Amendment Text: H.Amdt.75 — 111th Congress (2009-2010)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (04/02/2009)

This Amendment appears on page H4469-4478 in the following article from the Congressional Record.



[Pages H4431-H4487]
        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 316 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. 85.

                              {time}  1329


                     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. 85) setting forth the 
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 
2010 and including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 
2009 and 2011 through 2014, with Mrs. Tauscher in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 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. 85

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

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2010.

       (a) Declaration.--Congress declares that this resolution is 
     the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010 
     and that this resolution sets forth the appropriate budgetary 
     levels for fiscal year 2009 and for fiscal years 2011 through 
     2014.
       (b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010.

                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.
Sec. 202. Reconciliation in the Senate.

                        TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS

Sec. 301. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for health care reform.
Sec. 302. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for college access, 
              affordability, and completion.
Sec. 303. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for increasing energy 
              independence.
Sec. 304. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for America's veterans and 
              servicemembers.
Sec. 305. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for certain tax relief.
Sec. 306. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for a 9/11 health program.
Sec. 307. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for child nutrition.
Sec. 308. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for structural unemployment 
              insurance reforms.
Sec. 309. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for child support.
Sec. 310. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the Affordable Housing Trust 
              Fund.
Sec. 311. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for home visiting.
Sec. 312. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for Low-Income Home Energy 
              Assistance Program trigger.
Sec. 313. Reserve fund for the Surface Transportation Reauthorization.
Sec. 314. Current policy reserve fund for Medicare improvements.
Sec. 315. Current policy reserve fund for middle class tax relief.
Sec. 316. Current policy reserve fund for reform of the alternative 
              minimum tax (AMT).
Sec. 317. Current policy reserve fund for reform of the Estate and Gift 
              Tax.

                      TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 401. Adjustments for direct spending and revenues.
Sec. 402. Adjustments to discretionary spending limits.
Sec. 403. Point of order against advance appropriations.
Sec. 404. Oversight of Government performance.
Sec. 405. Budgetary treatment of certain discretionary administrative 
              expenses.
Sec. 406. Application and effect of changes in allocations and 
              aggregates.
Sec. 407. Adjustments to reflect changes in concepts and definitions.
Sec. 408. Exercise of rulemaking powers.

                            TITLE V--POLICY

Sec. 501. Policy on middle-class tax relief and revenues.
Sec. 502. Policy on defense priorities.

                      TITLE VI--SENSE OF THE HOUSE

Sec. 601. Sense of the House on veterans' and servicemembers' health 
              care.
Sec. 602. Sense of the House on homeland security.
Sec. 603. Sense of the House on promoting American innovation and 
              economic competitiveness.
Sec. 604. Sense of the House regarding pay parity.
Sec. 605. Sense of the House on college affordability.
Sec. 606. Sense of the House on Great Lakes restoration.
Sec. 607. Sense of the House regarding the importance of child support 
              enforcement.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2009 through 2014:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,532,571,000,000
       Fiscal year 2010: $1,659,525,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $1,933,072,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,190,099,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,361,429,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,507,846,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:

[[Page H4432]]

       Fiscal year 2009: $0.
       Fiscal year 2010: -$6,461,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: -$155,559,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: -$170,294,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: -$153,908,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: -$125,832,000,000.
       (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 2009: $3,675,133,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,892,061,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,866,329,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,913,316,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $3,095,704,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $3,286,135,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2009: $3,357,255,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,996,234,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,981,872,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,939,612,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $3,093,577,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $3,261,525,000,000.
       (4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget) 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,824,684,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $1,336,709,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $1,048,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $749,513,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $732,148,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $753,679,000,000.
       (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 2009: $12,017,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $13,223,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $14,350,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $15,276,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $16,162,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $17,100,000,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2009: $7,730,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $8,768,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $9,684,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $10,344,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $10,934,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $11,577,000,000,000.

     SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2009 through 2014 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $618,057,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $646,810,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $562,033,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $606,043,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $570,107,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $587,945,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $579,135,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $576,023,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $589,895,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $584,670,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $603,828,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $595,476,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,885,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,797,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,320,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,461,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,146,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,642,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,742,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,123,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,160,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,773,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,388,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,292,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,389,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,973,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,139,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,467,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,493,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,407,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,373,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,465,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,419,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,614,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,686,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,835,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,919,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,952,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,489,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,267,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,539,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,322,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,732,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,098,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,133,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,227,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,512,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,009,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,834,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,387,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,450,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,237,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,249,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,058,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,348,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,754,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,017,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,957,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,974,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,070,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,690,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,951,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,691,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,998,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,644,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,540,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,497,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,063,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,182,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,150,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $694,439,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $665,437,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,933,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $85,638,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,181,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,954,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,561,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,645,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,247,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,585,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,226,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,500,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $122,457,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $87,784,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $88,151,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $95,695,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $89,071,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $96,474,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $90,047,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $95,851,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $90,866,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $96,150,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $91,809,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $96,793,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,811,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,983,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,308,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,303,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,232,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,530,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,311,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,722,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,202,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,155,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,270,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,752,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $164,276,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $73,219,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $93,689,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $140,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $107,858,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $141,108,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $117,121,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $118,391,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $115,931,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $118,888,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $125,788,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $120,959,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $380,158,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $354,397,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $383,911,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $388,746,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $364,910,000,000.

[[Page H4433]]

       (B) Outlays, $367,628,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $369,852,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $368,556,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $389,719,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $384,359,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $400,451,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $400,173,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $427,076,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $426,736,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $449,653,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $449,784,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $505,171,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $504,962,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $513,824,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $513,591,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $558,235,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $558,381,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $616,315,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $616,150,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $520,123,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $503,020,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $536,169,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $539,918,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $510,575,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $513,410,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $478,039,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $478,323,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $483,386,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $482,745,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $485,396,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $483,758,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,820,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,264,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,255,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,378,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,380,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,513,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,478,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,628,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,529,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,679,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,728,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,728,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $97,705,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $94,831,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $106,365,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $105,468,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $112,842,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $112,386,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $108,702,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $108,103,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $113,803,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $113,151,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $116,021,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $115,480,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,783,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,853,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,857,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,630,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,892,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,503,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,738,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,441,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,569,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,526,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,247,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,058,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,405,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,629,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,979,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,757,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,316,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,147,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,737,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,795,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,750,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,492,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,415,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,629,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $288,955,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $288,955,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $284,085,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $284,085,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $323,266,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $323,266,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $387,483,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $387,483,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $470,452,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $470,452,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $560,137,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $560,137,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,450,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,788,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,422,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,893,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,052,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,903,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,518,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,750,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,543,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,122,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,865,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,962,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$78,206,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$78,206,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, -$68,774,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$68,774,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, -$71,993,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$71,993,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, -$74,970,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$74,970,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, -$77,945,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$77,945,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, -$79,861,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$79,861,000,000.
       (21) Overseas Deployments and Other Activities (970):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $82,648,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,129,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $130,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $92,774,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $76,530,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $67,694,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,830,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,085,000,000.

                        TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

     SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE.

       (a) Health Care Reform.--
       (1) Not later than September 29, 2009, the House Committee 
     on Energy and Commerce shall report changes in laws to reduce 
     the deficit by $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
     2009 through 2014.
       (2) Not later than September 29, 2009, the House Committee 
     on Ways and Means shall report changes in laws to reduce the 
     deficit by $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2009 
     through 2014.
       (b) Investing in Education.--Not later than September 30, 
     2009, the House Committee on Education and Labor shall report 
     changes in laws to reduce the deficit by $1,000,000,000 for 
     the period of fiscal years 2009 through 2014.
       (c) Single Engrossment.--The House may direct the Clerk to 
     add at the end of a bill addressed by this section the text 
     of another measure addressed by this section as passed by the 
     House to form a single engrossed reconciliation bill within 
     the meaning of section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974.

     SEC. 202. RECONCILIATION IN THE SENATE.

       (Senate reconciliation instructions to be supplied by the 
     Senate.)

                        TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS

     SEC. 301. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR HEALTH CARE 
                   REFORM.

       The chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise the 
     allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this 
     resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or 
     conference report that makes improvements to health care in 
     America, which may include making affordable health coverage 
     available for all, improving the quality of health care, 
     reducing rising health care costs, building on and 
     strengthening existing public and private insurance coverage, 
     including employer-sponsored coverage, and preserving choice 
     of provider and plan by the amounts provided in such measure 
     if such measure would not increase the deficit or decrease 
     the surplus for either time period provided in clause 10 of 
     rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

     SEC. 302. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR COLLEGE ACCESS, 
                   AFFORDABILITY, AND COMPLETION.

       The chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise the 
     allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this 
     resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or 
     conference report that makes college more affordable or 
     accessible or that increases college enrollment and 
     completion

[[Page H4434]]

     through reforms to the Higher Education Act of 1965 or other 
     legislation, including increasing the maximum Pell grant 
     award annually by an amount equal to one percentage point 
     more than the Consumer Price Index, by the amounts provided 
     in such measure if such measure would not increase the 
     deficit or decrease the surplus for either time period 
     provided in clause 10 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 
     of Representatives.

     SEC. 303. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR INCREASING ENERGY 
                   INDEPENDENCE.

       The chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise the 
     allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this 
     resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or 
     conference report that--
       (1) provides tax incentives for or otherwise encourages the 
     production of renewable energy or increased energy 
     efficiency;
       (2) encourages investment in emerging energy or vehicle 
     technologies or carbon capture and sequestration;
       (3) limits and provides for reductions in greenhouse gas 
     emissions;
       (4) assists businesses, industries, States, communities, 
     the environment, workers, or households as the United States 
     moves toward reducing and offsetting the impacts of 
     greenhouse gas emissions; or
       (5) facilitates the training of workers for these 
     industries (``green collar jobs'');
     by the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would 
     not increase the deficit or decrease the surplus for either 
     time period provided in clause 10 of rule XXI of the Rules of 
     the House of Representatives.

     SEC. 304. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR AMERICA'S VETERANS 
                   AND SERVICEMEMBERS.

       The chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise the 
     allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this 
     resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or 
     conference report that--
       (1) enhances health care for military personnel or 
     veterans;
       (2) maintains the affordability of health care for military 
     retirees or veterans;
       (3) improves disability benefits or evaluations for wounded 
     or disabled military personnel or veterans, including 
     measures to expedite the claims process;
       (4) expands eligibility to permit additional disabled 
     military retirees to receive both disability compensation and 
     retired pay (concurrent receipt); or
       (5) eliminates the offset between Survivor Benefit Plan 
     annuities and veterans' dependency and indemnity 
     compensation; and
     does not authorize the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to 
     bill private insurance companies for treatment of health 
     conditions that are related to veterans' military service, by 
     the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would 
     not increase the deficit or decrease the surplus for either 
     time period provided in clause 10 of rule XXI of the Rules of 
     the House of Representatives.

     SEC. 305. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR CERTAIN TAX 
                   RELIEF.

       The chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise the 
     allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this 
     resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or 
     conference report that provides for tax relief that supports 
     working families, businesses, States, or communities, by the 
     amounts provided in such measure if such measure would not 
     increase the deficit or decrease the surplus for either time 
     period provided in clause 10 of rule XXI of the Rules of the 
     House of Representatives.

     SEC. 306. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR A 9/11 HEALTH 
                   PROGRAM.

       The chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise the 
     allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this 
     resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or 
     conference report that would establish a program, including 
     medical monitoring and treatment, addressing the adverse 
     health impacts linked to the September 11, 2001, attacks by 
     the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would 
     not increase the deficit or decrease the surplus for either 
     time period provided in clause 10 of rule XXI of the Rules of 
     the House of Representatives.

     SEC. 307. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR CHILD NUTRITION.

       The chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise the 
     allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this 
     resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or 
     conference report that reauthorizes, expands, or improves 
     child nutrition programs by the amounts provided in such 
     measure if such measure would not increase the deficit or 
     decrease the surplus for either time period provided in 
     clause 10 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives.

     SEC. 308. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR STRUCTURAL 
                   UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REFORMS.

       The chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise the 
     allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this 
     resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or 
     conference report that makes structural reforms to make the 
     unemployment insurance system respond better to serious 
     economic downturns by the amounts provided in such measure if 
     such measure would not increase the deficit or decrease the 
     surplus for either time period provided in clause 10 of rule 
     XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

     SEC. 309. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR CHILD SUPPORT.

       The chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise the 
     allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this 
     resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or 
     conference report that increases parental support for 
     children, particularly from non-custodial parents, including 
     legislation that results in a greater share of collected 
     child support reaching the child, by the amounts provided in 
     such measure if such measure would not increase the deficit 
     or decrease the surplus for either time period provided in 
     clause 10 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives.

     SEC. 310. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE AFFORDABLE 
                   HOUSING TRUST FUND.

       The chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise the 
     allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this 
     resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or 
     conference report that capitalizes the existing Affordable 
     Housing Trust Fund by the amounts provided in such measure if 
     such measure would not increase the deficit or decrease the 
     surplus for either time period provided in clause 10 of rule 
     XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

     SEC. 311. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR HOME VISITING.

       The chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise the 
     allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this 
     resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or 
     conference report that provides funds to states for a program 
     or programs of home visits to low-income mothers-to-be and 
     low-income families which will produce sizeable, sustained 
     improvements in the health and well-being of children and 
     their parents, by the amounts provided in such measure if 
     such measure would not increase the deficit or decrease the 
     surplus for either time period provided in clause 10 of rule 
     XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

     SEC. 312. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR LOW-INCOME HOME 
                   ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM TRIGGER.

       The chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise the 
     allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this 
     resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or 
     conference report that makes the Low-Income Home Energy 
     Assistance Program more responsive to energy price increases 
     by the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would 
     not increase the deficit or decrease the surplus for either 
     time period provided in clause 10 of rule XXI of the Rules of 
     the House of Representatives.

     SEC. 313. RESERVE FUND FOR THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION 
                   REAUTHORIZATION.

       The chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise the 
     allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this 
     resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or 
     conference report that reauthorizes surface transportation 
     programs or that authorizes other transportation-related 
     spending by providing new contract authority by the amounts 
     provided in such measure if such measure establishes or 
     maintains a solvent Highway Trust Fund over the period of 
     fiscal years 2009 through 2015. ``Solvency'' is defined as a 
     positive cash balance. Such measure may include a transfer 
     into the Highway Trust Fund from other Federal funds, as long 
     as the transfer of Federal funds is fully offset.

     SEC. 314. CURRENT POLICY RESERVE FUND FOR MEDICARE 
                   IMPROVEMENTS.

       (a) Procedure.--The chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report that would increase outlays 
     by an amount not to exceed $87,290,000,000 in fiscal years 
     2010 through 2014 and, for the purposes of the Rules of the 
     House of Representatives, by an amount not to exceed 
     $284,970,000,000 in fiscal years 2010 through 2019 by 
     reforming the Medicare payment system for physicians to--
       (1) change incentives to encourage efficiency and higher 
     quality care in a way that supports fiscal sustainability;
       (2) improve payment accuracy to encourage efficient use of 
     resources and ensure that primary care receives appropriate 
     compensation;
       (3) improve coordination of care among all providers 
     serving a patient in all appropriate settings; or
       (4) hold providers accountable for their utilization 
     patterns and quality of care.
       (b) Applicability.--For the purposes of section 401(a) of 
     this resolution, the revisions made pursuant to this section 
     shall apply only to a measure that includes the policies and 
     the amounts described in this section.

     SEC. 315. CURRENT POLICY RESERVE FUND FOR MIDDLE CLASS TAX 
                   RELIEF.

       (a) Procedure.--The chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report that would decrease revenues 
     (or increase outlays, as appropriate) by an amount not to 
     exceed $698,571,000,000 in fiscal years 2010 through 2014 
     and, for the purposes of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives, by an amount not to exceed 
     $1,848,523,000,000 in fiscal years 2010 through 2019, by 
     extending certain provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 for middle class tax relief, including the--

[[Page H4435]]

       (1) 10 percent individual income tax bracket;
       (2) marriage penalty relief;
       (3) child credit at $1,000 and partial refundability of the 
     credit;
       (4) education incentives;
       (5) other incentives for middle class families and 
     children;
       (6) other reductions to individual income tax brackets; and
       (7) small business tax relief.
       (b) Applicability.--For the purposes of section 401(a) of 
     this resolution, the adjustments made pursuant to this 
     section shall apply only to a measure that includes the 
     policies and the amounts described in this section.

     SEC. 316. CURRENT POLICY RESERVE FUND FOR REFORM OF THE 
                   ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX (AMT).

       (a) Procedure.--The chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report that would decrease revenues 
     by an amount not to exceed $68,650,000,000 in fiscal years 
     2010 through 2014 and fiscal years 2010 through 2019 by 
     reforming the AMT so that tens of millions of working 
     families will not become subject to it.
       (b) Applicability.--For the purposes of section 401(a) of 
     this resolution, the adjustments made pursuant to this 
     section shall apply only to a measure that includes the 
     policies and the amounts described in this section.

     SEC. 317. CURRENT POLICY RESERVE FUND FOR REFORM OF THE 
                   ESTATE AND GIFT TAX.

       (a) Procedure.--The chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report that would decrease revenues 
     by an amount not to exceed $72,033,000,000 in fiscal years 
     2010 through 2014 and, for the purposes of the Rules of the 
     House of Representatives, by an amount not to exceed 
     $256,244,000,000 in fiscal years 2010 through 2019 by 
     reforming the Estate and Gift Tax so that only a minute 
     fraction of estates owe tax, by extending the law as in 
     effect in 2009 for the Estate and Gift Tax.
       (b) Applicability.--For the purposes of section 401(a) of 
     this resolution, the adjustments made pursuant to this 
     section shall apply only to a measure that includes the 
     policies and the amounts described in this section.

                      TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 401. ADJUSTMENTS FOR DIRECT SPENDING AND REVENUES.

       (a) Adjustments To Maintain Current Policy.--
       (1) Subject to the condition specified in paragraph (3), 
     when the chairman of the Committee on the Budget evaluates 
     the budgetary effects of a provision in any bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, or conference report for the purposes 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this resolution, or 
     the Rules of the House of Representatives relative to 
     baseline estimates that are consistent with section 257 of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, he shall exclude from his evaluation the budgetary 
     effects of such provision if such effects would have been 
     reflected in a baseline adjusted to maintain current policy.
       (2) Paragraph (1) applies only to a provision with respect 
     to which the chairman of the Committee on the Budget has 
     exercised his authority to make budgetary adjustments under 
     sections 314, 315, 316, and 317 of this resolution.
       (3) Paragraph (1) shall apply only if the House of 
     Representatives has previously passed a bill to impose 
     statutory pay-as-you-go requirements, or the measure 
     containing the provision being evaluated by the chairman of 
     the Committee on the Budget imposes such requirements, and 
     only if such bill is designated as providing statutory pay-
     as-you-go-requirements under this subsection.
       (b) Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).--
     Prior to consideration of a bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report making appropriations for 
     fiscal year 2010 that appropriates $3,200,000,000 in funding 
     for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance program and 
     provides additional appropriations of up to $1,900,000,000 
     for that program, then the chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget may revise the budgetary treatment of such additional 
     amounts and allocate such additional budget authority and 
     outlays resulting from that budget authority to the Committee 
     on Appropriations.
       (c) Deposit Insurance.--When the chairman of the Budget 
     Committee evaluates the budgetary effects of a provision of a 
     bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report for 
     the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this 
     resolution, or the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
     chairman shall exclude the budgetary effects of any provision 
     that affects the full funding of the deposit insurance 
     guarantee commitment in effect on the date of enactment of 
     Public Law 110-343, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act 
     of 2008.

     SEC. 402. ADJUSTMENTS TO DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

       (a) Program Integrity Initiatives.--
       (1) Social security administration program integrity 
     initiatives.--
       (A) In general.--Prior to consideration of any bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, or conference report making 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2010 that appropriates 
     $273,000,000 for continuing disability reviews and 
     Supplemental Security Income redeterminations for the Social 
     Security Administration and (except as provided in 
     subparagraph (B)) provides an additional appropriation of up 
     to $485,000,000, and that amount is designated for continuing 
     disability reviews and Supplemental Security Income 
     redeterminations for the Social Security Administration, the 
     allocation to the Committee on Appropriations shall be 
     increased by the amount of the additional budget authority 
     and outlays resulting from that budget authority for fiscal 
     year 2010.
       (B) Asset verification.--The additional appropriation of 
     $485,000,000 may also provide that a portion of that amount, 
     not to exceed $34,000,000, instead may be used for asset 
     verification for Supplemental Security Income recipients, but 
     only if and to the extent that the Office of the Chief 
     Actuary estimates that the initiative would be at least as 
     cost effective as the redeterminations of eligibility 
     described in subparagraph (A).
       (2) Internal revenue service tax compliance.--Prior to 
     consideration of any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or 
     conference report making appropriations for fiscal year 2010 
     that appropriates $5,117,000,000 to the Internal Revenue 
     Service for Enforcement and provides an additional 
     appropriation of up to $387,000,000 for Enforcement to 
     address the Federal tax gap, and provides that such sums as 
     may be necessary shall be available from the Operations 
     Support account in the Internal Revenue Service to fully 
     support these Enforcement activities, the allocation to the 
     Committee on Appropriations shall be increased by the amount 
     of the additional budget authority and outlays resulting from 
     that budget authority for fiscal year 2010.
       (3) Health care fraud and abuse control program.--Prior to 
     consideration of any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or 
     conference report making appropriations for fiscal year 2010 
     that appropriates up to $311,000,000, and the amount is 
     designated to the health care fraud and abuse control program 
     at the Department of Health and Human Services, the 
     allocation to the Committee on Appropriations shall be 
     increased by the amount of additional budget authority and 
     outlays resulting from that budget authority for fiscal year 
     2010.
       (4) Unemployment insurance program integrity activities.--
     Prior to consideration of any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report making appropriations for 
     fiscal year 2010 that appropriates $10,000,000 for in-person 
     reemployment and eligibility assessments and unemployment 
     insurance improper payment reviews for the Department of 
     Labor and provides an additional appropriation of up to 
     $50,000,000, and the amount is designated for in-person 
     reemployment and eligibility assessments and unemployment 
     insurance improper payment reviews for the Department of 
     Labor, the allocation to the Committee on Appropriations 
     shall be increased by the amount of additional budget 
     authority and outlays resulting from that budget authority 
     for fiscal year 2010.
       (5) Partnership fund for program integrity innovation.--
     Prior to consideration of any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report that provides discretionary 
     budget authority for a Partnership Fund for Program Integrity 
     Innovation in the Office of Management and Budget in an 
     amount not to exceed $175,000,000 for fiscal year 2010 and 
     that designates the amount for the Partnership Fund for 
     Program Integrity Innovation in the Office of Management and 
     Budget, the allocation to the Committee on Appropriations 
     shall be increased by the amount of the additional budget 
     authority and outlays resulting from that budget authority 
     for fiscal year 2010.
       (6) Procedure for adjustments.--Prior to consideration of 
     any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report, 
     the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall make the 
     adjustments set forth in this subsection for the incremental 
     new budget authority in that measure and the outlays 
     resulting from that budget authority if that measure meets 
     the requirements set forth in this subsection.
       (b) Costs of Overseas Deployments and Emergency Needs.--
       (1) Overseas deployments and related activities.--If any 
     bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report makes 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2009 or fiscal year 2010 for 
     overseas deployments and related activities and such amounts 
     are so designated pursuant to this subparagraph, then new 
     budget authority, outlays, or receipts resulting therefrom 
     shall not count for the purposes of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 or this resolution.
       (2) Emergency needs.--If any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report makes appropriations for 
     discretionary amounts and such amounts are designated as 
     necessary to meet emergency needs, then new budget authority 
     and outlays resulting therefrom shall not count for the 
     purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 or this 
     resolution.

     SEC. 403. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), any 
     bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report 
     making a general appropriation or continuing appropriation 
     may not provide for advance appropriations.

[[Page H4436]]

       (b) Exceptions.--An advance appropriation may be provided 
     for fiscal year 2011 for programs, projects, activities, or 
     accounts identified in the report to accompany this 
     resolution or the joint explanatory statement of managers to 
     accompany this resolution under the heading ``Accounts 
     Identified for Advance Appropriations'' in an aggregate 
     amount not to exceed $28,852,000,000 in new budget authority, 
     and for 2012, accounts separately identified under the same 
     heading.
       (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance 
     appropriation'' means any new discretionary budget authority 
     provided in a bill or joint resolution making general 
     appropriations or any new discretionary budget authority 
     provided in a bill or joint resolution making continuing 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2010 that first becomes 
     available for any fiscal year after 2010.

     SEC. 404. OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE.

       All committees are encouraged to conduct rigorous oversight 
     hearings to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in all aspects 
     of Federal spending and Government operations, giving 
     particular scrutiny to issues raised by the Federal Office of 
     the Inspector General or the Comptroller General of the 
     United States. Based upon these oversight efforts, the 
     committees are encouraged to make recommendations to reduce 
     wasteful Federal spending to promote deficit reduction and 
     long-term fiscal responsibility. Such recommendations should 
     be submitted to the Committee on the Budget in the views and 
     estimates reports prepared by committees as required under 
     301(d) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

     SEC. 405. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF CERTAIN DISCRETIONARY 
                   ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 302(a)(1) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, section 13301 of the Budget 
     Enforcement Act of 1990, and section 4001 of the Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, the joint explanatory 
     statement accompanying the conference report on any 
     concurrent resolution on the budget shall include in its 
     allocation under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 to the Committee on Appropriations amounts for 
     the discretionary administrative expenses of the Social 
     Security Administration and of the Postal Service.
       (b) Special Rule.--For purposes of applying section 302(f) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, estimates of the 
     level of total new budget authority and total outlays 
     provided by a measure shall include any off-budget 
     discretionary amounts.

     SEC. 406. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS 
                   AND AGGREGATES.

       (a) Application.--Any adjustments of allocations and 
     aggregates made pursuant to this resolution shall--
       (1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
       (2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
       (3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as 
     practicable.
       (b) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised 
     allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments 
     shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates included in 
     this resolution.
       (c) Budget Committee Determinations.--For purposes of this 
     resolution, the levels of new budget authority, outlays, 
     direct spending, new entitlement authority, revenues, 
     deficits, and surpluses for a fiscal year or period of fiscal 
     years shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by 
     the Committee on the Budget.
       (d) Adjustments.--The chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget may adjust the aggregates, allocations, and other 
     levels in this resolution for legislation which has received 
     final Congressional approval in the same form by the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, but has yet to be presented 
     to or signed by the President at the time of final 
     consideration of this resolution.

     SEC. 407. ADJUSTMENTS TO REFLECT CHANGES IN CONCEPTS AND 
                   DEFINITIONS.

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

     SEC. 408. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

       The House adopts the provisions of this title--
       (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of 
     Representatives and as such they shall be considered as part 
     of the rules of the House, and these rules shall supersede 
     other rules only to the extent that they are inconsistent 
     with other such rules; and
       (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     the House of Representatives to change those rules at any 
     time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as in the 
     case of any other rule of the House of Representatives.

                            TITLE V--POLICY

     SEC. 501. POLICY ON MIDDLE-CLASS TAX RELIEF AND REVENUES.

       It is the policy of this resolution to minimize fiscal 
     burdens on working families and their children and 
     grandchildren. It is the policy of this resolution to extend 
     the following tax relief consistent with current policy--
       (1) relief for the tens of millions of middle-income 
     households who would otherwise be subject to the Alternative 
     Minimum Tax (AMT) under current law;
       (2) middle-class tax relief; and
       (3) elimination of estate taxes on all but a minute 
     fraction of estates by reforming and substantially increasing 
     the unified tax credit.

     In total, this resolution supports the extension of 
     $1,700,000,000,000 in tax relief to individuals and families 
     relative to current law. This resolution supports additional, 
     deficit-neutral tax relief, including the extension of AMT 
     relief, the research and experimentation tax credit, the 
     deduction for State and local sales taxes, the enactment of a 
     tax credit for school construction bonds, and other tax 
     relief for working families. The cost of enacting such 
     policies may be offset by reforms within the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 that produce higher rates of tax compliance to 
     close the ``tax gap'' and reduce taxpayer burdens through tax 
     simplification. The President's budget proposes a variety of 
     other revenue offsets. Unless expressly provided, this 
     resolution does not assume any of the specific revenue offset 
     proposals provided for in the President's budget. Decisions 
     about specific revenue offsets are made by the Ways and Means 
     Committee, which is the tax-writing committee.

     SEC. 502. POLICY ON DEFENSE PRIORITIES.

       It is the policy of this resolution that--
       (1) there is no higher priority than the defense of our 
     Nation, and therefore the Administration and Congress will 
     make the necessary investments and reforms to strengthen our 
     military so that it can successfully meet the threats of the 
     21st century;
       (2) acquisition reform is needed at the Department of 
     Defense to end excessive cost growth in the development of 
     new weapons systems and to ensure that weapons systems are 
     delivered on time and in adequate quantities to equip our 
     servicemen and servicewomen;
       (3) the Department of Defense should review defense plans 
     to ensure that weapons developed to counter Cold War-era 
     threats are not redundant and are applicable to 21st century 
     threats;
       (4) sufficient resources should be provided for the 
     Department of Defense to aggressively address the 758 
     unimplemented recommendations made by the Government 
     Accountability Office (GAO) since 2001 to improve practices 
     at the Department of Defense, which could save billions of 
     dollars that could be applied to priorities identified in 
     this section;
       (5) the Department of Defense should review the role that 
     contractors play in its operations, including the degree to 
     which contractors are performing inherently governmental 
     functions, to ensure it has the most effective mix of 
     government and contracted personnel;
       (6) the Department of Defense report to Congress on its 
     assessment of Cold War-era weaponry, its progress on 
     implementing GAO recommendations, and its review of 
     contractors at the Department as outlined in paragraphs (3), 
     (4), and (5) by a date to be determined by the appropriate 
     committees;
       (7) the GAO provide a report to the appropriate 
     congressional committees by December 31, 2009, on the 
     Department of Defense's progress in implementing its audit 
     recommendations;
       (8) ballistic missile defense technologies that are not 
     proven to work through adequate testing and that are not 
     operationally viable should not be deployed, and that no 
     funding should be provided for the research or development of 
     space-based interceptors;
       (9) cooperative threat reduction and other nonproliferation 
     programs (securing ``loose nukes'' and other materials used 
     in weapons of mass destruction), which were highlighted as 
     high priorities by the 9/11 Commission, need to be funded at 
     a level that is commensurate with the evolving threat;
       (10) readiness of our troops, particularly the National 
     Guard and Reserves, is a high priority, and that continued 
     emphasis is needed to ensure adequate equipment and training;
       (11) improving military health care services and ensuring 
     quality health care for returning combat veterans is a high 
     priority;
       (12) military pay and benefits should be enhanced to 
     improve the quality of life for military personnel and their 
     families;
       (13) the Department of Defense should make every effort to 
     investigate the national security benefits of energy 
     independence, including those that may be associated with 
     alternative energy sources and energy efficiency conversions;
       (14) the Administration's budget requests should continue 
     to comply with section 1008, Public Law 109-364, the John 
     Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2007, and that to the extent practicable overseas military 
     operations should no longer be funded through emergency 
     supplemental appropriations; and
       (15) when assessing security threats and reviewing the 
     programs and funding needed to counter these threats, the 
     Administration should do so in a comprehensive manner that 
     includes all agencies involved in our national security.

                      TITLE VI--SENSE OF THE HOUSE

     SEC. 601. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON VETERANS' AND SERVICEMEMBERS' 
                   HEALTH CARE.

       It is the sense of the House that--
       (1) the House supports excellent health care for current 
     and former members of the

[[Page H4437]]

     United States Armed Services--they have served well and 
     honorably and have made significant sacrifices for this 
     Nation;
       (2) the President's budget will improve health care for 
     veterans by increasing appropriations for VA by 10 percent 
     more than the 2009 level, increasing VA's appropriated 
     resources for every year after 2010, and restoring health 
     care eligibility to additional nondisabled veterans with 
     modest incomes;
       (3) VA is not and should not be authorized to bill private 
     insurance companies for treatment of health conditions that 
     are related to veterans' military service;
       (4) VA may find it difficult to realize the level of 
     increase in medical care collections estimated in the 
     President's budget for 2010 using existing authorities; 
     therefore, this resolution provides $540,000,000 more for 
     Function 700 (Veterans Benefits and Services) than the 
     President's budget to safeguard the provision of health care 
     to veterans;
       (5) it is important to continue providing sufficient and 
     timely funding for veterans' and servicemembers' health care; 
     and
       (6) this resolution provides additional funding above the 
     2009 levels for VA to research and treat mental health, post-
     traumatic stress disorder, and traumatic brain injury.

     SEC. 602. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON HOMELAND SECURITY.

       It is the sense of the House that because making the 
     country safer and more secure is such a critical priority, 
     the resolution therefore provides robust resources 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 that 
     can be used to address our key security priorities, 
     including--
       (1) safeguarding the Nation's transportation systems, 
     including rail, mass transit, ports, and airports;
       (2) continuing with efforts to identify and to screen for 
     threats bound for the United States;
       (3) strengthening border security;
       (4) enhancing emergency preparedness and training and 
     equipping first responders;
       (5) helping to make critical infrastructure more secure and 
     resilient against the threat of terrorism and natural 
     disasters;
       (6) making the Nation's cyber infrastructure resistive to 
     attack; and
       (7) increasing the preparedness of the public health 
     system.

     SEC. 603. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON PROMOTING AMERICAN INNOVATION 
                   AND ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS.

       It is the sense of the House that--
       (1) the House should provide sufficient investments to 
     enable our Nation to continue to be the world leader in 
     education, innovation, and economic growth as envisioned in 
     the goals of the America COMPETES Act;
       (2) this resolution builds on significant funding provided 
     in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for scientific 
     research and education in Function 250 (General Science, 
     Space and Technology), Function 270 (Energy), Function 300 
     (Natural Resources and Environment), Function 500 (Education, 
     Training, Employment, and Social Services), and Function 550 
     (Health);
       (3) the House also should pursue policies designed to 
     ensure that American students, teachers, businesses, and 
     workers are prepared to continue leading the world in 
     innovation, research, and technology well into the future; 
     and
       (4) this resolution recognizes the importance of the 
     extension of investments and tax policies that promote 
     research and development and encourage innovation and future 
     technologies that will ensure American economic 
     competitiveness.

     SEC. 604. 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. 605. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON COLLEGE AFFORDABILITY.

       It is the sense of the House that nothing in this 
     resolution should be construed to reduce any assistance that 
     makes college more affordable and accessible for students, 
     including but not limited to student aid programs and 
     services provided by nonprofit State agencies.

     SEC. 606. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON GREAT LAKES RESTORATION.

       It is the sense of the House that this resolution 
     recognizes the importance of funding for an interagency 
     initiative to address regional environmental issues that 
     affect the Great Lakes, and that coordinated planning and 
     implementation among the Federal, State, and local government 
     and nongovernmental stakeholders is essential to more 
     effectively addressing the most significant problems within 
     the Great Lakes basin.

