Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 13, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010, I hereby submit a revision to the budget allocations and aggregates for certain House committees for fiscal year 2010 and the period of fiscal years 2010 through 2014. This adjustment responds to House consideration of the bill H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. A corresponding table is attached.

This revision represents an adjustment for the purposes of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. For the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, this revised allocation is to be considered as an allocation included in the budget resolution, pursuant to section 427(b) of S. Con. Res. 13.

DIRECT SPENDING LEGISLATION--AUTHORIZING COMMITTEE 302(a) ALLOCATIONS FOR RESOLUTION CHANGES

[Fiscal years, in millions of dollars] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2009 2010 2010-2014 total

Madam Speaker, I am transmitting a status report on the current levels of on-budget spending and revenues for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 and for the five-year period of fiscal years 2010 through 2014. This report is necessary to facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act and sections 424 and 427 of S. Con. Res. 13, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2010.

The term ``current level'' refers to the amounts of spending and revenues estimated for each fiscal year based on laws enacted or awaiting the President's signature.

The first table in the report compares the current levels of total budget authority, outlays, and revenues with the aggregate levels set by S. Con. Res. 13. This comparison is needed to enforce section 311(a) of the Budget Act, which establishes a point of order against any measure that would breach the budget resolution's aggregate levels.

The second table compares the current levels of budget authority and outlays for each authorizing committee with the ``section 302(a)'' allocations made under S. Con. Res. 13 for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 and fiscal years 2010 through 2014. This comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which establishes a point of order against any measure that would breach the section 302(a) discretionary action allocation of new budget authority for the committee that reported the measure.

The third table compares the current levels of discretionary appropriations for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 with the ``section 302(a)'' allocation of discretionary budget authority and outlays to the Appropriations Committee. This comparison is needed to enforce section

302(f) of the Budget Act, which establishes a point of order against any measure that would breach section 302(b) sub-allocations within the Appropriations Committee.

The fourth table gives the current level for fiscal years 2011 and 2012 for accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 424 of S. Con. Res. 13. This list is needed to enforce section 424 of the budget resolution, which establishes a point of order against appropriations bills that include advance appropriations that: (1) are not identified in the joint statement of managers; or (2) would cause the aggregate amount of such appropriations to exceed the level specified in the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I commend the gentleman for bringing the bill to the floor and I rise in strong support of the Disabled Military Retiree Relief Act of 2009.

This bill accomplishes several important things. It enhances the benefits of Federal civil service retirees. It extends the bonuses available to our military recruiters to ensure that they have the tools needed for recruitment and retention. But most importantly, this bill restores the benefits earned by a group of veterans who are particularly deserving. The group I speak of is comprised of veterans who were medically retired with a disability and less than 20 years of service. These disabled veterans tend to be younger, and as a result, they tend to be less well off financially.

Reducing their earned benefits by offsetting the receipt of one benefit against the other, retirement pay against VA disability benefits, does not strike them as fair. And we can understand why.

We first recognized their cause in the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, when the Congress, Democratic Congress, fought to include them in the Combat Related Special Compensation program. Now President Obama has asked us to take the cause one step further. He has asked us to provide concurrent receipt, phased in over a period of 5 years, for those veterans who are medically retired with a disability rating and for whom no longevity requirement applies. This bill moves to fund the first year of that proposal.

This legislation will go a long way towards showing these veterans that they have not been forgotten, their service has not been forgotten nor has their disability which they incurred in service. Specifically, this bill will repeal the offset, which has prevented medically retired veterans from concurrently receiving their retirement pay and their VA disability compensation at the same time.

Despite its high importance, please bear in mind that this is a 1- year solution. And there is a reason for that. We have a rule here called the PAYGO, pay-as-you-go rule, which basically says when you enhance or expand eligibility for an entitlement program, you have to pay for it so that it will not worsen the deficit.

In order to provide the offsets to keep from worsening the deficit as we undertook this very just adjustment of the veterans benefit program, we have had to look across the spectrum for different items. You just heard some of them read off by Mr. Hall a few minutes ago. We will have to, next year, do the same thing to continue this benefit. And to expand the benefit we will have to look for even more. So it is not easy. It is not easy by any means. But it is worthy of these veterans who have done a yeoman service for their country, who have sustained wounds that they will bear for the rest of their life, and which have disability benefits which should not be offset.

