Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?

116th Congress    }                                 {     Rept. 116-35
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session      }                                 {           Part 1
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     



                           INVESTING FOR THE

                           PEOPLE ACT OF 2019

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                        COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              to accompany

                               H.R. 2021

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS










[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]














 April 5, 2019.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed 
              
                                   ______
		 
                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
		 
89-006                    WASHINGTON : 2019                 
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
                        COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

                  JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky, Chairman
SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts,         STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas,
  Vice Chairman                        Ranking Minority Member
HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York            ROBERT WOODALL, Georgia
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York              BILL JOHNSON, Ohio,
BRENDAN BOYLE, Pennsylvania            Vice Ranking Minority Member
RO KHANNA, California                JASON SMITH, Missouri
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut         BILL FLORES, Texas
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas                 GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina
DAVID PRICE, North Carolina          CHRIS STEWART, Utah
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
DANIEL KILDEE, Michigan              CHIP ROY, Texas
JIMMY PANETTA, California            DANIEL MEUSER, Pennsylvania
JOSEPH MORELLE, New York             WILLIAM TIMMONS, South Carolina
STEVEN HORSFORD, Nevada              DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia            KEVIN HERN, Oklahoma
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee
BARBARA LEE, California
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
SCOTT PETERS, California
JIM COOPER, Tennessee

                           Professional Staff

                      Ellen Balis, Staff Director
                  Dan Keniry, Minority Staff Director 
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                            C O N T E N T S

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     1
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     2
Hearings.........................................................     9
Committee Consideration..........................................     9
Committee Votes..................................................     9
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the 
  Committee......................................................    16
New Budget Authority and CBO Cost Estimate.......................    16
Committee Cost Estimate..........................................    22
Federal Mandates Statement.......................................    22
Advisory Committee Statement.....................................    22
Applicability to the Legislative Branch..........................    22
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................    22
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................    22
Earmark Statement................................................    22
Section-by-Section Analysis......................................    23
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    24
Statement for the Record.........................................    36
Minority Views...................................................    39













116th Congress    }                                 {     Rept. 116-35
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session      }                                 {           Part 1

======================================================================



 
                  INVESTING FOR THE PEOPLE ACT OF 2019

                                _______
                                

 April 5, 2019.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                



 MR. YARMUTH, FROM THE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET, SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING



                              R E P O R T



                             TOGETHER WITH



                             MINORITY VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2021]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Budget, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 2021) to establish a fiscal year 2020 budget and amend 
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
to increase discretionary spending limits for the revised 
security and nonsecurity categories for fiscal year 2020 and 
fiscal year 2021, and for other purposes, having considered the 
same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend 
that the bill do pass.

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 2021, the ``Investing for the People Act of 2019,'' 
amends the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
1985 to increase the statutory caps on discretionary spending 
for 2020 and 2021 that were put into place by the Budget 
Control Act of 2011. The bill allows adjustments to the new 
caps to reflect certain spending for conducting the 2020 Census 
and for Internal Revenue Service tax enforcement activities. 
The purpose of the bill is to provide realistic topline funding 
levels that will allow enactment of appropriations bills to 
meet national needs without triggering sequestration of funds 
from myriad federal programs critical to the Nation's security 
and economic vitality. The bill also sets limits on the 
adjustments allowed for Overseas Contingency Operations, to 
prevent abuse of this cap adjustment. Finally, the bill 
establishes a fiscal year 2020 budget.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

