Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 85.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition and ask unanimous consent

that the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) control the remainder of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York, the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel.

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

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

I yield the gentlelady 30 additional 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.)

I yield myself 3 minutes.

The gentleman from Wisconsin and I are good friends. We work together collegially and cordially, and I don't lightly disagree with him, but I have to take profound exception here, because the budget he proposes before us would lay out draconian cuts in spending, $2.4 trillion. We're talking about real money over 10 years. These are made in the name of deficit reduction, and they cover the spectrum.

Eleven committees are reconciled with instructions to make enormous spending reduction: Energy and Commerce, $666 billion; Ways and Means, $695 billion; Financial Services, that's housing, $28 billion. All together $1.380 trillion in spending cuts is reconciled to 11 committees, and on top of that, it appears that Medicaid and CHIP would be block granted.

This is serious stuff. And I've only begun, because this just applies to mandatory spending. More is in store when you go to discretionary spending. There's $1 trillion of cost reductions there, achieved by imposing a freeze for five straight years on all discretionary programs except defense and veterans. That's education, that's infrastructure, that's science, NIH, NSF, public health, food safety. The list goes on, frozen for five straight years.

For all the havoc and hurt that's wreaked by this draconian plan, what do we gain? Very little on the bottom line. That's because the $2.4 trillion in spending cuts is more than offset by $3.6 trillion in tax cuts.

Under the guise of deficit reduction, more tax cuts are provided for the upper brackets. According to the Citizens for Tax Justice, 25 percent of all Americans would face a tax increase under this budget proposal. The wealthiest 1 percent would get $100,000 or more. Those are not my numbers but theirs.

This is not the way to go. This is not the way to go to a deficit reduction plan. This is not the way to go if we have any respect for the values that are embodied in this budget. This is something we should all vote down.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller).

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Madam Chair, how much time remains on this side?

I yield myself 4 minutes.

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

As we near the end of this long debate, I want to speak to those who are still weighing their vote and to any who are still wavering. To them--in fact, everybody--let me say that with respect to our resolution, if you want to vote for bold initiatives, like health care for the millions who don't have insurance, our resolution lays out the framework for helping that to happen, and for funding it so that the net cost is not added to the deficit.

If you want to say to the next child you meet in a classroom, ``You can go to college. Yes, you can go to college. Yes, you can. You can go because Pell Grants will help pay the way if you do your studies and work hard.'' If you want to look that child in the eye and say just that, our resolution is the resolution you should vote for.

If you want to vote for tax reduction, this resolution supports $1.7 trillion in net tax reduction over 10 years, including all the middle- income tax cuts that we passed in 2001 and 2003. And that's not my contention; that's CBO's conclusion after reviewing this budget.

If you want to vote for deficit reduction, our resolution reduces this year's deficit of $1.8 trillion--an unwelcome inheritance from the last administration--our resolution reduces that deficit by two-thirds, down to $586 billion by the year 2013, when it would be 3.5 percent of GDP--roughly the growth rate that year.

If you want to be sure in voting for the deficit reduction that the deficit will actually be reduced, our party is the party that balanced this budget in 1998; our party is the party that paid off $400 billion in Treasury debt; and our party is the party that left President Bush a surplus of $236 billion the year before he came--$5.6 trillion over the next 10 years of his administration.

We wiped out the deficit. They wiped out the surplus. Not only did they wipe out the surplus, they ran up more than $5 trillion in debt and left us a tab of $1.752 trillion in deficit, which we're struggling with right now in the well of this House, and will be for years to come. So when it comes to deficit reduction, we rest our case on the record.

If you want to show where cost savings have been achieved because of the budget you vote for, this resolution saves significant sums by converting

guaranteed student loans to direct DOE loans; we save billions more by funding agencies like the IRS, HHS, Labor, and SSA, to wipe out waste, fraud, and abuse; and we save $176 billion over 10 years by competing Medicare Advantage plans. If you want reasons why you should vote, we've got them.

Finally, if you're still swayed by the other side's rhetoric, let me offer in evidence exhibit A on this poster right beside me. This chart is a simple side-by-side that shows what Democrats accomplished in the 1980s compared to what Republicans have accomplished since 2001.

Average monthly job growth. This is really dramatic. The Clinton administration, Democrats in the 1990s, 217,000 jobs every month in job creation. Republicans, 2,000, as opposed to 271,000. This is a matter of record.

Net job creation, 22.7 million jobs. That's the net accomplishment of the Clinton administration. The Bush administration's net accomplishment, 1.9 million. Percentage of Americans living in poverty during the Clinton administration, 3.8 percent reduction. During the Bush administration, eight-tenths of a percentage point increase.

I yield myself 30 additional seconds.

Americans without health care or health coverage dropped from 15.3 percent to 13.7 percent in the Clinton years, then went back up to 15.3 in the Bush years.

These facts speak louder than anything I can say. The difference between us is profound. If you want to know whom you can believe, trust, and put your faith in with respect to economic planning, just remember what we did in the 1990s, and what we can do in the period we have now with the President we have and the program we're trying to devise.

Vote for the base resolution--the House Democratic resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of our Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

We have the right to close, I believe. We have one more speaker, and we will close with that speaker.

Madam Chair, I yield the balance of our time to our distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.

Madam Chair, this has been a compressed period for producing a budget. An enormous amount of work has gone into the effort that is manifest on the floor here for the last couple of days. It never would have come to this fruition without their superior assistance. I want to recognize Tom Kahn, our staff director, my longstanding legislative aid and staff director, Sarah Abernathy, Ellen Balis, Arthur Burris, Linda Bywaters, Adam Carasso, Marsha Douglas, Stephen Elmore, Chuck Fant, Jason Freihage, Christen Green, Jose Guillen, Jennifer Hanson-Kilbride, Sheila McDowell, Dick Magee, Diana Meredith, Gail Millar, Morna Miller, Kimberly Overbeek, Scott Russell, Marcus Stephens, Naomi Stern, Lisa Venus, Greg Waring and Andrea Weathers; as well as Adam Brunelle and Andrew Fieldhouse.

I also want to recognize the indispensable work done for both of us by Bob Weinhagen of the Office of Legislative Counsel and the staff of the Congressional Budget Office.

This is a testament to what staff means to us and the kind of work they pull together in a short period of time. They make us look good. We couldn't do without them. They deserve our praises.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert material relevant to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 85, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010.