     SEC. 607. 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.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to the concurrent resolution is in order 
except the amendments printed in House Report 111-73. Each amendment 
may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered 
only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, 
and shall be debatable for 40 minutes, equally divided and controlled 
by the proponent and an opponent.

                              {time}  1330


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Woolsey

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
House Report 111-73.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment made in order by the 
rule.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 in the nature of a substitute printed in 
     House Report 111-73 offered by Ms. Woolsey:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2010.

       Congress declares that the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2010 is hereby established and that 
     the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 
     through 2019 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 2010 through 2019:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2010: $1,873,257,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,212,418,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,530,079,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,568,867,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,651,231,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $2,778,285,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $2,884,437,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,000,767,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,105,848,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,214,880,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2010: $207,271,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $123,787,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $169,687,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $53,530,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $17,573,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $2,333,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: -$12,593,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: -$28,218,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: -$44,959,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: -$64,154,000,000.
       (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 2010: $3,624,687,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $3,073,855,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $3,205,250,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $3,458,856,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $3,667,585,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $3,841,631,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $4,054,487,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $4,236,563,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $4,428,912,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $4,701,771,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2010: $3,394,034,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $3,250,245,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $3,257,052,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $3,455,136,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $3,654,202,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $3,819,843,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $4,032,841,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $4,201,655,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $4,383,317,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $4,662,115,000,000.
       (4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget) 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2010: -$1,520,777,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: -$1,037,828,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: -$726,973,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: -$886,269,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: -$1,002,970,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: -$1,041,557,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: -$1,148,403,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: -$1,200,887,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: -$1,277,469,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: -$1,447,234,000,000.
       (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 2010: $13,623,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $14,753,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $15,719,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $16,798,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $18,048,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $19,341,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $20,726,000,000.

[[Page H4438]]

       Fiscal year 2017: $22,167,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $23,082,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $24,774,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2010: $9,168,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $10,087,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $10,787,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $11,569,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $12,524,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $13,504,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $14,589,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $15,730,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $16,342,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $17,746,000,000.

     SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2010 through 2019 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $484,913,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $556,901,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $490,864,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $519,644,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $496,611,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $498,978,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $502,421,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $501,462,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $510,730,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $506,373,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $521,599,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $515,195,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $534,444,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $530,853,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $547,860,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $539,662,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $561,273,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $548,356,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $575,711,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $566,608,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $114,970,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $73,017,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $111,536,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $95,422,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $116,170,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $106,351,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $121,624,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $114,275,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $126,909,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $119,649,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $132,829,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $124,896,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $134,429,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $127,666,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $136,053,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $129,803,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $137,702,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $131,638,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $138,386,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $133,313,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,139,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,467,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,493,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,407,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,373,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,465,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,419,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,614,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,686,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,835,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,061,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,852,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,516,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,643,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,934,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,429,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,565,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,063,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,210,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,711,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,489,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,258,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,404,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,806,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,427,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,244,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,619,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,356,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,540,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,827,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,454,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,392,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,374,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,783,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,783,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,664,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,569,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,096,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,432,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,267,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,347,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,438,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,102,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,194,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,969,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,288,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,678,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,865,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,837,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,019,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,848,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,790,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,567,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,166,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,981,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,293,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,925,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,960,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,376,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,610,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,871,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,697,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,534,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,494,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,374,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,893,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,464,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,616,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,603,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,016,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,968,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,123,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,225,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,362,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,412,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,967,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,998,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,599,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,455,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $311,743,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $335,449,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,624,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,544,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,132,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,478,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,716,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,304,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,594,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,892,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,013,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$5,730,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,855,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$5,609,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,860,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,379,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,512,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,999,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,842,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $75,066,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $95,695,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $75,636,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $96,474,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $98,462,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $107,642,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $119,071,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $125,386,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $120,840,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $134,959,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $123,757,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $139,178,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $126,638,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $141,433,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:

[[Page H4439]]

       (A) New budget authority, $141,512,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $150,476,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $156,430,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $164,149,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $171,397,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $179,113,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,308,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,876,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,232,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,283,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,311,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26.559,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,202,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,599,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,270,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,980,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,636,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,935,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,971,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,034,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,313,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,851,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,667,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,433,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,021,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,368,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $133,053,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $154,565,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $154,265,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $172,456,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $164,840,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $163,698,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $172,710,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $168,557,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $180,538,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $175,166,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $184,905,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $181,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $191,786,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $187,159,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $197,379,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $192,874,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $202,388,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $198,073,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $207,486,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $203,039,000,000
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $457,065,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $458,262,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $449,195,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $450,767,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $473,453,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $471,828,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $495,022,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $489,506,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $518,905,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $518,537,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $544,357,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $541,826,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $571,489,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $568,888,000,000
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $605,267,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $602,522,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $638,240,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $635,420,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $673,957,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $670,849,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $449,168,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $449,663,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $505,060,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $505,182,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $513,741,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $513,808,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $558,013,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $558,459,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $615,870,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $616,140,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $646,347,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $646,087,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $638,661,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $635,342,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $643,767,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $640,482,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $649,064,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $645,615,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $666,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $662,774,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $628,967,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $602,778,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $611,606,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $603,175,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $608,287,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $603,838,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $618,526,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $615,949,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $620,972,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $617,395,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $626,055,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $622,632,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $638,661,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $635,342,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $643,767,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $640,482,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $649,064,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $645,615,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $666,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $662,774,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,255,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,378,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,380,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,513,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,478,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,628,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,529,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,679,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,728,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $32,728,000,000
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,875,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $35,875,000,000
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,021,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $39,021,000,000
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,449,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $42,449,000,000
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,094,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $46,094,000,000
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,994,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $49,994,000,000
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $106,043,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $105,412,000,000
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $113,588,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $113,372,000,000
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $108,754,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $108,301,000,000
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $149,292,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $148,847,000,000
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $150,628,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $150,314,000,000
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $152,378,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $152,044,000,000
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $157,714,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $157,603,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $156,141,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $156,129,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $154,286,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $154,255,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $161,337,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $161,244,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,299,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,726,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,323,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,779,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,159,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,804,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,979,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,907,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,848,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,948,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,776,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,684,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,730,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,575,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,707,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,512,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,517,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,310,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,912,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,692,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,137,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,695,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,371,000,000.

[[Page H4440]]

       (B) Outlays, $24,134,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,004,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,972,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,018,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,721,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,685,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,881,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,135,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,140,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,954,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,963,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,826,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,496,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,704,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,314,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,679,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,112,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $287,050,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $287,050,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $328,247,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $328,247,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $393,807,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $393,807,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $482,392,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $482,392,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $584,552,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $584,552,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $672,195,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $672,195,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $750,106,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $750,106,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $823,704,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $823,704,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $910,458,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $910,458,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $996,787,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $996,787,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $299,989,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,654,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, -$1,016,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $109,350,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, -$1,367,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $73,953,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, -$1,763,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,147,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,040,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,839,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,074,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,504,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,108,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,320,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$1,943,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $241,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$1,978,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,338,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,015,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,594,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, -$68,844,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$68,844,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, -$72,088,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$72,088,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, -$75,080,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$75,080,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, -$78,115,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$78,115,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, -$80,151,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$80,151,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, -$82,702,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$82,702,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, -$86,167,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$86,167,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$94,794,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$94,794,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$99,412,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$99,412,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$103,004,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$103,004,000,000.
       (21) Overseas Deployments and Other Activities (970):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $130,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $82,814,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,142,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,435,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,949,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,682,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,224,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,729,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,729,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,729,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $300,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,729,000,000.

  The CHAIR. 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 Chair, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  As we face the huge challenges ahead of us, the financial crisis, 
wars in two countries, rising unemployment, crumbling infrastructure, 
lack of affordable health care, high energy prices and global climate 
change, the budget is the legislation that will address all of these 
issues at one time. That's why, as co-chair, with Congressman Raul 
Grijalva of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, I'm pleased to 
present the Fiscal Year 2010 Progressive Caucus Budget Alternative.
  In November the American people voted to take the country in a new 
direction, and that is exactly what the CPC budget does, not by making 
small adjustments, but by fundamentally changing the way our government 
allocates its resources. That's why the CPC budget eliminates more than 
$60 billion in unneeded spending at the Pentagon, much of which is 
spent on weapons designed to fight the former Soviet Union. Our budget 
cuts defense spending by a total of $158 billion in Fiscal Year 2010.
  The CPC alternative budget saves another $8.7 billion a year by fully 
implementing the nearly 800 outstanding GAO recommendations to reduce 
waste, fraud and abuse at the DOD.
  And finally, we can save another $90 billion by executing a timely 
and complete withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.
  Our budget restores fairness and balance to the Tax Code by rolling 
back the Bush tax breaks for the top 1 percent, closing loopholes for 
corporations that would equal $100 billion in savings a year, ensuring 
that Wall Street pays its fair share for the burden placed on taxpayers 
by the TARP program, and limiting the tax deductibility of excessive 
CEO pay.
  With these offsets, the CPC budget then sets forth an ambitious 
agenda to address the most pressing matters facing America today. We 
invest $991 billion in nondefense discretionary spending for fiscal 
year 2010, which is $469 billion over the President's budget. This bold 
infusion of resources includes $300 billion in stimulus that was left 
out of the economic recovery package, and increases spending for 
domestic priorities. These investments include: $120 billion a year to 
ensure that every American has health care; $90 billion a year to cut 
the poverty rate in America by 50 percent; up to $80 billion a year to 
rebuild and reinvest in our infrastructure; and an increase of $60 
billion for international assistance for nonmilitary foreign assistance 
to fight the root causes of terrorism, to support the 21st century 
diplomacy.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. And to 
meeting basic human needs, universal education and worldwide prevention 
of HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria.
  Thirty billion dollars a year in our budget is for the President's 
budget to fight global warming and promote energy independence.
  Over $70 billion a year will fully fund the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act and IDEA, and $45 billion a year to make veterans health 
care an entitlement.
  Madam Chair, these are the major priorities of the Progressive Caucus 
alternative budget, and I urge my colleagues to pay attention to it and 
to vote for it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

[[Page H4441]]

  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chair, first I do want to offer my congratulations to the 
gentlelady for simply offering the budget. As one who has written 
budgets before, on behalf of the Republican Study Committee, it is 
hard, difficult, challenging work, but I know the lady is committed to 
her set of principles. They are diametrically opposed to mine, but I 
respect her body of work and her commitment to her philosophy.
  Madam Chairman, as we look at this budget and the other Democrat 
alternatives, frankly, they have a whole lot more in common than they 
have in their differences. All of these budgets, all of these 
Democratic budgets, are simply radical. They are radical departures 
from over 200 years of history in America.
  Every single one, Madam Chairman, spends too much. They tax too much, 
and they borrow too much. We are looking, even prior to the submission 
of this progressive budget, much less the Democratic-controlled House 
Budget Committee budget, we were looking at drowning in a sea of red 
ink. We were looking at entitlement spending simply being out of 
control.
  And don't take my word for it, Madam Chairman. Let's listen to the 
Federal Reserve. ``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.''
  Listen to our most recent former Comptroller General Walker of the 
General Accountability Office. ``The rising costs of government 
entitlements are a fiscal cancer, a fiscal cancer that threatens 
catastrophic consequences for our country and could bankrupt America.''
  Now, Madam Chairman, that was all before the submissions of these 
budgets. And let's look at the recent history of this Democratic-
controlled Congress. Seven hundred billion dollars of bailout money, 
costing every American household $6,034. Now, some Members on the other 
side of the aisle claim the taxpayer is going to get his money back. I 
hope that proves to be true. As history is my guide, I have some 
doubts.
  A $1.13 trillion government stimulus plan, not a plan to stimulate 
the economy, a plan to stimulate big government, costing every American 
household $9,810. Madam Chairman, where are they going to get this 
money? People are losing their jobs. Credit is being contracted. And 
yet, spending bill after spending bill after spending bill.
  Then, Madam Chairman, a $410 billion omnibus spending bill, costing 
every American household $3,534. Now, on top of all this, on top of all 
this massive spending, we have the single largest budget in American 
history being proposed, more spending than this Nation has ever seen. 
More spending than this Nation has ever seen, even with respect to the 
economy, with the exception of World War II.
  These are budgets that are going to impose costs on the average 
American family of over $30,000. Again, Madam Chairman, this 
progressive budget, along with all the other Democratic budgets, spends 
too much, it taxes too much, and it borrows too much.
  Now, Madam Chairman, speaker after speaker has come to the floor to 
decry the inherited economic mess. There is an economic mess. But our 
President inherited this economic mess from a Democratic-controlled 
Congress. When the Republicans were last in control of Congress, the 
deficit was $160 billion and falling. And now, just 2 years later, just 
2 years later, it was $1.3 trillion, and the President decided to add 
on another 500, $600 billion on top of that. We're looking at an 
increase in the Federal deficit of tenfold in just 2 years.
  And now, Madam Chairman, each one of these Democratic budgets is 
proposing more debt, more debt in the next 10 years than has been run 
up in the previous 200 years of our Nation's history, going back to the 
dawn of the Republic. We have never seen these levels of debt.
  Again, Madam Chairman, never in our history have so few voted so fast 
to indebt so many and do so little good. As history is my guide, no 
nation, no nation has ever borrowed or spent its way into prosperity, 
no matter how they tried. This is simply radical.
  Madam Chairman, who ever thought we would see the day where European 
socialists are lecturing the United States of America about fiscal 
responsibility. What a topsy-turvy world we live in, Madam Chairman. 
Never thought we would have seen the day. But now that spectacle is on 
television.
  Madam Chairman, who ever thought we would see the day where our 
Secretary of State has to go to China and beg them to keep on buying 
our debt? Even the Chinese, the Communist Chinese, are now lecturing 
the United States of America about its profligate spending.
  Madam Chairman, if any of these Democratic budgets are passed, we 
will be the first generation in America's history to leave the next 
generation with less freedom, less opportunity and a lower standard of 
living. It is unavoidable. And that's why this budget is so radical.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, I am honored to yield 3 minutes to the 
chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank of 
Massachusetts, who is the author of this year's reduction of Cold War 
weapons in our CPC budget.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, I admire the work that's 
been done by the leadership of the Progressive Caucus and the staff.
  Before getting to that I would like to make two, I think, corrections 
to my friend from Texas. First, I know people on that side have a 
propensity to see socialists everywhere. But the people who are most 
lecturing the American Government are the president of France, Nicolas 
Sarkozy, and the chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, two 
conservatives. So his invocation of socialists lecturing us is a 
further example of the propensity to see socialists where they are not. 
In fact, we have not heard that from the British Government, which is 
run by the Labor Party. But the Gaullist president of France and the 
Christian Democratic chancellor of Germany would object to being called 
socialists by my friend from Texas.
  Secondly, he says this would be the first administration in history 
to hand on to the next generation a lower standard of living. No, it 
won't even be, if that happens, the first administration to do it in 
this century because the Bush administration has done just that. If you 
look at what the standard of living was after this terrible economic 
crisis that came under the Bush administration, we've already hit that 
goal.
  Now, as to spending. A riddle, Madam Chairman. When is government 
spending not government spending? And on the other hand, when does 
government spending which, according to the conservatives, destroys 
jobs, in fact creates jobs? The answer is when it's for weapons.
  We have, on the other side, a form of weaponized Keynesianism. When 
it comes to spending money to build roads or improve medical 
infrastructure or do other things that are enhancing the quality of 
life, they tell us that government spending doesn't create a job. But 
when we are talking about continuing to produce weapons that have the 
admirable purpose of defeating the Soviet Union in the Cold War, and 
we're still producing the weapons, then somehow we have to keep them 
going because of its job creation capacity.
  Military spending. George Bush, in his exit interview with the Wall 
Street Journal, hardly a harsh critic for him on the editorial page, 
said the main reason he had to spend so much was the ramp-up in 
military spending. I just disagree with him that it was necessary. The 
wholly unnecessary, in fact, damaging Iraq war has cost us hundreds and 
hundreds of billions of dollars.
  I am amazed that people can lament spending and forget the elephant 
in the room. And when the elephant forgets the elephant in the room, I 
suppose it's even more surprising, because it is massive military 
spending now and for the future that is the problem.
  We're worried about entitlements. I am less concerned about a 73-
year-old woman getting a cost of living increase than I am about 
building the F-22 when we no longer need it.

[[Page H4442]]

  And we have missile defense. Now, I don't keep up, since I became 
chairman of the committee I've been a little diverted, with the news as 
much as I used to. And I haven't reviewed all the fatwas out of that 
lunatic regime in Iran. But I do not remember them threatening to 
destroy Prague. I do not remember the pronouncement in which Iran said, 
you Czechs better watch out; we're going to bomb you.
  Despite the absence of any such threat, the budget that my friends on 
the other side would like commits us to spending billions of dollars to 
defend Prague against Iran. I'd rather protect old people against 
poverty.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, I would first yield myself 30 seconds 
to say to the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services 
Committee, and my friend, that I would certainly concede the point that 
he is probably far more familiar with socialists in Europe than I am, 
and I concede that point.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HENSARLING. I would be happy to yield to the distinguished 
chairman.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, the people I mentioned were Nicolas 
Sarkozy, who is the non-socialist, Gaullist president of France and 
Angela Merkel, the non-socialist chancellor of Germany.
  Mr. HENSARLING. With 30 seconds, I'll reclaim my time.
  I would also point out to the distinguished chairman of the Financial 
Services Committee Article I, section 9 of our Constitution that puts 
the spending power with the Congress, and to remind him that his party 
has been in control for the last 2 years.

                              {time}  1345

  With that, Madam Chair, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. INGLIS. Madam Chair, I congratulate the gentleman on his work on 
this alternative that we are going to see.
  The one before us is the Progressive budget, and it seems to me that 
what we have here is a continuation of the problem that we are all 
focused on, which is we've overdosed on credit, and there really is a 
limit to how much you can spend. This is an unfortunate thing. We wish 
that we had no limits, but there are limits. I hope that Progressives 
won't stand on the floor and say what I've often heard them say before, 
which is, ``The question is not whether we can afford to do this. The 
question is whether we can afford not to do this,'' which is, of 
course, inherently irresponsible because there are limits. There are 
limits on how much money there is available, on how many resources we 
can commit to various programs and projects, and we've got to live 
within those limits.
  There has been a lot of talk about inheriting this financial mess, 
and as the gentleman from Texas said a little while ago, it is a mess, 
and it is something that this administration is dealing with and that 
this majority is dealing with, but it's also something that we've got 
to admit has been coming for a long time. This is not, really, a brand 
new thing. The housing bubble was new--or the bursting of it was new. 
The buildup and the blowing up of that bubble took a while. The 
bursting of it is more recent, but the thing has been going on for a 
long time under, frankly, Republicans and Democrats. It is the runaway 
spending and entitlements that must be constrained. I would submit the 
only way to change it is to change the underlying programs and the 
incentives and the way that those programs work.
  For example, in Medicare, we just have got to find a way to 
incentivize the patient to care about how much it costs, and we have 
just got to find a way to make prevention part of our health system. 
Now, that's something we need to come together on and figure out--
Progressives, conservatives, Republicans, Democrats.
  How do you do that? How do you change the underlying incentives in a 
program like Medicare to bring it under control? I would submit that 
these sorts of things where you just sort of cap the rate of growth 
really don't work because we've seen that, we've done that, and then 
we've extended the cap, so that doesn't work.
  What's going to have to happen is we have to figure out a way to come 
into those programs, those big ones--Medicare, Medicaid, Social 
Security--and figure out a way to change the underlying program. 
Hopefully, we can do that in a cooperative, collaborative way. There 
are ideas on this side of the aisle that will work in health care--that 
will work to bring down the cost, the runaway cost of Medicare and 
Medicaid. I hope that we can get to that.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I'm honored to yield a minute and a half to the former 
cochair of the Progressive Caucus, Barbara Lee from California.
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, let me just say that I rise today 
in strong support of the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget 
substitute, and I want to commend Congresswoman Woolsey and Congressman 
Grijalva--co-chairs of the CPC--and their staffs for their very hard 
and tireless work on this great budget.
  Budgets are not only fiscal documents; they are moral documents. They 
reflect our Nation's values and priorities. For example, in our budget, 
we redeploy all of our troops and contractors out of Iraq, and we cap 
the tax deductibility of excessive CEO pay. That totals about $120 
billion in our budget. Our budget, however, puts $120 billion a year 
into health care for all Americans. Those are our values.
  The CPC budget provides critical relief to those who are suffering 
during this economic crisis. It revitalizes our economy, and it cuts 
poverty in half in 10 years. We eliminate waste, fraud and abuse at the 
Pentagon, and we eliminate Cold War era weapons systems to the tune of 
about $60 billion a year. Smart security is also a critical component 
of this budget, and we must use this in places like Afghanistan where 
we know that there is clearly no military solution.
  I was concerned about that reality on September 14, 2001 when I voted 
against the military authorization to provide a blank check for endless 
wars, and I still remain unpersuaded today that sending more troops to 
Afghanistan will actually advance our national security interests. We 
must be a Nation committed to exercising the tools of smart security 
for the 21st century, and this budget puts us on that path.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time is remaining 
on each side?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 10 minutes remaining. The 
gentlewoman from California has 12 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HENSARLING. At this time, Madam Chair, I would like to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
Democrat budget, and I do so reluctantly. We were hoping that we could 
come together on something that takes the country forward.
  When you look at how Americans are hurting--and I'm from Michigan, 
and nobody knows about hurting economies like we do in Michigan--it's 
painful, but the prescription that the Democrats offer is dangerous: 
Borrow more money. Spend more money. Tax the very people who are going 
to get us out of this recession--the small business people. It's not 
that we're taxed too little already, and we have to be taxed more.
  I mean this bill says: Listen, you know what? With your electric 
bill, Americans, you're not paying enough. We're going to charge you 
the largest utility tax increase in the history of the United States 
under this cap-and-tax program in the Democrat blueprint. We're going 
to borrow more in the next 10 years than for all the wars that we've 
ever fought combined. We're going to spend every penny of it.
  So what happens if you're building cars or if, actually, you work for 
a small business in Lansing, Michigan? You're getting up in the morning 
under the Democrat tax bill, and you're going to pay a lot more for 
your shower in the morning. You're going to put the laundry in before 
you go to work, and you're paying a lot more to do your laundry. Your 
kids are doing their homework on the Internet. They're paying more to 
do their homework on the Internet. You turn on your coffee maker, and 
you're paying more. You get out to the car of which you paid a sales 
tax. You pay a tax for your license plate. You pay a tax for your 
driver's license. You pay a State gas tax and a Federal gas tax. Guess 
what?

[[Page H4443]]

Your gas bill is going up to drive to work under this plan.
  You get to work, and for the privilege of showing up at this small 
business, you're going to pay more for taxes for that small business. 
The electric bills in that place are going up, in some cases the 
estimates are, by 177 percent. You're paying more. You pay a city 
income tax, a State income tax, a Federal income tax. You pay your 
unemployment tax and your Workers' Comp tax.
  You get home, and you're paying a huge property tax. Oh, by the way, 
that's going up, too. When you go to call your Congressman to complain, 
you pay a special universal tax on your phone. You sit down to have a 
beer to relax, and you pay a Federal excise tax on that beer. You pay 
more for wine to get it in the country. You pay more for 1 percent 
milk.
  All of this is at a time when people are hurting. It's the most 
regressive tax you can propose. The poorest Americans are already taxed 
to death. This is the wrong prescription. It borrows too much; it 
spends too much; it taxes too much.
  I encourage my friends and colleagues from the other side of the 
aisle who talk about priorities to name me the importance of raising 
the cost of doing your laundry, of keeping your food cold, of cooking 
your food, and of keeping your house either warm or cool to the average 
American, and tell me that's a good priority for the future of job 
growth and development.
  Madam Chair, I would urge the rejection of the Democrat budget, and 
would urge putting some common sense back in this equation.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, I yield a minute and a half to a 
Progressive vice chair, Keith Ellison from Minnesota.
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I rise today in strong support of the 
Progressive budget, and I want to thank our leadership in the 
Progressive Caucus for pulling the budget together. Though I do plan on 
supporting the House Democratic budget resolution, I believe that our 
Progressive budget differs in two important ways, and that's why I urge 
my colleagues to support the Progressive budget.
  First, the Progressive alternative fully funds President Obama's 
international affairs request--Function 150 account. I believe robust 
funding for international affairs, which covers funds to combat HIV, 
tuberculosis and malaria as well as funding to help reconstruction in 
Afghanistan, is critical to our Nation's public diplomacy.
  Our country has a unique opportunity to rebuild alliances across the 
globe, and we need to meet our foreign policy challenges in the 21st 
century. To accomplish this task, our country and this Congress must 
demonstrate a strong commitment to funding international aid.
  Second, the Progressive Caucus budget embraces President Obama's 
commitment to retire Cold War weapons systems, and the Progressive 
budget goes further than the House Democratic budget in cutting defense 
spending. The Progressive budget reduces wasteful spending that, 
according to the GAO, costs taxpayers $8.7 billion a year. The 
Progressive Caucus budget also eliminates unnecessary and obsolete Cold 
War weapons systems, saving taxpayers $60 billion a year. I know my 
Republican colleagues are in favor of cutting those wasteful programs.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California may 
control the time of the gentleman from Texas.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Thank you, Madam Chair.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. At this time, I would like to 
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
  Mr. McHENRY. I thank my colleague from California for yielding.
  Madam Chair, folks in western North Carolina are hurting. We've seen 
the rise in unemployment. We've seen the economic dislocation that this 
recession has created. We've seen the impact it has on small towns and 
communities, on families that are struggling to make ends meet, and 
we've seen the rise in unemployment that generally has occurred. These 
are tough economic times, and I think we have to have a responsible 
Federal budget to meet these tough economic times.
  Families have to tighten their belts during these tough times. 
Likewise, I think the Federal Government should do the same. I think 
it's wrong to raise taxes in a time of recession. I think it's wrong to 
raise taxes on people who are already hurting. That's why I oppose this 
budget that's being presented here today.
  In fact, it's not simply enough as a public policymaker to reject a 
proposal, but you should offer your own, your own ideas on the way to 
properly act. Therefore, I am voting for two alternatives that will be 
better than the budget offered here today--the Obama-Pelosi budget--
that I'm offering through the Republican Study Committee and through 
the Republican Members.
  We have a budget that spends far less without raising taxes and that 
borrows far less than this current budget. Moreover, I'm supporting a 
budget alternative that balances the budget without raising taxes, in 
fact, making the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, which will help 
families and small businesses. After all, we should not be taxing and 
spending and borrowing more. We should be cutting, saving and 
incentivizing great economic growth, and we should be helping small 
businesses expand and maintain even the workers that they currently 
have, and we should be helping small families as well.
  So I think it's reasonable to support a balanced budget without 
raising taxes, and I think it's irresponsible to support a budget that 
raises taxes, especially to the magnitude of this liberal budget 
offered here on the House floor.
  With that, I urge the adoption of the Republican Study Committee 
alternative, of the Republican alternative, and urge the rejection of 
the Obama-Pelosi budget and especially of this very liberal budget 
offered here on the floor today.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 10\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from California has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, I am honored to yield a minute and a half 
to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in 
permitting me to speak on this.
  It was interesting here to watch the exchange on the floor where my 
good friend, the Chair of the Financial Services Committee, had to 
instruct my friend from Texas--I guess who's left the floor--about who 
is a socialist and who isn't.
  It's no small point that people on the other side who are offering 
their world view don't actually know who our allies are and who runs 
two of the top eight economies in the world. It's the same sort of 
disregard for facts that has encouraged them to willfully misrepresent 
the costs of coming to grips with global warming and carbon pollution. 
And in fact, the chair of the Global Climate Committee Program at MIT 
had to send a letter to the Republican leader explaining that they are 
misleading people by attaching a $3,000 figure, indicating that that is 
grossly out of proportion and depends entirely on what would happen 
with a much smaller burden.
  The point is, under the progressive budget, under the other 
Democratic alternatives, these moneys would be returned to people to 
reduce their energy costs, create green jobs. There was a time when 
conservatives would be worried about cost overruns in the Department of 
Defense and wasteful spending on Cold War weapons. That time is not 
now.
  It's why I support these budgets and urge the rejection of the 
Republican alternatives.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Chair, I will reserve at 
this time.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairwoman, I yield 2 minutes to the outspoken 
Progressive leader, Sheila Jackson-Lee.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairwoman, we come to this floor 
with a sobering recognition: $657 billion spent on the war in Iraq. 
Certainly we would not take one cent away from

[[Page H4444]]

our soldiers, their care, the care of their families. But $657 billion 
on a war that generated the kind of controversy and questionable 
results that the Iraq war created puts us in the position we're in 
today.
  For at the same time that we were fighting a war, the last 
administration saw no reason to ask America to sacrifice. And so it 
gave these enormous--that administration gave these enormous tax cuts 
that put us in this very difficult position of reaching $1 trillion in 
debt.
  What we do today with this budget--and I stand here as a vice chair 
and one believing in the principles of this administration of helping 
America restore itself in energy, health care, education--this budget, 
the Progressive Caucus budget, puts more money to extinguish poverty, 
it cuts the tax cuts that have been given to the rich, and it invests 
those moneys in education, climate control, as well as providing for 
our veterans, and, yes, it does something enormously unique: it 
provides a pathway for rehabilitation for ex-offenders. It intervenes 
with respect to youths who are involved in crime, and it provides the 
resources to fully fund what we call the Second Chance bill, allowing 
ex-offenders to be rehabilitated to go back to their families and get 
their families off of welfare.
  Research has shown that targeting funding towards intervention rather 
than incarceration is more effective than reducing crime and saves the 
taxpayers' money in the long run.
  This is a bill for the people of America. I ask my colleagues to 
support it and to support the President's budget.
  Madam Chair, I would like to rise in support of the budget put 
forward today by the Congressional Progressive Caucus. This alternative 
budget combats the worsening poverty and Hurricane Katrina redress, 
renews federal commitment to fully address the on-going suffering of 
the victims of Hurricane Katrina and help cut the poverty rate in 
America by 50 percent during the next decade with increased funding for 
decent affordable housing, anti-hunger programs, and more quality child 
care. This Progressive budget restores the 21st century social contract 
and safety net; Economic Stimulus #2 ($300 billion), which provides 
more immediate help to overcome the ``Iraq recession'' through 
increased federal assistance for unemployment insurance, food stamps, 
Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) payments to states, and 
housing assistance.
  The Congressional Progressive Budget targets waste, fraud, and abuse 
in federal government, starting with Pentagon savings and projects 
enactment of the Common Sense Budget Act, which would save at least $60 
billion/year on largely obsolete Cold War weapons systems plus billions 
more in waste, fraud, and abuse in DOD spending identified by the 
nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO).
  This Progressive budget repeals the Bush tax cuts for the top 1 
percent of taxpayers--due to expire in 2010 regardless and beyond--
savings of at least $222 billion and cracks down on corporate welfare 
while projecting elimination of various corporate tax loopholes such as 
deductibility of advertising for junk mail, imaging purposes, etc. and 
special tax breaks for oil and gas industry and other extraction 
industries.
  This alternative budget shifts some spending and increases other non-
military spending to fight root causes of terrorism--21st century 
diplomacy, meeting basic human needs (e.g. HIV/AIDS/TB, universal basic 
education for all); Global Warming and Energy Independence, sustained 
investments in renewable energy and energy independence, including 
needed extension of production and investment tax credits. This budget 
includes full funding of authorized levels for green jobs and pathways 
out of poverty grants. In addition, climate policy should significantly 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a manner which supports economic 
security and health of low-income and moderate-income families and 
communities of color and education for all--fully fund Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act and IDEA prospectively and improve Teacher 
Corps and job training. This ``progressive'' budget includes Medicare 
for All--affordable, accessible, quality health care for all Americans, 
starting with full funding of SCHIP to cover every child in America.
  Included in this budget is Guaranteed Veterans' Health Care--which 
ensures whatever federal funding is needed to provide health care 
(including mental health) for all America's veterans (including but not 
limited to veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan military operations; 
support for the Middle-Class--increase funding to protect fundamental 
worker rights, enforce fair credit and lending practices, and promote 
livable wages and safe workplaces; and rebuild America's Communities--
substantially increase funding for Community Development Block Grants, 
Social Services Block Grants, and community policing, and authorize 
release of funds available through the gas tax to clean-up leaking 
underground storage tanks that threaten the drinking water of nearly 
half of all Americans. This progressive budget increases funding 
supporting the Office of Environmental Justice and environmental 
justice programs, including community grants and a review of the EPA 
and other agencies' policies to ensure they are protective of minority 
and low-income communities. Madam Chair, we need to pass a real budget 
for America that's forward thinking and ``progressive'' that will get 
us back on the right track.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Chair, I yield myself 1 
minute.
  Madam Chair, when I listen to some of the debate on the floor, I 
wonder what the American people might think. As I reflect on the words 
that were just spoken, it sounds like we have a greater imperative to 
somehow deal with this notion of climate change than we do with 
defending the American people.
  The budget that's presented to us by the Congressional Progressive 
Caucus cuts defense enormously, and yet we keep hearing that, well, we 
don't want to take any money away from the troops, we don't want to 
take any money away from the equipment. But we cut defense enormously.
  And one has to ask, what is the first obligation of government? It is 
to create a modicum of security so the American people can live their 
lives in a sense of safety, so they can attempt to be the best that God 
gave them the skills to be. That's the first obligation of local 
governments, the first obligation of State governments, and I would 
hope at some point in time in this debate it would be acknowledged by 
the other side that it is the first obligation of the Federal 
Government.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairwoman, I yield 2 minutes to the Progressive 
Caucus vice chair, Donna Edwards from Maryland.
  Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of 
the Progressive Caucus budget alternative. Budgets are about goals, 
aspirations, values and vision. This budget sets the right priorities 
for the future of this Nation, cutting Cold War weapons systems and 
investing in the future, investing in our veterans, investing in their 
families and children and in workers and de-investing in the things 
that don't work.
  Investment number one. The lack of affordable health care is the 
number one drain on our economy, and it must be fixed immediately. The 
Progressive budget steps up the President's commitment by investing 
nearly $120 billion a year to ensure that every American can have 
affordable, high-quality health care.
  Investment number two. We need a national commitment to accelerate 
the development and commercialization of clean, renewable energy 
sources to get serious about our dependence on fossil fuels. And any 
climate change policy must recognize that we have to protect the most 
vulnerable by significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions in a 
manner that supports economic security and the health of low- and 
moderate-income families and communities of color.
  The Progressive budget spends $30 billion a year for the next decade 
to create 3 million clean energy jobs dedicated to increasing our 
energy independence and protecting our environment.
  This is about the future, and the budget takes unprecedented steps to 
eliminate outdated and Cold War weapons systems, repeal the Bush tax 
cuts and make much-needed investments in our Nation's infrastructure, 
including wastewater and energy-efficient transportation systems.
  Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Congressional 
budget alternative to build on the President's commitment for a 
comprehensive approach to meet our current and future fiscal 
priorities.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. At this time, Madam Chair, I 
would yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. KIRK. Madam Chairman, the United States, according to the Bureau 
of Public Debt, has already borrowed $2.07 trillion this year. This is 
in borrowings of short-term debt and adding new debts to the accounts 
of the United States.