                              INTRODUCTION

    The most urgent budgetary issue facing the Congress right 
now is the need to raise the statutory caps on discretionary 
spending. Without Congressional action, the caps will force an 
11 percent cut to defense and a 9 percent cut to non-defense 
programs for 2020 relative to the amounts provided for 2019. 
Such deep cuts would have a devastating effect on U.S. national 
security and economic vitality. H.R. 2021, the Investing for 
the People Act of 2019, blocks these cuts and provides a new, 
more realistic, and constructive budgetary framework that will 
enable Congress to provide the funding necessary to secure a 
strong future for the American people.
    The United States is an economic powerhouse and world 
leader because of our government's long, proud history of 
making strategic investments. This history dates to at least 
the 1840s, when Congress approved a grant for the construction 
of the first telegraph line. From rural electrification and the 
Interstate Highway System to cutting-edge health research, 
initial development of the Internet, and helping students of 
modest means pay for college, the American people have reaped 
the benefits of the investments they called on their government 
to make. Our country has also long understood that an effective 
national security strategy requires investment in all aspects 
of national power--from the military and diplomatic corps to 
homeland security and the promotion of broadly shared economic 
opportunity domestically and abroad. Enactment of H.R. 2021 
would build on this legacy.
    Discretionary funding (funding that Congress controls 
through annual appropriations bills) provides resources for 
hundreds of programs that make important investments and affect 
Americans every day. Current law imposes destructively low caps 
on defense and non-defense discretionary (NDD) funding for 2020 
and 2021, stemming from the Budget Control Act of 2011 
(BCA).\1\ Without Congressional action, the BCA caps will force 
an 11 percent cut to defense and a 9 percent cut to non-defense 
programs for 2020 relative to the amounts provided for 2019. 
These caps were never supposed to take effect. They were part 
of the BCA's design to give Congress a strong incentive to 
develop and approve a comprehensive, bipartisan plan to reduce 
deficits by more than $1 trillion over the 2012-2021 period. 
When Congress failed to agree on an alternative deficit 
reduction package, the BCA's unrealistically low caps on 
discretionary funding took effect for 2013-2021. Congress 
subsequently reached bipartisan agreements in 2012, 2013, 2015, 
and 2018 to set more realistic discretionary funding levels, 
usually for two years at a time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Public Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congress should continue this tradition for the final two 
years of the BCA by raising the defense and non-defense caps 
for 2020 and 2021 to the levels necessary to move the Nation 
forward. Setting realistic caps will give Congress the ability 
to invest in both defense and non-defense priorities, boost 
economic development, and guarantee that every American family 
has the chance to build a better future. The time to act is 
now. The sooner that Congress can reach a bipartisan agreement 
on discretionary caps, the sooner the House and Senate 
Appropriations Committees will have clarity regarding ``top-
line'' spending levels within which they can craft their must-
pass legislation. Delaying this inevitable and necessary 
decision will only create chaos and disruption in the 
appropriations process at the final hour, setting the stage for 
another government shutdown. Congress should instead enact a 
new realistic budgetary framework as soon as possible.
    Beginning with the BCA, Congressional Democrats have 
advocated for parity--that is, equivalent treatment of defense 
and NDD spending. H.R. 2021 follows the parity principle by 
applying the same dollar increase to the defense and non-
defense caps. The Committee supports the tradition of refusing 
to pit defense and non-defense against each other, because both 
are important for our country. President Trump's budget request 
for 2020, unfortunately, does the opposite. It cuts 2020 non-
defense funding by 9 percent relative to the 2019 enacted 
level, while it increases total defense funding by nearly 5 
percent. The President's budget evades the BCA defense cap by 
calling for a dramatic increase in funding designated as 
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), which does not count 
against the cap, even though most of the funding will be used 
for non-OCO activities. The Committee rejects the President's 
lopsided priorities, as well as his use of a blatant budget 
gimmick. Finally, as this legislation seeks to enable timely 
enactment of appropriations legislation, it also establishes a 
budget for 2020.

     INVESTING IN PROSPERITY AND A BROAD VIEW OF NATIONAL SECURITY

    NDD programs encompass numerous services and investments 
that improve Americans' quality of life. NDD spending was 3.2 
percent of GDP in 2018, well below the 50-year historic average 
of 3.8 percent. Boosting the resources available for NDD would 
allow an appropriate level of investment in projects and 
services to strengthen the Nation's economic foundations and 
promote broad-based prosperity for American families. Ensuring 
safe drinking water, enforcing consumer protection standards, 
modernizing transportation networks, providing technical 
assistance to small businesses, investing in energy efficiency 
research, improving rural infrastructure, providing vital 
services to veterans, and expanding the supply of affordable 
housing are just a few of the ways that NDD funding contributes 
to a stronger future for all Americans.
    NDD funding is also important to the Nation's security, 
because a comprehensive strategy for national security involves 
much more than the military. Roughly one-third of NDD funding 
goes toward veterans' programs, homeland security, diplomatic 
operations, foreign aid, and Justice Department activities. 
Other NDD activities such as food safety, environmental 
protection, combatting disease outbreaks, and aviation safety 
are critical for a healthy economy, which is a major 
underpinning of our national security.


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    H.R. 2021 sets discretionary funding caps for 2020 and 2021 
that will support much-needed investments in these areas. For 
2020, the bill sets the non-defense cap at $631 billion. This 
represents a $34 billion (5.7 percent) increase above the 2019 
cap and is $88 billion above the current-law 2020 cap. H.R. 
2021 sets the 2021 non-defense cap at $646 billion to maintain 
purchasing power. Separately, H.R. 2021 allows up to $8 billion 
per year for non-defense OCO activities that do not count 
against the caps.
    One reason that NDD funding must increase is to fulfill the 
promise of the VA MISSION Act.\2\ That law provided veterans 
with greater health care choice, but it shifted the cost of 
community health care--initially estimated at $10 billion or 
more per year--from the mandatory side of the federal budget to 
the discretionary side starting in June 2019. Certain other key 
NDD programs will need a funding increase just to maintain 
current services due to higher market costs, increased demand, 
or other factors. To provide for these vital needs without 
increasing overall NDD funding would force harmful reductions 
in other important investments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Public Law 115-182.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cap Adjustments for the 2020 Census and IRS Tax Enforcement
    H.R. 2021 includes provisions that allow two new 
adjustments to the non-defense caps to accommodate funding 
increases for specified purposes.
    First, the bill provides an upward adjustment to the 2020 
discretionary spending limit to provide for the $7.5 billion 
necessary to carry out the 2020 Census as required under the 
Constitution. Failure to adequately fund the Census would lead 
to an undercount of the population, resulting in an incorrect 
apportionment of representation and misallocation of a broad 
range of federal funds. A one-time cap adjustment for the 2020 
Census makes sense because it is not a recurring annual 
expense.
    Second, H.R. 2021 allows increases to the discretionary 
limits of up to $400 million for 2020 and $750 million for 2021 
to reflect additional appropriations above a base amount of 
$8.6 billion provided for tax enforcement activities, including 
tax compliance to address the federal tax gap, at the Internal 
Revenue Service (IRS).
    The Committee believes providing this adjustment will allow 
the IRS to reduce tax noncompliance and produce significant net 
savings. Since 2010, IRS enforcement funding has declined by 25 
percent after adjusting for inflation, and the enforcement 
division has lost roughly 30 percent of its workforce. The cuts 
have driven a more than 40 percent decline in the rate of 
audits, especially for high-income individuals and large 
corporations, while enforcement needs have grown as a result of 
the 2017 tax law. The new tax law's design will invite 
taxpayers, particularly wealthy individuals and corporations 
with means to hire accountants and lawyers, to aggressively 
push against the boundaries of the new law. Adequately funding 
IRS enforcement is necessary to identify those who step over 
the boundaries or break the law.
    The President's 2020 budget proposes an increase for IRS 
enforcement of roughly $15 billion over 10 years (including 
$362 million in 2020), which is estimated to generate $47 
billion in additional revenue. The Administration estimates 
that once fully operational, the enforcement activities are 
expected to generate roughly $3 in additional revenue for every 
$1 in IRS expenses. There is a lengthy bipartisan history of 
exempting program integrity funding that reduces errors, 
overpayments, and fraud in government programs from 
discretionary spending limits.

