Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States has a moral responsibility to meet the needs of those persons, groups and communities that are impoverished, disadvantaged or otherwise in poverty.

Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from Virginia for the leadership of the Budget Committee and the CBC budget effort that he has led continuously, and Congresswoman Kilpatrick, the chairperson of the Congressional Black Caucus.

It is important to note that I think Americans are tired of the ``I's and me's'' budget, and that is the budget of this administration, a lot of ``I's,'' a lot of ``me's,'' but never a lot of ``we's.''

I think it is evident that this budget, the Congressional Black Caucus budget, reflects some of the startling facts that Americans are facing. First, the loss of 63,000 jobs in the last month under this administration, the categorizing of this administration as second only to former President Hoover in having the worst economy in the Nation's history. And, of course, if you just go out and talk to Mr. and Mrs. Smith or Mr. and Mrs. Gonzalez or many others, they will tell you that a recession is on the way.

This budget acknowledges the needs of our Nation. It provides the honor to our veterans by increasing that budget for health care, benefits and educational opportunities $60.9 billion. Today we honored the wounded warriors. We spoke to some of them, who said that we are now being assessed for our benefits.

This is what this budget does: it provides more dollars for Community Development Block Grants going into our community for nutrition programs and housing programs by $27.4 billion. I can tell you that the City of Houston has 1,500 senior citizens on a waiting list to rehab their homes that need this budget.

In addition, this administration has had the worst civil rights enforcement ever in the history of the United States. This budget ups the President's budget by $200 million to help those who have been discriminated against.

As you can see, this tells you about the income of Americans under this administration. It is now minus. Minus. Americans are losing money. They are now losing income. We are now in the red. Americans are struggling. If you listen to the Nation's reports about foreclosures, you will find out that Americans are losing their homes by the hundreds. You will find out that the foreclosure market is stalled to the extent that so many people are losing their homes and not trying to regain them. What does that mean? People are out in the streets looking for housing.

Let me applaud Mr. Scott and the CBC budget team for recognizing the concept of competitiveness. For in addition to reflecting the need for increased science activity, I am very glad that they have added moneys to aeronautics. They have likewise put in a $175 million plus-up on aeronautics research.

Right now as we stand here today, Endeavor is making its way to the international space station. It is there now putting forward outstanding research that will bring about jobs. And that is maintained.

Let me also thank them in my concluding remarks to recognize that we must continue to provide for the soldiers, but we want those troops home. We have in this budget language that suggests that any dollars given to the administration must be used to redeploy our troops home. These are the same troops in Iraq and Afghanistan who have been redeployed once, twice, three times, four times. Their families are suffering. This bill provides us with an outlet for these returning soldiers by increasing the educational budget and providing, of course, more for health care, and, yes, fighting the international drudge of

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Congressional Black Caucus, CBC, Budget Substitute for the Fiscal Year Budget for 2009, introduced by my distinguished colleague from Michigan, Representative Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick 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, I believe there is more that needs to be done when this country is on the verge of a recession, the housing market is at one of its worst points in history, and we have a growing population of uninsured Americans.

CBC Budget Rescinds Tax Cuts

The CBC budget rescinds tax cuts for the top two income tax rates and rescinds capital gains and dividend tax cuts in addition to closing other loopholes. By rescinding these tax cuts, 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.

Balances the Budget

Even after funding these priorities, the CBC alternative budget still manages to balance the budget after FY12 and in fact creates a surplus of $141 billion. The Democratic budget is also in surplus in FY12 but does not fund the priorities of the American people at the same

levels as the CBC budget. In comparison, the President's budget deficit in the FY12 is -31 billion.

Moreover, in FY08-FY12, the CBC budget's total cumulative deficit is $107 billion better than the Democratic budget and $339 billion better than the President's budget. As a result, over the next 5 years, the CBC budget saves $18.3 billion on interest on the national debt compared to the Democratic budget and $27.7 billion compared to the President's budget.

The bottom line is that the CBC budget chooses programs important to the American people over tax cuts for those who need it least. At the same time, it reduces the deficit and reaches a surplus in FY 2012.

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, with $119.3 billion more than the President's budget and $84.6 billion 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 with $162.7 billion more than the President's budget and $101.2 billion more than the Democratic budget;

Honoring our veterans by increasing funding for health care, benefits and educational opportunities with $60.9 billion more than the President's budget, and $17.7 billion than the Democratic budget;

Making more local communities with support through increases to Community Development Block Grants, nutrition programs and housing programs with $27.4 billion more than the President's budget and $20 billion more than the Democratic budget; and

Contributing to the global community by investing in child survival and health, international family planning and the global effort to fight AIDS with $11.5 billion more than the President's budget and $16.9 billion more on international affairs than the Democratic budget.

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. However without the renewal of the program, Federal support for Type I Diabetes will be reduced by 35 percent.

The health and health care spending in the CBC budget alternative is the fiscally, socially and morally appropriate and responsible response to the President's FY09 health care budget proposal, which showcases grave cuts to every office and agency, as well as to every program that is integrally important to efforts to eliminate health disparities and improve the health, well-being and life opportunities of all Americans.