[[Page H4445]]

  But what is known, and not well in this Congress, is we gave new 
authority to the Fed to buy Treasury securities. That means that one 
part of the government is already borrowing money from another part of 
the government. This new Fed authority has been used very heavily since 
the start of the new year. In fact, records from the Bureau of Public 
Debt show that the Fed has bought $75 billion of U.S. debt.
  But here's the key thing: All of that purchasing power is from newly 
printed money. These charts show how the printing presses of the United 
States are now running on overtime to fund the current spending of this 
Congress, and the budget underlying this proposal that we're talking 
about would accelerate that.
  You have to worry with the President of the United States at the G-20 
summit now, being told by the Chancellor of the German Republic and by 
the French President that our borrowing is already too heavy. In fact, 
according to CBO scoring for the majority budget, which is the real 
debate that we will consider here today, the United States, if it 
applied to enter the European Union, would not be allowed because our 
borrowing is already too heavy and would violate the Maastricht Treaty. 
You've got to worry when the Chinese Government is saying that the 
dollar is unsound. And when you see these results of the Fed printing 
money and then purchasing U.S. securities, how the debasing of the 
dollar threatens the long-term economic future of the United States.
  When we see the borrowing rate of the Bureau of the Public Debt, we 
see that they are now borrowing at a rate of $159 billion per week. 
Look it up on their Web site. And that is just to support the 
underlying budget. To accelerate the borrowing requirement of the 
United States would be fundamentally unsafe and unsound.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairwoman, I now yield 3 minutes to the chairman 
of the Judiciary Committee, John Conyers of Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I am happy that my friend on Judiciary, 
Dan Lungren, is managing the time on the other side because he will 
remember that it was last Thursday that the Republicans held a press 
conference and announced their non-budget budget with--but then they 
said that it's coming out. And then yesterday the Republican budget 
came out, and it had a few numbers in it.
  And I am intrigued by, I think it's a general Republican assumption 
that with a stimulus plan by the present administration to create jobs, 
to give relief to the poor, to give relief to people who are in 
distressed markets, we are now saying that the President's budget is 
going to--as my friend from Michigan, Mike Rogers, just enunciated on 
the floor--that your electric bills will go up and all costs will rise 
under the Democratic budget.
  Now, clearly both of these can't be the same. There is something 
missing here. And what I submit is that we have a progressive budget 
that goes beyond the good budget offered by the President. But to be 
comparing, as someone--I think it was the gentleman from California was 
just talking about--how can you be cutting all of this out of national 
defense?
  Well, easy. Wasting money and having fraud is not a way of protecting 
the Nation. And the OMB has found billions of dollars of fraud. So 
that's what we're taking out of the military budget. That doesn't make 
the country weaker. It makes the country stronger.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I can't. And furthermore, we're talking about cutting 
out all of these ancient missile systems. I am sure that the gentleman 
from California, a veteran legislator in his second career back here, 
knows that there are a lot of these exotic missile systems that don't 
work any more. You can't use them in the Middle East or in the kind of 
warfare that we're fighting when we're fighting against terrorists and 
insurgents. And people are just fed up with it.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to 
whether or not the other side has more than one speaker on this 
subject.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairwoman, we have two speakers including 
closing.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I will reserve.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairwoman, I am proud to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the chairman of the Africa and Global Health Subcommittee, Donald Payne 
of New Jersey.
  Mr. PAYNE. Madam Chair, let me commend the gentlelady from California 
for presenting this very important budget. And let me also state, to 
the gentleman from California, that it's no question that in our 
parameter we provide for providing for the common defense but we also 
say that it's a part of our country to promote the general welfare. It 
seems that that part tends to be left out in many instances.

                              {time}  1415

  So I rise in strong support of the Progressive Caucus budget. As a 
member of the caucus, I am proud of the work we have done to restore 
common sense to the Federal budget by addressing our Nation's most 
pressing domestic needs.
  As I travel around my congressional district in New Jersey, it is 
obvious that families are suffering as a result of many of the 
decisions of the previous administration, including their determination 
to siphon valuable resources away from our communities and direct them 
towards the ill-advised invasion and occupation of Iraq.
  It is time to rebuild our own Nation by embracing the priorities 
embodied in this bill: providing a strong economic stimulus package of 
$300 billion that includes an extension of unemployment insurance, as 
well as improvements in transportation infrastructure, school 
construction, and needed water projects. Our budget pays for these 
domestic needs by redeploying U.S. troops out of Iraq and repealing the 
Bush tax breaks for the wealthiest among us.
  I urge that we support this commonsense Progressive Caucus budget 
because it puts America first.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Chair, I yield myself the 
balance of our time.
  I have never been in a place where a $4.3 trillion budget over the 
period that we're talking about, which is what the Republican budget 
is, is somehow seen as parsimonious. The other side seems to suggest 
that we are not attempting to try and pay for those things for which 
there is a reason for the Federal Government to be involved.
  Secondly, I would say this. I have been a leader for the last two 
Congresses in an effort, on a bipartisan basis, to try and reduce or to 
encourage the President to negotiate with Russia to reduce our overall 
nuclear weapon arsenal, and the President has indicated this last week 
he's going to do that. But I have looked at the figures, and if we 
reduced it to the numbers that the President is talking about that 
we've urged, it wouldn't even come close to be the cut that you're 
talking about on your side.
  The suggested cuts in defense spending in this budget, in the 
Democratic budget, but in this budget particularly, it doesn't just cut 
fat. It cuts muscle. It cuts sinew. It cuts bone. It makes us less able 
to defend the American people. And let's just be very, very clear about 
that. No one, no respected member of any previous administration in 
terms of national defense has suggested that you can support this kind 
of a budget presented here.
  So let's make it very clear to the American people what we're talking 
about here. Are we going to do the fundamental job of preserving 
liberty and preserving freedom or are we, in fact, going to cut defense 
and, in the process, burden our people with more spending, more 
taxation, more borrowing, increasing the size of government, which 
ultimately takes freedom away from individual Americans?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, well, I'd just like to point out that 
the other side of the aisle must like the Congressional Progressive 
Caucus budget very much because they've spent the entire hour either 
promoting their own budget or attacking the President's budget and 
letting our budget stand as it is.
  I'm proud of the Congressional Progressive budget. We cut defense 
spending by $158 billion in fiscal year 2010 alone, and we increase 
nondefense discretionary spending to $991 billion, and that's quite an 
effort and quite an accomplishment.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

[[Page H4446]]

  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 84, 
noes 348, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 188]

                                AYES--84

     Abercrombie
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kucinich
     Lee (CA)
     Markey (MA)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Miller, George
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Schakowsky
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stark
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--348

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boccieri
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Driehaus
     Duncan
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon (TN)
     Granger
     Graves
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Harman
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey (CO)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Ortiz
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pierluisi
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pomeroy
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weiner
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Hinojosa
     Lewis (GA)
     Miller, Gary
     Sablan
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1446

  Mr. GRIFFITH, Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan, Messrs. MASSA, KIND, MURPHY 
of Connecticut, VAN HOLLEN, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Mr. GORDON of 
Tennessee, and Mr. AL GREEN of Texas changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Messrs. ABERCROMBIE, CLEAVER, and WAXMAN changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


             Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Jordan of Ohio

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
House Report 111-73.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 in the nature of a substitute printed in 
     House Report 111-73 offered by Mr. Jordan of Ohio:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2010.

       Congress declares that the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2010 is hereby established and that 
     the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009 and for 
     fiscal years 2011 through 2019 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 2009 through 2019:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,530,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $1,635,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $1,885,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,068,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,186,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,284,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $2,406,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $2,507,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $2,617,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $2,716,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $2,818,000,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2009: -$3,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: -$31,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: -$203,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: -$292,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: -$329,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: -$350,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: -$370,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: -$390,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: -$412,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: -$435,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: -$461,000,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2009: $3,100,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,468,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,302,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,416,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,501,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,569,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $2,650,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $2,728,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $2,775,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $2,833,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $2,907,000,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2009: $3,041,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,587,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,495,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,536,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,602,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,659,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $2,733,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $2,787,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $2,837,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $2,897,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $2,933,000,000,000.
       (4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget) 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,511,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $952,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $610,000,000,000.

[[Page H4447]]

       Fiscal year 2012: $468,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $416,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $375,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $327,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $280,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $220,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $181,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $116,000,000,000.
       (5) Debt subject to limit.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate 
     levels of the public debt are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2009: $9,674,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $11,454,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $12,440,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $13,416,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $14,111,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $14,717,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $15,361,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $15,904,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $16,443,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $16,930,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $16,914,000,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2009: $7,416,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $8,070,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $8,543,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $8,914,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $9,177,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $9,425,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $9,603,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $9,723,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $9,782,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $9,428,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $9,362,000,000,000.

     SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2009 through 2019 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $700,705,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $692,033,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $620,110,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $629,140,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $639,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $653,830,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $660,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $665,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $670,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $675,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $688,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.

[[Page H4448]]

       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2017:

[[Page H4449]]

       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.

[[Page H4450]]

       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $169,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $169,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $162,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $162,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $190,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $190,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $236,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $236,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $293,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $293,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $350,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $350,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $388,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $388,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $412,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $412,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $425,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $425,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $454,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $454,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $470,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $470,000,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,560,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,395,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,193,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,978,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,064,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,877,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,153,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,892,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,186,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,927,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,210,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,954,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,278,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,021,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,363,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,087,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,434,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,166,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,503,000,000,000.

[[Page H4451]]

       (B) Outlays, $3,242,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,597,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,311,000,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (21) Overseas Deployments and Other Activities (970):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 050.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 050.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 050.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 050.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 050.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 050.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 050.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 050.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 050.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 050.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 050.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 050.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 050.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 050.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 050.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 050.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 050.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 050.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 050.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 050.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 050.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 050.

                  TITLE II--RECONCILIATION SUBMISSIONS

     SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

       (a) Submissions to Slow the Growth in Mandatory Spending 
     and to Achieve Deficit Reduction.--(1) Not later than July 
     13, 2009, the House committees named in paragraph (2) shall 
     submit their recommendations to the House Committee on the 
     Budget. After receiving those recommendations, the House 
     Committee on the Budget shall report to the House a 
     reconciliation bill carrying out all such recommendations 
     without any substantive revision.
       (2) Instructions.--
       (A) Committee on agriculture.--The House Committee on 
     Agriculture shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $1,370,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2010 and $10,185,000,000 in outlays for the 
     period of fiscal years 2010 through 2014.
       (B) Committee on education and labor.--The House Committee 
     on Education and Labor shall report changes in laws within 
     its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $1,100,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2010 and $8,300,000,000 in outlays for the period 
     of fiscal years 2010 through 2014.
       (C) Committee on energy and commerce.--The House Committee 
     on Energy and Commerce shall report changes in laws within 
     its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $19,990,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2010 and $241,900,000,000 in outlays for the 
     period of fiscal years 2010 through 2014.
       (D) Committee on government reform and oversight.--The 
     House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight shall 
     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to 
     reduce the level of direct spending for that committee by 
     $92,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2010 and 
     $1,710,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2010 
     through 2014.
       (E) Committee on resources.--The House Committee on 
     Resources shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $250,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2010 and $4,937,000,000 in outlays for the period 
     of fiscal years 2010 through 2014.
       (F) Committee on ways and means.--The House Committee on 
     Ways and Means shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by 
     $7,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2010 and $214,800,000,000 for 
     the period of fiscal years 2010 through 2014.
       (G) Special rule.--The chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget may take into account legislation enacted after the 
     adoption of this resolution that is determined to reduce the 
     deficit and may make applicable adjustments in reconciliation 
     instructions, allocations, and budget aggregates and may also 
     make adjustments in reconciliation instructions to protect 
     earned benefit programs.
       (b) Submission Providing for Changes in Revenue.--The House 
     Committee on Ways and Means shall report a reconciliation 
     bill not later than June 8, 2009, that consists of changes in 
     laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce revenues by 
     not more than $31,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2010 and by not 
     more than $1,205,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
     2009 through 2014.
       (c) Revision of Allocations.--(1) Upon the submission to 
     the Committee on the Budget of the House of a recommendation 
     that has complied with its reconciliation instructions solely 
     by virtue of section 310(b) of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974, the chairman of that committee may file with the 
     House appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a) 
     of such Act and revised functional levels and aggregates.
       (2) Upon the submission to the House of a conference report 
     recommending a reconciliation bill or resolution in which a 
     committee has complied with its reconciliation instructions 
     solely by virtue of this section, the chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget of the House may file with the House 
     appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a) of 
     such Act and revised functional levels and aggregates.
       (3) Allocations and aggregates revised pursuant to this 
     subsection shall be considered to be allocations and 
     aggregates established by the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget pursuant to section 301 of such Act.

     SEC. 202. SUBMISSION OF REPORTS ON MANDATORY SAVINGS.

       In the House, not later than June 15, 2009, all House 
     committees shall identify savings amounting to one percent of 
     total mandatory spending under its jurisdiction from 
     activities that are determined to be wasteful, unnecessary, 
     or lower-priority. For purposes of this section, the reports 
     by the reports by each committee shall be inserted in the 
     Congressional Record by the chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget not later than June 15, 2009.

                     TITLE III--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 301. RESTRICTIONS ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--(1) In the House, except as provided in 
     subsection (b), an advance appropriation may not be reported 
     in a bill or joint resolution making a general appropriation 
     or continuing appropriation, and may not be in order as an 
     amendment thereto.
       (2) Managers on the part of the House may not agree to a 
     Senate amendment that would violate paragraph (1) unless 
     specific authority to agree to the amendment first is given 
     by the House by a separate vote with respect thereto.
       (b) Exception.--In the House, an advance appropriation may 
     be provided for fiscal year 2011 and fiscal years 2012 for 
     programs, projects, activities or accounts identified in the 
     joint explanatory statement of managers accompanying this 
     resolution under the heading ``Accounts Identified for 
     Advance Appropriations'' in an aggregate amount not to exceed 
     $23,565,000,000 in new budget authority.

[[Page H4452]]

       (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance 
     appropriation'' means any discretionary new budget authority 
     in a bill or joint resolution making general appropriations 
     or continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2010 that first 
     becomes available for any fiscal year after 2010.

     SEC. 302. TURN OFF THE GEPHARDT RULE.

       Rule XXVII shall not apply with respect to the adoption by 
     the Congress of a concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     fiscal year 2010.

     SEC. 303. EMERGENCY SPENDING.

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

     SEC. 304. CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS AND AGGREGATES RESULTING 
                   FROM REALISTIC SCORING OF MEASURES AFFECTING 
                   REVENUES.

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

     SEC. 305. PROHIBITION ON USING REVENUE INCREASES TO COMPLY 
                   WITH BUDGET ALLOCATIONS AND AGGREGATES.

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

     SEC. 306. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS 
                   AND AGGREGATES.

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

     SEC. 307. DIRECT SPENDING SAFEGUARD.

       (a) It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives to consider an direct spending legislation 
     that would increase an on-budget deficit or decrease an on-
     budget surplus as provided by subsection (e) for any 
     applicable time period.
       (b) For purposes of this section, the term ``applicable 
     time period'' means any of the following periods:
       (1) The period of the first 5 fiscal years covered by the 
     most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget.
       (2) The period of the 5 fiscal years following first 5 
     years covered in the most recently adopted concurrent 
     resolution on the budget.
       (c) For purposes of this section and except as provided in 
     subsection (d), the term ``direct-spending legislation'' 
     means any bill, joint resolution, amendment, 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.
       (d) For purposes of this section, the term ``direct-
     spending legislation'' does not include--
       (1) any legislation the title of which is as follows: ``A 
     bill to preserve Social Security.''; or
       (2) any legislation that would cause a net increase in 
     aggregate direct spending of less than $100,000,000 for any 
     applicable time period.
       (e) If direct spending legislation increases the on-budget 
     deficit or decreases an on-budget surpluses when taken 
     individually, it must also increase the on-budget deficit or 
     decrease the on-budget surplus when taken together with all 
     direct spending legislation enacted since the beginning of 
     the calendar year not accounted for in the baseline assumed 
     for the most recent concurrent resolution on the budget, 
     except that direct spending effects resulting in net deficit 
     reduction enacted pursuant to reconciliation instructions 
     since the beginning of that same calendar year shall not be 
     available.
       (f) This section may be waived by the affirmative vote of 
     three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (g) For purposes of this section, the levels of budget 
     authority and outlays for a fiscal year shall be determined 
     on the basis of estimates made by the Committee on the 
     Budget.
       (h) The Committee on Rules may not report a rule or order 
     proposing a waiver of subsection (a).

     SEC. 308. BUDGET PROTECTION MANDATORY ACCOUNT.

       (a)(1) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall 
     maintain an account to be known as the ``Budget Protection 
     Mandatory Account''. The Account shall be divided into 
     entries corresponding to the allocations under section 302(a) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 in the most recently 
     adopted concurrent resolution on the budget, except that it 
     shall not include the Committee on Appropriations.
       (2) Each entry shall consist only of amounts credited to it 
     under subsection (b). No entry of a negative amount shall be 
     made.
       (b)(1) Upon the engrossment of a House bill or joint 
     resolution or a House amendment to a Senate bill or joint 
     resolution (other than an appropriation bill), the chairman 
     of the Committee on the Budget shall--
       (A) credit the applicable entries of the Budget Protection 
     Mandatory Account by the amounts specified in paragraph (2); 
     and
       (B) reduce the applicable section 302(a) allocations by the 
     amount specified in paragraph (2).
       (2) Each amount specified in paragraph (1)(A) shall be the 
     net reduction in mandatory budget authority (either under 
     current law or proposed by the bill or joint resolution under 
     consideration) provided by each amendment that was adopted in 
     the House to the bill or joint resolution.
       (c)(1) If an amendment includes a provision described in 
     paragraph (2), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     shall, upon the engrossment of a House bill or joint 
     resolution or a House amendment to a Senate bill or joint 
     resolution, other than an appropriation bill, reduce the 
     level of total revenues set forth in the applicable 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year or 
     for the total of that first fiscal year and the ensuing 
     fiscal years in an amount equal to the net reduction in 
     mandatory authority (either under current law or proposed by 
     a bill or joint resolution under consideration) provided by 
     each amendment adopted by the House to the bill or joint 
     resolution. Such adjustment shall be in addition to the 
     adjustments described in subsection (b).
       (2)(A) The provision specified in paragraph (1) is as 
     follows: ``The amount of mandatory budget authority reduced 
     by this amendment may be used to offset a decrease in 
     revenues.''
       (B) All points of order are waived against an amendment 
     including the text specified

[[Page H4453]]

     in subparagraph (A) provided the amendment is otherwise in 
     order.
       (d) As used in this rule, the term--
       (1) ``appropriation bill'' means any general or special 
     appropriation bill, and any bill or joint resolution making 
     supplemental, deficiency, or continuing appropriations 
     through the end of fiscal year 2008 or any subsequent fiscal 
     year, as the case may be.
       (2) ``mandatory budget authority'' means any entitlement 
     authority as defined by, and interpreted for purposes of, the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       (e) During the consideration of any bill or joint 
     resolution, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall 
     maintain a running tally, which shall be available to all 
     Members, of the amendments adopted reflecting increases and 
     decreases of budget authority in the bill or joint 
     resolution.

     SEC. 309. BUDGET DISCRETIONARY ACCOUNTS.

       (a)(1) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall 
     maintain an account to be known as the ``Budget Protection 
     Discretionary Account'';. The Account shall be divided into 
     entries corresponding to the allocation to the Committee on 
     Appropriations, and the committee's suballocations, under 
     section 302(a) and 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974.
       (2) Each entry shall consist only of amounts credited to it 
     under subsection (b). No entry of a negative amount shall be 
     made.
       (b)(1) Upon the engrossment of a House appropriations bill, 
     the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall--
       (A) credit the applicable entries of the Budget Protection 
     Discretionary Account by the amounts specified in paragraph 
     (2).
       (B) reduce the applicable 302(a) and (b) allocations by the 
     amount specified in paragraph (2).
       (2) Each amount specified in subparagraph (A) shall be the 
     net reduction in discretionary budget authority provided by 
     each amendment adopted by the House to the bill or joint 
     resolution.
       (c)(1) If an amendment includes a provision described in 
     paragraph (2), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     shall, upon the engrossment of a House appropriations bill, 
     reduce the level of total revenues set forth in the 
     applicable concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal 
     year or for the total of that first fiscal year and the 
     ensuing fiscal years in an amount equal to the net reduction 
     in discretionary budget authority provided by each amendment 
     that was adopted by the House to the bill or joint 
     resolution. Such adjustment shall be in addition to the 
     adjustments described in subsection (b).
       (2)(A) The provision specified in paragraph (1) is as 
     follows: ``The amount of discretionary budget authority 
     reduced by this amendment may be used to offset a decrease in 
     revenues.''
       (B) All points of order are waived against an amendment 
     including the text specified in subparagraph (A) provided the 
     amendment is otherwise in order.
       (d) As used in this rule, the term ``appropriation bill'' 
     means any general or special appropriation bill, and any bill 
     or joint resolution making supplemental, deficiency, or 
     continuing appropriations through the end of fiscal year 2010 
     or any subsequent fiscal year, as the case may be.
       (e) During the consideration of any bill or joint 
     resolution, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall 
     maintain a running tally, which shall be available to all 
     Members, of the amendments adopted reflecting increases and 
     decreases of budget authority in the bill or joint 
     resolution.

     SEC. 310. TREATMENT OF RESCISSION BILLS IN THE HOUSE.

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

           TITLE IV--JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON EARMARK REFORM

     SEC. 401. JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON EARMARK REFORM.

       (a) Establishment and Composition.--There is hereby 
     established a Joint Select Committee on Earmark Reform. The 
     joint select committee shall be composed of 16 members as 
     follows:
       (1) 8 Members of the House of Representatives, 4 appointed 
     from the majority party by the Speaker of the House, and 4 
     from the minority party to be appointed by the minority 
     leader; and
       (2) 8 Members of the Senate, 4 appointed from the majority 
     party by the majority leader of the Senate, and 4 from the 
     minority party to be appointed by the minority leader.
     A vacancy in the joint select committee shall not affect the 
     power of the remaining members to execute the functions of 
     the joint select committee, and shall be filled in the same 
     manner as the original selection.
       (b) Study and Report.--
       (1) Study.--The joint select committee shall make a full 
     study of the practices of the House, Senate, and Executive 
     Branch regarding earmarks in authorizing, appropriation, tax, 
     and tariff measures. As part of the study, the joint select 
     committee shall consider the efficacy of--
       (A) the disclosure requirements of clause 9 of rule XXI and 
     clause 17 of rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives, House Resolution 491, and rule XLIV of the 
     Standing Rules of the Senate, and the definitions contained 
     therein;
       (B) requiring full transparency in the process, with 
     earmarks listed in bills at the outset of the legislative 
     process and continuing throughout consideration;
       (C) requiring that earmarks not be placed in any bill after 
     initial committee consideration;
       (D) requiring that Members be permitted to offer amendments 
     to remove earmarks at subcommittee, full committee, floor 
     consideration, and during conference committee meetings;
       (E) requiring that bill sponsors and majority and minority 
     managers certify the validity of earmarks contained in their 
     bills;
       (F) recommending changes to earmark requests made by the 
     Executive Branch through the annual budget submitted to 
     Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States 
     Code;
       (G) requiring that House and Senate amendments meet earmark 
     disclosure requirements, including amendments adopted 
     pursuant to a special order of business;
       (H) establishing new categories for earmarks, including--
       (i) projects with National scope;
       (ii) military projects; and
       (iii) local or provincial projects, including the level of 
     matching funds required for such project.
       (2) Report.--
       (A) The joint select committee shall submit to the House 
     and the Senate a report of its findings and recommendations 
     not later than 6 months after adoption of this concurrent 
     resolution.
       (B) No recommendation shall be made by the joint select 
     committee except upon the majority vote of the members from 
     each House, respectively.
       (C) Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, 
     any recommendation with respect to the rules and procedures 
     of one House that only affects matters related solely to that 
     House may only be made and voted on by members of the joint 
     select committee from that House and, upon its adoption by a 
     majority of such members, shall be considered to have been 
     adopted by the full committee as a recommendation of the 
     joint select committee.
     In conducting the study under paragraph (1), the joint select 
     committee shall hold not fewer than 5 public hearings.
       (c) Resources and Dissolution.--
       (1) The joint select committee may utilize the resources of 
     the House and Senate.
       (2) The joint select committee shall cease to exist 30 days 
     after the submission of the report described in subsection 
     (a)(2).
       (d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``earmark'' shall include congressional earmarks, 
     congressionally directed spending items, limited tax 
     benefits, or limited tariff benefits as those terms are used 
     in clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives and rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the 
     Senate. Nothing in this subsection shall confine the study of 
     the joint select committee or otherwise limit its 
     recommendations.

     SEC. 402. MORATORIUM ON CONSIDERATION OF EARMARKS.

       (a) In the House.--It shall not be in order to consider a 
     bill, joint resolution, or conference report containing a 
     congressional earmark, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff 
     benefit (as such terms are used in clause 9 of rule XXI of 
     the Rules of the House of Representatives) until the filing 
     of the report required under section 401.
       (b) In the Senate.--[To be supplied.]

  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) and a Member opposed 
each will control 20 minutes.
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition and ask unanimous 
consent

[[Page H4454]]

that the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) control the remainder 
of my time.
  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIR. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the chair of 
the Republican Study Committee, our colleague from the State of 
Georgia, Congressman Price.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, we all know that we cannot 
continue to burn through the future of our kids and grandkids with 
oversized Federal spending. Our Republican Study Committee budget takes 
a bold but responsible approach to getting our fiscal house in order, 
achieving balance by the year 2019. Yes, Madam Chair, achieving 
balance, as you see from this chart right here.
  Our budget preserves the tax relief adopted earlier in this decade, 
it encourages small businesses to create jobs, and it protects families 
from any tax increase.
  Now, how do we get to balance? Our budget ends, ends the misguided 
spending bills and bailouts of recent years. Our budget includes a 1 
percent annual reduction to all nondefense discretionary spending. 
Defense is fully funded. We simply require each Department to find and 
eliminate 1 percent of wasteful spending under their jurisdiction each 
year, one penny out of every dollar. Is that too much, Madam Chair?
  The key to fiscal sustainability lies in reforming entitlements, 
particularly Medicare, and our Republican Study Committee budget says 
we must address our entitlement of crisis boldly and today.
  Our RSC budget responsibly slows the growth of Medicare to the rate 
used during the Contract with America. A successful result was a 
balanced budget. Our budget responsibly says that we cannot just kick 
this can down the road any further.
  In fact, in an op-ed this morning in the Wall Street Journal, 
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer writes, ``The single most important thing 
we can do to get our budget under control is to deal with the costs of 
our entitlement programs. We simply must act in a bipartisan way to 
choose and implement such reforms.'' Absolutely, Mr. Leader. But, 
unfortunately, their budget and the Democrat's budget ignores a $34 
trillion unfunded liability.
  Our RSC budget says we will get our entitlements under control, and 
we will do it today. We recognize the responsibility we have to come 
together in a bipartisan way to find solutions that preserve Medicare 
without bankrupting our Nation.
  Budgets are priorities, Madam Chair. And the priority of our budget 
is a responsible, stable, and commonsense approach to spending that 
saves our children's and our grandchildren's future. It is not an easy 
task, but governing is about making tough choices, and we need to do it 
today.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up for taxpayers, to stand up for 
market principles, to stand up for the solvency of our Nation and 
support this responsible, stable, commonsense budget.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Today, you are going to have an opportunity to listen to debate from 
our friends on the other side of the aisle on an alternative that seems 
too good to be true, and in fact it is, because they are proposing 
today a budget alternative that they never imposed when they had 
control of all the levers of power: Additional tax cuts that are 
outmoded and discredited, and we can't afford; and, most important, 
cutting aid to Americans most in need, students, the elderly, the sick, 
disabled, assaulting our environment, the elements that are so 
important as we are fighting, with our new President, to try and get 
the economy back on track and moving forward.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Hodes).
  Mr. HODES. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to the Republican budget because, simply put, 
their plan represents more of the same failed policies that caused our 
economic collapse. Their plan is designed to move us backwards.
  I support our budget because it will move our country forward. Our 
plan is honest because it gives the American people a true picture of 
what we are facing. It is visionary because it invests in health care, 
energy, and education. And, it is fair because it gives middle-class 
families real tax relief. It is fiscally responsible because it cuts 
the deficit in half by 2013.
  Our economic plan provides for the overhaul of our health care 
system, because we can't afford half-hearted reform. Our plan invests 
in renewable energy to make us energy independent, and creates green 
jobs to power America for the 21st century.
  Our plan invests in educating our citizens, and building a 21st 
century workforce that can beat the global competition. Our plan will 
cut the deficit in half by 2013, and provides the largest tax cut for 
middle-class Americans in history. It is the economic plan to help 
families who have lost their jobs, who are worried about paying their 
bills, concerned about how they will afford their children's education 
and pay for health insurance. Our economic plan will move our economy 
forward for the millions of working families who are struggling in this 
economy.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican alternative and support 
our plan to invest in America's future.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I thank the Chair. Before yielding to our 
colleague from Tennessee, I would say this. Our budget grows every 
year. It just doesn't grow at a pace that is going to saddle future 
generations of Americans with a debt they can't pay back. And that is 
why it is a responsible budget.
  I yield to the gentlelady from Tennessee, a champion of conservative 
principles, Mrs. Blackburn, for 2 minutes.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his 
great work on our RSC budget, because it is a responsible approach. It 
is good common sense. It is built on stability. And that is what the 
American people want to see right now.
  I am also so pleased that we continue the tax reductions that were 
passed in 2001 and 2003. One of the things we are hearing from so many 
of our small business constituents is that they want to be sure that 
the death tax does not come back in 2010. Of course, we know the 
Democrat budget does that. And it is so interesting; our budget does 
something that is important: It leaves money with the taxpayer, leaves 
it in their pocket.
  And, Madam Chair, I have heard comments from this floor about failed 
policies and tax codes being too convoluted. But I will tell you, 
leaving money in the taxpayers' pockets is neither a failed tax policy 
nor a convoluted tax policy. It is what ought to be done. They have 
earned that money. They deserve to keep it.
  The fact is that our budget would balance, it would come into balance 
without a tax increase. Without pulling more money out of the 
taxpayers' pocket, it would come into balance by 2019.
  That is something that is important for our children, our 
grandchildren, and for future generations, because we know you get 
there by making a reduction in discretionary nondefense, nonveteran 
spending. That 1 percent across-the-board reduction is legislation I 
have offered every year that I have been in Congress, and I am so 
pleased it is included in this budget, as it was in 2006 in the Deficit 
Reduction Act.
  I commend my colleagues for their good work on this. This is a 
responsible, stable, commonsense approach to our Nation's fiscal 
situation. I encourage an ``aye'' vote for the RSC budget.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Van Hollen, a member of the Ways and 
Means Committee and a distinguished member of our leadership.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague.
  This budget is a carbon copy of the failed policies we have seen over 
the last 8 years. It is a budget that looks in the rearview mirror in 
the past; it is not a budget that looks to the future. In fact, this 
budget, like the next Republican budget we will see, is going to slam a 
brake on the economic recovery plan that this Congress passed and is

[[Page H4455]]

now working its way through our economy, through all the communities in 
this country.
  While that economic recovery plan is putting shovels in the ground 
and putting people back to work, this budget puts up a big stop sign 
and says, we are not going to provide any funds after the first year. 
We are going to take those shovels away. We are going to take those 
jobs back.
  I think anybody who thinks that the economic recovery plan should be 
stopped after only 1 year does not have a clear understanding of the 
economic pain that is being experienced throughout this country.
  On health care, President Obama has said that we need to reform our 
health care system to provide universal coverage, quality care, and 
reduced health care costs. This approach takes a meat ax to the 
Medicare program, cutting hundreds of billions of dollars in an 
automatic way. It doesn't tell us how to do it, it just says you have 
got to find a way to do it, cut hundreds of billions of dollars. If you 
are going to do that, tell us what your plan is so people know how it 
is going to affect them.