        SUPPORTING A STRONG DEFENSE AND ENSURING ACCOUNTABILITY

    H.R. 2021 provides the resources for the most powerful 
military in the world to maintain a vigorous defense against 
potential threats, but also to ensure those serving in uniform 
have the support they deserve, including providing a 3.1 
percent pay raise and more resources for adequate housing. 
Recent reports of hazardous housing conditions for the troops 
are alarming, and all deficiencies in military housing needs to 
be identified and corrected immediately. The country gives our 
military personnel a difficult job, and the least we can do is 
provide for their basic needs.
    H.R. 2021 sets the defense discretionary cap for 2020 at 
$664 billion. This represents a $17 billion (2.6 percent) 
increase from the 2019 level. Just like the NDD level in this 
bill, the recommended defense cap is $88 billion above the 
current-law cap for 2020. H.R. 2021 sets the 2021 defense cap 
at $680 billion. These levels exclude amounts designated for 
OCO, which do not count toward the caps.
Eliminate the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Budget Gimmick
    For 2019, Congress provided $69 billion for defense-related 
OCO. The President's budget proposes to drastically increase 
the defense OCO amounts for 2020 and 2021, solely to evade the 
BCA defense discretionary funding caps. The Administration 
admits that this is its strategy. A footnote on page 134 of the 
main Budget volume states: ``In order to fully resource 
national defense requirements, funding above the current law 
caps will also be necessary. The Budget therefore increases OCO 
amounts in 2020 and 2021 to nearly $165 billion and $156 
billion, respectively. These amounts fund direct war costs, 
enduring in-theater support, and certain base budget 
requirements.''
    The Committee rejects the President's 2020 budget proposal 
to use the OCO designation as a loophole to circumvent budget 
caps and add nearly $100 billion for defense while 
shortchanging important non-defense investments critical to our 
national and economic security. This blatantly dishonest 
gimmick--which is unprecedented in its scale--makes a mockery 
of the budget process and flouts the basic principles of open 
and honest governance. Moreover, using the OCO designation in 
this way does not properly address our national security needs. 
Strong national security requires a comprehensive review of all 
components of our national power and transparent and rational 
budgeting to properly allocate resources.
    H.R. 2021 caps OCO funding at current levels for 2020 and 
2021, the last two years of discretionary budget caps under the 
BCA, to prevent further abuse of the OCO designation. It is 
Congress' intent to transfer activities funded with OCO back to 
the base budget starting in 2022 when the congressional budget 
process returns to regular order and budget resolutions are 
once again the legislative vehicle for setting the 
discretionary top line.
    The original purpose of the OCO designation was to provide 
a mechanism to budget for unforeseen overseas operations, but 
also to track funding for those activities separately so that 
once operations ceased, Congress could easily make appropriate 
funding reductions. However, current OCO funding and 
implementation has grown significantly to fund our ongoing 
military operations abroad. In short, while the OCO designation 
was originally intended to provide transparency, over time it 
has come to undermine transparency.
    Unfortunately, the OCO designation has become a convenient 
way to make an end-run around the BCA caps. This led to 
administrations requesting and Congress approving billions of 
OCO dollars for active-duty end strength, operating 
requirements, weapon system upgrades, and other activities that 
normally would be funded within the base budget. It also 
stopped OCO costs from transferring to the base budget as they 
became ``enduring,'' or part of the Department of Defense's 
(DoD) long-term defense posture. DoD estimates these activities 
cost more than $40 billion per year.
    Abusing the OCO designation has obscured the true cost of 
our military operations. The ad hoc nature of adding OCO funds 
a year at a time for regular activities has precluded providing 
the funding certainty that DoD expects for medium- and long-
term planning, and that the Congress needs to provide critical 
oversight of the Department. Including high-priority base-
budget activities in the OCO budget distorts defense planning 
because they are excluded from the Pentagon's five-year defense 
plan. This bifurcation shelters lower-priority programs from 
tradeoffs and promotes wasteful spending.
    Congress owes it to the American people to end the OCO 
gimmick and to allocate their tax dollars in a transparent 
manner and in a way that ensures that government runs 
efficiently and effectively. H.R. 2021 is a first step toward 
that goal.
Achieve Clean Audit at the Department of Defense
    By limiting the use of the OCO designation, H.R. 2021 takes 
one step toward improving DoD budget accountability. Another 
area where improvement is needed relates to the DoD audit. 
Congress is deeply concerned about DoD's inability to pass an 
unqualified audit. In 2018, DoD failed its first ever 
department-wide audit, and it is the only federal agency yet to 
pass one. The audit came nearly 30 years after the passage of 
the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, which established the 
requirement for annual audits of financial statements for 
federal agencies. The audit uncovered significant technology 
systems, security, and systemic deficiencies in DoD's financial 
management systems. These deficiencies prevent DoD from 
collecting and reporting financial and performance information 
that is accurate, reliable, and timely to Congress and the 
taxpayers.
    Clean financial statements are an important element for any 
organization, especially DoD, to operate efficiently and 
effectively. And in the case of DoD, which spends more than 
half of all discretionary appropriations Congress approves each 
year, it is critical that it spend every dollar it gets wisely 
and with proper oversight from Congress. There are many 
examples of waste and mismanagement at DoD, including untracked 
inventories, duplicative work, and undisciplined acquisition 
practices. DoD owes it not just to the taxpayer, but also to 
the service members who are sacrificing every day to protect 
the country, to improve in these areas.
    DoD spent nearly $1 billion on activities related to the 
2018 audit--$413 million to conduct the audit itself, $406 
million on audit remediation, and $153 million on financial 
system fixes. However, DoD has more work to do before it can 
pass an agency-wide audit--and it could take years. It is also 
Congress' intent to reduce defense waste, have greater 
transparency, and eliminate mismanagement at DoD. While H.R. 
2021 allows for an increase in defense funding, Congress must 
exercise aggressive oversight to track and account for the 
money that is being spent and to ensure DoD follows through 
with performing annual audits, implementing recommendations, 
and achieving a clean audit as quickly as possible. Congress 
also encourages DoD to complete its full audit before the end 
of the calendar year and report back to Congress.