The CBC budget alternative, unlike the President's FY09 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 makes a more than $174 billion additional investment in the health, health care, well-being and thus life opportunities of not only African-Americans, but all Americans. Additionally, the budget makes this very wise investment as it generates monies to reduce the Nation's deficit.

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.

Health Equity Fund

The CBC budget alternative creates the Health Equity Fund, which will help ensure that this Nation take a giant step forward in efforts to reduce and eliminate all health disparities and achieve health equity.

Strengthens Medicare

The CBC budget alternative strengthens Medicare--a critically important program that ensures that our Nation's 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 do 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.

The Republican Budget Substitute

Under the Republican Budget the national debt continues to explode. The gross Federal debt reached $9.0 trillion at the end of 2007. The CBO projects that the debt will rise by a total of $3.9 trillion at the end of 2008. This unprecedented rise in debt puts our President in the history books. During the 7 years of the current Administration, the Government has posted the highest deficits in this Nation's history. The President's 2009 Budget continues the failed policies that brought us to this point.

CBC Budget Compared to the President's and Democratic Budgets

The CBC budget improves the deficit by $564 billion over the President's budget and $152 billion over the Democratic budget.

The CBC budget saves on interest on the national debt $48.1 billion compared to the President's budget, and $22.7 billion compared to the Democratic budget.

The CBC budget spends more over 5 years on health care, veterans, education, and justice than either the President's budget or the Democratic budget. The CBC budget also addresses the President's shortfalls in funding critical Homeland Security programs such as the Port Security Grant Program and grants for First Responders.

Port of Houston and Security Measures

Just yesterday, 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 a greater emphasis on the administration of justice and the protection of all Americans. The CBC budget funds programs that the President's budget had severely reduced or not funded at all. These programs must be funded. The CBC budget funds the 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 invests $31 million in NASA educational programs and $8 million in HBCU-UP. 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 over $500,000 for Graduate Research Fellowships for Women in Engineering and Computer Science.

Energy

The CBC budget addresses the environment, energy, and natural resources. The CBC budget provides for $250 million to the weatherization assistance and it provides for $400 million for the energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. 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. With respect to natural resources and the environment, the CBC budget provides $100 million for EPA funding and $1 billion for the HBCU Historic Preservation Program.

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 dropout prevention. The proposed CBC budget provides $50 million to vocational programs and increases the funding of HBCUs by $200 million. The CBC budget provides for $50 million in investment in minority science and engineering improvement. The CBC budget provides $2 million for Thurgood Marshall Legal Fund, which is a very important measure for educating minority qualified minority lawyers. In addition, the CBC budget invests in adult employment and training activities.

Pay-Go and Sunset Provisions

The President's budget and the Republican alternatives violate pay-go and the fiscal responsibility that reconciliation is intended to achieve, by proposing tax cuts that are not offset.

The sunsets for the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were part of the tax legislation which Republicans voted for and passed. The expiration of the tax cuts is their policy. The Democratic budgets actually calls for the extension of many of these tax cuts, but responsibly requires that tax cut extensions, like other policies, must be fiscally sound, and not make the deficit worse.

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 for a war that the President seems never to end.

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 FY2009.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

First of all, let me commend the gentlelady from Michigan and the other colleagues for bringing forth an alternative budget. As a member of the Budget Committee for the past 6 years, I know how difficult it is to put together a budget of this magnitude. It takes a lot of work and a lot of dedication, so I commend my colleagues for doing this.

This is a true substitute budget, Mr. Chairman. It highlights the stark differences between the Democrats' priorities and the Republican priorities. And yes, it does increase taxes by actually more than $1.1 trillion. I think that bears repeating. It increases taxes by more than $1.1 trillion over the next 5 years. This includes actually $427 billion in increases on top of the $683 billion in the underlying Democratic budget.

The differences between the Republican budget priorities and those of my Democrat friends, frankly, are rather clear. They're crystal clear. The Democratic budget that came to the floor yesterday will raise taxes by $683 billion over the next 5 years. Apparently, however, some of my Democratic friends think that that increase is still not enough, so this substitute raises taxes by, as I said before, $1.1 trillion over the next 5 years. Now, however, Mr. Chairman, the Republican substitute that will be offered later today does not raise a single penny in taxes. It contains absolutely no tax increases.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take some time to discuss frankly the underlying Democratic budget.

Last year, the Democratic budget promised to raise taxes by $217 billion, and a lot of us were shocked because that was such a huge tax increase. A lot of us thought that was a lot of money. But this year they offer a newer and, frankly, bolder, more dramatic budget and more dramatic tax increase than last year. The underlying Democratic budget raises taxes by over $683 billion over 5 years. It sets up years and years of even higher spending and higher taxes.

Mr. Chairman, at last week's committee markup, the Budget Committee that I am privileged to serve on, a number of my Republican colleagues and I offered several amendments to extend the widely popular middle class tax provisions. And we're going to hear that this budget and the underlying Democratic budget only raises taxes on the wealthy. Well, we had that debate also in the Budget Committee. So, we offered some amendments to see if, in fact, that maybe they had just made a mistake. And yet, not one of these commonsense tax relief amendments were adopted. Every single Democrat on the committee voted against these amendments.

