanent. If we let the Democratic tax hike genie out of the bottle, 
it is going to be awfully hard to put it back in.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I speak on every one of these budgets; and because I 
have been here a long time, I know the history of these budgets going 
back a quarter of a century. I sometimes believe the talking points on 
the other side of the aisle are written by Lewis Carroll, the author, 
of course, of that famous book which had as its theme saying one thing 
and meaning another: ``black was white,'' ``up was down,'' et cetera, 
et cetera.
  I have listened since 1981 to the economic observations of such 
people like Phil Gramm, such people like Dick Armey, an economist, the 
majority leader of your party, and I think to myself how confused the 
American public must be when the assertions are made, an article by 
Dave Stockman in today's paper, you may have seen. David Broder wrote 
an article about that. Mr. Stockman is in a little bit of trouble with 
assertions that things that he said were true were in fact not true. In 
fact, David Stockman admitted that in 1983 what he said was true was 
not true; what he said they thought, they did not think.
  The American public needs to place it in that context.
  I have heard a lot, I say to my friend from Missouri, over the last 
few hours about debates about we are going to make these tax cuts 
permanent, and we are not.
  Now, I am sure the American public knows that the President for the 
last 6 years has been a Republican. I am sure they know that the 
leadership in the House for the past 6 years has been Republican, and I 
am sure they know that the leadership in the Senate has been 
Republican. And guess what? Never did you make those tax cuts 
permanent. Why not? Because you wanted to play fiscal games. That is 
why not.
  You wanted to count your out-years as looking better than they did. 
Why are you having a $274 billion tax increase in this bill? How do I 
say that? Because you are not fixing the AMT. Why aren't you fixing it? 
Because it is STI, your ``stealth tax increase.'' You liked SDI. This 
is STI, a stealth tax increase, where you say one year we are going to 
fix it, but, guess what, for the next 4 years we will get that 
additional tax revenue. A stealth tax increase.
  There are no tax increases in this bill. In fact, it provides for tax 
cuts for the middle class. But they have to be paid for.
  George Bush I and Dick Gephardt, the leader of this House, came 
together and said, ladies and gentlemen, we have to have fiscal 
responsibility, and we are going to do it. And the way we are going to 
do it is we are going to have PAYGO. We are going to pay for what we 
buy. George Bush signed that. And guess what? The Republican side of 
the aisle excoriated the President of the United States, George Bush, 
for entering into an agreement that ultimately would bring us 
surpluses.
  I have also listened to these debates and have seen some very 
earnest, very intelligent, very articulate young men. Mr. Ryan is the 
third in a series of those earnest, intelligent, energetic, articulate 
young men, who talk about their vision for America, talk about where 
they want to take America.
  Mr. Ryan puts up the children. Now, unlike Mr. Ryan, who I think has 
children, I have children, I have got grandchildren, and, as some 
people know, I have a great-granddaughter. And I am very concerned 
about all of those children whose taxes you have raised almost every 
year you have been in charge that I have been here, starting in 1981. 
And you raised their taxes by not paying for what you buy.
  You talk about cutting spending, I tell my friend.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, isn't the gentleman supposed to 
address the Chair, not specific Members?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair would ask the Members to address 
remarks to the Chair, rather than to others in the second person.

[[Page H3324]]

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell my friend that there 
are more ways to skin a cat than one.
  I tell the Chair that I have heard the argument of these earnest 
young men who have all stood on this floor. David Stockman at the age 
of 34 telling the country as director of OMB how we were going to 
balance the budget, how Ronald Reagan said we are going to balance the 
budget. Ronald Reagan ran over $1 trillion in deficits over his 8 
years. Over $1 trillion in deficits.
  There is one person in America who can stop spending in its tracks, 
only one, and that is the President of the United States. Ronald Reagan 
ran $1 trillion in deficits, actually $1.4 trillion. George Bush I in 
just 4 years ran $1 trillion in deficits. And this President in the 6 
years he has been President has run over $1.6 trillion in deficits. 
$4.1 trillion of deficits during the Reagan administration, the Bush I 
administration and the Bush II administration.
  Now, I tell the Chairman that my friend does not seem to be paying 
attention to these dramatic figures. But ladies and gentlemen of this 
House, I hope you are, and I hope all of our constituents are listening 
as well, because the rhetoric on this floor is cheap, but the 
performance is not.
  During those 18 years of Republican leadership of this country, we 
ran $4.2 trillion in deficits. During the 8 years that Bill Clinton was 
President, we had a $62.9 billion surplus. The only President in the 
lifetime, I tell the Chairman, of my young friend from Wisconsin that 
that has been accomplished, notwithstanding Mr. Stockman or Mr. Kasich 
or Mr. Nussle, who all said they wanted to balance the budget, and 
none, none, none of them did it. None of them did it.
  Now, we adopted a program in 1993, and I heard the same rhetoric, I 
tell my friends on this side of the aisle, that I am hearing today, the 
same rhetoric. Dick Armey not only was the majority leader of the 
Republican House, it wasn't a Republican House then, but he was also an 
economist, and an economist still. And Mr. Armey told the President of 
the United States, if we adopt this program, we are going to have deep 
debt, high unemployment and annual deficits.

                              {time}  1330

  That was the representation I tell my friends on this floor. Those 
representations were all wrong. That's why when we listen to debate on 
this floor today we see a balanced budget, a responsible budget that 
invests in our future.
  Mr. Chairman, if I were speaking directly to him, I would tell my 
young friend, I have heard about these cuts that you talk about, for a 
quarter of a century I have heard about these cuts. Why is it that you 
spent more money as a party with the President with control of the 
Senate, control of the House by a factor of two, twice as much spending 
rise under the Bush Administration than under the Clinton 
Administration. Why is that?
  Why do you come here and crow about cutting spending when you doubled 
the rate of growth when you controlled everything? That's what the 
American public needs to judge.
  Now, I had some prepared comments here, and I apologize to my good 
friend who spent so much time doing this. But, ladies and gentlemen, 
Lewis Carroll is not writing this budget. Alice is not going to have to 
live under this budget. My children, my grandchildren, my great 
grandchildren and, more importantly, my country, are going to have to 
live under this budget.
  We didn't adopt a budget last year. We didn't adopt appropriation 
bills last year. We didn't do any of the fiscal business that we should 
have done last year. Why? Because your party could not agree with one 
another. So you had no fiscal program. Your fiscal program was spending 
more money.
  I hope that this House, for the first time in 6 years, adopts a 
responsible budget that will move us towards balance. It won't get 
there overnight. And when I say that, it is not empty rhetoric, because 
when we, in 1993, passed that program, we took this country for 4 
straight years out of deficit.
  Now, I know you will say, ``Well, we Republicans took over in 1995.'' 
And my response to that, of course, is, you didn't have the presidency. 
When you had it all, why couldn't you do it? When you had the 
presidency, when you had the Senate, when you had the House, tell me 
why you couldn't do it.
  I will tell you why. Because it was the President of the United 
States who said this is the way we are going to do it or I am going to 
veto it. This President can veto it, and we won't be able to override 
his veto. I understand that. He is in charge. That's why we have these 
deficits, because he has not vetoed one spending bill. He vetoed one 
bill, embryonic stem cell research. Not one spending bill. Every nickel 
that has been spent in this country has been spent under the signature 
of George Bush, the President of the United States, every nickel.
  So I ask my friends, vote for a responsible budget. Move us, as we 
did during the 1990s, 4 years out of debt, 4 years into surplus, the 
first time that had happened, and left you folks that took over with a 
$5.6 trillion surplus that you have squandered into a $3 trillion 
deficit. And, yes, 9/11 had an impact on that. And your tax cut, we had 
a very shallow recovery. You know that. Every economist says that. And 
a relatively shallow downturn in the economy.
  This budget offered by Mr. Spratt is a responsible budget that 
provides for tax cuts for the middle class, provides for investment in 
education and competitiveness of our country, provides for investment 
in our veterans, provides for investment in defense, using the same 
number that the President gave us so that we can keep America strong.
  Mr. Spratt, I thank you. I thank the members of your committee for 
having the courage and the wisdom and the fiscal soundness to come 
forth with this budget. It is worthy of support of every Member of this 
Congress.
  I urge this House to adopt this budget this day.
  Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to our republican colleagues, let 
me say that to hear them talk about fiscal responsibility is nothing 
less than surreal.
  In this debate on the fiscal 2008 budget, many numbers have been 
used.
  But only two are really relevant on the issue of fiscal 
responsibility, and the Republican Party's lack thereof--$5.6 trillion 
and more than $3 trillion.
  When President Bush took office, he and the then-Republican 
majorities in Congress inherited a projected 10-year budget surplus of 
$5.6 trillion.
  The President proclaimed: ``we can proceed with tax relief without 
fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens.''
  He promised that he would pay down the national debt, and some in the 
administration even worried publicly about paying down the debt too 
fast.
  Well, as we have learned, the President's projections were 
unequivocally wrong and worries about paying down the debt were 
completely misplaced.
  Over the last 6 years, the President and Republicans in Congress--
after enacting the most reckless fiscal policies in American history--
have turned a projected surplus of $5.6 trillion into record budget 
deficits and additional debt of more than $3 trillion.
  In fact, the amount of foreign-held debt has more than doubled under 
the Bush administration--from about $1 trillion in 2001 to $2.1 
trillion today.
  And, interest payments on the national debt have increased from $206 
billion in 2001 to a projected $256 billion under the President's 
budget for fiscal 2008--consuming more than 20 percent of all 
individual income taxes.
  Let me say, too, that until the American people spoke last November 
and elected Democratic majorities in Congress, the President never--not 
once--budgeted the costs of the on-going war in Iraq, which today stand 
at more than $400 billion, with another $100 billion being considered.
  Thus today, Mr. Chairman, with this budget written and offered by 
Chairman Spratt, House Democrats will take our Nation in a new 
direction and begin to clean up the fiscal train wreck left by 
Republicans.
  Our budget is a statement of our values and priorities, demonstrating 
our unwavering commitment to defend our Nation, grow our economy, 
protect our children and strengthen families, preserve our plant, and 
ensure that the Federal Government is accountable and efficient.
  First, this fiscally responsible Democratic budget will bring the 
Federal budget back to balance by 2012. Over the next 5 years, the 
cumulative deficit in our budget is $234 billion lower than the 
President's budget.
  Our budget strictly adheres to the pay-as-you-go budget rules that 
were reinstated in January by the new majority, and which Republicans 
allowed to expire in 2002. The Concord Coalition even says this budget 
is ``a successful first test of how seriously they [House

[[Page H3325]]