Madam Chair, President Bush has left President Obama a

hard hand to play. The economy is receding, the budget is in deficit by $1.752 trillion, according to OMB, and the end is nowhere in sight.

President Obama has responded with a budget that meets the challenge head on. The Budget Committee's resolution before us tonight reflects his policies and his proposals.

The President has recognized that we have not one but two deficits. The first is an economy running at 6 percent to 7 percent below its full capacity. To move our economy closer to its capacity, the President has signed into law a package of stimulus measures totaling $787 billion.

Here is what the Congressional Budget Office says in its analysis issued 2 weeks ago about the stimulus package, and I am quoting, ``The adoption of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and very aggressive actions by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury will help end this recession this fall.'' Let's hope they are right.

In light of this prognosis, it is hard to believe, but our colleagues from across the aisle use their budget to call for terminating, ending, the Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

The President next turned to the budget. He has sent us a budget to cut the deficit by two-thirds, two-thirds by 2013, from $1,752,000,000 from this year to $533 billion in 2013.

Now, it is all but impossible to balance a budget when the economy is in recession, and, for that matter, it is ill-advised. To end, or at least to mitigate this recession, our economy is need of more demand for goods and more demand for services, and any demand we generate to make the economy run better will make the deficit run larger at least for now.

But here is the stark reality: The deficit that President Bush left behind constitutes a massive 12.3 percent of our gross domestic product. At least two-thirds of that stems from tax and spending policies undertaken by the Bush administration. Anyone, almost anyone, would agree that this is an unsustainable deficit, defensible only in deep intractable recessions.

President Obama clearly believes that, because he has responded with a budget that pares the deficit down to 3 percent of GDP in 2013. His budget cuts the deficit to $533 billion in 4 years.

The budget embodied in our resolution before us tonight uses CBO projections instead of OMB, and reduces the deficit to $586 billion in 2013. That is 3.6 percent of GDP or, roughly, the real rate of growth for that year.

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 tackle, like health care for the millions of Americans who lack insurance.

On top of that, it slows down defense spending with an increase of 4 percent, and makes a moderate adjustment to nondefense discretionary spending, lifting it a bit above this year.

Notwithstanding deficits, the President's budget launches some bold initiatives to make our economy more productive and our people more competitive: First, in education through Pell Grants in particular; next, in health care for the millions who are uninsured; and, finally, on alternative energy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and the depletion of our environment. This resolution upholds those priorities.

Now, some will single out instances where additional revenue is raised, for example, by allowing certain concessions for upper-bracket taxpayers to expire at the end of 2010, which is the date they were set to expire.

But the bigger picture will show that this budget leaves in place the middle-income tax cuts adopted in 2001 and 2003, the 10 percent bracket, the child tax credit, and the marriage penalty relief. It indexes the alternative minimum tax to keep it from coming down on middle-income taxpayers, for whom it was never intended. It also extends estate tax exemptions at the 2009 level, $3.5 million per decedent, and indexes the exemptions for future years.

Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have complained about the President's tax and spending policies; but let me read from CBO's own nonpartisan analysis of the President's budget, which is basically before us tonight.

I am quoting: Proposed changes in tax policy would reduce revenues by an estimated $1.7 trillion over the next 10 years. Reduced revenues, by an estimated $1.7 trillion over the next 10 years. That is CBO talking.

The President's major initiatives, those in health care, energy, education, the environment, are all implemented by way of reserve funds. And I would stress that these funds are deficit neutral. They are yet to be funded, and will only become operative to the extent they are funded and will only be enacted if they are deficit neutral.

The resolution before us sounds all of these themes and, with a few exception, supports the principles that underlie the President's own budget. This is just the beginning; however, it is a bold beginning for the 2010 budget.

Our resolution is laid out in the form of a 5-year budget using CBO's scoring and CBO's projections of the economy. OMB has run its budget out over 10 years and our Republican colleagues have done the same, but a 5-year budget is not at all unusual; in fact, it is the customary timeframe for budgeting. In recent years, four deficit reduction acts have been enacted, and all implemented budgets of less than 10 years. Graham-Rudman-Hollings, the Bush Budget Summit, the Clinton Budget in 1993, and the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 all were 5-year budgets.

The farther out you run forecasts, the more tenuous they become. It is speculative just to predict what the economy is going to do 10 months from now much less 10 years from now. Five-year forecasts are, therefore, more realistic, more reliable; and, if the projected results don't pan out, they are more amenable to adjustment.

All projections rest on assumptions about the future, and the assumptions can have a profound effect on the bottom line. To show you how uncertain assumptions can be and projections can become, look at CBO's recent experience. Just since last January, CBO's estimate of the deficit is off by $436 billion, since January. Look at the long run, because small differences compound over time into big differences. Over 10 years, the difference between OMB's estimate of tax revenues received and CBO's is $2.8 trillion. That is a huge difference that has a huge impact on the bottom line of these competing forecasts.

Fortunately, the congressional budget process is an annual process. Since we revisit the budget every year, we can take steps to correct its course, which we will surely do with deficits of this gravity looming over us.

For our part, I can tell you that we are mindful of the second 5 years. As we approach 2015 and 2016, we will be making corrections to see that the deficit stays on a downward trajectory. We believe that these midcourse corrections can best be made when our economy has emerged from the recession and we have a much better and clearer view of an economy that bounces back.

Right now, our economy is mired in the worst recession since the 1930s. It stands in marked contrast to the fiscal situation that the Bush administration faced 8 years ago. Instead of inheriting a surplus of $5.6 trillion as did President Bush, President Obama has inherited a deficit, a deficit of $1.7 trillion to $1.8 trillion. At least $1.3 trillion is attributable to the spending and taxing policies of the Bush administration.

In effect, President Bush told us we could have it all, guns, butter, and tax cuts, too, and never mind the deficits. Well, 8 years and $5 trillion later, the country is confronted with the worst deficits in our peacetime history. These are not cyclical deficits so much as they are structural deficits. They were built into the structure of the budget over the last 8 years, and they will overhang our budget for years to come as we try to wind them down.

This situation cannot be reversed in a year, but we offer today a budget resolution that puts us on the right path. It will have to be renewed, it will have to be complemented, it will have to be adjusted many times before the economy and the budget are right again, but today we can start that process by voting for this resolution.

I ask the Chair if she could tell me how much time was consumed.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, before yielding 11 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, I yield 1 minute to Mr. Andrews, the gentleman from New Jersey.