So this is a significant step forward, but it is a step that we have not yet completed. It is a step in the right direction, but we still have a way to go. And next year we will have to revisit this again in order to renew this benefit and in order to expand it for another year. Nevertheless, this is a well-worked piece of legislation for a veterans group that dearly deserves the benefits that it provides.

I urge support for the bill.

Madam Speaker, under section 324 of S. Con. Res. 13, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010, I hereby submit a revision to the budget allocations and aggregates for certain House committees for fiscal year 2010 and the period of fiscal years 2010 through 2014. This adjustment responds to House consideration of the bill H.R. 2990, the Disabled Military Retiree Relief Act of 2009. A corresponding table is attached.

This revision represents an adjustment for the purposes of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. For the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, this revised allocation is to be considered as an allocation included in the budget resolution, pursuant to section 427(b) of S. Con. Res. 13.

Mr. Speaker, under section 423(a)(1) of S. Con. Res. 13, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record an adjustment to the budget allocations for the Committee on Appropriations for each of the fiscal years 2009 and 2010. Section 423(a)(1) of S. Con. Res. 13 permits the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to adjust discretionary spending limits for overseas deployments and other activities when these activities are so designated. Such a designation is included in the bill H.R. 2892, Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes. Corresponding tables are attached.

This adjustment is filed for the purposes of section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. For the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, this adjusted allocation is to be considered as an allocation included in the budget resolution, pursuant to section 427(b) of S. Con. Res. 13.

DISCRETIONARY APPROPRIATIONS--APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 302(a) ALLOCATION

[In millions of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Madam Speaker, Under section 423(a)(1) of S. Con. Res. 13, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010, I hereby submit an adjustment to the budget aggregates and allocations for the Committee on Appropriations for each of the fiscal years 2009 and 2010. Section 423(a)(1) of S. Con. Res. 13 permits the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to adjust discretionary spending limits for overseas deployments and other activities when these activities are so designated. Such a designation is included both in the conference report to accompany H.R. 2346, a bill making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes, and in the bill H.R. 2847, Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.

Madam Speaker, under section 422(c) of S. Con. Res. 13, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010, I hereby submit a revision to the budget aggregates and allocations for the Committee on Appropriations for fiscal year 2010. A table is attached.

This revision represents an adjustment for the purposes of sections 311 and 302 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. For the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, this revised allocation is to be considered as an allocation included in the budget resolution, pursuant to section 427(b) of S. Con. Res. 13.

Madam Speaker, under section 423(a)(1) of S. Con. Res. 13, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record a revised 302(a) allocation for the Committee on Appropriations for each of the fiscal years 2009 and 2010. Section 423(a)(1) of S. Con. Res. 13 permits the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to adjust discretionary spending limits for overseas deployments and other activities when these activities are so designated. Such a designation is included in H.R. 2346, a bill making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes. A table is attached.

DISCRETIONARY APPROPRIATIONS--APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 302(a) ALLOCATION

[In millions of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).

(Mr. BOYD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, how much time remains?

I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.

Madam Speaker, we are here this morning to pick up where we left off yesterday, but really we are here to pick up the tab left over by the Bush administration.

The Bush administration has left us with an economy in recession, a Nation $5 trillion deeper in debt, and a budget in deficit, deep deficit, $1.845 trillion according to the CBO.

This is the hand dealt us. After 8 years of the Bush administration, we have to play the ball where it lies.

After listening to the debate on the other side of the aisle, I think it would be helpful to start by pointing out what this budget is not. This is not a budget that increases spending. Total spending in 2009 will be $3.9 trillion. If we pass this resolution, total spending in 2010 will be $3.6 trillion. That's $300 billion less, not more. And all the initiatives we specify will be paid for.

Despite what you have heard on the floor, this is not a budget resolution that increases taxes. It lowers taxes by $764 billion over 5 years and by $1.7 trillion over 10 years. It renews the middle-income tax cuts. It extends the estate tax at the 2009 level. This is not about tax increases. It's about tax decreases.

This is not a budget resolution that increases the deficit. Far from it. By 2014, this budget resolution will reduce the deficit from $1.845 trillion this year to $525 billion next year. This is a deficit reduction budget.

Let me also answer the extravagant claims made on the floor about how much debt accumulation will occur under this bill. Look at table 5 in your blue book here and look at the bottom line in debt net of financial assets. In the budget year, the first budget year, the debt net of financial assets is $8.072 trillion. In 2014 it's $10.642 trillion.