                              {time}  1500

  The Republican plan goes back to the same old tax cutting for the 
wealthiest Americans, whereas the Democratic plan provides tax cuts of 
$1.5 trillion for working Americans, not just the wealthiest. We invest 
in clean energy. They, again, give big tax breaks to the oil companies 
when we need to be diversifying our sources of energy.
  We have seen this plan before. It is the plan that has been given to 
us for the last 8 years. This is the Bush administration program all 
over again. I think the American people have learned that those 
policies that are reflected in this budget helped get us into this fix 
that we are in today. Let's not look to the past. Let's move to the 
future. Let's adopt the Spratt budget.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Chair, before I yield to my colleague from 
Louisiana, I yield myself 30 seconds just to respond briefly.
  We do put up a stop sign. We put up a stop sign to debt. Under the 
Obama Democratic budget plan, $23 trillion in national debt would be 
brought to the citizens of this country. Now think about what it takes 
to repay that. You would have to first get to balance, then you would 
have to run a $1 trillion surplus for 23 years just to pay that debt 
off. So we do put up a stop sign. It is a stop sign to that kind of 
debt.
  And with that, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Louisiana 
(Mr. Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for 
yielding and especially for his leadership on bringing here to the 
floor a vote on a balanced budget. If you look, there is a clear 
contrast right now between the budget that President Obama presented 
and this budget that we are going to get to vote on.
  If you look at the deficits over the last few years, represented by 
the blue figures, and in the current budget and the continuation of 
these runaway deficit spending budgets over the next few years, many of 
my friends on the other side have criticized this spending, these 
deficits, right here. Of course, many of them voted for these budgets 
that increased these deficits. I didn't vote for any of these budgets. 
And I'm tired of the runaway spending. But those same people who 
criticized these deficits are voting for this level of spending, these 
deficits, $1.9 trillion this year, deficits going out as far as the eye 
can see. In fact, if you look at the ultimate result of that runaway 
deficit spending, President Obama, in his first 5\1/2\ years, will 
double the national debt.
  We have got to get control of runaway spending and these out-of-
control debts that we are racking up for our children and grandchildren 
to pay off. And if you are wondering what the American people are 
telling us, do they want this runaway spending? No. All across the 
country, you are having these uprisings, taxpayer tea parties. Citizens 
out there are showing up in thousands at a time, two in my district on 
April 15, bringing tea bags saying, ``Enough is enough. Stop this 
runaway spending.''
  We finally have a balanced budget that we will get to vote on. And 
for those people, and I know I reach out to my Blue Dog friends on the 
other side, anybody who says they are fiscally responsible has to vote 
for a balanced budget, because you cannot vote for the President's 
budget for this level of runaway spending and call yourself ``fiscally 
conservative.'' You just can't do it. Don't go back home and say you're 
fiscally conservative and come up here in Washington and spend 
trillions of dollars of our children's and grandchildren's money. This 
is money we don't have.
  We have got to stop this madness. People across the country are 
saying just that. Four thousand people are showing up in Cincinnati, 
Ohio, or Orlando and saying ``stop.'' We have an alternative. I would 
urge my friends on both sides of the aisle to vote for a balanced 
budget.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. It is interesting that my friend from Louisiana 
didn't vote for those budget deficits in the past because he wasn't in 
Congress. But if he had been here and joined with the Republican 
majority, he would have voted for them. That is what got us into this 
fix.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), a new 
Member who wasn't a part of this in the past, but is working on 
solutions in the future.
  Mr. SCALISE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I'm happy to yield on your time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SCALISE. Then I would ask a parliamentary inquiry to the Chair.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
  Mr. SCALISE. The gentleman from Washington, rather than directing his 
question to the Chair, made a comment about me saying I would have 
voted for a bill that I would not have voted for. I would just ask the 
Chair, isn't it parliamentary procedure to direct questions or comments 
about people to the Chair, not to individual Members, especially when 
what they are saying is not accurate about that Member?
  The CHAIR. All comments must be directed to the Chair.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I will take 15 seconds, if I may, before recognizing 
the gentleman from New York.
  What I said was the gentleman didn't vote for it because he wasn't 
here. But if he was and voted with the majority of Republicans, he 
would have been part of that problem.
  I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I rise today to express my support for a 
budget that will help improve our economy and institute a plan to 
reduce the deficit in the long term. My hope is that this House will 
pass a budget that provides for a reduction of the deficit of over 50 
percent by the year 2013 by cutting ineffective programs and reforming 
government contracting and defense purchasing.
  In addition, we need a budget that finally addresses health care 
reform, which will reduce the single largest portion of our Federal 
budget. In addition, critical reforms and investments in energy will 
increase our energy independence, which will protect our economy and 
improve our national security.
  We must not forget how we got here. It was during the prior 
administration, the Bush administration, and the Republicans in control 
of Congress that squandered a record surplus inherited by this House 
through irresponsible spending and tax cuts. Those solutions were more 
of the same. But the American people are demanding a new direction, and 
this budget must represent the reforms that we need. America spoke 
clearly this past November with a resounding voice. They called for 
action. They called for a change in the course of the direction of this 
country. They called for growing our economy. They called for 
addressing the budget deficit. They called for creating jobs.
  This budget that we can vote on, presented by the President, will 
allow us to address those four major points. I stand in defense of that 
budget and ask that this House approve that given budget that will be 
before us later today.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Chair, I would yield 2 minutes to our good 
friend from Georgia, Congressman Kingston.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  And I just wanted to remind my friends, because there seems to be a

[[Page H4456]]

historical glitch in their brains, but the Democrats took over in 
October of 2006. For you guys to keep reaching back and insisting all 
of our problems belong to George Bush is ridiculous. Speaker Pelosi was 
sworn in in January 2007. Do you have a problem with the spending up 
here? Talk to Speaker Pelosi. Your budget spends too much, taxes too 
much and borrows too much. Think about the borrowing for a minute. 
Here, the RSC budget, which I'm glad to support, moves us towards a 
surplus. Instead, you take the Pelosi debt of $11 trillion and you 
double it in 5 years and triple it in 10 years. Great work.
  On tax relief, the Pelosi Democrats call for a $1.3 trillion tax 
increase and one that is going to take away from the working people, 
whereas the RSC budget calls for $1.2 trillion in tax relief. And I 
know the Democrat Party has moved away from people who have a lot of 
achievements. In fact, there seems to be some problem that if you have 
achieved something, then you're guilty and we need to tax you more. But 
the RSC budget works for tax fairness.
  And I think it is important, particularly for small businesses and 
corporations. We go out there, and I know we have got our first 
European President right now going over there to the EU, but those 
folks, those corporations pay 25 percent in taxes. Globally, we have 
got to compete against them, where our corporations pay 35 percent in 
taxes. We need tax fairness. The RSC budget will create 2 to 3 million 
jobs. And that is what this is about.
  In terms of reform, the Pelosi Democrats seem to be determined to put 
their head in the sand and ignore reforms that are needed for Social 
Security, Medicaid and Medicare. Now they have taken away from the 
seniors Medicare Advantage. I'm not sure why they think that is pro-
senior. All the seniors I have talked to are very disturbed that the 
Democrats would take that away from them. But the reality is what we 
want to do is preserve----
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. KINGSTON. What we want to do is preserve the doctor-patient 
relationship. It appears that the Pelosi Democrats want to have a 
government-hospital relationship. And speaking for me, I don't like 
bureaucrats running health care.
  There are some tough decisions that are going to be made. I was a 
Member of Congress when President Clinton started AmeriCorps. He said 
it was going to be a 5-year program. Now we just renewed it at $5 
billion. And it is almost two decades later. We need to come together 
and make some tough choices.
  The Republicans have offered several alternatives. We are ready to 
work with you. If you could back off some of your taxing, some of your 
spending and some of your borrowing, I think we could come out of here 
with a good, pro-job budget that turns the economy around. And I look 
forward to working with you on that.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield myself 15 seconds just to point out to my 
good friend from Georgia that he confuses the marginal rate with the 
rate that corporations actually pay. Thirty-five percent is the 
marginal rate. If he looks at how much American corporations actually 
pay, because almost nobody pays the marginal rate because of the 
loopholes, it is down to about 5 percent. It's the second lowest of the 
top 20 economies.
  I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from the real State of 
Washington, not Oregon, and a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. 
Larsen.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Madam Chair, perhaps I can rise today and 
try to lower the temperature a little bit as I rise to oppose the 
substitute budget before us and express my strong support for the 
Budget Committee resolution that is on the floor today a little later.
  It is because our budget puts President Obama's plan to invest in our 
Nation's priorities into action, our budget is part of a comprehensive 
approach to create jobs and to build a foundation for our country's 
long-term economic strength. Congress and this administration have 
already taken action to save or create 3.5 million jobs, to keep 
families in their homes and to stabilize our financial markets. The 
economy is clearly job number one for all of us here. President Obama 
inherited an economic mess from the last administration, including 
record deficits and soaring unemployment. It is going to take some 
time, some hard work, some very difficult choices for us to get past 
this economic and this fiscal crisis and to move our country in a new 
direction.
  I hosted some town talks with about 200 of my constituents this past 
weekend in Marysville and Lake Stevens. And let me tell you, they are 
worried. They are worried about the economy. They are ready for a new 
direction. They are looking for answers from this Congress and from the 
President. President Obama and Chairman Spratt have proposed a budget 
resolution that moves our country in the right direction by investing 
in clean energy, in education and affordable health care for families 
and businesses. This budget also invests in our Nation's national 
security, provides a nearly 4 percent increase in funding for the 
Department of Defense to keep our country safe and to support our 
military folks and their families. And for the first time, the 
President's budget in this resolution includes an honest and 
transparent accounting of the cost of sustaining our wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. It creates jobs that target investments. It reforms health 
care, energy and education.
  The substitute before us today does the opposite, cutting those 
investments that we need to strengthen our economy for the long term. 
Instead of moving us in a new direction that we need, this substitute 
unfortunately relies on the failed approaches of the past.
  So I'm urging my colleagues to oppose the substitute and support the 
budget resolution that we are going to see later on the floor today.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
former RSC chair and current conference chair, the gentleman from 
Indiana.
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I commend the gentleman from Ohio for his work on the Republican 
Study Committee Budget Alternative, and I especially commend the 
chairman of the Republican Study Committee, the gentleman from Georgia, 
Tom Price, for his extraordinary and visionary leadership.
  The budget brought to the majority today, as has been said again and 
again, spends too much, taxes too much and borrows too much, and the 
American people know it. The Democrat budget will double the national 
debt in 5 years. It will triple it in 10. The 2010 spending $3 
trillion, 25 percent of gross domestic product, more than $1 trillion 
in tax increases on virtually every American, a 2010 deficit of $1 
trillion and nearly $1 trillion deficits every year for the next 10 
years.
  The hard truth is the Democrat majority has brought to this floor the 
most fiscally irresponsible budget in American history. And the 
American people know we can do better. They are doing better. And every 
family farm or small business across this country, around every kitchen 
table, Americans are making tough choices. They are sitting down as 
families and in enterprises, deciding what they can put off for 
tomorrow, what they don't have to spend today, finding ways maybe for a 
job in town for a little more income. Everywhere in America, the 
American people are meeting these challenging economic times with 
frugality, with sacrifice, and with courage, everywhere but in 
Washington, D.C.

                              {time}  1515

  The American people long for men and women in this Congress to show 
the same character, to make the same tough choices. And I'm proud to 
stand with the Republican Study Committee and this budget alternative 
that answers that call.
  A balanced budget; under the RSC alternative the budget outlook 
improves every single year, and achieves a surplus budget in 2019, $1.2 
trillion of tax relief over the next 5 years for virtually every 
American, fully funding defense spending, and provides zero growth 
baseline for non-defense spending, and repeals the obscene spending

[[Page H4457]]

spree of stimulus bills and omnibus bills that has overtaken our 
country.
  No changes in Social Security, increases in Medicare, and provides 
increases equivalent to inflation in Medicaid. And a raft of reforms of 
unnecessary spending, ending the earmarking culture on Capitol Hill.
  After years of runaway spending, the American people long for courage 
and sacrifice on the floor of this Congress. And my Republican 
colleagues have brought together an alternative that answers that call.
  It's time that we embrace fiscal discipline and reform, lower taxes 
and growth. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the 
Republican Study Committee budget alternative.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boccieri).
  Mr. BOCCIERI. My friends here and colleagues here today, there's a 
rap song that goes ``Don't Believe the Hype.''
  Let me give you the rap sheet on the hype of the proposal that we're 
about to discuss here today. It's about giving to the wealthiest among 
us, giving back to the corporate influences that have led us to the job 
loss that we have found, to the market principles that have led us to 
near and utter collapse of our housing industry, and cuts in vital 
programs that invest in our country, our people, and in America.
  Now, I know there are some on the other side who believe the 
principles of Rush Limbaugh, that they want to see our President fail. 
And by asking our President to fail, they are asking America to fail. 
And this budget right here that we are talking about, that President 
Obama has introduced, invests in our people, invests in our programs, 
and invests in our country.
  You know, in 2004, our Secretary of Health and Human Services, under 
the Bush administration, Tommy Thompson, flew to Iraq to make sure that 
every man, woman and child in Iraq had universal health care coverage. 
Billions of dollars were spent. Yet, my colleagues on the other side 
didn't bat an eye when those proposals were before us; didn't bat an 
eye to invest in other countries. But now we have an opportunity to 
invest in America. A $1.5 trillion tax cut to middle-class families. 
We're going to cut the deficit in half by 2013.
  And finally, finally, my colleagues, we're going to have honest 
budgeting accounting principles for America and our people.
  The question before us today is, will we act or will we stall? Will 
we invest, or will we continue to divest in America? Will we believe in 
our country, and will we believe in our people? That's what this budget 
debate is about. That's what these investments are about, and that's 
why it's so important that we reject this notion and embrace our ideas 
of success.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I would be happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona, a friend and colleague, Congressman Flake.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chair, I think we owe our constituents a little honesty here. 
We know that we can't grow an economy when we're dragging around debt 
that equals about 80 percent of GDP. Yet that's what is contemplated in 
the Democrats' budget.
  We know that future generations will be taxed far in excess of their 
ability to sustain today's level of spending, yet that is what we are 
going to impose on future generations.
  Now, part of the reason we're in such dire financial straits today is 
because we had a real estate bubble that burst. More money was invested 
in the real estate sector than the market could ultimately sustain.
  But the budget being proposed today funds another bubble in another 
sector of the economy, the government sector. Under this budget, more 
money is being spent by government than the market can ultimately 
sustain. Now, you can call it government spending. You can call it 
critical investment. You can call it whatever you want. But it doesn't 
change the fact that the market simply can't sustain this level of 
spending.
  Madam Chair, we can't suspend the laws of economics. We're trying 
awful hard here, but we can't. Yet that's what this budget pretends we 
can do.
  We need to pass a budget that recognizes that our job here is to 
allow the private sector to pull us out of this recession. We should 
enact a budget that doesn't serve political ends, but rather, imposes a 
tax and regulatory environment that allows the private sector to 
allocate capital in a way that rewards hard work and ingenuity. That's 
what the RSC budget does. It recognizes who will eventually pull us out 
of this recession, the private sector, not the government sector.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining 
for both sides.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from Ohio has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you.
  I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. I rise in opposition to the amendment. And I must say to 
my friends on the other side of the aisle, I think they've lost the 
moral right to lecture us about fiscal responsibility, given their 
record over the past 8 years.
  I will support the overall budget, although I want to state that I 
have a couple of reservations, which I'm assured will be worked out. 
The cuts in Function 150 in foreign assistance need to be restored. And 
I believe very strongly that the $250,000 threshold that the budget 
assumes in terms of taxing people above that, that needs to be raised 
because in high-cost-of-living States like mine in New York, it is not 
fair to have it at that level. The level needs to be higher.
  I like this budget. It talks about the President's vision and 
America's vision, not only in terms of fixing our economy, but in terms 
of education, health care, and energy. We should support the overall 
budget and reject this amendment.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Chair, I would be pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Cassidy.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Madam Chair, I speak against the Democrats' budget and 
for the alternative. Justice John Marshall said that the power to tax 
is the power to destroy. Now, that power shouldn't be used unless we 
understand the consequences.
  This Democrats' budget taxes without regard to consequences. And I 
know that because it includes over $30 billion in tax increases on 
America's energy economy.
  Now, what are these consequences? The energy industry, which employs 
about 320,000 people in Louisiana, will not hire new workers and may 
have to lay some off. And, because we disincentivized domestic 
production, America will buy more foreign oil, as opposed to using our 
own oil, which is produced by American workers.
  I offered an amendment yesterday to establish a point of order 
against tax legislation that would either destroy U.S. energy jobs or 
increase our dependence on foreign oil, and I was defeated on a 
straight party-line vote.
  The only recourse to save these jobs, which are not for CEOs, but are 
for people who work on rigs, they're welders, they are pipeline 
pipefitters. The only way to save these jobs and defend America's 
energy security is to vote against this Democrats budget.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chair, I rise in support of this budget. I didn't do it without 
some reservation, because I've been spending a lot of time listening to 
the needs of this country as it juxtaposes itself in the world, in 
Afghanistan and in Iraq, certainly in South America where I served as a 
Peace Corps volunteer. And what I think is very dangerous about the 
thinking of cutting the foreign aid, the 150 account, is that is all 
the humanitarian aid. If the combatant commanders tell us that you 
cannot win this war on military terms, that you're going to have to use 
civilian power, that's what we call soft power, smart power, then 
that's the account that invests in it, the account that invests in 
foreign aid and extended IMET programs to bring foreign officers to 
train in the United States, to send Peace Corps volunteers around the 
world. And I'm a strong supporter of what has been promised to be 
working that out. And I think that it's a bold budget for

[[Page H4458]]

a great new President of the United States, and I look forward to 
supporting it.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from Oregon has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Chair, I think we'll reserve.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I will yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I am committed to what the President is 
committed to. All of us who believe that there needs to be a new day in 
America are committed to a new era of responsibility renewing America's 
promise.
  And my good friends on the other side of the aisle are in direct 
contrast to that because if we pass this budget, the Republican Study 
Group, study caucus, we will see a continuation of crumbling bridges, 
workers and veterans waiting months or years for benefits, the very 
veterans, 167,000 plus, that are returning back from the Iraq war, many 
who will be returning back from Afghanistan, the very families that we 
see in our community, we will see them missing out on the necessary 
resources to provide a new era of responsibility.
  One of the important aspects of this legislation, our budget, focuses 
on protecting families.
  Let me share one vision; protect families' financial health. Our 
budget, the President's budget, has a plan that must reduce the growing 
premiums and other costs American citizens and businesses pay for 
health care. People must be protected from bankruptcy due to 
catastrophic illness. We have a placeholder, a place to address the 
question of reforming our health care. We have a provision or a concept 
to make health care coverage affordable. The plan must reduce high 
administrative costs, unnecessary tests and services, waste and other 
inefficiencies.
  In the President's budget he believes in renewing America. The budget 
that we have on the floor now believes in undermining the health care 
safety net. It does not have the details that are necessary. It cuts 
key services. It certainly doesn't provide a bridge, an ongoing bridge 
into the 21st century.
  My friends, we need to move forward with the President's vision, and 
we need to oppose the RSC budget.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
  Mr. McHENRY. I thank my colleague from Ohio for crafting a reasonable 
budget that brings us to balance. And I'm proud to stand on the House 
Floor today and support the Republican Study Committee alternative 
budget, which would bring our Federal budget to balance within the 
budget window.
  The Obama budget, the Obama-Pelosi budget offered here on this House 
floor today, adds massive amounts to our Federal debt and does not come 
to balance. Even over 75 years they're running massive deficits that 
further add to our national debt and pass those debts on to the next 
generation. I think that's irresponsible.
  The Republican Study Committee budget, as I said, brings us to 
balance. It also funds necessary and important government functions 
like veterans' health care. It has no cuts to veterans' health care. 
But it also maintains our commitment to seniors and Social Security. It 
maintains our commitment to Medicare and Medicaid, but makes those 
programs sustainable over the next generation and generations to come 
and, at the same time, reduces our deficit and brings us to balance.
  This is a strong budget. It funds veterans' health care, as I said, 
and it also funds our necessary defense of this great country and 
maintains a strong posture internationally as well.
  This is a good budget that I'm proud to support. As a Member of 
Congress, and as a policy maker, I think it's important that we put 
forward realistic ideas. We cannot simply say no to the massive 
spending of the Obama-Pelosi budget. But we have to say yes to 
something. And this is a budget that we can say yes to because it 
brings us to balance. It's good for, not just the current generation, 
but puts us on the right footing for economic growth, for small 
business growth and for our families as well.
  I think it's very important that we support a balanced budget, and 
that's why I'm here today to support this budget, and I'm proud to vote 
``yes.''

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I will yield myself the remainder of the 
time.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 4\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you.
  It is interesting listening to my other friends because, when they 
had their hands on the levers of power--of the Presidency and of 
Congress--they engineered the massive debt that the President inherited 
with a combination of tax cuts for people who needed it the least and 
with a rate of spending increase that was greater than Lyndon Johnson's 
in the Great Society. Not only was it greater than Bill Clinton's 
spending, but it was greater than Lyndon Johnson's in the Great 
Society.
  Now, all of a sudden, when they're out of power, they're suggesting 
that they're going to do something that they never did when they had 
control. They're proposing a massive, across-the-board cut of about 
$1.4 trillion over the next 10 years. Now, this is serious money, 
dealing with serious programs that the American people count on, and 
they count on them today more than ever before: Pell Grants, food 
stamps, nutrition activities, health care for low-income people, 
Medicare.
  Madam Chair, the range of activities that would be subjected to the 
budget knife--again, that they never did when they were in control but 
that they propose to do now--would have the impact of scaling down our 
growth and our activities, and it would put the burden on those who can 
least afford it.
  When it comes to taxes, well, they're back to the same old story. 
They want to make permanent tax cuts that we found out were not 
affordable in the form that they passed them, and worse, they would 
increase taxes on about a quarter of the Americans who are lower income 
Americans.
  Madam Chair, in the Democratic budget, there are no tax increases 
this year. We understand that it's not appropriate to raise taxes.
  Mr. McHENRY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I will yield on your time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Well, I have no more time.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I will yield on your time.
  Mr. McHENRY. The tax increase yesterday was in place on tobacco, 
which the gentleman supported.
  The CHAIR. The gentlemen will suspend.
  The gentleman from Oregon has the time.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. In this budget that we are going to be offering up, 
there are no tax increases. The House of Representatives, in its 
wisdom, did recently approve a tobacco tax increase that provides 
health care for 4 million American children, something that the last 
Congress passed, and there were bipartisan votes who supported that 
because that's good for Americans.
  What we are seeing in paychecks this month across America is that 95 
percent of the people are witnessing the promise of a reduction in 
taxes being delivered by President Obama and this Congress. This is for 
95 percent of the American people.
  I find it interesting the rhetoric about bureaucrats running health 
care. In fact, my friend from North Carolina just pointed out that they 
protect the bureaucrats running health care for veterans. They protect 
the veterans with the program.
  Mr. McHENRY. Will the gentleman yield? Will the gentleman yield since 
he used my name?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I will yield on your time only. I have very few 
minutes left.
  Mr. McHENRY. You don't control the time. Therefore, you can't yield 
it.
  The CHAIR. The gentlemen will suspend.
  The gentleman from Oregon does control the time in opposition, and 
the gentleman from North Carolina has already been told at least once 
that he is not going to be yielded to.
  Mr. McHENRY. Thank you.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman will suspend.
  Mr. McHENRY. Thank you.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, health care is one of these critical 
areas. There is nothing in the Democratic budget that suggests we're 
going

[[Page H4459]]

to turn over to some shadowy, bureaucratic influence a bureaucratic 
mechanism that's going to control Americans' health care.
  What President Obama has suggested and what we've been discussing in 
our Ways and Means Committee, for instance, is having an opportunity 
for more choices for Americans, including some that are subsidized by 
the Federal Government to help fill some of these gaps.
  It's interesting that, on one hand, they'll talk about something that 
isn't true--the shadowy bureaucratic control of health care--while they 
kind of conveniently forget that some of the best health care in 
America is provided by government, itself, by government bureaucrats, 
if you will, in the Veterans Administration. It's a little embarrassing 
to watch this schizophrenia that our friends are engaged in.
  One of the most insidious portions of both of these budgets is to be 
found in taking back the recovery funds that States across America are 
counting on for economic recovery. I suggest that's a mistake as well 
and another reason to reject the Republican alternative.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman's time has expired.
  The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Thank you, Madam Chair.
  Before yielding the balance of our time, let me just thank our 
chairman of the RSC for his leadership on this particular issue. Also, 
our staff did tremendous work in helping us put this budget together 
that we think is responsible, stable and represents common sense.
  With that, I would yield to our former chairman, the gentleman from 
Arizona, Congressman Shadegg.
  Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I compliment the 
Republican Study Committee budget.
  Madam Chair, it has been, indeed, the most conservative and the 
lowest spending budget ever presented on this floor, year after year, 
for every year that I have been here.
  I want to address one of the comments made on the other side. The 
other side has said over and over again there isn't a tax increase. 
Well, you can use those words carefully, but you have to look at the 
reality of the budget.
  In point of fact, there is, roughly, $682 billion in government 
revenue to be derived from the imposition of a cap-and-trade program. 
That revenue has to come from somewhere. It will come from the American 
people. Indeed, it probably isn't a tax increase because it will come 
from every single American, including those who currently don't pay 
taxes. If that's not a burden on this economy at the wrong time, I 
don't know what is.
  In point of fact, this budget contains the largest deficit, $1.8 
trillion in 2009, four times larger than the largest previous record of 
$407 billion. It contains the largest deficit as a percentage of the 
gross domestic product since World War II, and it will result in the 
largest national debt, $12.7 trillion in 2009, greater than the sum of 
all debt from 1789 to today.
  Our grandparents and parents have been recognized as the greatest 
generation. They conquered fascism. They saved freedom. They put 
America on a course to prosperity. With this budget, we are progressing 
rapidly toward what will be labeled, I fear, the ``reckless 
generation.'' We are shirking our responsibility to our children and to 
our grandchildren. It will double the national debt in 5 years, and it 
will triple it in 10.
  Do we want to be remembered as that ``reckless generation''? Every 
American balances their budget. We must balance the Nation's budget.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 111, 
noes 322, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 189]

                               AYES--111

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Culberson
     Deal (GA)
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Inglis
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Linder
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Olson
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Royce
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Wamp
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--322

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boehner
     Bono Mack
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cao
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Driehaus
     Duncan
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Granger
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NY)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Nunes
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pierluisi
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler

[[Page H4460]]


     Wilson (OH)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Hinojosa
     Miller, Gary
     Sablan
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1606

  Messrs. MARSHALL, CAPUANO, McDERMOTT, RUSH, Ms. FUDGE, Ms. LORETTA 
SANCHEZ of California, Messrs. WILSON of Ohio, LEWIS of California, 
TIERNEY, GUTIERREZ, Ms. SPEIER, Messrs. McMAHON, MOLLOHAN, and BUYER 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. ALEXANDER, REHBERG, SENSENBRENNER, ADERHOLT, BOOZMAN, and 
LATTA changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


            Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Lee of California

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
House Report 111-73.
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, I rise to offer that amendment.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 in the nature of a substitute printed in 
     House Report 111-73 offered by Ms. Lee of California:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2010.

       The Congress determines and declares that the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010, including 
     appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through 
     2014.
                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2010 through 2014:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2010: $1,716,425,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $1,959,232,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,205,599,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,377,029,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,524,106,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be adjusted are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2010: $50,439,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: -$129,999,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: -$154,794,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: -$138,308,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: -$109,552,000,000.
       (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 2010: $2,928,107,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,880,744,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,920,761,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $3,102,569,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $3,292,316,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2010: $3,015,166,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,999,583,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,951,584,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $3,101,616,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $3,268,044,000,000.
       (4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget) 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2010: -$1,298,741,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: -$1,040,351,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: -$745,985,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: -$724,587,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: -$743,938,000,000.
       (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 2010: $13,185,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $14,304,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $15,226,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $16,105,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $17,033,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2010: $8,730,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $9,638,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $10,294,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $10,876,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $11,510,000,000.

     SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2010 through 2014 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $562,033,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $606,043,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $570,107,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $587,945,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $579,135,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $576,023,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $589,895,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $584,670,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $603,828,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $595,476,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,820,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,646,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,146,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,806,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,242,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,933,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,660,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,437,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,888,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,864,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,339,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,568,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,593,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,528,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,473,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,570,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,519,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,715,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,786,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,936,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,989,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,332,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,789,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $11,456,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,982,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,561,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,348,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,333,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,477,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,747,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,387,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,987,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,719,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,499,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,403,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,598,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,052,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,267,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,240,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,990,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,177,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,816,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,134,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,719,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,637,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,572,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,145,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,257,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,226,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,933,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $86,392,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,581,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,393,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,761,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,929,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,447,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,812,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,426,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,296,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $92,151,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $98,713,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $90,071,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $97,779,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $91,047,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $97,057,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $91,866,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $97,189,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $92,809,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $97,793,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,808,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,589,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,732,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,002,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,811,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,362,000,000.

[[Page H4461]]

       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,702,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,737,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,770,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,300,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $101,689,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $143,798,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $110,858,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $145,767,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $119,121,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $121,593,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $117,931,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $121,001,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $127,788,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $122,938,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $391,911,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $391,549,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $368,910,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $372,589,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $371,852,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $372,204,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $391,719,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $386,781,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $402,451,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $402,273,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $449,653,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $449,784,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $505,171,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $504,962,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $513,824,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $513,591,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $558,235,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $558,381,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $616,315,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $616,150,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $539,169,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $541,952,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $511,575,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $514,689,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $478,289,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $478,908,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $483,636,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $483,126,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $485,646,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $484,026,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,255,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,378,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,380,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,513,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,478,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,628,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,529,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,679,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,728,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,728,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $108,365,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $107,110,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $113,842,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $113,461,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $109,202,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $108,706,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $114,303,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $113,682,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $116,521,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $115,987,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,857,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,911,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,892,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,654,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,238,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,151,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,069,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,097,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,747,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,593,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,304,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,008,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,641,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,446,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,062,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,108,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,075,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,811,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,740,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,952,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $283,806,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $283,806,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $322,481,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $322,481,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $386,228,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $386,228,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $468,617,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $468,617,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $557,618,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $557,618,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,422,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,423,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,052,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,722,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,768,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,268,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,793,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,466,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,115,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,266,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, -$68,774,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$68,774,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, -$71,993,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$71,993,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, -$74,970,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$74,970,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, -$77,945,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$77,945,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, -$79,861,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$79,861,000,000.
       (21) Overseas Deployments and Other Activities (970):
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $130,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $92,774,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $76,530,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $67,694,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,830,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,085,000,000.
                   TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 201. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) between 2001 and 2007, GAO provided the Department of 
     Defense with 2864 recommendations, many related to improving 
     their business practices and, to date, the Department of 
     Defense has implemented 1389 recommendations and closed 215 
     recommendations without implementation; and
       (2) the GAO estimates that the 1389 implemented 
     recommendations have yielded the Department of Defense a 
     savings of $63.7 billion between fiscal years 2001 and 2007.
       (b) Assumption; Report.--
       (1) Assumption.--This resolution assumes $300,000,000 to be 
     used by the Department of Defense to implement the remaining 
     1260 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 CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and a Member 
opposed each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, I yield myself as much time as I 
may consume.
  As chair of the Congressional Black Caucus and along with my 
colleague from Virginia, Congressman Scott, I rise to offer the 
Congressional Black Caucus substitute budget amendment.
  Madam Chair, a budget is more than a fiscal document. It really is a 
moral document. It defines who we are as a Nation. It reflects our 
priorities and our values. That's why I'm pleased that the 
Congressional Black Caucus' budget priorities are a reflection of our 
values and the challenges that we face as a Nation. The theme of the 
CBC budget is, ``Building Upon the President's Blueprint for Success.''
  President Obama's budget is a welcome shift in priorities away from 
the failed policies of the previous administration. By investing in 
education, health care, clean energy, transportation, and our veterans, 
the CBC

[[Page H4462]]

budget, Mr. Spratt's budget, the Democratic budget, the President's 
budget, are all excellent blueprints to continue with our economic 
recovery and to return to fiscal responsibility.
  However, the CBC budget actually builds upon these investments by 
immediately repealing the 2001 and 2003 Bush-era tax cuts that benefit 
the wealthiest Americans and shifts those savings towards education, 
health care, job training, international trade, justice, 
transportation, and veterans.
  The CBC budget assumes that funding for the ballistic missile defense 
system will be reduced and reallocated within the national defense 
function to increase funding for vital health care research programs 
and care for our wounded warriors.
  In addition, reallocated funding should also be set aside to allow 
the Defense Department to finish implementing the remaining Government 
Accountability Office's recommendations to address waste, fraud, and 
abuse within the Defense Department. Our CBC budget targets waste, 
fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government, starting with, of course, 
savings at the Pentagon.
  Critical reviews by the GAO have already saved $89 billion--that's 
just since 2001--in waste, fraud, and abuse, often simply by improving 
the Pentagon's business and accounting systems.
  The CBC budget would fully fund the continued work of implementing 
all of GAO's recommendations and squeeze these savings from the 
Department of Defense without sacrificing any of our military strength 
or readiness.
  GAO released the report that my language in the Democratic fiscal 
year 2009 budget required. The GAO has issued 637 reports to the 
Defense Department between 2001 and 2007 that included 2,700 specific 
recommendations for the Department of Defense to save our taxpayers 
dollars. We have successfully implemented 1,600 of those, saving over 
$89 billion, which over the next 7 fiscal years is going to be about 
$12.7 billion.
  So the Congressional Black Caucus supports our President as he works 
to clean up this mess that was left to him. This budget, though, 
reflects our historical reputation, our historical work for the last 40 
years, and really does reflect the CBC's role as the conscience of the 
Congress. This budget builds upon our moral imperative to really ensure 
the American dream for all.
  Now, Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) be able to control the remainder of the time.
  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Congressional Black Caucus 
substitute. The Congressional Black Caucus believes that the historic 
investments outlined in the President's budget and the Democratic 
budget are excellent blueprints to continue our road towards economic 
recovery and return to fiscal responsibility.
  The base bill and the CBC alternative adopt the economic theories 
which were the basis for the 1993 budget which eliminated the deficit 
and produced surpluses sufficient to pay off the national debt held by 
the public by last year when we had the surpluses. It produced record 
jobs and more than tripled the Dow Jones Industrial Average. And we 
reject the economic theory that eliminated the surpluses, replaced them 
with record deficits, produced the worst job performance since the 
Great Depression, and the Dow lower after 8 years than it started.
  The CBC is fully behind the committee budget, as far as it goes. 
However, the CBC budget builds upon that budget.
  First, the CBC budget immediately repeals the remaining Bush tax cuts 
that primarily affect that portion of the family's income that exceeds 
$250,000, rather than waiting for these tax cuts to expire at the end 
of 2010, as the committee budget does. Over the last 8 years, these tax 
cuts have cost the Federal Government trillions of dollars, while the 
promised benefits of trickle-down economics never materialized.
  The CBC budget also immediately eliminates the phase out and repeal 
of what are called PEP and Pease, which deal with itemized deductions 
and personal exemptions.