I yield 11 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

Madam Chairman, I will yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for a rejoinder.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, from the Blue Dogs, Mr. Boyd.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I would inquire of the gentleman from Wisconsin if he wishes to have further speakers at this point or if we should go ahead.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute first to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) for a rejoinder, and then I will go to Mr. Scott.

Madam Chair, I yield 12 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

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

I yield 9 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

I will yield the gentleman 30 seconds of my time if he'll explain his arithmetic and show us the taxes he's talking about in the text of the resolution. Because they're not there. This has been asserted again and again as a mantra. It doesn't exist.

It comes from CBO. Don't take it from me. From the analysis of the President's budget: Proposed changes in tax policy would reduce revenues by an estimated $1.7 trillion, with 6.1 percent over the next 10 years. CBO.

I reclaim the time. I'm glad to yield you some time, but it needs some sort of limit to it.

I still don't know what the arithmetic is and I don't know where the taxes are, except the tax cuts, as you know, expire on December 3, 2010.

The President's budget will allow them to expire, except he then proposes to have the capital gains rate be 20 percent instead of 15 percent, which is less than it's traditionally been. And same thing for dividends--20 instead of 15 percent.

We don't dictate that in this resolution. We leave matters of that kind--specific policy choices--up to the Ways and Means Committee.

I'm going to reclaim my time so we can go forward.

I yield first 1 minute for a rejoinder to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

I now yield 2 minutes for a colloquy to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

I do. And I thank the gentleman for his leadership in our committee on this issue of ensuring that all Federal employees are equitably treated.

That is correct.

I now recognize and yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Madam Chair, how much time is remaining?

I will go ahead and use the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have sat here keeping a list of things that were wrong that cannot be recited in 2 minutes. One speaker got up and said there were no spending restraints. Deficit neutral reserve funds are all about spending restraints. We cannot undertake any of those initiatives until they are paid for. It is a substantial restraint. PAYGO is built into this budget. And it is guaranteed to be accorded a vote on this House floor to become statutory PAYGO instead of rule-of-the-House PAYGO.

There is a lot of talk about the costs of this budget, $3.9 trillion. It makes me gag as well. But do you know why it is up so big? TARP, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and AIG, much of which, much of which was incurred and fixed on your watch, the watch of your administration, Hank Paulson and others. That is why it happens in this year's numbers, secondly.

Thirdly, as you listen to this debate you would think that President Obama has been in office in town for years now. Everything is effectively blamed on Democrats. His administration has been in office 3 months. What we are seeing today and next year and the following years is the wind down and the work off of the Bush structural deficits. They simply won't go away in short order. But Obama didn't wrack up this debt in the last 3 months. It has been created in the last 8 months when President Bush took a $5.6 trillion surplus over 10 years, and by 2004 converted it to the biggest in history, to a $412 billion dollar deficit, the biggest deficit at that time in American history. That happened under his watch, under his administration, under his spending policy and taxing policy.

So all of this effort, and in particular, this newfound concern over debt, I share your concern. But where were you over the last 8 years? Your silence was almost deafening. This President Bush built up the debt of the United States from $5.7 trillion to $11 trillion. What we are now doing is living in the backwash of the Bush administration trying to straighten up the mess that he left behind.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am transmitting a status report on the current levels of on-budget spending and revenues for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and for the five-year period of fiscal years 2009 through 2013. This report is necessary to facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act and sections 301 and 302 of S. Con. Res. 70, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2009.

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. 70. 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. 70 for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and fiscal years 2009 through 2013. 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 2008 and 2009 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 2010 and 2011 for accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 302 of S. Con. Res. 70. This list is needed to enforce section 302 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 would like to recognize the service of Thomas Woodward, who is retiring on March 6 after serving the Congress with distinction for 30 years in an extraordinary variety of ways and places. This nation and this Congress owe a great debt of gratitude to this outstanding public servant. Tom may be the only person--and if not, is certainly one of very few--who has worked at GAO, CRS, and CBO. He began his government service in 1979 at GAO, where he first became involved in analyzing the economy and helped produced GAO's economic outlook. In 1982, Tom went to work for the Congressional Research Service, where he was a specialist in macroeconomics in the Economics Division and produced a number of studies on the banking system, monetary policy, and other issues. Tom was detailed to the House Budget Committee in 1991 and 1992, where he served as Chief Economist for the Republican staff. Tom returned to CRS after his service on the Budget Committee and continued to produce and supervise high quality analyses for members of Congress.

In 1998, Tom became Assistant Director for Tax Analysis at the Congressional Budget Office. For the past 11 years, Tom has overseen the production of numerous studies, revenue forecasts, and cost estimates for committees and Members of Congress. In all of his interactions with Members and their staff, Tom maintained the high quality and timely analyses that we have come to expect of CBO. Tom's breadth of knowledge, objective analyses, and good humor are appreciated by everyone who works with him--and next week, for the first time in 30 years, this Congress will not have the benefit of his wisdom, economic knowledge, and analytical skills as it addresses the critical public policy issues that face the nation. I understand he plans to continue to research economic issues after his retirement from Congressional service, and we look forward to that work and wish him well in his retirement.

Madam Speaker, under section 301(c) of S. Con. Res. 70, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2009, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record revised 302(a) allocations for the Committee on Appropriations for fiscal years 2008 and 2009. Section 301(c) of S. Con. Res. 70 directs the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to adjust discretionary spending limits for certain program integrity initiatives described in section 301(a) of the concurrent resolution. A corresponding table is attached.

Mr. Speaker, we are here this afternoon to talk about a serious subject, something gravely facing our country, and that is the budget deficit for this fiscal year 2009 and for the years thereafter for as far as the eye can see.

As we speak, the deficit for the year 2009, fiscal 2009, is soaring to record highs. CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, our budget shop, which is neutral and nonpartisan, has recently projected that the deficit for 2009 will be $1.2 trillion. And as high as this projection may be, our friends, it's probably a low-ball estimate.

It omits, for example, the supplemental to pay for our deployment in Afghanistan and Iraq, which will be around $70 billion for the remainder of this fiscal year; it assumes that the alternative minimum tax will stay in full force and effect reaching 20 or so million-income tax payers for whom it was never intended. This increases the revenues by $70 billion though AMT has, in fact, been omitted year so that it does not apply for middle-income taxpayers for whom it was not intended.

It also assumes that the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003, despite the fact that we have huge deficits, will expire on December 31, 2010, and as provided by the law which enacted them in the first place.