Now I am not here to tout a $2.5 trillion addition to our national debt, although it pales in comparison to what happened under Mr. Bush. But I am simply saying this is better by far than anything you have heard characterized on the House floor.

Now the budget is about more than numbers. It's about values, visions and investments. And what we have to tout and talk about in offering this budget resolution to the House is what it will do for health care in our country, and particularly for the 46 million people who do not have coverage; what it will do for the educational system of this country if we can tell every child in America, yes, you can, you can get a higher education, Pell Grants will help you do so; what it will do to help build energy independence and reduce the carbon emissions in this country. We can have energy innovation.

All of this is provided for in this bill. And I would emphasize all of it is provided for in deficit-neutral reserve funds which do not add to the bottom line the debt of the United States. This is what we are presenting here.

Now the deficit before us is a structural deficit. It's part cyclical, but mostly structural. It's built into the budget that we have to deal with. After 8 years of the Bush administration, there is a massive mismatch between revenues and spending in the budget that creates the huge deficits we have got today.

We cannot turn this big battleship around overnight, but we can put it on the right path towards fiscal responsibility again. And that is exactly what this budget resolution does. That is why everybody in the House who believes in budget reduction, believes in fiscal responsibility, should vote for this budget resolution.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield my remaining time to the distinguished Speaker of this House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 371, I call up the conference report to accompany the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 13) setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through 2014, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

In resolving the conference this year, we have had a hard hand to play. In the backwash of the Bush administration, we have had to struggle with an economy that is reeling, if not receding. The deficit is deep and the end is nowhere in sight.

President Obama has responded to these challenges head-on, and we have followed his lead with a conference agreement that reflects most of his policies and most of his proposals.

The President has recognized that we have not one but two deficits. The first is an economy running at about 7 percent below its full employment level, or $1 trillion below its potential. To move our economy closer to its capacity, the President signed into law a package of stimulus measures totaling $787 billion in tax cuts and spending increases.

Here is what the Congressional Budget Office says in its analysis of the President's budget: ``The adoption of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and very aggressive actions by the Fed and the Treasury will help end the recession this fall.''

Let's hope CBO is right, because it's all but impossible to balance the budget when the economy is in recession. Nevertheless, this year's deficit constitutes 12.3 percent of our gross domestic product. At least two-thirds of that stems from the tax and spending policies undertaken by the Bush administration. Much of the enormous swell in this year's deficit is due to some extraordinary expenditures, such as the Troubled Asset Relief Program, and the consolidation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in the Federal budget, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The good news is these expenditures are nonrecurring so long as the economy recovers.

The President sent us a budget that will cut the deficit by two- thirds by 2013, from $1.752 trillion this year to $523 billion in 2014. $523 billion is roughly 3 percent of GDP in 2014, and in that sense, it is sustainable, because that's roughly the growth rate in 2014.

The budget embodied in our resolution uses CBO projections, which are less optimistic. Yet it reduces the deficit to $523 billion in 2014, which is 3 percent of GDP, a bit less than the rate of growth in the economy for that year.

Our budget can rightly be called a deficit reduction budget, because it lowers the deficit by $1.2 trillion over 5 years. On the other hand, our budget is not so committed to deficit reduction that it overrides or overlooks other needs. In fact, it takes on topics that previous budgets have found too tough to face, such as health care for millions of Americans who do not have insurance. On top of that it slows down defense spending with an increase of 4 percent and makes a moderate adjustment to non-defense discretionary spending, taking it a bit above this year.

In spite of deficits, the President's budget and our conference report launch some bold initiatives to make our economy more productive and our people more productive. First, in higher education, with an increase in Pell Grants to $5,550; next in health care for the millions, 46 million by one estimate, who are uninsured; and, finally, in alternative energies to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and the depletion of our environment.

As the Budget Committee, we do not make tax policies or write tax bills, but we do set revenue levels with certain assumptions in mind. We have provided revenues sufficient to renew the middle-income tax cuts adopted in 2001 and 2003. These include the 10 percent bracket, the child tax credit and the marital penalty relief bill. We have also assumed revenue levels that allow for the AMT to be patched for 3 years to keep it from burdening middle-income taxpayers for whom it was never intended. We have also assumed in our revenue estimates that the estate tax will be extended at the 2009 levels, leaving exemptions of $3.5 million per decedent in place, in force, in law.

