Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 314 the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Budget Act), I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record revisions to the aggregate budget levels and committee allocations set forth pursuant to H. Con. Res. 112, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2013. The revision is for new budget authority and outlays for a provision designated as disaster relief, pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, contained in a bill making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security reported by the Committee on Appropriations. A corresponding table is attached.

This revision represents an adjustment for purposes of enforcing sections 302 and 311 of the Budget Act. For the purposes of the Budget Act, these revised allocations are to be considered as allocations included in the budget resolution, pursuant to section 101 of H. Con. Res. 112.

Mr. Chairman, we passed a budget. We showed what we would do to deal with all of these fiscal problems and fiscal priorities. We showed defense spending decreases off the defense request from

last year. We showed a responsible way to get savings from the Pentagon budget.

To my friends on the other side of the aisle, to their credit, they brought a budget to the floor that turned off the sequester and showed alternative savings as well. The Senate, nothing, no budget for 3 years. The President, he tells us he doesn't want the sequester to kick in, that it's a bad thing to happen, but he's not doing anything to show how he will prevent the sequester from happening.

Two weeks ago, we passed a reconciliation bill. That bill said specifically how we will cut spending in other areas of government to prevent the sequester from occurring next year, 1 year.

The ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Van Hollen, authored an amendment to do the same thing, other savings to pay for 1 year of the sequester set aside. So both the House Republicans and the Democrats in the House proposed the same kind of solution, 1 year set aside.

Let's just look at what people are saying about what the sequester will do to our national defense:

The President, in his own budget, said that the sequester would inflict great damage to the country's national security;

The Secretary of Defense says it would hollow out our defense;

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says that sequestration would pose unacceptable risks to the Nation's security;

The Chief of Naval Operations says that the sequester would have a severe and irreversible impact on the Navy's future;

The Chief of Staff of the Army says that he is definitely afraid of what would happen to our military if this takes place.

All this amendment does is it gives us one more avenue and opportunity to take the spending cuts we have already articulated and to put them in place to prevent the sequester from happening, from seeing all these bad things take place. It gives another opportunity within this conference report, when that arrives, to prevent the sequester from happening by swapping those cuts out with other savings elsewhere in the budget.

Our government is projected to spend about $45 trillion over the next 10 years.

This is a trillion. So the math that the gentleman from Washington mentioned doesn't quite add up. But if we start dropping defense 10 percent in January, that is going to have a destabilizing effect on our national security.

There is plenty of other government spending that's being wasted that can be cut to pay for this. Sixty-one percent of the Federal Government has been on autopilot, off limits. It has not been touched since 2006. There are plenty of areas that we can get savings from like this amendment proposes to. Let's get it from there, and let's not put our men and women at risk who are putting on the uniform and serving us and fighting for our country.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Look, as the gentleman said, the President didn't ask for this amount of money. He asked for more money: in fiscal year 2012, $554 billion; the pre-sequester cap, $546 billion; the President's request, $551 billion. Our budget resolution was $554 billion. This bill, the base bill, is $548 billion. The gentlelady's amendment is $539.7 billion.

The gentlelady's amendment is cutting defense below the BCA caps, below the President's request. To the other gentlelady from California, all of these programs she mentioned are increasing.

The attempts that have been made by the majority have been to slow the rate of increase. This is being cut--real reductions in this category of spending--when all the other domestic spending is increasing, hopefully, at a slightly slower pace.

So let's remind ourselves that this is the first priority of the Federal Government. We are in war right now. The President, himself, and his budget are saying that we have to be higher for the safety and the security of our troops.

If the gentlelady's amendment passes, which actually brings it down below the BCA levels, then she is giving all the discretion to the executive branch, to the President, in order to decide how to allocate those dollars--ceding the power of the purse from the legislative branch to the executive branch--which is clearly not in our interest as guardians of the elected branch, the legislative branch of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, to facilitate application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act, I am transmitting an updated status report on the current levels of on-budget spending and revenues for fiscal years 2012, 2013, and for the 10-year period fiscal year 2013 through fiscal year 2022. This status report is current through May 11, 2012.

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 overall limits set in H. Con. Res. 34 for fiscal year 2012 and H. Con. Res. 112 for fiscal year 2013. This comparison is needed to implement section 311(a) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the budget resolution's aggregate levels. The table does not show budget authority and outlays for years after fiscal year 2013 because appropriations for those years have not yet been considered.

The second table compares the current levels of budget authority and outlays for action completed by each authorizing committee with the ``section 302(a)'' allocations made under H. Con. Res. 34 for fiscal year 2012 and under H. Con. Res. 112 for fiscal year 2013 and fiscal years 2013 through 2022. ``Action'' refers to legislation enacted after the adoption of the budget resolution. This comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the section 302(a) allocation of new budget authority for the committee that reported the measure. It is also needed to implement section 311(b), which exempts committees that comply with their allocations from the point of order under section 311(a).

The third table compares the current levels of discretionary appropriations for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 with the ``section 302(b)'' suballocations of discretionary budget authority and outlays among Appropriations subcommittees. The comparison is also needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act because the point of order under that section equally applies to measures that would breach the applicable section 302(b) suballocation.

The fourth table gives the current level for fiscal year 2014 of accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 501 of H. Con. Res. 112. This list is needed to enforce section 501 of the budget resolution, which creates a point of order against appropriation bills that contain advance appropriations that are: (i) not identified in the statement of managers or (ii) would cause the aggregate amount of such appropriations to exceed the level specified in the resolution.

If you have any questions, please contact Paul Restuccia.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 503 of H. Con. Res. 112, the House-passed budget resolution for fiscal year 2013, deemed to be in force by H. Res. 614 and H. Res. 643, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record revisions to the budget allocations and aggregates set forth pursuant to the budget for fiscal year 2013. This revision corrects a number that was inadvertently transposed in a previous revision submitted on April 18, 2012 for legislation related to the Small Business Tax Cut Act of 2012, H.R. 9.

This revision represents an adjustment pursuant to sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended (Budget Act). For the purposes of the Budget Act, these revised aggregates and allocations are to be considered as aggregates and allocations included in the budget resolution, pursuant to section 101 of H. Con. Res. 112.

Budget Aggregates

[On-budget amounts, in millins of dollars] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fiscal Year

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 648, I call up the bill (H.R. 5652) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 5652, the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind everybody for a minute as to how we got here. Why are we doing this? What's going on?

When the President was requesting an increase in the debt limit last year, he wanted a blank check. Just increase the debt limit. Borrowing unchecked. Then when that wasn't going to happen, he asked for a big tax increase. That didn't occur.

What occurred out of that was the Budget Control Act. You've got to cut at least a dollar's worth of spending for every dollar of debt- limit increase that occurs.

So Congress passed the Budget Control Act with no tax increases, spending cuts. Half of it, approximately, were the caps on discretionary spending netting about $1 trillion in savings--$917 billion, to be specific. The other half, the $1.2 trillion, was the Select Committee--people call this the supercommittee. That committee failed to produce a result. As a result of that, a sequester occurs. And the sequester, according to people on a bipartisan basis, is not good government. The sequester, according to the Secretary of Defense, the President himself, would hollow out our military when it kicks in on January 2 next year. The sequester will take nondefense discretionary spending down 8 percent and defense down 10 percent.

We believe the purpose of the sequester was to replace the fact that Congress isn't governing. Well, let's have Congress govern. That's why we're doing this. What we're doing is we're bringing a bill to the floor to cut 405 percent of the spending cuts that are in the sequester in the first year. A net deficit reduction of $242.8 billion to set aside the sequester under discretionary for 1 year of $78 billion, we think that's a good tradeoff.

More to the point, we need to get in the habit of doing reconciliation because 61 percent of the Federal budget is off limits, it's autopilot, it's not touched. Congress doesn't deal with it. So we should look at this part of our government that is not being dealt with.

The last time we used reconciliation for its intended purpose--to cut spending, to reduce deficits--was 2005. So rather than just having annual discretionary spending bouts and debates, we should look at the other parts of government that are on autopilot.

Take a look at what we're doing. We basically are doing five things. We're stopping the abuse by ensuring individuals are actually eligible for the taxpayer benefits they receive--novel idea, I know. We're eliminating government slush funds to stop bailouts. We're controlling runaway, unchecked spending. We're putting restraints on government spending by bureaucracies. And we're getting rid of duplicative spending.

I can go through each program, and we will do this in this debate, but what we're simply saying is people should actually be eligible for the benefits that they receive, whether it's a tax credit, whether it's a SNAP benefit, whatever it is. When we take a look at why we're cutting spending, we are

doing this with the guise of the fact that we have a spending-driven debt crisis on the horizon. If taxes go back to where they've been for the last 40 years, which is what they are projected to do, there's no way you can fix this problem by raising taxes.

We have a spending-driven debt crisis, and the debt crisis is one in which we have a tidal wave of debt coming to this country just like Europe is experiencing. If we don't get our spending under control and we don't get our deficit under control, the people who need government the most--the poor, the elderly--they're the ones who get hurt the first and the worst.

We need to get spending and, therefore, deficits under control to prevent a debt crisis. That's what this does. It's a downpayment. Instead of saving hundreds of billions of dollars like this bill does, we need to get into the practice of actually saving trillions of dollars, which is what our budget does, in order to prevent a debt crisis from ruining the American Dream for Americans.

