[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 19, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H1597-H1625]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014


                             General Leave

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 25, 
currently under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 122 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the concurrent 
resolution, H. Con. Res. 25.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1614


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H. Con. Res. 25) establishing the budget for the United States 
Government for fiscal year 2014 and setting forth appropriate budgetary 
levels for fiscal years 2015 through 2023, with Mr. Hastings of 
Washington in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the concurrent resolution is 
considered read the first time.
  General debate shall not exceed 4 hours, with 3 hours confined to the 
congressional budget, equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget, and 1 hour on 
the subject of economic goals and policies, equally divided by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) and the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Maloney) or their designees.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) each will control 90 minutes of debate on the 
congressional budget.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise to bring forward and present the budget 
resolution for fiscal year 2014. We believe that we owe the American 
people a responsible, balanced budget, and that is precisely what we 
are bringing to the floor today. Our budget balances the budget within 
10 years, and it does so without raising taxes. Balancing the budget 
will help us foster a healthier economy, and it will help us create 
jobs.
  In fact, two leading economists at Stanford University today released 
a study analyzing our budget and its positive effects on the economy 
and jobs. In the first year, they said it would, ``boost the economy 
immediately,'' increasing growth of our economy by a whole percentage 
point, which translates into about 500,000 jobs right away. That's 
about $1,500 in extra

[[Page H1598]]

take-home pay for families who are struggling to get by today.
  By the end of the budget window, according to these economists at 
Stanford University, it would add 3 percent of economic growth to the 
economy. That's 1.7 million jobs in 1 year alone and about $4,000 more 
in take-home pay because of higher economic growth. More take-home pay 
means more control, more freedom, and more prosperity for families.
  We are not simply here to balance the budget because we like looking 
at clean spreadsheets. It is not even an accounting exercise. The 
reason we are balancing the budget is to improve people's lives. It is 
to bring needed health to the economy and to bring certainty to 
families and businesses so they can get ahead.
  We know that a debt crisis is coming, Mr. Chairman. We know that it's 
coming because we've watched what other countries have done when they 
continue to kick the can down the road and ignore the tough choices 
they need to make to get our fiscal house in order. We're doing that.
  Now, what are we trying to do specifically in our budget? We want to 
restore opportunity. We want to repair our broken safety nets so that 
they're designed to get people out of poverty on to lives of self-
sufficiency by reforming our welfare programs. We want to make sure 
that the seniors who are relying on programs as important as Medicare 
actually get the benefits they organized their lives around. We want to 
make sure that the next generation, those of us who follow our parents 
into retirement, actually have a Medicare program we can count on. And 
we have those bipartisan reforms here.
  Everybody needs to pitch in, and everybody needs to propose a 
solution to our problem because, Mr. Chairman, if we don't tackle this 
fiscal problem in America, it will tackle us.
  Now, to their credit, the Democrats on the Budget Committee are 
bringing a budget to the floor. To their credit, the Progressive Caucus 
is bringing a budget to the floor. To their credit, the Black Caucus is 
bringing a budget to the floor. To their credit, the Senate, finally, 
for the first time in 4 years, is bringing up a budget.
  Budgets are about choices. The problem we have is not now that 
they're doing a budget--that's good news; that's great--it's what's in 
their budget. If you take a look at our budget--as I mentioned, our 
budget balances the budget. We believe a balanced plan is one that 
actually balances the budget. There is not another budget that's being 
offered here other than the Study Committee budget that actually 
balances the budget, other points notwithstanding.
  Now, why do we balance the budget? Because we don't want our children 
to be drowning in debt. We want to make sure that this sea of red ink 
that the CBO is telling us is coming, we pay off our debt and give our 
kids a debt-free nation. That's what we do.
  Take a look at the other budgets that are being offered. Let's take a 
look at the Senate Democrats'. That has a tax increase that's about 
$1.5 trillion; that has a spending increase of about $4.8 trillion off 
of our budget. If you take a look at the House Democrats', that's a 
$1.2 trillion tax increase, with a spending increase of about $4.896 
trillion off of this budget. If you take a look at the Black Caucus 
budget, the CBC budget, that's a tax increase of $2.8 trillion, with a 
spending increase of $5.7 trillion, only to be outdone by the 
Progressive Caucus budget. That is a $5.683 trillion tax increase with 
an $8.698 trillion spending increase in their budget.

                              {time}  1620

  Taking more money from hardworking families to fuel more spending in 
Washington is not going to solve our budget crisis, is not going to 
balance our budget. It's more of the same. And more of the same means 
we have a debt crisis. When we have a debt crisis, everybody gets hurt. 
The people who are on the safety net, the seniors who have already 
retired, they're the ones who get hurt the first and the worst in a 
debt crisis.
  This is a responsible plan. It's a plan for economic growth. It's a 
plan for tax reform. It's a plan to open up our energy stores that we 
have here so that we can be energy independent. We have vast amounts of 
energy reserves that we need to tap so we can put people to work, bring 
down gas prices, and stretch paychecks further.
  We've got to control our spending appetite. We've got to reform 
programs like Medicare so they're solvent. We've got to reform our 
safety net so that it works to get people on their feet. That's what 
this budget does.
  In a nutshell, instead of spending $46 trillion over the next 10 
years as we are currently poised to spend, we spend $41 trillion. 
Instead of growing spending on average at 5 percent a year, we grow it 
at 3.4 percent a year.
  So for all of the predictions of doom and gloom and how evil and 
terrible and horrible our budget is, it increases spending every year 
by 3.4 percent a year instead of 5 percent a year. The difference is we 
balance the budget. The difference is we let families keep more of 
their own take-home pay. The difference is we make sure our kids 
inherit a debt-free future. The difference is we do what's necessary to 
create a healthy economy, more take-home pay, faster economic growth, 
and better jobs. That's why we are here, to balance the budget.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Last fall throughout this country, we had a vigorous debate. 
President Obama laid out his vision of how we deal with some of our big 
challenges with respect to the economy and the budget, and Governor 
Romney did the same thing. Both of them said the American people face a 
very important and fundamental choice, and the American people chose.
  They chose to support President Obama's vision of accelerating 
economic growth, putting more people to work, taking a shared-
responsibility approach to our long-term deficits so we bring them down 
in a balanced and smart way, and they rejected the idea that we're 
going to move the economy forward by giving windfall tax cuts to the 
very wealthiest in the country and that somehow the benefits of that 
would trickle down and lift everybody up. They rejected that lopsided 
approach that balanced the budgets on the backs of everybody but the 
folks at the very top. It balanced the budget on the backs of our kids' 
education by slashing important investments.
  In that category of spending that we make these important investments 
for our country and our future, they doubled the cut from the 
sequester. Those are investments in our kids' education. Those are 
investments in science and research to help power our economy. Those 
are investments to help modernize our infrastructure. They cut 
transportation by 15 percent when we have 15 percent unemployment in 
the construction industry.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people rejected the kind of 
uncompromising, lopsided approach that we see once again presented here 
in the House. It is the same thing we've seen for the last 3 years, as 
if we hadn't even had a debate last fall.
  In the Democratic alternative, we focus on the main issue right now 
and in the future. We don't only want strong economic growth in the 
future; we want to see accelerated job growth right now. We've seen 
some momentum in the jobs market in the last couple of months, but the 
Republican budget will put the brakes on that growth.
  The chairman of the Budget Committee can quote economists all he 
wants. There are economists that say it will do this or it won't do 
this or it will do that. But we have an umpire here in the Congress. We 
have a referee. It's called the Congressional Budget Office. They're 
nonpartisan. They're independent.
  They tell us if you follow the approach of the Republican budget and 
keep the sequester in place through the end of this year, that by the 
end of this year we will have 750,000 fewer Americans working than 
otherwise. Why would we want to do that?

  They tell us that if you take the approach followed by the Republican 
budget, that economic growth this calendar year will be cut by one-
third. Why would we want to do that?
  The Congressional Budget Office also tell us that a full half of our 
deficit this year is as a result of the fact that there are still lots 
of people looking for work who haven't found a job, and they project 
that three-quarters of the deficit next year in 2014 is as a result of

[[Page H1599]]

the fact that you have too many people who are unemployed. So let's 
attack the root of the problem right now and help put people back to 
work rather than put the brakes on the economy. That's what our budget 
will do.
  This calendar year, in addition to preventing the 750,000 lost, we 
will generate another 450,000 jobs by investing in the economy. Next 
year, the difference between our plan and our colleagues' plan is 2 
million more jobs under our budget proposal.
  We believe that you've got to deal with the budget deficit, and at 
the same time you also need to focus on the jobs deficit to help deal 
with the budget deficit.
  We also reduce the deficit in a steady, sustained way. We do it with 
balance. We do it with targeted cuts. But we also do it, Mr. Chairman, 
by eliminating some of the tax breaks and tax expenditures for very 
high-income individuals.
  We heard from Governor Romney and we heard from the chairman of the 
Budget Committee last fall and this year that there are trillions of 
dollars of tax expenditures that disproportionately benefit very 
wealthy people. Under the Republican plan, they say we're going to get 
rid of some of your tax expenditures for high-income people, but we're 
going to bring down your top rate. So in the end, the folks at the very 
top actually get a big windfall.
  We say let's eliminate some of those tax breaks for very wealthy 
people in order to help reduce our deficit so when you combine that 
savings with targeted cuts, you can reduce it in a balanced way rather 
than increasing the tax burden on the middle class, which is what their 
budget will do.
  We also want to make sure we keep our commitments to our seniors and 
not transfer the risk and cost of rising health care costs onto the 
backs of seniors as the Republican budget does.
  We don't reopen the prescription drug doughnut hole, as the 
Republican budget does, which means that seniors with high prescription 
drug costs will end up paying thousands more out of pocket over the 
period of this budget.
  In our budget, we make sure that student loan interest rates, which 
are set to double in July from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, we make sure 
they don't double. The Republican budget makes sure that they do. That 
will make college less affordable to millions of students.
  Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by talking about the deficit impacts 
because the Republican budget does hit this--they say they're going to 
hit this political target of balance in 10 years. But it's a hoax 
because they say at the same time that their budget balances, that 
they're repealing all of ObamaCare, all of the Affordable Care Act.
  The reality, Mr. Chairman, is they get rid of all the benefits of the 
Affordable Care Act. So the millions of Americans who would have had 
more affordable coverage, they won't get it; and the people who will no 
longer be excluded from getting coverage because of preexisting 
conditions, they'll make sure that they're denied coverage because of 
preexisting conditions because they take away the benefits.
  But the dirty little secret, Mr. Chairman, is they keep the savings 
from the Affordable Care Act, from ObamaCare. Without those savings, 
that budget doesn't balance.
  So if we did what our Republican colleagues here say they want to do, 
which is this instant--repeal ObamaCare--they wouldn't have a budget 
that was in balance. You don't have to take my word for it. The 
Heritage Foundation, a very conservative think tank, just issued this 
statement: ``Perhaps the biggest shortcoming of this budget''--meaning 
the Republican budget--``is that it keeps the tax increases associated 
with ObamaCare.'' It keeps those.
  It keeps all the savings in Medicare that were achieved as part of 
the Affordable Care Act where we achieved them by reducing the 
overpayments to the private insurance companies by changing the 
incentive structure to focus more on the quality of care rather than 
the quantity of care.

                              {time}  1630

  Do you remember all those Medicare savings that we heard our 
colleagues demagog in the last election last fall? They keep all those 
savings, and their balance wouldn't balance without them.
  Our budget dramatically cuts the deficit and makes sure that our 
deficits are not growing faster than the economy, down to 2.4 percent 
by the end of the window. We stabilize the debt below where the CBO 
projects today, we stabilize 70 percent GDP. And, yes, we also will 
balance our budget in the same year that the Republican budget from 
last year balanced.
  If this were just a race to balance the budget first, then people 
should vote for the Republican study group proposal--4 years. But if 
your priority is jobs and economic growth, as it should be as part of a 
measured and balanced approach to reducing the deficit, then you need 
to support the Democratic alternative.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to say 
the gentleman from Maryland is right: yes, we do balance the budget. 
Guilty, and proud to be guilty of that. We think balancing the budget 
is important.
  More to the point, in the revenues we are saying we don't like this 
current Tax Code, so we can raise the same amount of revenue as the 
government with a better tax system, one that is pro-growth, one that 
creates jobs. That is precisely what the Ways and Means Committee is 
doing. That does not include the ObamaCare taxes, but it includes 
replacing the current revenue code that hurts jobs and hurts economic 
growth.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to a senior 
member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise because today's budget is the budget that 
helps American families. I rise today to support a budget that 
recognizes that the status quo is not only unacceptable to American 
families, but it is also unsustainable to the economy.
  This budget that is before us now will finally restore much needed 
certainty, certainly to the economy, promote fairness, and provide 
those American families with the opportunity they are looking for to 
prosper. Importantly, this budget stops spending money that we simply 
do not have. At the same time, it advances commonsense changes in 
proposals to strengthen our Nation's safety net programs. We do that 
for American families.
  So the Path to Prosperity takes us the first step towards reversing 
the path to debt and decline that the President and his fellow 
Democrats have laid out for the American people. To say that President 
Obama and the Democrats over in the Senate have failed to lead this 
Nation in what is probably the most predictable economic crisis in our 
Nation's history would be a drastic understatement.
  Why is that? On February 4, the President's budget was due. On March 
19, the American people are still waiting. It was over four times in 5 
years that this President has failed to basically follow the law of the 
land and to submit a budget on time.
  It is interesting that the President's brackets are always on time. 
His budgets, not so much.
  The Senate Democrats are not any better. It took them almost 4 years 
to produce a budget that increases government spending by $265 billion, 
raises taxes on this country by almost $1 trillion; and, at the same 
time, it has cut health care providers by almost $300 billion.
  Over the period covered by the budget, deficits under the Senate plan 
are going to be nearly $4 trillion--yes, $4 trillion larger than those 
under the House Republican budget that we are talking about right now.
  Every family, every family in the country, every family in America, 
they understand the necessity of having a balanced budget. The 
President and Senate Democrats could surely learn by going back to 
their districts and learning from the example of American families 
across the country in how to set a budget. Families don't have the 
luxury of waiting for the next election. They don't have the luxury, if 
you will, of going through yet another cycle. Quite frankly, as we 
stand here today in Washington, neither does Washington.

[[Page H1600]]

  Let's stop the spending insanity, if you will. Let's start putting 
the country back on track, and let's do this for the American family.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady 
from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Small Business 
Committee, who recognizes how important it is to keep our economy 
moving forward, not backwards.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this ill-conceived 
budget. For working families this project could mean a tax hit of 
$2,000, making it harder for families to afford rent and put food on 
the table.
  The GOP plan also shortchanges seniors, ending Medicare in 10 years. 
Equally problematic, the Affordable Care Act would be repealed, 
reducing health care assistance to 176,000 families in my district and 
preventing 68,000 young people in my part of New York from staying on 
their parents' insurance.
  We can also expect our economy to take a hit with 2 million jobs 
vanishing next year alone. Is this what we need to get this economy 
growing again? And for small businesses, this budget will mean losses. 
Sixteen thousand small firms in my district will lose tax assistance 
when purchasing health care, and thousands of would-be entrepreneurs 
around the country will see technical assistance and other services dry 
up, preventing the creation of new startups and blocking job creation.
  Mr. Chairman, budgets should be about priorities. The American people 
rejected these flawed priorities last year when they voted to reelect 
President Obama. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' so we can approve 
a budget that is balanced, that is fair, that will create jobs, and 
that will move our Nation forward, together.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to 
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton).
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this budget 
resolution.
  I just want to take a moment, too, to applaud the chairman and the 
members of his committee, and especially the hardworking staff of his 
committee for producing this document--a mere little band of less than 
30 staffers.
  By contrast, the President, with all the vast resources at his 
disposal in the executive branch, is now, I think, into the sixth week 
beyond his deadline in which he cannot pass his own budget. I assume 
that he will one day submit something. I hope that we will have a 
chance to vote on it. I will be curious to see if our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle can produce more than the zero budgets that his 
budget produced last year.
  The Senate, however, is even worse. They haven't produced a budget in 
4 years. After seeing the budget that they will vote on, I now know, 
perhaps, why they did not produce such a document. It has over $1.5 
trillion in new taxes, almost $1 trillion that are recognized, almost 
$500 billion to replace sequestration in unspecified closures of so-
called loopholes, and another $100 billion in unspecified closures for 
new and ultimately failed stimulus spending.
  And it never reaches balance--ever. The only thing we hear from 
balance on the Senate or the President is as a euphemism for new tax 
increases.
  Finally, I want to point out that the last time the Senate passed a 
budget 4 years ago, I was a captain in the United States Army sitting 
at forward operating base Mehtar Lam in northeast Afghanistan. And I 
want to specifically single out the defense measures in this budget and 
to applaud, again, the leadership of the chairman and the Budget 
Committee for protecting our military, for giving it funding that it 
otherwise would not have and the flexibility it needs to help protect 
and keep this country safe. The Defense Department is the one area in 
government where the strategy should drive the budget, not the budget 
drive the strategy.
  And the second way that it protects our military is from a debt 
crisis. This budget, as we have heard, is designed to postpone and 
ultimately prevent a debt crisis caused by out-of-control reckless 
spending in anemic economic growth of the kind you have seen in 
countries in Europe already.
  If that were to happen, not only would it impact families all across 
the country when their interest rates for mortgages and farms and small 
businesses and education increase, but it also would crowd out all 
other kinds of priorities in our Federal budget. So it would 
immediately impact, as well, our troops, their families, and our 
veterans.

                              {time}  1640

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, actually the Republican budget does 
follow some of our European friends, but follows them in the wrong way.
  The strategy places like the U.K. have followed is an austerity 
approach--immediate deep cuts. And guess what that did? That sent them 
back into a recession. And again, the umpire around this place, the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said that if you take the 
approach in our Republican colleagues' budget, you'll have 750,000 
fewer jobs by the end of this year. That is not a growth strategy. We 
cannot afford, here in the United States, the European-style austerity 
plan that is hurting those economies.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. 
Waters), the ranking member on the Financial Services Committee.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Van Hollen for yielding me this 
time.
  Today I rise in strong opposition to the Republican budget, a budget 
that makes absurd claims to reducing the deficit by repealing crucial 
government authority to protect our economy. Lest we forget, the Lehman 
Brothers disorderly bankruptcy sparked the worst financial crisis since 
the Great Depression.
  Should a megabank fail in the future, the Dodd-Frank Act specifically 
authorizes regulators to dissolve the failing firm, fire its 
executives, wipe out shareholders, and deny the claims of creditors. 
The gentleman from Wisconsin calls this a bailout--erroneously--
concluding that the Dodd-Frank Act enshrines ``too big to fail'' when, 
in fact, it provides all of the necessary tools to end it. If Dodd-
Frank actually did what the Republicans say, why does no large firm 
want to be designated as ``systematically significant''?
  The Republican proposal also deceptively suggests that a repeal of 
the liquidation authority generates real savings to the American 
taxpayer. The Dodd-Frank legislation designed this authority to pay for 
itself over time, with any initial up-front costs being completely 
recouped by selling assets and imposing an assessment, after the 
resolution, on financial institutions with more than $50 billion in 
assets. The law specifically states that taxpayers shall bear no losses 
from the exercise of any authority under the liquidation title.
  Once again, the Republican budget is misleading and dishonest. The 
National Journal has called the Republican proposal a ``budget 
gimmick,'' and even The Wall Street Journal dismissed it as mere 
``budget quirks.''
  If the authority to wind down a megafirm is repealed, the American 
taxpayer would be called on again to bear the risk of another financial 
crisis like in 2008, which the GAO found cost the U.S. economy $13 
trillion.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to reject this Republican 
budget.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to 
respond to my friend from Maryland.
  He keeps saying that the CBO says this plan is going to cost 750,000 
jobs. That's an analysis done on the sequester starting with looking at 
calendar year January through calendar year December. Well, where are 
we? This budget doesn't deal with fiscal year 2013. It starts in 
October. So he's using a comparison of a statistic that they use, the 
same kind of economic short-term analysis they used to say that the 
stimulus would create millions of new jobs. They're using the same kind 
of analysis and say the sequester will cost these jobs, and it's a cut 
that isn't even in this budget.
  More to the point, the Senate Democratic budget has the same 
appropriations number we have in our budget for fiscal year 2014. The 
point is what the CBO does say over the long term, if you

[[Page H1601]]

achieve this kind of deficit reduction that we are, a million new jobs 
a year by the end of the budget window--a 1.7 percent faster economic 
growth. CBO says that about this budget, about achieving this kind of 
deficit reduction. Stanford economists. You can create a million jobs a 
year. So you're seeing a consistent theme here: cutting spending and 
growing the economy and creating jobs.