                              {time}  1615

  These important tax provisions were part of the Omnibus 
Reconciliation Act of 1990, which was signed into law by the first 
President Bush.
  Together, repealing these provisions of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax 
cuts will have virtually no effect on taxpayers with family incomes 
under $250,000, and will yield an estimated $42.2 billion in additional 
revenue in fiscal year 2010 alone.
  In addition, the CBC budget also creates a Bush debt tax, which adds 
approximately one-half of 1 percent surtax on that portion of a 
family's income that exceeds $1 million. The CBC proposes to use the 
proceeds of this surtax exclusively for deficit reduction. Over a 10-
year period, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates this surtax will 
raise about $63 billion.
  The CBC budget uses the additional revenue to increase our 
investments in our priorities for a more prosperous future for every 
American. Above the committee bill, the CBC budget provides an 
additional $18 billion for health care; $17 billion for education, job 
training, and social services; $8 billion for transportation and 
infrastructure; an additional $5.5 billion for administration of 
justice; $5 billion for international affairs; $4.7 billion for income 
security; and the CBC is particularly proud to add $4.5 billion for 
veterans' benefits and services--more than enough to fund each of our 
VA hospitals by more than $20 billion a year.
  The CBC pays for all of these increases and still produces a 5-year 
budget deficit that is $67 billion lower than the base bill and saves 
the American people $7 billion in interest on the national debt.
  The Congressional Black Caucus wants to reject the reckless budgets 
over the last 8 years and return to the fiscal responsibility of the 
1990s, while creating jobs and addressing our national priorities.
  I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I'd like to yield myself 1 minute.
  First and foremost, I want to thank the CBC for putting together a 
budget. It's a difficult task. We know how much work it takes. So we 
thank them for their efforts. I want to thank them for proposing a 
substitute budget that really highlights the dramatic differences 
between the two sides--the priority differences.
  If you loved the tax increases and the spending binge and the soaring 
deficits and the unprecedented debt that the underlying budget brings 
you, you will fall in love with this budget as well. This is the 
Democratic budget on steroids--even more spending, even more tax 
increases, and even more deficits.
  As economic conditions continue to deteriorate for 2009, this budget 
immediately increases taxes for small businesses and for individuals 
that are set to expire in 2011.
  Just like the Democrat's budget, this substitute increases taxes by 
$1.5 trillion, with a T--make sure we don't get confused here--over the 
next 10 years. Just like the Democrat's budget, this substitute budget 
increases spending by $18.3 trillion, with a T, over just the next 5 
years. And just like the Democrat's budget, this substitution also 
increases the national debt to $17 trillion by 2014. Again, 
unprecedented levels of spending of taxes.
  I urge a defeat of this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlelady from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. First of all, I want to thank the President for his 
commitment to transforming our health care system so that everyone has 
access to quality health care--and demonstrating that commitment in 
this budget.
  I then would like to thank Chairwoman Barbara Lee and Congressman 
Bobby Scott for adding to and filling out that outline to even better 
meet

[[Page H4463]]

the needs of our communities and all Americans, while remaining 
fiscally responsible.
  In health care, with the additional $18 billion the CBC budget 
includes, we are able to fund a robust Ryan White that ends ADAP 
waiting lists; increases funding to the hard-hit South; brings services 
to incarcerated and ex-offender populations; and increases funding for 
the Minority AIDS Initiative.
  An estimated in excess of 83,000 African Americans die from 
preventable causes every year. Our budget will raise the National 
Center for Minority and Health Disparity Research to an institute and 
increase its funding.
  Lastly, our budget sets aside funding for the Health Equity and 
Accountability Act, which expands needed data collection, provides 
quality services for individuals with limited English proficiency; 
expands health programs to build a diverse workforce that is needed 
today; provides targeted and comprehensive services for diseases 
causing the disparities; elevates and expands the Indian Health 
Service; supports facilities and institutions in underserved 
communities and responds to the call for community-driven programs that 
address the health and social determinants that fuel the disparities 
through the creation of Health Empowerment Zones.
  I urge our colleagues to pass this budget, to vote ``aye'' on a 
budget which ups the investment in all Americans and reduces the 
deficit.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I now yield 2 minutes to a member 
of the Budget Committee, the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Chairman, today, in America, there is a set of 
parents that are sitting at the table with their teenage son. Their 
teenage son does not have a job, but he's provided an allowance by his 
parents.
  They're sitting at the table because, unbeknownst to the parents 
until today, he has taken out four credit cards and run them up to the 
maximum. So the discussion with the teenage son is, What are we going 
to do about this?
  The teenage sons says, I will find a summer job mowing lawns. And 
they say, Well, what are you going to do in the fall? It's going to 
take you longer than that to pay back your credit cards. Let's worry 
about that when the fall comes.
  In order to avoid a big scene, the parents say, Okay, we'll worry 
about it when the fall comes. Now give us your credit cards so we can 
tear them up and stop this bleeding.
  The son, of course says, You can't have my credit cards. I've become 
used to this lifestyle. I'm going to keep my credit cards and run them 
up some more.
  As we know, that teenage son is the Democrat budget and the parents 
are the American taxpayers.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Payne).
  Mr. PAYNE. Let me commend the Congressional Black Caucus and its 
chair, Congresswoman Lee, and to our leader on the Budget Committee for 
many, many years, Representative Bobby Scott from Virginia, for 
presenting this very sound budget.
  As we know, we are supposedly a country that not only promotes the 
general welfare, as it does to provide for the common defense but, in 
many instances, we find that promoting the general welfare is lost. The 
Congressional Black Caucus budget takes care of that.
  But, in the meantime, as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee 
and the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, 
I have been deeply disturbed by the damage done over the past 8 years 
to the reputation and the standing of the United States of America 
around the globe.
  By replacing diplomacy with the use of force and military threats in 
the Middle East and other regions and dismissing our longtime allies, 
France and Germany, as ``Old Europe,'' the previous administration 
alienated those who had looked to the United States for moral 
leadership.
  Under the Obama administration and the Democrat Congress, we now have 
the opportunity to move in a more constructive and positive direction 
by investing in overseas development and restoring diplomacy to our 
international relations efforts.
  In crafting the international affairs portion of the Congressional 
Black Caucus budget, we have allocated increased funding to assist 
other nations in lifting themselves out of poverty, a critical part of 
the plan to restore America's reputation and prestige around the world.
  We were pleased that in the Budget Committee our chairman's mark 
increased funding for international affairs by 11 percent over FY 2009 
levels. The CBC budget provides for an additional $2.5 billion on top 
of that, which puts funding for international affairs closer to the 
President's request.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. PAYNE. The President's request puts us closer to there. The 
additional allocation would go toward increased funding for the global 
fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria; USAID programs; Iraq 
humanitarian assistance; migration and refugee assistance; peacekeeping 
efforts in Darfur; education, health care, and cultural exchange 
programs; child survival and health programs; and development 
assistance.
  Vote for the CBC budget and let's restore America's promise and 
America's greatness in the eyes of the world.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I'd like to yield myself 30 
seconds. I just want to mention that the relationship the gentleman 
mentioned with Germany and France--how ironic that those two countries 
are now lecturing the United States because the United States is 
spending too much. I never thought I'd live to see that happen.
  With that, Madam Chairwoman, if I may, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
  Mr. ROYCE. This is really about the future of our country. For those 
of us that have worried about the trends in spending and we've watched, 
of course with alarm--from George Washington to George Bush--we have 
watched what Thomas Jefferson warned us about. This proclivity in 
politics to spend now and leave this burden on the next generation has 
advanced and advanced.
  But all of that debt together is not as great as the debt we're 
undertaking in the next 10 years. We are going to see that debt level 
double in the next 5\1/2\ years because of the massive increase in 
government spending that we are embarking on. Over the next 10 years 
we're going to see it triple.
  I want you to think for a minute about what this means to your 
children. The Congressional Budget Office is nonpartisan. The 
Congressional Budget Office tells us that the tax rates for lower-
income Americans, when we finally get around to recognizing that we 
can't borrow more, will have to go up drastically; will have to go up, 
in their estimation, to 26 percent. For middle income, it will go from 
25 to 66 percent. Think what that's going to mean for small businesses.
  No. The time to get a handle on this is now. The time to bring this 
back into check, because the Congressional Budget Office--even the 
Director of the President's Budget Office has come out recently and 
said Oh, these numbers are not sustainable. No, they're not.
  And it's here in the House where spending bills originate that we're 
going to have to reverse this course, because if we do not, how are we 
going to maintain the ability to continue to go out with these 
Treasuries and borrow as much as we've borrowed several times again 
from the Europeans and from the Chinese?
  Yes, the governments in Europe are lecturing us. All over the world 
people are lecturing us. At the G20 they're saying: How can you go 
forward with these massive spending increases? It is not sustainable. 
And they're right. They're absolutely right.
  I oppose this budget because this unchecked spending will result in 
borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from China and the Middle 
East and other nations that own our growing debt.
  I think we all know as individuals that money doesn't grow on trees. 
But it is the American taxpayer who will eventually end up paying for 
all this spending. At a time when many taxpayers are hurting--they 
can't afford their mortgages right now, they are losing money in their 
pensions, they're

[[Page H4464]]

worried about losing their jobs--it is wrong at this time to make the 
argument that we're going to seize this opportunity to expand all of 
these government agencies and programs.
  When Americans are tightening their belts, shouldn't the government 
be at least trying to balance its books?
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to a member of 
the Budget Committee, the gentlelady from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. Madam 
Chair, I rise in favor of the Congressional Black Caucus alternative 
budget. The CBC budget builds on the essential investments made by the 
President and the Democratic resolution. Both of these budgets 
represent the same important priorities--investing in education, health 
care, energy independence, and veterans.

                              {time}  1630

  In order to build on these investments, the CBC budget unashamedly 
immediately repeals the 2001 and 2003 trickle-down, ownership society, 
on-your-own tax cuts that benefited the wealthiest Americans, and puts 
those savings towards strategic investments in ordinary Americans.
  In times of recession, the most fortunate must do more to contribute 
to the common good and to reduce the raging deficit.
  The CBC budget supports increased funding for international affairs, 
which pays for critical life-saving foreign assistance such as HIV/
AIDS, TB, malaria, and child survival. Indeed, as Secretary Clinton has 
said, hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos are our greatest enemies 
abroad.
  The CBC budget increases funding for veterans' benefits, 
weatherization assistance, energy efficiency, renewable energy 
programs, and invests in clean energy technology. The CBC budget 
increases funding for education which will go towards key programs like 
title I, Head Start, TRIO, GEAR UP, STEM programs, and early education 
programs. It is important that we give our young people an opportunity 
to succeed, and the CBC budget does this.
  Last night on the floor, I emphasized that the spread of inequality 
is astounding, which means more people are forced to take minimum wage 
jobs, more people receiving government assistance, and even more people 
falling into poverty. Just this week, over 600,000 people filed for 
unemployment compensation, and the CBC budget does not ignore this.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. The WIC program and Low-Income Energy 
Assistance Program all recognize this.
  I just want to end, Madam Chair, with a quote from Plato.
  ``The form of law which I propose would be as follows: In a state 
which is desirous of being saved from the greatest of all plagues, not 
faction, but rather distraction, there should exist among the citizens 
neither extreme poverty nor, again, excessive wealth, for both are 
productive of great evil. Now the legislator should determine what is 
to be the limit of poverty or of wealth.''
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Chair, I now at this time 
recognize for 3 minutes a gentleman who comes with years of leadership 
experience in the California legislature, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chair, I feel a moment of rare bipartisan agreement coming on. 
I noticed several of my friends on the left said that our problems are 
rooted in the fiscal mismanagement of the Bush administration. The 
gentleman from Virginia had a very good chart entitled Record 
Deterioration of the Budget Under Republican Administration.
  I agree. There is no denying it, George W. Bush increased spending 
twice as fast as his predecessor Bill Clinton did. He turned a budget 
surplus into a chronic deficit. You are absolutely right.
  So if we all agree that Bush spent too much and borrowed too much, 
then why in the world would we want to pursue the same folly on an even 
grander scale? Why would we take that Bush administration's 
unsustainable rate of spending growth and send it even higher? Why 
would we want to take that budget deficit, which is indefensible, and 
triple it?
  If budgets that spend too much and borrow too much on the road to 
economic prosperity work, then why aren't we already enjoying a period 
of unprecedented economic expansion? The fact is, these policies don't 
work. And it doesn't matter whether the President is a Democrat or a 
Republican. They don't work, because government cannot inject a single 
dollar into the economy that it has not first taken out of that same 
economy. Those policies don't work for the same reason that you can't 
spend yourself rich or borrow your way out of debt or tax your way to 
prosperity.
  If you want to know where these policies lead, just look to my home 
State of California. I have watched three governors, Republican and 
Democrat, do exactly what my friends on the left assure us is the road 
to prosperity. They increased spending at unsustainable rates, they ran 
up unprecedented debts, and they imposed crushing new taxes. And the 
result is that today California has been transformed from the Nation's 
Golden State to a state of collapse.
  A record level of government spending has not produced prosperity; it 
has produced one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. 
Interest costs driven by years of borrowing are now eating into its 
budget. Its tax burden is producing a population exodus unknown since 
the days of the Dust Bowl. In fact, the State has spent so much that it 
has just imposed the biggest tax increase by any State in American 
history. California has borrowed so much that it is now in very real 
danger of defaulting on its obligations before the end of the summer. 
And, I am concerned that the President and many Democrats in Congress 
are making exactly the same mistake that the Bush administration made 
and that three California governors made, only on a much greater scale.
  Madam Chair, I would suggest that, at a moment like this, perhaps it 
is time that we recognize the first law of holes: When you are in one, 
stop digging.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlelady from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
  Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong 
support of the Congressional Black Caucus budget alternative, and I 
thank the able leadership of Chairwoman Lee and Mr. Scott for providing 
us an alternative budget that builds on the framework set forth by 
President Obama, while increasing investments in areas we in the CBC 
deem most critical for some of our most vulnerable communities and 
setting a framework for the future.
  Budgets are about priorities, and what has happened over this last 
decade has been a reframing and reshifting of the priorities, and it is 
time to get those straight and that is exactly what this budget does:
  Provides investments of $18 billion for health care reform, because 
the lack of health care is the single largest obstacle to a future of 
economic prosperity and health for all Americans. This budget provides 
an additional $17 billion to improve our education system, including 
important funding for Job Corps centers across this country to train 
our young people for jobs for the future. An additional $8 billion 
would be added to transportation and infrastructure, because we must 
increase mass transit capabilities and update our crumbling water and 
sewer infrastructure nationwide.
  And we have to invest in green jobs, which this budget does, for a 
21st century global economy. And we make these real commitments for our 
veterans and military families; and we don't do it by accident; we do 
it by repealing the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 immediately. This 
would result in an estimated $42.2 billion in additional revenue for 
fiscal 2010 alone. That's what this budget proposes.
  Madam Chair, we have to remember that it was the failed policies of 
the previous administration that left President Obama and the American 
people with the largest deficit in history.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield an additional 15 seconds.

[[Page H4465]]

  Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. And an economy in the worst recession in 70 
years.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in strong support of the Congressional 
Black Caucus budget alternative as an important step on the road to 
economic recovery and prosperity for all for the future.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 4\1/4\ minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from Florida has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I would like to now recognize the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) for 3 minutes.
  Mr. AKIN. Madam Chair, there have been people that are saying that 
America as a nation is going down the path of socialism. We are 
becoming a socialized nation. But, you know, that isn't really quite 
fair. Not like the socialized nations of Europe anyway. Because, 
according to the standards of the European Union, they would not accept 
America with the budget that is being proposed here this very day.
  Now, the spending that we are looking at is unprecedented. We have 
heard about the Bush administration spending money. They spent too 
much. We have acknowledged that. But let me tell you, what we have seen 
here in just 3 months makes the Bush administration look like mere 
pikers.
  The Wall Street bailout, we did half of that this year, $350 billion. 
Then we added to that this economic stimulus, or as I would prefer to 
call it, porkulus, $787 billion. Let's understand what this number ``a 
billion'' means.
  You have heard that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were really 
expensive. Day after day we have been told, hey, this war in Iraq is 
just draining money out of America. Yet, add up every day of that war, 
add it to the war in Afghanistan, and that number is smaller than what 
the House approved for this stimulus bill in the first 5 weeks that 
Congress has been in session. And then you have got the omnibus, 
another 400-some.
  So what happens with this level of unprecedented spending? Well, the 
theory is supposed to be that if you spend enough money, it will make 
the economy better.
  Now, I don't know very many American families who would buy something 
as silly as that. If you are in trouble financially, do you go and buy 
a brand-new car and spend money like mad? No. You hunker down a little 
bit and you try to be careful what you are spending. And yet somehow 
there is this theory that if we spend money, it is going to make 
everything okay.
  They tried that in the days of FDR. The Secretary of Treasury, after 
8 years of trying that foolishness, came before this Congress in 1939 
with the quote, ``We have tried spending. The unemployment is as bad as 
when we started.'' And it didn't work. It didn't work for Japan, and it 
won't work for us if we keep down the spending.
  Look at the comparison. We have heard about Bush spending. This is 
his average annual deficit, $300 billion. This is proposed by the 
President. The budget we are looking at here is even more, twice as 
much. If you take a look at the highest deficit, this was Bush in 2008 
with the Democrats in Congress, $459 billion, and yet we are looking at 
$1.2 trillion. Our new President makes President Bush look like a 
piker.
  Now, did you ever go to first grade and they said, what is it that 
doesn't fit in in this picture? Take a look at the deficits that have 
been run or the actual surpluses of all of these different years. And 
here we go along. These are the Bush years. And guess what line doesn't 
fit? I mean, we are talking about absolutely radical levels of 
spending, and here on the floor right now is being proposed even more 
than that.
  Then we hear that the Democrats are saying, oh, this is really good 
because, look, we are going to take this great big spike and we are 
going to spend it at half the rate. It is like somebody has been 
smoking funny cigarettes around here.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I do believe that it matters 
whether the President is a Democrat or a Republican. I do believe it 
matters whether we give huge tax breaks to the wealthiest 1 percent of 
the population or whether we rescind them.
  I want to commend Representatives Lee, Scott, and Moore for their 
strong leadership on the development of this budget, and I rise in 
strong support of it. Especially do I want to commend them for looking 
after the criminal justice needs that exist in our country, and putting 
in resources for programs to assist those who are in need of help, in 
need of reentry, in need of trying to get their lives back together so 
that they, too, can share in the American dream.
  So this budget is about the future development of America, and I 
support it strongly and urge its adoption.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Chair, I now yield 2 minutes 
to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Nebraska (Mr. 
Fortenberry).
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank the gentleman from Florida for the time.
  Madam Chair, the American people deserve order in the fiscal house of 
government. America deserves a responsible, fair, creative, and smart 
Federal Government that protects our most vulnerable, strengthens 
opportunity, and protects our country. Our constituents deserve for us 
to say together ``yes'' to fiscal stability, ``yes'' to a balanced 
budget, ``yes'' to small business and entrepreneurs, and ``yes'' to 
creating opportunities to help families get ahead in life. But they 
also need us to say ``no,'' no to the concept that there is free money, 
free money for the government to give, to spend, and to bail out with. 
The only thing free here is that the government is acting free from 
restraint and free from responsibility.
  Let's put today's debate into context. Six months ago, Congress 
passed a bailout for Wall Street, forcing America to buy bad corporate 
assets. Weeks ago, an omnibus holdover budget bill increased spending 
by 10 percent. Then a stimulus bill added another $800 billion. Not to 
mention that between the Federal Reserve, the Department of the 
Treasury, and the FDIC there is another $10 trillion of taxpayer 
dollars on the line right now. Now, today another budget adds another 
layer of spending.
  It is a dizzying array of interventions that is reshaping the nature 
of the relationship between this government and our people. The result: 
Massive Federal debt, $2 trillion this year alone, larger than the 
entire Federal budget was before the year 2000.

                              {time}  1645

  This debt is a tax passed on to our children, or it is a sale of the 
Nation's assets overseas. We owe China $1 trillion. Or potentially it 
creates inflationary pressures. That is a particularly regressive form 
of taxation for the poorest and most vulnerable among us.
  Madam Chair, we all know what we must do. And we know it will be 
hard. There is no denying that. We must prioritize. We must choose. We 
must be creative. We must be like a family that has to tighten its belt 
and steady itself during a rough period, but also look forward toward a 
more excellent way.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. May I inquire from the Chair how 
much time remains on both sides?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from Virginia has 3\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Chairwoman, I would like to 
yield myself 1 minute.
  Again, I just want to emphasize that we keep hearing criticism of the 
previous administration for spending too much. And yet this bill makes 
that spending look like child's play. It makes that debt look like 
child's play. It makes that deficit look like child's play. And so you 
cannot on one side, like this bill does, criticize a previous 
administration for spending too much, for putting us in too much debt, 
and then do much more of the same, much more to an unprecedented level 
like this country has never seen, never seen such large tax increases, 
never seen such large debt, has never seen such large deficits as this 
bill would put on the American people. Again, facts are stubborn 
things.
  With that, I reserve.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

[[Page H4466]]

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Let me acknowledge the leadership 
of our CBC chair, Barbara Lee, and Congressman Scott and Congresswoman 
Moore for spending the time to develop this alternative budget. And 
this is not because we don't support the President's budget. This is 
because we wanted to see some progressive and visionary funding that is 
motivated by principle and compassion. We are not socialists. We do 
not, however, want to forget that we do have poor and vulnerable people 
that do not have homes, that do not have health care and do not have 
enough food.
  We are here not because we know we are going to win this vote. We are 
here because we feel the responsibility to put it before the people. 
There are a lot of people in this country with problems, and we as a 
Congressional Black Caucus do not intend to allow it to be forgotten. 
We are not talking about African Americans. We are talking about all of 
the poor, the children and the homeless families. They need attention. 
And we must not forget it. And we must not remain in denial.
  Madam Chair, I want to thank Chairwoman Barbara Lee, the 
Congressional Black Caucus and my colleague, Congressman Scott from 
Virginia, for their leadership and unwavering support for the 
development of this alternative budget.
  The CBC alternative budget is filled with progressive and visionary 
funding that is motivated by principle and compassion. It is a budget 
that voices the concerns and needs of the poor, the children, and the 
elderly.
  I support and agree with President Obama's Budget. I also support CBC 
budget to increase American priorities such as our transportation 
system. The CBC budget would add an additional 8 billion dollars to 
support our transportation needs.
  The CBC alternative budget understands that our Nation's 
transportation system is the backbone of our economy and our way of 
life, neither of which we can afford to shortchange.
  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.
  Like the President's budget, CBC alternative budget also provides 
funding for programs and services crucial to the American people, 
rather than continuing to provide tax breaks for the wealthy.
  As lawmakers, we do have the responsibility to ensure that all 
Americans, including minorities, are able to move ahead to achieve the 
American Dream. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness meant all 
people.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Chairwoman, I would like to 
now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  When you look at the Democrats' budget, the numbers are just 
staggering. 2010 spending, $3 trillion, 25 percent of gross domestic 
product, $1.2 trillion tax increase over 10 years, $1 trillion spending 
increase over 5 years, nondefense discretionary spending increases 12 
percent, the national debt increases $5.1 trillion, doubling over 5 
years. The 2010 deficit will be $1.2 trillion.
  How can you look at these numbers and conclude anything other than we 
simply can't sustain this level of debt? We can't grow an economy when 
we are dragging this level of debt. It simply defies the laws of 
economics. We can't do that.
  Now some in defense of the Democratic budget will say, ``we inherited 
this fiscal mess that we are in.'' I will stipulate to that. We didn't 
do a very good job when we were in the majority controlling spending. 
But you don't put your foot on the accelerator when you are headed 
toward a fiscal cliff. And that is what this budget does. It simply 
gets us there a lot faster. And we simply can't do that.
  Madam Chair, I would urge us to reject the overall budget, adopt 
something that we can actually afford and sustain and that will get us 
growing economically again.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
  (Mr. FATTAH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FATTAH. To my great friend from Arizona, sometimes if you're 
turning in front of an 18-wheeler, you should hit the accelerator and 
get out the way. The important point here is that no matter what the 
cost of education, ignorance costs our country more. What we have is, 
some who stand in opposition today, they know the cost of everything, 
but the value of seemingly nothing. It is critically important. And 
that is why the conscience of the CBC members dictates that this 
alternative be brought to the floor, that we point a direction, not 
just complain and recite the problems, but that we offer up real 
solutions, and that we are required to, as Members of this body, not 
just go along to get along.
  As a major supporter of President Obama's budget and program, I think 
he is moving our country in the right direction. But it is important 
for us to show that even more can be done and should be done. And I 
believe as we go forward, it will be done. We will work together. 
Republicans have forfeited their right to lead based on the situation 
they brought this country to. We are prepared to lead. Others need to 
step aside.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I reserve at this time, Madam 
Chairwoman.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman has 4 minutes remaining. He is reserving his 
time. The gentleman from Virginia has 1\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I would inquire to the gentleman from Florida 
if he has additional speakers?
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Chairwoman, we might have one 
but maybe not. We are definitely getting to the bottom here, the bottom 
of the list I should say.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I will yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from 
California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I wanted to get to the floor to congratulate 
Congressman Bobby Scott for the hard work that he has done to bring the 
CBC's budget before this Congress and all of those who worked with him. 
I would like to thank my colleagues of the CBC, and especially our 
chairwoman, Barbara Lee, for continuing the tradition of having an 
alternative budget. It is so important because each year we show the 
world what is possible, what can be done, how we can invest in human 
potential. This budget does just that. What I really like about this 
budget is it truly is building upon the President's blueprint for 
success. This budget, in investing in human potential, invests $18 
billion more on health care, $17 billion more on education, job 
training and social services, $8 billion more on transportation and 
infrastructure. And I am sure you have heard some of these numbers as 
CBC members have come before you today to support this budget. I won't 
go any further except to say that this a good budget. Please support 
it.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Chairwoman, I would like to 
yield myself 2 minutes.
  Madam Chairwoman, one of the things that we need to be aware of is 
that when we keep hearing about more spending, more spending, more 
spending, more spending, more spending, all that spending is being paid 
for how? Well, it is very simple, by either huge tax increases, and 
that is why this budget has the largest tax increases in the history of 
this country, tax increases that we have never seen before, and 
unprecedented levels of debt, of borrowing.
  What does that mean, government borrowing? Let me tell you what that 
means, Madam Chairwoman. It is basically like identity theft. The 
Federal Government is now in the process, if this were to become law, 
of taking, of stealing our children's and our grandchildren's credit 
cards and running them up at unprecedented levels. And yes, those 
credit cards are going to have to be paid back with interest. And that 
is what we are about to do at unprecedented levels. So when we keep 
hearing about all these great things that government is going to be 
doing, just remember, it is on the credit card of our children and our 
grandchildren.
  This is a country that always, always by tradition worked hard to 
make sure that future generations were better off. We are about to 
embark on a road that this country has never been on before, leaving 
our children and our grandchildren with the largest debt, the largest 
debt that anybody has ever seen, has ever left for future generations. 
That is totally unacceptable.
  I reserve.

[[Page H4467]]

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I'm prepared to close. Does the 
gentleman want to proceed?
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Chairwoman, we thought we had 
another person. He is not here. I believe we get to close, is that 
correct?
  The CHAIR. Yes. The gentleman from Florida has the right to close.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 15 seconds.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Chair, before I start, I would like to yield for a 
unanimous consent request to the gentlelady from Texas.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Seventeen billion dollars in education and 
social services. I rise in support of the CBC budget for America.
  Ms. SHEILA JACKSON-LEE. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of the 
Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) Budget Substitute for the Fiscal Year 
Budget for 2010, introduced by my distinguished colleague from 
California, Representative Barbara Lee and my colleague from Virginia, 
Representative Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott.
  While I support the Budget as put forth by our majority on the Budget 
Committee, the CBC budget augments the President's budget and the 
Democratic budget by providing for modest spending increases above the 
Democratic Budget on important programs.
  The President's budget is astonishing as he inherited one of the 
worst economic situations in recent history. The former administration, 
after being the first administration since the Civil War to have a 
surplus turned over to it, the former President left President Obama 
with the largest deficit in history and an economy that is in the worst 
recession in seventy (70) years. The CBC Budget will help turn our 
economy around and return the economy to fiscal responsibility.
  I, along with other members of the CBC, support our President as he 
works to clean up the mess that was left to him. Nevertheless, the CBC 
has submitted its budget proposal which I also support.
  The CBC budget fully funds No Child Left behind (NCLB), the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and it provides additional 
funding for the fight against global AIDS, Community Development Block 
Grants (CDBG) and higher education among other items.
  The CBC pays for these increases by immediately repealing the Bush-
era tax cuts for those earning over $200,000 for single filers and 
$250,000 for joint filers. The CBC budget also eliminates the phase-out 
and repeal of PEP and Pease. These important tax provisions were apart 
of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1990 and signed into law by the 
first President Bush and ensure that the wealthiest Americans are 
paying their fair share in taxes. Repealing these provisions of the 
2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts will yield an estimated $42.2 billion in 
additional revenue for Fiscal Year 2010.
  Importantly, the CBC Budget creates the Bush Debt Tax, which adds a 
modest 0.565% surtax on adjustable gross income exceeding $500,000 for 
individuals and $1 million for joint filers. The CBC budget will use 
this surtax for deficit reduction. Over a ten year period, the Joint 
Committee on Taxation estimates this surtax will raise about $63 
million. The CBC budget takes these savings and applies them towards 
increased investments in important functions that will help Americans 
become more prosperous.
  The CBC Budget provides an additional $18 million for healthcare; $17 
billion for education, job training, and social services, $8 billion 
for Transportation and Infrastructure; $5.5 billion for the 
administration of justice and approximately the same for international 
affairs; $5 billion for income security and veterans benefits, and $3 
billion for community and regional development and homeland security.
  The CBC Budget pays for all these increases and still produces a 
five-year budget deficit that is $67 billion lower than the Democratic 
Budget and saves America $7 billion on the National Debt.


            advancing the priorities of the american people

  We must not only be economically healthy, but assist in balancing it 
with the health, education, and security of our citizens. The CBC 
budget will advance the priorities of the American people by:
  Covering all eligible children with health insurance through funding 
SCHIP, more than the Democratic budget to help one of our most 
vulnerable populations--children;
  Ensuring No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has increased funding for Head 
Start programs, IDEA, college access programs, college loan programs 
and job training;
  Honoring our veterans by increasing funding for health care, benefits 
and educational opportunities;
  Making more local communities with support through increases to 
Community Development Block Grants, nutrition programs and housing 
programs; and
  Contributing to the global community by investing in child survival 
and health, international family planning and the global effort to 
fight AIDS.


                           health initiatives

  The CBC budget under the Health Function 550 included a program that 
I continually push for increased funding, and that is the Juvenile 
Diabetes Research Foundation. Hope for juvenile diabetes cure lies in 
research. Real progress is being made, thanks largely to government 
funding of the Special Diabetes Program.
  The health and health care spending in the CBC budget alternative is 
the fiscally, socially and morally appropriate and responsible response 
and it will improve the health, well being and life opportunities of 
all Americans.
  The CBC budget like the President's budget, strengthens our nation's 
overwhelmed and under-resourced health care system, champions the 
critically important health care needs of health care seekers, and 
fills the gaps in health care access and quality that detrimentally 
affect our nation's health care providers and the overall health care 
system.
  The CBC budget alternative strengthens and expands the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program to ensure that the majority of the 
nation's 9 million uninsured children have access to health care. This 
is of particular relevance to the CBC because a disproportionate number 
of the 9 million uninsured children today are African American or 
Hispanic. Without reliable access to quality health care, children are 
in poorer health, are less productive in school and in their 
communities, and are less likely to fulfill their life's potential.


                          strengthens medicare

  The CBC budget alternative strengthens Medicare--a critically 
important program that ensures that our nations' senior citizens, as 
well as those living with disabilities, have access to the health care 
services and treatments they need to live longer, healthier and fuller 
lives.
  The CBC budget alternative also:
  Saves Title VII (health professions training) programs, which are 
integral to strengthening and expanding tomorrow's health care 
workforce;
  Funds the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program in a manner that allows it to 
expand ADAP, the efforts of National Minority AIDS Education Training 
Centers, and the other important services and treatments offered to our 
most vulnerable with HIV infection;
  Funds the Minority AIDS Initiative in a manner that will build the 
needed capacity in racial and ethnic minority communities throughout 
the nation to respond and address HIV/AIDS;

  It is our children that will bring forth a thriving future. We need 
to invest in tomorrow by investing in them today. This starts with 
their physical well-being. Children, who cannot see the doctor when 
they are sick, research programs that are not adequately funded to find 
a cure for diseases such as diabetes, hurt our future generations, and 
not help lay a foundation for a bright future.


                education and african americans in texas

  A quality education continues to be the best pathway to social and 
economic mobility in this country. As a Member and Senior Whip of the 
Congressional Black Caucus, I have consistently advocated for the 
maintenance of Historically Black Colleges and Universities. This 
budget provides greater funding to our nation's schools and colleges 
than even our Democratic budget supplies.
  For African Americans health and education concerns spill beyond 
budgetary issues into the criminal justice consequences. In Texas, over 
87,000 African-Americans are incarcerated compared to approximately 
48,000 African-Americans attending college or university.
  The disparity between the percentages of our youth in prison versus 
the number of young people in college, particularly in the African-
American community, is disturbing to say the least. Higher education 
continues to be one of the main pathways to social and economic 
mobility, particularly in the African-American and Hispanic 
communities.


                 port of houston and security measures

  Last week, I had the pleasure of meeting with the Port Authority of 
Houston. They were here to discuss their security measures but also 
their need for continued federal dollars. The Bush Administration 
claims they want to secure our nation but cuts funding in areas that 
are important to our local security such as the ports in Houston, 
Texas. The CBC seeks to cure that shortfall.


                       administration of justice

  Under the proposed CBC budget, there is emphasis on the 
administration of justice and the protection of all Americans. The CBC 
budget funds programs that are important to our communities. The CBC 
budget funds the

[[Page H4468]]

Justice Assistance Grant Program, Juvenile Justice Programs, the Byrne 
Weed and Seed Program, Office of Violence Against Women, COPS and JAG 
programs. All of these programs help keep American communities safe and 
provide for greater law enforcement at the federal, state, and local 
enforcement levels. The CBC budget reinvests in DOJ Prisoner Reentry 
Program. In addition, the CBC budget invests in our children by 
requiring funding for Boys and Girls clubs. This investment in our 
communities and in our children helps keep our youths safe and out of 
the prison system.


                 general sciences, space and technology

  The CBC budget proposes to invest heavily in our nation's development 
in science, space, and technology. The CBC budget also invests in the 
NSF--Education and Research Programs, with a special emphasis on 
Minority Post Doctorates. The CBC budget not only invests in 
minorities, it also invests in women by providing for Graduate Research 
Fellowships for Women in Engineering and Computer Science.


                                 energy

  The CBC budget addresses the environment, energy, and natural 
resources. These programs are of particular interest to the people of 
Texas and I think it is necessary for America to remain a vital, energy 
efficient country.


          education, training, employment, and social services

  The proposed CBC budget puts greater emphasis on education, training, 
employment, and social services. These are critical to the needs of 
Americans and minority populations in general.
  The CBC budget provides funding for the No Child Left Behind Act. 
Included in that Act is funding for Title I, Safe and Drug Free 
Schools, 21st Century Learning Centers, and Teacher Quality Programs. 
We must continue to invest in our children because they represent the 
future of America.
  The CBC budget also recognizes that there must be investment in Head 
Start, mentoring, and drop out prevention. The proposed CBC budget 
provides money to vocational programs and increases the funding of 
HBCUs. The CBC budget provides for funding in investment in Minority 
Science and Engineering Improvement. The CBC budget invests in adult 
employment and training activities.