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

I yield myself 1 minute to say, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman's substitute raises taxes $85 billion and raises spending $55 billion on the net to achieve simply $30 billion in deficit reduction. This bill achieves $243 billion in deficit reduction without raising taxes.

The ratio of tax increases to spending cuts gross 3 to 1. That's what they think balance is.

Let's look at food stamps. Food stamps went up 270 percent over the last decade. If this passes, it will have gone up 260 percent.

Let's talk about Medicaid and SCHIP. This program has gone up 50 percent over the last 10 years. It's projected to grow 125 percent over the next 10 years. If this passes, it will grow 123 percent over the next 10 years.

If we can't have a civil debate about how to slow the growth of spending around here then we'll never get this under control. Medicaid alone made $15.8 billion in overpayments in 2011 alone. If we can't deal with this waste, if we can't deal with this overspending, we can't fix this problem.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes of my time to Mr. Hensarling of the Financial Services Committee, and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to yield time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes to just address a few of these.

If you're eligible for food stamps today, you'll be eligible for food stamps tomorrow under this bill. We're simply saying you have to be eligible for this benefit to actually get the benefit.

The slush fund, which is called the Preventive Services Fund, doesn't fund cervical and breast cancer research. It funded things such as the Pitt County, North Carolina, funds for signage to promote recreational destinations, including public parks, bike lanes, and more. The city of Boston received a $1 million grant for urban gardening. The New York Department of Health used a $3 million taxpayer-funded grant from this fund to lobby for a soda-tax initiative. The Cascade Bicycle Club Education Foundation granted $3 million to the Seattle and King County Public Health Facility to use taxpayer dollars to ``improve the walking and biking environment.'' This is where our taxpayer dollars are going.

With regard to the child tax credit, one investigation in Indiana said an illegal immigrant is claiming $29,608 as a tax credit for 20 children who live in Mexico and have never visited the United States before.

What we're saying is government spending on these programs should go to the people who they are intended for, not to people who are not eligible and are not intended for. If we're going to do prevention for health care, then do cancer screenings, do cancer research. Don't fund signs for bike paths.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. McKeon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to make three points.

That line the gentlelady used about Medicare was rated the ``lie of the year'' in 2011 by PolitiFact. Number two, the reason the Democratic substitute is not being considered is because it violates the House rules. What's interesting about that is, it would have violated the House rules that the Democrats had when they were in the majority. The third point is, when it comes to tax loopholes, we're proposing to close those tax loopholes in order to lower tax rates for American families and businesses to create jobs. They want to do it to prevent spending cuts; $3 of tax increases for $1 of spending cuts is the math and the logic that the other side chooses to use. When you have a spending problem, you've got to cut spending.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to yield time.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds simply to say that the Social Services Block Grant, according to the Government Accountability Office, is a textbook example of overlap and duplication of Federal programs. It's one of 69 programs to fund early education; it's one of 200 programs serving Americans with disabilities; and it's one of 49 programs providing education and training services. The program demands no accountability for results and provides no means to measure the impact of the programs.

Mr. Speaker, we've got to end duplication and waste in government. We're saying also, on the tax side, close loopholes for tax reform, not to fuel more spending.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to yield time.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

An additional 30 seconds. I've got three other committees that are coming.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Medicaid is projected to grow at 125 percent over the next decade; under this bill, it will grow 123 percent. Food

stamps grew 270 percent; under this bill, they would have grown 260 percent. Only in Washington is this considered draconian cuts. Slowing the growth of spending is not cutting; it's slowing the growth of spending.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), a member of the Judiciary Committee, and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to yield time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to yield time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Members of Congress and Federal employees contribute .8 percent to their pensions. According to the CBO, their benefits are 48 percent higher than their average private sector counterparts. We think it's just reasonable and appropriate that they contribute about 5.8 percent to their pensions and contribute their half. It's the least we can ask of ourselves as Members of Congress and of hardworking Federal employees, that we treat ourselves like private sector workers are treated. More to the point, Mr. Speaker, if we want to have the moral authority to get spending under control, we need to ask more of ourselves.

With that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to yield time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Cole.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished gentleman on the Budget Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney), a member of the Budget Committee.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, this is not a tax cut bill, this is a spending cut bill.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve.

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

First off, Mr. Speaker, let me thank those six committees that contributed to making this possible.

Over 60 percent of the Federal budget is in a category of spending we call mandatory spending. It's a budget term of art that means that part of spending is on autopilot. Congress does not address or oversee or set the levels of that spending in any given year. Congress does address what we call discretionary spending. That's government agency budgets--about 39 percent of the budget every single year. The last time Congress actually looked at this 60 percent of spending on autopilot for savings was 2005. It's important that we make sure that we're scrutinizing how we're spending hard-earned taxpayer dollars, and it's a shame that we haven't revisited this category of spending since 2005. We're doing that here.

Now, the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Speaker of the House, the minority leader of the House, they've all said that this sequester is a mistake; it's bad, it's going to hurt. Not only does it hollow out defense, according to the Defense Secretary, but it also creates an 8 percent across-the-board cut to domestic discretionary spending, like the National Institutes of Health. We think we should prevent that. On a bipartisan basis, we think we should prevent that. That's what we're doing. This is the only plan that says, Prevent that from happening, and here's how you pay for it. Here's our plan to stop that from happening, this event that everybody says should be stopped.

Now, when we take a look at what this package does, I think we want to

look at, is our government working the way it ought to be?

In particular, we're hearing lots of comments about how this hurts people, how this hurts the poor. Let's take a look at our poverty- fighting efforts. And should we measure our poverty-fighting efforts based on inputs or based on outcomes? Should we measure our poverty- fighting efforts based on how much money we're spending and how many programs we're creating? Or should we think about how many people are we getting out of poverty?

Here's the problem: These efforts aren't working. One out of six Americans today are in poverty. We have the highest poverty rates we've had in a generation. These programs aren't working. Let's fix them. Let's pass reforms that instead decrease the poverty rate, which is happening these days, and get people back into lives of self- sufficiency.

Let's go back to the American idea of an opportunity society with a safety net that doesn't keep people in poverty but gets people out of poverty into lives of self-sufficiency. And we're not going to be able to achieve that if we don't grow our economy. We're not going to be able to achieve that if we don't have more opportunities in society so that people who are on the bottom rung of the economic ladder can't climb up and out.

We shouldn't be defining success as how many people we have on these benefit programs. We should be defining success as to how many people we are graduating from these benefit programs into lives of self- sufficiency, into jobs. That's the American idea.

So when you take a look at whether these programs are working well or not, we need to reform them. We haven't touched these programs for decades. Food stamps, we've gone from 17 million people to 45 million people in a decade, a 270 percent spending increase--$1.8 billion in overpayments last year alone. We're just saying you need to qualify for the benefit to get the benefit.

Medicaid. If we think this is such a success, then why are half the doctors filling out surveys saying they're not going to take any new Medicaid patients. If this program is working so well, then why was $15.8 billion in overpayments made just last year? Does this devastate Medicaid? Instead of increasing Medicaid by 125 percent over the next decade, this proposal increases it by 123 percent over the next decade--hardly draconian.

What we're saying is we need to make these programs work to achieve their intended results. Give States more flexibility to customize their benefits to meet the needs of the people in their States. That's what these Medicaid reforms are all about.

When we hear the other side talk about no spending cuts but more tax increases, that's going to slow down job creation. We're the first ones who came to this floor saying, ``Close these tax loopholes, but close these tax loopholes to create economic growth by reforming the Tax Code.'' Treat people fairly in the Tax Code so that a company or a person who makes the same amount of money pays the same level of tax. You do that by getting rid of tax shelters and tax loopholes, not to raise spending, but to lower tax rates so American businesses can survive, can thrive, and create jobs. Upward mobility. Economic opportunity. That's what we're trying to achieve here.

Mr. Speaker, we should not be talking to each other in this society as if we're stuck in some class, as if this person's middle class, that person's lower class, and that person's upper class. Our ancestors left those class-based societies to form this country, which should not be a class-based society. It should be a society of upward mobility, where we can make the most of our lives, based on our own God-given talent and our own effort. We should not be speaking to people as if they're stuck in their current station in life and the government is here to help them cope with it.

We need to get ourselves out of this debt crisis because, if we have a debt crisis, if we keep on this path where we're borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend, we're going to have a debt crisis. Europe is in a debt crisis.

And what happens when you're in a debt crisis? Immediate austerity, cutting benefits to seniors, cutting benefits to people in the safety net, raising taxes. That slows down the economy, especially for the youth.

Look what we're doing right now. Half of our Nation's college graduates are either unemployed or underemployed--half.

It's not working. We need to change these policies. We need to grow the economy. And if we have a debt crisis because of this spending, then the people who need government the most, they're the ones who get hurt the first and the worst.

We're leading. The President, no plan to fix this. The Senate, no budget since 2009. And our friends on the other side of the aisle, tax increases, spending increases, no spending cuts.

Mr. Speaker, this is a small step in the right direction. It's something Congress should do every day. I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for bringing this to our attention. We just received the legislation about 3 or 4 minutes ago, and there are a couple of observations I want to make.

Number one, I think this is an intriguing policy with respect to denying pensions to the Members who become lobbyists. I think the gentleman should introduce legislation and send it to committee, like the legislation should be passed, and we should give it proper review instead of springing it at the last minute.