  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell), a senior member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I don't know if you've been to Spain or 
not, but I have, just once. It's a beautiful country--nice people, 
great food, and at one time a large, vibrant, and growing economy, but 
not today. Today in Spain, over half of the people under 25 years old 
can't find work. The unemployment amongst all ages in Spain is about 
what we had during the Great Depression--not the Great Recession, the 
Great Depression of the thirties. And people on government medical care 
there can't get it. They can't get it when they want it because they've 
had to close a lot of their medical clinics in order to save money.
  They had to do that because they waited too long to fix their fiscal 
problems. They waited until they had a debt crisis, and then they had 
to do what my friend from Maryland said: they had to impose an 
austerity program. They raised taxes and cut spending very quickly in a 
matter of just a year or so because that's what they had to do to 
continue being able to sell their debt.
  That, Mr. Chairman, is exactly what we don't want to do. This is not 
speculation. This is not something we have to think about. It's there 
for us to see, and not just in Spain and Greece and Cyprus--in Japan, 
in a different form. It's there in other parts of the world. When you 
borrow so much money that people won't lend you any more, then you put 
in this austerity which causes these problems.
  Unfortunately, that is what my friends on the other side of the 
aisle, their budgets will lead us to. More debts, more deficits, kind 
of a sugar high. They'll say: Oh, yeah, we're going to spend all this 
money; we'll create all these government jobs. For awhile we'll feel 
good, until the debt crisis comes, and then all that goes away.
  What the Republican budget does is balance in 10 years, and not so 
that CPAs like me can achieve some symmetry that makes us feel good. 
It's because when you balance the budget, you set this balance up. It 
frees up the economy. People know that we're on that track to balance 
in 10 years. We won't have a debt crisis. People will know we won't 
have a debt crisis. The economy is freed up from the burden of too much 
debt, of knowing that there's a problem with no solution. There will 
now be a problem with a solution.
  The economy will be freed up, both on the government side and on the 
private sector, and there will be more jobs and more jobs. That's what 
the Republican budget promises: an economy that grows and sustainable 
job creation, not a 1- or 2-year sugar high followed by a collapse. 
We've seen what not to do. We know the path not to take.
  This Republican budget is the path we should take. I hope everyone 
will support it.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  First, I want to point out again that our Republican colleagues 
cannot have it both ways. You can't claim you're going to balance in 10 
years and claim that you got rid of all of the ObamaCare provisions, 
because if you look at this chart, you'll see in the year 2023, 10 
years from now, they claim a balance of about $7 billion, right there. 
And yet if you look at this blue section here and the red section, 
you've got the revenues from the Affordable Care Act, from ObamaCare, 
and the savings from Medicare that our colleagues campaigned against 
last fall, but they kept them right in their budget. Without those 
items, they don't come close to balance. In fact, they're about $400 
billion short, in the 10th year, from balance.
  We believe you've got to focus on getting the economy moving right 
now. That's why we call in our budget for getting rid of and replacing 
the sequester now, so you achieve the same deficit reduction over a 
longer, more measured, targeted period of time and don't do damage to 
the economy. And we reduce the deficit in a steady way so that it's way 
down below the growth in the economy by the 10-year window; and we do 
it in a way that is balanced, meaning we ask for shared responsibility. 
So we do it through a combination of cuts, but also we do say, for 
folks at the very high end of the income ladder, we can get rid of some 
of those tax expenditures, tax expenditures that our Republican 
colleagues have talked about, but not simply to reduce the rates for 
high-income individuals, but to help reduce the deficit as part of a 
balanced approach.

                              {time}  1650

  Now, if you look at the math on the Republicans' tax reform plan, it 
drops the top rate for folks at the very top from 39 percent all the 
way to 25 percent. We know that's going to cost about $4 trillion. They 
say they're going to make all that money up by taking tax expenditures 
away just from high-income people. The math doesn't work that way. 
You're going to have to increase taxes on middle-income taxpayers, or 
you're not going to hit your deficit target, one or the other.
  So in the Budget Committee, we Democrats said, look, let's say to the 
Ways and Means Committee, when you do tax reform, don't raise taxes on 
middle-income taxpayers. And we had an amendment--I've got it right 
here--Protect the American Middle Class from Tax Increase. We said, if 
you're going to do tax reform, at least make the commitment that you're 
not going to increase taxes on middle-income families in order to 
finance tax breaks for the folks at the very top. Every one of our 
Republican colleagues on the committee voted ``no'' on that amendment. 
The committee's got lots of policy instructions on other stuff, but a 
policy request statement about not increasing taxes on the middle 
class, they all voted ``no.''
  So we believe we have to reduce our deficits in a smart and vigorous 
but also balanced way, asking for shared responsibility going forward, 
not violating our commitments to seniors by reopening the doughnut 
hole, not by shredding Medicaid, which they cut by over $810 billion, 
and which would be one-third less in 2023 than it would otherwise be.
  And, by the way, Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind people that two-
thirds of Medicaid spending goes to seniors and individuals with 
disabilities.
  So it's not a question of whether we reduce our long-term deficits, 
it's how we do it, and we do it in a balanced way. If this was just a 
race to be the first to balance, then you should support not the 
chairman's budget. Support the Republican Study Group, that other 
budget. But if your priority is to grow jobs and the economy, then you 
should support the Democratic alternative budget.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume to quickly respond.
  So here's what my friend is saying, and I have three problems with 
what my friend from Maryland said. I have a problem with what he said 
in the beginning, in the middle, and in the end of what he said about 
all of what is happening here.
  Here's his plan for economic growth: borrow more money and go and 
spend that money. Remember the stimulus? They're saying do it again. 
Then raise taxes. That's going to help the economy. Oh, and it's a 
balanced plan.
  Here's the problem: their balanced plan doesn't balance the budget. 
We actually asked the CBO--they're claiming they will balance the 
budget in 2040. The CBO doesn't verify that. They're having to make 
assumptions that the CBO won't even back up to claim that they can 
somehow balance the budget.
  But when I look at their deficits in their budget, yeah, they get the 
deficits going down in the first few years, and then it starts going 
back up. How on Earth do you tax $1.2 trillion, net increase spending, 
and claim you're balancing the budget?
  Look, we've been trying this economic program for a while. We tried 
the borrowing and the spending. That didn't work. We just hit the 
economy with a $1.6 trillion tax increase. The

[[Page H1602]]

economy's not roaring right now. And what they're saying is let's do 
that all over again.
  We are saying, fix the Tax Code. Replace it with a pro-growth tax 
system that helps small businesses, that helps job creators, that helps 
families. Get government spending appetite under control. The 
government is supposed to be spending 5 percent a year, on average, 
over the next 10 years. That's too much. That's more than the family 
budget gets. We say bring it down to 3.4 percent a year.
  And so when you take a look at all of the smoke and mirrors, all of 
the claims, none of the Democratic budgets that are being brought to 
the floor here ever, ever balance the budget. How is that a balanced 
plan?
  Balancing the budget is what every family does. Balancing the budget 
is what every business does. Balancing the budget is what every local 
government does. Surely our Federal Government can do this.
  And one of the key ingredients to growing this economy, to making 
American businesses, big and small, competitive so that they can create 
jobs and give people more take-home pay, is to reform our tax system.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Camp), the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, who is in charge 
of reforming our tax system.
  Mr. CAMP. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership 
on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of a Federal budget that balances so 
we can strengthen our economy, create more jobs, and allow American 
workers to start seeing an increase in their paychecks again.
  I know we can do it. I was a part of a team, a Republican Congress 
and a Democrat President, that balanced the budget for the first time 
in a generation. We focused on areas where we agreed and we made some 
tough choices, and we should do that again.
  Balancing the budget is not just about the economy. It's about 
critical programs like Medicare and Social Security and the benefits 
they provide to millions of Americans. Social Security is already 
spending more money than it brings in, and the Medicare trust fund is 
going broke fast.
  What does that mean?
  Well, if Congress and the President don't act, America's seniors will 
face significant benefit cuts. That means smaller Social Security 
checks, up to 25 percent less, and fewer doctors willing to take 
Medicare.
  So what should we do?
  First, we pass a budget that balances, and that's what Republicans 
are doing. The Democrat substitute continues a policy of borrowing and 
spending and raising taxes and never gets to balance. Our budget, with 
pro-growth tax reform, has been scored by outside experts to create a 
million jobs in the first year alone.
  Second, we need to look at the areas where we agree with the 
President and start making the reforms necessary to save programs like 
Social Security and Medicare.
  The President said he's willing to use a different formula, chained 
CPI, to determine Social Security benefit increases. I know that policy 
will be included in the RSC budget. It's an area of agreement between 
the parties. Well, Mr. President, if we agree, then let's do it.
  The same goes for reducing Medicare subsidies.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman an extra minute.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman's time has yet to expire, but the gentleman 
has 1 more minute.
  Mr. CAMP. The same goes for reducing Medicare subsidies for wealthier 
seniors.
  The American people expect us to make progress where we can. Let's 
not let our differences stand in the way. And if we agree on a policy, 
let's come together to start protecting and preserving critical 
programs like Social Security and Medicare.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, we actually have a kind of a yardstick 
that we can use to measure whether these budget approaches have a 
balanced approach, meaning that they ask for shared responsibility. You 
have the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission report, and they said we 
should reduce our deficits in a steady way through a combination of 
revenue, but also targeted cuts.
  This Republican budget is totally lopsided. It provides tax windfalls 
to folks at the very top, and balances the budget at the expense of 
everybody else.
  What we've proposed, actually, when you take into account the $1.5 
trillion in cuts we made over the last couple of years and the $700 
billion in revenue from January, and what we have in this budget, we 
actually have a higher ratio of cuts to revenue than that bipartisan 
Simpson-Bowles plan when you look at everything that's embedded in it. 
So that's measured against a bipartisan approach, and that gets us to 
where we need to be without hitting all the other priorities we have in 
our country.
  With that, let me yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin), the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means 
Committee, who has looked at these numbers backwards and forwards, and 
I look forward to his comments.
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. This Republican budget is tone deaf, the result of blind 
ideology. But, you know, I've been listening to what's been said so far 
today, and the Republicans say, but they don't say how. We've just 
heard, we know we can do it, but you don't say how.

                              {time}  1700

  So what we come up with on the Republican side is a mirage--and, I 
think, a dangerous one.
  Let me give you have an example, talking about their proposals on 
taxes. Under their budget, the top rate is to be reduced from 39.6 
percent to 25 percent. The AMT will be repealed. The corporate tax rate 
will be cut from 35 to 25 percent. But you won't find one syllable in 
the Republican budget on how all these tax cuts will be paid for. They 
don't identify a single tax policy that will end.
  The Republican budget would mean a huge tax cut for the very 
wealthy--several hundred thousand dollars a year--and leave a nearly $6 
trillion hole in the deficit that would lead to tax increases for 
middle-income families. That isn't balance. That's total imbalance. At 
the same time, Republicans propose cutting $3.3 trillion from programs 
for people with low or moderate incomes, including hundreds of billions 
of dollars from food nutrition and Medicaid programs.
  So I want to end by asking when the Republicans come and talk about 
their tax proposals, name a specific that they would address. It's not 
in the Republican budget. Name one, name two, name three. Otherwise, 
it's worse than empty.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of 
the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).
  Mr. ROKITA. I thank Chairman Ryan for his distinguished leadership in 
bringing this budget to the floor. I rise in high support of it. I also 
am very proud. It's one of the highest honors I have had in my short 
time here to serve on this committee, not because of chairman Ryan 
only, but because of the members. By members, I mean Republican members 
and Democrat members. I note for the Record that Mr. Levin is not a 
member of the Budget Committee. But there are great people who are. 
That's why it's perhaps because of some of that pride that I'm 
disappointed to hear the ranking member characterize the 
accomplishment--because that's what it is--the accomplishment of 
balancing within 10 years as some sort of political goal.
  Families who are trying to put food on the table, neighborhood 
associations, nonprofits, and for-profit businesses, for that matter, 
that have to make a budget balance every day, every month, ever year, I 
think should be offended by that characterization. It's not a political 
goal.
  You know what's political, Mr. Chair? It's never balancing. You know 
what's political is the immoral idea that we are going to put more on 
our plate now, add up deficit after deficit, create a bigger and bigger 
debt, and then make people who don't even exist yet pay for it. Why is 
that political? Because, Mr. Chair, the people in the here and now can 
vote. Generations in the future, our grandkids who don't yet

[[Page H1603]]

exist, can't vote. And that's what makes the other approaches we've 
heard about immoral, wrong, political. We balance. We balance within 10 
years.
  Now let's contrast that a bit--our responsible approach--to what the 
Senate Democrats have done, for example. Next year alone, the Senate 
Democrats' budget increases spending by $162 billion above what we're 
spending today. Over 10 years it increases our debt by $7.3 trillion 
from today's levels, despite a massive tax hike that they have. And 
that tax hike adds $1.5 trillion in new taxes. So even after that, they 
still add to the debt--our kids' debt, our grandkids' debt--by $7.3 
trillion.
  Again, Mr. Chair, it never balances. After 4 years and $6 trillion in 
debt since a budget was even last passed, the Senate Democrats' vague 
proposal leaves America with even more debt and government that never 
stops growing. Amazingly, after 4 years, the Democrats were unable to 
identify any real reforms--no tax reform and no entitlement reform. 
It's simply not a serious proposal.
  I stand, again, in support of the House budget because it's 
responsible, it's real, it balances in 10 years, and it's the last 
thing from political.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Do you know what's wrong, Mr. Chairman? What's wrong is to pretend to 
the American people that you can have it all ways. What's wrong is to 
pretend that you've got a budget that's in balance in 10 years and 
pretend that you're getting rid of all of the Affordable Care Act, all 
of ObamaCare. What's wrong is going around the country demagoguing $715 
billion in Medicare savings, which we achieve by ending overpayments to 
private insurance companies and Medicare, and then using it to balance 
your budget and then saying, We didn't use it to balance our budget. 
That's what people don't like, is people trying to have it all ways.
  We have taken an approach to steadily and rapidly reduce our deficits 
in a way that doesn't interfere and hurt economic and job growth right 
now. And we do it in a balanced way. And what I find astounding is to 
hear our Republican colleagues talk about the deficit and debt in one 
breath and then talk about all those tax breaks and expenditures that 
disproportionately benefit very wealthy people in the other breath and 
then say they won't close one single tax loophole for wealthy people 
for the purpose of reducing the deficit--not one dime in their budget 
for that purpose. And yet they're willing to hit Medicaid to the tune 
of $110 billion. They're willing to hit the food and nutrition program 
by over $100 billion. They're ready to hit transportation funding by 
over 15 percent in this budget window. And yet they're not willing to 
close one of those more than $4 trillion in tax loopholes to reduce the 
deficit. I think that's wrong.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, a member of 
the Budget Committee (Ms. Schwartz).
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. The Federal budget is a statement of our priorities and 
our values as a Nation. The budget should be fiscally responsible and 
reduce the deficit, it should make investments to grow our economy, and 
it should meet our obligations to our seniors, to our families, and to 
our future. And the Republican budget fails all three. The Republican 
budget threatens our Nation by undermining our economic growth and by 
shifting the financial burden for the deficit and for deficit reduction 
to our seniors and the middle class.
  Republicans have made their choices clear: end Medicare as we know 
it, adding costs to seniors today and ending the Medicare guarantee 
tomorrow; slash investments for economic competitiveness; and give 
millionaires an average of $400,000 in tax breaks. The Republican 
budget eliminates protections for millions of our sickest, frailest 
seniors who depend on nursing home and home health services. And the 
Republican budget will increase taxes for average middle class families 
by $3,000. Their choices will cost 2 million jobs next year alone and 
decrease economic growth by 1.7 percent.
  In contrast, the Democratic alternative preserves the Medicare 
guarantee; makes key investments in education, innovation, and 
infrastructure necessary for job creation and economic growth; and 
protects the middle class from large tax increases. The Democratic 
alternative reduces the deficit in a fiscally responsible and balanced 
way, without causing harm today and without threatening our economic 
competitiveness for the future. It reduces the deficit while meeting 
our commitments to our seniors, our frailest elderly, and our children.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican budget that threatens 
our seniors, our middle class, and our economic growth, and to vote for 
the Democratic alternative that builds on our great strengths as a 
Nation--an innovative, entrepreneurial business sector with a skilled, 
hardworking middle class. Vote for the Democratic alternative that 
builds on hope, opportunity, and security for all Americans.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  The gentlelady from Pennsylvania said that we're ending Medicare as 
we know it. I've got news for you: ObamaCare ended Medicare as we know 
it.
  And what our budget does is it takes those statements from Medicare 
and makes sure it stays in Medicare, that it doesn't go fund another 
program. Stop the raid of Medicare, make sure that those savings, as 
the gentleman says, are necessary and worthwhile, and stay with 
Medicare to make it more solvent, to extend the life of the trust fund 
and not double-count it, to raid it to spend on ObamaCare.

                              {time}  1710

  Loopholes. I enjoy this conversation, because what we keep hearing 
is: close loopholes for the purpose of deficit reduction. What it 
really means is: take more money and spend it in Washington. We're 
saying: close loopholes to lower tax rates for everybody.
  The problem with our Tax Code is it's not fair. If you have access, 
if you have good clout, you can get a loophole in the Code and pay 
lower taxes. If you're a family sitting home in Janesville, Wisconsin, 
you're paying whatever tax rate. We are saying the person or the 
business that has the same amount of income should pay the same kind of 
tax rate.
  With that, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Williams), a member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, every business, every family, and every 
person in America eventually has to balance a budget. I am a small 
business owner; I still own a business. I have owned and operated my 
business for 41 years, and I balance my budget every month--and in many 
cases every day. The government should be no different.
  Now, until we balance our budget, we don't know the true fiscal 
condition of our country, or our company, or our family. Just like a 
business that is overleveraged or a family that has overborrowed, 
deficit spending can obscure the real picture; but eventually the truth 
comes out. Once the numbers line up, you get an exact view of your 
fiscal condition. We've gone far too long without knowing our country's 
financial condition.
  In the last 4 years, we've had trillion-dollar deficits. In 2011, our 
Nation's credit rating was downgraded. This year, our publicly held 
debt is on track to exceed 76 percent of GDP in 2013. Yet we still 
spend more money that we don't have, pushing the country towards a 
debt-driven financial crisis. If the Federal Government didn't have the 
ability to print money, we'd have a negative net worth, and we'd be in 
a weak financial position.
  A budget is a blueprint. A budget is a roadmap; it's a plan. Our 
Nation's budget doesn't need to have balance as its end goal; it needs 
to be our starting point. It's the only way to guarantee that the 
public debt will not outgrow the economy, which would certainly crowd 
out private investment, raise interest rates, and increase inflation.
  Now, I'm proud to stand in support of the Path to Prosperity. It's a 
responsible, balanced budget that is right for America. This budget 
balances, cuts wasteful spending, and fixes our broken Tax Code--all 
without raising taxes.
  I applaud Chairman Ryan and my colleagues on the House Budget 
Committee for their tremendous work in presenting the American people 
with what they want--a budget that works. With this plan, we will apply 
the same principles that families and businesses use every day.

[[Page H1604]]

  I predict our country's best financial days will surely be ahead of 
us, because unlike our Democratic friends, we balance. It means jobs, 
it means prosperity, and it means opportunity. Small business and the 
people of America are begging for this budget.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out to my colleagues 
that the Affordable Care Act, with the reforms it made to Medicare, we 
extended the life of the Medicare trust fund as part of that effort 
going forward.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Does that mean that money is not going to fund 
ObamaCare, and does that mean there's a $716 billion hole in the 
funding of ObamaCare?
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. That means, as in your budget, that we will help 
reduce the deficit by whatever amount it was. But what we do not do in 
our budget is fund tax breaks for folks at the very top by raising them 
on folks in the middle.
  Listen, let me say just one other thing here, Mr. Chairman. We've had 
four balanced budgets in this country in the last 40 years. It wasn't 
under President Reagan. It wasn't under the first President Bush. It 
wasn't under the second President Bush. It was 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001. 
It was under President Clinton. And then President Bush came in and did 
a big tax cut in 2001, putting us out of balance for a long period of 
time.
  During the period of time when the budget was in balance the last 
four times out of 40 years, the revenue that was coming in was higher 
than it is in any year in the Republican budget that's before us now. 
What that tells you is that their budget approach is trying to seek 
balance on the backs of everybody else by really cutting into those 
important investments that have helped power our economy by violating 
important commitments to seniors and, in the end, by raising taxes on 
middle-income people. Why else would they not have joined Democrats in 
sending a policy statement to the Ways and Means Committee that says: 
When you go about eliminating tax preferences, don't hit middle-income 
taxpayers in the process.
  In fact, Mr. Chairman, if you look at the mortgage interest 
deduction, for example, the mortgage interest deduction really helps 
middle-income people--homeowners. So in addition to saying: Ways and 
Means Committee, when you do tax reform, don't hit middle-income 
taxpayers, we specifically said: Don't take away the mortgage interest 
deduction for middle-income taxpayers. Again, all our Republican 
colleagues voted against that.
  They've been talking about tax reform for 3 years now. We've never 
seen a piece of paper from them as to how they would do it, which is 
why we wanted to make sure that they don't do it in certain ways that 
help middle-income people. But no, can't do that.
  So let's make sure that as we address our deficit issues, we do it in 
a way that calls for shared responsibilities, not another round of tax 
breaks for the wealthy on the backs of everybody else.
  I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), 
one of our distinguished members of the Budget Committee.
  (Ms. MOORE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. MOORE. Well, this is an austerity plan and an inequality plan, 
this Republican budget. I want people to behold the plunder of suckling 
babes--the young, elderly, the infirm, women, communities of color--by 
$810 billion cuts in Medicaid and $135 billion in SNAP. It is not 
humorous to me. I want you to beware of the claims that we're going to 
grow our economy by ending 750,000 jobs, by pillaring Pell Grants, and 
cutting off educational opportunity to students.
  This is not a balanced budget. This is a budget blunder which 
plunders us into double-dip recession. I'll tell you, Ben Bernanke, our 
Fed chair, warns against these kinds of severe austerity cuts. If you 
don't believe him, take the word of Plato. He said: In a state which is 
desirous of being saved from the greatest of plagues, there should 
exist among the citizens neither extreme poverty, nor, again, excessive 
wealth, for both are productive of great evil.
  So we plunge poor people into poverty and give $245,000 tax breaks to 
the wealthiest. I think that qualifies for not only an austerity plan 
that can harm us, but it is the greatest inequality plan that this body 
has seen.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I think the reference to Plato 
reveals a mindset that the country ought to be run by a handful of 
philosopher kings instead of the people.
  I yield myself 10 seconds to simply say this budget, this plundering, 
evil, cutting budget increases spending, on average, 3.4 percent a year 
instead of 5 percent a year.
  With that, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished member of 
the Budget Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his 
leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, this debate over the budget reflects a great struggle 
between American families and their government over whether they or the 
government can best spend the money that they have earned. This budget 
bends that struggle slowly back in favor of those families by returning 
to them a little of the freedom to spend more of their own money and 
make more of their own decisions once again.
  The prosperity of American families is directly affected by 
government spending. Government cannot put a dollar into the economy 
that it first hasn't taken out of the economy.