                               conclusion

  This important piece of legislation gives us a budget that is 
balanced fiscally and morally. It does not sacrifice the great many 
programs and services that this nation needs to correct eight years or 
more of decay.
  Defense of our nation is important, however, we must not support only 
one portion of the budget to the detriment of everything else. The CBC 
budget makes tough choices that result in a fiscally and morally 
responsible budget that will fund essential programs and services vital 
to our communities and the American people as a whole.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Congressional Black 
Caucus Budget Substitute for FY2010.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Madam Chair, the Congressional Black Caucus budget is based on the 
budget of 1990-1993 that worked. It rejects the budget of 2001 that 
didn't. It saves money and invests in our priorities. It is a good 
budget. The base budget is good, but the CBC budget is better.
  Madam Chair, I ask that we adopt the CBC budget, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Chairwoman, I want to thank 
the gentleman from Virginia for his hard work. I want to just throw 
some facts out there. This budget spends too much, it taxes too much 
and it borrows way too much.
  The debt held by the public under this budget will double in 5\1/2\ 
years--double in 5\1/2\ years. It triples in a little over 10 years. 
The kind of red ink that this budget proposes for our children and our 
grandchildren is more under this presidency than under the presidencies 
between George Washington and George W. Bush combined.
  Again, it increases taxes on all the American people. On January 1, 
2011, the income tax rates go up. That is a tax increase. On January 1, 
2011, as Mr. Ryan said, the capital gains rates go up. And as he 
repeated, that is also a tax increase. On January 1, 2011, the 
dividends tax rate goes up. That is a huge tax increase. On January 1, 
2010, the AMT will go up to 26 million Americans who are now not paying 
it. This imposes a national energy tax, a new tax, a tax increase when 
you turn on the lights, when you pump your gas, if you use gas to cook, 
if you use it for industry, on all energy consumption in this country. 
That is what we are facing. This puts our country on the road to 
insolvency.
  So I commend the gentleman from Virginia and his colleagues for 
putting together this amendment. But this is not where this country 
needs to go. Let's not forget who pays the bills, our children and our 
grandchildren. Let's not do this to them. Let's leave them a brighter 
future, a stronger America.
  For those reasons, because this does not do that, because this 
burdens them like never before, I respectfully request a ``no'' vote on 
this amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, as we all know, the recession we are facing 
today is the most severe since the Great Depression. It is evident that 
the Bush Administration's economic policies have failed us. With a new 
President, we now have the ability to begin to repair our economy and 
get our country back on track.
  Madam Chair, we must significantly cut our bloated defense spending. 
I agree with my friend and fellow chair, Representative Barney Frank, 
that we should reduce defense spending by at least 25 percent. The CPC 
budget does this by withdrawing our troops from the senseless war in 
Iraq, saving American tax payers $105 billion in 2010, and by ending 
the procurement of antiquated Cold War weapons systems that no longer 
further our common national defense. These actions will save another 
$60 billion, yes $60 billion dollars, per year. This budget will also 
address the root causes of terrorism by enacting and fully funding the 
SMART Security Platform for the 21st Century. This is a more effective, 
targeted, and nuanced national security strategy that will focus more 
of our resources on the critical issues that affect our national 
security: nonproliferation, conflict prevention, international 
diplomacy, and multilateralism.
  Furthermore, the CPC budget will offer serious reform that will bring 
back America's tradition of progressive taxation. First, it eliminates 
the Bush tax cuts for those in the top 1 percent, increasing government 
revenues by $84 billion. Moreover, the bill will force banks, who 
helped create this financial disaster, to self finance their received 
bail outs by implanting a one quarter of 1 percent tax on all stock and 
futures trading. Lastly, it will end outrageous overseas corporate tax 
havens in the Caribbean, Switzerland, and all elsewhere--bringing $100 
billion in taxes back to the American treasury.
  With these extra $300 billion government revenues the CPC budget will 
help hard working Americans through these tough economic times. 
Specifically, the budget alternative adds funding for job training, 
puts Americans to work with robust transportation funding, extends 
COBRA health benefits, and provides extra food stamps for the poor, 
women, and infants.
  In these dire times, the Progressive Caucus budget will help us 
realign our fiscal policy with our values as a nation. As we cut 
useless defense spending and misdirected tax cuts for the wealthy, 
while providing aid to the middle and working classes, we will make an 
important statement: America honors work and those who play by the 
rules; we appreciate the success of the wealthy, but we expect them to 
reciprocate when it comes to promoting the common good. America will 
strengthen its national security by working with our allies around the 
world and by showing compassion to our brothers and sisters who lack 
our economic blessings. Finally, and most importantly, America is a 
flexible country that can and will change with the times, make smart 
investments, and lead the world in a new economic direction. I 
encourage my colleagues to support the Progressive Caucus' alternative 
budget so that we may move forward as a nation that honors work, 
justice, and peace.
  Madam Chair, now more then ever Americans are seeking government to 
help them during these uncertain times. For too long, Members on the 
other side advocated for no government intervention, citing the mantra 
of extreme free market capitalism. Now we are seeing the devastating 
consequences. The Congressional Black Caucus budget is one way to 
confront our pressing issues and move America forward.
  Today's legislation addresses minority health needs. It calls for 
significant increases in funding for the Minority AIDS Initiative, Ryan 
White CARE Act, and CDC Prevention activities for HIV, STD, TB and 
Viral Hepatitis. Furthermore, the CBC budget calls for a $200 million 
increase in funding for the National Center on Minority Health and 
Health Disparities at NIH. These programs will promote better public 
health services to the many who depend on these programs.
  Madam Chair, in the richest country in the world, access to housing 
is a human right. After many years of underfunding of the nation's 
affordable housing programs, the CBC fully funds Section 8 public 
housing to 100% of need. Furthermore, the bill calls for $360

[[Page H4469]]

million increase to housing for people living with HIV/AIDS (HOPWA). 
Lastly, the CBC urges an increase in funding for the Neighborhood 
Stabilization Program, which allows states, localities, and nonprofits 
to buy up and rehabilitate abandoned and foreclosed properties.
  As Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, I whole heartily 
support The CBC efforts to reduce juvenile crime and efforts to 
rehabilitate ex-offenders. Today's legislation would fully fund the 
Second Chance Act, an important bill that gives assistance ex-offenders 
during their reclamation to society and may ultimately reduce crime. 
Furthermore, the CBC budget will increase funding for the Justice 
Assistance Program, the Juvenile Justice Program, Civil Rights 
Enforcement, the COPS Program, the Byrne Justice Grant Program, and 
State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance.
  During these tough economic times, we need expanded and improved 
access to high quality education. The CBC budget supports the 
President' to expand the Pell Grant program to hardworking students. It 
is a national shame that the Bush administration woefully underfunded 
the No Child Left Behind Act and the today's legislation calls for 
substantial increase in funding level. Furthermore, CBC budget calls on 
Congress to fully fund Head Start, TRIO (including Upward Bound), GEAR 
UP, Youth Build, and vocational education programs.
  I could go on about the features of this legislation but clearly it 
puts Americans first. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield back the remaining part of 
my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 113, 
noes 318, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 190]

                               AYES--113

     Abercrombie
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lynch
     Markey (MA)
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller, George
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (MS)
     Towns
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--318

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boccieri
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     DeGette
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Driehaus
     Duncan
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon (TN)
     Granger
     Graves
     Grayson
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilroy
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey (CO)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Ortiz
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pierluisi
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scalise
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shea-Porter
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wamp
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Davis (AL)
       

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Buyer
     Hinojosa
     Miller, Gary
     Sablan
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1724

  Messrs. BACA, CALVERT, HALL of Texas, FRANKS of Arizona, and HERGER 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. ROTHMAN of New Jersey and HINCHEY changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


            Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in 
House Report 111-73.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 in the nature of a substitute printed in 
     House Report 111-73 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 2010.

       (a) Declaration.--The Congress declares that the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010 is hereby 
     established and that this resolution sets forth the 
     appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, fiscal 
     years 2011 through 2019, and fiscal years 2020 through 2082.
       (b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010.

                TITLE I-- RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

  Subtitle A--Recommended Levels and Amounts for Each of Fiscal Years 
                           2009 Through 2019

Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts.
Sec. 102. Functional categories.

  Subtitle B--Recommended Levels and Amounts for Each of Fiscal Years 
                           2020 Through 2082

Sec. 111. Major categories.
Sec. 112. Social Security spending levels.

                        TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

Sec. 201. Reconciliation in the House of Representatives.

[[Page H4470]]

               TITLE III--CONGRESSIONAL POLICY STATEMENTS

Sec. 301. Policy statement on Medicare.
Sec. 302. Policy statement on Medicaid.
Sec. 303. Policy statement on affordable and accessible health care.
Sec. 304. Policy statement on Social Security.
Sec. 305. Policy statement on energy.
Sec. 306. Policy statement on taxes.

                TITLE IV--SHORT-TERM BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 401. Restrictions on advance appropriations.
Sec. 402. Roll Call Vote Required on Increasing the Debt Limit.
Sec. 403. Budget compliance statements.
Sec. 404. Cost estimates for conference reports and unreported 
              measures.
Sec. 405. Roll call votes for new spending.
Sec. 406. Adjustments to reflect changes in concepts and definitions.
Sec. 407. Social Security off-budget compliance statement.
Sec. 408. Applications and effects of changes in allocations and 
              aggregates.
Sec. 409. Emergency spending and contingency operations.

                 TITLE V--LONG-TERM BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 501. Spending and revenue increase controls.
Sec. 502. Prevent increases in the long-term unfunded liability of the 
              Federal Government.
Sec. 503. Estimates of the Committee on the Budget of the House of 
              Representatives.
Sec. 504. Projections.

                        TITLE VI--EARMARK REFORM

Sec. 601. Moratorium on consideration of earmarks.
Sec. 602. Joint select committee on earmark reform.

      TITLE VII--PAY-AS-YOU-GO ENFORCEMENT FOR MANDATORY SPENDING

Sec. 701. Pay-as-you-go for mandatory spending legislation.

               TITLE VIII--DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS

Sec. 801. Discretionary spending limits.

                TITLE I-- RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

  Subtitle A--Recommended Levels and Amounts for Each of Fiscal Years 
                           2009 Through 2019

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2009 through 2019:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement this 
     resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,497,570,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $1,618,785,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $1,865,734,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,083,686,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,126,661,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,238,870,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $2,361,363,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $2,462,383,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $2,572,003,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $2,671,254,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $2,773,775,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2009: -$35,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: -$47,201,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: -$222,897,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: -$276,706,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: -$388,676,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: -$394,788,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: -$414,589,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: -$434,647,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: -$456,982,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: -$479,553,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: -$505,259,000,000.
       (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 2009: $3,653,504,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,691,668,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,601,381,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,626,004,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,767,920,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,928,726,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $3,047,662,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,191,583,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,288,776,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,402,832,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,471,097,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2009: $3,355,330,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,727,108,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,684,319,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,653,894,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,778,937,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,924,914,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $3,037,015,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,184,193,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,278,461,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,388,274,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,487,199,000,000.
       (4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget) 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,857,760,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $1,108,323,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $818,585,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $570,208,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $652,276,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $686,043,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $675,652,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $721,810,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $706,457,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $717,020,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $713,424,000,000.
       (5) Debt subject to limit.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate 
     levels of debt are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2009: $12,051,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $13,206,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $13,198,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $14,660,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $15,470,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $16,353,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $17,242,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $18,177,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $19,115,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $19,718,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $20,683,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2009: $7,763,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $8,571,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $9,252,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $9,728,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $10,240,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $10,831,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $11,405,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $12,039,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $12,677,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $12,978,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $13,655,000,000,000.

     SEC. 102. FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2009 through 2019 are as follows:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $693,557,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $671,725,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $696,703,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $696,128,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $619,767,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $663,705,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $628,785,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $643,223,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $639,535,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $642,425,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $653,458,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $647,334,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $668,321,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $659,306,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $683,448,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $677,586,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $699,003,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $688,336,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $715,041,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $699,584,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $731,508,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $720,053,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,885,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,797,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,588,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,430,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,381,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,612,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,967,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,879,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,207,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,229,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,414,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,610,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,983,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,678,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,758,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,809,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,561,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,295,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,332,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,860,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,179,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,496,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,389,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,973,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,905,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,845,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,132,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,288,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,356,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,346,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,557,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,443,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,883,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,709,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,828,000,000.

[[Page H4471]]

       (B) Outlays, $30,542,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,873,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,484,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,444,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,019,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,997,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,571,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,609,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,153,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,919,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,952,000,000.
       (A) Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,534,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,144,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,579,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,004,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,765,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,932,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,126,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,514,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,246,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,746,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,314,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,264,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,404,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,420,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,506,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,263,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,040,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,736,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,662,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,781,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,009,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,834,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,185,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,367,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,428,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,695,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,118,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,709,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,225,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,525,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,806,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,063,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,078,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,614,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,111,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,252,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,996,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,042,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,420,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,309,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,293,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,027,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,974,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,070,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,747,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,994,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,784,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,076,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,698,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,598,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,508,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,087,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,176,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,153,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,574,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,518,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,694,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,792,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,959,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,007,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,586,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,616,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,247,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,099,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $694,439,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $665,437,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,919,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $81,268,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,853,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,561,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,548,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,926,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,989,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,848,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,166,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$770,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,482,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,355,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,394,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,063,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,333,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,571,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,313,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,686,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,526,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,377,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $122,457,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $87,784,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $73,942,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $95,080,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $74,428,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $95,330,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $74,959,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $94,496,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $75,482,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $94,646,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $76,250,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $94,986,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $77,055,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $94,657,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $77,947,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $93,628,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $78,847,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $93,754,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $79,758,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $95,243,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $80,761,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $96,852,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,811,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,983,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,337,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,736,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,243,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,640,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,372,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,255,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,292,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,425,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,450,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,388,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,679,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,052,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,949,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,373,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,230,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,537,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,502,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,798,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,807,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,050,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $164,276,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $73,219,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $94,430,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $140,624,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $100,425,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $138,168,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $104,574,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $109,894,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $99,607,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $105,778,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $106,379,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $104,136,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $107,578,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $109,050,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $110,808,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $111,157,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $113,222,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $113,434,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $114,972,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $115,574,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $116,738,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $117,370,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $380,158,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $354,397,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $382,701,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $388,322,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $362,157,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $366,125,000,000.

[[Page H4472]]

       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $366,206,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $365,877,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $384,837,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $380,587,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $393,583,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $394,963,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $416,232,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $414,586,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $440,850,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $438,783,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $472,198,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $469,835,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $502,675,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $500,219,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $535,998,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $533,214,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $427,076,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $426,736,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $442,815,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $442,947,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $487,442,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $487,269,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $491,952,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $491,715,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $540,003,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $540,125,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $593,406,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $593,211,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $618,202,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $617,949,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $674,176,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $674,288,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $698,771,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $698,566,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $724,830,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $724,560,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $804,287,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $804,379,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $520,123,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $503,020,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $531,436,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $536,129,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $502,767,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $506,623,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $444,772,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $445,920,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $448,294,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $448,504,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $448,678,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $447,863,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $451,192,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $450,486,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $461,271,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $460,636,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $464,233,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $463,622,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $467,351,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $466,592,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $481,975,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $480,964,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,820,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,264,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,255,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,378,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,380,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,513,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,478,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,628,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,529,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,679,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,728,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,728,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,875,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,875,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,021,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,021,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,449,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,449,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,094,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,094,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,994,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,994,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $97,705,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $94,831,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $106,358,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $105,017,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $112,806,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $111,832,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $108,643,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $107,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $113,722,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $112,512,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $115,929,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $114,819,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $118,184,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $117,546,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $124,798,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $124,320,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $124,546,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $124,059,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $124,034,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $123,478,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $132,515,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $131,887,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,783,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,853,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,159,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,611,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,227,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,395,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,785,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,581,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,363,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,157,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,247,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,058,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,345,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,083,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,664,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,349,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,019,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,658,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,193,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,826,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,023,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $63,627,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,405,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,629,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,590,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,457,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,869,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,744,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,218,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,311,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,988,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,481,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,760,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,050,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,673,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,780,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,344,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,099,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,069,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,743,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,833,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,350,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $289,044,000,000.
       (B) $289,044,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $282,801,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $282,801,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $317,087,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $317,087,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $373,346,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $373,346,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $447,727,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $447,727,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $530,456,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $530,456,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $595,684,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $595,684,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $649,165,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $648,965,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $695,308,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $695,308,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $757,439,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $759,439,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $813,257,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $813,257,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2009:

[[Page H4473]]

       (A) New budget authority, -$120,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$12,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, -$145,294,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$240,726,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, -$152,721,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$238,695,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, -$128,918,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$178,622,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, -$154,485,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$189,489,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, -$182,519,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$187,808,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, -$201,917,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$201,643,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, -$232,899,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$225,865,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$264,079,000,000.
       (A) Outlays, -$253,329,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (B) New budget authority, -$296,107,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$283,946,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$445,841,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$409,457,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$78,206,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$78,206,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, -$68,444,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$68,444,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, -$71,653,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$71,653,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, -$74,620,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$74,620,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, -$77,585,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$77,585,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, -$79,491,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$79,491,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, -$82,077,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$82,077,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, -$85,522,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$85,522,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $94,114,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $94,114,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $98,707,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $98,707,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $102,274,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $102,274,000,000.
  Subtitle B--Recommended Levels and Amounts for Each of Fiscal Years 
                           2020 Through 2082

     SEC. 111. MAJOR CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of outlays and revenues for the Federal Government for 
     calendar years 2020 through 2082 are as follows:


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Health and     Other
           Calendar Year                Debt      Retirement  Noninterest     Total       Revenues     Deficits
                                                   Security     Spending     Spending
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020..............................          33%        10.3%         8.1%        19.8%        18.0%        -1.5%
2021..............................          33%        10.6%         8.0%        20.1%        18.2%        -1.8%
2022..............................          34%        10.8%         8.0%        20.4%        18.2%        -2.1%
2023..............................          35%        11.2%         8.0%        20.8%        18.3%        -2.5%
2024..............................          37%        11.4%         7.9%        21.0%        18.3%        -2.7%
2025..............................          39%        11.6%         7.9%        21.3%        18.3%        -3.0%
2026..............................          40%        11.7%         7.9%        21.4%        18.3%        -3.1%
2027..............................          43%        11.9%         7.9%        21.7%        18.3%        -3.4%
2028..............................          44%        12.1%         7.9%        22.0%        18.3%        -3.7%
2029..............................          47%        12.0%         7.8%        22.1%        18.3%        -3.8%
2030..............................          49%        12.2%         7.8%        22.3%        18.3%        -4.0%
2031..............................          51%        12.2%         7.7%        22.3%        18.3%        -4.0%
2032..............................          53%        12.3%         7.7%        22.3%        18.3%        -4.0%
2033..............................          55%        12.2%         7.6%        22.3%        18.3%        -4.0%
2034..............................          57%        12.2%         7.6%        22.2%        18.3%        -3.9%
2035..............................          58%        12.3%         7.5%        22.4%        18.3%        -4.1%
2036..............................          60%        12.2%         7.5%        22.4%        18.3%        -4.1%
2037..............................          62%        12.2%         7.4%        22.5%        18.3%        -4.2%
2038..............................          64%        12.1%         7.4%        22.5%        18.3%        -4.2%
2039..............................          66%        12.0%         7.4%        22.4%        18.3%        -4.1%
2040..............................          67%        11.8%         7.3%        22.3%        18.3%        -4.0%
2041..............................          69%        11.7%         7.3%        22.2%        18.3%        -3.9%
2042..............................          70%        11.5%         7.3%        21.9%        18.3%        -3.6%
2043..............................          71%        11.4%         7.2%        21.9%        18.3%        -3.6%
2044..............................          72%        11.3%         7.2%        21.8%        18.3%        -3.5%
2045..............................          72%        11.2%         7.1%        21.6%        18.3%        -3.3%
2046..............................          73%        11.0%         7.1%        21.5%        18.3%        -3.2%
2047..............................          73%        11.1%         7.1%        21.6%        18.3%        -3.3%
2048..............................          74%        10.8%         7.0%        21.3%        18.3%        -3.0%
2049..............................          74%        10.7%         7.0%        21.2%        18.3%        -2.9%
2050..............................          74%        10.7%         7.0%        21.3%        18.3%        -3.0%
2051..............................          74%        10.6%         6.9%        21.1%        18.3%        -2.8%
2052..............................          73%        10.5%         6.9%        20.9%        18.3%        -2.6%
2053..............................          73%        10.5%         6.9%        20.8%        18.3%        -2.5%
2054..............................          73%        10.4%         6.8%        20.7%        18.3%        -2.4%
2055..............................          72%        10.4%         6.8%        20.7%        18.3%        -2.4%
2056..............................          72%        10.3%         6.8%        20.5%        18.3%        -2.2%
2057..............................          71%        10.3%         6.7%        20.5%        18.3%        -2.2%
2058..............................          71%        10.3%         6.7%        20.5%        18.3%        -2.2%
2059..............................          71%        10.4%         6.7%        20.7%        18.3%        -2.4%
2060..............................          71%        10.4%         6.6%        20.5%        18.3%        -2.2%
2061..............................          70%        10.3%         6.6%        20.4%        18.3%        -2.1%
2062..............................          70%        10.3%         6.6%        20.3%        18.3%        -2.0%
2063..............................          69%        10.3%         6.5%        20.2%        18.3%        -1.9%
2064..............................          68%        10.3%         6.5%        20.3%        18.3%        -2.0%
2065..............................          67%        10.3%         6.4%        20.4%        18.3%        -2.1%
2066..............................          67%        10.2%         6.4%        20.2%        18.3%        -1.9%
2067..............................          66%        10.2%         6.4%        20.0%        18.3%        -1.7%
2068..............................          65%        10.3%         6.3%        19.8%        18.3%        -1.5%
2069..............................          64%        10.3%         6.3%        19.7%        18.3%        -1.4%
2070..............................          63%        10.3%         6.3%        19.7%        18.3%        -1.4%
2071..............................          62%        10.3%         6.2%        19.7%        18.3%        -1.4%
2072..............................          61%        10.3%         6.2%        19.8%        18.3%        -1.5%

[[Page H4474]]

 
2073..............................          61%        10.3%         6.2%        19.9%        18.3%        -1.6%
2074..............................          59%        10.4%         6.1%        19.9%        18.3%        -1.6%
2075..............................          59%        10.2%         6.1%        19.6%        18.3%        -1.3%
2076..............................          57%        10.2%         6.1%        19.5%        18.3%        -1.2%
2077..............................          56%        10.2%         6.0%        19.4%        18.3%        -1.1%
2078..............................          54%        10.2%         6.0%        19.0%        18.3%        -0.7%
2079..............................          52%        10.2%         6.0%        18.9%        18.3%        -0.6%
2080..............................          50%        10.2%         5.9%        18.6%        18.3%        -0.3%
2081..............................          48%        10.2%         5.9%        18.3%        18.3%         0.0%
2082..............................          47%        10.1%         5.9%        18.2%        18.3%         0.1%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     SEC. 112. SOCIAL SECURITY SPENDING LEVELS.

       The concurrent resolution assumes the following levels of 
     Social Security spending as a percentage of gross domestic 
     product from calendar years 2020 through 2082:


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Percent of
                       Calendar Year                             GDP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020......................................................         5.1%
2021......................................................         5.2%
2022......................................................         5.3%
2023......................................................         5.5%
2024......................................................         5.6%
2025......................................................         5.7%
2026......................................................         5.8%
2027......................................................         5.9%
2028......................................................         6.0%
2029......................................................         6.0%
2030......................................................         6.1%
2031......................................................         6.1%
2032......................................................         6.2%
2033......................................................         6.2%
2034......................................................         6.2%
2035......................................................         6.3%
2036......................................................         6.3%
2037......................................................         6.3%
2038......................................................         6.3%
2039......................................................         6.3%
2040......................................................         6.3%
2041......................................................         6.3%
2042......................................................         6.2%
2043......................................................         6.2%
2044......................................................         6.2%
2045......................................................         6.2%
2046......................................................         6.1%
2047......................................................         6.2%
2048......................................................         6.1%
2049......................................................         6.1%
2050......................................................         6.1%
2051......................................................         6.1%
2052......................................................         6.1%
2053......................................................         6.1%
2054......................................................         6.1%
2055......................................................         6.1%
2056......................................................         6.1%
2057......................................................         6.1%
2058......................................................         6.1%
2059......................................................         6.2%
2060......................................................         6.2%
2061......................................................         6.2%
2062......................................................         6.2%
2063......................................................         6.2%
2064......................................................         6.2%
2065......................................................         6.2%
2066......................................................         6.2%
2067......................................................         6.2%
2068......................................................         6.3%
2069......................................................         6.3%
2070......................................................         6.3%
2071......................................................         6.3%
2072......................................................         6.3%
2073......................................................         6.3%
2074......................................................         6.4%
2075......................................................         6.3%
2076......................................................         6.3%
2077......................................................         6.3%
2078......................................................         6.4%
2079......................................................         6.4%
2080......................................................         6.4%
2081......................................................         6.4%
2082......................................................         6.4%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

     SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

       (a) Submissions to Provide for the Reform of Mandatory 
     Spending.--(1) Not later than July 29, 2009, the House 
     committees named in paragraph (2) shall submit their 
     recommendations to the Committee on the Budget of the House 
     of Representatives. After receiving those recommendations 
     from the applicable committees of the House, the Committee on 
     the Budget shall report to the House a reconciliation bill 
     carrying out all such recommendations without substantive 
     revision.
       (2) Instructions.--
       (A) Committee on agriculture.--The Committee on Agriculture 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
     sufficient to reduce direct spending outlays by 
     $38,481,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2010 through 
     2019.
       (B) Committee on education and labor.--The Committee on 
     Education and Labor shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending outlays by 
     $22,708,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2010 through 
     2019.
       (C) Committee on energy and commerce.--The Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending outlays by 
     $666,135,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2010 through 
     2019.
       (D) Committee on financial services.--The Committee on 
     Financial Services shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending outlays by 
     $28,400,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2010 through 
     2019.
       (E) Committee on foreign affairs.--The Committee on Foreign 
     Affairs shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
     sufficient to reduce direct spending outlays by 
     $1,839,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2010 through 
     2019.
       (F) Committee on the judiciary.--The Committee on the 
     Judiciary shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending outlays by 
     $4,320,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2010 through 
     2019.
       (G) Committee on natural resources.--The Committee on 
     Natural Resources shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending outlays by 
     $1,984,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2010 through 
     2019.
       (H) Committee on oversight and government reform.--The 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce 
     direct spending outlays by $10,263,000,000 for the period of 
     fiscal years 2010 through 2019.
       (I) Committee on transportation and infrastructure.--The 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce 
     direct spending outlays by $1,665,000,000 for the period of 
     fiscal years 2010 through 2019.
       (J) Committee on ways and means.--The Committee on Ways and 
     Means shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
     sufficient to reduce direct spending outlays by 
     $605,049,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2010 through 
     2019.
       (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.
               TITLE III--CONGRESSIONAL POLICY STATEMENTS

     SEC. 301. POLICY STATEMENT ON MEDICARE.

       (a) Medicare Policy.--It is the policy of this concurrent 
     resolution that Congress will enact legislation to ensure the 
     Medicare benefit continues to provide health care coverage 
     for seniors by establishing a new methodology to make the 
     program solvent and fiscally sustainable. Legislation shall 
     be enacted that:
       (1) Expands protections for seniors against catastrophic 
     medical costs, simplifies beneficiary contributions, updates 
     Medicare payments, increases flexibility for hospitals 
     serving unusually high numbers of low-income patients, and 
     reduces the prescription drug benefit subsidy for high-income 
     seniors (household incomes over $170,000). To ensure that the 
     cost of frivolous litigation is not passed on to 
     beneficiaries, the medical malpractice system is reformed.
       (2) Preserves the current Medicare program for individuals 
     55 and older. For those under 55, the resolution gradually 
     converts the current Medicare program into one in which 
     Medicare beneficiaries receive a premium support payment--
     equivalent to 100 percent of the cost of the Medicare 
     benefit--to purchase health coverage from a menu of Medicare-
     approved plans, similar to options available to Members of 
     Congress. The premium support payment is risk-adjusted to 
     increase with age and health status, and income-related so 
     low-income seniors receive extra support. Premiums continue 
     to be based on an all-beneficiary average, so the phasing of 
     the younger population into the new program will not increase 
     premiums for the population continuing in the existing 
     program.
       (b) Force and Effect of the Medicare Trigger.--The Medicare 
     trigger as set forth in section 803 of the Medicare 
     Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 
     shall apply during the 111th Congress.

     SEC. 302. POLICY STATEMENT ON MEDICAID.

       It is the policy of this concurrent resolution that 
     Medicaid--
       (1) is outdated and fiscally unsustainable;
       (2) has a payment error rate of at least 10 percent (as 
     reported by GAO in January 2009);
       (3) without major reform, its recipients' access to health 
     care is in jeopardy;

[[Page H4475]]

       (4) must be reformed to make the health care safety net 
     stronger and more reliable for the neediest populations;
       (5) must be modernized by enhancing State flexibility and 
     their sensitivity to spending growth, while allowing States 
     to offer their Medicaid populations more options; and
       (6) recipients, like all other Americans, deserve to make 
     their own health care decisions instead of government 
     bureaucrats dictating them.

     SEC. 303. POLICY STATEMENT ON AFFORDABLE AND ACCESSIBLE 
                   HEALTH CARE.

       It is the policy assumption of this concurrent resolution 
     that legislation should be enacted that reforms the health 
     care marketplace by ensuring universal access to health 
     coverage for every American regardless of pre-existing health 
     conditions. It allows individuals who like their health 
     coverage to keep what they have, and offers those without 
     coverage access health care options similar to what Members 
     of Congress have. The resolution prevents the expansion of 
     entitlements, the creation of government-controlled health 
     plans, and the imposition of new mandates or taxes on 
     businesses. Individuals must have the freedom to choose the 
     health care plan that best meets their needs and freedom from 
     government bureaucrats making their health care decisions. 
     Medical professionals must not be prohibited--either through 
     the use of comparative effectiveness data or otherwise--from 
     providing and/or prescribing care they believe to be 
     medically necessary.

     SEC. 304. POLICY STATEMENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY.

       (a) Findings.--
       (1) More than 30 million Americans depend on Social 
     Security as a key part of their retirement. Since enactment, 
     Social Security has served as a vital leg on the ``three-
     legged stool'' of retirement security, which today includes 
     employer provided pensions as well as personal savings.
       (2) Every year, the Social Security Trustees report warns 
     of the dire financial straits that Social Security is in. 
     Each year without reform, the financial condition of Social 
     Security becomes more precarious, and the threat to seniors 
     becomes more pronounced--
       (A) in 2041, the Trust Fund will be exhausted, and will be 
     unable to pay scheduled benefits; and
       (B) with the exhaustion of the Trust Fund in 2041, benefits 
     will be cut 22 percent across the board--hurting all those 
     who rely upon Social Security as a fundamental part of their 
     retirement security; and by 2082, the cuts required would 
     equal 25 percent.
       (3) The current recession is exacerbating the crisis to 
     Social Security. The most recent March 2009 CBO baseline 
     finds that the cash surplus in 2010 will only be $3 billion--
     down $22 billion from just 3 months ago. Should the recession 
     continue, we may enter into a cash deficit in 2010--8 years 
     earlier than expected.
       (4) Lower-income Americans rely on Social Security for a 
     larger proportion of their retirement income. Therefore, 
     reforms should take into consideration the need to protect 
     lower-income Americans' retirement security.
       (5) Americans deserve to have their elected Representatives 
     take seriously the issue of Social Security reform. We must 
     work together--in a bipartisan fashion--in order to solve 
     this crisis. In this spirit, this resolution puts forth a 
     reform that was first proposed by the current Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget.
       (b) Policy on Social Security.--It is the policy of this 
     resolution that Congress should begin to act on Social 
     Security. Should the Trustees of the Social Security Trust 
     Fund determine that the Trust Fund would be unable to pay 
     scheduled benefits within five years (currently estimated in 
     2036); reforms such as the following are recommended to be 
     implemented to mitigate across-the-board cuts in benefit 
     payments:
       (1) Provide for a phase in of low-earner benefit 
     enhancement. This would protect lower-income Americans 
     meeting certain requirements by ensuring they receive a 
     benefit of at least 120 percent of the poverty line.
       (2) Reduce the 15-percent Primary Insurance Amount bracket 
     by 0.25 percentage points per year, from the date at which 
     SSA finds it cannot meet scheduled benefits within 5 years 
     (currently 2036). Phase in over 20 years.
       (3) The spending, revenue, deficit, and debt levels in this 
     concurrent resolution assume current law benefits will be 
     fully paid and do not assume any savings in Social Security.

     SEC. 305. POLICY STATEMENT ON ENERGY.

       (a) Energy Policy.--It is recognized that:
       (1) energy is recognized as a vital component to our 
     national and economic security.
       (2) our dependence on foreign oil, natural gas, and other 
     sources of energy is a threat to our national and economic 
     security;
       (3) our dependence on foreign oil, natural gas, and other 
     fuel sources is contributing to a massive transfer of wealth 
     outside of the United States;
       (4) increasing production of domestic energy will reduce 
     our dependence on foreign oil, natural gas, and other sources 
     of energy;
       (5) high rates of taxes levied upon domestic production of 
     oil and natural gas energy sources will place domestic 
     producers at a competitive disadvantage relative to foreign 
     competitors and will discourage domestic energy production;
       (6) a significant amount of oil and natural gas reserves 
     are believed to be located on Federal lands including the 
     Outer Continental Shelf, the Gulf of Mexico, the Arctic 
     National and Wildlife Refuge, the National Petroleum Reserve, 
     the Intermountain West Region;
       (7) domestic energy development on Federal lands should 
     comply with environmental laws and regulations and should be 
     conducted in an environmentally responsible manner that 
     minimizes the disruption to fish, plant, insect, and animal 
     wildlife;
       (8) alternative forms of energy development including 
     solar, wind, biomass, wave, tidal, hydro, and other forms can 
     produce pollution-free energy with favorable environmental 
     benefits, including the reduction of global green house gas 
     emissions;
       (9) increased nuclear energy is an important component to 
     achieving an energy supply free of green house gas emissions;
       (10) lower energy prices will do more to promote economic 
     growth, raise living standards, increase incomes, and create 
     jobs than will higher energy prices;
       (11) numerous studies on cap and trade conducted by 
     government agencies, universities, think tanks, and industry 
     groups agree that cap and trade will raise energy prices for 
     businesses and consumers; and
       (12) revenues, royalties, fees, and taxes raised from 
     developing energy projects located on Federal lands could 
     provide billions of dollars to the Treasury which could be 
     used to fund increased Federal participation and support for 
     alternative, renewable, and nuclear energy projects without 
     raising new taxes or increasing energy prices on businesses 
     and consumers.
       (b) Statement on Energy Policy.--It is the policy of this 
     concurrent resolution that the energy policy of the United 
     States is to--
       (1) support our national and economic security by reducing 
     our dependence on foreign oil, natural gas, and other sources 
     of energy;
       (2) support the increased development of energy on Federal 
     lands in an environmentally responsible manner consistent 
     with existing laws and regulations in a manner that minimizes 
     the impact on fish, plant, insect, and animal wildlife;
       (3) support the development of alternative, renewable, and 
     nuclear sources of energy that will reduce reliance on 
     foreign oil and contribute to reduced levels of global green 
     house gasses;
       (4) direct revenues from royalties, bonus bids, fees, 
     rents, and other taxes levied on new energy projects on 
     Federal lands to fund increased Federal participation in 
     research, development, loans, loan guarantees, insurance, tax 
     credits and subsidies, and other assistance that will 
     encourage new development of alternative, renewable, and 
     nuclear sources of energy;
       (5) ensure taxes levied on domestic oil and natural gas 
     produces do not place them at a competitive disadvantage 
     relative to foreign competitors, lead to job losses, or 
     encourage a greater dependence on foreign sources of oil, 
     natural gas, or other energy sources; and
       (6) pursue policies that keep energy prices low and 
     contribute to economic growth and avoid policies that raise 
     energy prices on American businesses and consumers.

     SEC. 306. POLICY STATEMENT ON TAXES.