Our Republican colleagues nevertheless complained about our tax policies. Let me read from CBO's nonpartisan analysis of the President's budget, which is very much like our budget: ``Proposed changes in tax policy would reduce revenues by an estimated $1.7 trillion over the next 10 years.'' That's the CBO talking.

The President's major initiatives--health care, energy, education, environment--are all implemented by way of reserve funds, and, let me stress, these reserve funds are all deficit-neutral. They are yet to be funded, and they only become operative to the extent that they are actually funded.

The resolution before us sounds all of these themes, and with a few exceptions, supports the principles underlying the President's budget.

Our resolution is laid out in the form of a 5-year budget using CBO's stricter scoring and CBO's projections of the economy.

OMB has run out its budget over 10 years, but a 5-year budget is not at all unusual.

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

It's the customary time frame for budgeting, and we think that the 5- year budget is particularly appropriate in a year when no one can adequately foresee the future or can even foresee a few years over the horizon.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

(Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Before yielding to Mr. Becerra of California, I would like simply to make two or three clarifications.

You've heard it repeatedly said in this debate that this is a big spending bill, and it is, but it brings spending down from $3.9 trillion outlays this year to $3.6 trillion outlays next year--a reduction in spending of $300 billion. As for revenues, we don't raise revenues. We cut revenues by $764 billion over 5 years and by $1.7 trillion over 10 years. Those are the facts. That's the truth.

I now recognize for 2 minutes the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

Madam Speaker, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The gentleman from Texas said this was not the America he grew up in, but he grew up in Mr. Bush's America. During the 8 years of the Bush administration, the President came into office, we had a debt in this country of a little over $5 trillion. When he left office, the debt was a little over $12 trillion, and a deficit of $1.845 trillion. So a lot of last year's deficit becomes this year's debt. A lot of that debt was attributable to what happened in the last administration, too.

He said it continually, we increase spending. Once again, in terms of outlays, this bill will decrease spending by $300 billion, from $3.9 trillion--which is way too much--to $3.6 trillion. That is a $300 billion reduction.

As for taxes, raising taxes, this bill cuts taxes by $764 billion over 5 years and by $1.7 trillion over 10 years. Those are the facts. It can't be refuted. And that is why I think you can fairly and rightly say this is a deficit reduction bill which nevertheless accommodates values that we consider good for the country.

We will pick up tomorrow, I suppose, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert material relevant to consideration of S. Con. Res. 13.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 37 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, April 28, 2009, at 10:30 a.m., for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 316, I call from the Speaker's table the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 13) setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through 2014, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 316, I move that the House insist upon its amendment to Senate Concurrent Resolution 13 and request a conference with the Senate thereon.

I yield the gentleman from Wisconsin, my ranking member, half of the allocated time, 30 minutes.

I reserve the balance of my time so that Mr. Ryan can proceed.

Mr. Speaker, before leaving here for the spring vacation, the district work period, the House passed, by a significant majority, some 233 ``ayes,'' the resolution before us today, which we are moving to go to conference.

With that resounding vote of support, we would like to see the conference concluded as soon as possible so that the House and Senate both may proceed with the consideration, floor debate, and passage of appropriation bills.

I would, therefore, urge that all Members of the House, particularly those who supported this resolution originally, vote now to go to conference so that we can resolve our differences with the Senate and put behind us on a timely basis the budget resolution for 2010.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would remind my friend and all Members of the House that President Obama came to office less than 100 days ago. And when he came, he found on the doorstep waiting for him a budget that was deep in deficit. By our calculation, the Bush administration is responsible for at least $1.3 trillion of the deficit we are now struggling with trying to resolve and work down in the budget before us, $1.3 trillion out of a projected deficit this year of $1.752 trillion.

The economy, the worst since the Great Depression, happened on the watch of President Bush. He can't escape it. He was in office 8 years, and it happened in the midst of his tenure in office. The debt accumulation during that administration due to the deficits that have steadily racked up almost every year after the first 2 years of his administration, the deficit added over $5 trillion to the debt of the United States.

And to deal with the wretched conditions in our economy and to keep this economy from slipping into a downward death spiral, the Bush administration undertook some aggressive actions, I think rightly so, such as the TARP, dealing with troubled asset programs. They undertook a number of these remedial actions at significant cost to the Federal Government. I don't fault them for that. They did what needed to be done in order to keep the economy from going deeper into the rut. But we are here living with the consequences of that.