The second point I would make is on an area where we completely agree, which is that Members of Congress should bear an even higher burden than we're asking of other Federal employees. This bill does that. The underlying bill does that. The underlying bill says:

In addition to Federal employees going from paying .8 percent to their

pensions, they go to 5.8 percent from their paychecks to contribute to their pensions so that they pay half of their pension benefits as is required through most private sector arrangements. Members of Congress will pay 9.8 percent to their pensions under this bill. This bill has an 8.5 percent pay cut to Members of Congress, and it only has a 5 percent pay cut to all other Federal employees.

So we are already incorporating the idea, which we agree with. Members of Congress, in order to exercise moral authority, are the ones who should take the biggest pay cuts and have the biggest pension contributions relative to anybody else. That's why we have it in this bill already. While I understand the gentleman's interest--I appreciate it--it is something that we are already accommodating in this bill. As a result, I would urge a ``no'' vote.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to sections 404 of H. Con. Res 34, the House-passed budget resolution for fiscal year 2012, deemed to be in force by H. Res. 287, and 503 of H. Con. Res. 112, the House-passed budget resolution for fiscal year 2013, deemed to be in force by H. Res. 614, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record revisions to the budget allocations and aggregates set forth pursuant to the budget for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 as set forth under the provisions of those resolutions. The revision is designated for the Small Business Tax Cut Act of 2012 H.R. 9. A corresponding table is attached.

This revision represents an adjustment pursuant to sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended (Budget Act). For the purposes of the Budget Act, these revised aggregates and allocations are to be considered as aggregates and allocations included in the budget resolutions, pursuant to sections 101 of H. Con. Res. 34 and section 101 of H. Con. Res. 112.

Madam Chair, as an avid outdoorsman and member of the bipartisan Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, I am grateful for the opportunity to voice my support for H.R. 4089, the Sportsmen's Heritage Act. This legislation clarifies federal policies for the management of sporting activities on public lands and protects opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing, and shooting. I commend the House Committee on Natural Resources for their commitment to preserving the legacy of conservation and upholding Second Amendment rights, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 112.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Graves).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Guinta.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I will yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Black), a member of the Budget Committee.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney), a member of the Budget Committee.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland).

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Labrador).

At this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), a member of the Budget Committee.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Let me just try to give, in a nutshell, the economic vision the minority leader just gave us. It kind of works like this:

Take more money from communities, from families, from small businesses and send it to Washington; swish it around the bureaucracy; make the decisions here; then, through trickle-down government, try to create jobs from government; borrow more money if that's not enough; then print more money if that's not enough over at the Federal Reserve; and we can make jobs in government.

It doesn't work. We've been trying this. Look at where we are today. Our debt is bigger than our economy. Look at the common theme we've seen before us. This budget, the House Democratic budget, has a $1.7 trillion tax increase; the President's budget, a $2 trillion tax increase; the CBC budget, a $6 trillion tax increase; and least, but not last, the Progressive budget has a $6.7 trillion tax increase. Is that for deficit reduction? No. It's for more spending.

The House Democratic budget has a $4.6 trillion spending increase; the CBC budget, a $5.2 trillion spending increase; the President's budget, a $5.2 trillion spending increase; and the Progressive Caucus Budget, a $6.6 trillion spending increase.

It is clear, they want you taxed more so they can spend more, and they never, ever balance the budget and they send us off a debt cliff.

This debt crisis is the most predictable crisis we've ever had in the history of this country, and we've got to stop this notion that we can just keep taking more and more and more from families and businesses to spend us deeper into debt. It doesn't work.

With that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the House Democratic substitute.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me just start off by thanking all of the staff and the minority and their staff for the hard work.

I want to congratulate Mr. Van Hollen for bringing his substitute to the floor. The minority does not need to do that, and I think that it is good for the process and the system that they do that.

In particular, I want to thank our Budget Committee staff: Alex Stoddard, Andy Morton, Austin Smythe, Charlotte Ivancic, Conor Sweeney, Courtney Reinhard, David Logan, Dennis Teti, Dick Magee, Eric Davis, Gerrit Lansing, Jane Lee, Jenna Spealman, Jim Herz, Jon Burks, Jon Romito, Jose Guillen, Justin Bogie, Marsha Douglas, Matt Hoffmann, Nicole Foltz, Paul Restuccia, Stephanie Parks, Steve Spruiell, Ted McCann, Tim Flynn, and Vanessa Day.

I also want to thank our personal office staff and the people who are over there at the Ford Building that not everybody sees but who work for the Congressional Budget Office. I had the privilege to meet with them last December while they were busy putting the payroll tax numbers together.

This year, the President's budget came late. Easter came early. Everyone was crunched. We worked them overtime, very hard. Now, we don't always like the estimates they necessarily give us, but I want to thank them for their dedication and their professionalism in making this process work.

With that, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Paul Ryan Personal Office Staff

Allison Steil, Andy Speth, Chad Herbert, Danyell Tremmel,

Joyce Meyer, Kevin Seifert, Megan Wagner, Nathan Schacht,

Sarah Peer, Smythe Anderson, Susie Liston, Teresa Mora,

Tricia Stoneking, Lauren Schroeder, Casey Higgins, Aubrey

Yanzito, Rick Jacobson.

CBO Staff

Adam Talaber, Adam Wilson, Adebayo Adedeji, Alan van der

Hilst, Alexandra L. Minicozzi, Allison Percy, Amber G.

Marcellino, Amy E. Petz, Andrea K. Noda, Andrew Stocking, Ann

Futrell, Anna E. Cook, Annette W. Kalicki, Athiphat

Muthitacharoen, Aurora K. Swanson, Avi Lerner, Barbara

Edwards, Barry Blom, Benjamin R. Page, Bernard C. Kempinski.

Brianne B. Hutchinson, Bruce G. Arnold, Carla Tighe Murray,

Caryn Rotheim, Chad M. Chirico, Chad Shirley, Charles

Pineles-Mark, Charles Whalen, Chayim Rosito, Christi Hawley

Anthony, Christian K. Howlett, Christina Vu, Christine M.

Bogusz, Christopher Murphy, Christopher Williams, Christopher

Zogby, Courtney Griffith, Cynthia R. Cleveland, Damien Moore,

DaMischa Phillip.

Daniel Frisk, Daniel S. Hoople, Darren Young, Dave Hull,

David A. Brauer, David Arthur, David Austin, David B. Newman,

David C. Gaffney, David D. Jackson, David E. Mosher, David

Rafferty, David Torregrosa, David Weiner, Dawn Sauter Regan,

Deborah A. Kalcevic, Deborah Kilroe, Deborah Lucas, Denise

Jordan-Williams, Doug Elmendorf, Dwayne Wright.

Ed Harris, Edward (Sandy) Davis, Edward C. Blau, Elias

Leight, Elizabeth Bass, Elizabeth Cove Delisle, Ellen C.

Werble, Emily Holcombe, Eric J. Labs, Ernestine McNeil,

Ernestine McNeil, Esther Steinbock, Felix Reichling, Frances

M. Lussier, Francesca Castelli, Frank J. Sammartino, Frank S.

Russek, Gregory Acs, Gregory H. Hitz, Heidi Golding, Holly

Harvey, Jamease Miles.

James A. Langley, James Baumgardner, James Johnson, Janet

F. Airis, Janet Holtzblatt, Janice M. Johnson, Jared

Brewster, Jason Wheelock, Jean P. Hearne, Jeanine Rees, Jeff

LaFave, Jeffrey Kling, Jeffrey M. Holland, Jennifer C.

Gravelle, Jennifer Smith, Jessica Deegan, Jessica S. Banthin,

Jimmy Jin, J'nell L. Blanco, Joanna (Jodi) Capps.

Joe Miller, John H. Skeen III, Jonathan A. Huntley,

Jonathan A. Schwabish, Jonathan P. Morancy, Joseph Evans Jr.,

Joseph Kile, Joshua Shakin, Joyce M. Manchester, Juan M.

Contreras, Juann H. Hung, Judith Cromwell, Julia M.

Christensen, Julia Mitchell, Julie H. Topoleski, Julie

Somers, Justin Humphrey, Justin R. Falk.

Kalyani Parthasarathy, Kate Kelly, Kathleen FitzGerald,

Kathleen Gramp, Kent R. Christensen, Kevin Perese, Kim J.

Kowalewski, Kim P. Cawley, Kirstin B. Nelson, Kurt

Seibert, Lara E. Robillard, Larry Ozanne, Leah C. Mazade,

Leigh S. Angres, Leo K. Lex, Linda Bilheimer, Linda

Schimmel, Lisa Ramirez-Branum, Loretta Lettner, Lori B.

Housman, Lyle Nelson.

Majid Moghaddam, Marika Santoro, Marin A. Randall, Marion

C. Curry, Mark Booth, Mark E. Sanford, Mark J. Lasky, Mark P.

Hadley, Mark T. Grabowicz, Martin von Gnechten, Mary M.

Froehlich, Matthew Goldberg, Matthew Pickford, Matthew

Schmit, Maureen Costantino, Megan E. Carroll, Melinda B.

Buntin, Melissa Merrell, Michael Bennett, Michael Levine,

Michael S. Simpson, Mitchell A. Remy, Molly W. Dahl, Monte

Ruffin.