Democrats] plan to abide by [the PAYGO] rule.''
  Furthermore, this Democratic budget invests in our priorities without 
increasing the deficit. It provides for a robust defense, boosting 
Homeland Security funding and providing $3.5 billion more for veterans' 
services than the President's request for 2008.
  It also makes critical investments in education, children's health 
care, transportation infrastructure, and alternative energy research 
and development--while rejecting the President's request to cut Head 
Start, LIHEAP, COPS and First-Responder programs, and community 
development block grants.
  And, our budget accommodates immediate relief for the tens of 
millions of middle-income households which would otherwise be subject 
to the alternative minimum tax--while calling for the extension of 
middle-class tax cuts that are not due to expire until December 31, 
2010.
  This is a budget that we can be proud of. And, it stands in stark 
contrast to the extraordinarily irresponsible policies of the last six 
years.
  I urge all of my colleagues: vote for fiscal responsibility and a 
bright future for our children. Vote for the budget that reflects our 
values and meets the needs of the American people. Vote for this 
Democratic budget.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much 
time is remaining on each side.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Both sides have 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 10 seconds, as I 
yield to our minority leader, simply to say the gentleman from Maryland 
comes from a State which under their budget will see an average 
household tax increase of $3,238 per household. This will affect 
2,259,000 Maryland taxpayers.
  At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Missouri, the minority whip (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm confident that my 3 minutes will go quicker than my 
good friend's 1 minute just did.
  I don't hardly know how to respond to what I just heard on the floor 
from my good friend from Maryland. Whenever we had budget chairmen in 
those years when we balanced the budget, apparently there is no credit 
given for that. Mr. Kasich did draft a budget that balanced; certainly 
Mr. Nussle did; certainly there was a precedent.
  And I agree with my friend when he said 9/11 did have an impact. 9/11 
did have an impact. The defense cost after 9/11 had an impact. The cost 
after 9/11 of homeland security had an impact. The flat economy coming 
out of 2000 had an impact and our tax policies had an impact. In fact, 
in 2005, the largest increase in revenue in the history of the Federal 
Government, 14.5 percent in 2005, because our tax policies worked and 
produced more than a shallow recovery.
  Permanent tax cuts? We would like to see permanent tax cuts, but, as 
my good friend and others know, unless you have 60 people on the other 
side of the building in the 100-Member Senate, you can't have permanent 
tax cuts.
  We have extended these tax cuts in a way that has extended our 
economy, extended our growth, increased our global competition in the 
marketplace. Mr. Ryan's alternative continues to do those things. The 
overall budget that we are talking about today as the underlying budget 
doesn't do that.
  Our friends on the other side, in fact, my very good friend from 
Maryland just said that they aren't increasing taxes, they are just 
letting current tax policies expire. When you make the same income and 
your taxes go up, that explanation rings pretty hollow. Your taxes 
increase as this budget anticipates they would.
  And then they say that many of these tax increases don't occur until 
the third year of this budget, so you're not going to see an immediate 
tax increase. But of course you're going to see an immediate increase 
in the spending of the money that those new tax revenues provide. Those 
tax increases do happen to start for some American families as early as 
the 1st of January, next year.
  Take, for example, the line in the Tax Code allowing many of our 
Nation's veterans and warfighters to collect the earned income tax 
credit. This budget anticipates that when that expires on December 31, 
2007, it does not come back as part of the Tax Code, and the money that 
is produced by that tax increase is part of what this budget spends.
  The majority's budget renews the death tax. The majority's budget 
renews the marriage penalty that we have eliminated, and 48 million 
couples in 2011 would pay $2,900 more every year in Washington taxes 
than they did the year before.
  For that and many other reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge that we stick 
with the policies that have grown our economy, that let us compete, 
that appreciate families and support this alternative.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the minority whip 
for his comments.
  And, yes, in the nineties we did balance the budget. I would just 
remind him, and I don't want to start my speech this way, but the first 
budget you proposed led to a government shutdown. It was President 
Clinton that led the way to a balanced budget and a surplus.
  Now I want to thank you. Some of my colleagues have criticized you. I 
want to thank you. I want to thank you because to govern is to choose. 
We have two clear choices here, and there is no doubt about it. 
President Kennedy once said, ``to govern is to choose.''
  We're offering a new direction. You are offering the status quo. 
There is no doubt about it. Because you have given us, and nobody has 
really quite said thank you enough to your $4 trillion of new debt, and 
you need to be appreciated for it. Because, as I've always said, if 
there is one thing you can say about George Bush and the Republicans 
when it comes to the economy, we will forever be in your debt. And that 
is the one thing that is absolutely clear about your stewardship with 
this economy.
  Four trillion dollars, the largest accumulation of debt in the 
shortest period of time in American history. Don't look at your shoes 
when I'm saying it now, because you know that is your legacy.
  Now, what are the priorities and the differences?
  In Medicaid and Medicare, let's just take a look at health care, 
number one economic issue for the American people. You cut $250 billion 
for Medicare and Medicaid. Democrats double the size of the children's 
health care program in this country. Two choices: Status quo, a new 
direction.
  You cut $5 billion from college assistance for people who are trying 
to achieve the American dream. We expand college assistance by $3.5 
billion.
  You have made a decision to make cuts in other areas like 
agriculture. We make sure that our farmers have a future where their 
children can inherit the farm and have a future in rural America.
  The choices are clear. We have a balanced budget that is balanced 
with our priorities. You maintain an economic strategy that adds to the 
Nation's debt as you have in past years.
  Every year of our budget, the deficit declines. Every year under our 
budget, 5 years in a row, the budget deficit declines until it reaches 
balance and eventually a surplus. Every year. You achieve your goals by 
cutting $250 billion from health care assistance, Medicare and 
Medicaid.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. GOHMERT. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. GOHMERT. We would ask for the regular order that the rules be 
followed and comments be directed to the Chairman instead of directed 
to individual Members and people in the body.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair would ask Members to address their 
remarks to the Chair rather than to others in the second person.
  The gentleman from Illinois may proceed.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have left?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois has 10 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Roosevelt once said, ``We have nothing to fear but fear 
itself,'' and you have taken that and turned it on its head and said, 
``all we have to offer is fear.''
  This is a new direction versus a status quo budget. There are clear

[[Page H3326]]

choices, and I am glad that we balance the budget.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, as I yield to my friend from 
Michigan, I will note that Illinois taxpayers will pay $3,282 higher 
every year. That hits 4,731,000 Illinois taxpayers budgets under their 
budget.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. McCOTTER. Very quickly. Through the Chairman, I would like to 
remind my friends that all spending bills originate in the House, not 
in the executive branch of Congress; and that a lot of those 
appropriation bills looked certainly bipartisan at the time.
  What we have here in front of us is a clear choice, a choice to move 
America forward, as we have tried to do, or a choice to move America in 
a new direction, backwards.
  We are going back to the 1970s. As a child of the 1970s in the Carter 
administration, I remember how we gutted defense, I remember how our 
Nation had no intelligence worth anything. And I look back to the 
Clinton era and I see how the budget deficit that we now have 
accumulated in a time of war was necessitated by the reduction in our 
military, the gutting of our intelligence network, the inability to 
defend America's basic needs. The rush to free trade, which was signed 
by the Clinton administration, and now the bill came home to roost on 
the watch of George Bush and the American people on September 11, 2001. 
It is a history lesson that I hope was not lost upon the America 
people.
  Finally, to quote Lewis Carroll, as one of his admirers, ``Living is 
easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.''
  It is time for America to be wide awake to the choice in front of 
them, and let us come back and move America forward.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas, a member of the Ways and Means Committee (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. This debate underscores the genuine change, the new 
direction that we are charting here in Washington. We are beginning to 
rein in these endless Republican deficits. The old Republican way of 
budgeting doesn't just crunch numbers, it crunches people. We are 
concerned not only about the fiscal deficit but the ``opportunity 
deficit'' that occurs in communities across this country when all the 
members of the community are unable to contribute their full God-given 
potential, when young people are unable to pursue higher education, 
when families are denied health care, when veterans are denied the 
services that they have earned.

                              {time}  1345

  There are two fundamental ways in which the Democratic approach to 
tax relief differs from our Republican colleagues. First, we believe it 
is possible to target tax relief to working, middle-class families 
without letting the super-rich piggyback along and claim most of the 
benefits.
  Second, we say if tax relief is worth having, then pay for it. 
Instead of going to our grandchildren and borrowing from our 
grandchildren, we say go to the Grand Caymens. How about going to all 
those giant corporations that have dodged their fair share of taxes by 
going offshore and asking them to bear a little of the burden of our 
national security? So we provide the tax relief that our middle-class 
families need, but we do it in a fiscally responsible way.
  Some people have imaginary friends. These Republicans have imaginary 
demons about what might eventually happen with taxes. This budget is a 
welcome return to reality, fiscal reality, and responsibility.
  To those who are at home and are trying to determine who is right 
about these Republican claims of the demon of tax relief, I think we 
need only turn to a bipartisan group like the Concord Coalition, which 
looked at the budget, having no axe to grind except an axe used for 
cutting to achieve fiscal responsibility, and it said no tax increase 
will result from this budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Our Republican friends have no credibility on fiscal 
affairs. They had three times to take a bite at the tax cut apple in 
2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. They ducked solving the looming AMT crisis, 
instead implementing a grab bag of tax benefits for the most well off. 
Now this budget puts at the top of their list more tax cuts, $1 
trillion for the top 1 percent, financed by cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, 
the environment, and education. When they had their hands on all the 
levers of power, they couldn't even pass a budget. They left unpassed 
11 of the 13 appropriations bills.
  I strongly suggest rejection of their misguided fanciful approach and 
support for the majority resolution.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of 
the time.
  Here it comes, Mr. Chairman, the closing of this debate. We have 
heard it all. We have heard the quotes: these cuts are so deep, so 
extreme about the Republican budget.
  Well, let's just see how deep and extreme these cuts are. Instead of 
spending over the next 5 years $14.976 trillion, our budget proposes 
$14.928 trillion over the next 5 years. Instead of growing entitlement 
spending at 4.7 percent a year, we will grow it at 4.1 percent a year.
  What do we accomplish with this? What do we do with that? We balance 
the budget without raising taxes. We stop the raid on the Social 
Security trust fund and we pay down debt. That is what we accomplish 
with our budget.
  What do the Democrats accomplish? No matter how they spin it, no 
matter how they duck it, no matter how they hide, they are raising 
taxes. Don't ask me. Just look at The Washington Post that said: ``And 
while the House Democrats say they want to preserve key parts of Bush's 
signature tax cuts, they project a surplus by 2012 only by assuming 
that all of these tax cuts go away.''
  Meet the new Democrat majority, Mr. Chairman, the same as the old 
Democrat majority. And the last time they had the majority in 1993, 
what did they do? They passed the largest tax increase in American 
history, $241 billion. Now, 3\1/2\ months into the new majority, what 
are they planning to do? Passing the largest tax increase in American 
history, about $400 billion. Is that to control spending or something 
like that? No. They are engaging on a gorge of new spending. $50 
billion is already being thrown out the door just this year, and it is 
not even April into their new majority.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a direction. This is a choice between two 
visions. Do we or do we not let people keep more of their own hard-
earned money? Or do we just keep taxing them more and more and more and 
spending more and more and more? That is the choice.
  We believe in the people. We believe people should keep more of their 
own money. We believe people should keep their child tax credit. We 
don't want to tax people for being married. We believe small businesses 
should be taxed no more than large corporations. We believe seniors 
ought to be able to enjoy their retirement savings. We believe in 
preserving, saving, and enhancing our entitlement programs by extending 
their solvency.
  What are they going to do? They are hastening the demise of our 
entitlements, they are accelerating the bankruptcy of these programs, 
and they are giving us the largest tax increase in American history.
  Like it or not, the numbers are clear. You can reserve fund 
everything you want, you can put any wish list you want in a piece of 
legislation, but numbers don't lie. And the numbers are crystal clear 
and they tell the truth: this budget, the Democrat budget, gives us the 
largest tax increase in American history, and the Republican budget 
keeps taxes low, and it balances the budget by controlling spending and 
it stops the raid on the Social Security trust fund and it pays down 
debt.
  Pass the Republican budget. Defeat the Democrat budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, here is the Ryan resolution on the back of 
an envelope: look at what it does for reconciliation, because it does 
it elsewhere within the budget proposal.
  Mr. Ryan proposes crippling, emasculating Medicare and Medicaid 
totaling over $250 billion, $278 billion altogether in hypothetical, 
wholly impractical, and unlikely cuts. But what is the net effect? 
Because at the same time and in the same bill he lowers taxes, has a 
tax cut of $447 billion. The net effect is an

[[Page H3327]]

increase to the deficit of $168 billion. That is why we have with this 
kind of arithmetic, why they have added $3.1 trillion to the debt of 
the United States.
  Alternatively, we offer the base budget, the Spratt resolution, the 
Democratic resolution. It moves to balance by 2012, it leaves in place 
all of the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003. They will be in place in 
2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010; and it leaves until the future the 
decisions as to whether or not and to what extent to renew these tax 
cuts when they expire, not because of this resolution but because of 
the way you wrote them, in the year 2010.
  We fully fund defense. We don't have a lot of left over, but we 
husband our resources to do more for education, more for science and 
innovation, more for veterans health care, and more for SCHIP which 
barely ranks an honorable mention in their budget. It is the 
centerpiece of our effort this year to see that more American children 
will be covered by the program known as the Children's Health Insurance 
Program.
  Otherwise, we restrain spending, and throughout our budget 
resolution, we apply religiously the rule we adopted this January, the 
rule of pay-as-you-go. So that for every mandatory spending increase we 
make possible, we provide that it has to be offset by mandatory 
spending cuts elsewhere.
  We protect the tax cuts, as I say. We present a good budget 
resolution. I say vote for the Spratt resolution. Vote for the 
Democratic resolution, and vote resoundingly ``no'' on the Ryan 
resolution.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on the amendment has 
expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 160, 
noes 268, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 211]

                               AYES--160

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

                               NOES--268

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

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Davis, Jo Ann
     Duncan
     Faleomavaega
     Jefferson
     Kanjorski
     Lampson
     Lewis (CA)
     Lynch
     Millender-McDonald
     Watt

                              {time}  1416

  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin and Mr. PORTER changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for the Fiscal 
Year 2008 Budget Resolution, H. Con. Res. 99. For far too long, the 
former Republican leadership in Congress and the Bush Administration 
were complacent in allowing poor public policy and misguided spending 
priorities to become a driving force behind mounting Federal deficits 
and an ever increasing national debt. Additionally, trillions of 
dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy and billions of dollars for a 
deteriorating war in Iraq have resulted in the President proposing 
repeated cuts to vital domestic priorities such as healthcare, 
education, and the environment.
  Today, the House of Representatives is finally considering a budget 
that meets the social and economic needs of the American people, while 
taking the necessary steps toward addressing the mounting fiscal 
hurdles facing the Federal Government.
  Our Nation has been in a budgetary crisis for too long. According to 
the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimates, President Bush 
inherited an estimated 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion when he 
arrived in office. Today, that same 10-year period (2002-2011) is 
projected to show a budget deficit of $3 trillion under the President's 
policies. The Democratic Budget Resolution will set the country's 
finances back on track by balancing the budget by 2012, and it does 
this without sacrificing programs vital to our national security, our 
economy, and most importantly to the social welfare of the American 
people.
  This budget will provide the largest veterans' healthcare spending 
increase in our Nation's history, ensuring that the 1,788,496 veterans 
in Florida receive care worthy of their sacrifice. It will facilitate 
significant increases in healthcare funding to expand access to 
Florida's 733,000 uninsured children, and makes a firm commitment to 
support education and affordable housing programs. It