The major reason we have a deficit so swollen, $1.752 trillion, is not because of what's about to happen with the adoption of this budget. This budget works the deficit down. It's because of what did happen during 8 years of the Bush administration when we finally ended up with the worst recession since the Great Depression.

So we are dealing with the aftermath of the Bush administration here today, and we have a budget which builds upon the budget sent to us by President Obama. It takes the deficit from where it is, $1.752 trillion this year, and reduces it to $586 billion within 4 years. I would like to see it go further, beyond that. But we have given the House and the Congress a 5-year budget that will put us on a path downward from $1.7 trillion, $1.8 trillion to $586 billion by 2013 and perhaps even better by 2014.

I think we should go further. We have got to go further. I will be the first to acknowledge that when you look at OMB's projections of the 10 years lying ahead of us, in the second 5-year period of that 10-year span, in that period of time the deficit starts going back up again. We don't want that to happen. But we can best make the policy that will address that second 5-year period when we are out of this economy, when we are standing on firmer ground than we are today and we know a bit more about the future of the economy and the budget than we do at this point in time.

In the meantime, what we are doing is prescribing over the next 5 years a budget that will go down, down, down, from $1.752 trillion to $586 billion. I say that is a fiscally responsible budget. So did the House.

When this measure was before us, before we left for the Easter- Passover break, when this measure was before us, the concurrent resolution, 233 Members of the House voted to pass our resolution, our budget resolution which now comes before us on a motion to go to conference.

Mr. Ryan presented, or his side presented, the Republicans presented two budget alternatives. One received 137 votes. 137 votes, that is 80 votes less than a majority, with 293 noes. The other received 111 votes. We received 233 votes.

I think the House has spoken and spoken resoundingly. They listened to the debate, then they read the materials we put out, they decided this is a better way to go. This is a responsible budget because it takes us over the foreseeable future to a much, much lower budget, something we can do, because this year's budget is swollen. $1.7 trillion is totally unsustainable, totally intolerable, but it is swollen by actions that have been taken that are countercyclical in order to get this economy out of the rut it is in right here today. Once you leave those nonrecurring expenditures out, you can credibly say that we can get from where we are to a deficit in the mid-500s in a 4-year period of time.

Now, you are going to hear a lot of talk about tax cuts. But read the committee report and you will see in short summary exactly some of the highlights and features of this particular bill. If you read the very last page, you will see that our budget resolution calls for reducing revenues, for tax cuts. Provided under the CBO baseline forecast, this resolution provides $613 billion over the first 5 years and $1.48 trillion in total tax reductions.

We have been taunted in the past by those saying that when we came to power we wouldn't continue the middle income tax cuts; we would allow them to expire on December 31, 2010, as they are prescribed to expire. But we protect those tax cuts. The marital penalty, mitigation provisions in the marital penalty relief bill, the 10 percent bracket, which is a big tax cut for many working Americans, the child tax credit, all of these we preserve and extend in our particular bill, including the estate tax. We simply say with respect to the estate tax, just leave it in place as it is in 2010, that is, with a $3.5

million per decedent exemption, $7 million for a couple.

All of these things are in the package before us. That is why it received a resounding vote of support from the House just a few weeks ago and why it is a better choice and why we need now to finish the work we began, go on to conference and adopt a concurrent budget resolution which will be the ruling law for the coming fiscal year.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Could I ask how much time we have left?

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I beg your pardon. I was discussing something with another of our Members on the floor.

I'd say we're cleaning up in the aftermath of the Bush administration's 8 years of fiscal policy that left us $5 trillion deeper in debt.

The budget before us now began with the President's submission, as it has since 1921.

We voted upon it here. But who occupied the White House? Who sent us the budget?

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

For the purpose of response, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey.

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, so I reserve the right to close.

Does the gentleman have further speakers?

Why don't you proceed with that speaker. Then I'll proceed with closing.

I reserve the right to close. Does the gentleman have further time?

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this is where we are. Bobby Jones, a great golfer once said, ``You play the ball where it lies.'' The fact of the matter is that after 8 years of the Bush administration this, sadly, is where the ball lies.