When you add all of these into the equation--the Bush administration's last deficit, the deficit that we inherited from President Bush and must work our way out of--the deficit could easily top $1.4 trillion. It staggers the imagination.

These are deficits that happened on the watch of the Bush administration and under their fiscal policies. But we, as Democrats, won the election, and it is our responsibility to decide what should we do about the deficits left us.

Unfortunately, we've got forces converging on the budget which make it difficult to bring the deficit down to realistic terms. For example, we have the severest economic downturn in our economy since at least the first or second world war ended. So we have the mounting costs of counter-cyclical policies, TARP, the stimulus now pending in the Senate, the conservatorship of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. All of these things are hugely expensive. We have the rising costs of major entitlements--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid--due to the retirement of the baby boomers.

We have defense budgeted and funded at historically high levels and sustained for an historically long period of time. Funds funded to front-end accounts, accounts in the budget which need to be funded adequately but are not. Transportation is a good example. It will exhaust its reserve early next year and run close to zero unless we can get funds back into that particular account.

Of course, as always there's education, which is not funded as robustly as many of us think it should be. And of course there are new topics--alternative energies and various incentives for increasing the energy supplies and making this country energy independent.

Then we have the renewal of existing tax cuts, which are slated to expire on December 31, 2010.

When we add all of these things in, in addition to the price commitments we have to do something about the climate and something about universal health care coverage, it becomes very, very difficult to do anything to the bottom line of the budget, despite the fact that it is bigger than it has ever been before in peace time.

The overarching question that faces this whole country as we incur these huge sums of debt is: How long will foreigners help us? How long will they keep buying our Treasury debt?

We have, therefore, the worst budget since World War II and the worst economy in which to work out the problems of these budgets. Every recession has its own pattern to it. But it is clear that it is difficult in every recession, any recession, to work out of the recession when you're swimming upstream, when the economy is working against you; to work out of a budget deficit when the economy is working against you.

Let me show you some charts, those who are listening. This is a simple bar graph. It shows that the Bush administration, when he came to office, had a phenomenal inheritance. A budgeting surplus over the next 10 years by $5.6 trillion. That was January, 2001.

By January, 2004, that surplus of $236 billion was gone. Vanished. In 4 year's time, we went from a $236 billion surplus to a $412 billion deficit. This happened under the policies and the watch of the Bush administration.

This next chart portrays out over time the assets of this administration and the previous administration. This is the first George Bush administration. The first Mr. Bush. There was a significant decline in the budget at that point in time. But, when the Clinton administration came to office, President Clinton sent us a budget in February of 1993, on February 22, the first full significant action taken by his administration, and every year after the adoption of that budget by one vote in the House and one vote in the Senate, the bottom line is the budget got better and better and better, to point where we were at this point right here, 1997, 1998, the year 2000.

The budget was, in those years, balanced for the first time in recent memory. Then, in 2001, the year 2000, we had a surplus of $236 billion. The second Mr. Bush came to office here. You can see the bottom line got worse and worse and worse until there was a slight pickup here. But, then in the out years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, the budget got worse and worse and worse, until the point it runs off the chart at the bottom of the page. That is the deficit we are now looking at, a deficit of as much as $1.4 trillion.

Now, that would be a concern under any circumstances. But, in the present situation, the deficits that we have incurred over the last 10 years have largely been funded and financed by foreigners. Japan, China, Great Britain, Europe, and Pacific Rim countries. They have run trade surpluses with us and used the surplus dollars they hold to buy back our Treasury bills. It's a convenient short-term arrangement. But, over the long term, it means foreigners own more and more of our debt, and you find it hard to be totally independent as a country, certainly the world super power, when you're also the world's largest debtor.

As of 2008, the total amount of foreign-held Treasury securities had tripled under the Bush administration. Starting out at $1 trillion, it rose to $3.1 trillion--over $2 trillion--during the period 2001 to 2008. That is the accumulation of foreign-held Treasury bills and certificates.

As for the total debt of the United States, this is where we began-- $5.7 trillion in 2001. That is where the total debt of the United States stood when Mr. Bush came to office. A substantial sum. But every year that number went up and up and up, to the point where, when he left office a couple of weeks ago, the amount of debt stood at $10.7 trillion. Nearly doubled in an 8-year period of time--from $5.7 trillion to $10.7 trillion. And, as a consequence of that, we are feeling the effects of it in all sectors of our economy.

Would the gentlelady from Massachusetts care to make a comment or a statement? I gladly yield time to her.

Going back to the topic before Ms. Tsongas spoke, here are just some highlights of the economy we also inherited, so that we have got, in effect, a dual negative double whammy--a budget deficit that is soaring out of sight and an economy which is contributing to that deficit--and it makes the effort to reduce and dispel and wipe out the deficit ever harder.

For example, here's the unemployment rate. It stands at a 17-year high. Nearly 600,000 thousand jobs lost last month. Against a head wind like that, it's very, very difficult to bring the budget deficit down. In fact, you need to have countercyclical policies in effect that are actually adding to the demand of the economy in order to get the economy back on track, back on its feet, which is what we are doing right now.

Here's another chart which shows what happens in an economy like ours, where unemployment is close to 8 percent. Revenues that were expected last September, when the Congressional Budget Office did its forecast of the budget, the revenues that were forecasted then are not obtained. We are $2.7 trillion short over that period of time, 2009 through 2018, in the revenues that were assumed last September, which changes the basis for all of our policies when you simply don't have the funding that you're anticipating having only a few months before.

It also shows you one of the frightening features of this current recession is how fast it's coming on. It lingered for some time. There were definite earmarks that we were headed toward a recession. But now that it's here, we are seeing, in 1 month, 500,000 to 600,000 jobs lost, as tragic evidence of what's befalling us. 3.6 million jobs lost since January of 2008. 3.6 million jobs lost since January of 2008.

Mr. Moran, I gladly yield to you for any comment you would like to make on this topic.

You said the key point when you said it didn't have to happen. In the year 2001 when President Bush first took office, we proposed at that time, since we had a surplus for the first time in 30 years, to take the surplus in Social Security and use it only to buy down or buy up outstanding Treasury debt. That way we would have added to the net national savings of the United States, which is woefully deficient. We would have added to the capital availability in the United States and driven down to some extent the cost of capital. And by the year 2020, 2022 when the baby boomers began retiring in big numbers, Treasury would have seen much of its debt held by the public paid off.