[[Page H3328]]

also promotes environmental protection and conservation, and 
accommodates important energy legislation aimed at investment in 
renewable resources that will move our country toward energy 
independence.
  This budget resolution restores the fiscal responsibility and 
accountability that the American people deserve and reflects the values 
and priorities that the American people expect. It is time to put this 
country's finances back on track and truly invest in America's 
prosperity. I urge my colleague to support passage of this important 
resolution.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, today the House will consider H. Con. Res. 
99, the House Budget Resolution. I rise in support of this budget 
resolution because it fulfills the pledge Democrats made when we 
regained the majority. I am pleased to say that the Democrats have 
delivered on their word--the proposed Democratic plan will balance the 
budget in 5 years, while ensuring that critical programs are fully 
funded and that the programs dearest to our families are fully funded. 
The Democratic budget will expand health care for our children; provide 
our soldiers and veterans with care worthy of their sacrifice; support 
education for a 21st century workforce and a growing economy; invest in 
renewable energy; and restore fiscal responsibility to the budget 
process.
  When President Bush was elected, he inherited a budget surplus of 
$5.6 trillion. Yet by the end of his first term, the Bush 
Administration turned this surplus into a deficit of nearly $3 
trillion. Instead of addressing this deficit, the President's budget 
increases our deficit by $507 billion over the next 5 years. In 
comparison, the Democratic budget will lower the deficit by $234 
billion over the next 5 years using the newly resurrected pay-as-you-go 
rules.
  We will also work to lower the deficit by putting an end to wasteful 
government spending through increased oversight over our government 
agencies, starting with the Defense Department. To date the Defense 
Department continues to fail a standard audit that tracks what it 
spends or owns in the annual budget. It is estimated by Defense 
auditors that one of every six dollars spent for Iraq is suspect--
including $2.7 billion Halliburton has received in contracts. This 
budget resolution proposes to restore government program performance 
reviews instituted under the Clinton Administration, which produced 285 
recommendations to improve government services.
  I know that many back home are skeptical about whether this will help 
the working families in Michigan. Michigan has a troubled economy; its 
unemployment rate is 6.9 percent and family incomes have dropped $7,989 
since 2000, while health care and energy costs continue to rise. Yet 
the President's budget proposes to eliminate $205 million in funding 
for job training and employment services in our state. This is funding 
that Michigan desperately needs to keep our workforce competitive.
  One of the first steps we can take to repair our economy is to invest 
in our future workforce. Our budget meets the goals of the Democratic 
Innovation Agenda by providing an additional $2 billion for federal 
science and technology programs, putting us on the road to doubling 
funding for the National Science Foundation. These investments are 
necessary to maintain America's global competitiveness, particularly in 
the areas of technology, energy and innovation.
  We are going to make sure that our children receive the best 
education possible; our budget provides $8 billion more in 2008 and 
over 11 percent more over the next 5 years for education and training 
programs. Under the President's budget, more than 120,000 children in 
Michigan would go without promised help in reading and math. Head 
Start--a vital program for more than 35,000 Michigan children--would be 
cut by the President by 1.5 percent. These programs provide critical 
services for nearly 1.8 million children enrolled in Michigan public 
schools.

  The Democratic budget also supports middle-class tax cuts, which will 
put money back in the wallets of our families where it belongs. It will 
also protect middle-income families from a tax increase by setting up a 
reserve fund for a long-term fix for the alternative minimum tax, AMT. 
In 2004, 69,000 Michigan families were subject to the AMT and if this 
system is not adjusted for inflation, an estimated 507,000 families in 
Michigan will have to pay it in 2007. Without this fix, the President's 
budget would increase middle-income taxes by $230 billion. I know many 
are wondering how we will actually pay for the middle-class tax cut. We 
will pay for this by eliminating tax loopholes and closing the tax gap 
to make sure that those who are cheating the system pay up and those 
who are honest are rewarded.
  In recent months, energy costs have skyrocketed, literally leaving 
many Michigan families in the cold. Gasoline prices in Michigan have 
increased 79 percent, up $1.12 a gallon since 2001. While the President 
travels the country promoting his renewable energy programs, his budget 
proposes holding funding for renewable energy and energy efficiency 
programs at the 2001 funding level, and cutting the Low-Income Home 
Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, by 18 percent. It is obvious that we 
need to end America's addiction to foreign oil and begin to invest in 
renewable energy sources here at home. The Democratic budget rejects 
the proposed cut to LIHEAP and will create a reserve fund that will 
redirect oil subsidies to invest $14 billion over the next 10 years in 
clean, renewable alternative energy and energy efficiency programs. 
This investment will promote new technologies to lower energy costs and 
relieve families of this immense burden.
  The Democratic budget rejects the President's proposal to cut the 
Community Development Block Grant program, and actually provides the 
first increase in funding for the Community Development Block Grant 
program. This program provides crucial funding to assist nearly 1,200 
States and local governments with job creation, economic development 
and affordable housing efforts.
  Not only does this budget recognize the needs of working families, it 
will also recognize the needs of our veterans. It is clear from the 
recent events at Walter Reed Army Medical Center that Congress needs to 
closely examine the health care that veterans are receiving. Veterans 
have sacrificed too much to come home to run-down health care 
facilities. We will make sure that our veterans will always have the 
best care available by providing the largest increase ever to the 
veterans' health care budget--$3.5 billion this year and $32 billion 
over the next 5 years. These resources are critical to help repair VA 
health care facilities, to increase and improve disability claims 
processing and to invest in mental health care and treatment for 
traumatic brain injury. Michigan is home to 836,948 veterans, 42,451 of 
whom recently returned from Afghanistan and Iraq. We need to let our 
soldiers know that they will not be forgotten after their service is 
completed.
  The Democratic budget will ensure that our soldiers have the 
resources they need in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that our first 
responders and law enforcement officers here at home are equipped with 
what they need to protect our country. Under the administration's 
proposed budget, Michigan would be hit with a 52-percent cut in the 
State Homeland Security Grant Program and the Law Enforcement Terrorist 
Prevention Program would be eliminated completely. The President needs 
to heed his own advice and fully fund these programs to ensure the 
safety and security of our communities. The Democratic budget will 
increase homeland security funding by six percent, ensuring that our 
first responder and terrorism prevention programs have the resources 
they need.
  After 6 years of irresponsible fiscal budgets and empty promises, 
today's resolution will take the first step to finally balancing our 
budget and delivering critical funding to programs that need it the 
most. I support this resolution and I urge my colleagues to vote yes on 
H. Con. Res. 99.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support 
of H. Con. Res. 99, the Fiscal Year 2008 Congressional Budget proposed 
by my esteemed colleague from South Carolina, the Chairman of the House 
Budget Committee John Spratt. I would specifically like to commend the 
hard work and expertise of my colleagues of the House Committee on the 
Budget that has brought forward this budget that prioritizes education, 
the environment, agriculture, health care, and positive international 
relations for the future of our Nation.
  I never forget in my work within the walls of this House that I am my 
brother's keeper. To this end, I am willing to contribute financially 
what is necessary to complete that task. All citizens of America must 
take ownership of the vital services, which require Federal funding to 
maintain.
  Mr. Chairman, every day in the House Rules Committee, Members of 
Congress on both sides of the aisle propose legislation that has 
financial implications. I hear about necessary programs for veterans 
affairs, education, alternative energy development, health care, and 
every other possible issue, all of which cost money to implement. 
Interestingly, though not surprisingly, no one ever comes to Committee 
talking about giving money back to pay for their requests. You see, it 
costs money to provide the necessary services and infrastructure to our 
constituents. But it is clear that Republican opponents of Chairman 
Spratt's budget are not willing to pay.
  The Fiscal Year 2008 Democratic budget is fiscally responsible in its 
projections for revenue generation and ability to pay for necessary 
services for our constituents. While we may have inherited an economic 
mess from the former Republican majority, this budget will repair the 
damage inflicted to our economy and provide for a budget surplus by 
2012. It is fiscally sound and domestically and internationally 
responsible.
  Mr. Chairman, the House today has an opportunity to consider an 
alternative budget offered by the Congressional Black Caucus.

[[Page H3329]]

While I wholeheartedly support the budget prepared by Chairman Spratt, 
I would also like to express strong support for the Congressional Black 
Caucus Alternative Budget brought forth by my friend Congressman Bobby 
Scott of Virginia. I commend Congressman Scott and my colleagues of the 
Congressional Black Caucus for their work on this budget.
  The Congressional Black Caucus Alternative Budget meets a stringent 
test of fiscal responsibility by providing for a budget surplus of $141 
billion in Fiscal Year 2012 while funding even more national 
priorities. More specifically, under Function 300: Natural Resources 
and the Environment, this budget allocates over $1 billion more than 
Chairman Spratt's budget for Hurricane Katrina recovery, environmental 
justice, and national parks. Another key feature of this budget is that 
it funds the State Children's Health Insurance Program at a level that 
will provide insurance for every uninsured child in America.
  Mr. Chairman, I could speak for quite some time about the phenomenal 
features of the Congressional Black Caucus Alternative Budget. I hope 
that all of my colleagues in this Congress recognize its innovation and 
merit as another possible means to overcome the budgetary challenges 
that were exacerbated by the former Republican majority. Both the 
Democratic and Congressional Black Caucus budgets are common sense 
solutions to the difficult financial situation with which we have been 
forced to deal. I urge my colleagues to support both plans.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 99, 
a budget resolution providing a number of common sense solutions to the 
budget crisis created by 12 years of Republican fiscal mismanagement.
  I was here in 1993 when President Clinton and Congressional Democrats 
passed our budget resolution. And this year reminds me of 1993. We are 
hearing exactly the same complaints about this budget as we did that 
year. And we all know what happened when we passed our budget back 
then.
  The Democrats helped create the longest economic expansion in our 
Nation's history. We balanced the budget after years of Republican 
Presidents had pushed us deeper and deeper into debt. We helped create 
more wealth than had ever been created in America. We created the 
largest surpluses in history. And we did this without a single 
Republican supporting our budget.
  In fact, the minute the Republicans got back into power, they wiped 
out the surpluses we gave them, and began drowning us in debt. They 
took the economic expansion we gave them, and drove us into recession.
  Mr. Chairman, once again we are faced with red ink as far as the eye 
can see. We have a debt of almost $9 trillion, and the Republicans have 
abdicated any attempt to solve this.
  The budget resolution we have introduced incorporates the pay-as-you-
go rule that was one of the first acts of the new Democratic Congress. 
We are also increasing funding for veterans in order to fulfill the 
promises we made to them long ago. Our budget provides $3.5 billion 
more than the President's budget for veterans' health care, and $6.6 
billion more than was provided in the 2007 budget. This is the largest 
funding increase for veterans in our Nation's history. We are also 
providing $50 over the next five years to cover millions of uninsured 
children.
  I strongly support the Democratic budget resolution. It will help put 
our fiscal house back in order, without relying on the massive middle 
class tax increase that the President's budget includes. I would 
encourage my colleagues to support this budget as well.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Fiscal Year 
2008 Budget resolution.
  I rise in support of this budget because I believe that it truly 
addresses the needs of all Americans, while restoring fiscal 
responsibility and accountability. Last year, Democrats pledged to move 
the country in a new direction and this budget is one more step in 
fulfilling that commitment. Republicans' irresponsible economic 
policies of the past six years have left a debt burden of $29,099 for a 
typical middle-income family of four in Rhode Island. This budget 
begins to reverse harmful cuts, restores critical domestic programs, 
and better reflects the priorities of all Americans by strengthening 
our national defense and investing in future generations.
  This budget provides for the largest veterans' budget increase in 
American history, which will directly bolster healthcare services for 
91,160 veterans in Rhode Island. It is also critical for the 4,082 
brave Rhode Islanders, who have served their country in Afghanistan and 
Iraq since September 2001, many of whom will need VA health care 
services.
  In 2004, 13,000 Rhode Island families were subject to the alternative 
minimum tax--and if nothing is done to fix the system, an estimated 
98,000 families here in Rhode Island will be subject to the AMT in 
2007. This budget supports middle-class tax cuts and protects middle-
income families from a tax increase by setting up a reserve fund for a 
long-term fix for the alternative minimum tax.
  In Rhode Island, there are 100,000 small businesses that serve as the 
engine of the economy. This budget rejects the President's proposal to 
cut the Small Business Administration by 26 percent from last year's 
request and 56 percent from 2001. It also rejects the President's cuts 
that eliminate $11,429,000 in funding for job training and employment 
services in Rhode Island. These investments to a growing economy for 
America's families are needed as family income in Rhode Island has only 
increased $574 since 2000 and health care and energy prices continue to 
climb.
  In Rhode Island, 20,260 of our children do not have health insurance. 
This budget helps these children by increasing funding for State 
Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)--reducing the number of 
uninsured kids across America by millions. This budget also rejects the 
Administration's proposal to cut Medicare funding by $170,154,922 for 
Rhode Island hospitals, skilled nursing facilities and home health care 
providers--because those proposals would make health care less 
accessible and less affordable for many Rhode Islanders.
  The House budget provides substantially more funding for Rhode 
Island's 159,600 children enrolled in public elementary, middle and 
high schools--providing nearly $8 billion more in 2008 and 11 percent 
more over the next five years for education and training programs than 
requested by the President. This will increase resources for No Child 
Left Behind, special education and Head Start--rejecting harsh cuts and 
under funding for these critical education programs included in the 
President's budget.
  Gas prices have increased by $1.11 in Rhode Island since January 
2001, an increase of approximately 73 percent. The Democratic House 
budget invests in renewable energy and energy efficiency to reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil, reduce global warming, and promote new 
technologies that can create American jobs. It will also restore 
funding for Rhode Island environmental programs cut by the President's 
budget--including $2,654,000 in Clean Water revolving loan funds that 
help Rhode Island improve wastewater treatment. Mr. Chairman, this 
budget is a critical step in a new direction. Today, for the first time 
in many years, this House will pass a budget that truly represents the 
priorities of the American people.
  Mr. HALL of New York. Mr. Chairman, today it was with great 
reluctance that I cast my vote against the Woolsey substitute budget 
amendment. I say it was with great reluctance because the progressive 
budget put forth by the amendment contained a great many individual 
provisions that I strongly support.
  I strongly applaud the inclusion of full funding for No Child Left 
Behind in the amendment, and believe that we as a Congress must 
continue to work toward that goal. For too long, the Republican 
majority and President Bush have forced local communities to bear the 
brunt of No Child Left Behind's mandates without sufficient Federal 
support. For the sake of our children, our schools, and our communities 
we need to rectify this.
  Likewise, I admire, respect, and support the amendment's commitment 
to full, guaranteed funding for veterans' healthcare. As the ongoing 
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan create a new generation of veterans with 
critical new healthcare needs, we must make sure that the VA healthcare 
system will be able to accommodate them while caring for veterans from 
previous generations. As a member of the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs, I remain committed to making sure that the VA can honor the 
sacred pact we make with our soldiers; that if they fight to defend our 
Nation, our Nation will make sure they have the care they need.
  There are other highly commendable provisions in the amendment, 
including the repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent 
of Americans, tax cuts which I believe have helped to put us on the 
path to fiscal ruin without providing one bit of support for working 
families. The proposal also includes much-needed provisions to crack 
down on corporate welfare and a commitment to expand health coverage to 
all Americans.
  I support these provisions, and it is my deep and abiding hope that 
they will be brought to the floor of this Chamber individually to be 
considered and adopted by the House. However, the option to consider 
them as such was not available today.
  The previous majority left this House, and this Nation, with an 
astounding fiscal train wreck, and in order to restore budgetary 
balance we must make difficult decisions. I am also concerned that 
although there are many laudable goals included in the substitute 
amendment, it failed to reform the Alternative Minimum Tax, which 
unintentionally and unnecessarily burdens a tremendous number of the 
residents of the Hudson Valley.