Nabeel A. Alsalam, Nancy A. Fahey, Natalie J. Tawil, Nathan

T. Musick, Noah P. Meyerson, Noelia J. Duchovny, Paige Piper/

Bach, Pamela Greene, Patrice L. Gordon, Patrice L. Watson,

Paul Burnham, Paul Jacobs, Paul Masi, Paula D. Brown, Perry

C. Beider, Peter H. Fontaine, Philip C. Webre, Priscila

Hammett.

R. Derek Trunkey, Rae Wiseman, Raymond J. Hall, Rebecca

Rockey, Rebecca V. Yip, Robert A. Sunshine, Robert G.

Shackleton Jr., Robert McClelland, Robert W. Arnold, Robert

W. Stewart, Rod Goodwin, Romain Parsad, Ron Gecan, Ronald L.

Moore, Ryan G. Miller.

Sam Papenfuss, Santiago Vallinas, Sarah Ammar, Sarah

Anders, Sarah Jennings, Sarah Puro, Shane Beaulieu, Shannon

Mok, Sharon Broderick, Sharon Corbin-Jallow, Sheila Campbell,

Sheila M. Dacey, Sherry Snyder, Simone Thomas, Stephanie

Burns, Stephanie Cameron, Stephanie M. Ruiz, Stephen P.

Rentner, Steven A. Weinberg, Stuart A. Hagen, Sunita C.

D'Monte, Susan Willie, Susanne S. Mehlman.

T.J. McGrath, Tamara Hayford, Terry M. Dinan, Theresa A.

Gullo, Thomas B. Bradley, Tiara P. MizeIle, Valentina

Michelangeli, Vi Nguyen, Virginia Myers, Wendy Edelberg,

Wendy Kiska, William J. Carrington, William Ma, William

Randolph.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished majority whip, Mr. McCarthy.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader of the House, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of the time.

Mr. Chairman, we are bearing witness to history this week. Across the street, we are witnessing what could be the end of bureaucratic- controlled health care. What we are on the verge of witnessing is a powerful reaffirmation of the American idea, and we are finally having the debate we need to have.

Our rights come to us naturally, they come from God and nature, and not from government. This health care law is the latest and perfect example of the notion that government is now needed to grant us new rights. And if that is the case, then government has authority to ration, to regulate and to redistribute exactly how we exercise these new rights, such as health care. And if these new government-granted rights conflict with our constitutional rights and liberties, well, then, such is the sacrifice needed in the name of progress, or so the thinking goes.

Across the street, we are witnessing what could be a rejection of this line of thinking. The new health care law, which asserts unlimited power to the Federal Government to decide for Americans how they should go about getting their health care, simply is not compatible with the Constitution.

But the Justices who are considering this case, they've raised a very good point: If this is, at the end, a bureaucrat control of health care, what comes next? And if you listen to them, you may hear a pretty dim view of Congress' ability to solve this problem.

With respect, I would suggest that they take a look at what we are accomplishing here in this body today. Here, in this Chamber, we are witnessing the growing momentum of a new approach, one that maintains a critical role for government, but ultimately puts the American people in charge where they belong.

For the second year in a row, we are passing a budget that outlines a new approach to Medicare. We keep the protections that made Medicare a guaranteed promise for seniors throughout the years, but this is what we say to the bureaucrats who have mismanaged this program into bankruptcy: Enough. Your approach doesn't work. Government has never come up with the magic formula to micromanage America, let alone lower costs and improve quality. It's time to put 50 million seniors, not 15 bureaucrats, in charge of their own health care decisions.

Forcing insurance companies to compete, that's the only way to guarantee quality affordable health care for seniors that lasts for generations. That's the answer to what comes next. Let's keep building on the growing bipartisan consensus on how to improve patient-centered health care reform.

But putting our trust in Americans, it goes beyond health care. It is what this entire budget is all about. We get government bureaucrats out of the business of picking winners and losers in the economy because Americans should make their own decisions about what kind of car they drive or what kind of light bulb they use. We give power over the safety net programs to the States because we believe that governments that are closest to the people are in the best position to design programs for their unique communities, to get people on to lives of self-sufficiency and upward mobility.

When we lower tax rates by closing special interest loopholes, we're saying we in Washington don't need to micromanage people's decisions through the Tax Code. Let people keep more of their own hard-earned dollars; let them decide how to spend it. Economic growth, jobs, upward mobility, opportunity, these are what we're striving for, just like our parents did the same for us.

Mr. Chairman, it is so rare in American politics to arrive at a moment in which the debate revolves around the fundamental nature of American democracy and the social contract, but that is exactly where we are today. One approach gives more power to unelected bureaucrats, takes more from hardworking taxpayers to fuel the expansion of government, and commits our Nation to a future of debt and decline. This approach is proving unworkable in Congress, in our courts, and in our communities.

This contrast with our budget could not become clearer: We put our trust in citizens, not in the government. Our budget returns power to individuals, to families, to communities.

As these choices become clear, today's budget is a vote of confidence for the American experiment. We think that putting our trust in the American people will renew their trust in us. We think Americans should control their destinies, and we trust them to make the right choices about the future of our country.

Mr. Chairman, we think America is on the wrong track. We believe the President is bringing us toward a debt crisis and a welfare state in decline. We are offering the Nation a choice. We are offering the Nation a better way forward. And we are offering the Nation a plan to renew America and the American idea.

Mr. Chairman, let's have that vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mr. Van Hollen, and I want to take a moment to recognize the retirement of Jennifer L. Smith, CBO's Associate General Counsel. Ms. Smith is retiring after more than 32 years of service to the Congress.

She began her career at the Senate in 1979. While working for the Secretary of the Senate, she attended law school at night and became one of the Senate's Assistant Parliamentarians. She served as an Assistant Counsel for the House Budget Committee, the General Counsel for the Senate Budget Committee, and the Deputy General Counsel for CBO. In 2006, she returned to the Senate Parliamentarian's Office as the Senate Precedents Editor, and in 2010 returned to CBO as the Associate General Counsel.

In each of her roles, Ms. Smith worked tirelessly to ensure that the decisions of each office were carefully researched, well reasoned, and fully documented.

As an attorney for CBO, Ms. Smith ensured that CBO's estimates of legislation were based on a solid understanding of the law. Her skills as an attorney have been highlighted in the diverse issues she has worked on while at CBO, ranging from immigration to social security to lease-purchase issues. Her knowledge of appropriations law, copyright law, and the ethics rules of the House of Representatives rivals those of the most acknowledged experts in those fields.

Ms. Smith's excellent work has been recognized throughout her career. In 2005, as CBO's Deputy General Counsel, she received a CBO Director's Award for outstanding performance. And she has received a number of other awards recognizing her outstanding contributions at CBO.

Ms. Smith has exemplified CBO's high standard of professionalism, objectivity, and nonpartisanship. She has been a wise counselor and a frequent mentor. As important as the quality of her work, Ms. Smith's value as a colleague is unmatched. Her unfailing sense of humor, dependability, loyalty and her prowess on the softball field will not be forgotten.

We thank Jennifer Smith and commend her for her many years of dedicated, faithful, and outstanding service to CBO, to Congress, and to the American people. We wish her all the best in her well-deserved retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 112.

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

I look forward to working with my friend, the gentleman from Maryland, the ranking member, on what's going to be a long day and a great debate. Let me start this debate, first off, by saying this is what our constituents sent us here to do: to lead, to make decisions, to budget.

I want to start off by saying to the gentleman from Maryland how much I appreciate the adherence to the longstanding protocol in the Budget Committee on how, while we clearly disagree on a lot of the big fundamental

issues, we've been able to conduct this debate in a civil manner. And I'm pleased that that tradition from the Budget Committee is continuing to this day, and I want to simply say how grateful I am for that.

Last year, Mr. Chairman, we passed the boldest budget in recent history, a comprehensive plan to lift the debt and free the Nation from the constraints of an ever-expanding Federal Government. We changed the debate in Washington. Suddenly we're having a debate about how much spending we should cut instead of how much more to spend, how to create jobs the right way, by getting the Federal Government off our backs, by eliminating the debt, and by reforming the Tax Code so that American families and small businesses can create a true economic recovery.

This week, we're prepared to be right here on the floor to take it one step further. We're bringing a 2013 budget, which we call the Path to Prosperity, which does this: it cuts $5.3 trillion in spending from the President's budget. It clears the roadblock of the partisan health care law that is now being debated in the Supreme Court because we believe that this partisan health care law is a roadblock to bipartisan reform. It puts our budget on the path to balance and a path to completely pay off our debt.

By contrast, look at what other leaders are doing today. The President sent us a budget last month, the fourth budget in a row, which proposes to do nothing to pay off the debt, let alone ever get the budget in balance. The President gave us a budget with the fourth trillion-dollar deficit in a row, ignoring the drivers of our debt, doing what his budget says, ``advancing the deterioration of our fiscal situation.''

The President's Treasury Secretary came to the Budget Committee and said:

We are not saying we have a solution to the long-term

problem. We're just saying that we don't like yours.

Well, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Mr. Chairman, by offering empty promises instead of real solutions, the President and his party leaders have made their choice clear. They're choosing the next election over the next generation. Our government, in both political parties, have made decades of empty promises to Americans, and soon those empty promises are going to become broken promises unless we reform government. We're borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend. It can't keep continuing.

We're offering Americans a better choice. We're offering Americans solutions. And let me just quickly walk you through just the kind of situation America faces today. This is what the Congressional Budget Office tells us we're looking at--a crushing burden of debt that is not only going to affect our children's generation by denying them a better standard of living, a prosperous future, but it's going to put our own economy into a tailspin. All the experts came to the Budget Committee and told us we don't have much time left to avert this tidal wave of debt.