Now I am not so naive as to think that we would have religiously stuck with that proposal, but that is what the Blue Dogs were pushing and that is what many of us were pushing under the corny name ``lockbox,'' but it had a serious, substantive idea beneath it, namely that we would increase the net national savings and we would at the same time clear up much of the debt

owed by Treasury so that when the Social Security claimants came and presented their claims in 2020 and 2022 in large numbers, Treasury would be more solvent to meet those claims and less in need of borrowing in order to satisfy those claims. That was a potential, very potential.

The Bush administration came to our committee, you were on it at that time, and said we don't need to do that. We won't need to increase the debt ceiling of the United States for at least 7 or 8 years. And the next year they were back hat in hand asking for a huge increase, several hundred billion dollars, until finally the increases got to be nearly a trillion dollars a year, all because they spurned what was a genuine offer of a truly fiscal conservative policy on what to do with our surpluses in the year 2001.

Four years.

Mr. Moran, in addition to what you just said, not only did the deficit come down in 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 as a result of the Clinton administration's policies, but employment went up also. Every year the bottom line of the budget got better and better and better for 8 straight years and so did the job market, to the point where the average job creation in the Clinton administration was 230,000 a month. Twenty-two million jobs were created as opposed to this dismal picture here for the last year of the Bush administration. So 230,000 jobs a month on average, all together 22 million jobs created during the Clinton administration.

And it was connected with, I think to some extent, the virtuous fiscal policy we were running at that time which shows you that it does pay to have sound fiscal policy.

Let me turn to Mr. Melancon and yield to him, the gentleman from Louisiana.

I now yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

I yield now to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).

I now yield to the gentleman from Maryland, our distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.

I thank the gentleman. And I yield the balance of our time to Dr. Schrader from the State of Oregon, a freshman Member, a veterinarian, I believe. Let me find out from the Speaker how much time is remaining.

Six minutes.

I thank the gentleman for his statement and yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Rule XI clause 2, I am submitting the Committee on the Budget's rules for the 111th Congress. The rules were adopted during our Committee's organizational meeting, which was held January 22, 2009.

Rules of Procedure of the Committee on the Budget, House of

Representatives of the United States, 111th Congress

General Applicability

Rule 1--Applicability of House Rules

Except as otherwise specified herein, the Rules of the

House are the rules of the committee so far as applicable,

except that a motion to recess from day to day is a motion of

high privilege.

Meetings

Rule 2--Regular meetings

(a) The regular meeting day of the committee shall be the

second Wednesday of each month at 11 a.m., while the House is

in session.

(b) The chairman is authorized to dispense with a regular

meeting when the chairman determines there is no business to

be considered by the committee. The chairman shall give

written notice to that effect to each member of the committee

as far in advance of the regular meeting day as the

circumstances permit.

(c) Regular meetings shall be canceled when they conflict

with meetings of either party's caucus or conference.

Rule 3--Additional and special meetings

(a) The chairman may call and convene additional meetings

of the committee as the chairman considers necessary, or

special meetings at the request of a majority of the members

of the committee in accordance with House Rule XI, clause

2(c).

(b) In the absence of exceptional circumstances, the

chairman shall provide written notice of additional meetings

to the office of each member at least 24 hours in advance

while Congress is in session, and at least 3 days in advance

when Congress is not in session.

Rule 4--Open business meetings

(a) Each meeting for the transaction of committee business,

including the markup of measures, shall be open to the public

except when the committee, in open session and with a quorum

present, determines by roll call vote that all or part of the

remainder of the meeting on that day shall be closed to the

public in accordance with House Rule XI, clause 2(g)(1).

(b) No person other than members of the committee and such

congressional staff and departmental representatives as the

committee may authorize shall be present at any business or

markup session which has been closed to the public.

Rule 5--Quorums

A majority of the committee shall constitute a quorum. No

business shall be transacted and no measure or recommendation

shall be reported unless a quorum is actually present.

Rule 6--Recognition

Any member, when recognized by the chairman, may address

the committee on any bill, motion, or other matter under

consideration before the committee. The time of such member

shall be limited to 5 minutes until all members present have

been afforded an opportunity to comment.

Rule 7--Consideration of business

Measures or matters may be placed before the committee, for

its consideration, by the chairman or by a majority vote of

the members of the committee, a quorum being present.

Rule 8--Availability of legislation

The committee shall consider no bill, joint resolution, or

concurrent resolution unless copies of the measure have been

made available to all committee members at least 6 hours

prior to the time at which such measure is to be considered.

When considering concurrent resolutions on the budget, this

requirement shall be satisfied by making available copies of

the complete chairman's mark (or such material as will

provide the basis for committee consideration). The

provisions of this rule may be suspended with the concurrence

of the chairman and ranking minority member.

Rule 9--Procedure for consideration of budget resolution

(a) It shall be the policy of the committee that the

starting point for any deliberations on a concurrent

resolution on the budget should be the estimated or actual

levels for the fiscal year preceding the budget year.

(b) In the consideration of a concurrent resolution on the

budget, the committee shall first proceed, unless otherwise

determined by the committee, to consider budget aggregates,

functional categories, and other appropriate matters on a

tentative basis, with the document before the committee open

to amendment. Subsequent amendments may be offered to

aggregates, functional categories, or other appropriate

matters, which have already been amended in their entirety.

(c) Following adoption of the aggregates, functional

categories, and other matters, the text of a concurrent

resolution on the budget incorporating such aggregates,

functional categories, and other appropriate matters shall be

considered for amendment and a final vote.

Rule 10--Roll call votes

A roll call of the members may be had upon the request of

at least one-fifth of those present. In the apparent absence

of a quorum, a roll call may be had on the request of any

member.

Hearings

Rule 11--Announcement of hearings

The chairman shall make a public announcement of the date,

place, and subject matter of any committee hearing at least 1

week before the hearing, beginning with the day in which the

announcement is made and ending the day preceding the

scheduled hearing unless the chairman, with the concurrence

of the ranking minority member, or the committee by majority

vote with a quorum present for the transaction of business,

determines there is good cause to begin the hearing sooner,

in which case the chairman shall make the announcement at the

earliest possible date.

Rule 12--Open hearings

(a) Each hearing conducted by the committee or any of its

task forces shall be open to the public except when the

committee or task force, in open session and with a quorum

present, determines by roll call vote that all or part of the

remainder of that hearing on that day shall be closed to the

public because disclosure of testimony, evidence, or other

matters to be considered would endanger the national

security, or would compromise sensitive law enforcement

information, or would tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate

any person, or would violate any law or rule of the House of

Representatives. The committee or task forces may by the same

procedure vote to close one subsequent day of hearing.