And I want to talk about what those amendments are, because, again, we're going to hear time and time again, oh, that's tax cuts for the wealthy. Let's talk about the specifics of the amendments that were voted down, that did not receive one single Democratic vote in the committee.

They voted against extending the $1,000 child tax credit. You know, I don't know, maybe it's different in the rest of the country, but in Florida, not only the wealthy have children. And they voted against that, against extending the $1,000 child tax credit. And that's raising taxes on families with children by $51 billion.

They voted against extending the marginal tax rates for all Americans and, thus, increasing taxes by $326 billion. They voted against, Mr. Chairman, eliminating the death tax. Now, I thought we could at least all agree that there should be, as a friend of mine here once said on the floor, ``no taxation without respiration,'' but no, they voted against eliminating the death tax, increasing taxes again by 181 additional dollars.

They voted against extending tax relief for married couples, increasing taxes by $25 billion on married couples.

And, again, I don't know, maybe Florida is different; but at least in the State of Florida not only the wealthy get married. That is a tax increase on every married couple in the entire country.

They voted against extending the 10 percent tax bracket for the very- low-income taxpayers. That's correct: we will hear time and time again, no, we only want to raise taxes on the wealthy. Yes, but then why did they vote against extending the 10 percent tax bracket for the very- low-income taxpayers?

Again, extending the State and local sales deduction for States like Florida, Nevada, and Texas, where people should be able to deduct what they pay in sales taxes because we don't have an income tax, which is deductible in other States, this provision expires this year. But the Democratic budget rejected this deduction, increasing taxes on Floridians and others right away.

My friends on the other side of the aisle claim they support tax relief, and they'll say it time and time again; but, frankly, their actions just don't match their rhetoric.

Those amendments were defeated in committee just a few days ago. Those amendments which are not tax cuts for the wealthy, as we're going to hear, no. They were for middle-class American families in the United States, and they voted against every single one of those amendments. And, again, every single one of them our colleagues on the Democratic side voted against those tax cuts for middle America, for American families, for small businesses, et cetera. Again, not one single Democrat voted for these tax cuts for the middle class.

But these tax provisions affect real people, Mr. Chairman, real American families, workers, and small business owners. Let's take a look at what these tax increases mean. Again, these are real numbers. This is not theory. This is not rhetoric:

A family of four with $50,000 in annual income, not wealthy people but a family of four with $50,000 in annual income, would see its tax bill increase by $2,100. That's $2,100 in tax increases in 2011 as a result of the Democrats' budget. That's a 191 percent increase in their Federal taxes.

Forty-eight million married couples will see their tax bills rise by an average of $3,000; 12 million single women with dependents will face a tax increase of nearly $1,100; 18 million seniors, seniors, will see a tax increase of more than $2,100 in the year 2011; 27 million small business owners, Mr. Chairman, which are the backbone of our economy, which are the job creators in our economy, will see their tax bills increase by over $4,000. More than six million taxpayers who previously had no Federal income tax liability will become subject to the individual income tax in 2011. Again, these are low-income Americans, because, again, unfortunately, the 10 percent bracket has gone away, and also their child deduction will go away.

These are just a few examples, not rhetoric, concrete specific examples of how this amendment and the underlying bill will affect hardworking American families, the American taxpayer.

With this budget, 116 million American taxpayers will see their tax increase by an average of $1,800 in the year 2011. That's actually the underlying bill. With this amendment it would be even higher than that.

I often hear my Democratic friends say that a budget sets priorities. And it's obvious that this budget and this amendment to the budget set priorities. And what are those? More runaway spending and much higher taxes. That's what this budget offers and what this amendment offers. More of the same, just more taxes, more spending, more taxes, more spending, and no reform.

Some people, I guess, believe in this budget, and this amendment shows that some people believe that the Federal Government just doesn't have enough money and that the people

have too much money in their wallets; so the Federal Government needs to take it from them because we can do a better job here. The bureaucracy and those smart men and women in Congress, we know much better how to spend people's money than they do.

But, Mr. Chairman, wait. Like those TV commercials: but wait, there's even more. This budget does absolutely nothing to address the huge entitlements, the crisis that our Nation faces. As entitlement programs continue to grow, this underlying budget contains no instructions to reform them so that we will be able to keep them so that they can continue to serve the people that they are serving and they will not bankrupt those programs and also not bankrupt the country.

Again, the truth is, Mr. Chairman, that Medicare and Medicaid are both growing at more than 7 percent a year. Social Security is growing at 7 percent per year. These huge growth rates are, unfortunately, unsustainable for our economy, for those programs, for our fiscal future. We must tackle this crisis. We must reform them to save those programs and also to make sure that we save the fiscal situation in this country. And if we don't, if we put it off for another 5 years, as this amendment does and as the underlying budget does, it will just make the situation worse. We have to act on that now.

Mr. Chairman, this substitute budget and the underlying Democratic budgets are both deeply flawed. They both raise taxes on hardworking Americans to a level that we have never seen. We know what higher taxes will do. It will kill job creation. I mean, we all agreed to that. When we wanted to make sure that we avoided a recession, what did this Congress do on a bipartisan level? We cut taxes because we know that cutting taxes, on a bipartisan level we know, that helps economic growth. But yet this amendment and the underlying budget will increase taxes on the American people without precedent, at levels that, frankly, have no precedent. And this is just more of the same.

And for those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully request that we vote down this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to recognize, frankly, one of the most talented and one of the most knowledgeable Members in the United States Congress on fiscal matters, that is, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), for 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I want everybody to kind of listen to this debate, to just listen to see where you hear one reduction in this amendment or in the underlying budget, one reduction in Federal spending, one reduction in waste, one cut in waste, one program that is eliminated, one thing in the Federal Government that should get a little bit less money. Please listen to that, and what you will hear is

just the opposite. More spending. More spending. More spending, more Federal programs, and not one reduction.

Is the Federal Government so efficient there is nothing that can be reduced? I don't think so.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I think if you ask the American taxpayer if it helps our domestic security to increase their taxes by $1.1 trillion over the next 5 years like this amendment does, they would probably tell you that no, and that frankly, it puts their domestic security in great jeopardy, or the $683 billion in tax increases in the underlying Democratic budget. I think obviously the answer would be the same.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

As you have heard, yes, we have heard time and time again this amendment does, and the underlying budget does, increase spending. And how do they pay for the increased spending? Well, $1.1 trillion over the next 5 years in increased taxes. Let me repeat that: $1.1 trillion in increased taxes. Including who? Who would get taxed? Well, everybody would get a tax increase, including, for example, reducing the child tax credit in half; including raising taxes by not extending the 10 percent tax bracket for the very-low-income taxpayers of this country; including not extending the tax relief for married couples.

This $1.1 trillion in increased taxes would hit every American, every small business, every family, every taxpayer.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Chairman, I once again want to commend our colleagues from the CBC. They have done a lot of work to put this budget together. It is not an easy task to do. It takes a lot of work, not only from the members, from their staffs, so I want to commend them for putting together a work product that I know they spent a lot of time and a lot of effort on, and they must be commended for that.

Obviously, as you have heard today, we have some huge disagreements. This amendment would raise taxes by more than $1.1 trillion, that's trillion with a ``T,'' over the next 5 years.

It's $427 billion above and beyond the already $683 billion in tax increases in the underlying Democratic budget that, frankly, was pretty much just rejected in a very strong vote in the Senate, 99-1.

The reason there was a 99-1 vote was because the Senators on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, do not want to support eliminating all of these middle class tax cuts, the tax cuts on families, the tax cuts per child, et cetera, et cetera, which is why they rejected that and adopted an amendment to have half the size of the tax increase that the underlying budget has. Half that size of an increase in taxes is still way too high.

However, the underlying budget that the House is looking at, again, would raise taxes on the American people by $683 billion over the next 5 years, and this amendment goes even further than that by increasing taxes $1.1 trillion over the next 5 years.

For those reasons and many others, I respectfully would ask to vote against this amendment. But I do want to end one more time by commending the gentleman from Virginia and all his colleagues for doing a lot of work and putting together a work program that requires a lot of effort and a lot of work, even though, again, when it came out, obviously it's a $1.1 trillion tax increase, which is why, among other reasons, we cannot support it.

I would respectfully then ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the distinguished manager of this legislation and vice chairman of our caucus.

Madam Speaker, the United States, the American people asked us to act, and I'm proud today to rise and to support the kind of stimulus that provides opportunity not only for those who you would expect or those who are argued for, but the working men and women, middle-income Americans in my congressional district in Houston making less than $50,000, allowing them to get either $600 as a single person, $1,200 as a family, and $300 as a married couple.

The most important aspect is that economists estimate that each dollar of broad tax cuts leads to $1.26 in economic growth. But I hope that we will look to the addition of food stamps, summer job programs, and extension of the unemployment. And we must have the language, I hope, in the final bill, a sense of Congress that there should be a moratorium on foreclosures that are happening in America today; 2.4 million foreclosures expected in this coming year. It is imperative that we give a sense that these individuals can reconstruct their loans and survive.

This is a package that is needed for America. I ask my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker. I rise today in support of the Recovery Rebate and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act. I would like to thank Speaker Pelosi for her leadership on this issue, as well as my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have worked together to overcome partisan divisions to work together to stimulate our national economy. This legislation will inject $145.9 billion into the economy in 2008, over two-thirds of which will come in the form of tax rebate checks, given directly to individuals and families.

However, while I support this legislation, I would like to express my concern about some of this bill's omissions. I requested and had hoped that this legislation would include language declaring that it is the sense of Congress that a moratorium of up to 90 days should be declared on all home foreclosures, and that it is the sense of Congress that the financial industry should allow for the reconstruction and reconfiguration of the mortgage loan market.

Madam Speaker, I would like to see the following language included in the final legislation, agreed on by both Houses and signed into law by the President:

(i) It is the sense of Congress that a moratorium of up to 90 days should be declared on all home foreclosures.

(ii) It is the sense of Congress that the financial industry should allow for the reconstruction and reconfiguration of the mortgage loan market.

It was my sincere hope, shared by many economists, that a temporary economic adjustment period would provide relief for millions of Americans, and that this added time would give them time to look for other resources. By delaying foreclosure, Congress would have declared that millions of Americans deserve to make their payments, or to get their loans restructured before they lose their homes. Those who can keep paying would continue putting money back into our economy. Madam Speaker, we must act now to prevent what could be a disaster for millions of Americans.

There are a number of additional proposals that I would like to see included in the final economic stimulus package. I believe it should include a summer job program, aimed at helping our Nation's youth gain the crucial work experience and job skills that will allow them to be competitive in today's increasingly difficult employment market. By working to provide Americans with the skills they need to successfully secure and keep employment, we cannot only help both adults and youth to develop their careers and to support themselves and their families, but we can bolster the whole economy by combating poverty and unemployment.

I would also like to see the extension and expansion of several existent programs which are already doing important work toward helping Americans. Under the strain of current financial circumstances, I believe that we must bolster these important programs. Madam Speaker, I call for the expansion of food stamps and Medicaid programs, and for the extension of unemployment benefits. Given the current economic climate, I believe that is our responsibility, as the leaders of our Nation, to do all in our power to ensure that the most vulnerable populations are protected.

Madam Speaker, now is the time for innovative leadership and concerted action. Recent data shows economic growth is slowing, and many economic analysts predict a 50 percent chance of recession. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment rose from 4.7 to 5.0 percent in November 2007 alone. This data, coupled with a struggling housing market and overall slowing economic growth, has caused a ``credit crunch'' that has reduced available funding and has caused rising prices for housing and food.

Over the past year, we have seen a crisis in subprime mortgage lending, which has threatened the stability of the housing market and the livelihoods of large numbers of Americans. During the third quarter of 2007, the Nation's home foreclosures doubled from the previous year. This Democratic Congress is committed to strengthening the housing market and stabilizing the economy, and we have passed important legislation to address this crisis.

Because of the lack of regulation by the Federal Government, many housing loans were accompanied by fraud, predatory lending, inadequate information and other failures of responsible marketing. With exceptionally high--and rising--foreclosure rates across the country, homeowners all over America are losing their homes. Homeowners are surprised to find out that their monthly payments are spiking and they are struggling to make these increasingly high payments.

The subprime mortgage crisis has impacted families and communities across the country. Home foreclosure filings rose to 1.2 million in 2006, a 42 percent jump, due to rising mortgage bills and a slowing housing market. Nationally, as many as 2.4 million subprime borrowers have either lost their homes or could lose them in the next few years.

In my home State of Texas, citizens are feeling the impact of the looming financial crisis. In November 2007 alone, there were 11,599 foreclosure filings in Texas. According to the Center for Responsible Lending, in Harris County alone 11,944 homes were lost from 2005 to 2006 through foreclosure on subprime loans. During the same time period, the average home decreased $1,355 in total value.

Madam Speaker, I firmly believe that this agreement should include a moratorium on foreclosures of at least 90 days on owner-occupied homes with subprime mortgages. Any agreement should also include a rate freeze on adjustable mortgages of at least 5 years or until the loan is converted into a fixed-rate mortgage. The freeze on foreclosures would give the housing market time to stabilize and homeowners time to build equity. It is critical that we address this crisis. The Bush administration and the mortgage industry must reach an agreement that matches the scale of the problem. The U.S. Treasury Department has been pushing the mortgage industry to agree to temporarily freeze interest rates for some borrowers who took out loans with low teaser rates that will soon be resetting much higher.

Madam Speaker, it is imperative that we address the serious underlying housing issues faced by our Nation. Seventeen million households, or one in seven, spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing. On any given night, approximately 750,000 men, women, and children are homeless. Constructing more affordable housing is necessary to help families who have lost their homes in the subprime mortgage crisis or due to a family financial crisis, such as illness or job loss. In my home district in Houston, homelessness remains a significant problem. Houston's homeless population increased to approximately 14,000 in 2005, before Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and hurricane evacuees remaining in the Houston area could result in the homeless population increasing by some 23,000. Approximately 28 percent of homeless Americans are veterans.

In August, I, in coordination with the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, hosted a workshop on the introductory concepts and considerations in applying for

Housing Tax Credits in Texas. This workshop was designed to create new incentives for developers to expand business opportunities in housing development, as well as to generate a significant increase in the availability of low-income and affordable housing for the residents of Houston and Harris County. I believe that an increase in affordable housing and job opportunities will help reduce the high rates of homelessness among Houston residents.

Madam Speaker, today's economic stimulus legislation will make important strides towards helping hardworking Americans who are struggling with the high costs of gas, health care, and groceries. By putting several hundred dollars directly into the hands of 117 million American families, this legislation will make important strides toward invigorating our economy, giving money to those who will quickly spend it, reinvesting this money in the American economy.

This bill provides broad-based relief for individuals and families, valued at approximately $109 billion over 10 years. The packages includes tax cuts for 117 million families, providing up to $600 per individual, $1,200 per married couple, and an additional $300 per child. On top of these recovery rebate checks, which could be sent as early as mid-May, this legislation will provide unprecedented tax relief for working families, with $28 billion in tax relief for 35 million families who work but make too little to pay income taxes, who would therefore otherwise not be included in this recovery effort. It is targeted to reach those who need the relief the most: Of these 35 million working families, over 19 million are families with children. I support provisions in this legislation providing tax relief to middle- income Americans, as well as those aspiring to the middle class, leaving out the wealthiest taxpayers. Nearly $50 billion of the rebate will go to those making less than $50,000.

Madam Speaker, family incomes and home prices are down, even as the costs of health care, energy, food, and education are on the rise. Combined with the jump in mortgage foreclosures, the American economy is struggling, with American families falling behind on their bills and consumer confidence hitting a 5-year low.

This bill also contains some provisions to help families avoid foreclosure. It increases affordable refinancing opportunities and liquidity in the housing market, increasing the Federal Housing Administration loan limits to $729,750 for 2008. This will expand affordable mortgage loan opportunities for families at risk of foreclosure. Further, it includes a 1-year increase in loan limits for single family homes from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, enhancing credit availability in the mortgage market.

While this legislation includes provisions intended to provide a short-term ``fix'' to many of the economic difficulties our economy is currently facing, I do not believe that it addresses the long-term needs of our Nation. While short-term response is critical, we must not neglect infrastructure, energy independence, and innovation needs, without which we will not be able to establish a vibrant U.S. economy. I look forward to working with House leadership, and with my fellow Members on both sides of the aisle, to look to the future, and to build innovative and long-term solutions to the underlying problems our economy faces.

Madam Speaker, this legislation is not perfect, but I believe it is an important step. I continue to advocate for a 90-day moratorium on home foreclosures to give financially troubled borrowers time to work with lenders and avoid losing their homes. I also believe we, together, must address the underlying infrastructure problems plaguing our economy. However, I do believe today's legislation will provide important benefits to millions of Americans, to the entire economy, and to our Nation as a whole. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation.

[Discussion Draft]

Parliamentary inquiry. Is my understanding correct that, as the Chair of the Financial Services Committee, I will control 20 minutes?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, what's in this stimulus package is, A, good; B, not enough. But I believe it is important to move it. I say ``not enough'' because the Committee on Financial Services has been dealing particularly with the subprime crisis and the troubles that's generated.

We have in this stimulus package, by agreement between both sides here and the administration, some things that would be very helpful. There are further things that are important that are not in this package. No one should think that because they're not in this

package we are not going to go and deal with them.

As soon as this is done today, the staff of the Committee on Financial Services will be working closely, we've been in consultation with the Senate and others, on a broader set of measures that will both diminish the economic problems that the subprime crisis causes and also try to deal with the distress that results.

But let me talk today about what we do. We increase in this bill loan limits for the FHA and for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We made a mistake at some point in public policy by setting as a limit for those three agencies, which deal with housing finance and facilitate housing finance, one flat nationwide dollar limit. In fact, nothing in our economy varies in the pricing area as much as house prices, because houses are immobile. Automobile prices, clothing prices, food prices, there are some regional variations; but they tend to be closer.

House prices have a very great variation, for obvious reasons; and, in fact, the limits that have been set which were intended to prevent luxury housing from benefiting from these public or public/private programs in much of the country excludes not just luxury housing but housing for people of moderate and middle incomes.

Now, that's always been a problem to many of us, but recently it's become part of an economic problem. The mortgage market, we understand, has been suffering at the lower end, at the subprime end, because people with weaker credit were charged too much with, we should always note, a racial and ethnic discriminatory factor; but, in general, there was a problem there.

What we now face, and have for some time, is a problem at the higher end. Because of the uncertainty in the mortgage market, people are unwilling to invest. People are unwilling to buy the mortgages. We have come to be dependent, unhealthily so it seems to me, on the secondary market in which the originators have to sell their loans.

People will not now invest in buying loans that are above the levels at which the FHA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac can provide assurance. Those levels are too low.

So what we do in this stimulus bill is to raise the levels of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the FHA, not uniformly but sensibly, as a percentage of median income with a cap. And that's a very important piece in trying to unlock the mortgage market and getting money flowing again.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, a man who had a major role in our dealing with the structural issues going forward, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the Chair of the Housing Subcommittee of our committee, who has played a very significant role and will be in a major role as we go forward in the necessary next steps after this, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean), a member of the Financial Services Committee, who has been particularly creative in trying to make sure that there are tax incentives in here that will help the business community play its most productive role.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the member of the leadership who has had a major role in recognizing the need for this package.

Mr. Speaker, as I listened to my friend from California, I was struck as he excoriated the President's program, that in his metaphor he seemed to think the President can't tell one body part from another, which is a troubling thing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our very distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a member of the committee who has been a hard worker on this, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Madam Speaker, I yield now 1 minute to a member of the Financial Services Committee whose expertise in the world of business and finance has been very helpful to us, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mahoney).

Madam Speaker, I'm now going to yield to the Chair of the Financial Institution Subcommittee, who has been a very important part of our effort to try and deal with this crisis, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to a member of our committee who has been very active in trying to deal with housing and especially with the area of manufactured housing, which is such an important part of our efforts to meet the housing needs, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly).

Madam Speaker, the argument has been made that this is just a short-term fix, and that is what we hope it will be. We have both a short-term and a long-term problem.

A recession is, by definition, a specific incident in the cycle, and what we are trying to do now is to respond to what we believe and hope to be a specific, more short-term weakness. That's why we are able to come together in a bipartisan way.

And partisanship is, I believe, a much unfairly maligned concept. Partisanship is essential to a healthy democracy. There has never been a self-governing polity in the history of the world, I believe, of any size where political parties did not emerge, because large numbers of people trying to govern themselves need an organizing principle other than the authority of the leadership.

In America today, a division between the two parties reflects serious, thoughtful differences on how the public and private sectors should interact. We're a capitalist Nation and we're all capitalists, but we differ. On the Republican side there is, I think, an unjustified belief in the essential self-sufficiency of the capitalist system.

We believe, following many who have done work on the technical ``doctrine of market failure,'' market failure in the economic sense, that the free market is a great generator of wealth, but that to achieve the quality of life we want, there must also be a vigorous public sector that interacts with it. That's partly in expenditures, because there are public goods that all of us want that the private sector does not have the capacity to produce, public safety and transportation, and including some compassion for those among us who will not live minimally decent lives unless the rest of us show some of that compassion.

There is also the need for regulation. And the biggest single problem we face today, I believe, is the consequence of too little regulation. It is possible to overregulate, but it is possible to regulate inadequately.

Innovation is very important, and innovation does not survive and grow if it doesn't meet a real need in the economy. One of the innovations of recent times was securitization made possible by large pools of money, by great liquidity that came from various places, not from depository funds, because funds that are in depository institutions are regulated. But a lot of money was generated now, not by bank deposits, but in other ways. And we've also got the ability, technically and in other ways, to sell off those loans.

The lender-borrower relationship that was at the core 30 years ago of many transactions has been essentially diluted. And it turns out that those who thought they had a way to substitute for that missing lender- borrower relationship were deluded. The relationship was diluted, but they were deluded in thinking that they had these techniques that would allow them to deal with it.

We are in a difficult situation today because the innovation and securitization, which has many advantages, was allowed to go forward without adequate regulation, without people knowing, literally, what they were doing and what they were buying and what they were selling, and keeping things off their balance sheets, and not being reserve requirements and not being careful about what loans they bought. We have differences between the parties as to how to deal with those, and we will continue to work on those.

We, however, have a short-term, we hope, shortfall that needs to be addressed. And let me talk for a minute for those who say, Well, what makes you think people are going to go out and spend more because of this? The purpose of a short-term stimulus like this is not to get people to spend more; it is to help them not to spend less. We're not talking about the need for a surge over the norm in consumer spending. We are talking about a fiscal crunch that faces many Americans, in response to which they will have to cut back spending. And people are saying, Oh, they're going to buy flat screen TVs, they're going to do this and that. We have, thanks to the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, a bill before us that will send most of the individual money to people who don't have the option of saying, Well, I think I'll buy another flat screen TV, but who need the money. Helping them avoid pain in their lives and damage to the economy is the justification for this very narrow, short-term stimulus.

I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership in the Congressional Black Caucus.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin the discussion on the budget with where we are. And I'd like to use charts because a lot of rhetoric goes back and forth.

This is a statement of where we are right now. You will see the budget deficit year by year was improved in the 8 years of Democratic leadership on the budget and in the last few years has totally collapsed. It has collapsed to the point where we had a surplus projected, a 5- or 10-year surplus of $5.5 trillion, a surplus projected for those 10 years starting in 2001. Those 10 years look like they're going to come in at a $3 trillion deficit. That's an $8.8 trillion deterioration. That's an average of over $800 billion a year deterioration in the budget.

We didn't create any jobs during this time. This job performance under this administration is the worst since Herbert Hoover. You can say what you want, but that's just the arithmetic fact.

The Congressional Black Caucus is dealing with this budget responsibly. We, first of all, repeal the tax cuts that put us into the ditch to begin with. You can call that process whatever you want. You can rant and rave, but the fact is we are repealing all of those tax cuts that got us in the ditch, except those tax cuts that primarily affect that portion of your income under $200,000. Under $200,000 those tax cuts are protected. Those tax cuts that primarily affect your income over $200,000, those are the ones that we are repealing. We are able to, with that money, balance the budget and to go into surplus.

The red is the President's budget, which is significantly worse than the Congressional Black Caucus every year. The Congressional Black Caucus has a lower deficit in the first 3 years and a higher surplus in the next 3 years than either the President's budget or the Democratic budget. We are so responsible, in fact, that we save interest on the national debt. Cumulative compared to the President we save $23 billion in the fifth year alone, $48 billion saved in interest over the 5 years compared to the President's budget.

We are also able to spend on our priorities. Education, compared to the President's budget, $160 billion more on education, particularly No Child Left Behind; $119 billion more in health care, particularly children's health that the President vetoed. Veterans benefits, $60 billion over the President's budget. We're not charging our veterans fees for the services that they desperately need. And justice programs, prevention programs, afterschool programs, and Second Chance Programs to make our communities safer, almost $35 billion extra.

This budget is responsible. It invests in our priorities, and it is much more fiscally responsible than the President's budget.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

First of all, the gentleman indicated that we have nothing in there for waste, fraud and abuse. In fact, we spend $300 million in the Defense Department budget to make sure that they follow through on the GAO recommendations to reduce fraud, waste and abuse.

Furthermore, we protect all of those tax cuts for that portion of the taxpayers' income under $200,000. It is just the tax cuts over $200,000 that primarily got us in the ditch.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from California, Ms. Maxine Waters.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Barbara Lee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to remind the public of where we are and how we got in the ditch, and these taxes they are talking about is just repealing what got us into the ditch.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds to remind the public that we are in the ditch. We are repealing what got us in the ditch; but we are protecting those tax cuts, many of which were just mentioned, those that affect that portion of your income under $200,000. But the alternative is to stay in the ditch.

We have a problem in that we have got Social Security we are going to end up having to pay in a few years. We have got more money coming in in Social Security than going out now. That is going to change in 2018, and we are not setting aside any money for that. We have a credible plan to get us out of the ditch by repealing what got us into the ditch.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

I want to thank the gentleman, Mr. Scott, for his leadership on the CBC budget.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Congressional Black Caucus alternative budget offered today. The CBC budget once again proposed to change a 7-year Republican policy that I have called Reverse Robin Hood, stealing from the poor to give tax breaks to the rich.

You might ask why the Democratic budget, which I support, needs improvement. The Democratic budget needs improvement because when America has a cold, the African American community has pneumonia. The CBC budget reversed the deep cuts that have been made to the programs that

serve the neediest Americans. This year's Congressional Black Caucus budget covers all eligible children with health care insurance through funding for CHIP, $84 billion more than the Democratic budget and $119 billion more than the President's; ensures no child is left behind by funding education and providing increased funding for Head Start, college access programs, college loans, and job training programs, $101 billion more than the Democratic budget and $162 billion more than the President's; honors our veterans by increasing funding for health care, benefits, and educational opportunities, $17 billion more than the Democratic budget and $60 billion over the President's budget; makes local community more secure by fully funding justice, gang prevention, and local law enforcement programs, as well as ensuring every voice counts by funding the Help America Vote Act.

We talk about a stimulus, and the only stimulus is the investment in our people, in education, in health care, in job training, so support economic and fiscal recovery. Vote ``yes'' on the budget. I encourage us to vote for the economic recovery by voting for the CBC budget.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I just want to make a couple of closing comments. First on defense, the number on defense, we keep the same number on the defense budget. However, we have different priorities. Those priorities will be debated in a different forum.

The $70 billion for the war we restrict to redeployment. We want those troops back as soon as practicable, consistent with our national security interests.

On waste, fraud, and abuse, we just don't talk about waste, fraud, and abuse. We spend $300 million to implement the GAO's studies and recommendations for how you can reduce fraud, waste, and abuse in the military. We make them spend the money to actually implement those recommendations.

Our budget eliminates the fees and copays that the President's budget has for our veterans. It is insulting to try to balance the budget on the backs of our courageous veterans. We do have entitlement reform, $150 billion in entitlement reform, by reducing the subsidies to private corporations who provide Medicare Advantage. Those that provide, those are the subsidies that you get nothing for. Medicare could do it cheaper, $150 billion cheaper, and that's the reform that we have.

A lot has been said about tax cuts. We repeal what got us in the ditch. We protect those tax cuts that primarily affect that portion of your income under $200,000.

In summary, this is where we are, back in the ditch. We repeal the tax cuts that got us into the ditch. One of those tax cuts that we want to repeal is a $20 billion tax cut referred to as PEP and Pease, affecting personal exemptions and standard deductions. The only people that get this essentially are millionaires. If you make over $1 million you get this much tax cut; $200,000 to $1 million, you get that much tax cut; $100,000 to $200,000 you don't need ink to draw the bar; and $100,000, out of this $20 billion, you get, on average, zero. All of those tax cuts, we have said, had the greatest expansion in recent history.

Let's talk about the arithmetic. Arithmetic fact, worst job growth since Herbert Hoover. Look at the job growth of all the Presidents down to President Hoover; worst, this administration, and they are bragging about it.

We have a responsible budget that reduces the deficit, goes into surplus. It's a responsible budget that also funds many of our priorities: education, health care, veterans, justice. It is a responsible budget, and I would ask for the House to adopt this budget.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.