       (a) In General.--The policies of this concurrent resolution 
     include the following assumptions:
       (1) The Federal tax code is needlessly complex and 
     burdensome, and it tends to discourage economic growth and 
     United States competitiveness.
       (2) The policies included in this resolution are aimed at 
     addressing these problems.
       (b) Taxes on Individuals.--This concurrent resolution would 
     give individuals a choice in paying their Federal income 
     taxes. Individuals can choose to pay their Federal taxes 
     under the existing tax code, with all the familiar deductions 
     and schedules, or they could move to a highly simplified 
     income tax system. This simplified tax system broadens the 
     tax base by cleaning out nearly all the existing tax 
     deductions and credits, compresses the tax schedule down to 
     two low rates and retains a generous standard deduction and 
     exemption level. The tax form for this system could fit on a 
     postcard. Within ten years of enactment of this legislation, 
     individuals would choose one of the two tax systems: the 
     current tax code or the simplified system. Individuals are 
     allowed one additional changeover between the two tax systems 
     over the course of their lifetimes. Individuals are also 
     allowed to change tax systems when a major life event (death, 
     divorce, or marriage) alters their filing status. In contrast 
     to the six rates in the current tax code, the simplified tax 
     has just two rates: 10 percent on adjusted gross income (AGI) 
     up to $100,000 for joint filers and $50,000 for single 
     filers; and 25 percent on taxable income above these amounts. 
     These tax brackets are adjusted by a cost-of-living 
     adjustment as measured by the consumer price index. The 
     simplified code eliminates nearly all existing tax 
     deductions, exclusions, and other special provisions, but it 
     retains a generous base exemption amount for all taxpayers. 
     The standard deduction for joint filers is $25,000 for joint 
     filers and $12,500 for single filers. The personal exemption 
     amount is $3500. This proposal patches the alternative 
     minimum tax (AMT) at the 2009 level for the foreseeable 
     future in order to prevent millions of middle class Americans 
     from being ensnared by an unfair tax hike. This tax system 
     also maintains the current lower

[[Page H4476]]

     rates on capital gains and dividends for all taxpayers.
       (c) Taxes on Corporations.--The U.S. corporate income tax 
     rate is the second highest in the industrialized world. The 
     tax leads to lowers wages for workers, higher prices for 
     consumers, and it also discourages foreign investment in the 
     U.S. This concurrent resolution assumes policies that address 
     these problems by lowering the U.S. corporate tax rate from 
     35 percent to 25 percent, pushing it into the more 
     competitive range among industrialized countries. In 
     conjunction with this move, the resolution repeals the tax 
     deduction for U.S. production activities (section 199), as 
     companies receiving this benefit will now be taxed at the 
     lower 25-percent rate. It also temporarily suspends the tax 
     on capital gains for the rest of 2009 and 2010. These 
     policies are designed to keep overall Federal tax revenues at 
     approximately 18.3 percent of GDP for the foreseeable future, 
     roughly equivalent to the long-term historical average.
                TITLE IV--SHORT-TERM 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 2011 and 
     2012 for programs, projects, activities, or accounts 
     identified in the joint explanatory statement of managers 
     accompanying this resolution under the heading ``Accounts 
     Identified for Advance Appropriations'' in an aggregate 
     amount not to exceed $23,565,000,000 in new budget authority 
     in each year.
       (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance 
     appropriation'' means any new budget authority provided in a 
     bill or joint resolution making general appropriations or any 
     new budget authority provided in a bill or joint resolution 
     making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2010 that 
     first becomes available for any fiscal year after 2010.

     SEC. 402. ROLL CALL VOTE REQUIRED ON INCREASING THE DEBT 
                   LIMIT.

       With respect to the adoption by the Congress of a 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010, 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. 403. 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. 404. 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. 405. 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. 406. 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 prior to September 30, 2002).

     SEC. 407. SOCIAL SECURITY OFF-BUDGET COMPLIANCE STATEMENT.

       As required by section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act 
     of 1990 and section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, this concurrent resolution on the budget does not 
     include the outlays and revenue totals of the old-age, 
     survivors, and disability insurance program established under 
     title II of the Social Security Act or the related provisions 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in the surplus or 
     deficit totals.

     SEC. 408. APPLICATIONS AND EFFECTS 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 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. 409. EMERGENCY SPENDING AND CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.

       (a) Emergency Spending Designation .--In the House, if any 
     bill or joint resolution is reported, or an amendment is 
     offered thereto or a conference report is filed thereon, and 
     such provision is designated as an emergency pursuant to this 
     section, then the new budget authority, new entitlement 
     authority, outlays, or receipts resulting therefrom shall not 
     count for purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       (b) 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 2010 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 the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
                 TITLE V--LONG-TERM BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 501. SPENDING AND REVENUE INCREASE CONTROLS.

       It shall not be in order in the House of Representatives to 
     consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference report, unless war has been declared or during a 
     recession, as determined by the House Budget Committee, that 
     causes aggregate--
       (1) Federal spending levels, in any fiscal year to exceed 
     the percentage of spending relative to the gross domestic 
     product as set forth in section 510; and
       (2) Federal revenue levels, in any fiscal year, to exceed 
     the percentage of revenue relative to the gross domestic 
     product as set forth in section 510.

     SEC. 502. PREVENT INCREASES IN THE LONG-TERM UNFUNDED 
                   LIABILITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

       (a) Long-Term Solvency Point of Order.--It shall not be in 
     order in the House of Representatives to consider any bill, 
     joint resolution, amendment thereto, or conference report 
     thereon, if such measure includes a provision that causes a 
     net increase in the long-term unfunded liability of the 
     Federal Government.
       (b) Congressional Budget Office Analysis of Proposals.--The 
     Director of the Congressional Budget Office shall, to the 
     extent practicable, prepare for each bill and joint 
     resolution reported from committee (except measures within 
     the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations), and 
     amendments thereto and conference reports thereon, an 
     estimate of whether the measure causes, relative to current 
     law--
       (1) a net increase in the Medicare Part A Trust Fund's 
     unfunded liability; and
       (2) a net increase in the long-term unfunded liability of 
     the Federal Government.
       (c) Government Accountability Office.--The GAO shall assess 
     the level of the Federal Government's long-term unfunded 
     obligations and provide a report to the Committee on the 
     Budget of the House, and other appropriate committees, as 
     soon as practicable after the beginning of each session of 
     Congress.
       (d) Department of the Treasury.--The Department of the 
     Treasury shall assess the level of the Federal Government's 
     long-term unfunded obligations and provide a report to the 
     Committee on the Budget of the House, and other appropriate 
     committees.
       (e) House Budget Committee Determination.--The chairman of 
     the House Budget Committee shall advise the Chair as to the 
     whether a measure referred to in subsection (a) complies with 
     this section.

     SEC. 503. ESTIMATES OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET OF THE 
                   HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

       The Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives 
     shall include in the report referred to section 308(b)(2) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 an estimate of the level 
     of total spending in outlays and revenue for the period of 
     fiscal years 2010 through 2082 as a percentage of gross 
     domestic product for purposes of this section.

     SEC. 504. PROJECTIONS.

       (a) CBO Long-Term Economic Growth and Budget Projections.--
     By February 1 of each calendar year, for each fiscal year 
     within the long-term period, as set forth in section 512, CBO 
     shall prepare a report that sets forth the amount of total 
     spending of the Government in outlays, and the amount of 
     total

[[Page H4477]]

     spending for the functional categories set forth in section 
     112 .
       (b) Inclusion in the Final Spending Reduction Report.--Each 
     report prepared pursuant to subsections [(a) and (b)] shall 
     be included in the preview spending reduction report and 
     final spending reduction report, as applicable, set forth in 
     sections [703 and 704].
                        TITLE VI--EARMARK REFORM

     SEC. 601. MORATORIUM ON CONSIDERATION OF EARMARKS.

       (a) In the House.--It shall not be in order to consider a 
     bill, joint resolution, or conference report containing a 
     congressional earmark, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff 
     benefit (as such terms are used in clause 9 of rule XXI of 
     the Rules of the House of Representatives) until the end of 
     the first session of the 111th Congress.
       (b) In the Senate.--[To be supplied.]

     SEC. 602. JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON EARMARK REFORM.

       (a) Establishment and Composition.--There is hereby 
     established a Joint Select Committee on Earmark Reform. The 
     joint select committee shall be composed of 16 members as 
     follows:
       (1) 8 Members of the House of Representatives, 4 appointed 
     from the majority party by the Speaker of the House, and 4 
     from the minority party to be appointed by the minority 
     leader.
       (2) 8 Members of the Senate, 4 appointed from the majority 
     party by the majority leader of the Senate, and 4 from the 
     minority party to be appointed by the minority leader.

     A vacancy in the joint select committee shall not affect the 
     power of the remaining members to execute the functions of 
     the joint select committee, and shall be filled in the same 
     manner as the original selection.
       (b) Study and Report.--
       (1) Study.--The joint select committee shall make a full 
     study of the practices of the House, Senate, and Executive 
     Branch regarding earmarks in authorizing, appropriation, tax, 
     and tariff measures. As part of the study, the joint select 
     committee shall consider the efficacy of--
       (A) the disclosure requirements of clause 9 of rule XXI and 
     clause 17 of rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives and rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the 
     Senate, and the definitions contained therein;
       (B) requiring full transparency in the process, with 
     earmarks listed in bills at the outset of the legislative 
     process and continuing throughout consideration;
       (C) requiring that earmarks not be placed in any bill after 
     initial committee consideration;
       (D) requiring that Members be permitted to offer amendments 
     to remove earmarks at subcommittee, full committee, floor 
     consideration, and during conference committee meetings;
       (E) requiring that bill sponsors and majority and minority 
     managers certify the validity of earmarks contained in their 
     bills;
       (F) recommending changes to earmark requests made by the 
     Executive Branch through the annual budget submitted to 
     Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States 
     Code;
       (G) requiring that House and Senate amendments meet earmark 
     disclosure requirements, including amendments adopted 
     pursuant to a special order of business; and
       (H) establishing new categories for earmarks, including--
       (i) projects with national scope;
       (ii) military projects; and
       (iii) local or provincial projects, including the level of 
     matching funds required for such project.
       (2) Report.--
       (A) The joint select committee shall submit to the House a 
     report of its findings and recommendations not later than 6 
     months after adoption of this concurrent resolution.
       (B) No recommendation shall be made by the joint select 
     committee except upon the majority vote of the members from 
     each House, respectively.
       (C) Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, 
     any recommendation with respect to the rules and procedures 
     of one House that only affects matters related solely to that 
     House may only be made and voted on by members of the joint 
     select committee from that House and, upon its adoption by a 
     majority of such members, shall be considered to have been 
     adopted by the full committee as a recommendation of the 
     joint select committee.

     In conducting the study under paragraph (1), the joint select 
     committee shall hold not fewer than 5 public hearings.
       (c) Resources and Dissolution.--
       (1) the joint select committee may utilize the resources of 
     the House and Senate.
       (2) the joint select committee shall cease to exist 30 days 
     after the submission of the report described in subsection 
     (a)(2).
       (d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``earmark'' shall include congressional earmarks, 
     congressionally directed spending items, limited tax 
     benefits, or limited tariff benefits as those terms are used 
     in clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives and rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the 
     Senate. Nothing in this subsection shall confine the study of 
     the joint select committee or otherwise limit its 
     recommendations.
      TITLE VII--PAY-AS-YOU-GO ENFORCEMENT FOR MANDATORY SPENDING

     SEC. 701. PAY-AS-YOU-GO FOR MANDATORY SPENDING LEGISLATION.

       (a) Point of Order.--
       (1) In general.--It shall not be in order in the House to 
     consider any direct spending legislation, excluding the 
     impact of any revenue provisions, that would increase the 
     budget deficit or cause a budget deficit for any of 
     applicable time periods as set forth in paragraph (2).
       (2) Applicable time period.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term ``applicable time period'' means--
       (A) the current fiscal year;
       (B) the budget year;
       (C) the period of the 5 fiscal years following the current 
     fiscal year; and
       (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 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.
       (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 Committee 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 section, 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 VIII--DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS

     SEC. 801. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

       (a) Discretionary Spending Limits.--As used in this 
     section, the term ``discretionary spending limits'' mean--
       (1) Nondefense discretionary category.--
       (A) Fiscal Year 2010:
       (i) Budget authority: $479,559,000,000.
       (ii) Outlays: $538,888,000,000.
       (B) Fiscal Year 2011:
       (i) Budget authority: $480,712,000,000.
       (ii) Outlays: $552,231,000,000.
       (C) Fiscal Year 2012:
       (i) Budget authority: $482,150,000,000.
       (ii) Outlays: $546,975,000,000.
       (D) Fiscal Year 2013:
       (i) Budget authority: $483,679,000,000.
       (ii) Outlays: $547,914,000,000.
       (E) Fiscal Year 2014:
       (i) Budget authority: $485,264,000,000.
       (ii) Outlays: $547,703,000,000.
       (F) Fiscal Year 2015:
       (i) Budget authority: $487,437,000,000.
       (ii) Outlays: $548,092,000,000.
       (G) Fiscal Year 2016:
       (i) Budget authority: $488,275,000,000.
       (ii) Outlays: $549,089,000,000.
       (H) Fiscal Year 2017:
       (i) Budget authority: $489,369,000,000.
       (ii) Outlays: $551,612,000,000.
       (I) Fiscal Year 2018:
       (i) Budget authority: $490,787,000,000.
       (ii) Outlays: $553,312,000,000.
       (J) Fiscal Year 2019:
       (i) Budget authority: $491,468,000,000.
       (ii) Outlays: $555,520,000,000.
       (2) Defense discretionary category.--
       (A) Fiscal Year 2010:
       (i) Budget authority: $691,128,000,000.
       (ii) Outlays: $690,463,000,000.
       (B) Fiscal Year 2011:
       (i) Budget authority: $614,293,000,000.
       (ii) Outlays: $658,207,000,000.
       (C) Fiscal Year 2012:
       (i) Budget authority: $623,612,000,000.
       (ii) Outlays: $638,011,000,000.
       (D) Fiscal Year 2013:
       (i) Budget authority: $634,421,000,000.
       (ii) Outlays: $637,332,000,000.
       (E) Fiscal Year 2014:
       (i) Budget authority: $648,249,000,000.
       (ii) Outlays: $642,132,000,000.
       (F) Fiscal Year 2015:
       (i) Budget authority: $663,024,000,000.
       (ii) Outlays: $653,987,000,000.
       (G) Fiscal Year 2016:
       (i) Budget authority: $678,064,000,000.
       (ii) Outlays: $672,185,000,000.
       (H) Fiscal Year 2017:
       (i) Budget authority: $693,507,000,000.
       (ii) Outlays: $682,823,000,000.
       (I) Fiscal Year 2018:
       (i) Budget authority: $709,411,000,000.
       (ii) Outlays: $693,937,000,000.
       (J) Fiscal Year 2019:
       (i) Budget authority: $725,737,000,000.
       (ii) Outlays: $714,265,000,000.
       (b) Adjustment Authority.--If the chairman of the Committee 
     on the Budget adjusts the allocations set forth pursuant to 
     section 302(a), or other adjustments as applicable, of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, corresponding adjustments 
     may be made to the discretionary caps set forth in subsection 
     (a).

[[Page H4478]]

       (c) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the House, 
     unless it has been designated pursuant to section 410 of this 
     resolution, to consider any bill or joint resolution (or 
     amendment, motion, or conference report on that bill or joint 
     resolution) that causes the discretionary spending limits in 
     this section to be exceeded, as determined by estimates 
     provided by the chairman of the Budget Committee of the 
     House.
       (d) Concurrent Resolution on the Budget.--It shall not be 
     in order to consider a concurrent resolution on the budget if 
     such resolution--
       (1) does not include discretionary caps for the fiscal 
     years covered by this resolution with separate defense and 
     nondefense categories; or
       (2) includes discretionary spending levels higher than 
     those included in this section for the nondefense category 
     set forth in this section.

  The CHAIR. 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. Madam Chair, at this time, I would like to 
yield 1 minute to the distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague from Wisconsin for yielding.
  Madam Chair and my colleagues, I think all of us know that our 
economy is in big trouble. American families are struggling; small 
businesses are struggling; unemployment is increasing, and one of the 
hallmarks of being an American is that each generation was proud of the 
fact that they were leaving for the next generation a better country 
with more opportunities, better than what they'd had. A lot of 
Americans today don't believe that that will happen.
  But we can go back to the greatest generation. The greatest 
generation during World War II was called the ``greatest generation'' 
because those men and women stood up and fought for America and did 
what they had to do so that their kids and grandkids could pursue the 
American dream. They made the tough choice to get involved, to go to 
war, to do what they had to do.
  As we look at this budget that we have in front of us, there are no 
tough choices. The Democrat plan to increase spending, to increase 
taxes and to increase the debt makes no difficult choices. Why? 
Because, when you just keep spending money, you don't have to make 
decisions. You just keep spending money. The fact is, if you look at 
this budget, it spends too much; it taxes too much, and it puts too 
much debt on the backs of our kids and grandkids.

                              {time}  1730

  If you look at the chart next to me, you can see this red line, and 
this red line indicates the amount of spending that we see in the plan 
offered by our Democrat colleagues. The green line, as an example, is 
the spending represented in the Republican budget alternative that 
does, in fact, spend less.
  But it is not just spending. When you look at the taxes in this bill, 
it will increase taxes several trillion dollars--that's with a ``T.'' 
Now, the majority wants to say, Well, no, that's not what the budget 
says. That's why I have described their budget as the Bernie Madoff 
budget because they tinkered and hid all of the really serious 
proposals that they all have in mind to do.
  They have talked about their cap-and-trade, their national energy 
tax, but you can't see it in here. And so let us just call it what it 
is, the Bernie Madoff budget, because if you look at the other 
documents, they want to do cap-and-trade, which is a national energy 
tax, $1.5 trillion, they want to let all of the tax cuts that were 
passed early in this decade, they want to allow them all to expire and 
even have other ideas to bring back the death tax, the tax that is on 
top of taxes that were paid when you earn the money, capital gain taxes 
you paid along the way. And if you saved money and you did the 
responsible thing, when you die, we're going to come in and take half 
of it. Now, this is un-American.
  So you have got too much spending, you've got way too many ideas 
about raising taxes. And then we get to the really tough part of this 
budget.
  We get to the debt. You know, we actually do have to borrow money. 
The Chinese have been our biggest loaners here over the last decade. 
We've accumulated some $5.8 trillion worth of debt over the last 220 
years and 43 Presidents. This budget doubles the debt in 5 years. It 
triples the national debt in 10 years. And one only has to look at this 
chart--the blue line is the debt that we've accumulated, the red line 
being the amount of debt that will be accumulated over the course of 
this budget and into the future. The green line represents a Republican 
alternative, which I think is a much, much safer bet and, frankly, 
reduces the debt that our kids and grandkids are going to have to pay.
  So if you look at a budget, it's always called an outline, a roadmap. 
Well, I have a description of what this budget is. It's a roadmap to 
disaster. As I said earlier this year, we're going to be the party of 
better solutions. We clearly are not in agreement with the Democrat 
budget. Paul Ryan, or my colleague from Wisconsin, and the members of 
the Budget Committee on our side of the aisle have put together a 
better solution that has less spending, that has less taxes and much 
less debt on the backs of our kids and grandkids.
  As I said before, previous generations have made tough decisions, 
tough decisions to ensure that your kids and grandkids would have a 
brighter future. The budget presented by the majority doesn't make 
those tough decisions. There is no question that our budget does 
require us to make tough decisions.
  We actually deal with the issue of entitlements, which is important 
for us to deal with because there is no way to balance the budget and 
begin to reduce the debt unless you begin to look at these entitlement 
programs where our generations made promises to ourselves that our kids 
and grandkids can't afford. We need to do it in a responsible way. We 
need to do it in a bipartisan way to preserve these, perhaps to help 
those people who depend upon them, but also to make them affordable for 
our kids and grandkids who get to pay the bill.
  And so we do make tough decisions. And that's the real point of why 
the American people send us here. They send us here to make the 
decisions on behalf of our country, on behalf of their kids and 
grandkids. And we can't just run away from those decisions--which was 
represented by the Democrat budget--we have to make them. And when we 
don't make those decisions, those tough decisions, it's our kids and 
grandkids who are going to pay the price: higher taxes, bigger 
government, and most importantly, less opportunities for them.
  You know, one thing that has been great about America is that we 
allow the American people to keep more of what they earn in our budget, 
small businesses to keep more of what they earn. They are the engines 
of economic growth. They are the engines of opportunity in America. 
Most of you have traveled around the world and you know, there is no 
country like ours. None anywhere in the world. Why? Because in America, 
you can grow up and be anything you want to be, you can do anything you 
want to do.
  And the reason for that is we have a system that allows the American 
people to keep more of their money, to make decisions for themselves 
and their own family. We have opportunities, opportunities you don't 
see any place else in the world.
  The budget presented by the majority will stamp out those 
opportunities because the economic growth that we will have as a result 
of this budget will slow dramatically, and when you slow economic 
growth, you slow job creation in America and you slow down the 
opportunities available to our kids and grandkids to grow up and be 
anything that they want to be.
  I would suggest to my colleagues it's time to say ``no'' to the 
irresponsible spending plan, taxing plan, and borrowing plan presented 
by the majority and to support the Republican alternative, which 
requires us to make the tough decisions that the American people sent 
us here to make.
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for 20 
minutes.
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York, the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means 
Committee, Mr. Rangel.

[[Page H4479]]

  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Madam Chairman, our minority leader said that it's time 
for us to say ``no.'' Well, that's all they've been saying since we've 
been involved in this crisis and every issue that we brought to the 
floor, saying ``no.''
  Our great Nation is involved in a fiscal sickness that's equivalent 
to being in intensive care, and anyone who knows serious illness knows 
that is not the time to negotiate with your doctors or the hospitals as 
to how you've got to pay the bill. The essential thing is that we 
regain our health and come out of this as America always has, as a 
stronger, more competitive country.
  Our President is going abroad trying to get the rest of the world to 
get some type of fiscal order. But we aren't down here to have 
Republican budgets and Democrat budgets and to take shots at each 
other, because our constituents that are losing their jobs, losing 
their health care, that are out there suffering as a result of this 
crisis, they are not Republicans or Democrats. They are Americans.
  No. I don't think it's time to say ``no.'' I think it's time to say, 
how can we work together to restore the health of this great Nation? 
How can we educate the Nation? Give it health care, help to clean the 
atmosphere, move forward as the world leaders that God blessed us to 
have the resources.
  It's time to stop the fighting and come together and support our 
President, our economy and our country.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, this has been a long day, a long 
couple of days. We're talking about the fiscal future of America.
  Here is the budget we propose. There is something that's important, 
that's worth saying. Obviously we don't like the majority's budget, the 
President's budget, and I believe it's incumbent upon us to offer an 
alternative. So that's what we're doing here today.
  I want to walk you through our alternative.
  A couple of things off the bat.
  It has lower deficits, lower spending, lower taxes, lower debt, and a 
lot more jobs. Specifically on spending, our budget spends $4.8 
trillion less than the majority's budget.
  Deficits. Our budget has lower deficits than the Obama-Spratt budget 
throughout the entire period, and half of it at the end of the period.
  Jobs. We asked some economists to take a look at, well, which 
approach creates the most jobs, and they told us just in the fifth year 
alone you'd have more than two million more jobs under the Republican 
alternative than you would under the Democratic proposal, the Obama 
proposal. Why? Because they raise taxes on small businesses. They raise 
taxes on pensions, on the assets that make up our savings. They raise 
taxes on energy. They raise debt borrowing, which will lead to higher 
interest rates.
  But let me tell you something else. This is a long-run chart. My 
friends on the other side have sort of ridiculed bringing these long-
run charts to the floor.
  Let me read from a document published by the Brookings Institution 
and the Heritage Foundation. Signed by experts, economists, from the 
Concord Coalition, the Brookings Institution, the Heritage Foundation, 
the New America Foundation, the Progressive Policy Institute and the 
Urban Institutes. Not exactly your bastion of right-wing think tanks.
  They say on page 6, among their top recommendations, ``Congress and 
the President should enact explicit long-term budgets for Social 
Security, Medicare and Medicaid that are sustainable, that set limits 
on automatic spending growth that require review every 5 years.'' More 
importantly, they say the long-run cost of these programs should be 
visible in the budget at all times and considered when decisions are 
made.
  What are they saying? Let's think about the future when we're voting 
on these budgets. Let's think about what we're doing to the next 
generation.
  The President himself said this is the most transformative budget 
we've seen in a generation. We haven't seen the kinds of change that 
this budget proposes, the likes of which we haven't seen since the New 
Deal.
  So let's consider the ramifications of that. Let's think about what 
we're doing and the fiscal consequences of it.
  And so here's what the picture tells you.
  Spending. This budget puts us on a path of ever-higher spending to 
the point where my three children, who are 4, 5 and 7 years old, will 
see a government that is double the size of the one we have today, 
double the size of one we've ever had in this country.
  The Republican budget gets us back on track to keep the size of our 
government where it has always been so we can maximize freedom.
  What about debt?
  This is the tidal wave of red ink that all of the experts are telling 
us about. The General Accountability Office, the Congressional Budget 
Office, left and right economists from all around. The point is we 
shouldn't be looking down the road 5 years, 10 years.
  You know what? I have a mom. She is 75 years old. I have got my kids. 
I just told you how old they were. I'm in the X generation. What we do 
here affects all of those people. And so when we pass these bills, they 
have consequences for everybody in America. And when you see that this 
budget--which, by the way, is being generous to the Obama-Spratt mark--
this budget underestimates the fiscal damage their budget will do. It 
is an island of red ink. It is a future of a banana republic of 
borrowing. And we say let's not do that.
  And you know what? If you start now, these reforms are compassionate. 
The reforms we're seeing over the next 10 years are, instead of growing 
mandatory spending at 5.3 percent, let's grow it at 3.9 percent. It's 
more than double the rate of inflation right now. We're saying for 
discretionary spending we gave all of these government agencies giant 
increases in just the last couple of years. They are fat. Let's put 
them on a diet for a little while. Let's freeze spending, prioritize 
spending and then have modest increases after that so we can save our 
country, save our fiscal future.
  That's what we're saying. Let's not get in this vicious spiral, as 
the Obama budget does, of chasing ever-higher spending with ever-higher 
taxes that never quite catch that spending and gives us ever-higher 
debt.
  It's wrong. It's unconscionable. It's going to hurt our economy. It's 
going to bankrupt our country. It's going to give our children a lower 
standard of living.
  At the end of the day, it comes down to this. I asked the 
Congressional Budget Office, well, what about the standard of living of 
future Americans? What will the standard of living look like on the 
current pathway we are on in America? Not the Obama budget but just the 
current pathway before you would pass this big government budget. And 
they said this: Inferior standards of living. That's the red line.
  We are basically consigning the next generation quantifiably, 
irrefutably to a lower standard of living. That severs the tie between 
our generations. That breaks the bond in this country, the legacy, that 
says each generation takes on its responsibilities, fixes its problems 
so that the next generation is better off.
  You know, my dad told me a number of things when I was a young guy, 
and he passed away when I was a kid. But I remember a couple of things 
he always told me. Number one, don't just be part of the problem, be 
part of the solution. So we're offering a solution. Number two, the 
great thing about this country is each generation makes it better off 
for the next, and you better do that when you're my age.
  Our budget, according to the Congressional Budget Office, says that 
the standard of living of Americans in the future currently and 
consistently goes upwards. We are putting, in this budget, people on 
the path for prosperity so that we can leave the next generation better 
off.

                              {time}  1745

  And we are offering an economic plan for right now to get jobs back 
in this economy. We're offering an economic plan that shows we're going 
to create more jobs.
  The answers all don't flow out of Washington. The answers come from 
individual Americans. That's the power of this country. That's the idea 
of this country. The nucleus of our country, of our society, of our 
economy, the genius of it are the American people themselves, not 
Washington bureaucrats,

[[Page H4480]]

not the idea that we have to take more money and more power away from 
the people and spend it on their behalf and exercise it on their 
behalf.
  Unfortunately, that is the arrogant, paternalistic notion that is 
being brought to the floor here by the budget that the American people 
are being asked to swallow. I think it's wrong. I think it's dead 
wrong, and we're following the advice of all the fiscal experts from 
the left and from the right who are saying think about the 
consequences, think about the future, think about what your actions are 
doing.
  That's what we are doing, and that is why I argue for our budget, a 
sensible budget, a commonsense budget, a budget that says to senior 
citizens, we can protect your benefits right now if we act to save them 
for the future. Here's the problem. These programs themselves grow 
themselves right into extinction. If we don't reform these programs, we 
can't protect those who are in and near retirement from those cuts. If 
you act now, we can protect people who are in and near retirement. If 
we don't act now, we can't.
  That's what's wrong about the politics of demagoguery of taking on 
these challenges, and that is why we need to be grownups and adults and 
tackle these fiscal challenges before they tackle us.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. This substitute budget is a shortsighted attempt to 
short-circuit essential investments in our economic recovery and long-
term growth. It takes back resources for long overdue investments in 
education and health care and in energy.
  A $29 billion cut to income security programs over 10 years, $25 
billion of which comes from critical nutrition program increases. The 
kind of investments that conservative economists tell us have the most 
powerful stimulative impact, $1.73 in economic growth created for every 
dollar spent, if only it were allowed to reach families in need.
  But it does not end there. This Republican substitute budget creates 
even more dramatic reductions in nutrition programs by requiring the 
Agriculture Committee to cut $38 billion over 10 years. This is cutting 
food programs for hungry kids. We know what the devastating effects of 
unemployment, the cutoff of benefits for health care, that people today 
are going to food pantries who never thought in their lives they would 
have to do that.
  A gentleman who says I have to take care of my kids, I never thought 
I would go to a food pantry, I was humiliated, and I felt like a 
lowlife, but my kids need to eat. That's what this budget would cut, 
nutrition programs.
  To be sure, the committee could reach a target here by reducing farm 
price supports, but the gentleman from Wisconsin has said that he will 
not open the farm bill. That means that the nutrition programs are the 
only place to do their cutting, leaving millions of families, seniors, 
women, and children to pay the price.
  Our opponents have just trotted out the failed programs of the past, 
and they are dealing with $3.3 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield the gentlelady 30 additional seconds.
  Ms. DeLAURO. They simply ignore urgent challenges that we face as a 
Nation. They pour $3.3 trillion into tax cuts over 10 years, most of it 
going to the wealthiest Americans.
  This budget is the last thing our economy needs now or down the road: 
the kind of drastic cuts to essential services that will raise costs, 
which will destroy our ability to compete and to grow. It's a relic of 
8 long years of a failed economic policy of the Bush administration. 
The American public rejected it. I urge my colleagues to think 
realistically about our national challenge and to oppose this 
substitute budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, if you ever wonder what a third Bush 
term would look like, this is it. This is a budget plan that maintains 
the tax breaks for the wealthiest people in America, pays for it by 
giving people 55 and under a voucher to go fend for themselves in the 
insurance market instead of Medicare, which I think would pay maybe 80 
percent of what it costs.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Would the gentleman care to yield on that 
point?
  Mr. ANDREWS. I only have 1 minute. If you give me some of your time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Would you yield for a correction?
  Mr. ANDREWS. Well, I tell you what, when you get your time, I'll 
answer your question.
  It would privatize Social Security. It would squeeze money out of the 
Social Security system.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. There's no privatization of Social Security in 
this bill. Can you show me where that is in this bill, please?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman will suspend.
  Mr. ANDREWS. May I continue?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has the time.
  Mr. ANDREWS. It continues the enormously successful policy of 
deregulation that has brought us to the brink of financial disaster. It 
doesn't work. It doesn't work. For every one job this approach has 
created, our approach has created 108.
  We shouldn't go back to a sequel for a movie that was so bad to begin 
with.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 10 seconds to say, show me 
where Social Security is privatized. Show me where there is 
deregulation. There's not even the word ``deregulation'' in this bill, 
and all we're saying on Medicare for younger people, so we can save the 
program, why don't we let them have a program like the one we have in 
Congress. We have a good health care program. I think it's worthy of 
theirs.
  With that, Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence), the chairman of the House Republican Conference.
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. The budget brought by the majority to the floor today 
spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much, and the American 
people know it.
  The Democrat budget will double the national debt in 5 years, triple 
it in 10. 2010 spending: $3 trillion. More than $1 trillion in tax 
increases in a recession, and deficits of nearly $1 trillion a year for 
the next 10 years.
  Truth is the Democrat majority has brought to this floor the most 
fiscally irresponsible budget in American history.
  While every American family and every small business is answering 
these challenging times of sacrifice and frugality, the majority in 
this Congress continues to believe that we can borrow and spend and 
bail our way back to a growing economy. But not Republicans.
  Thanks to the bold and innovative leadership of the ranking member of 
the Budget Committee, Congressman Paul Ryan, Republicans have a better 
solution. In stark contrast to the Democratic budget, the Republican 
budget alternative puts America on a path to prosperity, spends nearly 
$5 trillion less than the Democrats' budget over 10 years, brings debt 
under control, borrowing nearly $4 trillion less than the Democrat 
budget over 10, and it does not raise taxes.
  Creating 2.1 million more jobs than the Democrat budget, this 
Republican alternative puts its faith in individuals and businesses and 
private sector. Suspending capital gains taxes, reforming the tax code, 
reducing the corporate tax rate so we can keep American jobs here.
  And even while we do so, we fund our national priorities, increasing 
defense, increasing veterans, providing for healthy retirement 
security, and touching not one cent of the Social Security program and 
trust fund.
  I urge my Democrats to do the unexpected, as Daniel Webster says on 
the wall just before us, Let us do something in this generation. Let us 
perform something worthy to be remembered.
  Embrace bipartisanship today. Embrace fiscal discipline, tax relief, 
and reform. I say to my Democratic colleagues with the deepest respect, 
say ``yes'' to the American people. Vote ``yes'' on the Republican 
budget alternative.

[[Page H4481]]

  Mr. SPRATT. I yield myself 3 minutes.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin and I are good friends. We work together 
collegially and cordially, and I don't lightly disagree with him, but I 
have to take profound exception here, because the budget he proposes 
before us would lay out draconian cuts in spending, $2.4 trillion. 
We're talking about real money over 10 years. These are made in the 
name of deficit reduction, and they cover the spectrum.
  Eleven committees are reconciled with instructions to make enormous 
spending reduction: Energy and Commerce, $666 billion; Ways and Means, 
$695 billion; Financial Services, that's housing, $28 billion. All 
together $1.380 trillion in spending cuts is reconciled to 11 
committees, and on top of that, it appears that Medicaid and CHIP would 
be block granted.
  This is serious stuff. And I've only begun, because this just applies 
to mandatory spending. More is in store when you go to discretionary 
spending. There's $1 trillion of cost reductions there, achieved by 
imposing a freeze for five straight years on all discretionary programs 
except defense and veterans. That's education, that's infrastructure, 
that's science, NIH, NSF, public health, food safety. The list goes on, 
frozen for five straight years.
  For all the havoc and hurt that's wreaked by this draconian plan, 
what do we gain? Very little on the bottom line. That's because the 
$2.4 trillion in spending cuts is more than offset by $3.6 trillion in 
tax cuts.
  Under the guise of deficit reduction, more tax cuts are provided for 
the upper brackets. According to the Citizens for Tax Justice, 25 
percent of all Americans would face a tax increase under this budget 
proposal. The wealthiest 1 percent would get $100,000 or more. Those 
are not my numbers but theirs.
  This is not the way to go. This is not the way to go to a deficit 
reduction plan. This is not the way to go if we have any respect for 
the values that are embodied in this budget. This is something we 
should all vote down.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, may I inquire about the time.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 8 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from South Carolina has 13 minutes remaining.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I will wait to let them get caught up.
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, Mr. Ryan said earlier 
that this vote is ``all about freedom,'' and I agree.
  Almost 70 years ago, President Franklin Roosevelt stood in this 
chamber to report on the State of the Union. He called for a world 
founded on four essential freedoms: freedom of expression; freedom of 
religion; freedom of fear; and freedom from want. He explained that 
freedom from want means securing a healthy, peacetime life for all of 
our people.
  In that same address, President Roosevelt called for ending the 
special privileges for the few, a wider and constantly rising standard 
of living, and widening the opportunities for adequate medical care.
  By those measures, tens of millions of Americans are less free now 
than their parents were, and they worry that their children will be 
less free still.
  This Republican budget drastically reduces, even more than they have 
been reduced in recent years, the taxes on the richest Americans, 
including those whose heedless greed created the economic crisis that 
we now face. That, our colleagues in the minority proclaim, is what 
freedom means.
  Their budget again cheats education, health care, energy. The 
majority budget invests in education, health care, in energy, 
investments that are long overdue. The majority budget creates 
opportunities and provides a liberating hope for middle-class families 
that they can climb out of desperate debt and enjoy a widening 
prosperity.
  Vote for freedom from want. Vote for the majority budget. Vote 
against this Republican budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. I thank very much the gentleman from South 
Carolina.
  Let me just be very, very brief. I want to take a moment to point out 
the fallacies in the Republicans' plan.
  First of all, the Republicans' plan is based on the weakest effort to 
try to deal with an economy that is receding. It is of little value to 
base your plan on tax cuts at a time when the economy is in recession, 
at a time when the economy is, in many cases, in a depression.