              ENSURING ECONOMIC VITALITY IN YEARS TO COME

    The federal budget is more than simply spending out versus 
revenues in. Federal investments today can result in better 
economic and social outcomes over time. Public health provides 
a good example. At a Budget Committee hearing held on February 
7, 2019 to discuss the importance of discretionary investments, 
Dr. Umair A. Shah, Executive Director of Harris County Public 
Health in Texas, stated:

    The evidence is growing that cuts to public health create a 
false economy, by saving pennies today, governments wind up 
with a dollar of cost tomorrow. A recent study in Public Health 
Reports found that a 10 percent increase in local public health 
expenditures corresponded with 7.5 percent fewer cases of 
infectious diseases and a decrease in 1.5 percent Years of 
Potential Life Lost--a technical term to measure premature 
mortality. A recent systematic review of 18 different public 
health programs found that investments in local public health 
had calculated substantial, positive ROIs [return on 
investments].

    Other areas where federal spending has significant positive 
payoffs for the economy and society include education and 
certain physical and technological infrastructure. At the same 
hearing, Sarah Abernathy, Deputy Executive Director of the 
Committee for Education Funding, noted that participation in 
high-quality early childhood education has major long-term 
benefits--``a return of more than $7 for every $1 invested 
through better lifetime outcomes in terms of increased health, 
reduced crime, higher employment and income, and more civic 
involvement.''
    Rising federal deficits have long been a concern for the 
Budget Committee. But concern about federal budget deficits 
must be balanced against the need to invest in the American 
people and communities and confront the serious challenges 
facing us, from rising income inequality to climate change. At 
a time when interest rates are low, a single-minded focus on 
deficit reduction at the expense of addressing our national 
needs would be counterproductive. Moreover, not all deficit 
spending is the same. Congressional Republicans in the 115th 
Congress spent $1.9 trillion on tax cuts that primarily 
benefited the wealthy and corporations. The tax cuts are not 
solving any of the problems facing American families, from 
unaffordable child care, to the high cost of education, to 
decades-long wage stagnation and growing inequality. Addressing 
these problems in a meaningful way and building a foundation 
for a vibrant economy with broad-based prosperity will require 
investment: in people, in communities, in infrastructure. The 
time to make those investments is now.

                                Hearings

    Pursuant to section 103(i) of H. Res. 6 for the 116th 
Congress, the following hearing was used to develop H.R. 2021: 
Investing in America's Economic and National Security on 
February 7, 2019. The hearing considered the broad array of 
programs and activities supporting national security and 
economic prosperity that are at risk of deep cuts under current 
law. The Committee heard testimony from Sarah Abernathy, the 
Deputy Executive Director of the Committee for Education 
Funding; Steven Kosiak, adjunct senior fellow at the Center for 
a New American Security; Dr. Umair A. Shah, the Executive 
Director of Harris County Public Health; and Gordon Gray, the 
Director of Fiscal Policy for the American Action Forum.
    The following related hearings were also held: The 
President's 2020 Budget on March 12, 2019; the Department of 
Health and Human Services FY 2020 Budget on March 26, 2019; and 
the Department of Defense's Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Request on 
March 27, 2019.

                        Committee Consideration

    On Wednesday, April 3, 2019 the Committee met in open 
session and ordered the bill, H.R. 2021 favorably reported, 
without amendment, by a rollcall vote of 19 to 17, a quorum 
being present.