Now, what's the rush? Why do we need to move so quickly? Because, Mr. Chairman, every year we don't do something to fix this debt crisis, we go that much deeper into the hole. That many more trillions of dollars of empty promises are being made to the American people.

Back in 2009, we asked the General Accountability Office how many empty promises is our government making to today's Americans? In 2009 they said, $62.9 trillion. Then we said in 2010, how many empty promises now? Now it's $76.4 trillion. Today, just 1 year later, they're now saying last year's stack of empty promises to Americans was $99.6 trillion. It's impossible to get your mind around these numbers.

What does that mean? That means if we want our government to keep all of the promises it is now making to current Americans--my mom's generation, my generation, and my children's generation--we have to, all of a sudden, invent, create and come up with about $100 trillion today and invest it at Treasury rates just so we could have the money to keep these promises government is making. That's impossible. It can't be done. We know that.

So it's time to stop lying to the American people. It's time to be honest about the situation we're in and then start fixing the problem because every year we go over $10 trillion deeper in the hole. Every year we go that much closer toward a debt crisis where government reneges on its promise to Americans. The people who need government the most--the poor, the sick and the elderly--they're the ones who get hurt first and the worst in a debt crisis.

What is the primary driver of this crisis? Spending. What the Congressional Budget Office tells us is spending is on course to double by the time my kids are my age and then double again over the course of this century. Revenues are going back to where they historically have been, but spending is on an unsustainable trajectory. And when you have to borrow that much money, when you have to borrow 40 cents on the dollar, just look at where it's coming from. This is not the 1970s where our debt was relatively pretty small and we borrowed about 5 cents on the dollar from foreign countries; and it's not the 1990s where our debt was getting big, and we borrowed at 19 cents from foreign governments.

Today, in 2012, 46 percent of our borrowing in this country-- borrowing that's bigger than our economy now--comes from other nations, China being number one. We can't keep relying on other governments to cash flow our government. We are ceding our sovereignty and our ability to control our own destiny as a country when we have to hope that other countries will lend us money. We've got to get this under control.

Lastly, Mr. Chairman, here's what this budget does in a nutshell. It says, Let's get ahead of this problem. Let's preempt a debt crisis, and let's do it in a way so we can do it in a gradual way. Let's do it in a way so that we can preempt and prevent a debt crisis on our own terms as Americans. Let's not wait until we have a crisis. Let's not wait until interest rates go up and we're in sort of a European meltdown mode. Let's do it right, and do it now, because then we can keep the promises that government has made to people who need it the most-- people who are already retired, people who are about to retire, the people who rely on government. You have to reform government to do that.

Instead of this mountain of debt, the Path to Prosperity budget puts our deficit and our debt on a downward slope and pays off the debt entirely over time. That takes time, that takes will, and it begins now. In short, Mr. Chairman, if we don't tackle these fiscal problems soon, they're going to tackle us as a country.

The best way to do it is put the kinds of ideas and reforms in place that grow the economy, create jobs, and get us back on a path to prosperity. We believe in the Founders' vision of the American idea. Your rights come from God and nature, not from government; and we believe in the freedom to pursue happiness. That means we want prosperity, we want upward mobility, and we want freedom and opportunity. Freedom and opportunity are gone if we have a debt crisis.

So what we're saying is let's do everything we can to get this economy growing, to get people back to work and back on their feet, and let's get our spending under control. Let's get our borrowing under control, and let's reform those government programs that are the primary drivers of our debt so that we can fulfill that great legacy that all of our parents told us about when we were growing up in this country, and that is this: each generation in America makes the next generation better off.

We know without a shred of doubt, it's irrefutable, that we're in the midst of giving the next generation a worse-off country, a lower standard of living and a diminished future. We have a moral and a legal obligation to stop that from happening, to pass a budget, to prevent that, to get us back on prosperity and get our debt paid off; and that's precisely what this budget does.

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

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Mr. Mica, for the purposes of a colloquy.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

The gentleman from Florida is correct in his observations that H.R. 7, as considered by the House, is in compliance with the fiscal year 2013 budget resolution before us today. And we look forward to the final, long-term reauthorization bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes just to respond to a few of the things that have been said.

First off, it's not the budget that lowers the highway funding next year by 46 percent. It's the current law that governs the highway trust fund that does that anyway.

Let's remember, Mr. Chairman, the highway trust fund is going insolvent. That's under current law. So our budget simply reflects that current law. But we say, let's go get new sources of revenue from oil and gas exploration to go to the highway trust fund, and let's have a reserve fund so that we can go out and find savings to fix this highway trust fund.

But since those bipartisan negotiations are just beginning to take place, since that conference is beginning to take place, we can't include it in this budget. Therefore, we had the reserve fund to be held in order to accommodate that compromise once it arrives.

Medicare. The growth rate of Medicare under this budget is the same one the President proposes in his budget. So for the chart my friend from Maryland used saying this is what the Republican budget does to growing Medicare out in the future, it's the same one President Obama proposes.

Here's the difference: President Obama, in his law, the one being debated over at the Supreme Court, says 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats will be in charge of putting price controls and cuts to Medicare to accommodate that growth rate versus our plan to put 50 million seniors in charge of choosing what health care plan is best for them. More for the poor, more for the sick, less for the wealthy; and it makes Medicare solvent.

Here's the catch: we don't change the benefit for current seniors. This system applies to younger people. Unlike the current law that the President passed, that my friend voted for, 15 bureaucrats are in charge of putting price controls on current seniors' medical care which leads to denied care for them.

So if we're talking about who's saving and strengthening Medicare, it is this budget as opposed to the status quo which raids it, rations it, and still allows the program to go bankrupt.

With that, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire, a member of this Budget Committee, Mr. Guinta.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to simply say that I keep hearing this word, ``voucher.'' I'm told it polls well if your goal is to try and scare senior citizens. What we're talking about in here is to build upon the bipartisan reforms that have been advocated in the nineties, in the early part of this decade, and most recently on how best to save and strengthen the Medicare guarantee.

First, no changes for anybody in or near retirement in Medicare.

Second, when people 54 or below become Medicare eligible, they'll get a list of guaranteed coverage options from Medicare from which to choose, just like we do as Members of Congress, including, in this case, the traditional Medicare program. Medicare will subsidize their premiums from the plans they choose. If you're low-income or sick, you'll get much more. You'll get total coverage--no out of pocket--for a low-income person; and we say, if you're a wealthy person, you can probably afford more out of pocket, so you're not going to get as much of a subsidy.

That premium grows. We competitively bid. The plans must offer the basic benefit so it protects against health inflation; and as a backstop, it grows no faster than what the President proposes in his.

In yielding myself 30 additional seconds, Mr. Chairman, here is the difference:

The President's is different. He allows Medicare to go bankrupt. Yet, even with that, he takes a half a trillion dollars from Medicare to spend on his new health care program for other people, and he puts a board of 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in charge of denying care by denying prices. It says you can go and cut reimbursement rates to providers and that you can do a values-based benefit design, which is what they propose--whatever that means--to affect current seniors.

We reject the idea that Medicare should be run by 15 unelected bureaucrats. Instead, we want to preserve it for the current generation.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the House Republican Conference, a former member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 3 minutes.

I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 1 minute.

To catch up on time, does the gentleman from Maryland want to yield to another Member?

Madam Chair, the hyperbole knows no bounds these days.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Lankford.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 1 minute to make a statement. I'm pleased my friend from Maryland brought our chart down to the floor with his yellow background.

That's right. I thank the gentleman.

The cap on Medicare that is in law under the President's budget applies to current seniors. That doesn't occur for current seniors in our budget. We don't put this cap because we don't want the 15 bureaucrats putting price controls on care to current seniors. For future seniors 54 and below, Medicare grows at the same rate that the President's budget proposes it grows at. The difference is we don't want the bureaucrats rationing care.

On the purposes of taxes, I love this issue about tax fairness. The President is proposing higher tax rates and more loopholes. Here's the point I'm trying to make.

Yielding myself an additional 30 seconds, I'll say this. If you look at the current code, the top 1 percent of taxpayers get almost all the tax shelters, all the loopholes.

So here's the novel idea that we have come up with, and it's a bipartisan one. Get rid of the tax shelters so you can lower everybody's tax rates. And so a person who is parking their money through an average of about $300,000 in tax shelters, for every dollar in that tax shelter that's taxed at zero, we're

saying get rid of the tax shelter and subject all of their money to taxation so we can lower everybody's tax rates.

I yield myself an extra 30 seconds to simply say when eight out of 10 businesses in America file their taxes as individuals, raising these tax rates hits job creators. Sixty-five percent of net new jobs come from small businesses. Half of Americans work in these kinds of small businesses, and my friends on the other side of the aisle are saying it's not enough that they pay more taxes than their foreign competitors; we need to make them pay a 45 percent tax rate in January.

Well, I've got news for you. Countries around the world are lowering their taxes on their job creators, and the President is proposing to raise it. That is a job-killer.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from the First Congressional District of Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), a member of the Budget Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, in 2011 PolitiFact labeled the line ``this ends Medicare as we know it'' as the lie of the year in 2011.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma, a member of the Budget Committee and also, I think, a member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Cole.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Olson).

By that, I am very amused, Madam Chairman.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo).