(b) For the purposes of House Rule XI, clause 2(g)(2), the

task forces of the committee are considered to be

subcommittees.

Rule 13--Quorums

For the purpose of hearing testimony, not less than two

members of the committee shall constitute a quorum.

Rule 14--Questioning witnesses

(a) Questioning of witnesses will be conducted under the 5-

minute rule unless the committee adopts a motion pursuant to

House Rule XI clause 2(j).

(b) In questioning witnesses under the 5-minute rule:

(1) First, the chairman and the ranking minority member

shall be recognized;

(2) Next, the members present at the time the hearing is

called to order shall be recognized in order of seniority;

and

(3) Finally, members not present at the time the hearing is

called to order may be recognized in the order of their

arrival at the hearing.

In recognizing members to question witnesses, the chairman

may take into consideration the ratio of majority members to

minority members and the number of majority and minority

members present and shall apportion the recognition for

questioning in such a manner as not to disadvantage the

members of the majority.

Rule 15--Subpoenas and oaths

(a) In accordance with House Rule XI, clause 2(m) subpoenas

authorized by a majority of the committee may be issued over

the signature of the chairman or of any member of the

committee designated by him, and may be served by any person

designated by the chairman or such member.

(b) The chairman, or any member of the committee designated

by the chairman, may administer oaths to witnesses.

Rule 16--Witnesses' statements

(a) So far as practicable, any prepared statement to be

presented by a witness shall be submitted to the committee at

least 24 hours in advance of presentation, and shall be

distributed to all members of the committee in advance of

presentation.

(b) To the greatest extent possible, each witness appearing

in a nongovernmental capacity shall include with the written

statement of proposed testimony a curriculum vitae and a

disclosure of the amount and source (by agency and program)

of any Federal grant (or sub-grant thereof) or contract (or

subcontract thereof) received during the current fiscal year

or either of the two preceding fiscal years.

Prints and Publications

Rule 17--Committee prints

All committee prints and other materials prepared for

public distribution shall be approved by the committee prior

to any distribution, unless such print or other material

shows clearly on its face that it has not been approved by

the committee.

Rule 18--Committee publications on the Internet

To the maximum extent feasible, the committee shall make

its publications available in electronic form.

Staff

Rule 19--Committee staff

(a) Subject to approval by the committee, and to the

provisions of the following paragraphs, the professional and

clerical staff of the committee shall be appointed, and may

be removed, by the chairman.

(b) Committee staff shall not be assigned any duties other

than those pertaining to

committee business, and shall be selected without regard to

race, creed, sex, or age, and solely on the basis of fitness

to perform the duties of their respective positions.

(c) All committee staff shall be entitled to equitable

treatment, including comparable salaries, facilities, access

to official committee records, leave, and hours of work.

(d) Notwithstanding paragraphs a, b, and c, staff shall be

employed in compliance with House rules, the Employment and

Accountability Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and

any other applicable Federal statutes.

Rule 20--Staff supervision

(a) Staff shall be under the general supervision and

direction of the chairman, who shall establish and assign

their duties and responsibilities, delegate such authority as

he deems appropriate, fix and adjust staff salaries (in

accordance with House Rule X, clause 9(c)) and job titles,

and, at his discretion, arrange for their specialized

training.

(b) Staff assigned to the minority shall be under the

general supervision and direction of the minority members of

the committee, who may delegate such authority, as they deem

appropriate.

Records

Rule 21--Preparation and maintenance of committee records

(a) A substantially verbatim account of remarks actually

made during the proceedings shall be made of all hearings and

business meetings subject only to technical, grammatical, and

typographical corrections.

(b) The proceedings of the committee shall be recorded in a

journal, which shall among other things, include a record of

the votes on any question on which a record vote is demanded.

(c) Members of the committee shall correct and return

transcripts of hearings as soon as practicable after receipt

thereof, except that any changes shall be limited to

technical, grammatical, and typographical corrections.

(d) Any witness may examine the transcript of his own

testimony and make grammatical, technical, and typographical

corrections.

(e) The chairman may order the printing of a hearing record

without the corrections of any member or witness if he

determines that such member or witness has been afforded a

reasonable time for correction, and that further delay would

seriously impede the committee's responsibility for meeting

its deadlines under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

(f) Transcripts of hearings and meetings may be printed if

the chairman decides it is appropriate, or if a majority of

the members so request.

Rule 22--Access to committee records

(a)(1) The chairman shall promulgate regulations to provide

for public inspection of roll call votes and to provide

access by members to committee records (in accordance with

House Rule XI, clause 2(e)).

(2) Access to classified testimony and information shall be

limited to Members of Congress and to House Budget Committee

staff and staff of the Office of Official Reporters who have

appropriate security clearance.

(3) Notice of the receipt of such information shall be sent

to the committee members. Such information shall be kept in

the committee safe, and shall be available to members in the

committee office.

(b) The records of the committee at the National Archives

and Records Administration shall be made available for public

use in accordance with Rule VII of the Rules of the House of

Representatives. The chairman shall notify the ranking

minority member of any decision, pursuant to clause 3(b)(3)

or clause 4(b) of the rule, to withhold a record otherwise

available, and the matter shall be presented to the committee

for a determination on the written request of any member of

the committee.

Oversight

Rule 23--General oversight

(a) The committee shall review and study, on a continuing

basis, the application, administration, execution, and

effectiveness of those laws, or parts of laws, the subject of

which is within its jurisdiction.

(b) The committee is authorized at any time to conduct such

investigations and studies as it may consider necessary or

appropriate in the exercise of its responsibilities under

clause (1)(d) of Rule X of the Rules of the House, and,

subject to the adoption of expense resolutions as required by

clause 6 of Rule X, to incur expenses (including travel

expenses) in connection therewith.

(c) Not later than February 15 of the first session of a

Congress, the committee shall meet in open session, with a

quorum present, to adopt its oversight plans for that

Congress for submission to the Committee on House

Administration and the Committee on Oversight and Government

Reform in accordance with the provisions of clause (2)(d) of

House Rule X.

Reports

Rule 24--Availability before filing

(a) Any report accompanying any bill or resolution ordered

reported to the House by the committee shall be available to

all committee members at least 36 hours prior to filing with

the House.