                              {time}  1720

  It's true we see the government job that's created when government 
puts that dollar back in. What we don't see as clearly is the job 
that's destroyed when government first pulls that dollar out. We see 
those lost jobs as chronic unemployment and a stagnating economy.
  Every billion dollars spent in Washington means taking $9 from an 
average family, either in direct taxes or in tax-driven price increases 
as businesses pass along their costs to consumers. That means that $1 
trillion of new taxes that the Senate has proposed means $9,000 per 
family. Now we're told, don't worry, that's all paid by businesses. But 
businesses don't pay business taxes, they only collect them. They pass 
them on to us as consumers through higher prices, to us as employees 
through lower wages, or to us as investors through lower earnings, 
usually on our 401(k)s. A trillion dollars of deficit, as we ran up 
last year, really means $9,000 of future taxes for every family, 
robbing our children of their futures.
  It's about time we started thinking about these numbers in family-
sized terms, because ultimately these numbers have a very real impact 
on families who are struggling to balance their own budgets, to set 
their own priorities and to look after their own needs.
  Now, these days, we've passed more than one-third of the cost of 
government on to our children, and we financed the remainder through a 
tax system in which politicians pick winners and losers through an 
appallingly unfair and distorted Tax Code.
  This budget calls for doing away with these tax distortions that 
reward some and punish others, distortions that shift capital away from 
economic expansion and into the service of political interests. This 
budget calls for flattening and lowering tax rates to assure that no 
American family pays more than one-quarter of its earnings to the 
Federal Government.
  Those nations that have adopted similar reforms have been rewarded 
with explosive economic growth. That means fairness for every American 
taxpayer and an economy unshackled from the burdens and political 
favoritism of our current system.
  In short, freedom works, and it's time that we put it back to work.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, just to be very clear on what the 
Senate Democratic plan does and what the House Democratic plan does 
with respect to revenue, again, we heard from Governor Romney and 
others last year that there are about $4 trillion in these distortions 
and preferences in the Tax Code that help very wealthy people. What we 
say is, we should get out some of that clutter, some of those 
preferences, and use some of that to help reduce the deficit. And we 
say at the

[[Page H1605]]

same time when you do tax reform, don't touch middle-income taxpayers, 
and when we asked our Republican colleagues to give us that assurance 
in the form of an amendment in the Budget Committee, they all voted 
``no.''
  So, yes, we think that you can eliminate some of the tax breaks and 
preferences that Mr. McClintock just talked about, and you can use some 
of them to reduce the deficit. But the Republican budget won't use one 
dime of those to help reduce the deficit.
  I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington State who is 
both on the Budget Committee and on the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. 
McDermott.
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, you've got to ask yourself what we're 
doing here today. We're fearmongering again. We spent last week, we 
spent the last campaign, we spent the last number of years really 
presenting to Americans that we're in imminent doom, and gloom is 
coming to America. We're going to be the next Spain, we're going to be 
the next Italy, the next Greece and probably tomorrow the next Cyprus.
  Our debt is so bad, we're told, that we have to take food out of the 
mouths of children through the nutrition program and send seniors out 
with vouchers to take care of their Medicare. And then this weekend, an 
epiphany occurred. Speaker Boehner came on television and told the 
American people, ``we do not--we do not have an immediate debt 
crisis.'' And Mr. Ryan, the chairman, was asked, and he agreed.
  They finally told the truth. This is not about debt. If the Speaker 
and Mr. Ryan are right, why are they feeding us this Austerity Kool-Aid 
all the time? Why are they sabotaging the economy by throwing hundreds 
of thousands of jobs away in the sequestration? Why are they stunting 
our future by cutting the legs off our R&D programs and the National 
Institutes of Health? Why are they asking seniors, kids, the sick and 
the poor to go without health care and food security to pay for a 
fantasy crisis?
  Why? Because they have needed an excuse to do what they've been 
attempting for generations to do, and that is disable the safety net; 
to get rid of Social Security, to get rid of Medicare, to get rid of 
unemployment, and to get rid of everything that makes a social safety 
net in a civil society. This charade is built on the fundamental 
deception that we are on the brink of an economic apocalypse so that 
politicians can wipe out the programs that people need so that they can 
give tax breaks to the people at the top.

  The Speaker knows it, Mr. Ryan knows it, and it's about time the 
American people know it. You need not be afraid. Vote ``no.''
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to say 
that was pretty good scaremongering if I ever heard any.
  Like I said, the whole purpose of balancing the budget is to prevent 
a crisis from happening in the first place. What happened to Europe? 
They kicked the can down the road. They spent more than they could take 
in. They borrowed until they couldn't borrow at affordable rates, and 
then a crisis hit. We know that's where we're headed.
  Look, the federal budget is growing at about 5 percent a year, and 
the family budget is growing at about 2\1/2\ percent a year. We want to 
get the family budget on course with the federal budget or vice versa.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee, a 
member of the Budget Committee and the Ways and Means Committee, Mrs. 
Black.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, nearly 23 million Americans are still 
struggling to find work, and millions more low- and middle-income 
Americans are struggling with the reality of depressed wages, higher 
food and gas prices, and rising health care costs.
  It is clear that the President's tax-and-spend policies are putting 
the American Dream further and further out of reach of more and more 
Americans. It's hard to get ahead in America when you can barely get 
by--paying your rent, putting food on the table and getting to and from 
work.
  I believe the status quo is not working, and I believe that the 
American people deserve better than the chronically high unemployment, 
record levels of debt, unrealized dreams and a diminished future.
  That is why I stand here today to urge my colleagues to support the 
House Republicans' Path to Prosperity budget. The Path to Prosperity 
budget funds America's priorities. It protects important entitlement 
programs, it saves our social net, it repeals the President's budget-
busting health care law, reforms our broken code and balances within a 
decade.
  President Obama and the congressional Democrats say that they want to 
get America back to work and support a ``balanced approach'' to our 
fiscal problems. But they also support record deficits and budgets that 
never ever balance. Instead of government living within its means, the 
Democrats' budgets raise taxes to fuel more spending, and in turn, 
millions of Americans remain out of work. The only place that these 
failed policies will lead is to higher unemployment, depressed wages 
and a crushing debt crisis.
  The majority of Americans are not satisfied with the current state of 
our economy, and they're not hopeful about the future. And who can 
blame them? I believe the American people deserve better than the 
status quo, and I believe the American people deserve leaders here in 
Washington who are honest with themselves and their constituents about 
the challenges facing our Nation and what it's going to take to get 
this Nation back on track.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mrs. BLACK. I urge the House to pass the Path to Prosperity budget 
and for the President to work with the congressional Republicans to 
balance the budget so that we can start to create the conditions for 
economic growth, job creation and more opportunities for current and 
future generations of Americans.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  We heard earlier about the United States becoming Spain and others 
have compared it to Greece. The reality is that right now the danger is 
that we follow the European austerity measures that we've seen do 
damage to economies like that in the U.K., and that's what our 
Republican colleagues are calling for in their budget.

                              {time}  1730

  Yes, we need to reduce our long-term deficits, but we also need to 
make sure we keep the facts straight. And in the Republican budget 
pamphlet this year, they show this big tidal wave of red ink, which I 
believe the chairman showed earlier today, that's based on an outdated 
Congressional Budget Office analysis that doesn't take into account 
much of the deficit reduction we've done over the last couple of years, 
including the revenue in the fiscal cliff agreement. That's why the 
organization FactCheck.org said that the Republican budget proposal 
exaggerates future growth of the Federal debt in a chart contained in 
their newly released budget plan.
  So we need to keep this in perspective, and that's what we do in our 
budget: we focus on economic growth now and economic growth in the 
future. And, yes, because of the reduction in the rate of increase in 
health care costs and using, actually, an assumption that the 
discretionary parts of our budget and mandatory we assume grow faster 
than the chairman asked the CBO to project, our budget comes into 
balance the same year as the Republican budget last year came into 
balance, but we do it without balancing it on the backs of other 
essential priorities that are important to the American people.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to a terrific new member of the Budget 
Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).
  Mr. POCAN. I rise today to join my Democratic colleagues on the House 
Budget Committee to staunchly oppose the budget proposal we have 
considered last week in committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I was not in Congress last year when the budget was 
considered in the House, but it sure seems like my Republican 
colleagues want to make sure I didn't miss a thing since

[[Page H1606]]

the proposal before us today represents little more than the same 
recycled, unrealistic policies that have been rejected by both the 
Congress and the American people.
  This is a budget based on bad math and unrealistic assumptions. It 
keeps the savings and revenue from the Affordable Care Act, but it 
repeals its benefits to the people. It cuts taxes for the wealthiest 
without identifying how they'll pay for the trillions, and it takes 
almost a trillion dollars in unspecified cuts that will likely target 
programs for the needy and disadvantaged. With all those unrealistic 
assumptions, I am surprised there's not a provision that requires 
leprechauns to steal the pots of gold at the end of rainbows and then 
to count that as revenue. Mr. Chairman, that could have been a trillion 
dollars and you'd have a surplus now.
  Mr. Chairman, while the math may be bogus, the budget will have real 
and serious effects on the people of Wisconsin. It keeps the sequester 
in place, which costs the people of Wisconsin 36,000 jobs; and across 
America, that's 2 million jobs. It will turn Medicare into a voucher 
program, forcing 850,000 Wisconsin seniors out of traditional Medicare, 
eventually, people like my mother. And it will raise taxes on middle 
class families by more than $3,000 while giving the richest a $245,000 
tax break.
  We need to balance the budget responsibly by getting people back to 
work. That's the best way to reduce our deficit. We need to create 
jobs. Economists of both stripes say we should do it and the CBO says 
we should do it. We need to get it done.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the backward-looking plan from our 
friends on the other side of the aisle and, instead, embrace a forward-
looking plan on job growth.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to say I 
simply dispute my friend from Wisconsin's interpretation.
  This is the chart the gentleman from Maryland was talking about. 
Guess where we got this chart from? The Congressional Budget Office. 
It's the most recent numbers they've given us. Will they give us new 
numbers this summer? Yes. And guess what? It's still going to show a 
whole bunch of red ink. We can't wish away this debt problem. One year 
of spending and $3 for every $2 that you're taking in, you've got a 
problem. We've got to deal with that.
  We know we're giving the next generation an inferior standard of 
living. If we keep down this path, we will have a crisis, yes. That's 
not fearmongering. The gentleman was talking about the fiscal 
commission. Erskine Bowles, President Clinton's chief of staff, says 
this debt is a cancer on society, that we will have a crisis. The 
problem is: there are Democrats who agree with the facts; it's not the 
Democrats who are writing these budgets, though. That's our problem.
  Mr. Chairman, we're going to have to come together sooner or later to 
deal with this. That's why I want to yield 4 minutes to the vice chair 
of the Budget Committee, a gentleman who's offered lots of wisdom on 
this committee, the doctor from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Ryan for his 
remarkable leadership on this and many other areas.
  Mr. Chairman, it is no wonder that folks are confused out there. I 
tell you, there is so much misinformation that is coming, and the 
fearmongering that is coming from the other side is truly remarkable. 
So let's try to set the record and the motive straight.
  Republicans care about seniors staring at devastating reductions in 
Medicare under current law. Republicans care about workers and middle 
class folks fighting to make ends meet with increased gas prices and 
increased food prices and on and on. Republicans care about young 
people struggling to get started in careers and being crushed by 
government rules and regulations. Republicans care about students 
getting out of school and not being able to get a job in their field. 
Because we care about seniors and workers and single moms and young 
people and students, because we care about all Americans, we present 
this responsible, balanced budget.
  Budgets, Mr. Chairman, are about priorities. Priorities that the 
American people overwhelmingly support include getting Federal spending 
under control--poll after poll tells you that--getting our economy 
moving again so we can get folks back to work, and getting our debt 
crisis under control so that we may preserve the American Dream for 
future generations. These are precisely the priorities of our House 
Republican budget, the Path to Prosperity.
  This Path to Prosperity is the way to responsibly balance our budget. 
American families all across this great land know that the Federal 
Government shouldn't spend more than we take in, and we agree.
  Let's look at a couple of specific items.
  Our friends talked on the other side about loopholes. We're 
interested in closing loopholes, you bet. The gentleman from Maryland 
says not one dime of closing loopholes will go to reduce the deficit on 
our side. He's absolutely wrong, Mr. Chairman. He's just wrong. I've 
had this discussion with him. He is simply wrong. It's really sad that 
he perpetuates that misinformation.
  Second, taxes. The gentlelady from Pennsylvania said that we were 
interested in raising taxes by some remarkable amount. I can't even 
remember what it was. In fact, we don't. We actually balance the budget 
without raising taxes.
  Mr. Chairman, they can't have it both ways. They can't say that our 
plan is not specific enough on taxes and then say it's so specific that 
we increase taxes by a specific amount. The fact of the matter is, Mr. 
Chairman, as you know and our friends on the other side of the aisle 
know, it's the Ways and Means Committee that develops the tax plan. 
That's why the Budget Committee doesn't address it.
  As a physician, I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that taking $716 
billion from Medicare and spending it on something else means that 
seniors are not going to have the kind of quality health care that they 
need, and that's why we go get that $716 billion. We'll bring it right 
back to the Medicare program. It's imperative to do that to keep 
quality health care in this country.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Then, finally, they talk about slashing and 
severe cuts to spending. Mr. Chairman, our budget increases spending by 
3.4 percent every single year, on average, and we do that because 
that's the number that you need in order to bend the curve down so that 
we do indeed get to balance.
  Mr. Chairman, the Path to Prosperity ensures that we're honoring 
America's most important priorities. Our budget saves and strengthens 
and secures Medicare. We protect national security. It cares for the 
poor and the sick by repairing America's safety net programs. And we 
expand economic opportunities for all.
  We believe in the industriousness and the ingenuity and the dreams of 
the American people. It's time that we have a government that is worthy 
of the people that we represent.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let's start with taxes. What the Republican budget does is provide a 
windfall tax break for folks at the very top. People listening can do 
the math. You're dropping the top tax rate from 39 percent to 25 
percent right off the bat. That's about a cut of one-third in the top 
rate for millionaires. That's a huge loss of revenue.
  How do they make up that revenue? Well, if you're going to really 
make sure you don't increase the deficit, math tells you you're going 
to increase taxes on middle-income people to help pay for those tax 
breaks, which is exactly why we offered an amendment in committee 
saying, okay, Ways and Means Committee, when you do tax reform, don't 
raise taxes on middle income folks. They voted against that. There are 
lots of other provisions in the Republican budget that provide guidance 
to other committees, but they didn't want to provide them that 
guidance.

                              {time}  1740

  So the point is that they provide tax breaks to the folks at the very 
top while leaving middle-income folks vulnerable; but on net, they do 
not close one tax loophole out of those four trillions to reduce the 
deficit. Do you

[[Page H1607]]

know how we know that, Mr. Chairman? Because their revenue line is 
constant with the baseline. So Mr. Price is just dead wrong when he 
says they close tax loopholes to increase revenue for the purpose of 
reducing the deficit. It's not in there. It's just dead wrong.
  Now let's get the record straight about what the Republican budget 
does to different groups that Mr. Price referenced:
  Seniors. Here is what the AARP, the largest organization representing 
seniors, says about what the Republican plan will do:

       The chairman's proposal fails to address the high costs of 
     health care and, instead, shifts costs on to seniors and 
     future retirees. Removing the Medicare guarantee of 
     affordable coverage seniors have contributed to through a 
     lifetime of hard work is not the answer.

  That's the AARP.
  The Medicaid cuts. There are $810 billion in cuts. Again, I'll remind 
people that two-thirds of that goes to seniors and people with 
disabilities. Here is what the nonpartisan, independent Congressional 
Budget Office said would be the impact of those kinds of cuts:

       It means, because they block-grant the program to States 
     with a lot less money, States would need to increase their 
     spending on these programs, make considerable cutbacks in 
     them or both. Cutbacks might involve the reduced eligibility 
     for Medicaid and CHIP--that's children's health--the coverage 
     of fewer services, lower payments to providers, or increased 
     cost sharing by beneficiaries, all of which would reduce 
     access to care.

  So whether it's in Medicare or in Medicaid, we violate commitments to 
seniors in this budget.
  He talked about kids and education. Their budget would allow in July 
the doubling of the student loan interest rate from 3.4 percent to 6.8 
percent, making college less affordable. Our budget makes sure there is 
not that doubling.
  Also, we had an earlier conversation with Ms. Moore about the impact 
of people in poverty. I'll just give you one example:
  In the category of the budget that helps with the Women, Infants, and 
Children program--this is the program that helps pregnant women and 
women with very young children get nutrition assistance--they double 
the sequester cut. Then they tell us it's not going to have any 
impact--not on that and not on doubling the sequester cut on the 
National Institutes of Health and the research they do. Somehow, 
magically, all that will be funded even though you double the sequester 
cut--more than double it--in that category of the budget.
  So their budget, while providing these windfall tax breaks to the 
folks at the very top, and their budget, while slowing down economic 
growth in the economy right now, also means we undermine other 
important priorities in our country.
  I would now like to yield 2 minutes to a new, distinguished member of 
the Budget Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).
  Mr. HUFFMAN. I rise to oppose the Republican budget for a very 
fundamental reason: it would be devastating to the health and well-
being of America's seniors.
  This budget raises seniors' costs for preventive services; it reduces 
access to nursing home care; and it reopens the Medicare prescription 
drug doughnut hole, which means that, for seniors with high 
prescription drug costs, they could end up paying on average $13,000 
more over the next 10 years. The Republican budget also tries, once 
again, to end the guarantee of affordable coverage under Medicare by 
converting that program into a private sector voucher that will not 
keep up with costs; and that's going to leave seniors, who are on fixed 
incomes, holding the bag.
  The Republican study group budget is even worse. It forces chained 
CPI on Social Security. What ``chained CPI'' means is, quite simply, 
reduced benefits for seniors who've paid into the system, earned those 
benefits, need them, and are counting on them.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot vote for a budget that protects billions of 
dollars in special interest tax breaks for the wealthy and for the most 
powerful corporate interests while reducing benefits for seniors and 
shredding the social safety net.
  My 83-year-old mom is like millions of seniors around this country. 
She did her part by working hard all her life, paying into the system, 
paying her taxes; and when she retired, she counted on a guarantee that 
her government would honor its end of the bargain. I intend to make 
sure that it does. We can reduce the deficit without forcing extra 
costs on the middle class, seniors and the most vulnerable in our 
society, and that's why I'm supporting the Democratic budget 
alternatives, which do four essential things:
  One, they honor our commitment to seniors; two, they focus on jobs 
and economic growth, which is a far better way to balance our budget; 
three, they maintain our safety net; finally, fourth, they keep us on 
the path of health care reform, which is going to bend the costs that 
are creating these problems.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, another chart. The red line shows where spending is 
going. These are Congressional Budget Office numbers. The green line 
shows our historic revenues. The blue line shows the additional 
revenues that President Obama has called for. He has already gotten a 
big chunk of this--he just got $617 billion--but even if we got all the 
tax increases that President Obama and his allies in Congress are 
calling for, it wouldn't even pay for a fifth of all the deficit 
spending that's coming.
  This is where spending is going. We are spending ourselves into a 
debt crisis. We will never, ever balance the budget if we keep spending 
growing at the pace it's growing right now. We have to do something 
about this because, if we don't, our families will receive a bankrupt 
country; economic growth will slow; and our kids will be guaranteed a 
diminished future. We owe it to our countrymen, to our economy, to our 
kids to get this under control.
  With that, I would like to yield 3 minutes to a member of the Budget 
Committee, also a member of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee).
  Mr. NUNNELEE. I do want to thank Mr. Ryan for his leadership on this 
budget.
  Mr. Chairman, we've talked a lot about the big picture. I want to 
make it personal.
  In the early 1990s, I lost my job in a corporate merger. For about 48 
hours, I moped around, feeling sorry for myself; but then, one morning, 
my wife and I got up. We made a pot of coffee, and we got out a sheet 
of notebook paper, and right down the middle of the page we drew a 
line. On one side, we wrote down: this is what we have coming in. On 
the other side, we wrote down: this is how we're going to spend it. We 
shed some tears that morning as we made difficult decisions. The reason 
I tell that very personal story is that there is no question in my mind 
that, today, there are Americans sitting at their kitchen tables--with 
that same piece of paper, shedding those same tears.
  Before I got here, I served in the State senate. I chaired the 
Appropriations Committee, and I worked with the Democrat chairman in 
the State house as we made difficult decisions in balancing our State 
budget. Families, State legislatures, small businesses around this 
Nation are making those difficult decisions. They have every reason to 
expect their policymakers in Washington to do the same thing.
  I support this budget proposal because it does make tough decisions 
and balances our budget. I support this proposal on behalf of my mom 
and dad, who worked all of their lives and paid into a system, and 
their government made them a promise that said when you get to age 65, 
we're going to provide you with health care. Yet the actuaries for that 
system say that their government is in danger of not being able to 
honor its promise.
  I support this budget on behalf of my parents because this budget 
says we repeal a system of unelected bureaucrats that will make health 
care decisions for them. I support this budget on behalf of my children 
and their peers who are entering the workforce, yet are facing job 
creators with an uncertainty of what's coming out of Washington. I 
support this budget on behalf of my two grandchildren, to whom I will 
not be part of passing on a debt that will jeopardize their future.
  We hear our friends on the other side of the aisle say, Well, what we 
need to

[[Page H1608]]

do is raise taxes so that we can spend more. We're going to tax this 
current generation $1.5 trillion more. We're going to tax future 
generations so that we can spend more.
  That is not the right approach. That's why I support this budget.