Madam Chair, what the gentleman refers to as simple facts was rated the lie of the year by PolitiFact in 2011.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

I yield myself 2 minutes to first say, the gentleman doesn't look a day over a great-great-grandfather.

First off, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the sincerity of the minority whip's sentiment, and he is a man who means that. I know that.

I would say, though, that this process of fixing our country's fiscal path would have been made much better had the President proposed a solution. The President just gave us his fourth budget, and for the fourth time, it doesn't do anything to get this debt under control.

I apologize. I won't because I am under tight time constraints.

And more to the point, Mr. Chairman, the United States Senate, controlled by the gentleman's own party, they didn't pass a budget in 2010; they didn't pass a budget in 2011; and now they've announced courageously that they're not going to pass a budget in 2012 either.

How do you preempt and prevent the most predictable economic crisis in the history of our country, a debt crisis, if the President doesn't propose to do anything about it and the Senate won't even pass a budget?

We're leading; we're passing; we're proposing a solution. We understand the other side would love to just wait for us to offer our solutions to then attack. We don't care about that. We're going to offer solutions. And when we hear the word ``balance,'' watch your checkbook; hold your wallet. It means tax increases. Mr. Chairman, it's math. You literally cannot tax your way out of this problem. The problem we have here is a spending problem. That is why we propose to cut spending.

And with that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 5 minutes to a member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

I yield the gentleman from Georgia an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to simply say, yesterday they said we're cutting taxes on millionaires by $150,000, today it's $300,000--it's probably going to be $1 million tomorrow.

What I would simply say is, this line that says we're ending the Medicare guarantee, let me remind you, Chairman, that this was rated the ``lie of the year'' of 2011 by the nonpartisan PolitiFact.

We don't want a rationing board running Medicare. We want seniors in charge of Medicare. We don't want to take more from successful small businesses that create our jobs and make them uncompetitive in the global economy. We want to take special interest loopholes out of the Tax Code to lower everybody's tax rates, but especially those of small businesses that create our jobs. And more importantly, we want to balance the budget, pay off the debt. Ours is the only budget that does that. The so-called ``balanced'' approach by our friends on the other side of the aisle doesn't even pretend to get the debt paid off, let alone under control.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe.

Mr. Chairman, let me yield myself 2 minutes to say, you know what ends the Medicare guarantee? The Medicare status quo.

We had the chief actuary of Medicare in the other day. He said it is $37 trillion in the hole. That's the unfunded liability for Medicare.

Look at the driver of our debt. Medicare is growing at such a rate that it goes into bankruptcy, the part A trust fund goes bankrupt in 2021, according to CBO.

Now, what does the President's law, the current law in law, do?

It says we need to slow the growth of Medicare spending by putting a cap over Medicare. That's in law today. And then it says, in order to enforce this cap, we're going to have 15 political appointees that the President will appoint for 6-year terms. They make the decisions. They decide what health care providers can do or cannot do and what they get paid.

The Medicare chief actuary came and told us the other day, they'll start off by paying Medicare providers 80 cents on the dollar to provide Medicare benefits and then go down to 30 cents on the dollar.

You think your doctor's going to do what you need if he gets paid 30 cents on the dollar?

He said that 40 percent of Medicare providers are either going to go out of business or just stop taking Medicare patients altogether. That's the current law. That ends the guarantee.

Here's what we say:

Get rid of the rationing board. Stop the bureaucrats from getting between the doctor and her patients. And don't change Medicare for people 55 and above so that you can keep the promise the government's made to them. But for those younger generations, because the program is going bankrupt, you must reform it in order to keep the promise to current seniors.

I yield myself an additional 1 minute to say this:

And the way we keep the Medicare guarantee is to save this. You get a list of guaranteed coverage options from Medicare, and among those choices are comprehensive private plans and the traditional Medicare option, and Medicare will subsidize your premiums.

Those subsidies go up every year. If you're low-income, all of your out-of-pocket costs are covered. As you get sick, more and more coverage to prevent you from having sticker shock. And if you're wealthy, yes, more will be paid out of pocket because we think you can afford it.

That saves Medicare. That makes it solvent. And the competitive bidding that is done to make those providers compete against each other for our business, using choice and competition, is what the Medicare actuary tells us is the best way to preserve and save the Medicare guarantee.

You see, premium support with competitive bidding ensures guaranteed affordability. This is an idea that has had bipartisan support going back to the nineties. Yet our friends on the other side of the aisle would rather have politics than to really work to save the Medicare guarantee.

I yield 3 minutes to the doctor from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, Dr. Harris.

At this time, I yield 5 minutes to a senior member of the Budget Committee and also a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Price.

I just have one more request for time, and then I will reserve the right to close. And I understand the gentleman has a number of other requests, so perhaps he would like to continue with his speakers?

Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

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

I am the last speaker. I reserve the right to close. So I will let the gentleman from Maryland use up all his time.

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

When we confronted the 2008 economic crisis, which launched us into the worst recession since the Great Depression, which threw millions of people out of work, which lost trillions of dollars in wealth in retirement savings for millions of Americans, that crisis caught us by surprise. We didn't see it coming. Out of that came very ugly legislation that lots of us supported.

Mr. Chair, this one is the most predictable economic crises we've ever had, and we have a Senate that has chosen for 3 years in a row to just do nothing. We have a President who, for the fourth budget in a row, proposes to do nothing to fix it. In fact, he makes it worse.

Here is what we're trying to do. We're trying to go to the country and offer them a solution. We don't think the country is headed in the right direction right now because a debt crisis is coming. So we feel morally bound and actually legally bound because the Budget Act requires that we pass a budget to offer a solution and an alternative: fundamental tax reform to get job creators creating jobs; take away the special interest loopholes and tax shelters and treat everybody fairly; stop raising the tax rate on successful small businesses to 45 percent, like is going to happen in January, and instead keep their tax rates low so they can create jobs; control spending; reform our welfare system.

We believe the American idea is essentially an opportunity to decide if the safety net--and we believe in a safety net that is there to help people who cannot help themselves, and to be there to help people who are down on their luck get back on their feet. But we do not want to convert this safety net into a hammock that lulls able-bodied people into lives of dependency and complacency which drains them of their will and their intentions to make the most of their lives.

We believe in a system of upward mobility and opportunity. We believe when we see Medicare and Medicaid going bankrupt that we should fix that. Let's let the States innovate, create, and have good solutions that meet the needs of their populations by giving them more control over Medicaid. They run it already right now. They just have all these government rules and regulations from Washington.

Stop the rationing board from denying care to current seniors. Get rid of that, and replace it with a guarantee that current seniors get the promise made to them and future seniors actually have a program that's solvent. So instead of having 15 bureaucratic elites price- control their program, allow 50 million seniors in the future to choose which one they want the best. One-quarter of seniors already today pick among the private plans that meet their needs. We want to keep giving them the choices.

At the end of the day, it's about a choice of two futures: Do we want this path of debt, doubt, and decline where we have a debt crisis, where the people that get hurt first and the worst are those who need government the most--the poor, the people in the safety net, and the elderly who depend on Medicare--or are we going to get this debt under control and pay it off and give our children a better future?

At the end of the day, it's a philosophy. What the other side is doing and what the President is proposing is that elites in the bureaucracy who are unelected, they make the decisions. In my judgment, Mr. Chairman, that is paternalistic, it's arrogant, and it's condescending.

So the question really is: Who do you want to be in charge of your life, you or these cronies in government?

Do we want to keep taking money from job creators and from families and sending it to Washington so they can distribute it to their cronies, so they can distribute it to whoever has the clout, and so they can make all these decisions in our lives on health care, financial services, education, the environment, and energy? If we keep surrendering our liberties and our freedom and our dollars, we won't have the right to pursue happiness as we see happiness in our own lives.

The idea of this country is that our rights come from nature and God to us automatically before government. Our rights don't come from government. But the idea that's being perpetrated, the path the President is putting us on, is one where he and his elites in Washington know better. They define our rights for us. They regulate, ration, and redistribute them for us. Whatever you call that, Mr. Chairman, that is not the American idea.

We have a profound responsibility to look our children in the eye, like our parents did to us, and fix this country's problems so they can have a more prosperous future. We know, without a shadow of a doubt-- it's irrefutable--the next generation is going to be worse off. We know that if we allow this debt crisis to continue, if we allow it to kick in--and the experts tell us it could be as little as 2 years away-- everybody is going to get hurt and the economy is going to go down.

We have a moral obligation to do something about that. What we're saying is do it now, do it on our own terms, do it in a way where people can see the reforms that are necessary so they are gradual, and do it in a way so that we can keep the promises the government has made to people who have already retired who count on government the most.

At the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, this is about choices. And we are going to give the country a choice of two futures so they can decide whether or not we want to maintain the American idea in this country.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I will claim time in opposition, but I will yield half my time, 5 minutes, to the gentleman from Tennessee.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I will yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes, and I will just do 2\1/2\ minutes to close.

First of all, the reason I wanted to yield these gentleman half our time is I don't know why they weren't yielded the same amount of time as the other substitutes were. I don't know why that happened, but it's wrong that it happened the way it did. That's why I wanted to give them those 5 minutes.

I also want to congratulate them for putting a plan on the table. It's nice to see. We don't see that too often these days.

I served on the Simpson-Bowles Commission, and I voted against it. I want to explain why, and I will use the numbers from this budget to show.