                              {time}  1800

  We are losing, on average, 620,000 jobs every month, Madam Chair. 
That's 21,000 every day. How in the world are we going to make an 
economic policy based upon tax cuts, which are based upon income, when 
the income levels of our country is going down?
  There's a reason why this country supports what the Democrats are 
doing under this Democrat President by over 60 percent. And that is 
because we understand what this economy needs now is growth--and the 
best way to get this economy to grow is to invest in the American 
people. And when you invest in the American people, the best way to do 
that is in education--to get our people educated and strong, to be able 
to get them retrained to get the kind of jobs that we will need in a 
new, restructured economy.
  In terms of health care--not only to provide it in terms of lowering 
the cost, but to create jobs in the health care area. Nowhere is that 
need any greater in terms of jobs than in energy dependence.
  That's why the American people are supporting the Democratic 
initiatives on this, and I urge a positive vote for this budget 
resolution.
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chair, how much time remains on this side?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina has 10 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield myself 4 minutes.
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. As we near the end of this long debate, I want to speak 
to those who are still weighing their vote and to any who are still 
wavering. To them--in fact, everybody--let me say that with respect to 
our resolution, if you want to vote for bold initiatives, like health 
care for the millions who don't have insurance, our resolution lays out 
the framework for helping that to happen, and for funding it so that 
the net cost is not added to the deficit.
  If you want to say to the next child you meet in a classroom, ``You 
can go to college. Yes, you can go to college. Yes, you can. You can go 
because Pell Grants will help pay the way if you do your studies and 
work hard.'' If you want to look that child in the eye and say just 
that, our resolution is the resolution you should vote for.
  If you want to vote for tax reduction, this resolution supports $1.7 
trillion in net tax reduction over 10 years, including all the middle-
income tax cuts that we passed in 2001 and 2003. And that's not my 
contention; that's CBO's conclusion after reviewing this budget.
  If you want to vote for deficit reduction, our resolution reduces 
this year's deficit of $1.8 trillion--an unwelcome inheritance from the 
last administration--our resolution reduces that deficit by two-thirds, 
down to $586 billion by the year 2013, when it would be 3.5 percent of 
GDP--roughly the growth rate that year.
  If you want to be sure in voting for the deficit reduction that the 
deficit will actually be reduced, our party is the party that balanced 
this budget in 1998; our party is the party that paid off $400 billion 
in Treasury debt; and our party is the party that left President Bush a 
surplus of $236 billion the year before he came--$5.6 trillion over the 
next 10 years of his administration.
  We wiped out the deficit. They wiped out the surplus. Not only did 
they wipe out the surplus, they ran up more than $5 trillion in debt 
and left us a tab of $1.752 trillion in deficit, which we're struggling 
with right now in the well of this House, and will be for years to 
come. So when it comes to deficit reduction, we rest our case on the 
record.
  If you want to show where cost savings have been achieved because of 
the budget you vote for, this resolution saves significant sums by 
converting

[[Page H4482]]

guaranteed student loans to direct DOE loans; we save billions more by 
funding agencies like the IRS, HHS, Labor, and SSA, to wipe out waste, 
fraud, and abuse; and we save $176 billion over 10 years by competing 
Medicare Advantage plans. If you want reasons why you should vote, 
we've got them.
  Finally, if you're still swayed by the other side's rhetoric, let me 
offer in evidence exhibit A on this poster right beside me. This chart 
is a simple side-by-side that shows what Democrats accomplished in the 
1980s compared to what Republicans have accomplished since 2001.
  Average monthly job growth. This is really dramatic. The Clinton 
administration, Democrats in the 1990s, 217,000 jobs every month in job 
creation. Republicans, 2,000, as opposed to 271,000. This is a matter 
of record.
  Net job creation, 22.7 million jobs. That's the net accomplishment of 
the Clinton administration. The Bush administration's net 
accomplishment, 1.9 million. Percentage of Americans living in poverty 
during the Clinton administration, 3.8 percent reduction. During the 
Bush administration, eight-tenths of a percentage point increase.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield myself 30 additional seconds.
  Americans without health care or health coverage dropped from 15.3 
percent to 13.7 percent in the Clinton years, then went back up to 15.3 
in the Bush years.
  These facts speak louder than anything I can say. The difference 
between us is profound. If you want to know whom you can believe, 
trust, and put your faith in with respect to economic planning, just 
remember what we did in the 1990s, and what we can do in the period we 
have now with the President we have and the program we're trying to 
devise.
  Vote for the base resolution--the House Democratic resolution.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, at this time I'd like to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  (Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHADEGG. What we just heard was something rather amazing--it is 
that you can get something for nothing. But as Americans know, that 
simply isn't true. Indeed, what you get for spending is debt or higher 
taxes. And there are some facts in this debate.
  We spent a lot of time discussing today whether or not the cap-and-
trade program is a tax. The majority side said, ``Oh, no, no, it's not 
a tax.'' But in the Obama budget it produces $647 billion for the 
government. That's an additional weight on every single American--not 
just taxpayers--but every single American. That's higher energy costs, 
that's higher costs for everything we buy.
  Now let's talk about some of the facts.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHADEGG. I will yield like you yielded earlier.
  The largest tax increase in our history--$1.4 trillion over 10 years. 
It contains the largest deficit--$1.8 trillion in 2009. Four times 
larger than the previous record of $407 billion, the largest deficit as 
a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product since World War II, and the 
largest national debt.
  I would suggest to you there are facts in this debate. Those facts 
include that the Republican budget which was put together by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) spends $4.8 trillion less than the 
Democrat budget, and it borrows $3.6 trillion less than the Obama 
budget.
  So what does that mean? What it means is that if we pass the Democrat 
budget, we are rapidly going on the path of becoming--not the greatest 
generation, which is what our parents and grandparents created, and 
gave us the defeat of fascism, the advancement of freedom, and putting 
America on a course to a level of prosperity we have never before seen.
  What we are going to give our children, what we are going to give our 
grandchildren, is the most reckless generation--a generation that is 
driving itself deeper and deeper and deeper into debt.
  It stuns me that the other side was so concerned when my Republican 
colleagues were overspending, but not concerned today. Well, this 
budget that the Democrats have proposed will double the national debt 
in 5 years, triple it in 10. The facts are there.
  We cannot do this to the greatest generation or to the next 
generation. Let's not become the reckless generation.
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of our 
Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).
  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Republican substitute, and thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Among its many shortcomings, this proposal slashes funding for the 
international affairs budget 20 percent below the President's request, 
and 10 percent below this year's spending level. This may be a 
politically appealing thing to do, but it is as shortsighted and 
irresponsible and harmful as any other aspect of this proposal--harmful 
to our national security, harmful to our national interests.
  For far too long we have failed to invest adequate resources in our 
civilian foreign affairs agencies. The State Department has been so 
starved for funds that a full 11 percent of its overseas diplomatic 
posts remain unfilled. The U.S. Agency for International Development 
now relies on only five engineers to oversee hundreds of infrastructure 
projects around the world.
  This glaring void in our civilian capacity is increasingly being 
filled by the military. Our brave men and women in uniform follow 
orders and do the best they can, but they are trained to be 
warfighters, not development and reconstruction professionals.
  That's why Defense Secretary Gates called, according to the 
newspapers, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Conrad last week to plead 
for more money--not for the Pentagon, but for the international affairs 
budget.
  The draconian cuts proposed in this substitute could have a direct 
impact on the success of our efforts to stabilize Afghanistan. 
President Obama has correctly recognized that the fight against al 
Qaeda and the Taliban cannot be won by military means alone.
  In addition to 21,000 additional troops, he's proposed sending 
hundreds of agriculture and development specialists to help that war-
torn country get back on its feet. This budget would make that possible 
because there's no way they could absorb the additional cuts and still 
do that mission.
  I would suggest that the President's number, and not the Republican 
proposal and not the Ryan substitute, is the fiscally conservative 
position in this debate.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this substitute.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, the gentleman is correct. We 
don't have the President's request to increase the State Department's 
budget by 51 percent. We are guilty as charged.
  With that I would like to yield 2 minutes to the minority whip, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin. First of all, Madam 
Chair, the American people are looking at us today to see if there is 
actually going to be a real connection between what this place is about 
and what people are going through every single day in the communities 
across this country.
  Job number one for us is to get the economy back on track. And the 
way we do that is to promote job creation. There is, without a doubt, 
an attack on the job creators on the part of the budget being brought 
forward by the majority.
  How in the world do we expect small businesses to create jobs if 
we're taxing small businesses? In fact, 50 percent of those individuals 
who receive a tax hike on the majority's budget are small businesses. 
And if you've got more employees, you've got higher taxes. That doesn't 
make sense.
  Some of the other accusations are, How do you think you can bring the 
economy back by lowering taxes? Well, you know, how are we going to 
bring the economy back by just cranking up government spending? At 
best, what we do in government spending is redistribute wealth.
  We need to get back to creating wealth, creating prosperity.

[[Page H4483]]

  Madam Chair, there are two divergent views in this House today, there 
is no question about it. One, the majority's budget is about preserving 
the status quo, it is about investing in Washington. The other, in Mr. 
Ryan's budget, our alternative, is about promoting opportunity. It is 
about promoting what is best for small businesses and working families 
in this country.
  America has always been more about opportunity. Yes, we want to 
promote security--financial security. But the way we do that is to 
promote opportunity.
  I hear so many of the old, tired scare tactics coming from the 
majority: The Republicans--all they will do is ruin Social Security.
  We have provisions in our document which say we hold Social Security 
harmless. The seniors are protected.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. CANTOR. I hear from the other side that somehow we are cutting 
real money out of the budget. Well, you are darn right we are cutting 
real money out of the budget. What do you think the working families of 
this country are having to do every single day? They are having to 
tighten their belts. They are having to see about how they are actually 
going to make it through the month and pay the mortgage and pay the 
bills.
  So, yes, our budget alternative reduces the borrowing that goes on, 
that borrows the money that we don't have. It reduces it by 21 percent. 
It lessens the spending by almost $5 trillion.
  Ladies and gentlemen of the House, it is high time that we become 
responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars. As the gentleman from 
Wisconsin said, we owe it to the people that we represent. We owe it to 
the working families, to the small business people, to the single 
working moms out there who are worried about their jobs and the fact 
that investors are on the sidelines. We owe it to them to try and 
reinstill the confidence. We have got to set the example. The way we 
set the example is to be responsible. We have got to lay a path for the 
future and show that we are good fiscal stewards of the taxpayer 
dollars.
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle--and I attempted to claim 
the attention of my friend from Arizona when not once but twice today 
he talked about somehow a $600 billion tax on the American people. I 
was trying to get his attention to refer to the reserve funds on page 
53 for him to look at to find where that number is. Where is that 
number in the budget proposal before us?
  Mr. SHADEGG. On page 30. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. The reserve fund has no number. It is on page 53.
  Mr. SHADEGG. First of all----
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I only have a few seconds.
  Mr. SHADEGG. If the gentleman will yield.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. The point is, the people ought to look at the budget, 
at the reserve fund.
  Mr. SHADEGG. If the gentleman will yield.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. And find that it is deficit-neutral, and that the 
opportunity is here for us to address the climate change. I strongly 
urge that people refer to it.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. We have no more speakers. So if the chairman 
would finish his round of speakers, then that would be great with us. I 
understand the gentleman reserves the right to close, and I would just 
like to know when his last speaker is up.
  Mr. SPRATT. We have the right to close, I believe. We have one more 
speaker, and we will close with that speaker.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. The next speaker was quoted a couple years ago 
as saying about our Republican budget when we had a deficit of $248 
billion, ``This constitutes nothing less than fiscal child abuse, 
because they will morally force our children and grandchildren to pay 
our bills.''
  I couldn't have said it better myself, Madam Chair. That is exactly 
what is happening. But the budget deficit is not $248 billion, it is 
$1.8 trillion. We don't even get close to $248 billion under these 
budgets.
  Yes, we have a tough fiscal situation. We have inherited it. I guess 
you could say so. The question is, what are we doing about it? Are we 
make it better, or are we making it worse?
  The President's budget, which is here on the floor, makes it so much 
worse. It doubles the debt in 5\1/2\ years and triples it in 10. 
Massive tax increases in the middle of a recession, on everyone, and 
chases ever-higher spending with ever-higher taxes forever.
  We have different ideas. We have differences. Nowhere else is it more 
clear about the differences between our two parties than it is today.
  The gentleman has spent the last 20 minutes criticizing us for 
cutting spending. Guilty as charged. Yes, we need to cut spending. Wow. 
I said it. Holy cow. In Washington. A novel idea.

  You know what? We spend too much money in this government. We have 
got to prioritize spending.
  The American people, guess what, this is their money. We don't just 
make it up. Well, actually, they are printing a lot of it down at the 
Federal Reserve now, more than they should. This comes from the 
American people. It is their money. If you keep taking it away from 
them, do you know what happens at the end of the day, Madam Chair? They 
don't have as much freedom. They don't have the ability to put 
groceries on the table. They don't have the ability to pay their 
mortgage, which might be underwater.
  The engine of the economy of this country is not its government, it 
is its people, and we believe that we need to get serious about our 
fiscal situation. Don't raise taxes in a recession. Don't borrow and 
spend your way to prosperity. It never worked in any other country. Why 
would it work here?
  Let's get our fiscal house in order. Let's get our deficit down. 
Let's get our borrowing down. Let's get our taxes down. Let's get more 
jobs and more freedom in this economy. That is exactly what our budget 
does. It is responsible, it is serious, and it gives me the ability to 
go home on the airplane tomorrow and look my three kids in the eyes 
when I hug them and kiss them and tell them, ``I just made right by you 
because I just went to work to make your future better.'' I am going to 
go home with a clear conscience. I hope you can say the same.
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chair, I yield the balance of our time to our 
distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 2\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the Chair, and I thank the chairman for yielding, 
and I rise with great respect for the quality of character and the 
quality of intellect that he brings to his job, one of the most 
important jobs we have in this Congress.
  I also rise with great respect for the ranking member, Mr. Ryan. I 
like Mr. Ryan. I think Mr. Ryan is a very bright, able, conscientious, 
honest Representative.
  By the way, as an aside I will tell the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Shadegg) who called our attention to page 30, page 30 is a blank page.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. He was talking about the text of the 
resolution.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Ryan gave my quote. I believed that then and I believe 
it now. I believe we've pursued for too long policies of fiscal 
irresponsibility, a concept that we need not pay for what we bought. I 
believe it was called supply side economics, which to me meant that if 
you do less, you get more. Nothing I have done in my life instructs me 
that if I do less, I get more.
  But because the gentleman used a quote of mine, I thought it might be 
nice to use a quote of his. May 4, 2003, the Journal Sentinel:
  ``Is the deficit a concern?'' This is a quote. ``Absolutely. But 
Congress should not constrain economic growth and keep people out of 
work to pay down the deficit. Coping with the deficit requires getting 
the economy growing at a more robust rate and getting people back to 
work. More people with jobs means more tax revenue being generated. 
This will help us pay down the deficit more quickly and address the 
financial challenges facing

[[Page H4484]]

Social Security and Medicare as the baby boom generation retires.'' My, 
my, my.
  Mr. Ryan, you don't seem to feel that way now. The fact of the matter 
is the Obama administration handed us an inheritance.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Will my friend yield for a moment on that?
  Mr. HOYER. Certainly.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. The deficit went down after that comment, down 
to $162 billion, which was the last year when we had control. $162 
billion. So it actually went down because jobs went up.
  Mr. HOYER. You mean the deficit was lower.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. No. The deficit was higher in 2003 and it went 
down in 2006 to $162 billion because of higher economic growth. And 
that is what we were trying to advocate for, getting the deficit down, 
keeping taxes low, getting people into work.
  And you know what--we should have done a better job on spending, and 
on that you are right.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I am glad the gentleman went there.
  The gentleman knows that under President Clinton we had a $5.6 
trillion surplus projected. Not by Clinton, but by George Bush. When he 
took office in March of 2001, he said, ``I have inherited a $5.6 
trillion surplus.'' And, indeed, in the year before the Bush 
administration came to office, I tell my friend from Wisconsin, we 
created in that last year 1.9 million new jobs.
  Mr. Spratt spoke of the average 217,000 jobs per month. You need 
about 100,000 new jobs per month to stay even. Two hundred thirty 
thousand jobs per month were created, on average. Some months were a 
lot higher.
  Two million new jobs in the last year of the Clinton administration. 
And what happened in the last year of the Bush administration? After 8 
years of the economic policies that you pursued and for 6 years had 
total hegemony, total control, what happened? You heard the figures of 
unemployment, but you doubled the deficit from $5 trillion to $10 
trillion--the debt, not the deficit. That was the result of your 
economic policy.
  I heard the former chairman of the RSC--I was constrained to come to 
the floor, but my staff tied me down--who said, ladies and gentlemen, 
that we have been in office for 50 days and look what has happened to 
the country. Nobody in America thought that was a credible statement. 
Nobody.
  The policies of the last 8 years have led to the worst economy that 
we have seen in this country in over a half a century. Some of us stood 
on this floor and said that is what would happen. We did it because we 
were fiscally irresponsible and because we were regulatorily negligent. 
We took the referees off the field. We pretended that the private 
sector would referee itself, that they would manage risk responsibly. 
They did not.
  And the gentleman from Texas to whom I am referring said we didn't 
care about his children. That is not right. If he loses his job, we 
provided as our first bill that his children will have the availability 
of health care. But we want to provide his children, my children, my 
grandchildren, and, yes, my great granddaughter, with a fiscally sound 
Nation. It is not there now, and it will not be next year, and it won't 
be the year after, because the hole we have dug is so extraordinarily 
deep that it will take years and years of discipline to get us back to 
where we were on January 19, 2001. I think everybody in this House 
wants to do that, but we have different views of how you do that.
  I have served in this House, as the gentleman has heard me say 
before, now 29 years. Eight of those years have been under a Democratic 
President, Bill Clinton; 20 of those years under Republicans. Every 
single year of a Republican Presidency since 1981 has run deep 
deficits, every one, without failure.
  Now what is the significance of that, you might say? It is that a 
President alone can stop spending. The only one that can stop spending. 
I can vote against spending, my friend Mr. Ryan can vote against 
spending, but we need 217 other people to do the same. Only the 
President of the United States by vetoing spending can say ``no.'' 
President Bush signed bills and presided over an economy that resulted 
in the doubling of the national debt.
  And so, my friends, we come to a responsible budget, but not the 
budget any of us would like. Why? Because, as they lament on the 
Republican side of the aisle, the deficits are too high. They are 
right. I agree with that. I don't like these deficits. I prefer to vote 
for balanced budgets. I voted for a balanced budget amendment. And, 
very frankly, had we had a balanced budget amendment, we would be in 
much better shape today, because you couldn't have enacted your tax 
cuts because you would have had to have paid for them.

                              {time}  1830

  Because you would have had to pay for them, and while you were very 
prepared to give the wealthiest in America big tax cuts, you were not 
prepared to pay for them, perhaps because of the logic that you 
expressed in that article of 2003.
  My friends, we have an important decision to make. That decision is 
whether or not our investments in the future will continue by the 
adoption of this budget. We adopted, under the Bush administration, the 
Troubled Assets Relief Program. There was disagreement on that, not 
between Mr. Ryan and myself. We believed that was necessary. We didn't 
like it, too much money, too much debt and too much borrowing. But we 
thought it essential to bring this economy back and to stabilize it and 
to try to keep jobs. It hasn't yet succeeded. And we have lost far too 
many jobs. Too much pain in America, too many people without a job, too 
many families who aren't sure where their next meal is coming from or 
how they are going to pay their mortgage payment or how they are going 
to send their kids to school. There are too many Americans in pain.
  Now we can, in my view, deeply cut those items which are there to 
help people in pain and trouble, as I believe your budget does. Or we 
can do what Mr. Spratt has recommended, bring the deficit down, not to 
where we would like it, but bring it down substantially, about 3.5 
percent of the gross domestic product by 2015 as opposed to 10.5 now. 
Is that too high? It is. Would I like it lower? I would.
  But I tell my friends that this is a responsible budget, not just for 
today but for the long term, because although we had a Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act, that was to staunch the decline, the fiscal crisis 
and the economic crisis and the job crisis and the health care crisis 
that we inherited from the Bush administration.
  That is why I'm going to vote for this budget. That is why I urge 
each and every one of my colleagues to vote for this budget, because it 
invests in the health care of our people. It invests in the energy 
independence, and therefore the national security of our people. And 
yes, it provides for the national security. There are two wars that are 
going on. This budget provides that we will respond to them and keep 
our people safe. But it also responds to the need to keep people safe 
right here at home. That is why I will vote for this budget. That is 
why I urge each and every one of you to support this budget, not 
because it does what we would like it to do, as so many of my 
Republican colleagues have urged us, but those same colleagues 
indicated to me that their budgets would balance the budget and would 
cut spending.
  Because there has been so much talk of spending on your side of the 
aisle, Mr. Ryan, I remind you that under the Clinton administration, 
discretionary spending rose at a rate of 3.5 percent. However, with you 
totally in control, it rose 7 percent. You doubled spending. So it 
rings hollow to say that it is spending we ought to cut. You cut taxes, 
and you increased spending.
  This is a tough budget. It is tougher than a lot of people would 
like. It is tougher than Mr. Berman would like. Because he knows there 
are children all over this world that we are helping stay healthy, kept 
alive by feeding. And allies kept on our side when we confront 
terrorists. This is a tough budget. The Budget Committee made tough 
decisions, but they were right decisions, right for our country and 
right for our people.
  Support the Spratt budget. Make America better.
  Madam Chair, today, with the passage of this budget resolution, the 
House has the opportunity to set America's priorities for years to come 
and build a sustainable, widely shared recovery.

[[Page H4485]]

  Along with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, this budget is 
a key part of our return to prosperity; it provides the long-term 
investments that will make prosperity last.
  Today we have a chance to begin bringing down the cost of healthcare; 
breaking our addiction to foreign oil; creating the best-prepared 
workforce in the world; and returning America to fiscal health.
  On healthcare, it is clear that rising costs are straining American 
families and crippling American businesses.
  Family premiums have more than doubled since 2000, and over the past 
five years, our total healthcare spending has increased at more than 
twice the rate of inflation, consuming more of our economy and our 
budget each year.
  This budget is the start of efforts to reverse that disastrous trend. 
It makes a significant down-payment on reform, taking steps to lower 
healthcare costs, improve quality, and expand access.
  Healthcare reform is also key to entitlement reform, because we will 
never be able to control the growth in Medicare and Medicaid spending 
as long as healthcare costs continue to increase at more than twice the 
rate of inflation.
  On energy, this budget increases support for energy independence 
programs by 18 percent. That includes incentives for the development of 
new technology and clean energy jobs; support for cutting-edge 
research; funding to start on an energy-efficient, money-saving 
national smart grid; and programs to help Government from the Federal 
to the local level save energy and money.
  On education, this budget builds upon the investments made in 
President Obama's recovery plan with additional support for early 
childhood education, elementary and secondary school students, and 
efforts to help more Americans obtain a college degree.
  It expands access to early childhood programs, makes college more 
affordable with increased Pell grants, and promotes job-training and 
significant education reform.
  A lasting recovery isn't simply about ending the turmoil in our 
financial markets--it's about having workers who are prepared to 
compete in the 21st-century economy with anyone in the world.
  Finally, this budget reverses the irresponsible Republican policies 
that turned record surpluses into record deficits and puts us back on a 
fiscally sustainable path.
  That begins with an honest accounting of where we are--an assessment 
that takes into account the cost of two wars.
  From that honest foundation, the budget cuts the deficit from 10.5 
percent of GDP in 2009 to 3.5 percent of GDP in 2013. In other words, 
we cut the deficit by nearly two-thirds.
  We do so by restraining spending, investing in oversight that saves 
taxpayer money, and, most importantly, reinstating the pay-as-you-go 
rule in law and requiring that new initiatives be paid for.
  Our Government must pay for what it buys.
  Republicans, by contrast, would abandon that discipline in favor of a 
$3.6 trillion tax cut, which the non-partisan tax policy center calls 
``by far, the largest tax cut in history''--one that goes almost 
exclusively to the richest Americans.
  Paying for tax breaks like those, as Mr. Ryan proposes to do, would 
require deep cuts to vital services. So taking the massive tax breaks 
to their logical conclusion, Republicans support cutting Medicare, 
Medicaid, and a host of other essential programs that are critical to 
our economic recovery.
  As the Washington Post notes today, the Ryan substitute would 
``freeze most Government spending for five years, halt spending 
approved in the economic stimulus package, and slash federal health 
programs for the poor and elderly.''
  When Republicans claim their budget will create jobs, they 
conveniently ignore the impact that the deep spending cuts in their 
plan would have on jobs.
  Virtually all economists, including conservatives such as Milton 
Friedman, agree that Government spending during a recession creates 
jobs.
  In fact, when we use the model of the conservative Heritage 
Foundation and take into account both tax cuts and spending cuts, we 
find that the Republican plan destroys jobs.
  Of course, Republicans have another option to finance their tax 
breaks--increasing our deficit and piling up our debt even higher. That 
would be in keeping with the fiscal ideology that has dominated among 
Republicans as long as I have served in this House, the dogma summed up 
by Vice President Cheney: ``Reagan proved deficits don't matter.''
  Our country has come to see the foolishness of that belief--and I 
think it has also come to see that only one party has a track record of 
responsibly reducing deficits. Chairman Spratt put it well: 
``Republicans turn surpluses into deficits. Democrats turn deficits 
into surpluses.''
  The Republican case on substance is truly weak--and their argument on 
process is weaker.
  Republicans have repeatedly decried this budget's use of the 
reconciliation process to provide for a majority, up-or-down vote on 
health care and education if Congress has not reached agreement on 
these issues so critical to our economic recovery.
  But the truth is that both parties have used reconciliation to 
implement the policies assumed in budget resolutions.
  Under President Bush, it was the Republican option of first resort to 
pass irresponsible tax cuts; under this budget, it is simply a fallback 
if partisanship blocks progress.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this budget--one of the most 
important votes they will take in this Congress.
  This is our chance to build the foundation for recovery and plan 
wisely for the long term. We cannot miss it.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, may I just ask unanimous consent 
for the purpose of thanking some staff?
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Wisconsin and the 
gentleman from South Carolina each will control 1 additional minute.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, we, on both sides of the aisle, 
have very hardworking budget staffers. And I just wanted to take a 
moment to thank them for all of their late nights and all of their hard 
work, starting with Austin Smythe staff director, Chauncey Goss, Tim 
Flynn, John Gray, Jim Herz, Matt Hoffmann, Charlotte Ivancic, Patrick 
L. Knudsen, Angela Kuck, Ted McCann, Stephen McMillin, Courtney 
Reinhard, Paul Restuccia, Jonathon Romito, Stephen Sepp, Conor Sweeney, 
Sarah Ulrich and Dana Wade; as well as our interns, who gave us the 
greatest free labor we ever get around here. And I want them to know 
that they should double whatever we are paying them. Jacquie Adams, 
Krysta Carlson, Michael Koutnik, Nicole Marquart, David Rabe, Kyle 
Roskam and Abigail Weinshel. Thank you, staff, for your hard work.
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chair, this has been a compressed period for 
producing a budget. An enormous amount of work has gone into the effort 
that is manifest on the floor here for the last couple of days. It 
never would have come to this fruition without their superior 
assistance. I want to recognize Tom Kahn, our staff director, my 
longstanding legislative aid and staff director, Sarah Abernathy, Ellen 
Balis, Arthur Burris, Linda Bywaters, Adam Carasso, Marsha Douglas, 
Stephen Elmore, Chuck Fant, Jason Freihage, Christen Green, Jose 
Guillen, Jennifer Hanson-Kilbride, Sheila McDowell, Dick Magee, Diana 
Meredith, Gail Millar, Morna Miller, Kimberly Overbeek, Scott Russell, 
Marcus Stephens, Naomi Stern, Lisa Venus, Greg Waring and Andrea 
Weathers; as well as Adam Brunelle and Andrew Fieldhouse.
  I also want to recognize the indispensable work done for both of us 
by Bob Weinhagen of the Office of Legislative Counsel and the staff of 
the Congressional Budget Office.
  This is a testament to what staff means to us and the kind of work 
they pull together in a short period of time. They make us look good. 
We couldn't do without them. They deserve our praises.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, this week the Majority Party, through this 
budget, has declared that they stand for bigger government, more taxes, 
and higher debt.
  How does the Democratic budget spend on such high levels over the 
next ten years? Two words: tax increases. The budget includes a 
complicated cap-and-trade energy tax that will cost the average 
American household up to $3,128 annually, a new tax on charitable 
giving that will cost American charities as much as $16 billion per 
year, increased taxes on businesses and families that make over 
$250,000 per year, and the resurrection of the death tax which will 
punish family-owned businesses and farms.
  The theme seems to be that the government knows best and the people 
should fall in line.
  Fortunately, there are some of us on Capitol Hill who will not fall 
in line. Republicans have offered an alternative that reflects common-
sense economics: when in debt, stop spending.
  The Republican alternative places a priority on national defense and 
veterans' health and temporarily freezes other discretionary spending 
for five years. It would halve the President's deficit projection for 
2019.

[[Page H4486]]

  It would make the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, cap the capital 
gains and dividends tax at 15 percent and give families and individuals 
options for a simplified tax code. To foster entrepreneurship and small 
businesses, it would cut the corporate tax rate--the second highest in 
the world--from 35 percent to 25 percent.
  Unlike my friends on the other side of the aisle, I do not think the 
way forward is through increased government interference, funded by our 
wallets and our children's piggybanks. I urge members to reject the 
proposed Democrat budget and vote for the Ryan Budget.
  Mr. BACHUS. Madam Chair, it seems that every day brings news of 
another large government program, intervention, mandate, or tax.
  Sometimes the expansion is subtle. Sometimes it's more direct.
  Just months into this Congress, this Majority has pushed an 
additional $350 billion in TARP funds out the door without additional 
oversight, passed a $410 billion spending bill full of wasteful pet 
projects, and handed our children and grandchildren the tab for the 
largest single spending bill our nation has ever seen in the form of a 
$1.2 trillion so-called stimulus bill.
  Today, their budget calls for taxpayers to commit another $3.6 
trillion more of their hard-earned money without transparency or 
adequate oversight. This budget spends too much, taxes too much, and 
borrows too much. It expands government control on a scale that we have 
never seen before, not even during the New Deal.
  If you had told me a month ago that Congress wanted to increase the 
tax burden on charitable contributions, I would have said it's an April 
Fool's joke. But the fact is that if donations to charities go down, 
the government will say it has to step in. But there will be a big 
difference. It will be the government choosing what it wants to support 
and how. It can support groups like ACORN instead of my local church or 
local charity. Instead of allowing people to support their own causes 
and make their own choices about their charitable contributions, the 
government will expand into what will obviously and clearly be a 
restriction on private charities as their funds are restricted. 
Unfortunately, it wasn't an April Fool's Day joke and that is what is 
being proposed this very week, restricting private contributions.
  The higher taxes on energy will cost the average American household 
more than $3000. As a heavy user of coal, Alabama will be especially 
hard hit by the cap and trade tax. Electricity costs per capita in 
Alabama could go up by more than $1500, among the highest in any state. 
Our families and manufacturers can't afford that, especially in this 
economy.
  But I wanted to know what my constituents thought about this budget 
and in just a few' days I received more than 600 responses. Here are 
quotes from their letters.
  From Barbara in Clanton: ``As a small business, we cannot afford to 
pay any more taxes right now. I don't think our employees can cope with 
higher fuel prices. I am very concerned about the exploding federal 
budget deficit.''
  From Danielle in Pelham: ``My goal is to become a small business 
owner and I'm concerned that any higher taxes on small business will 
squash my chances of making this goal a reality.''
  From Randy in Pell City: ``I don't want any more energy increases. 
Our electric, propane, and gas bills have gone up far more than my 
husband's wages.''
  We are witnessing a relentless expansion of the federal government, 
and I, for one, am worried. So are the American people. That's why 
Republicans offered solutions in our budget aimed at creating jobs and 
economic growth, not more government and not more unaffordable debt.
  The American people understand that this generational theft must end. 
The Republican budget reflects their priorities, and moves the country 
in the right direction towards economic recovery.
  Mr. FORBES. Madam Chair, today I will vote in favor of the Ryan 
amendment to H. Con. Res 85. I support this amendment because it 
recognizes the importance of maintaining a strong national defense and 
taking care of our veterans. I do not support everything in this budget 
alternative. However, given the choice between this amendment, which 
provides more robust funding for our Nation's defense, or the budget 
priorities of the underlying legislation, I will vote for the Ryan 
amendment so that the House will have the opportunity for an extended 
and vigorous debate on the importance of defense spending in our 
national priorities. At the same time, I have strong reservations about 
the proposals to reform Medicare as described in the Ryan amendment. 
Before embarking on any change to Medicare to ensure that this program 
exists for my children's generation and my grandchildren's generation, 
I expect the House to engage in a thorough, earnest debate that we have 
not yet had.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 137, 
noes 293, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 191]

                               AYES--137

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Wamp
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--293

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Cao
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Duncan
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NY)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pierluisi
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff

[[Page H4487]]


     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Costa
     Franks (AZ)
     Hinojosa
     Miller, Gary
     Norton
     Sablan
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1859

  Ms. McCOLLUM, Messrs. DELAHUNT, HOLT, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of 
California, Ms. SCHWARTZ, Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee, Mr. CARDOZA and Mr. 
RUSH changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. HOEKSTRA, FORBES and BACHUS changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 191, had I been present, 
I would have voted ``no.''
  The CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Weiner) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Tauscher, Chair of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the concurrent resolution (H. 
Con. Res. 85) setting forth the congressional budget for the United 
States Government for fiscal year 2010 and including the appropriate 
budgetary levels for fiscal years 2009 and 2011 through 2014, pursuant 
to House Resolution 316, she 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.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233, 
nays 196, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 192]

                               YEAS--233

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

                               NAYS--196

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Hinojosa
     Miller, Gary
     Westmoreland
  The SPEAKER (during the vote). Two minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1916

  So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________