                            Committee Votes

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the 
following votes occurred during the Committee's consideration 
of H.R. 2021.
    A motion to postpone, offered by Mr. Flores

                                                 ROLLCALL VOTE 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Answer                                            Answer
              Name & State                Aye     No   Present         Name & State         Aye     No   Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YARMUTH (KY)         (Chairman)........  .....     X   .......  WOMACK (AR)                   X   .....  .......
                                                                 (Ranking).
MOULTON (MA)...........................  .....     X   .......  WOODALL (GA).............     X   .....  .......
JEFFRIES (NY)..........................  .....     X   .......  JOHNSON (OH).............     X   .....  .......
HIGGINS (NY)...........................  .....     X   .......  SMITH (MO)...............     X   .....  .......
BOYLE (PA).............................  .....     X   .......  FLORES (TX)..............     X   .....  .......
KHANNA (CA)............................  .....     X   .......  HOLDING (NC).............     X   .....  .......
DELAURO (CT)...........................  .....  .....  .......  STEWART (UT).............     X   .....  .......
DOGGETT (TX)...........................  .....     X   .......  NORMAN (SC)..............     X   .....  .......
PRICE (NC).............................  .....     X   .......  ROY (TX).................     X   .....  .......
SCHAKOWSKY (IL)........................  .....     X   .......  MEUSER (PA)..............     X   .....  .......
KILDEE (MI)............................  .....     X   .......  TIMMONS (SC).............     X   .....  .......
PANETTA (CA)...........................  .....     X   .......  CRENSHAW (TX)............     X   .....  .......
MORELLE (NY)...........................  .....     X   .......  HERN (OK)................     X   .....  .......
HORSFORD (NV)..........................  .....     X   .......  BURCHETT (TN)............     X   .....  .......
SCOTT (VA).............................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
JACKSON LEE (TX).......................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
LEE (CA)...............................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
JAYAPAL (WA)...........................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
OMAR (MN)..............................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
SIRES (NJ).............................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
PETERS (CA)............................  .....  .....  .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
COOPER (TN)............................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion to postpone was not agreed to by a rollcall vote 
of 14 ayes and 20 noes.

    Amendment No. 1, offered by Mr. Stewart, to increase the 
defense discretionary cap level was not agreed to by voice 
vote.
    Amendment No. 2, offered by Mr. Roy, to decrease the non-
defense discretionary cap level

                                                 ROLLCALL VOTE 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Answer                                            Answer
              Name & State                Aye     No   Present         Name & State         Aye     No   Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YARMUTH (KY)         (Chairman)........  .....     X   .......  WOMACK (AR)                   X   .....  .......
                                                                 (Ranking).
MOULTON (MA)...........................  .....     X   .......  WOODALL (GA).............     X   .....  .......
JEFFRIES (NY)..........................  .....  .....  .......  JOHNSON (OH).............     X   .....  .......
HIGGINS (NY)...........................  .....     X   .......  SMITH (MO)...............     X   .....  .......
BOYLE (PA).............................  .....     X   .......  FLORES (TX)..............     X   .....  .......
KHANNA (CA)............................  .....     X   .......  HOLDING (NC).............     X   .....  .......
DELAURO (CT)...........................  .....     X   .......  STEWART (UT).............     X   .....  .......
DOGGETT (TX)...........................  .....     X   .......  NORMAN (SC)..............     X   .....  .......
PRICE (NC).............................  .....     X   .......  ROY (TX).................     X   .....  .......
SCHAKOWSKY (IL)........................  .....     X   .......  MEUSER (PA)..............     X   .....  .......
KILDEE (MI)............................  .....  .....  .......  TIMMONS (SC).............     X   .....  .......
PANETTA (CA)...........................  .....     X   .......  CRENSHAW (TX)............     X   .....  .......
MORELLE (NY)...........................  .....     X   .......  HERN (OK)................     X   .....  .......
HORSFORD (NV)..........................  .....     X   .......  BURCHETT (TN)............     X   .....  .......
SCOTT (VA).............................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
JACKSON LEE (TX).......................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
LEE (CA)...............................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
JAYAPAL (WA)...........................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
OMAR (MN)..............................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
SIRES (NJ).............................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
PETERS (CA)............................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
COOPER (TN)............................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendment was not agreed to by a rollcall vote of 14 
ayes and 20 noes.
    Amendment No. 3, offered by Mr. Hern, to strike the cap 
adjustments

                                                 ROLLCALL VOTE 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Answer                                            Answer
              Name & State                Aye     No   Present         Name & State         Aye     No   Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YARMUTH (KY)         (Chairman)........  .....     X   .......  WOMACK (AR)                   X   .....  .......
                                                                 (Ranking).
MOULTON (MA)...........................  .....     X   .......  WOODALL (GA).............     X   .....  .......
JEFFRIES (NY)..........................  .....  .....  .......  JOHNSON (OH).............     X   .....  .......
HIGGINS (NY)...........................  .....     X   .......  SMITH (MO)...............     X   .....  .......
BOYLE (PA).............................  .....     X   .......  FLORES (TX)..............     X   .....  .......
KHANNA (CA)............................  .....     X   .......  HOLDING (NC).............     X   .....  .......
DELAURO (CT)...........................  .....     X   .......  STEWART (UT).............     X   .....  .......
DOGGETT (TX)...........................  .....     X   .......  NORMAN (SC)..............     X   .....  .......
PRICE (NC).............................  .....     X   .......  ROY (TX).................     X   .....  .......
SCHAKOWSKY (IL)........................  .....     X   .......  MEUSER (PA)..............     X   .....  .......
KILDEE (MI)............................  .....  .....  .......  TIMMONS (SC).............     X   .....  .......
PANETTA (CA)...........................  .....     X   .......  CRENSHAW (TX)............     X   .....  .......
MORELLE (NY)...........................  .....     X   .......  HERN (OK)................     X   .....  .......
HORSFORD (NV)..........................  .....     X   .......  BURCHETT (TN)............     X   .....  .......
SCOTT (VA).............................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
JACKSON LEE (TX).......................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
LEE (CA)...............................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
JAYAPAL (WA)...........................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
OMAR (MN)..............................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
SIRES (NJ).............................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
PETERS (CA)............................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
COOPER (TN)............................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendment was not agreed to by a rollcall vote of 14 
ayes and 20 noes.
    Amendment No. 4, offered by Mr. Johnson, to make increases 
to the statutory spending caps contingent on enacted offsets