When President Obama came to office less than 100 days ago--and remembering that, I think everyone would have to fairly concede these are not problems that he created. When he came to office, he found awaiting him on the doorstep of the White House a budget that was $1 trillion, nearly $800 billion in deficit for this year and substantially in deficit for the forthcoming year.

He didn't create it; he didn't ask for it. It was thrust upon him and left to him by the Bush administration.

He found an economy in crisis and he found that remedial steps had been taken that cost the country hundreds of millions of dollars, a good portion of which is being spent out--the TARP program is an example, the takeover of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is an example. All of these things cost substantial sums, and they were policies taken before this administration came to office. They have swollen the deficit to the unprecedented size of $1.7 billion this year.

The budget that we are proposing--which I now seek to have sent to conference so we can wrap it up, put it to bed and make it enforceable--the budget that we are proposing is a deficit-reduction budget. How can I say that? I can say that because we show credibly, I believe, that the budget deficit declines from $1.752 trillion under our resolution to $586 billion in the year 2013. In 4 fiscal years, we will reduce the deficit by a trillion dollars.

How can we do that?

One of the reasons we can do it is that quite a few of the items that have swollen the deficit in this and next fiscal year are nonrecurring, and when they are finally played out, the problem of debt reduction will be much,

much more manageable. That is, if we have a plan, it will be manageable. We cannot simply leave it to some open-ended plan. And so what we have proposed here is a plan that will systematically, methodically move the deficit down, down, down by $1 trillion over the next 4 to 5 fiscal years.

Now, it's a deficit reduction budget. No question about it. But it is not so committed to deficit reduction that it overlooks and postpones other priorities. For example, national defense will grow by 4 percent, a healthy growth rate that means national defense, including what is spent on supplementals for Iraq and Afghanistan, will be $686 billion next year.

Veterans. Let's not forget our veterans. We appreciate them more than ever. We will be putting $5 billion more into veterans health care, raising it to $53 billion.

Health care reform. This budget tackles issues that other administrations have either ignored, dodged, avoided, or failed to implement. Health care reform. Tough nut to crack, but it takes it on.

The environment. Energy independence, critically important. We've seen it with the spike in energy prices over the last year. This is something we need to do and do now. This bill provides for that.

Education. If you want to be able to say to a small child the next time you go in an elementary classroom, You can go to college. Yes, you can. You can go to college like anybody else. Yes, you can, then you should vote for this resolution because it strengthens Pell Grants by more than any bill we've passed in a long time to come.

So this is a deficit reduction bill, which is a bill with a conscience, with priorities, that carefully laid out here and carefully provided for here, and, therefore, I would submit that everyone interested in education, the environment, energy independence should take a close look at this bill.

Now, it's been said that we have substantially increased taxes in this bill. That's not true. Read CBO's report. Over the next 5 years, there is a net reduction in tax revenues of some $480 billion and $1 trillion more than that over the next 5 years after that. There is deficit reduction left here. The marital penalty provisions, the middle class, middle-income tax cuts that we passed in 2001 and 2003 are, for the most part, all reenacted and extended by this resolution.

So 233 Members, a very solid majority of the House, listened to the arguments pro and con, read and listened to the debate and decided this is a better way to go. I submit, let's stick with the course we set for ourselves several weeks ago. Let's send this budget on to conference where we can make it an enforceable piece of legislation.

I yield back my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

I think it would be useful for everybody, Members in particular, to understand exactly what the Republican motion to instruct is.

There are four items. First of all, they would effectively move to drop, discard the House reconciliation provisions that deal with health care. That's health care reform. That's our initiative we're launching to try to encompass and provide some form of health care to the 46 million Americans unfortunate enough not to have it. This would thwart our plans to move on that front. And education, which basically deals with Pell Grants and guarantees student loans trying to provide them to more students at lower costs, why would anybody want to thwart those objectives?

Secondly, they would remove reconciliation as a vehicle to enact climatic change. Well, that's not even envisioned in the House budget. Cap-and-trade is not mentioned, not in the budget resolution, not in the report accompanying it. It's not mentioned. We took it out. It is not specified.

The reconciliation instructions to which they refer go to the Energy and Commerce Committee and to the Education and Labor Committee and the Ways and Means Committee but not for purposes of dealing with climate change. That is not even briefed as one of the purposes. It's not part of the intention. These instructions go to health care and education.