                              {time}  1750

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, just to be clear in terms of the 
Democratic proposals, if you take our budget proposal here together 
with the work that we have done over the last couple of years, which 
reduces spending by over $1.5 trillion, $700 billion in revenue, take 
that all together, means $4 trillion in deficit reduction over that 
amount, over the period of the window, and we do it in a balanced way. 
We don't do it the same time we are providing windfall tax breaks to 
folks at the very top. We don't do it on the backs of other important 
priorities. We do it by growing the economy and asking for shared 
responsibility, so we have shared prosperity in this country.
  I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, a member of 
the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Johnson.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the so-called Ryan budget Path 
to Prosperity, which really should be called the Ryan budget ``Mainline 
to Misery for the Middle Class.'' Budgets are a reflection of our 
Nation's values, and it is clear that the House Republicans chose to 
favor the ultrawealthy over the weak, the sick, the poor, and the 
elderly.
  Mr. Chairman, this is just more of the same old, same old: more tax 
breaks for the wealthy, an end to Medicare as we know it--they don't 
care anything about Medicare--broken promises to our seniors, and 
higher taxes on the middle class.
  For the middle class, this Ryan budget is a road to ruin. For the 
middle class, this Ryan budget is a shortcut to suffering. Issuing 
vouchers for health care and gutting programs for low- and middle-
income Americans at the expense of budget-busting tax cuts for the 
wealthy is not the best way forward for our Nation.
  I look forward to supporting the Democratic budget, which reduces the 
deficit in a balanced way while strengthening the economy, bolstering 
the middle class, and investing in our future.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. There are too many points to refute, so I 
won't bother trying.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin, a 
member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ribble.
  Mr. RIBBLE. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  It has been quite an afternoon already: slash, cut, tone deaf, burn, 
plunder, shred, eviscerate, end Medicare as we know it, balance the 
budget on the backs of our seniors, and then my favorite, austerity 
Kool-Aid. There has been enough hyperbole in this room today, I should 
have brought my boots.
  Let's talk about austerity. We talk a lot about the least fortunate 
about us, the concern for seniors and for veterans and the most needy. 
This is what the budget actually does. These are the real numbers. I 
have read the real budget--not somebody's report on the budget, but the 
real budget.
  This is what we do for veterans. We increase from $145 billion to 
$187 billion. That's a 20 percent increase, a 20 percent increase over 
a decade. That is a $1.675 trillion commitment to our veterans.
  Then I heard we are going to end Medicare as we know it. Well, $509 
billion to $864 billion in Medicare over a decade, if this is austerity 
Kool-Aid, I don't know how you can define $6.656 trillion as austerity 
Kool-Aid.
  I have heard a lot of people say I'm concerned about my mom. My 
colleagues have said it on both sides of the aisle. I want you to know, 
moms, we have got your back to the tune of $6.656 trillion. We are here 
for you.
  Let's look at Social Security. We hear that Social Security is going 
to be in trouble. Well, this budget goes from $854 billion to $1.423 
trillion. So what does that come out to? Well, it is just a meager 
$11.15 trillion over the next decade on Social Security alone.

  So what does that do for these three programs? Three programs, Mr. 
Chairman, this is our austerity Kool-Aid: $19,481,692,000,000 on three 
programs, nearly $3 billion more than the accumulated national debt in 
the last two centuries. If this is leaving our seniors behind, if this 
is leaving the most fortunate behind, I don't even know what we can do 
to make it right other than this.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud of the budget you have put together, and you 
achieve balance, including meeting these demands for the least 
fortunate in our society.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I think Mr. Ribble made some very, very important points for all of 
us in this debate, and that is: the reason you see spending rising in 
both budgets is primarily because we have so many more baby boomers 
becoming eligible for Medicare and Social Security. In fact, what this 
chart shows is that, over the 10-year window, you are going to see 
about a 33 percent increase in the number of people eligible for 
Medicare and about a 30 percent increase in the number of people who 
are eligible for Social Security.
  So what we say in our budget is that, if we are going to meet our 
commitments to these seniors but also reduce our budget deficit, we 
have to do it in a balanced way. Because if we meet these commitments 
and at the same time are trying to reduce our deficit, one way to do it 
is the way the Republican budget does: to more than double the 
sequester cut in all the areas that are important to growing our 
economy, our infrastructure investment, our kids' education, science 
and research. They also cut Medicaid, which affects a lot of those 
seniors on Medicare. About 20 percent of those seniors are also on 
Medicaid.
  But it is at the end of that 10-year window that our Republican 
colleagues then move to their voucher plan, premium support--I don't 
care what you call it. The only way you are going to achieve any 
savings compared to the baseline number, CBO baseline that the chairman 
showed you, the only way you are going to do it is if you are capping 
the amount you are going to get so that seniors have to eat the costs 
and take the risks of rising health care.
  There is a better way to address that issue, and that is the way we 
approach it in our budget. And that is to build on the kind of reforms 
that we made in the Affordable Care Act in ObamaCare, which have helped 
and contributed to reducing the rapid rise in per capita health care 
costs and which, as I pointed out earlier, our Republican colleagues 
included in their own budget.
  So, yes, we have to deal with these drivers of costs, including 
health care. But the way we propose to do it is not by transferring or 
offloading those rising health care costs on the backs of the seniors, 
but by moving Medicare away from a strictly fee-for-service system 
toward one where we reward the value of care over the volume of care. 
And that has achieved significant savings, and it has done so without 
any negative impact to Medicare beneficiaries. So very different 
approaches to this issue.
  Mr. Ribble pointed out there is spending going up that is to meet 
these commitments. But if you don't take a balanced approach like we 
do, you can only address those issues by undermining other very 
important national priorities, priorities that have always had 
bipartisan support in the past.
  I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of 
the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Green.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, depending on your point of view, there is something in 
this budget for you to like and to love. If you like repealing the 
Affordable Care Act and replacing it with nothing, then you love this 
budget.
  If you like having senior citizens pay more for their pharmaceuticals 
in the twilight of life, then you love this budget.
  If you like having 26-year-olds and under come off of the insurance 
policies that they're currently on with their parents, then you love 
this budget.
  If you like the notion that health care should become wealth care in 
the

[[Page H1609]]

richest country in the world, where one out of every 100 persons is a 
millionaire, then you love this budget.
  If you like the whole concept of having voucher care, as opposed to 
Medicare, then you really love this budget.
  My dear friends, I neither love it nor like it. I'm against it, and I 
won't vote for it.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. That was very entertaining.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  There are two ways to deal with Medicare essentially. And I think 
most people would agree, Medicare has a big problem. It's going 
bankrupt. And the gentleman from Maryland talked about demographics and 
health inflation.
  ObamaCare changed Medicare as we know it. ObamaCare puts a board of 
15 unelected bureaucrats in charge of Medicare. These bureaucrats, by 
law, are given the assignment to require Medicare cuts each and every 
year to hit the targets that will lead to denied care for current 
seniors.
  We disagree with that. We think patients and their doctors should be 
in charge of their health care. We believe in choice and competition so 
that seniors have guaranteed coverage options to make sure that they 
can have a plan that best meets their needs.
  Now, is this some pie in the sky theory?
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself an additional 1 minute.
  Let me show you a chart.
  By the way, a voucher is, you get a check and then you go buy 
something. No one's proposing that. It's a good poll-tested word.
  Premium support is a bipartisan solution, the only bipartisan idea 
offered on how to save Medicare. It's how the prescription drug law 
works today.
  When the prescription drug law was passed, it was expected to cost 
about $100 billion when we began, on an annual basis. What happened to 
the actual cost?
  It came down 41 percent below cost projections. Let me say that 
again. The prescription drug law came in 41 percent below cost 
projections. Name me a government program that comes in 41 percent 
below cost.
  Why did this one do that?
  I'll tell you why. Seniors got to choose the plan that meets their 
needs.
  The plans, the drug-providing plans, had to compete against each 
other for the seniors' business. They compete, so they lowered their 
prices, they improved their quality. Customer satisfaction is at an 
all-time high. And lo and behold, costs went down.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I'll give myself 30 more seconds to say we believe 
in putting seniors in charge of their health care, not 15 bureaucrats. 
Our budget does not change the Medicare benefit for anybody in or near 
retirement.
  But to guarantee that that promise can continue to be made for my mom 
and the other moms that we've been talking about, to guarantee that 
it's there for my generation and my kids' generation, you have to 
reform the program, and that's why we want this bipartisan idea that 
has proven to work, versus giving the control to 15 bureaucrats.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Salmon).
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, balancing our budget goes way beyond taxes 
and spending. It will define who we are as a Nation and ensure 
prosperity and opportunity for all Americans going forward.
  According to two prominent Stanford University economists, John Cogan 
and John Taylor, the Ryan budget would raise gross domestic product by 
1 percentage point by 2014.
  Well, just what does that mean?
  They explained it. It's equal to about $1,500 for every household in 
the United States--$1,500 for every household in the United States. By 
2024, they estimated GDP would increase by 3 percentage points, to 
$4,000 per household. That growth, that kind of growth can't 
be ignored.

  Putting our budget, moreover, our economy, on a sustainable budget, 
is a moral imperative, and we owe it to the men and women retiring 
tomorrow, as well as my newest granddaughter, who will be born in 
April.
  The Ryan budget also recognizes that our current tax structure is 
holding our Nation's prosperity back. I applaud the goal of collapsing 
our Tax Code to just two lower rates of 10 and 25 percent.
  We need pro-growth policies that will grow our economy and create 
jobs. Tax reform is the answer. At the end of the day, we don't need 
more taxes; we need more taxpayers, and new jobs will do just that.
  Containing the size, scope, and cost of government has got to be a 
priority here. The more money siphoned from the economy to support 
government programs means less money in the economy to support private 
investment, innovation, job creation and wealth for all Americans. 
We've done this before and we can do it again.
  I listened with a little bit of incredibility as I listened to the 
gentleman from Maryland do a little bit of revisionist history. He 
talked about the late nineties, and gave the credit to the President 
for balancing the budget.
  Well, I was here in the Republican House of Representatives, the 
first Republican House of Representatives in 40 years, and I like to 
take a little bit of credit for that too. I think that the Republican 
Congress got the ball rolling.
  But at the end of the day, I don't care if the President takes the 
credit for that. In fact, after we passed welfare reform three times, 
finally, the President kind of came along, kicking and screaming, and 
he signed welfare reform into law. And 50 percent fewer families in 
America have to rely on welfare. They have jobs.
  I'd like to see us balance the budget, not just for my children, but 
for my grandchildren. And I'll tell you what: if President Obama's 
willing to do that with us, like President Clinton reached across the 
aisle to a Republican Congress, I will be happy to be the first in line 
to give him credit for that because I believe all America will benefit.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I just want to respond to a few of the comments from the chairman 
with respect to Medicare and health care costs.
  As we indicated earlier, we've seen a dramatic slowing in the per 
capita interest in health care cost. That's a good thing. That's, in 
part, we believe, a result of changes in the Affordable Care Act and, 
as a result of that, the so-called Independent Advisory Board that our 
colleagues misleadingly refer to as a bunch of bureaucrats won't even 
have any job to do for at least 10 years, probably longer.
  Now, if health care costs per capita start rising more quickly, then 
their task--and this is a group of health experts and others--their 
task is to propose a way to reduce those health care costs, and they're 
specifically instructed not to have a negative impact on beneficiaries.
  And by the way, it specifically says, if Congress has a better way to 
do it, go for it. That's what the law says. We think that that's a 
better approach than handing everything over to insurance companies.
  And the Republican plan to give seniors a voucher, premium support--I 
don't care what you call it, it's bad news because seniors will be 
getting this thing, but the value of that thing doesn't keep up with 
the rising health care costs.
  Now, the chairman mentioned prescription drug part D. It came in 
under projected cost. One reason was you had more generic drugs on the 
entire market, not just the Medicare market. But the other, major 
reason was, guess what? There were 25 percent fewer people enrolled in 
part D. So you had fewer participants and so, obviously, it costs less. 
Twenty-five percent.
  Now, it's simply wrong to say that the Republican voucher plan for 
Medicare is like part D prescription drug, or like the Federal Employee 
Health Benefit Plan, which we've heard about many times before, because 
the difference is, and it goes to the core of this issue, both those 
plans, part D and the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan, have 
provisions that ensure that the premium that is provided by the 
government, or Medicare, keeps up on a percentage basis with rising 
health care costs. That's why it's called premium support, and that's 
why the Republican plan is not premium support because it does not keep 
up with rising health care costs, if they're going to claim the savings 
it makes.

[[Page H1610]]

  And here's a chart that illustrates this. This is current Medicare. 
Seniors are putting in a certain amount, and they're guaranteed a 
certain percentage of support from Medicare.

                              {time}  1810

  Here's the plan for Federal employees and Members of Congress: 
Members of Congress and Federal employees put in around 25 percent and 
the program picks up the other 75 percent. And as costs go up, the 
Federal Government still picks up 75 percent. Here's what happens with 
a voucher program where the value of what you get doesn't keep up with 
the percentage rise in health care costs. You, the beneficiary, the 
senior, pay more and more. And that's the only way it can work if 
you're at the same time going to show that congressional budget chart 
that shows all that spending out into the future. The only way you can 
bring that down under the plan is to cap the value of premiums. And 
that's not premium support; that's a voucher. And that's the end of the 
Medicare guarantee.
  I now yield 2 minutes to a great new member of the Budget Committee, 
the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the ranking member for yielding and thank him 
for his extraordinary leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, budgets should reflect our priorities and our values. 
It should protect American families by investing in education, 
infrastructure, science and research, clean energy, and housing. 
Budgets should be designed to grow our economy and get people back to 
work.
  This Republican budget does not reflect the values of our great 
Nation. It will hurt our economy and it will hurt the American people. 
As Yogi Berra said, ``It's deja vu all over again.'' More of the same. 
More tax cuts for the richest Americans, billions in subsidies for Big 
Oil, tax policies that benefit companies that ship American jobs 
overseas at the expense of the middle class and the working poor.
  As a reflection of our Nation's values, our Federal budget should 
honor the commitment we've made to our seniors; but this Republican 
proposal would end the guarantee as we know it, shifting rising health 
care costs to seniors. We should be educating our next generation of 
leaders to enter the workplace successfully, and we should be making 
meaningful and serious investments in rebuilding our Nation's crumbling 
infrastructure, our bridges, roads, and schools so it will put people 
back to work in well-paying middle class jobs that help support a 
family.
  But this budget makes deep cuts in rebuilding America and in 
education. According to the Center for American Progress, the 
Republican budget proposal on the floor today would cut $1.2 trillion 
from investments in education, science, and infrastructure, hurting our 
economy. And some have projected that it would result in the loss of 2 
million jobs.
  The budget before us today does not reflect our values as a Nation. I 
urge my colleagues to vote against it and to support the Democratic 
alternative. It's a budget that really speaks to the highest ideals of 
America--the kind of America that will provide the best education for 
our kids, that will discover new cures for disease, that will develop 
new, clean energy sources, that is committed to rebuilding our 
crumbling roads, bridges, and ports, and an America that honors our 
promise to our seniors and to our veterans.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic alternative and vote 
against the Republican Ryan budget.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 1 minute.
  I enjoy the back-and-forth on Medicare. Let's not forget that under 
our proposal there's no cap on Medicare growth for current seniors. We 
don't have the cap like ObamaCare does. ObamaCare caps Medicare and 
then has this board of 15 bureaucrats decide how to affect current 
seniors to make it live within its cap to its price controls. We don't 
do that. We say leave Medicare alone. People like my mom organized 
their lives around this program and retired on it. Don't change a 
thing. Don't put some cap with bureaucrats price-controlling it. The 
premium support we're talking about, that's for future seniors. And if 
you're poor, if you're sick, if you're middle income, you get a lot 
more subsidy--total coverage for poor people--than the wealthy.
  I keep hearing all this talk about wealthy. We say the wealthy should 
pay more for their own premiums than everybody else. That helps us save 
Medicare for the next generation. These are ideas that actually have 
bipartisan support--the only bipartisan idea on how to save Medicare 
versus the rationing from the IPAB board.
  With that, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from 
Tennessee, a member of the Budget Committee and a member of the 
Commerce Committee, Mrs. Blackburn.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, our chairman, 
for the outstanding work that he has done, and to all of my colleagues 
on the House Budget Committee for how diligent we've been in bringing 
forward a budget that is responsible and is a credit to our citizens 
and to the American people.
  I think it really is quite amazing when you listen to some of this 
rhetoric. Mr. Chairman, it is so evident from listening to this debate 
that we have friends across the aisle who just really believe that 
government can never get enough of the taxpayers' money. I don't think 
they can tell you how much is enough, because they're always going to 
find ways and reasons and new programs and new ventures or investments, 
as they like to call them, to spend that money on.
  Every time we talk about accountability and responsibility of the 
House to manage the people's money in an accountable and responsible 
way, they start to talk like that money is theirs, and that we're 
talking about taking that money away from them. But it's the people's 
money. And what the American people have said is they want to see this 
government on a spending plan that is going to be accountable and is 
going to be responsible. And they want a budget that is going to 
balance and they want us to get this deficit spending and our national 
debt under control. Now, the document that we're bringing forward is 
something that is going to do that. And it's going to do it in the 
appropriate way because we meet our obligations and we honor the 
commitments and the promises that have been made.
  I heard someone talk about shredding the social safety net. Well, Mr. 
Chairman, quite frankly, when our friends across the aisle brought 
forward ObamaCare, they're the ones that took a whack into that social 
safety net by making those spending cuts in Medicare and pushing that 
money over to stand up a new program. We don't stand for that because 
what we will do is preserve Medicare, as the chairman has said, for 
today's seniors and give younger workers an option that is going to 
honor the work that they are doing now in paying into that system.
  I think it's important that we look at how this is going to affect 
our children and our grandchildren. I have two grandsons, Jack and 
Chase. They're here this week. I'm delighted they're here in budget 
week because the decisions that we make this week are going to be 
decisions that they're going to bear the burden of. Money we spend is 
money they will pay back. It's imperative that we be responsible to our 
children, to our grandchildren, to future generations and meet the 
obligations we have today.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  It's extraordinary how many times we have to point out that the 
Republican budget before us today contains the Medicare savings that 
were first demagogued last fall during the Presidential campaign. We 
hear them attacked here on the floor of the House by our Republican 
colleagues, and yet they're in the Republican budget. In fact, they're 
in this Republican budget. And what's more, their budget wouldn't 
balance without them, which is why they cannot have it both ways and 
claim their budget is in balance and they're getting rid of ObamaCare.
  Now, while they're keeping the savings, they are getting rid of all 
the important benefits in the Affordable Care Act that will provide 
more affordable health care, which will make sure people can't be 
denied coverage because of preexisting conditions, will make sure that 
kids can stay on their parents' insurance policy until they're age 26.
  For 3 years in a row, we've had a bill from our Republican colleagues 
called

[[Page H1611]]

Repeal and Replace: repeal ObamaCare, but replace it with something 
else that provides affordable care. Three years. We've never seen 
replace. There is no replace. You can look through the Republican 
budget. There's no replace. Just like for 3 years they tell us they've 
got a tax reform plan that's going to magically provide these big tax 
cuts for people and not hit middle-income taxpayers. Not one piece of 
paper out of the Ways and Means Committee in 3 years.
  So, Mr. Chairman, it's a little tiresome to continue to hear people 
criticize savings that we achieve without touching beneficiaries, which 
our colleagues include in their budget and which extended the life of 
the Medicare trust fund by more than 8 years.
  I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to somebody who knows a lot about the 
importance of Medicare and Social Security, the gentlelady from 
Illinois, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Ms. 
Schakowsky.

                              {time}  1820

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, the Ryan Republican budget reflects 
everything that the American people rejected in the last election: 
asking nothing from the wealthiest Americans and rich corporations that 
ship our jobs overseas, while turning Medicare into a voucher program 
and slashing investments that create real jobs.
  Inequality is at its highest point since the Great Depression, and 
yet this budget would make it worse. Here's the top 1 percent. Since 
1979, look at how their income has gone up--277.5 percent. This is the 
bottom 99 percent. You see a little bit of increase, but you see where 
the money has gone.
  Well, households making more than $3.3 million would get an average 
tax cut of $1.2 million. Those who make less than $22,000 would get 
$40, and a third of them would get no tax cut at all. Meanwhile, 
critical support programs for seniors and the poor would be cut, 
including drastic cuts to Medicaid and the food stamp program.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Ryan Republican budget. It's pure 
March madness, and not in a good way.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 1 minute.
  The gentleman is correct in saying that the savings that are in the 
Affordable Care Act for Medicare we apply back to Medicare. That's 
correct. We think that money should stay in Medicare to extend its 
solvency and not be raided from Medicare to spend on ObamaCare.
  He says we keep the savings but we don't keep any of the benefits. 
President Obama said that premiums would go down by $2,500 if we passed 
ObamaCare. They've gone up by $3,000, on average. I don't call that a 
benefit.
  The costs of the bill have gone from $938 billion to $1.88 trillion. 
It's a budget buster. It doesn't pay for itself. I don't think that's a 
benefit.
  Next year, young people are expected to see their premiums go up by 
145 percent to 189 percent. I don't think that's a benefit either.
  So, yes, we don't want these benefits. We don't think turning 
Medicare over to a board of 15 unelected bureaucrats to cut it in ways 
that will surely lead to denied care for current seniors is a benefit. 
That's why I want to yield 2 minutes--well, that's not why, but I also 
want to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman), a 
former member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. STUTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support today of the 
balanced budget put forward by my friend and chairman, Paul Ryan, and 
the reasonable and practical approach that this Budget Committee has 
taken while they budget hardworking taxpayer dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget debate goes deeper than spreadsheets and 
focuses on the longevity of the American Dream.
  Today, we are considering a Republican budget that actually balances 
in 10 years, calls for pro-growth, pro-job tax reform, and strengthens 
Medicare for our seniors and future generations, while in the Senate, 
Harry Reid and Patty Murray are considering a budget that never 
balances. It increases taxes by $1 trillion and let's Medicare and 
Social Security race towards bankruptcy. And it turns Medicare into a 
program that rations benefits to seniors.
  Make no mistake, Washington is approaching $17 trillion of debt and 
more than 12 million Americans are unable to find work. The decisions 
we make will either sink us deeper into debt or put us on a path that 
encourages job creation and restores the belief that, if we work hard 
and make tough choices, our kids will inherit a stronger country.
  Mr. Chairman, the choice is clear. If Hoosier families balance their 
budgets, Washington doesn't have an excuse. It's time the President and 
the Senate offer real solutions for hardworking Hoosier families.
  I commend Chairman Ryan and the House Budget Committee for their hard 
work, and I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to another 
terrific new member of the Budget Committee, the gentlelady from New 
Mexico (Ms. Lujan Grisham).
  Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
opposition to the Republican budget plan. This misguided and cruel plan 
abandons the economic recovery. It is a path to greater disparity, and 
it protects the affluent while further squeezing the middle class.
  We cannot afford this Republican budget. According to the Economic 
Policy Institute, it will cost us 2 million jobs in 2014. This is on 
top of the 750,000 jobs we will lose this year due to sequestration.
  The Republican budget attacks the various industries where the 
largest job growth should be occurring. We need to invest in critical 
infrastructure like the health care system as a key way to create jobs 
here at home and protect our most vulnerable.
  According to a 2012 Bureau of Labor Statistics study, the health 
sector is going to be the leader in job growth throughout the rest of 
this decade. Unfortunately, the path once again chosen by Republicans 
in this Congress will put job growth in jeopardy.
  The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that the budget 
plan under consideration cuts $2.5 trillion from health care by 2023. 
How? It turns Medicare into a voucher program and it block grants 
Medicaid to States. This will force health care providers to cut jobs 
and to reduce services to their patients.
  With an aging population that will require greater care, we should be 
investing in critical infrastructure like health care and other 
programs like disease and care management, which have and will continue 
to reduce spending in Medicare.
  So let's be clear: this budget wreaks havoc on health care systems in 
this country, it hurts patients, and it devastates future job growth in 
the health sector.
  Lastly, this plan also chooses to arbitrarily balance the budget in 
10 years, which is harmful to our fragile economy and middle class 
families. The notion that 10 years is the magic number to balance the 
budget is ludicrous. It is similar to telling mortgage holders who are 
responsibly paying their mortgage that, instead of having 30 years to 
pay it off, now they have 10. Would they be able to? Many of them would 
end up losing the house. That is exactly what the Ryan budget does and 
why, to the Nation's budget and to our economy, it puts us under water.