(b) No material change shall be made in any report made

available to members pursuant to section (a) without the

concurrence of the ranking minority member or by a majority

vote of the committee.

(c) Notwithstanding any other rule of the committee, either

or both subsections (a) and (b) may be waived by the chairman

or with a majority vote by the committee.

Rule 25--Report on the budget resolution

The report of the committee to accompany a concurrent

resolution on the budget shall include a comparison of the

estimated or actual levels for the year preceding the budget

year with the proposed spending and revenue levels for the

budget year and each out year along with the appropriate

percentage increase or decrease for each budget function and

aggregate. The report shall include any roll call vote on any

motion to amend or report any measure.

Rule 26--Parliamentarian's Status Report and Section 302

Status Report

(a)(1) In order to carry out its duty under sections 311

and 312 of the Congressional Budget Act to advise the House

of Representatives as to the current level of spending and

revenues as compared to the levels set forth in the latest

agreed-upon concurrent resolution on the budget, the

committee shall advise the Speaker on at least a monthly

basis when the House is in session as to its estimate of the

current level of spending and revenue. Such estimates shall

be prepared by the staff of the committee, transmitted to the

Speaker in the form of a Parliamentarian's Status Report, and

printed in the Congressional Record.

(2) The committee authorizes the chairman, in consultation

with the ranking minority member, to transmit to the Speaker

the Parliamentarian's Status Report described above.

(b)(1) In order to carry out its duty under sections 302

and 312 of the Congressional Budget Act to advise the House

of Representative as to the current level of spending within

the jurisdiction of committees as compared to the appropriate

allocations made pursuant to the Budget Act in conformity

with the latest agreed-upon concurrent resolution on the

budget, the committee shall, as necessary, advise the Speaker

as to its estimate of the current level of spending within

the jurisdiction of appropriate committees. Such estimates

shall be prepared by the staff of the committee and

transmitted to the Speaker in the form of a Section 302

Status Report.

(2) The committee authorizes the chairman, in consultation

with the ranking minority member, to transmit to the Speaker

the Section 302 Status Report described above.

Rule 27--Activity report

After an adjournment of the last regular session of a

Congress sine die, the Chair of the committee may file any

time with the Clerk the committee's activity report for that

Congress pursuant to clause (1)(d)(1) of rule XI of the Rules

of the House without the approval of the committee, if a copy

of the report has been available to each member of the

committee for at least seven calendar days and the report

includes any supplemental, minority, or additional views

submitted by a member of the committee.

Miscellaneous

Rule 28--Broadcasting of meetings and hearings

(a) It shall be the policy of the committee to give all

news media access to open hearings of the committee, subject

to the requirements and limitations set forth in House Rule

XI, clause 4.

(b) Whenever any committee business meeting is open to the

public, that meeting may be covered, in whole or in part, by

television broadcast, radio broadcast, still photography, or

by any of such methods of coverage, in accordance with House

Rule XI, clause 4.

Rule 29--Appointment of conferees

(a) Majority party members recommended to the Speaker as

conferees shall be recommended by the chairman subject to the

approval of the majority party members of the committee.

(b) The chairman shall recommend such minority party

members as conferees as shall be determined by the minority

party; the recommended party representation shall be in

approximately the same proportion as that in the committee.

Rule 30--Waivers

When a reported bill or joint resolution, conference

report, or anticipated floor amendment violates any provision

of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the chairman may, if

practical, consult with the committee members on whether the

chairman should recommend, in writing, that the Committee on

Rules report a special rule that enforces the Act by not

waiving the applicable points of order during the

consideration of such measure.

Madam Speaker, under section 201 of S. Con. Res. 70, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2009, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record a revision to the budget allocations and aggregates for certain House committees for fiscal years 2008 and 2009

and the period of fiscal years 2009 through 2013. This revision represents an adjustment to certain House committee budget allocations and aggregates for the purposes of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, and in response to consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2 (Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009). Corresponding tables are attached.

Under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70, this adjustment to the budget allocations and aggregates applies while the measure is under consideration. The adjustments will take effect upon enactment of the measure. For purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, a revised allocation made under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70 is to be considered as an allocation included in the resolution.

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

Mr. Chairman, we can debate this bill endlessly tonight, but no one can contest this point, this fact; we are in the midst of the greatest, longest and deepest recession since the Great Depression.

The question before us is simply this: Will we act, act now and act boldly in an effort to restore our economy to a healthy status, or will we run the risk that this recession will become even deeper and longer?

Now, I know that some doubt or disdain the steps taken so far by the government. Let me say up until a week ago that government was the Bush administration. I know that some question whether or not these steps have done any good. But let's go back to September and October. We witnessed a complete collapse of confidence in the global financial system and a wrenching credit crunch for corporate and consumer borrowers both. The spread between the 3-month LIBOR, the London Interbank Lending Rate, and 3-month Treasuries, which is a proxy for the willingness of banks to lend money, reached 360 basis points, 3.6 percent. Many feared, with good reason, that we would soon be in a cash-and-carry economy.

We passed the bill which provided additional liquidity. It hasn't accomplished all we hoped it would. But the spread that I just mentioned has fallen from 360 basis points to 100 basis points, still double the normal spread, but that is a big improvement and one clear indication that government actions have produced some good effect. Sure, they are not lending as much as we would like. Financing for consumer durables like autos and homes is not where we'd like it to be. But we are a lot better off than we would have been if the government had not intervened.

Now, I know some recoil at the enormous costs we are incurring. And I'll be frank with you, I find it stunning. $825 billion. But the cost of doing nothing is not zero. Far from it. What is the cost of doing nothing? Well, the CBO tells us that the cost of doing nothing, nothing tonight, nothing further, could be as much as a 2.2 percent contraction in GDP over 2009, the current year, and an unemployment rate climbing to 9 to 10 percent. Other forecasters predict even worse. We had several before our committee today. Mark Zandi of Moody's Economy.Com forecasted today a 3.4 percent contraction in the economy in 2009 with unemployment soaring to 11 percent next year.

Still people say, well, why does the government need to respond? Why can't we let this recession, like others in the past, run its course and self-correct? Well, our economy is up against some major head winds. Consumers have cut spending because their principal asset, their home, has plummeted in value by 20 percent, and some say it may go 20 percent more before we reach a reasonable trend line. There are huge overhangs in the real estate market. Real estate may have led us out of past recessions, but not this one. Nor will automotives. If anything, they are in deeper doldrums. With credit shrinking and retail sales falling, it is unlikely that the manufacturing sector will step up the production of goods for which there is little market. Finally, with the Fed fund rates at virtually zero, monetary policy is at the end of its tether.