                                                 ROLLCALL VOTE 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Answer                                            Answer
              Name & State                Aye     No   Present         Name & State         Aye     No   Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YARMUTH (KY)         (Chairman)........  .....     X   .......  WOMACK (AR)                   X   .....  .......
                                                                 (Ranking).
MOULTON (MA)...........................  .....     X   .......  WOODALL (GA).............     X   .....  .......
JEFFRIES (NY)..........................  .....  .....  .......  JOHNSON (OH).............     X   .....  .......
HIGGINS (NY)...........................  .....     X   .......  SMITH (MO)...............     X   .....  .......
BOYLE (PA).............................  .....     X   .......  FLORES (TX)..............     X   .....  .......
KHANNA (CA)............................  .....     X   .......  HOLDING (NC).............     X   .....  .......
DELAURO (CT)...........................  .....     X   .......  STEWART (UT).............     X   .....  .......
DOGGETT (TX)...........................  .....     X   .......  NORMAN (SC)..............     X   .....  .......
PRICE (NC).............................  .....     X   .......  ROY (TX).................     X   .....  .......
SCHAKOWSKY (IL)........................  .....     X   .......  MEUSER (PA)..............     X   .....  .......
KILDEE (MI)............................  .....  .....  .......  TIMMONS (SC).............     X   .....  .......
PANETTA (CA)...........................  .....     X   .......  CRENSHAW (TX)............     X   .....  .......
MORELLE (NY)...........................  .....     X   .......  HERN (OK)................     X   .....  .......
HORSFORD (NV)..........................  .....     X   .......  BURCHETT (TN)............     X   .....  .......
SCOTT (VA).............................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
JACKSON LEE (TX).......................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
LEE (CA)...............................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
JAYAPAL (WA)...........................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
OMAR (MN)..............................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
SIRES (NJ).............................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
PETERS (CA)............................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
COOPER (TN)............................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendment was not agreed to by a rollcall vote of 14 
ayes and 20 noes.
    Amendment No. 5, offered by Mr. Timmons, to establish a 
plan to restore fiscal responsibility

                                                 ROLLCALL VOTE 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Answer                                            Answer
              Name & State                Aye     No   Present         Name & State         Aye     No   Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YARMUTH (KY)         (Chairman)........  .....     X   .......  WOMACK (AR)                   X   .....  .......
                                                                 (Ranking).
MOULTON (MA)...........................  .....     X   .......  WOODALL (GA).............     X   .....  .......
JEFFRIES (NY)..........................  .....  .....  .......  JOHNSON (OH).............     X   .....  .......
HIGGINS (NY)...........................  .....     X   .......  SMITH (MO)...............     X   .....  .......
BOYLE (PA).............................  .....     X   .......  FLORES (TX)..............     X   .....  .......
KHANNA (CA)............................  .....     X   .......  HOLDING (NC).............     X   .....  .......
DELAURO (CT)...........................  .....     X   .......  STEWART (UT).............     X   .....  .......
DOGGETT (TX)...........................  .....     X   .......  NORMAN (SC)..............     X   .....  .......
PRICE (NC).............................  .....     X   .......  ROY (TX).................     X   .....  .......
SCHAKOWSKY (IL)........................  .....     X   .......  MEUSER (PA)..............     X   .....  .......
KILDEE (MI)............................  .....  .....  .......  TIMMONS (SC).............     X   .....  .......
PANETTA (CA)...........................  .....     X   .......  CRENSHAW (TX)............     X   .....  .......
MORELLE (NY)...........................  .....     X   .......  HERN (OK)................     X   .....  .......
HORSFORD (NV)..........................  .....     X   .......  BURCHETT (TN)............     X   .....  .......
SCOTT (VA).............................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
JACKSON LEE (TX).......................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
LEE (CA)...............................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
JAYAPAL (WA)...........................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
OMAR (MN)..............................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
SIRES (NJ).............................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
PETERS (CA)............................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
COOPER (TN)............................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendment was not agreed to by a rollcall vote of 14 
ayes and 20 noes.
    Amendment No. 6, offered by Mr. Khanna, to decrease defense 
discretionary caps

                                                 ROLLCALL VOTE 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Answer                                            Answer
              Name & State                Aye     No   Present         Name & State         Aye     No   Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YARMUTH (KY)         (Chairman)........  .....     X   .......  WOMACK (AR)                .....     X   .......
                                                                 (Ranking).
MOULTON (MA)...........................  .....     X   .......  WOODALL (GA).............     X   .....  .......
JEFFRIES (NY)..........................  .....  .....  .......  JOHNSON (OH).............  .....     X   .......
HIGGINS (NY)...........................  .....     X   .......  SMITH (MO)...............  .....     X   .......
BOYLE (PA).............................  .....     X   .......  FLORES (TX)..............  .....     X   .......
KHANNA (CA)............................     X   .....  .......  HOLDING (NC).............  .....     X   .......
DELAURO (CT)...........................  .....     X   .......  STEWART (UT).............  .....     X   .......
DOGGETT (TX)...........................  .....  .....  .......  NORMAN (SC)..............  .....     X   .......
PRICE (NC).............................  .....     X   .......  ROY (TX).................  .....     X   .......
SCHAKOWSKY (IL)........................     X   .....  .......  MEUSER (PA)..............  .....     X   .......
KILDEE (MI)............................  .....  .....  .......  TIMMONS (SC).............  .....     X   .......
PANETTA (CA)...........................  .....     X   .......  CRENSHAW (TX)............  .....     X   .......
MORELLE (NY)...........................  .....     X   .......  HERN (OK)................  .....     X   .......
HORSFORD (NV)..........................  .....     X   .......  BURCHETT (TN)............  .....     X   .......
SCOTT (VA).............................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
JACKSON LEE (TX).......................     X   .....  .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
LEE (CA)...............................     X   .....  .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
JAYAPAL (WA)...........................     X   .....  .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
OMAR (MN)..............................     X   .....  .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
SIRES (NJ).............................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
PETERS (CA)............................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
COOPER (TN)............................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendment was not agreed to by a rollcall vote of 7 
ayes and 26 noes.
    Final Passage

                                                 ROLLCALL VOTE 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Answer                                            Answer
              Name & State                Aye     No   Present         Name & State         Aye     No   Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YARMUTH (KY)         (Chairman)........     X   .....  .......  WOMACK (AR)                .....     X   .......
                                                                 (Ranking).
MOULTON (MA)...........................     X   .....  .......  WOODALL (GA).............  .....     X   .......
JEFFRIES (NY)..........................     X   .....  .......  JOHNSON (OH).............  .....     X   .......
HIGGINS (NY)...........................     X   .....  .......  SMITH (MO)...............  .....     X   .......
BOYLE (PA).............................     X   .....  .......  FLORES (TX)..............  .....     X   .......
KHANNA (CA)............................  .....     X   .......  HOLDING (NC).............  .....     X   .......
DELAURO (CT)...........................     X   .....  .......  STEWART (UT).............  .....     X   .......
DOGGETT (TX)...........................     X   .....  .......  NORMAN (SC)..............  .....     X   .......
PRICE (NC).............................     X   .....  .......  ROY (TX).................  .....     X   .......
SCHAKOWSKY (IL)........................     X   .....  .......  MEUSER (PA)..............  .....     X   .......
KILDEE (MI)............................     X   .....  .......  TIMMONS (SC).............  .....     X   .......
PANETTA (CA)...........................     X   .....  .......  CRENSHAW (TX)............  .....     X   .......
MORELLE (NY)...........................     X   .....  .......  HERN (OK)................  .....     X   .......
HORSFORD (NV)..........................     X   .....  .......  BURCHETT (TN)............  .....     X   .......
SCOTT (VA).............................     X   .....  .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
JACKSON LEE (TX).......................     X   .....  .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
LEE (CA)...............................     X   .....  .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
JAYAPAL (WA)...........................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
OMAR (MN)..............................  .....     X   .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
SIRES (NJ).............................     X   .....  .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
PETERS (CA)............................     X   .....  .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
COOPER (TN)............................     X   .....  .......  .........................  .....  .....  .......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion to report H.R. 2021, favorably, was agreed to by 
a rollcall vote of 19 ayes and 17 noes.

  Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause 
2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, 
the Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are 
reflected in the descriptive portions of this report.

               New Budget Authority and CBO Cost Estimate

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and pursuant to clause 
3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974, the Committee has received the following estimate for 
H.R. 2021 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:


                        Committee Cost Estimate

    Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison of the 
costs that would be incurred in carrying out H.R. 2021. 
However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides that this 
requirement does not apply when the committee has included in 
its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill 
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act. Such a cost 
estimate is included in this report.

                       Federal Mandates Statement

    The committee adopts the estimate of Federal mandates 
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
(P.L. 104-4).

                      Advisory Committee Statement

    No advisory committee within the meaning of section 5(b) of 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act was created by this 
legislation.

                Applicability to the Legislative Branch

    The committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (P.L. 104-1).

                    Duplication of Federal Programs

    No provision of H.R. 2021, the Investing for the People Act 
of 2019, establishes or reauthorizes a program of the Federal 
government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, 
a program that was included in any report from the Government 
Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of 
Public Law 111-139, or a program related to a program 
identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
performance goals and objectives of this legislation are to 
establish a budget for fiscal year 2020 and increase 
discretionary spending limits for the revised security and 
nonsecurity categories for fiscal year 2020 and fiscal year 
2021. Congress has been unable to pass appropriations 
legislation in recent years without increasing the limits for 
those years. This legislation seeks to enable timely enactment 
of appropriations legislation for fiscal years 2020 and 2021.