  Instead, I would encourage all of my colleagues to support the Van 
Hollen substitute, which is a balanced approach that leads to job 
creation and is the right way forward.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Calvert), a member of the Budget Committee and also the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Ryan.
  This is what principled, visionary, responsible leadership looks 
like. I commend Chairman Ryan and the entire team for this budget and 
for insisting on regular order. I also congratulate this body for 
finally forcing the Senate to do something--introduce a budget.
  We owe it to our fellow Americans to be honest about the complex 
fiscal challenges and options before us. That's why today's debate is 
one of the most important we will have this year.
  Nearly every day I hear from my hardworking constituents from 
southwestern Riverside County who have struggled tremendously over the 
last 5 years. Despite the challenges they face, they continue to make 
ends meet by

[[Page H1612]]

making tough fiscal decisions, whether it's for themselves, their 
families, or for their businesses.
  Most Americans don't understand why their elected officials can't do 
the same. Instead, they see us jumping from one crisis to the next, 
putting their lives and their well-being on a constant roller coaster. 
Frankly, I don't understand it either.
  You can't hide from the statistics. You don't have to be on the 
Budget Committee to understand our fiscal situation. A balanced budget 
is not a radical idea; it's a responsible one that the citizens of 
Riverside County and those around this country practice themselves.
  Economists across the spectrum agree that our current path is leading 
us to a debt crisis should we fail to act. Make no mistake: we're on 
the warning track, and we should reverse course before we slam into the 
wall. All Americans should have real concern about what this means for 
the future prosperity of their own families and of our own Nation.
  Under the Obama administration, U.S. public debt as a percentage of 
GDP is over 70 percent and growing.

                              {time}  1830

  As we've see with European nations, there appears to be a tipping 
point in the debt-to-GDP ratio, and at our current rate we are nearing 
dangerous territory. The reserve currency status of the dollar and our 
rank among world economies will only carry us for so long.
  So what effect does this level of debt have on an economy and its 
citizens when things go south?
  All you have to do is look at countries like Cyprus, Spain, and 
Greece. In the case of Greece, you see a depressed environment where 
the unemployment rate is over 26 percent; severe austerity cuts and 
overhauls have gutted worker benefits and the safety net system, 
harming seniors and the country's poorest populace; taxes on families 
and businesses have increased at a sharp rate; and divisive and violent 
social unrest has become commonplace. Most recently, we have seen a 
proposal to bail out Cyprus banks that would raid the savings accounts 
of its own population.
  These are the realities of a debt-ridden country. These are the 
realities of liberal policies that tax too much, spend too much, borrow 
too much, and produce far too few jobs. We cannot afford the path that 
we're on.
  Thankfully, we have time to change America's course, and the House 
Republican budget provides a 10-year plan. It puts the brakes on our 
unsustainable spending levels, lays out thoughtful program reforms to 
ensure essential government services are solvent for generations to 
come, prioritizes a comprehensive restructuring of our Tax Code to 
simplify the system, and improves our fiscal condition in a way that 
will allow our economy to grow providing opportunity to those that work 
hard no matter what station in life they start at.
  Fortunately, after being prodded along, the Senate is joining the 
House in this conversation after a 4-year absence. I don't favor their 
approach to the task before us--a plan that never balances with more 
failed stimulus spending and additional tax hikes. I suspect the 
President's budget will be similar, once we finally we receive it. 
However, we welcome their proposals because we will have clear options 
laid before the American people, and we can have a comprehensive and 
honest discussion about future choices.
  Vice President Biden famously said: Show me your budget and I'll tell 
you what you value. Well, with no budget submitted, we're all forced to 
conclude that the White House values delay and obfuscation.
  Even given this nonfeasance, as an optimist I know this process will 
allow us to find common ground. Addressing issues of this magnitude is 
never easy or pretty, but it is a process worth taking. House 
Republicans continue to stand ready to work with the President and our 
Democratic colleagues in Congress to meet the complex challenges before 
us so that we can get our Nation back to a path to prosperity. 
Thankfully, the House Republican budget does exactly that.
  With that, I urge a ``yes'' vote on H. Con. Res. 25.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Vermont, who's been very focused on these budget issues, Mr. 
Welch.
  Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman, and I thank Mr. Ryan.
  The focus and goal of this budget, as I understand it, is to 
eliminate the debt. That's a worthy goal. In fact, we all share it. But 
this budget, in my view, lacks ambition for other challenges. What 
about stagnant wages? Middle class declining? Lack of jobs? These are 
all fundamental issues that face the American economy.
  The middle class is shrinking. Wages now are what they were as a 
level of our economy as they were in 1966. Just a week ago, when we 
voted for the sequester, it was a day when American profits were at a 
record higher than they had been since the 1950s, but American wages 
were back at 1966 levels.
  There is an assertion here that we lack credibility and that we're 
taxers and spenders. I reject that. But let me remind the folks on the 
other side that a lot of the policies got us to this debt: a war in 
Iraq on the credit card, Afghanistan on the credit card, two tax cuts 
for the wealthy promising benefits to everybody else never paid for, 
and Medicare part D on the credit card. Then we had the collapse of the 
economy. Those were not our policies. Those were the policies of a 
previous President who erased a record surplus.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. WELCH. These are credibility questions, but there's also an 
economic policy question. There are two assumptions in this budget. One 
is that austerity will lead to prosperity, that getting the debt down 
by any means possible and any cuts possible will get us to the Promised 
Land; it's the pot of gold at the end of the Tea Party rainbow. There 
is no evidence for that whatsoever.
  The second is a faith-based conviction that if you give tax cuts to 
wealthy people that will trickle down to the rest of us. No experience 
has shown that that can be successful.
  We should be cleaning up the Tax Code. We should be fighting waste, 
fraud, and abuse. Whether it's in the Pentagon or in the health care 
system, we should be doing that together. This budget does not give us 
that chance.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself just 30 seconds to say that 
austerity is what we're trying to prevent from happening. That's the 
irony of this debate.
  Austerity is what happens after the debt crisis hits. Austerity is 
what is happening in Europe. Austerity is cranking up taxes, slowing 
down your economy and cutting benefits on senior citizens after they've 
retired. That's what austerity is. That's what they call it.
  We're preventing that. We're preempting that. The goal of this budget 
is a reasonable plan to balance the budget, to grow the economy, and to 
create more take-home pay so families can prosper.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to a new member of the Budget Committee, 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Rice).
  Mr. RICE of South Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm honored to 
serve on the House Budget Committee. I'm honored to advocate on behalf 
of this budget.
  There's one thing for sure: we can't keep going the way we are. If 
you look around the world, if you look at countries like Cyprus, Spain, 
Portugal and Greece, you will see the consequence of unrestrained 
spending.
  The Republican plan balances in 10 years. The plan offered by the 
Senate never balances. And when we say ``balance,'' we mean matching 
revenue to spending, not spending more than you take in. When our 
colleagues across the aisle talk about balance, they use it as a code 
word for a tax increase.
  The Republican plan offers protections across the spectrum of 
American life. It offers our seniors the protection of making our 
promises good in Social Security and Medicare. No one will deny--OMB 
will tell you and the CBO will tell you--the Medicare trust fund is 
going broke. It will expire in 11 short years; and the longer we wait 
to deal with that, the worse the problem becomes.
  It protects our middle class through tax reform and through repealing 
the

[[Page H1613]]

ObamaCare law with its onerous regulations and taxes. It will structure 
our system for economic growth. We will stop hemorrhaging American jobs 
overseas, and we will bring American jobs back to these shores. It's 
one thing if we lose jobs because of low wages overseas. We don't ever 
want to compete in that arena. It's another if we lose jobs because our 
government is inefficient, bloated, and expensive.
  Finally, it protects our most vulnerable. It protects our young 
people. I agree with then-Senator Obama when he said it was immoral to 
continue to incur these massive debts. Of course, since he said it, our 
debt is multiples of what he was decrying at that time.
  We are piling mountains and mountains of debt on our children and our 
grandchildren to fuel our addiction to spending. It's got to stop, and 
it's got to stop now.
  I'm proud to stand for this Republican budget, and I urge its 
passage.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, under our budget proposal, the deficit 
is dropping rapidly, but we also address the jobs deficit so that we 
make sure more people get back to work. With respect to the Medicare 
trust fund, I would just point out the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, 
extended the life of the hospital trust fund by 8 years. And if 
Republicans did what they said they want to do, which is repeal it, 
they would shorten the life of the trust fund to 2016. But even though 
they don't want to tell us, they apparently have kept that in.
  I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut who has 
worked so hard to make sure that college is affordable to students in 
this country, Mr. Courtney.

                              {time}  1840

  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, as we talk about the issue of young 
people and debt, one thing is very clear: for 7\1/2\ million young 
Americans who receive subsidized Stafford student loans, in 103 days 
the interest rate on those subsidized student loans is going to double 
from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent.
  We have before us now two budgets. One budget, the Democratic budget 
brought out by Mr. Van Hollen, protects the lower rate. The other 
budget, by the majority party, allows that rate to double to 6.8 
percent.
  The Federal Reserve Bank of New York came out with a study just a few 
days ago which shows, in fact, that the student loan debt for young 
Americans has tripled over the last 8 years.
  We have one budget which protects Pell Grants, which reduces the need 
to borrow money to pay for college, and we have the other budget from 
the majority party which freezes Pell Grants at $5,665 a year. Any 
parent like myself who has kids in college, any student who is in 
college who believes that over the next 10 years that tuition is going 
to stay flat obviously has no understanding of what the trends are and 
have been over the last 20 years in terms of State withdrawal for 
higher education support, and what's actually happening out there in 
the real world.
  We have one budget which speaks to the monumental challenge of young 
people who are trying to improve themselves and get ready for the 
workplace of the future; we have another budget which is blind to those 
challenges and which will reduce college to a system of haves and have-
nots.
  We must invest in young people in the future. The Democratic budget, 
which protects the lower interest rate and the subsidized Stafford 
Student Loan program, understands that. The majority budget, which 
allows those rates to skyrocket, which freezes Pell Grants so that 
young families from poor backgrounds will not be able to afford the 
cost of college, again leaves this country basically behind in the 
competition for high-value jobs, for jobs that require skills, whether 
it's in science, technology, engineering and math or other areas of 
curriculum.
  The fact of the matter is for young people, there is only one budget 
which speaks to them and addresses their needs--that's the Democratic 
budget that is brought out by Mr. Van Hollen.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 30 seconds to say the interest 
rate cliff in student loans was put in law by the Democrats in the 
first place.
  If we bring legislation to the floor that is paid for to deal with it 
like we did last year, I would assume we have every reason to believe 
that we'll pass it.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to a new member of the Budget Committee, 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).
  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to hear my friends across the 
aisle talk about investing in our future and investing in our economy. 
But when they talk about that, I think we have to be clear that that's 
code for borrowing and spending more money.
  We should truly talk about the cost of this debt. We all know today 
that we owe $17 trillion in debt, and if the Federal Reserve stopped 
printing money, the actual cost to service this debt, to pay the 
interest payments would be about $500 billion.
  You go out 10 years and our debt is going to be $25 trillion. And 
minimally to service our interest payments on that debt 10 years from 
now, it's going to cost us $750 billion a year, or $7.5 trillion over 
10 years.
  If you talk about the cost of interest payments every year to service 
the debt, that's $750 billion that isn't going into education, it's not 
going into health care, it's not going into roads or schools or helping 
our poor. It's $750 billion that goes to interest payments.
  When you talk about investing in our future, we're not doing that. We 
are mortgaging our children's future. But let's be clear. There is 
someone who is investing in their future--it's the Chinese. They're 
investing in their future by buying American debt. So when my little 
girls, my little 2-year-old Mari Vi and my 4-year-old Paloma, when they 
get to be our age, they're going to have this weight of interest and 
debt around their neck and they're going to pay those payments back to 
those Chinese preschoolers.
  This is not responsible. And to hear my colleagues across the aisle 
stand up and talk about a balanced approach that continues this course 
of massive red, this is what our children inherit and say this is what 
we want to give to them?
  Listen, if you ask moms around America, Is this what you want for 
your children? Is this what you want them to inherit? Is this how you 
want them to invest their tax dollars? They would resoundingly stand up 
and say, Heck no. Be responsible. Pay off the debt. We don't want them 
to have their massive tax dollars go to interest payments.

  My friends across the aisle, they talk again about borrowing and 
spending and investing in our economy. When they use that language, it 
sounds eerily familiar to the same language they used 4 years ago. This 
is the same argument that was used to borrow a trillion dollars to help 
us grow our economy, create massive new jobs.
  The bottom line is that that trillion-dollar stimulus failed. We want 
a responsible approach, balance the budget, grow our economy and put 
our hardworking middle class families back to work. The Republican 
budget actually does that.
  I ask all my colleagues to actually support the Republican budget.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to respond to a couple of things that were just said.
  The first is that when President Obama was sworn in--in fact, before 
he even put his hand on the Bible a little more than 4 years ago, we 
were losing over 700,000 jobs every month. The economy was actually 
spiraling downward at a faster rate than it was at the time of the 
Great Depression. And thanks to the resilience of the American people 
and the emergency actions taken by the President and others, we stopped 
the free fall, we turned the corner and there have been 36 consecutive 
months of private sector job growth, more than 6.4 million jobs 
created.
  We didn't get any help from our Republican colleagues when we had to 
make tough decisions to prevent the total collapse of the economy. Now 
that we've seen some momentum in the job market, we have a Republican 
budget that's going to put the brakes on that growth. That's according 
to the Congressional Budget Office. By the way, their budget includes 
the assumption of those continued sequestration levels into the next 
year.
  Let's talk about China for a minute. I got a letter the other day 
from the CEO of a major biotech company. Here's what he said. He said 
that over

[[Page H1614]]

the last couple of years because of the reduction in our national 
investment in science and research, he laid off 1,000 people. And 
because of the continuing sequester, they've imposed a hiring freeze 
right now. Those are jobs that now will not be created that would have 
been otherwise if we hadn't had the Republican approach to the 
sequester.
  You know the real kick? I heard Mr. Duffy talking about China. 
They're hiring people in China. Not because of lower Chinese wages, but 
because China has decided to make science and health care funding a 
national priority. In other words, the Chinese are copying the secrets 
to our success, things that help our economy grow, things that are 
slashed in the Republican budget. Did I say ``slashed''? Yeah. Because 
they cut that portion of the budget by more than two times the 
sequester. That's a fact.
  If we're talking about competing with the Chinese or the Indians or 
the Europeans or anybody else who is out there, one of our global 
competitors, let's not allow them to borrow the secrets of our success 
while we're ignoring them here at home.
  I now yield 2 minutes to a terrific new Member of the Budget 
Committee, someone who has been focused on and leading a lot of our 
anti-poverty efforts, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, let me thank our ranking member 
for your tremendous leadership and for yielding. And I also thank 
Chairman Ryan for a very spirited markup.
  I rise in strong opposition to the Ryan budget. And let me just say 
as a new member of the Budget Committee, I've had the opportunity now 
to really get into the weeds of the budget, which really is full of 
choices, but those choices would undermine our Nation's future for the 
continued benefit of special interests and the wealthy.
  The bottom line: that's what this budget does. It would dismantle 
government, it would increase inequality and leave the most vulnerable 
people on their own.
  We should reject this warped vision of America, and we should call 
this budget for what it is. Republicans call it a ``path to 
prosperity,'' but it really is a path to poverty for the middle class, 
for working families, for children and for our seniors.

                              {time}  1850

  The fact of the matter is, you cannot pretend to fight poverty while 
you make brutal cuts to the very programs that lift millions of 
Americans out of poverty.
  The Republican budget would make devastating cuts that will increase 
child hunger, cut off millions of seniors from access to health care, 
and throw struggling families off TANF during the middle of a jobs 
crisis. The Republican budget proposes yet another $6 trillion tax cut 
for the top 1 percent in our country while focusing 66 percent of their 
cuts on shredding our Nation's critical safety net for our children, 
our seniors, our disabled, and the poor. This budget would also cost 2 
million jobs, and it would slash nutrition and food assistance programs 
for 8 million to 9 million people.
  Mr. Chairman, block-granting Medicaid, turning Medicare into a 
voucher program, and gutting food assistance to our children and our 
seniors will not reduce poverty; it will make it much, much worse. Our 
Democratic budget will close special interest tax loopholes in order to 
raise the critical revenues that we need to invest in the American 
people.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentlelady another 30 seconds.
  Ms. LEE of California. Thank you very much.
  Let me just conclude by saying that fully supporting our safety net 
programs, like Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, and Social Security, will 
reduce poverty, grow the middle class, and renew economic prosperity 
for all Americans.
  Unlike Republicans, Democrats simply do not believe that gutting the 
very programs that support poor and low-income families would reduce 
poverty, programs such as the child tax credit and the earned income 
tax credit. The Van Hollen Democratic alternative budget creates 1.2 
million jobs this year; it reduces the deficit by 2.4 percent; and it 
makes huge key investments in our future.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, let me yield myself 1 minute.
  Look, I very much appreciate the gentlelady from California and where 
she comes from on this issue. I believe her heart is in the right 
place. We, too, want to make sure that we get rid of poverty. We, too, 
want to make sure that people get on with their lives, get on that 
ladder of life so that they can get out of poverty and on to good 
lives. That's our aim here.
  Now, here is what we see. We have spent trillions of dollars on this 
war on poverty. We're spending $1 trillion a year at all levels of 
government to fight poverty, and what have we gotten for this? We have 
46 million people in poverty. The poverty rates in America are at a 
generational high. So rather than measure our poverty-fighting efforts 
by how much money we throw at programs, by inputs, why don't we start 
thinking about measuring it by outputs, by how many people we are 
helping to get out of poverty? By any measurement, this isn't working.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself another minute to say that we 
need to rethink our premise here. Are we simply perpetuating poverty by 
treating its symptoms; or shouldn't we look at what has worked in the 
past--what communities are doing to make a difference--and get behind 
those ideas?
  Let's fight poverty by taking the root causes of poverty in order to 
break the cycle of poverty and to get people out of poverty. Those are 
the ideas that we are talking about here. This is not a numbers thing. 
This is not a budget-cutting exercise. This is taking those ideas that 
were so successful in reducing child poverty in the welfare reform and 
applying them to the other programs that have not been reformed.
  Giving States more flexibility, having work requirements and job-
training requirements and block grants and time limits, what did that 
do? All the predictions of doom and gloom were there, but we lowered 
child poverty. We helped get single moms back to job-training programs 
so they could get back to work. This is why we reform job-training 
programs. This is why we call for reforming our safety net--because our 
goal, like her goal, is to get people on with their lives so they can 
reach their potential.
  With that, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Stewart).
  Mr. STEWART. Mr. Chairman, I am honored--yea, I am thrilled--to stand 
and speak on this subject. It is the primary reason that I ran for 
Congress, and I think it is the defining issue and the most critical 
argument of our day.
  We are at a crossroads in our history. I believe that this time is 
that important. What we do at this moment will determine the future of 
our Nation. It will determine the future of our children. It will 
determine the future or the death of the American Dream.
  Stephen Covey, one of the great innovators and business leaders of 
our generation and a man who happens to be from my home State of Utah, 
popularized a time management concept called the ``urgent-important 
matrix.'' The point of this was to help us focus on those things that 
are both urgent and important and to let the other things go.
  Frankly, as a Congress, we do a terrible job at that. We often 
legislate based on the crisis of the moment, lurching from one manmade 
crisis to another, and the budget is a great example of that. For 
years, we have treated this as if it is neither urgent nor important, 
as if it could go on forever; but we know that that's not true.
  We also know now what this President believes. He doesn't think it's 
important to balance our books. He doesn't think it's important to cut 
our debt. He has no intention of cutting any spending. Not only does he 
not intend to balance our budget, but he derides and dismisses those of 
us who think that it's important to our future; but Americans 
understand this, and it's not that hard.
  Please listen to me on this because this is so important: a Nation 
that is bankrupt cannot provide for the security of its citizens. A 
Nation that is bankrupt cannot provide for the poor and the needy among 
them.
  I speak now primarily to my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle: if

[[Page H1615]]

you care about the poor--and I know that you do. By the way, I do as 
well--then care enough to help them in the long run, not just for the 
next few years. There is nothing compassionate about letting Medicaid 
or Medicare go into bankruptcy. There is nothing compassionate about 
letting Social Security fail, but that's what's going to happen if we 
don't have the courage to fix this thing. We have to fix it now. This 
is both important and urgent.
  Many of us had hoped that the President would lead on this matter, 
but he has chosen not to. It's not in his nature; he is much more 
comfortable leading from behind. Since he won't lead, those of us in 
Congress will.
  I admire Chairman Ryan. I thank him for his courage in tackling a 
challenge that has terrified Congress for years--reforming entitlements 
in a way that will save them for our children.
  We have a window within which we can make a difference. We can save 
America. We can save the American Dream. Please, let us have the 
courage to do that. That is why I support Chairman Ryan's budget and 
urge my colleagues to do so as well.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The President has been crystal clear. His top priority is to grow the 
economy, to put more Americans back to work, to strengthen the middle 
class, to have rising middle class wages and upward mobility in this 
country. By attacking the jobs deficit, we can also bring down the 
budget deficit because we know from the nonpartisan Congressional 
Budget Office that more than half of our deficit this year is due to 
the fact that you still have a lot of people out of work who are 
looking for work, which is why it's so counterproductive to adopt the 
approach that our Republican colleagues do.
  By not replacing the sequester, the Congressional Budget Office tells 
us we will lose hundreds of thousands of jobs just by the end of this 
calendar year, and those jobs are the most important things to be 
available to help strengthen the middle class and lift people out of 
poverty. But in lifting people out of poverty, it's also important to 
provide a little bit of support that they can stand on as they climb 
that ladder of opportunity. Unfortunately, this budget cuts into a lot 
of those legs on that stool of support, and nobody understands this 
issue better than our colleague.
  So she may respond, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlelady from 
California (Ms. Lee).