What is left, if we were to do something, if we were to intervene, if we were to restore health to our economy? A major fiscal response by the government is the only viable option left on the table.

Now, what could a $825 billion stimulus bill accomplish? CBO forecasts an economy in 2009 or GDP equal to $14.2 trillion if we don't act. That is an economy operating at 6.8 percent less than its reasonable capacity, its potential. CBO predicts the same for 2010. My friend, that is a gap of nearly $1 trillion in potential production, goods and services that people in this country could enjoy and use, $1 trillion a year if we don't act.

According to CBO, the recovery bill will raise output between 1.3 percent and 3.6 percent by the end of this year. If we take the middle of that range, 2.5 percent, that is an additional $350 billion worth of goods and services purchased which businesses will then generate into several million badly-needed jobs.

A recovery bill that invests in America and begins to repair our stock of capital will yield dividends down the road. If investing in our schools, our children, our workforce, our roads, our bridges, our ports, our schools, our waterways, our transit and our scientific and technological base did not produce solid economic returns, how would our Nation have ever emerged to lead the world.

I urge everyone to support H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Mr. Speaker, under section 201 of S. Con. Res. 70, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2009, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record a revision to the budget allocations and aggregates for certain House committees for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and the period of fiscal years 2009 through 2013. This revision represents an adjustment to certain House committee budget allocations and aggregates for the purposes of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, and in response to passage of the bill H.R. 2 (Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009). Corresponding tables are attached.

Under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70, this adjustment to the budget allocations and aggregates applies while the measure is under consideration. The adjustments will take effect upon enactment of the measure. For purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, a revised allocation made under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70 is to be considered as an allocation included in the resolution.

Any questions may be directed to Ellen Balis or Gail Millar.

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

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

2008 2009 2009-2013 Total

Madam Chairman, the bill before us has been vastly improved over the bill sent to us, and all of those improvements are still here. But this bill was waylaid in the Senate to add unrelated matters, which is not a good way to legislate, and I do not defend it.

But the major adds extend expiring tax cuts, which we would extend anyway in time, and to fix the AMT to keep it from coming down on middle income Americans, and sooner or later, we would adjust the AMT. In regular order, we would offset those tax reductions so that they do not add to the deficit. This bill contains only partial offsets, but there is remarkable improvements to the code here.

For example, one shining example, this bill closes a gaping loophole and saves $25 billion, a gaping loophole in the tax code, which has long allowed managers of hedge funds to shelter their income in places like the Caymans and dodge taxation.

One final point. Throughout, this has been called a $700 billion bailout, but we should bear in mind three points: first, $700 billion will be the gross cost if all of it is drawn down. The net cost should be a lot less.

I support this bill, and will vote for it again. I congratulate the chairman for the fine work he's done.

Madam Speaker, under section 220 of S. Con. Res. 70, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2009, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record a revision to the budget aggregates for the period of fiscal years 2009 and 2013. This adjustment is in response to consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill H.R. 1424; the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008; the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008; and the Tax Extenders and Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008. A table is attached.

Under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70, this adjustment to the budget allocations and aggregates applies while the measure is under consideration. For purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, a revised allocation made under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70 is to be considered as an allocation included in the resolution.

Madam Speaker, no one comes to the well of this House today with any relish or enthusiasm. This bill is as unappealing to those of us who will vote for it as it is to those of us who will vote against it. The President has sent us an unprecedented request for $700 billion and asked for its immediate consideration.

The request came to us--all three pages--much like two bookends with contents to follow. When we read it, we found that the President sought a massive grant of money accompanied by a sweeping grant of authority. The President asked for speedy action. The people asked for diligence and deliberation, and that's what we have given them over the past 8 days. The result is a vastly improved bill.

If you think that $700 billion in one fell swoop is too much, as I do, the bill before you addresses that concern. It splits the funds into three stages and makes the third tranche of $350 billion subject to a vote of disapproval by Congress. In any event, everyone should understand that the cost of this bill is not $700 billion, as CBO has told us in testimony. The bill's cost would be substantially smaller than $700 billion. The cost would be the difference between the amount spent by the government and the amount received in earnings and proceeds when all the assets are finally sold. The CBO expects that ``since the acquired assets will have value, the net impact will be substantially less than $700 billion.''

If you think, nevertheless, that the financial industry that benefits from this bill should ultimately pay for the losses it causes, as I do, then this bill offers a mechanism to accomplish that. And though the recoupment is not as ironclad as I would like, the principle is there embodied in the bill.

If you think that a grant of this amount calls for extraordinary oversight internally and externally, this bill is replete with oversight. If you think that the whole regulatory system needs to be overhauled, this bill initiates the process.

If you think that executive compensation should be capped, as I did, then this bill has limits and controls, and though they are not nearly as strict as I would like, they are present, they will be enacted and they can be built upon. If you want equity sweeteners for risks the government is taking, to cushion the downside losses and to give us a piece of the upside gains, this bill provides for warrants to go along with the notes, bonds and mortgages that we will be taking.

There is a lot that's better about this bill after almost 100 pages of substantive changes. But the question remains, is this bill necessary? Is this the best way to inject credit liquidity into our markets? Should we even shore up insolvent firms?

I can't answer that question definitively, but I have to listen when Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Fed, answers it by saying: ``This is the most significant financial crisis of the post-war period. I see the financial markets as quite fragile . . . Credit will be restricted further. It will affect spending; it will affect economic activity; it will affect the unemployment rate; it will affect real income; it will affect everybody's standard of living . . . Despite the efforts of the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and other agencies, global financial markets remain under extraordinary stress. Action by Congress is urgently required to avert what could otherwise be grave consequences for financial markets and for our economy.''

Ben Bernanke is an accomplished economist who has made a life-long study of economic crises. He has no axes to grind, and he is not given to exaggeration. When he warns that the situation is dire and that the cost of doing nothing could be catastrophic, we have to listen. Indeed, we ignore his advice at our peril--the peril that this crisis will become a wider economic debacle.

Many Members like me come from districts that are rural and made up of small towns. We tend to think that we are far removed from the ripple effects of a crisis like this. But when we get up on a Monday morning and find right in our yard that Wachovia has been acquired at the instigation of the FDIC, we know that the crisis can reach us all sooner or later unless we act now and act decisively.

I urge support for the bill.