                           Earmark Statement

    In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, H.R. 2021 does not contain any 
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of rule XXI 
of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

    The following discussion describes the bill as reported by 
the Committee.
    Section 1. Short Title. This section cites the short title 
of the legislation as the ``Investing for the People Act of 
2019.''
    Section 101. Amendments to the Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. This section amends the 
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to 
increase the defense and non-defense discretionary spending 
limits for fiscal years 2020 and 2021. It also amends the 
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to 
place a limit on the adjustment to the discretionary spending 
caps for funding designated for Overseas Contingency 
Operations/Global War on Terror. The section also adds two new 
adjustments to the discretionary spending caps: (1) for 
Internal Revenue Service enforcement activities in fiscal years 
2020 and 2021, and (2) for expenses in fiscal year 2020 
associated with the 2020 Census. The section also revises 
procedures for implementing sequestration of direct spending, 
which is required under current law and involves cuts that 
interact with discretionary spending levels. The section 
requires that sequestration take place in fiscal years 2020 and 
2021, as if the amendments that this section makes to the 
discretionary spending limits have not been made.
    Section 201. Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Resolution. This 
section provides that, as soon as practicable, the Chairman of 
the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives 
must submit for publication in the Congressional Record 
committee allocations, aggregate spending levels, and aggregate 
revenue levels. This section further specifies that the 
Chairman will set allocations of discretionary funding in 
accordance with the discretionary spending caps established by 
the bill and allocations of mandatory funding consistent with 
the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline. It also 
specifies that the Chairman will set the aggregate spending 
levels in accordance with those allocations and the aggregate 
revenue levels consistent with the CBO baseline. The 
allocations, aggregates, and levels submitted by the Chairman 
are enforceable in the House of Representatives as if they were 
included in a fiscal year 2020 concurrent resolution on the 
budget. This section further provides that the Chairman may 
make adjustments to the allocations, aggregates, and other 
budgetary levels for certain purposes, including to reflect 
changes resulting from CBO's updates to its baseline.
    Section 202. Limitation on Advance Appropriations. This 
section extends a general prohibition on advance 
appropriations. It also provides for exceptions for programs, 
activities, or accounts identified in lists submitted by the 
Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House of 
Representatives for publication in the Congressional Record.
    Section 203. Exercise of Rulemaking Powers. This section 
specifies that sections 201 and 202 are enacted under the 
rulemaking powers of the House of Representatives and will be 
considered part of the rules of the House. It also recognizes 
that the House has the authority to change the rules.


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                        Statement for the Record

                                     
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                             Minority Views

                              ----------                              


                               H.R. 2021

    We are disappointed with Committee Democrats' approval of 
H.R. 2021 and will oppose this bill moving forward. In lieu of 
drafting a budget resolution--the chief responsibility of the 
Budget Committee--House Democrats are taking a short cut, 
advancing legislation that fails to address--and, in fact, 
worsens--our nation's grave fiscal challenges, threatens our 
national security, and has no chance of becoming law.
    As we made clear at our markup of H.R. 2021 on April 3, 
2019, a comprehensive budget resolution is the only document 
that provides lawmakers a holistic look at our nation's 
financial situation. It tells us what we need to know about how 
much we're spending, what we're raising in revenue, and the 
impact of our deficits and debt on our economy and the American 
people. Without it, Congress is flying blind and likely to 
exacerbate our out-of-control debt, which recently surpassed 
$22 trillion.
    That's why we offered a motion to postpone the markup, 
giving House Democrats more time to write a budget resolution 
that the Committee could consider. When House Democrats 
rejected our motion, we offered several amendments to address 
our concerns with their proposal, including:

   An amendment by Representative Chris Stewart (R-UT) 
to increase the defense discretionary cap to match the 
President's fiscal year 2020 request of $750 billion, the 
funding amount our nation's military leaders have said is 
necessary to execute the National Defense Strategy. We note 
that Democrats appearto be divided on the question of funding 
our military in the face of multiple growing global threats to 
the United States.
   An amendment by Representative Chip Roy (R-TX) to 
reduce the non-defense discretionary cap to $543 billion in 
fiscal year 2020 to match the President's request and the 
current statutory cap level.
   An amendment by Representative Bill Johnson (R-OH) 
to ensure that any increases made to the discretionary spending 
caps are contingent on enactment of mandatory spending offsets.
   An amendment by Representative William Timmons (R-
SC) calling on Congress to extend the discretionary spending 
caps in a fiscally responsible way.

    All of our amendments were excluded from the bill. Beyond 
these significant policy concerns, H.R. 2021 is missing the key 
ingredients that past discretionary spending cap increases have 
had, including bipartisan input, White House participation, and 
a plan to offset spending. With a Republican-led Senate and 
White House, this proposal has no chance of being signed into 
law, wasting an opportunity to responsibly fund our priorities 
and protect the American people.
    Congress should raise the discretionary spending caps to 
prevent across-the-board spending cuts--which the Department of 
Defense has said would be ``devastating'' to our national 
security--but H.R. 2021 is not the answer. This is a bad bill 
for the federal budget. It is a worse bill for the American 
people. And we urge the House to reject it.
                                           Steve Womack
                                             Ranking Minority Member
                                           Robert Woodall
                                           Bill Johnson
                                           Jason Smith
                                           Bill Flores
                                           George Holding
                                           Chris Stewart
                                           Ralph Norman
                                           Daniel Meuser
                                           William Timmons
                                           Dan Crenshaw
                                           Kevin Hern
                                           Tim Burchett
                                 [all]