                              {time}  1900

  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, first, let me just say that I 
appreciate the chairman, Mr. Ryan, saying that he knows my heart is in 
the right place. But I also want him to know that the facts speak for 
themselves.
  We have this chart right here, and it demonstrates very clearly that 
18 million more people would be living in poverty had it not been for 
those initiatives in this budget that you completely cut out: SNAP, the 
refundable tax credits, and the broad selection of other programs. 
Eighteen million more people would be in poverty.
  Also let me just say that a budget is a moral document. They reflect 
the values of who we are as Americans.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlelady.
  Ms. LEE of California. I thank the gentleman.
  Why would we want to impose 66 percent of the cuts in your budget on 
low-income individuals and the poor? That does not make any sense. That 
is just morally wrong.
  Finally, I just have to say that the ranks of the poor began to grow 
under the Bush administration.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has again expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlelady.
  Ms. LEE of California. In 2005, I formed the Out of Poverty Caucus 
because I saw the Bush economic policies and what, in fact, they were 
beginning to do. We had probably 42 or 43 Members who joined that 
caucus. And so I just have to say to you, Mr. Chairman, that this 
didn't just begin. The ranks of the poor began to grow as a direct 
result of the economic policies that this budget wants to return to.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, Federal spending rises each and 
every year by 3.4 percent under this budget instead of 5 percent.
  With that, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), a member of the Budget Committee.
  Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your efforts to lead us to 
a Path to Prosperity. When I'm home in Missouri in the Fourth District, 
I hear people say things like:
  I have to balance my budget, how come Washington doesn't?
  And: It's time for our government to live within its means.
  And they might say: At home, we're having to tighten our belts; 
Washington should, too.
  Well, I have good news: I agree, and this budget reflects those 
concerns and those priorities.
  As a member of the Budget Committee, I'm proud to support a 
responsible budget that promotes economic growth while reducing 
wasteful spending. Currently, the Federal Government borrows 36 cents 
out of every dollar that it spends, and that puts us at an astonishing 
$16 trillion in debt. This creates anxiety and uncertainty at a time 
when unemployment is at 8 percent and a lot of families are hurting. We 
must end the government's reckless borrow, tax, and spend policies. Our 
budget balances in 10 years, and we do it without ever increasing 
taxes.
  Senate Democrats released a budget that actually increases taxes by 
$1 trillion, and never, ever balances. This is worst than the status 
quo. Washington must stop spending money it doesn't have. We must 
target the real problem this country faces, and that's uncontrollable 
spending. Instead of continuously taxing hardworking Americans more, we 
must pursue meaningful reforms and pro-growth initiatives. Our budget 
does that.
  The keys to this budget are growth initiatives to create jobs and 
proactive steps to preserve and protect Medicare and Medicaid for the 
future. Colleagues across the aisle like to claim that this is a 
voucher system, which is false. The Path to Prosperity reforms Medicare 
for future beneficiaries by offering them the same kind of health care 
as current Federal workers and Members of Congress. Future seniors are 
provided guaranteed issue health coverage where no one will be denied 
coverage based on health status or preexisting conditions. They will be 
able to choose from a wide range of options, one of which will include 
traditional Medicare, if they choose to do that. The government will 
pay all or part of their premium.
  Our updated Medicare plan would also give substantial help to the 
poor, who would qualify for greater premium relief than the wealthy. 
This will save the program from bankruptcy while fulfilling our 
commitment to health care security for seniors. The Democrat plan is to 
kick the can down the road and jeopardize this important program for 
our seniors. Our plan is right for senior citizens, and it's right for 
our future.
  Additionally, we take steps to preserve Medicaid, and we send it back 
to the States in the form of a block grant to allow local and State 
control over this very important program to provide flexibility to help 
low-income individuals, rather than forcing States to fit into one-
size-fits-all programs. It's important that we get people back to work, 
and our budget does that as well by consolidating and enhancing job-
training programs and endorsing pro-growth tax reform.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman.
  Mrs. HARTZLER. But one of the best parts is it gets our priorities 
right, and it provides for the common defense. There are only a few 
things that we should be doing here, and it provides that. It replaces 
and repeals the President's sequester and makes sure that our men and 
women in uniform have what they need.
  So I encourage my colleagues to support this bill that gets our 
economy growing, has our priorities right, protects and preserves those 
programs for our seniors, and provides for the common defense.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, let's be very clear. If you give States 
one-third of the amount of money that

[[Page H1616]]

they are currently getting from Medicaid and ask them to do the same 
job, which is what this budget would do just 10 years from now, and 
increasingly down that path, you will, as the nonpartisan, independent 
Congressional Budget Office said ``reduce access to care.'' That's the 
bottom line.
  With respect to the voucher program, premium support, again, I don't 
really care what label you attach to it; the impact is the same. If you 
want to achieve the out-year budget savings that our colleagues claim 
to achieve, you've got to put a cap on that amount, which is what their 
plan would do and which makes it entirely different than the plan we 
have for Members of Congress and Federal employees, and the plan that 
most people in the private sector have as well.
  As this red line shows, the amount of support you would get would 
drop dramatically relative to rising health care costs, and that's why 
we don't call it premium support because it doesn't provide support.
  I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson 
Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman for his leadership, and I 
certainly thank the Budget Committee for the work that they have done.

  I'd make the argument that clearly we have a dilemma in focus and 
commitment and direction. I call the other budget the budget that has a 
sense of lacking of what people truly need. The Democratic budget is a 
budget that speaks to what people need, and it cares about people. It 
also cares about family economic security. Under the budget that Mr. 
Ryan is offering, the Republican budget, 3 million Texas seniors will 
see Medicare end as they know it, 50 million seniors across America.
  But frankly, this is the real key on how the GOP budget really works: 
$500 billion in their so-called balancing is taken from the Affordable 
Care Act in the fiscal cliff deal. That's how they say they reached 
budget, so that means they'll undermine millions of Americans who will 
not have health care. That's the budget that does not concern itself 
with family economic security.
  Then if we want to look again at the idea of safety net programs, 
rather than giving Americans an opportunity to stand on their own feet, 
the Republican budget literally cuts the programs that help reduce 
poverty. So it is not one that cares about economic security for our 
families.
  Then, Mr. Chairman, if you want to really see what works, it really 
works when we talk to the top 2 percent.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlelady.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. When you look at the tax rate under President 
Clinton, that was 39.6 percent, and we created 20.8 million jobs. The 
Republican budget is a jobs killer. Then you have where we had a 35 
percent tax rate, and you lost 580,000 jobs under George Bush. Here's 
the Democratic budget, the Van Hollen budget. We focus on creating 
jobs. We replace the sequester, 750,000 jobs, reduce the jobs deficit 
by 450,000, and our total net is 1.2 million net jobs. Family economic 
security is the Van Hollen budget. I ask my colleagues to vote for the 
Democratic budget.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
his continued leadership on the issue of the fiscal outlook for our 
country, on the issue of the moral obligation that we have to our 
children. And next, to address the growing mountain of debt that 
unfortunately they're facing.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say that this debate that we're having is a 
debate of contrasts. When you look at the two budgets, in this Chamber 
and you look at the budget that is underway across the Capitol, ours is 
a budget that balances.

                              {time}  1910

  Just as people at home around their kitchen table at the end of the 
month have to do with their checkbook every month, we believe the same 
is true. We balance this budget within 10 years.
  The other side calls for more taxes. The other budget that is being 
discussed in the other body, in fact, creates $1 trillion of new taxes.
  And the question for the American people really is which budget do 
you think grows the economy, which budget do you think helps folks gain 
some certainty, helps folks get back to work, helps folks who are 
relying on some of the programs that this body knows, because its 
budget office is telling us are going to go away unless we act? It is 
clear, the choice is clear, and the contrast couldn't be clearer.
  I would like to respond, Mr. Chairman, to some of the suggestions by 
Members on the other side of the aisle that somehow our budget doesn't 
address the needs of those who are most in need. In fact, the opposite 
is the truth. Our budget protects the social safety net programs. The 
other budget on the other side of the aisle does nothing to respond to 
the alarms that have been issued by our budget counters and CBO and 
others year in and year out. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid--all 
are on life support if we don't act.
  Our budget, and the chairman of our Budget Committee, has been a 
champion to say, let's be responsible, let's help those who are in 
need, let's preserve the social safety net, the programs that make 
America who she is. It is our budget that helps those in need, Mr. 
Chairman, not the other side of the aisle.
  Let's look at the question of tax reform. The people of this country 
have spoken out on this issue. They want a fairer and simpler Code. 
What Chairman Ryan has done in this budget is provided a prescription 
for doing just that: a broadening of the base, a lowering of the rates, 
and, yes, Mr. Chairman, an insurance in our budget that we are going to 
get rid of the special interest loopholes that have put Washington in 
the business of choosing favorites.
  I think all of our constituents know that is not what they elect us 
to do. They want to see an even playing field for all. They want 
everyone--everyone--in this country to have a fair shot.
  If you compare tax reform in the position that we take in our budget 
to that which the other side is proposing in this body and in the one 
across the Capitol, I think it is very clear: higher taxes without the 
reforms necessary versus what we are trying to do, which is even the 
playing field, giving everybody a fair shot to go and earn success.
  The choice is very clear, Mr. Chairman, that our budget provides some 
certainty for the future for the moms and dads out there who are 
desperate to know that we are doing our job in Washington on their 
behalf; that we are going to address this fiscal situation so that they 
can get on about their lives; so that they can see their kids have a 
better education; so that they can access the health care that they 
have come to know, and for those who don't have the health care, can 
actually have a system that will lower costs and provide real prospects 
for quality health care, not the kind of health care designed by this 
Affordable Care Act that we are going to see come into effect.
  So, again, I want to thank Chairman Ryan of the Budget Committee, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, for his dogged attention to this very, very 
alarming question of how we are going to grow our economy and doing it 
in a way that is thoughtful, that is well put, and has the specifics to 
go and do the job.
  Mr. Chairman, that is something that we have not seen from the other 
side. We have certainly not seen that from the White House. They 
haven't even presented the budget yet. And that is unacceptable.
  I urge my colleagues to support the budget coming out of our Budget 
Committee under the leadership of Chairman Ryan.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, let me just say a word about the health 
care provided in the Affordable Care Act. That means that you can stay 
on your parents' policy until you are 26, so if you have a terrible 
accident the family is not bankrupted. That means that if you have 
preexisting conditions, you are not denied coverage by the insurance 
companies.
  We keep hearing, ``repeal all those benefits and some day we will get 
around replacing them.'' We have heard that for 3 years. There is 
nothing in this budget about replacing.

[[Page H1617]]

  I think the majority leader asked the right question: Which budget 
grows the economy? And I would just like to read from what the majority 
leader said on the floor of this House last year about the sequester. 
Here is what Mr. Cantor said:

       Under the sequester, unemployment would soar from its 
     current level up to 9 percent, setting back any progress the 
     economy has made.

  Then he cites a study showing that 200,000 Virginian jobs are on the 
line.
  Well, guess what? The Republican plan leaves in place the deep 
sequester cuts. That is why by the end of this year we will see 750,000 
fewer jobs, including a lot fewer jobs in Virginia, as Mr. Cantor 
acknowledged.
  Why in the world we would want to do that when we have people 
struggling to find work, I don't know. Because in the Democratic 
budget, we replace the sequester so that we save those jobs. In fact, 
we invest more in jobs going forward.
  On the tax issue--here is a headline from the other day in The 
Washington Post--a nonpartisan group did a study: ``GOP Tax Cuts Would 
Benefit Very Wealthy.'' And that is the bottom line. Tax breaks for the 
folks at the very top--all those loopholes we talked about closing--not 
one loophole closure to help reduce the deficit in a balanced way.
  I would now like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee, who has been working on these issues and working for working 
families, Mr. Cohen.
  Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Van Hollen. I appreciate the time.
  The thing that disturbs me the most about this budget is its 
inability to understand what our priorities should be.
  The Republican budget keeps the defense budget at $550 billion. There 
is no question we need a Defense Department, but I don't think the 
other side understands what the real enemy is. The enemy to my 
constituents and each of us is not lurking overseas. It is disease. And 
to each American who will suffer from or has a family member suffering 
from Alzheimer's or AIDS or cancer or heart disease, diabetes, 
Parkinson's, post-polio, or whatever, they want cures and treatments.
  The National Institutes of Health are cut in this budget by at least 
$1.6 billion. It is a $30 billion budget. The Defense Department is 
$550 billion.
  I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, our enemy is disease. The department 
of defense for the human being and the human body is the National 
Institutes of Health. It is someplace the two parties should be able to 
come together and agree that we need to fund research, which creates 
jobs and finds cures and treatments.
  The other side talks about what this is going to do to children and 
grandchildren. I have heard people talk about their children and 
grandchildren and what their mothers would want. Their mothers want 
their children to live long lives and not to suffer from cancer and to 
get cures and to get treatments.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.
  Mr. COHEN. The cures and the treatments are going to benefit the next 
generation and the generation after that more than this generation. 
This is a place where spending dollars creates jobs, saves lives, and 
benefits future generations. Most research that has been done in this 
country that has come up with cures and treatments has been funded by 
the government or at least helped by the government, and that continues 
to this day.
  People say we should be different than Cyprus and Greece and Spain 
and Portugal; and we are, because we funded those researches and we 
have come up with the cures and the treatments. That is why this is the 
greatest country on the face of the Earth. We need to see that the 
National Institutes of Health are funded at a greater level and not 
diminished.
  The CHAIR. The Chair would remind the Committee that the gentleman 
from Wisconsin has 11 minutes remaining and the gentleman from Maryland 
has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I would just note for the record 
that funding on discretionary levels like that are set by the 
Appropriations Committee, not the Budget Committee, so those levels 
will be set later by the Appropriations Committee.
  I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Perry).

                              {time}  1920

  Mr. PERRY. Thank you for yielding, Mr. Chairman.
  I deeply care about my mother, who's on Social Security and Medicare, 
and my two little girls, who are counting on their daddy to make sure 
that those programs are available when the time comes, and, of course, 
for the constituents that are counting on me to make sure that those 
programs are available for them. So I commend Chairman Ryan on his 
leadership in drafting a budget that responsibly addresses our national 
debt and ensures that my own children and all the residents of the 
Fourth District of Pennsylvania are not burdened with Washington's 
spending problem any longer.
  This legislation balances our budget in 10 years. I know some folks 
are saying, Why 10 years? And I say, Why not ever in your budgets? Why 
not ever? It reduces spending and makes responsible reforms to 
mandatory spending programs.
  For the past few weeks, I've heard from hundreds of constituents, 
including my very own mother, about how this budget will change Social 
Security for current beneficiaries, and I want to make clear that the 
Ryan budget does not do that. It does not cut Social Security. But I 
will remind everybody that the Social Security Disability Insurance 
fund will be insolvent by 2016. That's 3 years from now. So if you're 
21 years old, when you're 24, it's insolvent. If you're 45 years old, 
when you're 48, it's insolvent.
  The Medicare part A trust fund will be exhausted by 2024. This is not 
a long time away for young people or old people. I had to remind my mom 
that, if these programs were not reformed, there would be nothing left 
for her grandchildren, there would be nothing let for her son, and very 
likely there will be nothing left for her. This legislation makes those 
reforms responsible by allowing Medicare recipients the opportunity to 
choose options specific to their needs, and it repeals the President's 
plan to have a group of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to slash 
Medicare benefits for seniors, including my mom.
  It also repeals the President's health care law, which has placed an 
undue burden on our job creators and their families. Penn Waste, a 
company in the district I represent, has told me that ObamaCare health 
care costs, the Affordable Health Care law, will cost their employees a 
minimum of $68 a week more right now. That's a meal out with your 
family. That's an extra tank of gas in your car.
  This budget also ensures our servicemen and -women are protected by 
providing $560 billion for defense spending in fiscal year 2014, an 
amount consistent with America's military goals and strategies.
  This budget is responsible. The Senate budget, the Democrat budget, 
each one starts at no less than a trillion dollars in new spending. I 
urge everybody to support the Ryan budget.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to a terrific new 
member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Jeffries).
  Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Maryland for 
his leadership.
  We are at a fork in the road and there are two stark choices. The 
Democratic plan promotes progress for the many; the Republican plan 
promotes prosperity for the few. The Democratic plan will put Americans 
back to work; the Republican plan will put Americans out of work. The 
Democratic plan takes a balanced approach to deficit reduction; the 
Republican plan will balance the budget on the backs of children and 
working families and seniors and the sick and the afflicted.
  Whenever we make that observation, our friends on the other side say 
that we are trying to scare the American people by communicating 
misinformation. It's a very cute observation, but it has no factual 
basis. Let's just check the record.
  The Republican plan cuts higher education spending by $168 billion. 
That's not a scare tactic. That's reality.
  The Republican plan embraces $85 billion in random sequestration cuts

[[Page H1618]]

that will cost the economy 750,000 jobs. That's not a scare tactic. 
That's reality.
  The Republican plan will cut spending on Medicaid by $810 billion--a 
program, by the way, that disproportionately benefits poor children, 
seniors, and the disabled. That's not a scare tactic. That's reality.
  The Republican plan will turn Medicare into a voucher program, but 
because that voucher will not keep up with the cost of health care 
inflation, it will deny beneficiaries what they are receiving today. 
That's not a scare tactic. That's reality.
  And that is why the Republican plan is designed to balance the budget 
on the backs of the most vulnerable in our society, and it should be 
rejected. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to 
yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers).

  Mrs. ELLMERS. I thank the chairman for the hard work that he and the 
House Budget Committee have done on this incredible effort for a new 
plan to balance the budget in 10 years.
  This proposal invites our friends across the aisle, President Obama, 
and the Senate to commit to the same commonsense goal. The 2014 House 
Republican budget sets a responsible precedent by ensuring our 
government lives within its means, just like millions of Americans 
across this country and just like my constituents back in North 
Carolina. I hear from them every day and they ask me: Why can't the 
Federal budget be balanced? Why can't Washington get its spending under 
control?
  This proposal sets real, practical goals that will stop spending 
money we don't have, fix our broken Tax Code, protect and strengthen 
important priorities like Medicare and national security, reforms 
welfare programs like Medicaid so that it can deliver on the promises 
to deliver to those who are in most need. It also does repeal the 
President's health care plan and allows us to put in place real, 
sensible, patient-centered reforms for health care.
  The House Republican budget reduces the deficit by $4.6 trillion over 
the next 10 years. This budget offers a plan to expand opportunity and 
creates jobs. While not sufficient by themselves, policy reforms at the 
Federal level can help foster an environment that promotes economic 
growth. This budget seeks to equip Americans with the skills to succeed 
in the 21st century economy and grow that economy.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this bill and I believe the American people 
are looking for this leadership here in Washington, because they know 
that bureaucrats here in Washington do not know what they know back 
home.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a new Member of 
Congress, who is on the Veterans' Committee, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Takano).
  Mr. TAKANO. Thank you, Mr. Van Hollen.
  I rise to address the so-called Path to Prosperity that this body is 
now debating.
  I'm struck by the beltway media bubble that calls this plan bold and 
its creator, Mr. Ryan, a serious policymaker who isn't afraid to make 
the tough decisions. My Republican colleagues call this proposal brave 
and necessary, but I could not disagree more. I don't believe it's 
brave to break the promises we made to our seniors. I think it's 
dangerous. I don't believe it's necessary to cut funding for police, 
firefighters, and programs for low-income citizens. I think that's 
foolish. I don't believe that it's wise to provide tax credits for 
private jets and luxury yachts.
  My colleague, Mr. Ryan, seems to be living in an alternate reality. 
He thinks that we can fund the Federal Government at 19 percent of GDP 
with an aging population whose health care costs are at 18 percent of 
GDP. Even conservative idol President Reagan funded the Federal 
Government at 22 percent of GDP when there was no retiring baby boom 
generation and health care costs only amounted to 1 percent of GDP. 
Would Mr. Ryan accuse President Reagan's administration of ``wild 
government spending?'' I don't think so.
  The GOP budget boils down to three steps: phase one, cut spending; 
phase two, I'm not sure what their plans are; phase three, prosperity.
  There's a gaping hole in Mr. Ryan's logic. His thinking is 
incomplete. How is cutting funding for infrastructure, education, and 
health care a Path to Prosperity?
  Mr. Chairman, a century of evidence shows that austerity will not 
lead to prosperity. Democrats offer alternative proposals that deal 
with the real crisis in America--the jobs crisis.