[[Page H3330]]

  The underlying budget resolution, for which I cast my vote, contains 
strong funding increases for many of the programs I have discussed, 
balances the budget, and provides vital AMT relief. In light of the 
fiscal challenges created by previous Congresses, I believe that the 
underlying budget represents a strong, responsible step forward and is 
deserving of support.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, today I voted for both the 
Congressional Black Caucus and the Progressive Caucus alternatives to 
the budget resolution, in addition to voting for the House Democratic 
Budget resolution. I believe all three of these proposals have a great 
deal of merit.
  The Congressional Black Caucus's alternative provides high levels of 
funding for important national health initiatives, including increasing 
funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program by $10 
billion and increasing funding for veteran's benefits and services by 
$3.4 billion over the amounts provided by the House Democratic 
resolution. Importantly, the Congressional Black Caucus's alternative 
provides an increase over the House Democratic resolution in foreign 
aid spending by an additional $3.1 billion--providing much needed funds 
to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. The Progressive Caucus's 
alternative also showcased wise policy choices; it also would have 
provided increased funding for the State Children's Health Insurance 
Program and would have invested in America's future by funding 
educational opportunities, job training programs, and the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act. In addition, the Progressive Caucus's 
alternative reflected one of my highest priorities, which was to strip 
funding from obsolete Cold War era weapons programs that divert 
precious resources away from America's actual security interests, and 
its budget projections assumed a complete withdrawal from the Iraqi 
Civil War.
  I was also proud to help craft and vote for the House Democratic 
Budget resolution, however, because it provides for increased veterans 
benefits and services, increased educational benefits, increased 
environmental initiatives, and leads to a budget surplus by 2012. In 
sum, it represents a reasonable balance of opportunities and it does so 
within our means--unlike the Republican proposals. A critical aspect of 
the House Democratic Budget resolution is its provisioning of reserve 
funds that enable this Congress to begin repairing the damage done by 
the Republicans to our Nation's fiscal stability by fixing the 
alternative minimum tax--a ``stealth tax'' on millions of middle class 
taxpayers--and preserving tax cuts for the middle class. I voted to 
express my support for the ideas contained in Congressional Black 
Caucus's and the Progressive Caucus's budgets, but I also voted to 
support the House Democratic Budget resolution because it provides a 
reasoned blueprint for the fiscal decisions facing this country.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, the FY 2008 budget is a monument to 
irresponsibility and profligacy. It shows that Congress remains 
oblivious to the economic troubles facing the Nation, and that 
political expediency trumps all common sense in Washington. To the 
extent that proponents and supporters of these unsustainable budget 
increases continue to win reelection, it also shows that many Americans 
unfortunately continue to believe government can provide them with a 
free lunch.
  To summarize, Congress proposes spending roughly $3 trillion in 2008. 
When I first came to Congress in 1976, the Federal Government spent 
only about $300 billion. So spending has increased tenfold in 30 years, 
and tripled just since 1990.
  About one-third of this $3 trillion is so-called discretionary 
spending; the remaining two-thirds is deemed ``mandatory'' entitlement 
spending, which means mostly Social Security and Medicare. I am sure 
many American voters would be shocked to know their elected 
representatives essentially have no say over two-thirds of the Federal 
budget, but that is indeed the case.
  The most disturbing problem with the budget is the utter lack of 
concern for the coming entitlement meltdown. The official national debt 
figure, now approaching $9 trillion, reflects only what the Federal 
Government owes in current debts on money already borrowed. It does not 
reflect what the Federal Government has promised to pay millions of 
Americans in entitlement benefits down the road. Those future 
obligations put our real debt figure at roughly 50 trillion dollars--a 
staggering sum that is about as large as the total household net worth 
of the entire United States. Your share of this 50 trillion amounts to 
about $175,000.
  For those who thought a Democratic Congress would end the war in 
Iraq, think again: their new budget proposes supplemental funds 
totaling about $150 billion in 2008 and $50 billion in 2009 for Iraq. 
This is in addition to the ordinary Department of Defense budget of 
more than $500 billion, which the Democrats propose increasing each 
year just like the Republicans.
  The substitute Republican budget is not much better: while it does 
call for freezing some discretionary spending next year, it increases 
military spending to make up the difference. The bottom line is that 
both the Democratic and Republican budget proposals call for more total 
spending in 2008 than 2007.
  My message to my colleagues is simple: If you claim to support 
smaller government, don't introduce budgets that increase spending over 
the previous year. Can any fiscal conservative in Congress honestly 
believe that overall federal spending cannot be cut 25 percent? We 
could cut spending by two-thirds and still have a Federal Government as 
large as it was in 1990.
  Congressional budgets essentially are meaningless documents, with no 
force of law beyond the coming fiscal year. Thus budget projections are 
nothing more than political posturing, designed to justify deficit 
spending in the near term by promising fiscal restraint in the future. 
But the time for thrift never seems to arrive: there is always some new 
domestic or foreign emergency that requires more spending than 
projected.
  Nobody in Washington will look back 5 years from now and exclaim, 
``Gee whiz, back in 2007 we promised to balance the budget by 2012, so 
I guess we better stick to that pledge and stop spending so much this 
year.'' The only certainty when it comes to Federal budgets is that 
Congress will spend every penny budgeted and more during the fiscal 
year in question. All projections about revenues, tax rates, and 
spending in the future are nothing more than empty promises. Congress 
will pay no attention whatsoever to the 2008 budget in coming years.
  We should not let the debate over numbers distract us from the 
fundamental yet unspoken issues inherent in any budget proposal: What 
is the proper role for government in our society? Are the programs, 
agencies, and departments funded in the budget proposal constitutional? 
Are they effective? Could they operate with a smaller budget? Would the 
public even notice if certain items were eliminated altogether? These 
are the kinds of questions the American people should ask, even if 
Congress lacks the courage to apply any principles whatsoever to the 
budget process.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the 
Republican budget alternative and in strong support of the Democratic 
budget.
  I applaud my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for bringing 
forward a budget alternative, which is no small feat, so we can have a 
thorough debate about our Nation's priorities.
  I would also like to add that I support their commitment to reforming 
mandatory spending programs. It is a significant problem on the horizon 
that Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, former Fed Chairman Greenspan, 
the Comptroller General, and others have forewarned us about. While I 
support their concept of reigning in mandatory spending, I suspect we 
differ in how to go about that.
  What bothers me more about this process is not that we have 
disagreements, because we are going to have disagreements on where we 
spend the money and who pays for it. Those are legitimate arguments 
that should be vigorously debated. But the rhetoric that we use that 
surrounds it I think is unfair on both sides of the aisle.
  I was not here in 2001, but I voted for about half of the 2003 tax 
cuts because I thought it was the right policy for this country. 
However, I did not agree with other budget policies. I don't believe 
that Republican budgets addressed critical health care and education 
priorities, or met the needs of our veterans. And the policies added 
staggering amounts to our Nation's debt. Regardless of how we got here, 
I think we ought to not fool ourselves about where we actually are. 
This is a train wreck that we find ourselves in, that the former 
Republican majority could not right. It was such a train wreck that 
Republicans could not pass a budget and could not finish the 
appropriations process last year. Democrats had to do a continuing 
resolution when we assumed the majority this year to clean up the mess 
that was left behind.
  According to the Bush Administration's own numbers, the policies of 
President Bush and the Republican Congress put us on pace to increase 
the federal debt by well over $4 trillion by 2008. By comparison, it 
took the first 41 presidents combined to accumulate a total of $4 
trillion in debt.
  The debt and deficits we have racked up are not sustainable over 
time. They undermine America's economic strength by driving up interest 
rates and reducing investment. They force us to become increasingly 
beholden to foreign nations, as three-fourths of all new federal 
borrowing has come from foreign investors such as China and Japan. And 
they mortgage our children's future, forcing them to pay back the 
mountains of debt we are incurring today. We should be investing in our 
children's future, not borrowing from it.
  We have a responsibility to begin cleaning up the fiscal mess that we 
inherited. The

[[Page H3331]]

Democratic budget does just that and promises a new direction for our 
country. What we are trying to do with the Democratic budget is to take 
tow trucks to this train wreck and pull those cars off the track. Then, 
somehow, we have got to straighten out the track. It is going to be a 
lot of tough work and a lot of hammering on those tracks to get them 
back in line. And then we have got to set those railcars back up on the 
railroad track and somehow get this train moving again.
  Correcting the fiscal course of our country cannot be achieved 
overnight, but I believe that this budget is a good first step. It 
addresses our Nation's priorities. It institutes tough spending control 
measures and fiscal discipline. It provides for responsible tax relief. 
And it brings our budget back to balance within five years.
  The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Spratt, should be commended 
for helping to right this train. The budget may not be perfect, but he 
deserves a tremendous amount of credit for what he has done and the 
Blue Dog Coalition certainly appreciates his efforts. We think we are 
headed in the right direction and are on the right track.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, today we are living up to the promise we 
made at the beginning of the new Congress to bring discipline to the 
federal budget.
  By passing this Resolution, we will take an important step toward 
balancing our nation's budget, begin generating a budget surplus by 
2012, and provide resources for critical undertakings in our country.
  It's been a long time since we've talked about budget surpluses. Back 
in 2001, a $5.6 trillion surplus was projected by 2011. In two short 
years, that surplus disappeared and instead $2.8 trillion was added to 
the national debt. It now stands today at more than $8.8 trillion.
  Today we're turning the corner by upholding the principle of pay-as-
you-go. Any new spending has to be offset by cuts to other parts of the 
budget and new tax cuts must be paid for.
  This budget addresses several important national priorities: It 
provides relief to the middle-class from the Alternative Minimum Tax 
(AMT) which is causing an increasing number of Americans to absorb a 
higher tax burden, as well as imposing an enormous paperwork burden on 
taxpayers who must determine whether or not they have to pay this tax. 
In my Congressional District, 11 percent of taxpayers are subject to 
the AMT. On average, they pay $8,000 in additional taxes each year 
because of it. This budget allows for the extension of expiring middle-
class tax provisions, including the child tax credit, marriage penalty 
relief, the 10-percent bracket, and the deduction for state and local 
sales taxes; it provides up to $50 billion to expand the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to cover a million more 
uninsured children in our country.
  Because we're committed to fiscal responsibility, each of these 
priorities will be paid for.
  The budget also provides funding for priorities that have been 
neglected for too long: it provides $3 billion in additional funding 
for education, including the No Child Left Behind Act and the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; it provides funding for 
the victims and communities devastated by Hurricane Katrina; it 
provides $5.4 billion for health care for veterans.
  This Budget Resolution provides funding to carry forward the 
Innovation Agenda that House Democrats under Speaker Pelosi developed 
last year, a commitment to keep America #1 competitively by making 
major investments in education and research, and the Resolution 
delivers on this commitment: it puts us on the path toward doubling the 
funding for the National Science Foundation and basic research in the 
physical sciences; it supports important initiatives to educate 100,000 
new scientists, engineers, and mathematicians and to ensure that highly 
qualified teachers are instructing elementary and secondary school 
students in science and math.
  This budget is supported by a wide-array of scientists and 
innovators, including:
  American Electronics Association (AeA)
  American Chemical Society (ACS)
  American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
  Association of American Universities (AAU)
  Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA)
  Council on Competitiveness
  Electronics Industry Association (EIA)
  Information Technology Industry Council (ITI)
  Information Technology Association of America (ITAA)
  Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
  National Venture Capital Association (NVCA)
  National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges 
(NASULGC)
  Science Coalition
  Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International (SEMI)
  TechNet.
  Technology CEO Council
  Mr. Chairman, I know it is not easy to create a budget that satisfies 
every need, but for the first time in years we have a budget that 
acknowledges fiscal realities and addresses our national priorities in 
a balanced and responsible manner. It is a worthy statement of our 
national values, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to rise in strong 
support of H. Con. Res. 99, the House Budget Resolution for fiscal year 
2008. This bill proves that a responsible budget can both reflect the 
values of our country and ensure the growth of our economy.
  For all too long the voice of the American people has not been heard 
in this Congress. Today, I am proud to say that the new Democratic-led 
Congress is listening and we are delivering. We have brought a budget 
to the floor that begins to reverse six years of harmful cuts and 
reckless fiscal policy, and invests in the Nation's future. This budget 
supports programs that help more working families help themselves. It 
keeps our promises to our children, seniors, and veterans.
  Unlike the Administration's budget, this carefully crafted budget 
brings down the deficit by $234 billion over the next 5 years and 
balances it by 2012. It supports middle-class tax cuts and sets up a 
reserve fund for a long-term fix for the AMT--a tax that will effect 
over 580,000 Connecticut families in 2007. The bill also creates a 
reserve fund of up to $14 billion over 10 years for investments in 
clean, renewable alternative energy that is paid for by redirecting oil 
company subsidies.
  This budget refuses to leave children behind--it provides $7.9 
billion more in funding for education, which means more funding for No 
Child Left Behind, special education, and aid to help students afford 
college. The bill also includes a $50 billion reserve fund to expand 
the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, to cover the more 
than 9 million children without health insurance, including the nearly 
73,000 uninsured children in Connecticut. In addition, this budget 
ensures veterans receive the care that is worthy of their sacrifice. It 
provides $3.5 billion more this year to provide quality health care for 
veterans, repair VA health care facilities, and improve the accuracy 
and time of processing disability claims.
  Our budget rejects the President's proposed cuts to Medicare and 
homeland security grants. Our budget refuses to increase the deficit. 
Our budget refuses to ``stay the course'' of the Bush Administration.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting 
the underlying bill, a budget that reflects the values and priorities 
of the American people.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, while I agree with many of the priorities 
in H. Con. Res. 99, the concurrent budget resolution for FY-08, 
unfortunately, I cannot support it.
  I have serious concerns about increasing government spending and 
cannot support a budget that allows key tax cuts to expire.
  I am also concerned about the partisanship that I have seen leading 
up to this vote.
  Last fall, voters in my district told me they wanted to change the 
tone in Washington. They wanted Congress to ratchet down the rhetoric, 
and start working together to find sensible solutions to our common 
problems.
  That included our nation's financial mess.
  The current mess affects us all. Not just Democrats, and not just 
Republicans.
  Sadly, listening to this week's budget debate, you would never know 
it.
  I refuse to believe we cannot find a third way, a bipartisan way, to 
incorporate good ideas from both sides of the aisle.
  It seems to me tax cuts should be a good place to start. Most of us 
support tax cuts for middle income families.
  In my view, this should include reduced estate taxes and reduced 
capital gains.
  It is true that, once upon a time, stock ownership was the province 
of the rich. But today, with the proliferation of 401(k)s and mutual 
funds, nearly half of all Americans own stock.
  As stock ownership has grown mainstream, it has become increasingly 
important to keep capital gains low.
  This and other tax cuts are scheduled to expire in 2010, and despite 
what some are saying, today's budget does, in fact, maintain them until 
that time.
  What today's budget does not do, and what I hope future budgets will 
do, is find a way to extend these cuts beyond 2010.
  Obviously, this is easier said than done, especially if we are 
serious about reducing the deficit. But I believe that, unless we make 
this a priority now, it will become that much harder to accomplish in 
the future.
  I applaud today's budget for its commitment to education, 
transportation, and veterans. These are critical priorities, which have 
been short-changed in the recent past, and they deserve our utmost 
attention. In the rush to make improvements, however, we need to

[[Page H3332]]

make sure we are getting the most out of what we are already spending. 
Voters have a right to expect accountability. I encourage all my 
colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to ask tough questions as they 
review current Federal programs.
  Working together, I know we can support our Nation's priorities and 
get our fiscal house in order.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 
99.
  For the last 6 years we have been swimming in serious red ink. Deep 
red ink. Thanks to President Bush and the Republicans in Congress we 
have added almost three trillion dollars to our Nation's debt. This red 
ink also seemed to be without end. In the past the other side of the 
aisle put forward budgets that did not reflect a serious commitment to 
responsible fiscal policy. Those budgets also failed to reflect the 
priorities of the American people.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, Congress is under new management. That new 
management has produced a budget for the House to consider about which 
the American people can be proud.
  The Democratic budget is fiscally responsible. It reimposes pay-as-
you-go (PAYGO) budgeting principles and achieves balance in 2012. At 
the same time, this budget puts our priorities in the proper order.
  For example, it provides tax relief to those who it needs it most--
the middle-class. This tax relief includes the extension of certain tax 
breaks, such as the child tax credit, and reform of the Alternative 
Minimum Tax (AMT).
  This budget also increases spending on the things that matter most to 
the American people, such as our children, education, health care, and 
veterans. Today we will be providing for a $50 billion increase in 
funds to provide health insurance to millions of more uninsured kids. 
Education, training, and related programs will receive three billion 
more than current levels and almost eight billion more than requested 
by the President. Funding for veterans' health care services is 
increased by 14.4 percent.
  I am proud to support this budget. It reflects a responsible fiscal 
position and puts our limited resources towards programs and policies 
that are important to this nation. I encourage all of my colleagues to 
vote in favor of H. Con. Res. 99.
  Mr. SALI. Mr. Chairman, today Members of Congress faced two budget 
resolutions. The choice is a clear one between bigger, more expensive 
and more intrusive government versus fiscal discipline based on key 
priorities.
  Now, fiscal discipline is hard, which is why it is not always 
popular. It is easy for some to vote to increase government spending, 
but ultimately someone must pay for it. It is common to hear about the 
``government'' doing this project or that project. We hear a lot about 
the ``government'' spending money, but we must not allow the idea of 
``government'' doing something to lead us to forget that, ultimately, 
``We the People'' are the ones who have to pay for what government 
does. The nineteenth century economist Frederic Bastiat once said that 
``government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to 
live at the expense of everybody else.''
  Although the Federal Government is not known for its fiscal 
discipline, we are now facing a budget that exceeds even the most 
fevered imaginings of history's biggest spenders. It would enact the 
largest tax increase in history--an almost $400 billion increase.
  This is one path, and it is the one down which the new Majority 
proposes to take us. We also had the opportunity to take another path, 
a roadway to a balanced budget without raising taxes on working 
Americans.
  The choice is clear. The Democratic budget would do serious harm to 
Idahoans, their families and their businesses. The Democratic budget 
would: Raise taxes on 436,000 Idahoans who benefit from the current 10 
percent tax bracket; force 176,000 married couples in Idaho to pay for 
an increase in the marriage tax penalty; force 133,000 Idahoans with 
children to pay higher taxes because of the expiration of the current 
child tax credit; and raise tax rates on capital gains and dividends 
for 74,000 Idaho investors, including Idaho senior citizens.
  The Democrats are demanding that hardworking Idahoans further 
subsidize the already bulging government coffers. More than that, the 
reckless increases in entitlement spending included in their bill would 
require that generations to come pay for our present unwillingness to 
make tough decisions.
  As many know but few heed, the explosive rate of entitlement spending 
is simply not sustainable. If the current rate of federal entitlement 
spending remains unabated, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will 
consume 20 percent of the Nation's economy annually by 2040. If trends 
continue, entitlements will take up over 60 percent of the entire 
Federal budget in less than a decade. Our Nation is one of great 
prosperity, but no nation can expect to maintain economic and political 
greatness by feeding government programs at the expense of working 
families.
  Few will be untouched by this vicious money-grab. Seniors, married 
couples, parents, small business owners, lower-income earners--all will 
be forced to turn over more of their earnings to the Federal 
Government.
  In contrast, I support the Republican-offered substitute budget. The 
Republican budget reaches a balanced budget by 2012, but retains the 
important tax cuts adopted in 2001 and 2003. The Republican budget does 
not arbitrarily raise the 10 percent bracket to 15 percent; it 
preserves the current 10 percent rate. Lower-income earners need that 
money more than the government does. The Republican budget: Stops 
raiding the Social Security surplus; reins-in unsustainable, runaway 
entitlement spending by slowing the rate of annual entitlement spending 
growth, thereby saving money for the taxpayers; prepares for the future 
by budgeting in advance for national emergencies and crises; refines 
and strengthens the so-called ``pay as you go'' (PAYGO) rules to 
require that spending increases be offset with spending reductions 
instead of increasing taxes; caps discretionary spending through 2010 
so Congress cannot simply throw more money at problems that require 
real solutions.
  In short, we in Congress are accountable to our constituents. We must 
remember that real people and their livelihoods are at stake back home. 
If we wish to help those back in our districts, we must bear in mind 
that we do not have all the answers here in Washington. Congress did 
not earn the money that we took in taxes. It was hard-working Americans 
that earned it. If we fail to make the direly-needed tough choices 
about runaway spending, we are merely fostering a tax-and-spend culture 
that demands our constituents make pay a greater sacrifice in their 
earnings.
  This is an unacceptable demand to make. Thankfully, the President has 
said he would veto the Democratic bill. Yet unless Congress begins to 
take seriously the need for economic growth, tax reduction for families 
and balancing the Federal budget, relying on the nation's Chief 
Executive to exercise his veto pen is like depending on a child to put 
his finger in the leak of a dyke. It will only work for a short time. 
We've got to do better, soon.
  Mr. Ortiz. Mr. Chairman, Federal budgets reflect our values as a 
nation. This Nation has rejected passing the monumental debt run up by 
this administration and past congresses on to their children. We are 
bringing a new fiscal direction to our budgeting process.
  Correcting the fiscal course of the country will not be easy, or 
fast. We did it before, but success only comes with the hard work of 
passing budget and appropriations bills every year . . . unlike the way 
past Congresses did it: not paying the bills, running up huge waves of 
debt in the form of higher taxes on our children. We're about to start 
doing this right.
  Our fiscal outlook deteriorated dramatically over the past 6 years. 
In 2001, the administration inherited a projected 10-year (2002-2011) 
budget surplus of $5.6 trillion. After paying for tax cuts for the 
richest among us, that surplus was gone. Between that and the 9-11 
attacks, the United States accumulated a mountain of debt, adding $2.8 
trillion to our Federal debt burden since 2001. Most of this debt has 
been purchased by foreign investors, making the U.S. economy more 
vulnerable to economic and political instability and political pressure 
from abroad.
  Deficits matter. It is our moral responsibility to start cleaning up 
the fiscal chaos wrought by the last Congresses and the President. 
Living beyond our means comes at a cost to our children and 
grandchildren who will have to pay off that debt. The irresponsible 
economic policies of the past 6 years have left a debt burden of 
$29,075 for a typical middle-income family of four in Texas.
  Deficits also hurt economic growth by slowing down national savings, 
which leaves us less to invest in our future. That means lower 
productivity and wages for future workers. The President's budget 
continued the fiscal approach that has brought us large deficits and 
growing debt.
  This budget is in sharp contrast to the trend of spending our 
children's money like mad. Today's budget takes the necessary steps to 
eliminate our long-term budget deficit by adhering to the pay-as-you-go 
principle, just as families at kitchen tables do every day across the 
country.
  A balanced budget must include balanced priorities. For the first 
time in 6 years, the congressional budget resolution will balance the 
Federal budget--in 2012--while also defending our country, delivering 
critical services to children and families, caring for our veterans, 
educating our children, and growing the U.S. economy.
  The 2008 budget is the blueprint for the new direction we are taking 
the American people. It provides greater deficit reduction than the 
administration in the first 5 years, leading to a budget surplus in 
2012 . . . we pay for the budget as we go, not as we hope we'll have a 
windfall of money . . .

[[Page H3333]]

  I am particularly pleased at the matters affecting South Texas, 
including:
  The largest veterans' budget increase in American history--$3.5 
billion more this year ($32 billion over the next 5 years) for 
veterans' health care than the President's budget.
  Greater investment in areas that deal with homeland security, 
rejecting the cuts to vital first responder and terrorism prevention 
programs included in the President's FY 2008 budget. Under the 
President's budget, the State Homeland Security Grant Program--which 
awarded $277,028,279 to Texas from 2003 to 2006--would be slashed by 52 
percent. The Law Enforcement Terrorist Prevention Program (LETPP)--
which awarded $70,936,283 to Texas from 2004 to 2006--would be 
eliminated.
  Funds to begin implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations to 
make Texas and our nation more secure.
  Investments in a 21st Century Workforce for a growing economy and 
protects middle-class taxpayers.
  Increasing funding for State Children's Health Insurance Program 
(SCHIP)--in Texas, where previous budget cuts left 1,366,710 children 
without health insurance.
  Rejecting the administration's proposal to cut Medicare funding by 
$1,586,784,434 for Texas hospitals, skilled nursing facilities and home 
health care providers.
  Providing substantially more funding for Texas' 4,365,200 children 
enrolled in public elementary, middle and high schools--providing 
nearly $8 billion more in 2008 and 11 percent more over the next 5 
years for education and training programs than requested by the 
President.
  Increasing resources for No Child Left Behind, special education and 
Head Start--rejecting the harsh cuts and underfunding for these 
critical education programs in the President's budget.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this budget, and begin a new era of 
fiscal sanity and investment in our greatest resource--Americans.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. 
Res. 99, the Budget Resolution for FY 2008. This measure will provide 
robust funding for some of the most important programs to the American 
people, while simultaneously maintaining our commitment to fiscal 
discipline.
  Last year, the Democrats promised to move the country in a new and 
better direction. The budget before us today restores many of the 
programs that the President proposed to cut, while allowing us to not 
only balance our budget but return to surplus by 2012. I am pleased 
that the Democratic budget meets our commitment to national defense and 
supports those who have served our country by providing significant 
increases for military and veterans' health care. We must not leave 
behind those who have risked their lives in defense of our Nation, and 
this budget includes $3.5 billion more than the President's to improve 
care in the areas of mental health, post-traumatic stress disorder, 
traumatic brain injury and spinal cord injury--areas of great concern 
for our veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
  As the Chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emerging 
Threats, Cybersecurity and Science and Technology, I am proud to 
support a budget that properly invests in our homeland security 
initiatives. Unlike the President's proposal, we provide considerable 
funding for programs important to state and local law enforcement in 
Rhode Island, including the State Homeland Security Grant Program, 
which awarded approximately $50 million to Rhode Island from 2003 to 
2006, and the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, from which 
Rhode Island received $11.5 million from 2004 to 2006. By passing the 
Democratic budget, we can give first responders in Rhode Island the 
tools they need to keep our citizens safe.
  In addition, the new Democratic leadership has made implementing the 
9/11 Commission recommendations a top priority for the 110th Congress. 
This task was completed in the first 100 hours, and today we underscore 
our commitment to those recommendations by providing sufficient funding 
to carry them out.
  The Democratic budget also meets our Nation's domestic priorities, 
notably in the area of health care. While the President proposed to cut 
children from the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, our 
budget includes a $50 billion reserve fund to expand SCHIP to cover 
more of the nine million children without health insurance in this 
country. In Rhode Island's RIte Care program, federal SCHIP funds are 
leveraged to provide health insurance to many children living in 
families with at least one working parent or an income below 250 
percent of the poverty level. RIte Care also covers certain pregnant 
women and parents, providing peace of mind for families who would 
otherwise face uncertainty about health care. Still, despite these 
relatively generous eligibility policies, there are still 18,680 
uninsured children in the state, or 6.6 percent of all Rhode Island 
children, which is why additional support is needed to protect our most 
vulnerable. The Democratic budget provides that support.
  This budget will also increase funding for education, social 
services, and job training programs by almost $8 billion over the 2008 
program level in the President's budget, important steps that we must 
take to reverse 6 years of harmful cuts. Pell Grants, which offer so 
many American students the opportunity to access higher education, have 
seen a significant decline in purchasing power in recent years. Under 
this budget, we will raise the maximum Pell Grant to at least $4,600 
and take significant steps toward making college a possibility for all 
of our Nation's young people.
  The budget we are considering today also restores critical community 
development and social services programs that the President proposed to 
cut. Community and regional development programs like the Community 
Development Block Grant (CDBG) provide vital funding for economic and 
community development in both urban and rural areas nationwide. This 
proposal will also restore funding to the Low Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program (LIHEAP) which helps lower-income families cope with 
rising heating and cooling costs.
  In another effort to lower energy costs and provide a new vision for 
America's energy policy, the Democratic budget makes a major investment 
in alternative and renewable energy research, which will move us closer 
to energy independence and improve our environment. It includes an 
additional $300 million this year for the Department of Energy, which 
could be invested in renewable and alternative energy development and 
energy efficiency initiatives. It also establishes a reserve fund that 
could provide as much as $14 billion over 10 years to invest in clean 
and renewable energy resources. Just as our Nation rallied around 
President Kennedy's call to put a man on the moon, we must similarly 
harness the creativity and expertise of our citizens and private 
industry to develop new technologies and work toward energy 
independence.
  The Democratic budget also recognizes the importance of preserving 
our environment and public lands for future generations by providing an 
additional $2.6 billion for environmental programs--9 percent more than 
the President's request. It also blocks the President's proposed cuts 
to vital environmental programs such as the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund, EPA clean water grants and our National Wildlife Refuge system. 
Rhode Islanders have a long history of protecting our natural 
resources, and I am pleased that this budget reflects those values.
  Finally, this budget includes several greatly needed extensions of 
tax provisions that will continue to help middle class families and 
small businesses to prosper. The Democratic budget establishes a 
reserve fund that will continue to provide tax cuts to millions of 
working families nationwide, and it will reduce the burden of the 
alternative minimum tax (AMT) that adversely affects thousands of Rhode 
Islanders each year. Democrats are committed to reducing the increasing 
tax burdens on middle-class Americans in a way that adheres to the 
fiscally responsible pay-as-you-go rules adopted by this Congress.
  For too long the American people have been forced to choose between 
losing funding for vital domestic programs and running record deficits 
that will ultimately be passed along for our children and grandchildren 
to pay. Today, we finally have the opportunity to support a budget that 
will fund programs thousands of Rhode Islanders rely upon, while 
maintaining our commitment to fiscal responsibility. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in voting yes on the Democratic budget 
resolution.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, over the last 6 years, under one party 
control we had the largest and fastest accumulation of national debt in 
our Nation's history. The national debt skyrocketed to $8.8 trillion. 
Today we have a budget that changes the failed policies of the past and 
is, instead, a new direction to get the U.S. government back in the 
black with surpluses like those the country enjoyed at the beginning of 
this decade.
  At the start of the 110th Congress, our party promised that when we 
took over as the majority party we would get the fiscal books back in 
order. This budget fulfills that promise by bringing the budget back to 
surplus by 2012. It gets us there by strictly adhering to the pay-as-
you-go rules that was implemented at the beginning of this year. 
Additionally, this budget contains tough program integrity measures to 
crack down on wasteful spending, and it directs all committees to 
review their programs to promote efficiency and eliminate unnecessary 
spending.
  This budget stands in stark contrast to the President's budget on 
many fronts. As I previously stated, this budget reaches balance in 
2012 and starts paying down our debt. The President's budget does 
neither.

[[Page H3334]]

  Budgets are all about priorities. This budget makes it clear that the 
priorities of this Congress are the priorities of the American people. 
Our budget provides for our national security, our veterans, our 
children, and working families across America.
  The budget framework contains the necessary resources to meet 
critical threats to the Nation and to deliver excellent health care to 
those who have served in the armed forces. Funding for veterans' 
services is increased by $6.6 billion over the 2007 level, and by $3.5 
billion above the President's request for 2008. This will cover the 
Veterans Administration's (VA) increasing patient load and the cost of 
forthcoming recommendations to improve health care facilities and 
treatment for service members and veterans. It is the largest expansion 
of veterans' healthcare funding since the creation of our VA system.
  Most importantly, this budget reduces the deficit, which will 
decrease our reliance on foreign investors to buy our debt. Since 2001, 
foreign ownership of Treasury securities has more than doubled to $2.2 
trillion, leaving our economy more vulnerable to foreign investment 
decisions and instability. The more we rely on our global competitors 
like China and India to finance our debt, the more vulnerable America's 
economic well-being--now and in the future--becomes. As the father of 
two little boys, I did not come to this Congress to leave a legacy of 
debt for them or future generations to climb out of. Let us pass this 
sensible, fiscally responsible budget that protects important American 
values so that years from now, we can look back and say, yes, we had to 
make some tough decisions, but they were the right decisions under the 
right circumstances, and American families are the primary 
beneficiaries as a result.
  The Budget Resolution before us today makes the tough decisions to 
get us back to surpluses, while offering an economic stimulus plan now 
which is fair, quick, and responsible. It supports our troops, but it 
also supports our Nation's veterans, our seniors, and our children's 
education programs. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this common 
sense fiscally responsible Budget Resolution.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, my opposition to this proposal is 
clear and fundamental. It raises taxes. It is not fiscally responsible. 
It does not protect Social Security, and it does not protect the 
interests of families, who as the cornerstone of our society, deserve 
to be the very first consideration in each of our legislative 
decisions.
  I am pleased to support Mr. Ryan, ranking member of the Budget 
Committee, and my colleagues on the Republican Study Committee on the 
conservative alternative to the budget blueprint before us today. I was 
pleased to offer a tax cut amendment to this legislation that would 
have extended the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 at least until 2012. 
Unfortunately, the amendment was not accepted, but I rise today to say 
that my opposition to H. Con. Res. 99 does not end with runaway taxes 
and spending.
  True, the proposal has excessive spending that mortgages our 
children's future on government programs.
  True, the proposal raises taxes on families and businesses, 
reinstates the ``marriage penalty'', reincarnates the death tax, and 
cuts the child tax credit in half.
  True, these tax increases, the biggest in American history, will cost 
the average Ohio family thousands of dollars in higher taxes.
  But what is most troubling is that the entire budget is based on a 
premise that is antithetical to what makes America great.
  This budget postulates that economic security . . . a ``Great 
Society'' if you will . . . is just another government program away.
  It says that the tax cuts currently in place, which have led to 
private sector growth with 7.6 million new jobs, 42 straight months of 
uninterrupted economic growth, the Dow Jones Industrial Average above 
12,000, record levels of investment, and record low unemployment . . . 
tax cuts that have helped every American family regardless of income, 
are better left to expire.
  It says that the $392.5 billion of additional tax dollars Democrats 
expect spend over the next 5 years are better spent on government 
programs than in the pockets of American families. It says that what we 
need is more government, not more jobs, not more economic growth, not 
more money working its way through our private sector economy.
  Just 3 months into this new majority, the tax man has come twice, and 
he is coming again.
  Mr. Chairman, April 15, the day American taxpayers love to hate, is 
still 18 days away. But today, March 29th, is the day the American 
taxpayer will come to fear.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on record tax hikes.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I support this budget resolution 
because it will begin the process of changing our budgetary course.
  For 6 years, the Administration and the Republican leadership 
insisted on speeding ahead with misguided fiscal and economic policies. 
Ignoring all warning lights, they plowed ahead, taking us from 
projections of surpluses to the reality budgets deep in deficit and 
heaping higher the mountain of debt that our children will have to 
repay.
  Many of us said it was urgent to stop persisting in that error and 
voted for alternatives, including those proposed by the Blue Dog 
Caucus.
  But year after year our Republican colleagues insisted on taking 
their marching orders from the White House, moving in lockstep to 
endorse the Bush Administration's insistence that its economic and 
fiscal policies must continue without change.
  I admired their discipline, but I could not support their insistence 
on driving us deeper into the swamp of fiscal irresponsibility that has 
left a debt burden of $30,951 for a typical middle-income family of 
four in Colorado.
  And now, in this new Congress under new management, by passing this 
budget resolution we can begin to undo the damage they have done.
  The resolution is better in its fiscal responsibility and in its 
priorities.
  It follows the tough ``pay as you go'' budget rules to begin to 
reverse the budget deficits and to put us onto the path to a balanced 
budget. And under this plan, by 2012, domestic discretionary funding 
would fall to the lowest level, as a share of the economy, in at least 
a half century while spending as a percentage of GDP will be lower in 
2012 than it has been in any budget adopted under President Bush--1 
percent lower than it will be this year and lower than it has been in 
any year since 2001.
  At the same time it provides for continuing middle-class tax cuts and 
reform of the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) to protect middle-income 
families from a tax increase by default. This is important because 
while in 2004 only 32,000 Colorado families were subject to the AMT, if 
nothing is done, this year that number will rise to 234,000 families in 
Colorado and hundreds of thousands more in other States.
  As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I am particularly glad 
to note that the budget resolution is also realistic and responsible 
about the need to maintain our national defense and honor our promises 
to our troops and veterans.
  It provides for investing $507 billion for national defense and 
another $145 billion for overseas deployment and other activities while 
reordering defense priorities in order to make sufficient funds 
available for nuclear non-proliferation programs, military health care, 
and military pay raises and benefits.
  I think ensuring the people who protect our country are provided for 
is a significant part of meeting our national defense requirements. So, 
I'm pleased that the resolution rejects increases in TRICARE fees for 
military personnel under age 65.
  And the budget committee worked with the chairman of our committee, 
Representative Skelton, to assure that the resolution will allow 
Congress to support the implementation of recommendations of the 
Commission appointed to review conditions at Walter Reed and other 
military health facilities--a provision that is so important for our 
wounded warriors.
  The resolution provides for a much-needed increase in veterans' 
programs--for veterans health care, no less than $3.5 billion more this 
year (and $32 billion over the next 5 years) than the President's 
budget--to provide health care for new veterans, repair VA health care 
facilities, make needed investments in veterans' mental health care and 
traumatic brain injury, and speed up and improve the accuracy of 
disability claims processing.
  This is a priority for me, because it will help ensure that the 
427,957 veterans in Colorado receive care worthy of their sacrifice. It 
is also critical for the 17,419 Coloradans, who have served their 
country in Afghanistan and Iraq since September 2001, many of whom will 
need VA health care services.
  The resolution also provides for increases homeland security and 
rejects the cuts to vital first responder and terrorism prevention 
programs that would happen if we adopted the President's budget for 
fiscal 2008. I support that because following the President's budget 
would mean reducing the State Homeland Security Grant Program--which 
awarded $88,508,658 to Colorado from 2003 to 2006--would be slashed by 
52 percent and the Law Enforcement Terrorist Prevention Program 
(LETPP)--which awarded $22,392,512 to Colorado from 2004 to 2006--would 
be eliminated.
  And the resolution provides for beginning to implement the 9/11 
Commission recommendations to make Colorado and our Nation more secure.
  Similarly, the resolution recognizes the importance of research, 
development, and education in keeping our economy strong and our 
country secure.
  It recognizes that scientific research provides the foundation for 
innovation and our ability to compete with other countries by setting 
us on a path toward doubling funding for

[[Page H3335]]

the National Science Foundation and research by other agencies while 
increasing collaborative research-purpose partnerships.
  As a member of the Science and Technology Committee and Chairman of 
its Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, I am particularly supportive 
of the resolution because it rejects the President's proposed cuts to 
aviation programs within NASA in order to help ensure that such vital 
programs as development of the next-generation management system for 
air traffic can go forward.

  Similarly, as one of the Chairs of the Renewable Energy and Energy 
Efficiency Caucus, I welcome the resolution's declaration that 
increased research and development of renewable and alternative energy 
technologies ``needs to come soon and be substantial.'' I think that 
sets exactly the right priority.
  And I similarly welcome the resolution's allowing for additional 
emphasis on science, technology, and mathematics (``STEM'') education 
by increasing funding for National Science Foundation programs that 
support training qualified teachers in these important areas.
  The resolution recognizes the importance of investing in renewable 
energy and energy efficiency to improve our security by lessening our 
dependence on foreign oil as well as to reduce global warming and 
promote new technologies that can create American jobs. So, it creates 
a reserve fund that could target up to $14 billion over 10 years to 
invest in clean, renewable alternative energy and energy efficiency 
paid for by redirecting oil subsidies.
  And it restores funding for environmental programs cut by the 
President's budget--including $3,162,000 in Clean Water revolving loan 
funds that help Colorado communities improve their wastewater treatment 
facilities.
  As for education, the resolution allows for substantially more 
funding for helping Colorado's public elementary, middle and high 
schools educate the 768,600 children now enrolled--nearly $8 billion 
more in 2008 and 11 percent more over the next 5 years for education 
and training programs than requested by the President.
  This means more resources to implement the No Child Left Behind Act, 
special education and Head Start. By contrast, if we followed the 
President's budget, 31,296 Colorado children would not receive promised 
help in reading and math and the Head Start program--which serves 9,820 
Colorado children--would be cut by 1.5 percent below the 2007 level.
  Small businesses are essential for Colorado's economy--and the 
resolution rejects the President's proposal to cut the Small Business 
Administration by 26 percent from last year's request and 56 percent 
from 2000. It also recognizes the importance of job training for the 
kind of high-skilled workforce we need to keep America competitive--
which is why it rejects the President's proposal to eliminate 
$54,403,000 in funding for job training and employment services in 
Colorado.

  These investments to a growing economy for America's families are 
needed because, according to the Census Bureau, family income in 
Colorado has dropped by $4,041 since 2000, while health care and energy 
prices are climbing. But still more is needed.
  So, I am glad that the resolution provides for increasing funding for 
State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)--to help cover the 
176,230 of Colorado's children do not have health insurance. And I am 
pleased that it also rejects the Administration's proposal to cut 
Medicare funding by $261,719,066 for Colorado hospitals, skilled 
nursing facilities and home health care providers--another misguided 
proposal that would make health care less accessible and affordable for 
many Coloradans.
  Mr. Chairman, I can understand why the Bush Administration does not 
like this resolution. After all, it rejects the Administration's 
misguided priorities. But it's disappointing that so many of our 
Republican colleagues still are so willing to unquestioningly follow 
the president's lead. And, while I suppose it's to be expected, it's 
particularly unfortunate that they have decided to attack this budget 
resolution by resorting to recycling the old, tired--and false--claim 
that it is ``the largest tax increase in history.''
  The fact is that this is no tax increase in the resolution. It 
assumes the same level of revenues between now and 2012 period as 
projected by the Congressional Budget Office under its current-policy 
baseline, which essentially assumes no change in current laws governing 
taxes.
  In other words, this resolution does not affect the top-heavy tax 
cuts the Bush Administration and the Republican leadership pushed 
through since 2001--they remain in place as they stand, which means 
they will not expire for 4 years.
  I did not vote for all of those tax cuts, but I did support some that 
are most important for middle-income Coloradans. So, I am glad that the 
resolution provides for extensions of those in 2011, including an 
extension of the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, and the 10 
percent individual income tax bracket.
  And when the rest of the tax cuts come up for reconsideration, 
Congress can and should consider whether to extend them, as they are 
now or in modified form.
  I support that approach, which is quite different from the 
alternative approach taken by the Republican alternative, which insists 
on locking in all of the Bush tax cuts--the ones I did not support as 
well as those I did--and would put top priority on making them all 
permanent.
  There are some things in the Republican alternative that I do 
support--including a constitutionally-sound line-item veto similar to 
my Stimulating Leadership in Cutting Expenditures (``SLICE'') 
legislation--but overall I think it is not a responsible approach and I 
cannot support it, just as I cannot support the other alternatives that 
go too far in the other direction by calling for large tax increases.
  Unlike all those alternatives, the resolution developed by the Budget 
Committee is the best balanced in its combination of fiscal 
responsibility and refocusing priorities. I will support it and I urge 
its approval by the House.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Democratic budget offered today. This budget is a stark contrast to the 
President's budget which proves to be entirely insufficient in meeting 
the needs of our Nation, and those of my constituents in the third 
district of Florida. A budget is about priorities, and the President's 
priorities are to ask our seniors, our students, our children, the 
middle class, and the working poor, to make fiscal sacrifices, while 
the rich count their money.
  As an African-American woman who represents one of the poorest 
districts in the state of Florida, I am proud to say that Democrats are 
fighting for a budget that reflects the values of America's working 
families. For the first time in 6 years, the congressional budget 
resolution will deliver fiscal responsibility, economic prosperity, a 
strong national defense, affordable health care and energy prices, and 
strong public schools.
  Let me give you some examples of the differences between the 
President's budget and the Democratic budget:
  The President's budget has deficits as far as the eye can see with an 
increase of $507 billion over the next 5 years. The House Democratic 
budget lowers the deficit in 2008 and balances the budget in 5 years.
  The President's budget cuts vital health care programs even when 
there are over 3 million Floridians without health insurance. The House 
Democratic budget puts children and families first by providing $50 
billion to expand children's health insurance and creates a reserve 
fund that would allow Medicare improvements--such as increasing the 
reimbursement rate for physicians and improving the Medicare 
prescription drug program.
  The President's budget fails to protect Americans here at home by 
slashing funding for the COPS program by 94 percent. COPS is regarded 
as an overwhelming success and has funded more than 118,400 police 
officers and sheriffs deputies. The House Democratic budget provides 
more homeland security dollars to fund the 9/11 Commission's 
recommendations, reject the President's cuts to first responders, and 
adequately address port security needs.
  The President's budget forgets about the over 1.7 million veterans in 
Florida by cutting funds for their healthcare in 2009 and 2010 and 
imposing new health care fees on 1.3 million veterans. The House 
Democratic budget meets previously unmet needs for veterans by 
increasing funding for veterans' health care by $5.4 billion above 
current services.
  The President's budget gives no relief to Americans struggling with 
high energy costs. Florida low-income energy assistance was slashed by 
$6.5 million and gas prices have increased approximately 69 percent 
since 2001. The House Democratic Budget expands renewable energy and 
energy efficiency by stimulating the economy with investments in the 
farm economy and in research to develop clean, sustainable energy 
alternatives to help America achieve energy independence in 10 years.
  The President's budget betrays Florida's children by underfunding the 
No Child Left Behind Act for the 6th year. Nearly 160,000 children in 
Florida will go without promised help in reading and math. The House 
Democratic Budget has a $3 billion increase in funding for programs 
like No Child Left Behind, special education and aid to help students 
afford college.
  In closing, I would like to reiterate that Democrats are committed to 
a new direction for America in which the interests of hardworking 
Florida families take priority over the special interests. This budget 
delivers fiscal responsibility, economic prosperity, a strong national 
defense, access to healthcare and high-quality public schools for the 
people in my district and for Americans overall.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to H. Con. Res. 99, which 
has been

[[Page H3336]]

called the single biggest tax increase in American history.
  However, I rise today to express my extreme disappointment that the 
majority decided to oppose debate on an amendment I offered to express 
the sense of Congress that the money the Federal Government spends is 
not the Government's, but rather the hard-earned dollars of the 
American taxpayer. My amendment also declares that Congress has a duty 
to guard against waste and excessive spending, that Congress should 
balance the Federal budget, and that Congress should expeditiously pass 
a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.
  It is common sense to American families that they cannot spend more 
than they have-- yet far too frequently, this fundamental principle has 
been lost on a Federal Government that is too busy spending to pay 
attention to the bottom line. Unless Congress is forced to balance the 
Federal budget, it will always have the all-too-tempting option of 
shirking this responsibility.
  On the first day of this Congress, I introduced H.J. Res. 1, a 
constitutional amendment requiring Congress to balance the budget, 
which has garnered 159 bipartisan cosponsors. I hereby renew my call on 
Congress to pass this crucial legislation, which also makes it harder 
to raise taxes.
  However, in the meantime, my simple amendment to the budget 
resolution would have been the least we could do to show the American 
people that Congress is committed to the same fiscal principles that 
America's families face each day. It is very telling that the majority 
thought it best to sweep this debate under the rug.
  Regarding the merits of the underlying Democrat resolution, it 
assumes the expiration of all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and adds 
those revenues, some $392 billion, into the budget over time. At the 
same time, they have chosen to increase discretionary spending. In 
fact, under the Democrat budget, appropriated spending is projected to 
increase faster than the rate of projected inflation. By increasing 
taxes on the American people in order to fund their own priorities, the 
Democrats assume that they know how to better spend the taxpayers' 
hard-earned dollars.
  For America's farmers and ranchers already facing increased input 
costs, increased taxes would further add insult to injury. For many 
farmers and ranchers, this budget appears to hold the key to bolstering 
the budget for American agriculture. This bill purports to provide the 
Agriculture Committee with an extra $20 billion, seemingly tucked away 
in a ``reserve fund'' to be released at the discretion of the Budget 
Committee chairman. Although they've made it sound like there's an 
extra $20 billion just lying around waiting to be spent; this could not 
be further from the truth.
  The $20 billon is only available if it can be offset by cuts in other 
spending or increased taxes. The Agriculture Committee, as well as 
every other Congressional committee, already has the authority to spend 
dollars created by offsets under existing rules.
  This is either a poorly constructed hoax designed to create an 
illusion of increased funding, or it is part of a broader plan to 
continue to raise taxes to pay for increased program spending. In 
either case, there is nothing about the Democrat budget that does 
anything to relieve the budget crunch that farmers face in this farm 
bill.
  I urge my colleagues to see this budget for what it is and vote 
``no.''
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Democrat budget 
resolution. A majority of my colleagues on this side of the aisle have 
rightly spoken against this budget because it includes the largest tax 
increase in American history. And let there be no doubt: This tax 
increase would destroy jobs, take more money from working families, and 
bring our economic growth to a screeching halt.
  However, I'd like to speak for a moment about a little-discussed 
provision in this resolution that could have significant negative 
consequences of its own. This resolution includes a reconciliation 
instruction for the Education and Labor Committee to find $75 million 
in savings from our mandatory programs. On its face, that seems 
harmless, although I think we can all agree that $75 million is hardly 
a serious effort at deficit reduction. After all, our committee is no 
stranger to this effort, having saved taxpayers some $12 billion 
through reconciliation in the last Congress while significantly 
improving the student aid programs for all our students.
  However, make no mistake, this instruction is not as innocent as it 
looks. In fact, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee recently 
called it a ``stalking horse for a significant expansion of spending.'' 
And he's absolutely correct. This small reconciliation instruction may 
serve to have the largest impact on the Federal student loan program in 
history.
  Simply put, the majority is trying to take advantage of the 
reconciliation process to jam through an expansion of the federally-run 
Direct Loan program--knowing that strong opposition to the expansion of 
this program would prohibit it from being successfully added to the 
Higher Education Act if its reauthorization was proceeding through 
regular order. The laundry list of reasons why giving the Direct Loan 
program a leg-up on the traditional, private-run student loan program 
would harm students and taxpayers alike is another discussion for 
another day. But let there be no mistake: This budget would allow for 
just that.
  Mr. Chairman, I'd like to amend the Senate Budget Committee 
chairman's words slightly and call this reconciliation instruction a 
``Trojan horse''--because if this largely unnoticed instruction 
remained in place, the negative consequences on our student lending 
system would be almost unimaginable. The Federal Government is not 
meant to be a clearinghouse for college loans, and the Department of 
Education's ability to manage the scant 20 percent of all loans 
currently administered through the Direct Loan program is shaky, at 
best.
  Just think of what adding even more bureaucracy would do for the 
students counting on good customer service and taxpayers counting on a 
well-managed program. Once again, it's almost unimaginable. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose the Democrat budget resolution and support the 
Republican substitute.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my regret for missing 
several recorded votes during consideration of the budget resolution 
for fiscal year 2008. Unfortunately, I was called out of Washington to 
deliver the eulogy for a close friend of mine and my father's, Ed 
Bailey. Ed served the House of Representatives for 16 years as an aide 
to my late father, and I am honored to be making these remarks. This 
duty required that I leave for Knoxville prior to the final votes of 
Thursday, March 29, 2007.
  I would like the Record to reflect that had I been in Washington, I 
would have supported the Republican Budget Substitute and opposed the 
underlying text of H. Con. Res. 99.
  The reason for these votes is simple. I am fiscally conservative. The 
Democrat budget provides for tax hikes on Americans and America's 
businesses in order to pay for more Government spending. Also, this 
budget ignores the problems with our entitlement spending and defers 
these burdens to later generations.
  I support the Republican budget because it continues to give American 
workers real tax benefits. It curbs out of control and inefficient 
discretionary spending.
  The Ryan substitute also tackles the massive problem of entitlement 
spending and seeks to reform the Medicare and Medicaid systems. These 
reforms are absolutely necessary to ensure that these valuable programs 
are around for our children and their children.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Republican 
budget substitute, which is the most fiscally responsible budget before 
us today. It may not a perfect budget, but no real budget can be, 
because we live in a world of unlimited wants and needs but of limited 
resources.
  I also want to take this opportunity to thank Ranking Member Paul 
Ryan, my good friend and a fiscal conservative stalwart from Wisconsin, 
who has truly helped lead the way not only on the Republican budget but 
also on revealing the true effects of the Democrat budget and 
substitutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget, unlike those offered by the 
Democrats, does not, I'll repeat, the Republican budget does not raise 
taxes.
  I know these numbers have been cited many times over in this budget 
debate, but it is important for the American people to fully understand 
the impact of the new majority's budget policy on their pocketbooks.
  Mr. Chairman, the Democrat committee-passed budget raises taxes by 
almost $400 billion. The Congressional Black Caucus budget raises taxes 
by $711 billion. The Progressive Caucus Budget raises taxes by almost 
$950 billion.
  Three Democrat budgets, three giant tax increases--and, since 
baseball season is upon us, I'll say these three budgets sound like 
strike one, strike two, and strike three--and you know how the rest 
goes.
  However, Mr. Chairman, my Democrat colleagues don't have to strike 
out because they can vote for a budget that will balance in 5 years 
without raising taxes; they can vote for the Republican alternative.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, a budget is a moral document that 
demonstrates our values and priorities. I believe this budget by 
Chairman John Spratt repesents values I can be proud of. This budget 
funds education, healthcare, housing and development while brinnging 
the budget back to surplus by 2012.
  At a time when more than 10 percent of students drop out of high 
school before graduating and only 4 out of 10 children eligible for 
Head Start are able to participate, the budget reverses the 
administration's policy of under-investing in education for our 
children. The budget rejects the President's proposal to cut funding 
for the Department of Education by

[[Page H3337]]

$1.5 billion below the 2007 enacted level and to eliminate 44 different 
programs, and provides for substantial new investments to increase 
funding for vital programs such as Head Start, special education--IDEA, 
Title I and other programs under the No Child Left Behind Act. The bill 
also provides for funding the increase in Pell Grants so that high 
school students know that if they work hard, they can go to college.
  The budget rejects the President's proposal to cut funding for the 
Community Development Block Grant by $1.1 billion below last year's 
level, and instead provides for the first CDBG increase since 2005. The 
cut advocated by the President would endanger job creation, economic 
development, and affordable housing efforts cutting CDBGs for nearly 
1,200 State and local governments.
  This budget rejects the President's proposal to cut the Child Care 
Development Block Grant and the Social Services Block Grant by a total 
of $520 million below the 2007 level. The President's budget would lead 
to a decline in children receiving assistance so their parents can 
work. Our budget would allow for the first increase in child care 
funding since 2002.
  Further, knowing that we now have more uninsured Americans than 6 
years ago, this budget blocks the President's proposed cuts to Medicare 
and Medicaid. These cuts would have made healthcare less affordable and 
accessible for millions of Americans. Additionally, this budget ensures 
that up to $50 billion over the next 5 years will be devoted to the 
State Children's Health Insurance Program--SCHIP--to help cover 
millions of uninsured children. New Jersey is a national leader in 
covering children through the SCHIP program and this additional funding 
is desperately needed to ensure our States' good work can continue.
  This budget rejects the President's dangerous cuts to our Nation's 
first responders. What sense would it make to cut the Local Law 
Enforcement Terrorism Prevention program, firefighter assistance 
grants, Byrne Justice Assistance grants, or the Community Oriented 
Policing Services--COPS--program? Our budget stands up for first 
responders and ensures that each of the programs receives appropriate 
levels of funding.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend Mr. Spratt for demonstrating that we can 
provide for our Nation's defense in a responsible way--both fiscally 
and from a policy standpoint. This budget will provide $507 billion in 
base DOD budget authority, an $18 billion increase over the President's 
request. This budget also emphasizes the right priorities for meeting 
our security needs.

  For example, this resolution opposes TRICARE fee increases and calls 
for a substantial increase in the veterans' health care system. The 
budget resolution notes the upcoming recommendations of the President's 
Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors and other 
Government investigations in connection with the substandard care at 
Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and allows funds for action when those 
recommendations are received. To help protect our Nation from a 
terrorist-sponsored nuclear attack, non-proliferation programs, such as 
the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, are given greater priority 
and higher funding.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget will also help us keep our promises to our 
Nation's veterans. I'm pleased the committee has recommended raising 
increased discretionary funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
from $36.5 billion to $43.1 billion--a $6.6 billion, 18.1 percent, 
increase over fiscal year 2007, and a $3.5 billion increase, 8.9 
percent, over the administration request for fiscal year 2008. This 
budget provides a far more realistic spending plan than the President's 
proposal. Our proposed increase in this area will help meet some 
critical needs, including ensuring that medical inflation does not 
erode VA's ability to deliver quality health care to our veterans.
  In order to maintain American competitiveness, we must make 
substantial investments in scientific research and education. The 
budget provides funding for initiatives to educate new scientists, 
engineers, and mathematicians in the next 4 years, and places more 
highly-qualified teachers in math and science K-12 classrooms. It makes 
critical investments in basic research, putting us on the path to 
doubling funding for the National Science Foundation, and bolstering 
investments in research and development throughout the budget. The 
reestablishment of the Office of Technology Assessment is made possible 
by Function 800, as is explicitly stated in the report language. The 
Office of Technology Assessment, an important tool for Congress's roles 
in fiscal planning, disaster mitigation, and oversight.
  America's dependence on oil endangers our environment, our national 
security, and our economy. A sustained investment in research and 
development is crucial to creating cutting-edge technologies that allow 
us to develop clean, sustainable energy alternatives and capitalize on 
America's vast renewable natural resources. The budget provides 
increased funding for basic and applied energy research, to help 
America achieve energy independence in 10 years.
  For the first time in 6 years, the budget resolution reflects a real 
commitment to protecting our most valuable natural resources by 
providing needed funding for our National Parks, the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, and the national wildlife refuge system. H. Con. 
Res. 99 provides a total of $31.4 billion for environmental programs, 
which is $2.6 billion more than the President's request. I have been an 
advocate for the Land and Water Conservation Fund since I came to 
Congress 8 years ago and I am pleased that we are finally at a place 
where the budget includes adequate funding for both the State-side 
grant program and the Federal program. LWCF and the Forest Legacy 
program have done tremendous work in States across the country, 
including New Jersey, to protect open space, restore wetlands, and 
conserve forest lands. Why President Bush continues to turn a blind eye 
to our growing environmental needs is beyond me. Finally, we have a 
budget that realizes how important this investment is.

  This budget achieves this without an increase in taxes. The budget 
would accommodate immediate relief for the tens of millions of middle 
income households who would otherwise be subject to the alternative 
minimum tax (AMT) while supporting the efforts of the Committee on Ways 
and Means to achieve permanent, revenue-neutral AMT reform. Unless the 
AMT is reformed, 19 million additional families will have to pay higher 
taxes in 2007. The budget would also accommodate extension of other 
middle-income tax relief, consistent with the Pay-As-You-Go principle. 
These tax cuts include: the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, 
the 10 percent bracket, and the deduction for State and local sales 
taxes.
  The past 6 years of fiscal irresponsibility have caused America's 
national debt to increase 50 percent, to nearly $9 trillion, or $29,000 
for every American. Our ability to invest in the Nation's shared 
priorities is constrained by the cost of the debt run up over the last 
6 years, when the administration and its partners in previous 
Congresses turned the largest surplus in American history into a record 
debt. About 75 percent of America's new debt has been borrowed from 
foreign creditors such as China, making our fiscal integrity a matter 
of national security. Over the last 6 years, President Bush has 
borrowed more money from foreign nations than the previous 42 U.S. 
Presidents combined.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget restores the budget as a moral document 
that I can support. It funds the House Democratic innovation 
initiative, including commencing a doubling path for the National 
Science Foundation and providing significant increases for elementary 
and secondary math and science education. It accommodates a significant 
increase to expand children's health insurance to cover millions of 
uninsured children. It increases funding for veterans' health care and 
services so that returning soldiers will receive the care to which they 
are entitled. It accomplishes each of these goals without raising taxes 
on American citizens. I ask my colleagues to vote for the Spratt 
budget.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to revise and 
extend my remarks.
  Today, the House will consider a fiscally responsible budget which I 
proudly support because it contains the right priorities for America's 
families.
  This budget strengthens our national defense and honors our promises 
to California's brave troops and veterans. It provides the largest 
increase for veterans' health care in the history of our country--
providing $3.5 billion more than the President's budget. This will help 
to ensure that the 2,310,967 veterans in California receive care worthy 
of their sacrifice.
  This budget also puts children and families first. For example, in 
California, 1,380,800 children do not have health insurance. It helps 
these children by increasing funding for the State Children's Health 
Insurance Program--SCHIP--reducing the number of uninsured children 
across the county.
  In addition, this budget also provides substantially more funding for 
California's 6,518,000 children enrolled in public elementary, middle 
and high schools--providing nearly $8 billion more in 2008 and 11 
percent more over the next 5 years for education and training programs 
than requested by the President. This will increase resources for No 
Child Left Behind, special education and Head Start--rejecting harsh 
cuts and underfunding for these critical education programs included in 
the President's budget. Under the President's budget, 421,277 
California children will go without promised help in reading and math 
and Head Start--a vital program for 98,432 California children--is cut 
by 1.5 percent below the 2007 level.

[[Page H3338]]

  It also recognizes that the 3,575,200 small businesses in California 
are the engine of the economy. To spur economic growth and support 
small businesses, the budget rejects the President's proposal to cut 
the Small Business Administration by 26 percent from last year's 
request.
  And it restores funding for environmental programs cut by the 
President's budget--including restoring $28,270,000 in clean water 
revolving loan funds in California that help improve wastewater 
treatment.
  Finally, this budget supports middle-class tax cuts and protects 
middle-income families from a tax increase by setting up a reserve fund 
for a long-term fix for the alternative minimum tax, AMT. In 2004, 
606,000 California families were subject to the AMT--and if nothing is 
done to fix the system, an estimated 4,434,000 families here in 
California will be subject to the AMT in 2007.
  In sum, this budget will restore fiscal responsibility and 
accountability to Washington; strengthen our national defense; and 
invest in the next generation and America's prosperity; and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. There being no further amendments, under the 
rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Weiner) having assumed the chair, Mr. Thompson, Acting Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the concurrent 
resolution (H. Con. Res. 99) revising the congressional budget for the 
United States Government for fiscal year 2007, establishing the 
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 
2008, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 
2009 through 2012, pursuant to House Resolution 275, he reported the 
concurrent resolution back to the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the concurrent resolution.
  Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216, 
nays 210, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 212]

                               YEAS--216

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

                               NAYS--210

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Davis, Jo Ann
     Duncan
     Kanjorski
     Lampson
     Lewis (CA)
     Millender-McDonald
     Watt


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1435

  Mr. BOEHNER and Mr. HILL changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________