Thirdly, to retain a Senate point of order against legislation that ``eliminates the ability of Americans to keep their health plan or their choice of a doctor.'' I support that. You support that. We all support that. This budget supports it, the House supports it. It is totally unnecessary. This is creating a straw man and knocking it down by creating an argument as to facts that simply don't exist. We don't have anything in our legislation that would in any way impede the choice of Americans to keep their own health plans or choose their own doctor.

And finally, ``to eliminate Congress' ability to develop comprehensive reform packages by restricting future offsets only to spending cuts.'' In other words, if we wanted to do something worthy, we think, of undertaking and we would propose to pay for it by raising taxes--let me give you an example, cigarette taxes and CHIP, Children's Health Insurance Program. We just passed the second iteration of the CHIP bill that will extend medical coverage to millions of children who never had it, never lived in families who could afford it.

I yield myself 30 additional seconds.

We did that by increasing the taxes on a pack of cigarettes and other tobacco products, a fair tradeoff. But we were only able to do it and say that we were staying deficit neutral and well within the balance of the budget because we were able to use this offsetting revenue to cover the cost of the program. This particular amendment would have thwarted that particular strategy.

So these are four different items they are proposing now, none of which will stand muster. They should be defeated. This motion should be defeated.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

(Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield one of the remaining minutes on my side to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Let me clarify just a few things, because we have heard repeated on the floor today arguments made several weeks ago when the concurrent resolution first came to the floor that this was the biggest spending bill in the history of the country.

The truth of the matter is simply this: spending is unprecedentedly large. The reason is we are in the midst of one of the worst recessions since the Great Depression and we have taken remedial steps which have been costly to the Federal Government, quite a few

of which were launched under the Bush administration. So that has swollen the total spending and the total deficit for this year.

But listen to this: total outlays for 2009, fiscal year 2009, total outlays, the whole budget, is $3.8 trillion. Next year under this budget total outlays will be $3.5 trillion. You have heard it said repeatedly over there that spending is going up. It is coming down. It will come down further, just as will the deficit, because this is a deficit reduction budget resolution which reduces the deficit from $1.752 trillion to $533 billion in 3 or 4 fiscal years. That is a matter of truth.

If you care to take the time and pick up a copy of the committee report, you will see on page 5 this simple sentence about the tax situation: ``This budget resolution calls for reducing the revenues provided under CBO's baseline forecast, reducing them by $613 billion between 2009 and 2014 and by $1.48 trillion between 2010 and 2019.''

These are facts. They haven't been refuted. Every time we have asked that their arithmetic be explained to back up their rhetoric, we have not gotten an answer.

Now, let me say a word or two about reconciliation. Reconciliation has been since the outset of the budget process in 1974 an essential part of making a budget. If you listened to the argument here on the floor, what you heard were a lot of red herrings.

For example, it was suggested that this is going to be an impediment to choice; this is going to get in between patients and their doctors or patients and the insured and the insurance companies in choosing health insurance. There is nothing in here, nothing whatsoever that even breathes a word about either of those subjects.

There is talk here that this would in fact deal with cap-and-trade, even though we took cap-and-trade out of the President's budget request, removed it completely. It is not spoken of or mentioned there. And you heard Earl Blumenauer just on the floor a minute ago. He would love to see it there, but it is not. He made an honest examination of it. It is not there. But you wouldn't know it to listen to the other side.

You will also however thwart the passage of some things that we think are worthy and vital. Certainly we want to improve higher education and the access to higher education for all children in America, thinking that it is their birthright if it is something they can attain.

And we definitely, decidedly, clearly need to do something about 46 million Americans who do not have health insurance. If we were to pass this resolution and then take out the reconciliation provision, we would have a very difficult time ensuring ourselves that legislation to that effect would be produced on a timely basis.

That is what reconciliation is all about, simply this: we can say that the committees of jurisdiction on the Budget Committee through action on the floor by a certain date do a certain thing to raise a certain sum of money or to lower revenues by a certain sum. That doesn't get the bill off the floor. You still have to command a majority on the floor. That doesn't get the bill out of conference. You still have to confer with the Senate, work out your differences and get it passed again by both Houses. And that doesn't get you past go. You still have got to get the President to sign the bill. All those hurdles are still in place. It is not like we are going to go off running to the races if we adopt this. We simply assure ourselves that by a date certain, certain action will be taken.

Finally this: there is some seemingly simple language here about offsets, saying if you want to increase a program, you have got to actually cut spending to offset it. There is nothing wrong with that.