                              {time}  1930

  A plan to reach full employment is the true path to prosperity. I 
urge a ``no'' vote on the Ryan budget.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield 
2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Yoder), a member of the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. YODER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this budget proposal.
  Before I came to Washington, D.C., I was the Appropriations Committee 
chairman of the Kansas State Legislature, where we were required each 
year to balance our State's budget. We were like a lot of Kansas 
families; we couldn't spend more money than we bring in--quite a novel 
concept.
  As a Member of Congress, I have stood in disbelief, much like most 
Americans, at the wanton disregard for balancing the Federal budget. 
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, it is astonishing. In the last 50 years, we've 
only balanced the budget six times. That's why I'm so happy that we 
finally have a budget before us that balances. Not only does it 
balance, it pays off the national debt down to zero.
  Now, I support a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to 
require Congress to do its job and make sure that we don't spend more 
than we take in. Opponents of that amendment often say we don't need 
the Constitution to require us to do our work, to balance the budget. 
We have all the tools to balance the budget now. Great. This is our 
opportunity to prove it. Let's come together and do our jobs.
  Americans are sick and tired of the standard lame Washington excuses 
of why we couldn't do our jobs and balance the budget. How can you keep 
going home and blaming others, blaming the other side for the fiscal 
state of our Nation?
  The facts are, Mr. Chairman, besides the RSC budget, this is the only 
budget being presented that balances and pays the debt down to zero. So 
we are hearing speech after speech today that criticizes this balanced 
budget without offering a balanced alternative.
  Mr. Chairman, each day, hardworking Americans get up to do their 
jobs. They work long, hard hours. They put food on the table. They 
raise their families, and they pay lots of taxes. Is it too much for 
them to ask for us to balance our books, to spend their tax dollars 
wisely?
  Let's chart a debt-free future for this country. Let's rebuild our 
economy. Let's honor the work and commitment of the American taxpayers, 
and let's stand together for a balanced budget.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time 
remains on each side?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining, 
and the gentleman from Wisconsin has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  We've had a good and healthy debate today. I want to go back to the 
question that was posed by the Republican leader, Mr. Cantor: Which of 
these budgets does more to help the economy? Which budget helps put 
more people back to work?
  Well, we know that the austerity approach taken in the Republican 
budget will result in 750,000 fewer Americans working by the end of 
this year and 2 million fewer Americans working next year, compared to 
the alternative that the Democrats are proposing, which would replace 
the sequester. So you achieve the same amount of deficit reduction, but 
you don't do it in a way that results in slowing down economic growth 
in this country this year, next year, or the year beyond. We tackle the 
budget deficit by dealing with the jobs deficit right now and then 
taking a balanced approach into the future.
  Let's talk about taxes. The Republican budget will give another 
windfall tax break to the very wealthiest people in this country. In 
order to make up

[[Page H1619]]

the revenue lost, they will inevitably have to increase the tax burden 
on middle-income taxpayers unless they're going to put their budget out 
of balance. Now, just to safeguard against that, we offered an 
amendment that said, when you do tax reform, don't raise taxes on 
middle-income families. Every Republican on the Budget Committee voted 
against that.
  We can address our priorities and reduce the deficit in a smart, 
consistent way without violating our commitments to seniors, without 
reopening the prescription drug doughnut hole so people with high drug 
costs will have to shell out lots more--thousands over the period of 
this budget. We can do it without making the interest rate on student 
loans double this July. We can do it without cutting our investment in 
transportation by 15 percent when we have all these unmet needs and 15 
percent employment in the construction industry. We know we can do all 
those things and reduce our deficit the smart way because we do it in 
the House Democratic budget, which dramatically drops the deficit so 
that it's growing much slower than the economy, stabilizes the debt at 
70 percent of GDP, and, yes, balances the budget the same time the 
Republican budget last year balanced. What a conversion to hit this 
political target this year after all the talk last year. And the 
reason--and the fundamental difference here--is that, by trying to 
drive to that political target, they end up balancing the budget on the 
backs of everybody else--commitments to seniors, investment in our 
economy, investment in the future.

  At the end of the day--and we showed the numbers earlier, Mr. 
Chairman. They can't have it both ways. They can't say their budget 
balances in 10 years and at the same time they repeal ObamaCare, 
because the $715 million in savings from the Affordable Care Act, from 
ObamaCare, is embedded right in their budget.
  The trillion dollars in revenue from that they say they're going to 
pull out of the air. But if we repealed ObamaCare today, it would be 
out of balance by over $500 billion. So let's focus on the task at 
hand, put people back to work. Let's have a Tax Code that makes sense 
for the middle class. And let's keep our commitment to seniors and grow 
this economy.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask that people reject the lopsided Republican plan 
and adopt the balanced approach presented by the Democratic Caucus.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I also want to thank my friend from Maryland for a lively debate. He 
and I have done this so much we can probably finish each other's 
sentences.
  Washington is arrogant. There is an arrogance here in the Federal 
Government. It's an arrogance that says we know how to run things 
better in Washington; we should run everything here. We reject that.
  We believe in the principle of federalism, which is contained in our 
Constitution. We think that people who are closer to the problems can 
probably do a better job of fixing problems.
  I have a letter from the Governor of Utah, a letter from the Governor 
and Lieutenant Governor of Iowa:

       This budget will replace the rigid, one-size-fits-all 
     Federal programs and instead offers the States the 
     flexibility they need to make these programs work for the 
     people they serve.
       This budget gives States maximum flexibility in areas like 
     Medicaid, food stamps, TANF so States can determine the 
     optimal way to provide services to these unique populations.

  We want to empower people closer to the problem to help solve these 
problems because you know what? We're not fixing these problems.
  The other measure of arrogance in Washington is only in Washington is 
reducing the increase of spending a huge cut. Only in Washington is 
growing spending for the Federal Government at 3.4 percent a year 
instead of 5 percent a year a massive cut. You know what? Government's 
growing just fine. The Senate Democrat budget says let's grow spending 
at 4.7 percent a year instead of 5. That's supposed to be progress.
  The family budget is growing at less than 2.5 percent for the next 10 
years. That's the best projection we've got, the most generous one. If 
the family budget is only growing 2.5 percent and the Federal 
Government is growing about 5 percent, this is imbalance. This is 
arrogance. We should ask our Federal Government to do just what our 
families do and balance the budget. That's the responsible thing to do.
  Now, let's take a look at what our friends on the other side of the 
aisle are doing. The one consistent theme of all of these budgets that 
are being offered by Mr. Van Hollen, by the other Democrats, by the 
Senate Democrats is tax more and spend more.
  The Senate Democrat budget, that comes in the cheapest one of them 
all. Increase net spending--remember, we have a trillion-dollar 
deficit, a debt crisis in the future. What do they say? Let's net 
increase spending above where we are and let's raise taxes $923 
billion.
  The House Democratic budget, let's have a net spending increase of 
$476 billion and let's raise taxes $1.2 trillion.

                              {time}  1940

  The Congressional Black Caucus budget: let's raise spending $1.99 
trillion and have a tax increase of $2.9 trillion. Or the Progressive 
Caucus budget--that one really takes the cake--let's have a $4.65 
trillion spending increase only to be slightly outdone by a $5.683 
trillion tax increase.
  This is what they're saying: ignore the deficit, ignore the economy, 
all the answers lie in Washington, take more from hardworking small 
businesses, take more from families, spend it in Washington, and, oh, 
by the way, we don't have a crisis. That's just scare-mongering.
  Do you know what? Try telling that to our children and our 
grandchildren who are guaranteed to get a lower standard of living if 
we don't fix this mess. Try telling that to the struggling workers, the 
families, the people in poverty in America today who aren't cutting it 
in this economy.
  Balancing the budget helps us promote a healthier economy to create 
jobs and get people back on their feet again, and that's exactly why 
we're proposing and passing this budget.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time has expired.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) and the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney) each will control 30 minutes on the 
subject of economic goals and policies.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I 
may consume.
  During the annual debate on the budget resolution, the House assigns 
1 hour to the Joint Economic Committee to assess current economic 
conditions and evaluate how the budget resolution, if implemented, 
would improve the outlook for America's economy. As chairman of the 
Joint Economic Committee during the 113th Congress, I'm pleased to lead 
this discussion.
  For more than 2 years, the Joint Economic Committee has demonstrated 
that the current recovery we're in is the weakest of all recoveries 
lasting at least 1 year since World War II in terms of economic growth, 
in terms of jobs, and in personal income for families.
  Let's examine the following three charts. In each, the red lines 
depict the current recovery where we're headed right now; the navy blue 
lines depict the average of all the other recoveries since World War 
II, and the sky-blue line depicts the average of these recoveries.
  Since the recession ended 3\1/2\ years ago, our real economy, the 
real GDP, has grown by a mere 7.5 percent. That's this one. But during 
the comparable period, real economic growth averaged more than double 
that, 17.5 percent in other postwar recoveries. It is a huge gap 
between where we are today as a Nation and just the average, C-student, 
middle-of-the-road recovery of the past. We are lagging far behind. 
There is a serious growth gap.
  President Obama often boasts that his recovery has generated 6.4 
million jobs in the private sector since we hit a low in February 2010. 
But if you look at previous postwar recoveries, just apples to apples, 
the average increase in private jobs over the comparable time would 
have generated an equivalent of 10.4 million jobs. This is the 
comparison. These are the jobs of the current

[[Page H1620]]

recovery. This is just the average. And that blue-shaded area is the 
range between the very worst, the one we're in, and the very best, 
which is a lot more jobs. In fact, today, this recovery compared to the 
average, we're missing 4 million jobs in America. We're missing more 
than $1 trillion out of our economy because of the current recovery in 
this growth gap.
  In fact, if this recovery had been merely average, middle-of-the-
road, instead of having fewer jobs on Main Street than when the 
recession began, which is where we're at right now, fewer jobs on Main 
Street, private payroll employment would have been at an all-time high 
if this would have just been an average recovery.
  Sluggish economic growth and job creation have also slowed personal 
income growth, the money that you earn as a family. In recoveries since 
1960, disposable income, real disposable income, apples to apples, per 
person, grew by $3,500 over 43 months. But during the same period, this 
is where the average income for families has grown; but look where we 
are under the current recovery. During the same period, for the current 
recovery, personal income growth for a family, it isn't $3,500, it's 
about $416. So this current recovery is taking a real toll on families 
and taking a real toll on our economy and on jobs.
  Now, think what is more worrisome than this economy's weak 
performance is the ability of our economy to grow and create private-
sector jobs in the future. Economic evidence shows that it may have 
permanently fallen. In the most recent ``Budget and Economic Outlook,'' 
the Congressional Budget Office lowered its estimate for our long-term 
growth rate as a Nation, the potential GDP, from its average since 1950 
of 3.3 percent. They lowered it and our future to 2.3 percent.
  Now, one percentage point may not sound like much, but it has a huge 
effect on our economy, on our jobs, and on the ability of the Federal 
Government to pay its bills.
  Think about it like this: at America's traditional 3.3 percent growth 
rate of the past half a century, our real economy doubles every 22 
years. But at this new normal, this new slower rate of 2.3 percent, it 
takes almost 32 years to double in size. That's a decade longer; that's 
a decade slower.
  A permanent growth gap of 1 percent translates into one-third slower 
growth for our young people seeking to find their first job and for 
families hoping to reach their American Dream. A permanent growth gap 
of 1 percent means our economy will be $20 trillion smaller in 2052. 
That's actually a growth gap for 1 year larger than the entire American 
economy today.
  It also means it will be harder to balance the Federal budget since a 
permanent growth gap of 1 percent means the loss of a whopping $93 
trillion from our Federal coffers, again, over the next four decades. 
Think about $93 trillion today. The unfunded liability for Social 
Security, Medicare, and our Federal pensions in today's dollars is only 
$87 billion. So the prospect of a ``new normal'' for America's economy 
in which our future growth permanently slows by one-third should be a 
red flag for all Americans.
  We are told in school growing up that in Shakespeare's play, a 
soothsayer told Julius Caesar to beware the ides of March, the 15th. 
Ironically, this year, President Obama released his ``Economic Report 
of the President'' on that ominous date, and buried in this report are 
some startling admissions and some dire warnings for the American 
people. Unlike Caesar, this Congress should take heed.
  First, the President's report acknowledges that the current recovery 
is indeed the weakest since World War II, as Republicans on the Joint 
Economic Committee have been saying now for more than 2 years. This 
growth gap is real, and it's widening. Second, our economy's ability to 
grow in the future, the growth rate of potential GDP, has decreased. 
The President admits that.

                              {time}  1950

  Unfortunately, President Obama then seeks to blame this new normal on 
everything other than his economic leadership. The report attributes 
two-thirds of the decrease to demographic factors, specifically an 
aging population and a slower rate of net immigration. The report 
attributes the remaining one-third to just about everything that's ever 
occurred in the last 5 years.
  Demographic factors account for some of the new normal. But if you 
think about it, our potential economy for the future, it's a function 
of how many hours that are worked in America and the growth of the 
workers, how productive they are. In turn, what drives that 
productivity of the American worker is if businesses invest in new 
business, new equipment, new buildings, new software. That drives jobs 
along Main Street.
  The policies of the Obama White House--higher taxes; the 
unwillingness to propose real solutions to save Social Security and 
Medicare for future generations; the prospects of higher costs and 
regulations due to the President's new ObamaCare law; how we regulate 
our local banks; global warming regulations; and suppression of energy 
production on Federal lands and waters, America's lands and waters--
have generated so much uncertainty, and it's really squelched new 
business investment in America. Unlike real personal consumption, 
nonresidential investment from the business community still remains 
below what it was before the recession began.
  Mr. Chairman, this new normal for America, the growth gap that we're 
in today, the prospect that America will grow slower in the future is 
unacceptable. Republican Members of this House are working to 
accelerate growth. A big step we can take forward tonight is to pass 
the House budget. It is a responsible, balanced budget.
  By estimations, it will raise our economic growth by 1 percent in the 
next year. That's significant. It will add $1,500 in new purchasing 
power for households. And if you look over the long term, the next 10 
years, the House budget could well add up to 3 percent to our economic 
growth and $4,000 per household in real income people don't have today, 
real gains that they don't have today.
  The truth of the matter is the roadblocks to America's future are 
still in place: the prospect of higher taxes; the failure to reform and 
save our entitlements; ObamaCare with all the new taxes, new 
regulations; higher costs for families; and the fact that we're not 
pursuing tax reform, at least from this White House, with the Ways and 
Means Committee and House Republicans in this budget to move toward a 
fairer, simpler tax code that closes tax loopholes and does it not to 
fuel spending but rather to fuel lower rates for families and small 
businesses and make us competitive again as a Nation.
  This budget resolution, this responsible and balanced budget 
developed by the Budget Committee chaired by Paul Ryan, is the first 
step toward a brighter economic future for our children and 
grandchildren.
  I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I yield myself such time as I 
may consume as I'm pleased to represent the Democratic point of view in 
this budget.
  We now have before this Congress the choice of two profoundly 
different paths forward for the American economy. One based on severe 
austerity for the many and deep cuts in programs for the vulnerable 
that is offered by Chairman Ryan and our friends from across the aisle. 
No new revenues are included in Mr. Ryan's plan.
  The other proposal, offered by the Budget Committee Ranking Member 
Chris Van Hollen and the Democrats, is based on a balance of targeted 
spending cuts, the closing of loopholes and the elimination of costly 
tax expenditures that benefit the very few. It uses a balance of 
spending cuts and new revenue.

  This is perhaps the most important choice that Congress will make 
this year. It will determine what kind of country we're going to be, 
what kind of economy our children will inherit and what kind of place 
we will make for ourselves in the world.
  But before we examine our differences, let's look at the things we 
can all agree on: the long-term structural deficit needs to be 
addressed. On that there is no question; there is agreement. We need to 
spur economic growth, which is vital. Without it, there's no hope. More 
jobs and opportunities need to be created. The recovery

[[Page H1621]]

is leaving too many people behind. And wasteful spending needs to be 
eliminated and costs need to be controlled. On these things we can all 
agree. All these things need doing. This is not our argument.
  Our disagreement is over how to do it and how long it should take. 
It's also helpful to remember how we got here and how far we've come 
under progress under the Obama administration.
  As you can see from this chart--and I call it the ``V chart''--from 
December of 2007 through December of 2009, the economy lost a 
staggering 8.7 million jobs. That red section represents what was going 
on at the end of the Bush administration. The blue section shows what 
happened when President Obama took office. You can see there was quite 
a turnaround. Instead of going down, we started going up and gaining 
jobs. In fact, there have been 36 months of private jobs gained in 36 
months.
  During this last 3-year period here, the private sector has added 
nearly 6.4 million jobs. Just last month, the private sector added 
246,000 jobs. So we've been moving in the right direction, from the 
deep red valley into the hope of moving forward, and that is where we 
are now.
  The unemployment rate is down almost 2.5 percentage points from its 
peak in October of 2009. Our economy came very close to falling into 
the abyss, but since the depths of the Great Recession, as you can see 
from this chart, we are making progress.
  As you can see from the next chart, the economy has recorded 14 
consecutive quarters of GDP growth. Again, we are moving in the right 
direction. Key sectors such as manufacturing and construction have 
rebounded. In 2012, the Case-Shiller Home Price Indices rose by 7.3 
percent. A recovery is clearly underway. But where do we go from here, 
and how do we speed things up?
  Let's look first at the proposal from Representative Ryan and the 
Republicans. From what I see, there are only three things wrong with 
it: its priorities, its math, and its vision for America. The Ryan 
budget is based solely on massive cuts to domestic investments; cuts to 
programs that service and benefit the working millions and help the 
most vulnerable; and cuts in tax rates to benefit the fortunate few.
  For many who are struggling now, the Ryan plan would lead to a slow 
economic death, death from a thousand cuts. It is absolutely impossible 
to cut your way to prosperity. The Ryan plan would make deep and 
painful cuts to vital domestic programs. It would change the food stamp 
program--a program that helps millions--into a block grant and cut its 
funding by $135 billion.
  Medicare, as we know it, would come to an end. The Ryan plan includes 
a voucher system that would increase out-of-pocket health care costs by 
over $5,000 per senior. Here's what the AARP had to say about the Ryan 
budget and Medicare:

       Chairman Paul Ryan's proposed budget fails to address the 
     high cost of health care and instead shifts costs onto 
     seniors and future retirees. Removing the Medicare guarantee 
     of affordable health coverage seniors have contributed to 
     through a lifetime of hard work is not the answer.

                              {time}  2000

  Cuts to Medicaid could affect as many as 60 million people annually. 
Half of these are children; and of the adults on Medicaid, more than 
two-thirds are women.
  The Ryan plan repeals the Affordable Care Act, which would sharply 
cut the overall level of health care available to tens of millions. 
Yet, to make his budget balance, Ryan counts the $716 billion in 
Medicare savings from the Affordable Care Act. It's a hoax of epic 
proportions. Repealing the Affordable Care Act would return us to a 
time when insurance companies could charge women more--it's called 
``gender rating''--just for being women. Repealing the Affordable Care 
Act would also eliminate the ban on discrimination against those with 
preexisting conditions, the ability to remain on parents' health plans 
until age 26, and the expansion of Medicaid. Then, while tens of 
millions of Americans would be struggling under the harsh new austerity 
measures, the Ryan plan would cut the tax bills for the most fortunate.
  Last year, the Joint Economic Committee estimated that Ryan's tax 
plan would lower taxes for millionaires by about $300,000 while raising 
taxes for individual taxpayers earning between $50,000 and $100,000 by 
over $4,000. How fair is that?
  At a time when income inequality is widely viewed as a very serious 
problem in our country, the Ryan plan would make it worse. The gap 
between the haves and the have-nots would grow larger under the Ryan 
plan. The Ryan plan would ask tens of millions to bear additional 
burdens--pay additional taxes--and face additional hardships while it 
cut taxes for the fortunate few and preserved loopholes for Big Oil and 
spent an additional half-trillion dollars on the military over the next 
10 years.
  Then, at the end of a decade of painful cuts, according to the 
nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the Ryan budget would have managed to 
actually add $5.7 trillion to the deficit. A close look at the math 
makes it clear that the Ryan budget can't recoup the revenue lost from 
its tax cuts without imposing large tax increases on middle class 
families. The Tax Policy Center was unwilling to speculate on where the 
lost revenue would come from. In addition, the Economic Policy 
Institute estimates that the Ryan budget would kill 750,000 jobs this 
year, 2 million next year, and would decrease the gross domestic 
product by 1.7 percentage points.
  The priorities of this budget are all wrong. It kills jobs, stifles 
growth and adds to the deficit, all while making life harder for 
seniors, women, children, and the most vulnerable in our society.
  The math of the budget just does not add up. Simple arithmetic tells 
us that the only way to pay for Mr. Ryan's proposed tax cuts for the 
fortunate few is to eliminate many of the deductions that middle class 
families count on to pay for housing and health care and to save for 
their retirements. The Ryan tax plan would further burden those who are 
struggling by substantially lowering taxes for the most fortunate--and 
that's not spin. That's just plain math.
  The vision this budget offers of America is totally at odds with who 
we claim to be. It's a vision of a country where the government is 
indifferent to the suffering of many while only paying attention to the 
demands of the few.
  Then there is the other plan that is before us, the Democratic plan, 
with a balanced set of priorities--a better vision for the future found 
in the budget offered by House Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris 
Van Hollen. It takes a balanced approach with targeted spending and new 
revenues. It would cut waste, add jobs, and spur the economic growth of 
the economy.
  It would reduce the deficit by an additional $1.8 trillion without 
jeopardizing the recovery or harming the middle class. It includes $1.2 
trillion in new revenue obtained, not by tax increases, but by closing 
loopholes and eliminating wasteful spending that benefits the 
wealthiest Americans and the largest corporations. It eliminates $4 
billion in annual tax breaks to the oil and gas industry, an industry 
that is making profits. They don't need a tax break. In fact, they are 
making enormous profits.
  So why does the Ryan budget give them a government subsidy? The 
Democratic plan invests in infrastructure, education, job training, and 
innovation. It is designed, first and foremost, to help create jobs and 
to strengthen the economy. The House Democratic budget also makes 
critical investments in our future.
  $200 billion is invested in infrastructure, education, job training, 
and innovation, helping to create jobs and strengthen the economy. 
These investments include $80 billion for an education jobs initiative, 
$50 billion for transportation needs, and $10 billion for an 
infrastructure jobs bank. As Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has 
said many times over the past few years, simply pursuing deep cuts in 
the short term will slow the rate of economic growth, bring down 
revenues and lead to less deficit reduction.
  We have two paths before us. We can choose a path of austerity and 
indifference that will limit economic growth and increase inequality; 
or we can choose one of inspiration and inclusion that invests in our 
country and creates opportunities for everyone.

[[Page H1622]]

  I choose opportunity over austerity. I urge my colleagues to reject 
the Ryan budget and to support the budget offered by Mr. Van Hollen and 
the House Democrats.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to a key member 
of the Joint Economic Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Duffy).
  Mr. DUFFY. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to shed a little light on what has been discussed on the floor 
tonight, Mr. Chairman. We are hearing a lot of conversation about 
Medicare.
  We have to be clear that, in ObamaCare, this was the largest health 
care reform bill this country had ever seen. It's going to spend $2 
trillion of deficit spending over the next 10 years. With that massive 
new health care reform bill, guess what? Medicare is going broke in 10 
to 12 years. So with this great health care reform, they didn't have 
enough foresight to save our seniors' Medicare program, the program 
they've actually paid for over the course of their lifetimes. I think 
our seniors deserve better than what they've received in ObamaCare.
  We hear a lot about what we've done with the $716 billion in 
ObamaCare. Let's be clear between the two plans.
  My friends across the aisle want to take $716 billion of savings from 
Medicare--take that money out--and use it for a different set of people 
in ObamaCare. They want to use it for people who didn't pay for the 
program. On our side of the aisle, we want to take that savings and use 
it for our seniors--it's their money; they deserve to get it--and we 
use it to shore up the program. This makes sense.
  You talk about facts and numbers, think back to what the President 
told us with regard to ObamaCare. He said, Listen, you're going to see 
your health care costs go down by $2,500 a year per family of four. The 
truth? What happened? Health care costs went up by $3,000 a year for a 
family of four. That's a $5,500 turnaround for a family of four in his 
health care reform bill. Listen, that's a lot of money for hardworking 
American families.
  Let's talk about what else has been discussed by my friends across 
the aisle.

                              {time}  2010

  If you recall the stimulus bill, a trillion dollars in spending, 
remember, we were supposed to spend a trillion dollars and get an 
unemployment rate by 2013 of 5.2 percent. Well, the reality is we're 
sitting at 7.7 percent. But if you add back in everybody who has 
stopped looking for work because they can't find it because this has 
been one of the longest and lamest recoveries since the Great 
Depression, it's actually up at 10 percent. Listen, these policies and 
these promises haven't worked for the American people.
  Let's talk about taxes. We have a plan that will reform the Tax Code. 
It will make it fairer, flatter, simpler, easier to use, and we root 
out the loopholes, take away the preferences and the exemptions. We get 
away from crony capitalism. A fairer code. You have a chance to vote 
for that kind of tax reform in our budget.
  But let's compare that to what my friends across the aisle propose. 
Well, a trillion dollars in tax increases in ObamaCare, $600 billion of 
tax increases in the fiscal cliff.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman.
  Mr. DUFFY. And another $1.2 trillion in this new proposal, for a 
total of $2.8 trillion of new taxes. Mr. Chairman, we've seen this 
before. This is tax-and-spend liberalism at its finest.
  I think the American people understand what has happened in this very 
slow recovery. This is a chart that the chairman showed earlier, but 
you see the growth rate and the red line of what we've seen in this 
recovery, and you see the average growth rate of other recoveries from 
other recessions. And the difference is 4 million jobs between this 
recovery and the average recovery. Well, that's 4 million families that 
don't have work, that aren't paying for food on the table and a roof 
over their head. These are real people and real families in places like 
central and northern Wisconsin that have been impacted by this economy.
  As Chairman Ryan talks about, we have a choice of two futures, and my 
Democratic colleagues across the aisle want this massive debt and 
deficit to be the future for our children. We think there's a better 
way. We look at being responsible and paying off our debt in a way 
that's going to work, not just for this generation, but for future 
generations.
  What are we doing? We owe $17 trillion in debt. We borrow $1 trillion 
every year, and there's no end in sight, and we're printing money to 
buy our debts. And you say keep going, keep printing, keep borrowing, 
keep spending. This is going to end well, you tell us, or you tell our 
American families. Give me an example of where printing, borrowing, and 
spending ends in economic growth, prosperity, wealth, or sustainable 
jobs.
  Let's go back to fiscal responsibility. Let's live within our means 
in this country, pay down our debt, do what's responsible, and leave 
our children a brighter future.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, the Republican 
House budget merely shifts health care costs to families. It makes no 
attempt to bend the curve to lower health care costs, and the voucher 
program for Medicare will only mean that seniors will be paying more 
for health care, by some estimates as much as $5,900 per person, and 
that's why the AARP and other independent organizations that track 
health care benefits for seniors are so opposed to it.
  I now yield 7 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the Great 
State of Maryland, Elijah Cummings.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Over the past 3 years, nearly 6 million new jobs have been added to 
the American economy, and the unemployment rate has fallen to 7.7 
percent. Although this is real progress from where we were during the 
financial crisis inherited by President Obama, we can do far more to 
boost economic growth and continue to create jobs.
  The American people deserve a budget that supports economic growth, 
responsibly reduces long-term deficits, and ensures equal opportunity 
for all. Chairman Ryan's recent budget does not satisfy any of these 
goals. Instead, it will slow economic growth, increase the unemployment 
rate, cut critical investments in our Nation's future, and harm our 
seniors, all while protecting the interests of the wealthiest 
Americans.
  The Ryan budget would lower the top tax rate for the rich while 
hitting middle-class families with thousands of dollars in additional 
taxes every year. Nearly 30 million middle-income Americans would lose 
their health insurance because of the repeal of the Affordable Care 
Act, and tens of millions of the poorest would lose coverage because of 
Ryan's plan to gut Medicaid. We can do better.
  It would destroy the commitments we've made to our Nation's seniors 
by turning Medicare into a voucher program. It would shift the rising 
costs of health care onto those very Americans who have already 
suffered deep financial shocks in the recent fiscal crisis. Many of 
them have lost their homes, lost their health insurance, lost their 
jobs, lost equity in their homes, lost their savings, and now the Ryan 
budget would break another promise to them.
  In a fairly cynical move, the Ryan budget would repeal those 
provisions of the Affordable Care Act that would expand access to care, 
while keeping in place all the revenue generated by the act.
  The Ryan budget also guts investments in science, education, 
infrastructure--all critical to job creation and economic growth, as 
well as to the future of our children. If you don't believe it, go talk 
to the doctors at NIH, the ones who worry about whether they'll be able 
to complete the research that they're doing. One that I talked to just 
a few days ago was telling me just a few years ago there were certain 
types of cancers that were deadly, and now because of the research at 
NIH, they're chronic. I don't know how you put a price tag on 
somebody's life.
  This budget would reduce non-defense discretionary spending, 
including core social services that middle-class families rely on, by 
an additional $700 billion over the next 10 years below the senseless 
cuts already required under the sequester.

[[Page H1623]]

  And his plan, Mr. Ryan's plan, repeats past attacks on Federal 
employees by cutting the workforce by 10 percent over the next decade 
and requiring Federal workers to contribute an additional $132 billion 
to their retirement plans.
  To justify these proposals, the majority continues to argue that 
policies that support austerity, such as sequestration, will solve our 
fiscal problems and magically create prosperity for all. In fact, these 
stale theories will do nothing but harm hardworking Americans and our 
seniors, and that is why the American people resoundingly rejected this 
theory just this past November, not very long ago.
  Last week, the Joint Economic Committee convened a hearing to examine 
constructive measures to stabilize our economy and decrease our long-
term Federal debt. Testifying before our committee was Alice Rivlin, 
very well respected, who served as the founding Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office, Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget, and Federal Reserve Vice Chair. She explained that 
discretionary spending is not a driver of future deficits and that 
cutting discretionary spending would not slow projected increases in 
future Federal spending. Instead, Ms. Rivlin expressed concern that 
additional cuts at this time would have a restraining effect--those 
were her words--on our economic recovery, threatening to trigger a new 
recession. We can do better than that.

                              {time}  2020

  Similarly, the Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke has warned many 
times over the past few years that pursuing deep cuts in the short-term 
will slow the rate of economic growth, bring down revenues, and 
actually lead to less deficit reduction overall. I didn't say that, 
Chairman Bernanke said that.
  Certainly, I agree that Congress must act to put our fiscal house in 
order, but we must do this in a balanced manner that increases economic 
stability and certainty in the marketplace. To ensure economic growth, 
these policies must include a mixture of appropriate revenue increases 
and targeted spending cuts.
  I don't think there's one Member of Congress that disagrees that we 
must cut spending, but we also must address our fiscal issues in a 
balanced way. And when we cut, we must cut as if we were the most 
skilled heart surgeon performing the most delicate operation on a 
critical patient so that the patient does not die.
  To that end, Democrats have put forward a balanced approach to cut 
spending responsibly, increase revenues and create jobs, like 
Congressman Van Hollen's plan and Senator Murray's plan, which achieve 
new significant savings by eliminating tax loopholes and cutting 
wasteful spending.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I grant the gentleman as much 
time as he may consume.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. At the same time, they continue critical investments in 
infrastructure, education, job training, innovation, all of which will 
help to strengthen long-term economic growth.
  The fastest and most effective way to stabilize the economy and 
reduce deficits is to put Americans back to work. That is why we need 
to strengthen the fiscal policies that will support growth, rather than 
adopting policies that will destroy jobs.
  Finally, the only path forward is for Democrats and Republicans to 
work together to draft a reasonable budget that offers hope and 
prosperity for all Americans, rather than tax cuts for the rich and 
crumbs to the rest.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the Ryan budget so that we can craft a 
budget that works for all Americans.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I 
may consume.
  You know, we did have an interesting hearing in the Joint Economic 
Committee about the growth gap in America, about the thought and 
prospect that America's future growth could shrink by as much as a 
third, the damage it would do for families, to our economy, to our 
ability to pay our bills as a Nation.
  And when we asked the four witnesses, all from different backgrounds 
and different philosophies, we asked them a simple question.
  One, do you believe higher tax increases, more tax increases, would 
help the American economy today? Not one of them said it would.
  And we asked them, what do we need to reassure our investors and put 
America back on a firm financial path? They all said, you need to act 
now on reforming Social Security and Medicare for the long haul.
  And I said, so when is now? And they generally agreed by June or 
July. I mean, now.
  The Republican budget does that. The Democrat budget ignores our 
problems, ignores the advice of four distinguished economists.
  Earlier tonight a claim was made that some of the budgets are 
indifferent to the suffering of many. I want to address the suffering 
of many in today's America, under today's recovery.
  Take a look at this. Since the bottom of the recession, the President 
often likes to boast that he has created over 6 million jobs along Main 
Street in America. But what he doesn't talk about much is that, in that 
same period, this Nation has forced over 8 million families on to food 
stamps, simply to have food on their table, simply to keep hunger from 
their door.
  You are more likely, as a family under this recovery, to be forced to 
apply for food stamps than to actually walk into the door of a company 
that's offering you a job. That's not the sign of a healthy recovery. 
That's the suffering that occurs under today's recovery that this 
President has led. That's the growth gap's impact on real people.
  Let's take a look at families income, because that's so important to 
paying bills today, not just that you have a job, but, you know, are 
you getting ahead? Are you falling behind?
  Look at this chart. This shows the growth gap and the impact on 
families. Up to this date, the worst economic recovery that we had 
since World War II, a family, by now, would have gained back almost 
$2,000 in disposable income, real income they can spend. Under the best 
recovery, they would have almost $5,000 in their pocket. Just average, 
middle-of-the-road, C-grade recovery, nothing to talk about, a family 
ought to have now over $3,500 more gained back in their paycheck.

  But look what they have--$461, and that's all, in the last 3\1/2\ 
years. That's what they've gained back, $10 a month. So more families 
are being forced to go on food stamps. Those who have jobs are going 
nowhere in this recovery.
  Let's look at Wall Street. The Federal Reserve is printing money 
right and left, buying our own debt, buying up credit, allocating, 
picking winners and losers around this country, continuing to pour 
money into the system.
  So what's happened?
  Let's put that family income against the Wall Street income. In this 
economic recovery, look at Wall Street. Look at the Standard & Poor's 
total return, look how high it is. It continues to grow.
  But look at Main Street. Look at a per-person income, where it's gone 
over the last 3\1/2\ years. Again, almost nowhere.
  If you like this economic recovery, if you like the fact that, as 
Wall Street roars, Main Street families are left behind, then don't 
change anything. Continue higher taxes, more stimulus spending, 
borrowing every dollar it seems that we spend.
  You'll leave the President's health care law in place, put new 
regulations on Main Street, and this is what we'll get more of, 
families that continue to fall further and further behind, families who 
are looking for a job, and they either drop out completely and give up 
working, or they're forced onto food stamps, families that watch Wall 
Street grow wealthier as they gain what, $10 a month in their paycheck?
  The Republican budget changes the course of not just our financial 
position as a country, it changes the course for our economy, adding 
immediately 1 percent growth, closing that growth gap here in this 
first year, adding more income, $1,500 to a family, and over the next 
10 years, doing dramatically more, both for families and the economy.
  That's what the Republicans' budget is about. It's about changing the 
growth gap, closing it, and giving our families a fighting chance 
again.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY. I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from the

[[Page H1624]]

great State of Maryland, John Delaney, a new member of the Joint 
Economic Committee.
  And may I inquire how much time remains on our side?
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman, prior to yielding the time, had 7\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend and colleague 
from New York for yielding me this time. And I also want to thank my 
friend and colleague from Texas for his leadership on the committee.
  Too often, Mr. Chairman, we talk about our budget in absolute terms, 
and we don't talk to the American people about what budgets really are, 
which are choices. As we go through each line item of revenues and each 
line item of spending, we tend to characterize these things in very 
dramatic terms, as if any change, up or down, on any line of revenue or 
any line of spending, would have catastrophic implications.
  We don't have an honest dialogue with the American people about what 
budgets really are, which are choices and statements of priorities, 
which is why, in my opinion, this Congress, and the administration, 
have failed to recognize the two dominant themes facing our country and 
our world right now.

                              {time}  2030

  The first is the fundamental need to change the fiscal trajectory of 
this country across the long term, and the second is the need to invest 
in our future and our children to prepare them for a world that is 
fundamentally changed because of globalization and technology.
  We cannot do these two things--we cannot change the fiscal trajectory 
of this country and we cannot make investments in our future and our 
children--unless we do two things: first, reform the entitlement 
programs in this country; and, second, take actions to raise revenues.
  Last year, 13 percent of the American population was over 65. In 
2030, 20 percent of the American population will be over 65. This 
singular fact dominates our whole discussion around our fiscal future.
  Just to put this into perspective, if we don't change the trajectory 
of our entitlement programs, in 10 years they will consume 70 percent 
of our spending and literally crowd out every other priority we have as 
a country. And just to put this in a sharper focus, right now, as a 
country, if you add up all the spending at the Federal, State, and 
local level on Americans over 65, that number is $27,000 a year. If you 
do the same math on Americans under 18, that number is $11,000 a year. 
That is a 2\1/2\ to 1 ratio of statements of priorities that we are 
making in our budget.
  Just to be clear, I don't come here thinking we should spend less on 
the elderly. I don't come here thinking that we should be cutting 
taxes. I actually think we should be raising taxes. But we 
fundamentally have to change the trajectory of entitlement spending in 
this country if we want to invest in our future.
  Prior to coming to Congress, I spent two decades in the private 
sector. I started and led two companies that became New York Stock 
Exchange listed companies and, in the process, created several thousand 
jobs. That experience taught me two important lessons: first, we have 
to look at the facts, always; and, second, we have to think about the 
future, and we have to plan for the future.
  I have already talked about the facts. Now I want to talk a little 
bit about the future.
  If we want to create good jobs and reverse some of the trends that 
the gentleman from Texas just talked about and demonstrated to us, we 
have to make investments in making this country more competitive. That 
is the fundamental issue facing our country right now, Mr. Chairman, is 
to make this country more competitive.
  To do that we have to do several things:
  First, we have to continue to invest and reform our educational 
system. There has never been a stronger correlation in our country's 
history between having a good education and getting a job.
  Second, we need a national energy policy to ensure that we have clean 
and inexpensive energy across the long-term. If you look at the history 
of successful economies, the two most important numbers are the cost of 
money and the cost of energy.
  Third, we have to reform our immigration system.
  Fourth, we have to invest in our infrastructure.
  To do these things requires investments. We will fundamentally not be 
able to make these investments unless we, as I said, reform our 
entitlement programs and raise revenues.
  We are confronted with two choices in our budgets, and these are 
insufficient choices. The American people deserve better. On one hand, 
we have a choice where we don't recognize the reality of where the 
entitlement programs are going, and the other choice is we slash and 
cut the critical investments we need to make to have a future. We can 
do better.
  Each party likes to take the high ground on a balanced approach, but 
what does that really mean? To me, a balanced approach means several 
things.
  First, we need additional revenues through measures like the Buffett 
rule, by closing certain corporate tax loopholes while also lowering 
corporate tax rates. The Buffett rule levels the playing field, does 
not raise rates, but it makes sure that there is parity in terms of 
taxes that are paid; and it will do a significant amount towards 
closing the income inequality gap in this country, and it will produce 
more revenues. That is the first thing we have to do.
  The second thing, we do need to reform on entitlement programs, and 
we should do four things. We should means test; we should raise the 
cap; we should change how the cost of living adjustment is calculated; 
and we should change the retirement age, not for people who do manual 
labor, but for everyone else. That is the second thing we need to do.
  The third thing we need to do is we need to look at our discretionary 
spending and our defense spending, and we need to make these 
expressions of our priorities around our future. Some of that will 
require additions; some of that will require subtractions.

  These are things we need to do to have a balanced approach. This is 
the choice that this Congress should have, an approach that invests in 
our future and changes the fundamental trajectory of our entitlement 
programs while taking care of those most vulnerable. That, to me, is a 
balanced approach.
  I am proud to be a Democrat. I am proud to be a Democrat because of 
our historical fight for those left behind and because of our view that 
we have to invest in our future. I would like my party to lead on 
fundamental reform to these entitlement programs, and do it now, so we 
don't have to affect current beneficiaries or people who are close to 
being beneficiaries. I want to take those savings with additional tax 
revenues and invest it in our future, invest it in our children, invest 
it in making this country more competitive so that we can create jobs 
that have a good standard of living.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, so I would be 
glad to reserve at this time so the former chairman of the Joint 
Economic Committee may close.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, the Democratic budget has its priorities in the right 
place. It puts people and jobs first. The Democratic budget makes the 
numbers work for everyone by taking a balanced approach that includes 
not only cuts, but badly needed revenue. And the Democratic budget has 
a vision for the future that aspires to have this country lead the 
world in education, energy, innovation, and quality of life. It makes 
investments, and that means it takes some risks. But it also is a 
budget that confidently proclaims we are still the country of big 
dreams, high ideals, and limitless opportunities for everyone who is 
willing to work hard, play by the rules, and do their fair share.
  I support the Democratic budget, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to thank the former chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, 
Congresswoman Maloney, for her leadership, and continue to enjoy 
working with you on these economic issues.
  Tonight, we have talked a lot about the growth gap and about the 
prospect

[[Page H1625]]

that America's future could be much dimmer. The truth is fiscal 
challenges facing our Nation are great, but they are not insurmountable 
if we are willing to take the necessary steps, if we are willing to be 
less popular, willing to do the right thing. As I said in my opening 
statement, the single most important thing we can do for families for 
America to start paying its bills as a government is to take the 
restrictor plate off our economy.
  This recovery is substandard, the weakest since World War II. The 
growth gap is large and growing. The private sector jobs gap is large 
and growing. The gap in personal income for families is large and 
growing. We are adding more people to food stamps than we are getting 
jobs since the bottom of this recession.
  That is no way to build a strong middle class. It is a formula for 
making people more dependent on the Federal Government. That may be 
some people's vision of America's future, but not ours.
  So, if we are to change the future economic growth of America upside, 
if we are to increase economic growth in jobs and income growth, we 
need to restore the promise of economic opportunity in optimism. That 
is what the Republican budget does. It shrinks the Federal Government 
where it is fat and wasteful, and it grows the economy in ways that 
Americans can prosper. That is why the Republican budget is pro-growth 
and includes pro-growth tax reform, and it is key to a new era of 
American prosperity. It is a responsible balanced budget, which I 
strongly support.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the Budget 
Resolution, which balances the budget in 10 years.
  We must get our fiscal house in order, and that starts with a plan to 
reduce spending responsibly--allowing to grow at 3.4 percent instead of 
5 percent.
  This budget cuts $5.7 trillion in spending and reforms Medicare to 
save it for future generations while preserving the traditional model 
for those at or near retirement.
  The Federal Government has to deal with the tough issues and make 
responsible decisions to restore balance.
  I thank Chairman Ryan and the Budget Committee for supporting key 
transportation initiatives in the resolution.
  Transportation specific provisions:
  House Budget Resolution supports MAP-21 funding levels until it 
expires at the end of 2014. MAP-21 reformed our Federal transportation 
programs by eliminating unneeded programs, streamlining the project 
approval process, and putting the highway trust fund on sound financial 
footing through 2014.
  The budget resolution acknowledges that maintaining the long term 
solvency of the Highway Trust Fund and the tradition of the fund being 
user fee supported is a priority for the Congress as it begins to work 
on reauthorizing MAP-21.
  Budget also contains language supporting the innovative financing 
mechanisms for transportation included in MAP-21 such as public private 
partnerships and the TIFIA program.
  I look forward to working with Chairman Ryan and the Budget 
Committee, as we move the Nation toward fiscal responsibility and a 
growing economy.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Path to Prosperity--
our House plan to balance the budget in ten years, restore our economy 
and grow jobs. As Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, I am 
particularly gratified to see this plan provide for our men and women 
in uniform and our national security by replacing deeply harmful 
sequestration cuts to our national defense with other commonsense 
reforms.
  Since 9/11 our military has been operating at a very high operational 
tempo around the world keeping this country's citizens safe from those 
who seek to do us harm--from deadly attacks by al-Qaeda to the sabre 
rattling of Iran and nuclear provocations of North Korea. But back home 
as our economy slowed and our deficit rose, this Administration began 
to question our role in the world and called for substantial reductions 
to our national defense. While we agreed that everything should have 
been on the table in order to address this Nation's deficit spending, 
defense has represented only 18% of our national budget, while our 
military has absorbed 50% of the cuts to date.
  Which is why it is so important today that House Republicans stand 
unified, both fiscal and national security conservatives, on the goal 
of replacing arbitrary, automatic across-the-board cuts to our 
military. This House Republican budget, as does its counterpart from 
the Republican Study Committee, provides $560.2 billion in defense 
funding for fiscal year 2014. This is the amount my Committee called 
for in our views to Chairman Ryan, and an amount consistent with our 
military responsibilities. Over the next decade, we provide over $6 
trillion to fund our nation's defense. While this is significantly less 
than the levels in previous budget resolutions passed by the House, it 
is $500 billion more than will be available under sequestration. It 
allows our military to execute the current national defense strategy 
and avoids the hollow force and unacceptable level of strategic and 
operational risk our commanders have warned us about in hearings before 
our Committee.
  I want to thank Chairman Ryan for his unyielding dedication and 
belief in this country and in American exceptionalism. Absent his 
vision and absent this House budget, in just four short years, we will 
be paying more in interest on our debt than our national security. I 
urge members to support this budget and one of Congress's core 
constitutional responsibilities--to provide for our common defense.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
DeSantis) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Chair 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the concurrent 
resolution (H. Con. Res. 25) establishing the budget for the United 
States Government for fiscal year 2014 and setting forth appropriate 
budgetary levels for fiscal years 2015 through 2023, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________