Number one, it keeps ObamaCare in place. It keeps PPACA in place. This budget does, too, because it's current law. So unless you rescind it, the spending of it, you're keeping ObamaCare in place, and I have a problem with that health care law. I think it's a bad one. This budget, Simpson-Bowles, keeps it in place.

Number two, it doesn't address the real drivers of our debt, which are these health care entitlement programs. Simpson-Bowles didn't do it. This one doesn't either. To me, you're really not dealing with the driver of our debt unless you do that.

Number three, revenues. Based on the baseline, it has $1.8 trillion in higher revenues. It does mean higher taxes. The last year of this particular budget has higher revenues than the Democratic substitute and the President's budget.

The spending cuts, when you look at the baseline compared to the current law baseline, the one we all measure against here, and you take out the war gimmick, it only has $27 billion in spending cuts over 10 years; by contrast, our budget has $3.3 trillion. So I'm not a fan of the war gimmick. If you take out that war thing, it only cuts about $27 billion off the current law baseline.

It claims that this cuts $4 trillion in deficit reduction. I'm not sure what baseline is being used to do that. But on the current policy baseline, this really only has $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction; 72 percent of that comes from tax increases and 28 percent comes from spending reductions.

I want to simply say amen for bringing a plan to the table. I have tremendous respect for Erskine Bowles and

Alan Simpson and Jim Cooper and Steve LaTourette because they're here being a part of the solution by offering a solution and not being a part of the problem.

I think it goes without saying, but it bears repeating, I just don't like the substance of it. I think it's going to end up pushing people into ObamaCare, whose costs will explode, and I think it's going to be bad for our health care system and it doesn't deal with the primary drivers of our debt. And I don't want to see a big tax increase before you deal with the entitlement programs, because then you're just chasing higher spending with higher revenues.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio.

Yes.

I'll keep what I have.

I'll close by saying, Mr. Chairman, how I started.

I want to congratulate the gentlemen for just showing a plan and coming together. But I would simply say that the President disavowed this plan already. The Senator majority leader said he's not doing a budget this year, so I don't think anything is passing over there.

I want to reserve the rest of my comments for the substance of this. And I'll reveal the private conversation I had with Simpson and Bowles as to why I was not supporting Simpson and Bowles, as a member of that commission.

This doesn't go big. This doesn't tackle the problem. It doesn't do the big things. You can never get the debt under control if you don't deal with our health care entitlement programs. They're the ones that are the big drivers of our debt.

So, not only in addition to the fact that this keeps ObamaCare in place and it doesn't do Medicare and Medicaid reform--which are essential toward preventing the debt crisis--by repealing the tax exclusion, as Simpson-Bowles plans on doing, purports to do, you're going to cause all of these employers to drop health insurance for their employees and push everybody into the health care law, into ObamaCare, and the costs will explode. So I believe that it will do more harm than good at the end of the day.

I just don't think it's a balanced plan. I mean, if you look at the raw numbers, 72 percent of it is tax increases and 28 percent of it is spending reductions. That, to me, is just not balanced. We don't want to create a new revenue machine for government without getting these entitlements under control. Let's not chase ever-higher spending with ever-higher revenues.

So I appreciate the sincerity and the bipartisanship nature of this, but I just don't think the substance of this bill is right. I think it's going to worsen our fiscal situation by piling people onto the health care law, and it's going to hasten the bankruptcy of Medicare. It's still going to stretch Medicaid, which grows by a third in eligibility, a program that's falling apart by the seams. And I believe these tax rate increases, the revenue increases, will just be used to fuel more spending. That's why I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, on the substance of it.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3521, the Expedited Legislative Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

I want to begin by thanking my friend, Chris Van Hollen, the ranking member of the Budget Committee. This is a collaborative effort. This is a bipartisan effort. It's not that often that we have a chance to do this. Mr. Chairman, I want to first thank the gentleman from Maryland for this collaborative effort. We believe whenever we can find the opportunity to reach across the aisle and work in a bipartisan fashion to go after wasteful spending we should do that, and that's what this effort is all about.

I also want to thank the staffers who put a lot of work in this: Paul Restuccia, Nicole Foltz, and Jon Romito on the majority side. I want to thank Tom Kahn, Gail Millar, and Ellen Balis, for their hard work on the minority side; Chairman Dreier at the Rules Committee; Congressman Hensarling, who has been one of the forefathers of this effort.

What this does is it is the expedited line-item veto and enhanced rescissions. This bill is constitutional, and I want to explain to Members why.

The 1996 line-item veto was ruled unconstitutional because it delegated legislative power to the executive branch. This does not do that. This is quite the opposite. This simply says, after an appropriations bill has been passed, within a short period of time, the President can send up a new rescissions proposal to the House and the Senate to consider rescinding spending from that bill, and we have to simply have the vote. We can't hide from the vote. We can't duck from the vote. We have to have the vote.

Here's why we're doing this, Mr. Chairman. Lots of bills from both parties over the years have had so many

miscellaneous provisions stuffed into them without seeing the light of day, whether they even pass the House or Senate or not. The President has to sign the whole bill or nothing at all. This gives us the ability to pull those miscellaneous provisions out, send them back to Congress and have them vote on them on their individual merits.

We believe what this will do will make every Member of Congress think twice before trying to insert, sometimes we call them airdrops or earmarks or pork or whatever you want to call it. We ought to have Members of Congress think twice that they might have to justify this provision on the spending bill on the merits by a stand-alone vote by their own peers. We think that act of sunshine, that act of transparency, that act of accountability will help improve the integrity of the spending process here in Congress.

I yield myself 30 additional seconds to simply say this bill is bipartisan, it's constitutional, and it is yet one more tool in several that we are bringing to the floor to restore trust, accountability, and transparency to the way we spend hardworking taxpayer dollars.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that 44 State governments have the line-item veto in their constitution, but we're not proposing that here. We're proposing to keep the power of the purse with the legislative branch and not grant that to the executive branch. This bill does that.

With that, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona, a member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Flake.

I would simply say that the same majority that produces the appropriations bill can reject any rescission requests by the President in the same majority.

With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to simply say that what we are trying to do here is add another layer of transparency and accountability. When an appropriation bill comes to the floor--at least under this majority--it comes under an open rule, which means that any Member can open it up to amendment, and we can have those up-or-down votes on individual items under consideration in this bill.

But what happens after that moment, after a bill has passed the House, after a bill has passed the Senate and then it's conferenced, a bill comes to the floor, up or down, take it or leave it. Lots of things go into those bills in those moments between House and Senate passage and final conference report passage.

I yield myself an additional 10 seconds to say that this simply gives us that extra layer of accountability so that we can still consider individual items. And all we have to do if we don't approve of them is not pass them. We decide.

With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to simply say I agree with a lot of what the gentleman said. He's a good friend. We don't have all spending in this bill, but that doesn't mean don't go after some of the spending that's passed by Congress. This is the kind of spending Congress passes annually every year. I think it's a good step in the right direction.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the House Republican Conference, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), who is one of the fathers of this idea and of budget process reform.

Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).

Mr. Chairman, after that, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of our time.

Let me, first of all, say the gentleman left the floor, I believe, but Mr. Simpson, I want to thank him for a civil and spirited debate. This is not an attempt to go after one committee, the Appropriations Committee. And I understand that this committee might feel that way. This is an attempt to take one more step on behalf of the taxpayer to clean up the system on how we spend hardworking taxpayers' dollars.

Here's the issue, Mr. Chairman. When we pass large spending bills, we vote on things we're not even necessarily sure we're voting on. And I think the measure of success of this reform will not be measured by how many individual spending line items get voted out of spending by Congress, but how many items don't get put in these bills in the first place because this brings through to the final part of the process that extra level of transparency and accountability that has been lacking.

I'll take a provision authored by a Republican a few years ago as an example: $40 million, I think that's the number, for a rainforest museum in Iowa in a spending bill for Labor and Health that didn't go through the House, didn't go through the Senate, but came at the last minute.

And, yes, this Congress, through the rules of this House, is banning earmarks and airdrops, but who's to say they won't return under our new management some day?

I think it would be helpful to the process to say, you know what, if we're going to put $40 million for a rainforest museum without real consideration before the House and the Senate, we ought to think about that individually. Or, more importantly, if I'm a Member of Congress and I want to put something like this in a spending bill, I ought to think twice about whether or not I'm willing to defend this kind of spending in the light of day on an individual vote among my peers, because that could happen under this reform.

This is constitutional because the President signs this spending bill. He doesn't sign part of it. He doesn't rescind part of it. He signs it, and then this gives him the ability to create a new bill saying, vote on this piece of spending.

We have expedited procedures so we have to take a vote. It's no different than how Presidents send us trade agreements to vote on under expedited procedures.

We're not saying the President can take a part of a bill and not sign it and then send us this. No. We're saying the President signs a big spending bill and then, if he wants, he can write a new bill within a tight time window saying cancel that spending. Then Congress makes the decision, the House and the Senate, by a simple majority vote, both Houses. They get to decide whether or not to reaffirm or to spend that money.

All this does is it puts the taxpayer in front of turf, as my friend from Maryland says, and it gives Members of Congress the ability to have that extra layer of accountability and transparency so that at the end of the day we are always thinking of the taxpayer first and special interests second in the way we spend taxpayer dollars.

Will this fix all of our problems? No. But this, along with many other reforms we seek to bring to the floor, will hopefully turn the process by which we spend taxpayer dollars into one that is more accountable, more transparent, and more responsible.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think we need to spend a lot of time on this.

This amendment makes technical revisions to certain procedures and definitions. The time period was reduced from 5 legislative days to 3 legislative days for the introduction of an approval bill in the motion to proceed. The amendment clarifies that approval bills are described as discretionary bills only. Additionally, it includes a procedure that provides for the consideration of an approval bill should the previous Congress end before an up-or-down vote.

All this simply does, Mr. Chairman, is clarify concerns raised by the Rules Committee so that we have consistent procedures and concerns by the minority that this bill simply does what it says it does and that it circumscribe to discretionary spending.

With that, I really have no other things to say other than I'd be happy to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I won't take all of my time.

The gentleman says the Army Corps clearly provides an extremely important function, a very valid Federal function to our government, to our country. I rise in opposition only that we shouldn't be carving out exceptions.

The idea that we'll carve out an exception from appropriation bills for expedited rescission consideration to one government agency versus all of the other government agencies out there, I don't think that's a good precedent to set. What's to say that other agencies shouldn't be exempt in consideration? If Congress feels that these are important projects, which they clearly do when they pass these bills, then clearly they will affirm that if another vote ever does arise.

For the sake of consistency, for the sake of treating all agencies equal, I would urge a rejection of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, in the engrossment of H.R. 3521, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross-references and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3581.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to begin by thanking my colleagues who helped pass the Pro- Growth Budgeting Act and the Baseline Reform Act in the House last week. Today, we are here to continue that work, focused on changing Washington's culture of spending and ensuring policymakers serve as responsible stewards of hardworking American tax dollars.

I stand in strong support of the Budget and Accounting Transparency Act offered by the vice chairman of the Budget Committee, Congressman Scott Garrett of New Jersey.

While it's well known that Washington has a spending problem, it is less well known that Washington isn't being fully honest about how much it is spending. This bill would increase transparency and accuracy in budgeting for Federal credit programs, the housing-related government- sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the publication of budget justification materials.

First, it would require fair-value accounting, which recognizes the market risks that the government is incurring by issuing a loan or a loan guarantee for all Federal programs that make loan or loan guarantees. Market risk is already accounted for in several government programs like TARP and GSEs, and it's a very common practice in the private sector.

Second, this bill would bring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on budget. These enterprises rack up billions in liabilities hidden from the public income tax payers. Last June, the CBO testified that it puts the total cost of the mortgage commitments made by these two entities at $291 billion and that that cost would ultimately rise even higher.

Third, this bill increases transparency for information contained in agency budget requests by requiring that they be made public on the Internet at the same time as they are provided to Congress. Government agencies have an obligation to taxpayers to justify every dollar spent in Washington.

Madam Chair, no budget process reform can substitute for political will when it comes to tackling our greatest fiscal and economic challenges. Getting America back on track will require a Senate and a President willing to get serious about the structural drivers of the debt and the continued impediments we have to economic growth. But being honest about the size and scope of our challenges, as this reform calls for, offers us a concrete step in the right direction.

At this time, Madam Chair, I would like to yield the remainder of our time for the purposes of managing the bill to the author of this bill, Mr. Garrett, the vice chairman of the Budget Committee.

With that, we will reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3582.

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

Mr. Chairman, it goes without saying but it unfortunately bears repeating, our budget process is broken.

Last year, the Senate didn't pass the budget. The year before that, the Senate didn't pass the budget. This year, they may not pass one again. The greatest threat to our economy now and our children's future is a fiscal threat, a debt threat, and yet we are on an unsustainable path; and one of the reasons, after the lack of political will among our colleagues, is the budget process. It has not been reformed substantially since 1974. As a result, many Members of this body have put years and hours of effort into fixing this broken process.

I want to say Mr. Dreier, chairman of the Rules Committee, and Mr. Hensarling, our conference chairman, in particular have been two individuals who have put so much work into this. As a result, 10 bills are coming out of the Budget Committee. Ten members of the Budget Committee are putting together an effort to fix this broken Federal budget process to bring more accountability, more transparency, and better results so that we can fix this problem.

This bill is authored by Dr. Price of Georgia, which simply says, while we consider large fiscal pieces of legislation, let's have the CBO add an analysis so we know what it does to the economy. That's not a lot to ask. A lot is happening, and we want to make sure that, as we judge large fiscal legislation, that we have the kind of an analysis we need to better judge what it does for our economy.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the author of this bill, Mr. Price.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I have good news, good news for my friend from Iowa. This isn't necessary. It's already done. The Congressional Budget Office already prepares these macroanalyses any time we consider legislation affecting these programs.

More to the point, Mr. Speaker, if you want to get the kind of detailed analysis on how policy changes affect Medicare and Social Security beneficiaries, that is done by the trustees, by the actuaries at CMS and HHS and at Social Security, SSA, not by the CBO. But the other part of the good news is they do that as well.

So what is good for us is that we do not need to pass this. It's unnecessary. It's already done. CBO already produces this kind of analysis, and the trustees at Medicare and Social Security produce it at the very level that the gentleman from Iowa is hoping for.

I would be more than happy, whenever legislation comes up to the House dealing with these issues, to provide that analysis and show it to my friend from Iowa.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I think we've said enough. I don't want to consume all the 5 minutes. There's no point in passing this.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 534, I call up the bill (H.R. 3578) to amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to reform the budget baseline, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3578.

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

I first want to start off by thanking Mr. Woodall and Mr. Gohmert, two of the leaders on this policy. This is the second of 10 bills on fixing the broken budget process that we're bringing to the floor to try to bring back accountability, transparency and responsibility to our Federal budgeting process. What this bill does is it removes the pro-spending bias that currently exists in the baseline we use as a starting point in Federal budgeting.

The baseline we currently use assumes automatic increases in spending in the discretionary budget. So, for instance, instead of basing next year's discretionary budget on what we spent this year, we don't do it that way. The way it works is we automatically assume spending increases. We automatically assume that government agencies can't live with what they had last year, can't be more efficient, can't be more productive, and we assume inflation in it already.

We think for honesty, for transparency, if we spent X dollars this year, that is the base on which we ought to consider next year's budget. And for all those programs where inflationary updates are already legislated, such as Medicare, Social Security, or the tax brackets to prevent inflation, this doesn't affect those. Those programs by law adjust for inflation and, therefore, so should their baselines. Discretionary spending, something Congress controls every year, does not have that because Congress legislates every year.

So what we're simply saying is let's err on the side of the taxpayer. Let's not err on the side of assuming every government agency automatically needs a spending increase one year to the next. If we think they need more money, then we should measure it on an honest basis and then legislate more money for those agencies.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will turn over the rest of my time to Mr. Woodall, the author of this legislation, and reserve the balance.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Mr. Woodall for his leadership.

I simply want to say I deeply respect the minority whip, and I agree with a lot of what he just said. First of all, he's totally correct when he's saying there's no substitute for discipline, meaning Congress has got to make decisions, and nothing can substitute for that.

He's also half right when he says Congress is dysfunctional. Where he's half right, it's the other body over on the other side of the rotunda, the Senate, because last year in the majority they didn't pass a budget.

I would be happy to yield.

That's right. Trying to get some consensus here.

The year before when they had a supermajority, no budget.

To budget is to decide. To budget is to make a decision. They haven't budgeted for over a thousand days.

The budget process we have here, which we've had in place since 1974, requires the House pass a budget by April 15, the Senate pass a budget; and they didn't do it for over a thousand days.

So when we look at the process, we see that it's not working the way it needs to. It's no substitute for personal discipline, for Members making decisions, for compromising; but in this particular case, we think the process is part of the problem. We think the process needs to be improved to make it more likely that we make these decisions, that we get to exercising that discipline.

On this particular bill, we are assuming $1.4 trillion in automatic spending increases and discretionary spending over the next 10 years. We probably shouldn't do that because even though it happens--this is not a spending-cut bill. This is a measurement bill. But the way we measure it leads to a bias in more spending.

What I'm trying to say, Mr. Speaker, is in 2009 and 2010, domestic discretionary spending, including the stimulus, increased by 84 percent. So this category of government has grown very, very fast; and we're saying let's stop automatically assuming that it needs to grow every year. Let's put the taxpayer first and the government agencies second as far as who gets the money first.

What I'm trying to say is if we want to put a bias in favor of requiring agencies to do more with less, be more productive, more efficient, then we should not assume they automatically get a spending increase every year. That's how businesses do it. That's how families do it.

A lot of families don't get raises, but their expenses go up. Gas prices go up. Insurance costs go up. Grocery prices go up. But they don't get a raise, so they have to prioritize. We think government should do the same, and we shouldn't just assume they are going to get a raise.

This is not going to fix our budget problem, but we think this and the other bills we bring to the floor will improve the process to get us to what we need to do, which is come in here agreeing, compromising, and then deciding and having decisions made, which is budgeting, so we can save this country from a debt crisis.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

You're talking about deficit spending?

Reclaiming my time, I agree with that. I think the gentleman is right about that. There is no substitute for courage. This bill in and of itself won't fix the problem.

What I would simply say is that this bill helps remove what I think is a bias in favor of not pressuring government to be more efficient, more lean because they will think they will automatically get a spending increase year after year after year. That is the point. There is no substitute for discipline. I completely concur with that.

This helps us get the system pointed in the right direction. That is why I encourage all Members to support this.

I thank Mr. Woodall and Mr. Gohmert for their leadership.