I was one of the sponsors of and supporters of, and still am, of something we call PAYGO. But if we want to provide that everything must be offset by commensurate spending decreases, you will kill the opportunity we have had to pass programs like CHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program, the expansion of which, the creation of which, was allowed by use of tobacco taxes and cigarette taxes.

So this motion to instruct is unnecessary, unwarranted, and it will impede the passage of what we believe is a good budget resolution. Therefore, we would urge all Members to vote against it.

Madam Chair, we resume this morning. When we'd broken off last night, we'd had a lively but civil and spirited debate. There were some things said last night that were just so wildly off the mark that they bear just a minute of consideration to correct the Record.

It was said repeatedly that this resolution was about the biggest tax increase in history. In fact, don't take it from me. Look at the CBO. After examining the President's budget, they said it will work out to be a net tax reduction of $1.7 trillion over a 10-year period of time.

The size of the budget was mentioned several times in the debate. It's enormous, no question about it, but it's partly swollen by virtue of what has happened over the past year in the financial services industry, beginning

with the failure of Lehman Brothers, of other firms on Wall Street, and due to our intervention, which has cost us substantially and is factored into the budget that we are dealing with today.

Our friends were blaming that crisis on us. In truth, we all share some responsibility for it, but it's one of the reasons we have a swollen number.

Before we begin the debate proper, I would like to recognize for 1 minute the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) because he was an active participant in the debate last night. This is just to connect it to where we left off.

We now would like to return to the broad issue of fiscal responsibility. For the purposes of leading that debate, I would like to yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).

Madam Chairman, for a rejoinder, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I'm glad to yield 30 seconds. Maybe Mr. Ryan would yield some more time as well.

Does the gentleman desire further time to rejoin?

I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of our caucus, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

Could I inquire of the Chair how much time is left on both sides?

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, a Vietnam veteran, a colonel in the Border Guard, Silvestre Reyes.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).

I have one other speaker in addition possibly to myself. How much time is left?

I reserve the balance of my time.

Could the Chair inform me how much time is now remaining?

I yield myself 3 minutes.

It has been difficult to sit here and listen to the cascade of unfounded facts. It is hard to respond to everything that has been said. But a few things need to be said clearly as we move forward with this debate. First of all, last night in particular, but again today, Member after Member got up and talked about the biggest tax increase in history. It is not here. It is not in this particular budget resolution. If you read CBO's analysis of the President's budget, you will see that CBO, not me, CBO finds that there is a net reduction of $1.7 trillion due to tax cuts that are incorporated in this budget resolution. For example, we have been saying for years that we would renew the middle-income tax cuts when it came time to, those that were middle-income tax cuts adopted between 2001 and 2003. Well, the date for their expiration is approaching, and we are coming forward with what we have said consistently for the last several years, we are renewing those tax cuts, the marital tax relief, child's tax credit, the 10 percent bracket, the Pomeroy substitute for estate taxes. We provide in this budget resolution for the renewal and the extension of those tax cuts. And as a result we have a net tax cut of $1.7 trillion.

Then there has been a lot of limiting of the size of the deficit for this year and next year. And as the Lord knows, I share the concerns. I pride myself on having been a budget hawk, on having brought together the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and for the first time in 30 years actually, actually balanced the budget of the Federal Government. We did it.

Well, what has happened this year with the swollen budget that we have seen before us is that we have had a catastrophe in the financial markets. And much of the cost of that, the TARP, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, FDIC, the list goes on and on, and the costs that have come out of the Treasury are reflected in the swollen spending level of today. It isn't acknowledged, but spending is projected in the President's book here to come down from $3.9 trillion to $3.5 trillion, $400 billion per his recommendations here. You wouldn't have known that to listen to the cascade of facts coming forth.

Finally, as to spending levels, NDD, nondefense discretionary, often looked upon as an index as to whether or not Congress is exercising restraint in spending, the increase in NDD is about 4, 4\1/2\ percent. Defense, national defense, we want a strong national defense. We have always stood for that as Democrats and still do. We think we should restrain, however, the defense spending level. And it is restrained by the President to a 4 percent increase. Some would say that is a modest increase, but it is a big sum of money. We will be spending over $660 billion on national defense at that level.

For all of these reasons, the resolution before us should be ready and up for debate on the House floor.

I would now like to yield the balance of my time, 1 minute, to the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi.