[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 42 (Thursday, March 21, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H1794-H1801]
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. Chairman, 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 further consideration of the
concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 25.
Will the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) kindly resume the
chair.
{time} 0955
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 further consideration of
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, with
Mr. Hastings of Washington in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, March
20, 2013, amendment no. 5 printed in House Report 113-21 offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) had been disposed of.
Pursuant to the rule, it is now in order to consider a final period
of general debate, which shall not exceed 10 minutes, equally divided
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Budget.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield myself 30
seconds.
I want to start off by thanking all of our hardworking staff, and I
would like to include for the Record a list of all the staff members on
the Republican side of the aisle who put such work into this. I want to
recognize in particular one member of our team, our health care policy
expert, Charlotte Ivancic. She was there for our first budget, and this
marks her last budget, as she is now joining Speaker Boehner's team.
Charlotte devoted long hours to working with Medicare actuaries, and
she was instrumental in the bipartisan collaboration with Senator Wyden
and former Clinton Budget Director Alice Rivlin. She always understood
that our hard work is for a higher purpose. Her husband, Nick, and
their two boys, Otto and Jack, are what motivate her work, and that
passion has been contagious. It's been an honor to work at her side.
I want to thank all of the hardworking staffers--on both sides of the
aisle--for helping to elevate this important budget debate.
We wish her very good luck.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
House Budget Committee Majority Staff
Alex Stoddard, Andy Morton, Austin Smythe, Brian Bolduc,
Charlotte Ivancic, Conor Sweeney, David Logan, Dennis Teti,
Dick Magee, Eric Davis, James McKitrick (intern), Jane Lee,
Jenna Spealman, Jim Herz, Jon Burks, Jon Romito.
Jose Guillen, Justin Bogie, Marsha Douglas, Mary Popadiuk
(intern), Matt Carter, Matt Hoffmann, Nicole Foltz, Paul
Restuccia, Stephanie Parks, Ted McCann, Tim Flynn, Tim
Azarchs (intern), Trent Johnson (intern), Vanessa Bazan
(intern), Vanessa Day, William Allison.
Congressman Paul Ryan's Staff
Allison Steil, Andy Speth, Aubrey Yanzito, Ben Erickson,
Casey Higgins, Chad Herbert, Danyell Tremmel, Donald
Schneider, James Scimecca, Joyce Meyer, Kevin Seifert.
Lauren Schroeder, Matthew Varvaro, Megan Wagner, Rick
Jacobson, Robert Swift, Sarah Peer, Smythe Anderson, Susie
Liston, Teresa Mora, Tricia Stoneking.
House Budget Committee Associate Staff
Abby Gunderson, Rep. Rigell (VA); Alexis Alber, Rep.
Hartzler (MO); Andrew Shaw, Rep. Garrett (NJ); Annie
Boyajian, Rep. Walorski (IN); Brian Lenihan, Rep. Black (TN);
Brittan Specht, Rep. McClintock (CA); Bryan Blom, Rep. Duffy
(WI); Christy Paavola, Rep. Ribble (WI); Colby Hale, Rep.
Williams (TX); Courtney Titus, Rep. Rice (SC); David Malech,
Rep. Campbell (CA).
Deena Contreras, Rep. Calvert (CA); Jerry White, Rep.
Messer (IN); Jon Oehmen, Rep. Flores (TX); Keith Studdard,
Rep. Blackburn (TN); Kevin Kincheloe, Rep. Lankford (OK);
Kyle Cormney, Rep Price (GA); Megan Wenrich, Rep. Rokita
(IN); Meyer Seligman, Rep. Nunnelee (MS); Nick Myers, Rep.
Woodall (GA); Steve Waskiewicz, Rep. Cole (OK).
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Over the last couple days, we've had a spirited debate on the budget.
We have deep differences on this issue, but
[[Page H1795]]
I want to commend Chairman Ryan for the way he conducts the business of
the Budget Committee. The debate is lively but always civil, and I
thank him for the way he has run the committee.
I also want to thank all the other members of the Budget Committee
for their full participation in this debate and to the staffs, both
Republican staff and Democratic staff, who work so hard for their
service to our country. I want to commend our team who has been working
very hard and ask that their names be included in the Record along with
the members of the Republican staff.
Mr. Chairman, these budget resolutions are mostly comprised of lots
of numbers on lots of pages, but we know that behind these numbers are
key decisions about the future direction of our country and our
priorities and values as a nation.
I was disappointed that yesterday this House did not pass our
Democratic budget alternative that presents a solutions-based approach
to address our challenges instead of an ideological approach. Today,
I'm going to ask the House to vote against the Republican budget
because of its uncompromising ideological approach, and I will explain
more about that in a moment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
House Budget Committee Minority Staff
Abernathy, Sarah
Ballis, Ellen
Capstick, Kathleen
Carasso, Adam
Cummings, Ken
Griffin, Jocelyn
=========================== NOTE ===========================
March 21, 2013, on page H1795, the following appeared: Griffen,
Jocelyn
The online version should be corrected to read: Griffin, Jocelyn
========================= END NOTE =========================
Frey, Bridgett
Kahn, Tom
Kamal, Najy
McDowell, Shelia
Meredith, Diana
Miller, Erin
Overbeek, Kimberly
Robb, Karen
Russell, Scott
Stephenson, Beth
Zegers, Ted
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. May I inquire of the gentleman from Maryland
as to how many speakers he has remaining?
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I am the only speaker.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, I would like to yield 1 minute
to the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
{time} 1000
Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague for yielding and congratulate
Mr. Ryan and our members of the Budget Committee for a job well done.
We have a budget here that will, in fact, balance over the next 10
years after having a debate with our colleagues across the aisle and
across the building and downtown who all have budgets that never come
to balance.
I don't know where ``a balanced plan'' can be called ``a balanced
plan'' if we never get to balance. The fact is that we've done the hard
work of bringing this plan forward.
This budget does more than just balance. It helps improve the lives
and concerns of the American people and addresses things that are
important to American families such as fixing the Tax Code. Lowering
rates means more jobs and higher wages for the American people.
Voting for this budget means supporting the Keystone pipeline, and
American-made energy means more jobs and lower energy prices for the
American people.
Repealing ObamaCare and supporting patient-centered reforms means
more jobs and lower health care costs for the American people; and
protecting and strengthening Medicare means a secure retirement for
older Americans.
Cutting waste means more fairness and accountability for hardworking
taxpayers.
Doing all of this means preserving the American Dream, which is what
we were sent here to do.
We've balanced the budget before. In 1997, a Republican Congress
working with a Democrat President, Bill Clinton, came together to put
forward a plan that would, in fact, balance the budget. And we did. For
4 years we ran a budget surplus.
The President has an opportunity during this critical debate to come
forward and to help make this part of his legacy like it has become
part of the Clinton legacy, working together on behalf of the American
people to solve what we know is a crisis in our country. We can't
continue to spend money that we don't have. It's as simple as that.
When you've spent more money than what you've brought in for 50 of
the last 60 years, no American family can do this, no business can do
this, and no government can do this without bringing on a debt crisis
that is sure to imperil the future of our kids and our grandkids.
Vote for the Ryan budget.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I'm going to reserve the balance of my time
since I have the right to close and we have no more speakers.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I'm going to urge our colleagues to vote against this
Republican budget for a variety of reasons.
First of all, this is an uncompromising, ideological approach to our
budget issues. We've just been through a major national campaign where
both Presidential candidates, President Obama and Governor Romney,
agreed on one thing, and that was that the people in this country faced
a fundamental choice in the direction we were going to take. The
American people voted, and they resoundingly rejected the approach that
is now taken once again for the third year in a row in this Republican
budget.
This budget, as we've heard over the last couple of days, fails on a
number of counts. Number one, it adopts the European-style austerity
approach that we've seen slow down economies in many parts of Europe.
We should instead be focusing on job growth and putting people back to
work rather than a budget, like this budget, which will result in
750,000 fewer Americans working by the end of this year. That's
according to the independent, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
It will result in more than 2 million fewer people working next year.
It also fails the test of taking a balanced approach because it is
founded on the failed idea that giving another round of tax cuts to
people at the very high end of the income scale will somehow trickle
down and lift up all the other boats. We know that hasn't worked, and
yet it is pursued once again such that everybody in the Republican
budget is asked to sacrifice except folks at the very top, everybody
else, including middle class Americans who will see their tax burden go
up in order to finance tax breaks for people at the very high end.
We Democrats offered an amendment in the Budget Committee to say
don't increase taxes on middle class Americans, and all our Republican
colleagues voted ``no.'' It is based on the idea that we should
dramatically cut investments that are important to help our economy
grow.
We know we have an aging infrastructure problem. We know we need to
modernize our national infrastructure to compete in the global economy;
yet this cuts our infrastructure and transportation budget by over 20
percent when we just got a grade of D-plus from the American Society of
Civil Engineers and when we have 15 percent unemployment in the
construction industry.
It makes it harder for students to go to college. The Republican
budget will double the student loan interest rate in July from 3.4
percent to 6.8 percent.
In the part of our budget where we make important investments in
science and research and education, it more than doubles the sequester
cut.
It violates important commitments we've made to our seniors. It
reopens the prescription drug doughnut hole so that seniors with high
health care costs will pay thousands of dollars more over the period of
this budget. It turns Medicare into a voucher program so seniors are
faced with the risk of rising health care costs.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, it's based on this false idea that you can
claim to balance the budget in 10 years when you claim also to be
getting rid of ObamaCare when all they do is get rid of the benefits of
ObamaCare, but this budget only reaches its claim of balance because
they keep the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare.
I urge my colleagues to reject this approach and to adopt the
balanced Democratic approach to dealing with these national challenges.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H1796]]
Mr. Chairman, this budget is constructive. It reveals each side's
priorities. It clarifies the divide that exists between us.
We want to balance the budget; they don't. We want to restrain
spending; they want to spend more money. We think taxpayers have given
enough to Washington; they want to raise taxes by at least a trillion
dollars. Take more to spend more. We want to strengthen programs like
Medicare; they seem to be complicit with its demise. We see ObamaCare
as a roadblock to patient-centered health care reform; they see it as a
sacred cow. We think our national security is a top priority; they want
to hollow out our military. We offer modernization, reform, growth and
opportunity; they're clinging to the status quo: more taxing, more
spending, more borrowing.
This plan recognizes that if we cannot handle our out-of-control
debt, we will lose control of our future. We cut wasteful spending, and
we balance the budget.
This plan recognizes that concern for the poor is not measured by how
much money we spend in Washington, but instead how many people we get
out of poverty. We reform antipoverty programs so that they work. We
help strengthen communities and families. We recognize the need for a
vibrant economy.
The Stanford economist that looked at this budget last week said
500,000 jobs right away; $1,500 more in take-home pay for families in
the first year; 1.7 million jobs and $4,000 in better take-home pay on
average for a family in the 10th year.
This plan will protect and strengthen Medicare; and it begins, yes,
by repealing ObamaCare because that does great damage to Medicare.
Again, the House is leading the way.
We have a jobs deficit. We have a budget deficit. These are the
byproducts of a leadership deficit. We still have no budget from the
President in violation of the law. He gets his NCAA bracket in on time,
but still there's no budget. This is the fourth time in 5 years. He set
a new record this year, 2 months with no plan while we have trillion-
dollar deficits and a debt crisis on the horizon.
They have time for the attacks, but no time to offer serious
solutions. His party leaders are unfortunately failing to offer a
serious account of our challenge: no serious plan to grow the economy
or create jobs, no plan to ever balance the budget. Take more,
trillions of dollars more to spend more in Washington. That's what got
us in this mess in the first place.
{time} 1010
So what can be done?
The good news is that we now have a vehicle for regular order. The
Democrats derailed the budget process each of the last few years and
stopped governing when they stopped budgeting. At least we now have a
budget process that's moving. We've brought them back in the game this
spring. That's a good thing.
So what's going to happen in the weeks ahead?
We will make the case for our priorities. Whether the gentleman from
Maryland wants to acknowledge it or not, we have divided government.
The American people elected a Republican majority in the House, and our
job is to make the case for our policies, find common ground where it
exists and see if we can make this divided government work, and that is
what we intend to do. We owe the American people a responsible,
balanced budget. That's what we are delivering today, and I urge the
support of this resolution.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the disastrous
budget put forward by the House Majority. Once again, the Majority has
put forward a plan that slashes deeply into our commonsense priorities
and tries to balance the budget on the backs of seniors, women, and the
most vulnerable.
A budget is about more than just numbers--it is a reflection and
embodiment of our values and priorities as a society. Our budget should
advance our moral responsibilities as a nation to provide for the
common good. I just attended the installation of Pope Francis in Rome,
where he stressed the importance of working ``to protect all of God's
people and embrace with tender affection the whole of humanity,
especially the poorest, the weakest, the least important.''
But the budget before us, like the previous iterations composed by
Chairman Ryan and supported by the House Majority, once again fails
this critical moral test. In fact, it gets it exactly backwards. To pay
for expanded tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, two-thirds of the
nondefense cuts over ten years here come to programs that serve low-
and moderate-income families.
If this budget were to become law, the Economic Policy Institute
estimates that two million jobs will be lost next year alone. That is
not all. Millions of students would lose the access to college
education that comes through Pell Grants. 190,000 children would lose
access to Head Start. National Service programs like Americorps would
be ended.
Medicaid would be slashed by nearly a third, cutting families off
from access to health care. Food Stamps by nearly 18 percent, with up
to nine million people cut off from assistance they need so they do not
go hungry. Both would be converted to an inadequate block grant. The
health reforms we passed would all be rolled back meaning the donut
hole will reopen, women would once again have to pay more for the same
insurance as men, and children with preexisting conditions could lose
their coverage.
Seniors would have to pay more during retirement for health care. The
Child Tax Credit would expire in 2017. And middle-class families would
pay $2000 more a year in taxes, all to pay for a $200,000 tax cut for
millionaires.
The American people already roundly rejected this Reverse Robin Hood
plan last November. Instead, they want us to use the budget as a
vehicle to create jobs and grow the economy. I urge my colleagues to
respect their wishes, and to vote against this latest iteration of the
same old Republican budget.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chair, I will vote today for H. Con. Res. 25, authored
by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, because we have a duty to
address our nation's looming fiscal obligations. As I have repeatedly
said, we cannot continue to kick the proverbial can down the road.
I want to be clear: I would prefer to vote for a bipartisan budget
modeled off the Simpson-Bowles plan. It could be improved by
incorporating changes in existing law and other proposals, such as the
discussions between the president and Speaker Boehner, and plans
offered by Alice Rivlin and Pete Domenici, and Rep. Ryan and Sen.
Wyden. Like the Ryan plan before us today, I do not agree with every
line in the Simpson-Bowles plan. However, I continue to believe that a
budget based on this model is the only plan that can put our nation on
a sustainable, long-term path to replace sequestration and reform our
nation's entitlement programs so they will exist for future
generations.
For more than six years, I have forcefully spoken out about the dire
need to get our nation's fiscal house in order. I have made thoughtful
and serious recommendations for a way forward and have voted for
substantial legislation to get our nation back on solid financial
footing.
When I came to the floor to vote for last year's budget, we were
$15.5 trillion in debt. Today, we are over $16.7 trillion in debt. It's
projected to grow to $26 trillion in 10 years--that's a $10 trillion
increase. Our unfunded obligations and liabilities are now projected to
be over $71 trillion. We've just had our fourth straight year of
trillion dollar deficits. Four straight years.
And while this year's deficit is projected to be about $845 billion,
that's still unsustainable. The reduction in the deficit can be mainly
traced to new tax revenues from the ``fiscal cliff'' deal versus new
spending restraint. I opposed this measure because it failed to
seriously address government spending--in fact, it contained new
spending--and did not include reforms to strengthen and secure
entitlements. While the measure addressed many immediate issues, its
adoption is making it more difficult to make needed, comprehensive
reforms to our long-term obligations and liabilities and to stop
sequestration.
The amount of debt we owe is staggering. Consider that this past
August, the Congressional Budget Office predicted we'd be spending $570
billion on interest payments to service the debt in 2022. However, the
February picture is shocking: $795 billion to serve the debt in 2022.
Let me repeat--in August, the Congressional Budget Office predicted
that we would be spending $570 billion to service the debt in 10 years.
Their updated February numbers predict we will be sending $795 billion
out the door in 2022 to service the debt, a $225 billion increase
within six months. In six months, the projections have changed to
reflect that the Congressional Budget Office thinks we will be spending
close to $11 billion in interest payments per week to more than $15
billion per week. Fifteen billion dollars each week. And they predict
that in 2023, 10 years from now, we will be sending $857 billion out
the door. That's roughly $16.5 billion dollars per week.
What accounts for these changes? We have been borrowing at
historically low levels. I have repeatedly noted my concerns that
interest rates on our debt load could increase, and
[[Page H1797]]
the Congressional Budget Office predictions are starting to reflect
this.
That is money that could be invested in our national defense,
repairing our roads and bridges or life-saving cancer research.
Notably, this debt is increasingly held by foreign countries. In
1970, 6 percent of debt held by the public was in foreign hands. In
1990, it was 19 percent. But today, 48 percent of our publically held
debt is in foreign hands.
Just who are our bankers? Nations such as China, which is spying on
us, where human rights are an afterthought, and Catholic bishops,
Protestant ministers and Tibetan monks are jailed for practicing their
faith, and oil-exporting countries such as Saudi Arabia, which funded
the radical madrasahs on the Afghan-Pakistan border resulting in the
rise of the Taliban and al Qaeda.
Quite frankly, this borrowing is unsustainable, dangerous and
irresponsible.
And what does this mean for individual Americans? Chairman Ryan
points out that a 1 percent increase in the interest rates would mean
an extra $400 per year in interest payments for the average family.
That is why I have been urging the president and Congress to make the
hard choices to ensure a better future for our children and
grandchildren.
That is why I have been working with my colleagues, through my
assignment as chairman of the House appropriations subcommittee that
funds the departments of Commerce and Justice, to cut $95 billion in
federal spending during fiscal years 2010, 2011 and 2012, including
more than $11.5 billion from my subcommittee alone.
That is why I repeatedly voted against the payroll tax holiday, which
stole directly from the Social Security Trust Fund. The 2012 extension
took $93 billion and brought us nearly a month closer to the statutory
debt limit. With that one vote, we practically wiped out all the $95
billion in savings from the cuts enacted during the last Congress.
That is why I also do not and never will sign pledges to lobbyists.
My loyalty is to the Constitution, to the people of Virginia's 10th
District, and my family.
I have been speaking out about the need to get our nation's fiscal
house in order since President George W. Bush was in office.
In 2006, I introduced legislation to create an independent,
bipartisan commission to address our debt and deficit. I called it the
SAFE Commission, short for Securing America's Future Economy. It said
everything should be on the table for discussion: all entitlement
spending, all domestic discretionary spending, including defense
spending, and tax reform, particularly changes to make the tax code
more simple and fair and to end the practice of tax earmarks that costs
hundreds of billions of dollars. Congress would be required to vote up
or down on the commission's recommendations, just as was done in the
base closing process.
I was glad to have been joined in this effort by my good friend and
colleague Jim Cooper of Tennessee. Our legislation served as the
blueprint for the president's National Commission on Fiscal
Responsibility and Reform, commonly referred to as the Simpson-Bowles
Commission.
Last year, I spoke in support of and voted for a full substitute
amendment, offered by Mr. Cooper and former Representative LaTourette,
to the budget that was based on the commission's recommendations. While
I was disappointed that this amendment did not pass, I still believe a
plan based on this model is the most appropriate and realistic path
forward, and I am committed to finding bipartisan solutions.
Last month, I offered a bipartisan amendment to H.R. 444, the Require
a PLAN Act, that would require the president to incorporate the
Simpson-Bowles recommendations into his budget submission to Congress.
This amendment received 75 bipartisan votes.
The Simpson-Bowles Commission produced a credible plan that gained
the support of a bipartisan majority of the commission's 18 members.
Called ``The Moment of Truth,'' the commission's report made clear that
eliminating the debt and deficit will not be easy and that any reform
must begin with entitlements. Mandatory and discretionary spending also
has to be addressed, as well other ``sacred cows,'' including tax
reform and defense spending.
Had just three more members of the Simpson-Bowles Commission
supported the recommendations, this plan likely would have passed the
Congress and be law today. I was disappointed that the president, and
his administration, walked away from the commission. The president
failed the country. And the Congress has also failed. This town is
dysfunctional. If the plan had advanced, we would already be on our way
in getting our nation's fiscal house in order.
We have to find a solution to this debt crisis. Failure is not an
option.
Congress and the president must be willing to support a plan that
breaks loose from the special interests that are holding Washington by
the throat and return confidence to the country.
Congress and the president also need to be honest with the American
people and explain that we cannot solve our nation's financial crisis
by just cutting waste, fraud and abuse within discretionary accounts.
The real runaway spending is occurring in our out-of-control
entitlement costs and the hundreds of billions of dollars in annual tax
earmarks. Until we reach an agreement that addresses these two drivers
of our deficit and debts, we cannot right our fiscal ship of state.
Absent a bipartisan budget, I vote for the Ryan budget today because
it is a credible path forward, if imperfect.
Like last year's proposal, this budget blueprint calls for
significant reductions in discretionary spending, for reduced tax rates
and for the repeal of the costly health care reform law.
Further, it proposes a balanced budget in the next 10 years. I have
consistently voted for a balanced budget amendment to the constitution
every time the measure has come before the House--in 1982, 1990, 1992,
1994, 1995 and, more recently, in 2011.
The Ryan plan also points out that we can no longer ignore the
trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities that consume our budget.
There may be disagreement on the significant changes in Medicare and
Medicaid entitlement programs that he proposes, and while his plan is
again silent on changes needed to reform Social Security entitlements,
it does recognize that need. Mr. Ryan continues to pull back the
curtain on the mandatory spending ``elephant in the room,'' which we
can no longer ignore.
I do not agree with everything in this proposal, and will work to
improve future legislation that may be considered as a result of its
adoption. For example, I regret that this proposal does not offer more
on ways to address Social Security and tax reform.
I am also troubled that this resolution unfairly targets the federal
workforce. While there are many federal employees in the capital
region, it is worth noting that more than 85 percent of the workforce
is outside of Washington.
It is also worth noting that more than 65 percent of all federal
employees work in agencies that support our national defense
capabilities as we continue to fight the War on Terror. The first
American killed in Afghanistan, Mike Spann, was a CIA agent and a
constituent from my congressional district. CIA, FBI, DEA agents, and
State Department employees are serving side-by-side with our military
in the fight against the Taliban.
Let's also not forget the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs
Enforcement agents who are working to stop the flow of illegal
immigrants and drugs across our borders.
Or the medical researchers at NIH working to develop cures for
cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's and autism.
Or the VA doctors and nurses treating veterans from World War II to
present day.
Or the FDA inspectors working to stop a salmonella outbreak. These
are all federal employees.
Mr. Chair, enough is enough. It is simply wrong to claim, as the Ryan
budget erroneously continues to do, that these public servants ``have
been immune from the effects of the recession.''
This budget also could be improved by providing for the needs of the
most vulnerable in our society. As the Congress deals with the budget,
we must always do so in a way that does not neglect the needs of the
poor. Scripture (Proverbs 19:17) tells us, ``He who is kind to the poor
lends to the Lord.'' And in the New Testament Jesus talks a lot about
the poor. Matthew 25 says that if we ignore the poor and hungry, it is
the same as ignoring him. But this budget resolution is an outline for
future action, not an enacting piece of legislation that carries the
weight of law.
The budget also seeks to shore up our defense capabilities by finding
alternative savings to prevent the across-the-board cuts
(sequestration) resulting from the Joint Committee on Deficit
Reduction's bipartisan failure of leadership, which, regretfully,
represents the larger failure of the President and both political
parties.
For the first time in four years, the Senate has proposed a budget
resolution. While I do not agree with their proposal, and therefore
voted ``no'' on the Mulvaney amendment to demonstrate my opposition to
it, it is good for our country that the Senate has finally put forth a
written document. Its voice in this debate is needed. I am disappointed
that the president has failed to even offer his own budget. This
abdication of responsibility has not been seen since the Harding
Administration.
This budget recognizes that our fiscal challenges must be dealt with
in a timely manner. It is a first step in the process. This is a
blueprint that can be molded and changed, but it is a blueprint that
committees will use to get to work. I hope this outline will spur the
authorizing committees to move forward on comprehensive tax and
entitlement reform legislation.
[[Page H1798]]
The Appropriations Committee has already led the way in enacting
legislation cutting discretionary spending. Only 16 percent of federal
spending this year will be non-defense discretionary. Two thirds of our
spending is on autopilot, and reforms are urgently needed. We must
reform our nation's spending habits to ensure America has the ability
to nimbly respond to crises and is able to make the investments needed
to spur private growth and American ingenuity.
We, as elected representatives, have a duty to lead. We have a duty
to put forth ideas within the public sphere and engage in debate. I'm
ready to make the tough choices today. I vote for the Ryan budget so
that the House can get to work.
Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Chair, I rise today to express my support for the
House Republican budget.
The Path to Prosperity will balance the budget over the next ten
years without raising taxes on the American people.
Furthermore, the House Republican budget will help American job
seekers by repealing Obamacare. The Obama health care law contains over
a trillion dollars in new taxes on employers, medical device makers,
families buying health insurance and others.
Throughout my district, small business owners and CEOs are sitting
down with their accountants. They are trying to figure out how they are
going to do business next year with this massive tax in place. That is
creating uncertainty and impeding job creation.
Repealing Obamcare is critical to getting our economy growing again.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H. Con.
Res. 25, the House Republicans' ``Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year
2014.'' I oppose this irresponsible budget resolution because it
continues the reckless approach to fiscal policy that that the House
majority championed for years, with disastrous results.
I oppose the resolution before us because it favors the wealthy over
middle class families and those struggling to enter or remain in the
middle class. I oppose the resolution because it asks major sacrifices
of seniors who can barely make ends meet, and fundamentally alters the
social contract in our America by turning Medicaid into a block grant.
I cannot and will not support a resolution that attempts to balance
the budget on the backs of seniors, children, the poor, or mortgages
the future by failing to make the investments needed to sustain
economic growth and opportunity for all Americans.
Mr. Chair, we Democrats have a better way. We understand that we are
all in this together and that our current economic situation calls for
a balanced approach between increased revenues and responsible
reduction in expenditures. Our plan will protect and strengthen our
recovering economy, reduce the deficit in a responsible way, while
continuing to invest in the things that make our country strong like
education, health care, innovation, and clean energy.
Mr. Chair, this Republican budget is bad for America but it is
disastrous for the people from my home state of Texas who sent me here
to advocate for their interests. Let me highlight a few examples.
1. If the Republican budget resolution were to become the basis of
federal fiscal policy, 3,435,336 Texas seniors would be forced out of
traditional Medicare and into a voucher program. Under the Republican
plan to end Medicare as we know it, beginning in 2024 all Texas seniors
will receive a voucher instead of guaranteed benefits under traditional
Medicare.
2. For the 3,435,336 Texans aged 45-54, the value of their vouchers
would be capped at growth levels that are lower than the projected
increases in health care costs. Previous analyses showed that this type
of plan would cut future spending by $5,900 per senior, forcing them to
spend more out of pocket and diminishing their access to quality care.
3. Additionally, private insurance plans will aggressively pursue the
healthiest, least expensive enrollees, thereby allowing Medicare--
currently the lifeline for 3,187,332 Texas seniors--to ``wither on the
vine.''
4. If the Republican budget resolution were to adopted by Congress,
206,304 Texas seniors would pay more for prescription drugs next year.
The Republican plan would reopen the ``donut hole,'' forcing seniors to
pay the full cost of their prescription drugs if their yearly drug
expenses are more than $2,970 for the year. Seniors reaching the
prescription drug ``donut hole'' would pay an average of $828 more in
prescription drug costs in 2014 and approximately $13,000 more from now
through 2022.
5. Under the Republican budget, 2,445,462 Texas seniors would be
forced to pay for preventive health services. By repealing health
reform, the Republican plan will require that the 2,445,462 Texas
seniors who utilized free preventive services currently covered by
Medicare in 2012 will face increased costs in the form of higher
deductibles, co-insurance, and copayments for certain services,
including even cancer screenings and annual wellness visits.
6. The Republican budget slashes $31.71 billion in nursing home care
and other health care services for 754,500 Texas seniors and disabled
who currently rely on Medicaid for their long-term care needs.
7. The draconian cuts included in the Republican budget would have a
devastating impact on the 1,191 certified nursing homes in Texas that
serve 91,717 seniors, with more than half relying on Medicaid as their
primary payer. As a result, nursing homes would be forced to slash
services, turn away seniors, or close their doors.
Mr. Chair, this budget could have invested in programs that help
strengthen the middle class, reduce poverty, and strengthen our
economic recovery. Instead, the Republican budget makes deep cuts to
the area of the budget helping low-income families put food on the
table and make ends meet. These are families who are already struggling
with unemployment, lower wages, and just simply trying to make ends
meet.
The House Republican budget will push millions more Americans into
poverty and put a large number of low-income children, seniors, and
people with disabilities at risk. It guts Medicare and Medicaid and
calls for massive cuts to food assistance, all in order to protect tax
breaks for special interests and for multimillionaires who are not even
asking for them.
The Republican budget may be characterized in many ways--cruel,
irresponsible, short-sighted, reckless--but ``fair and balanced'' is
not one of them.
In contrast, the alternative budgets proposed by the Democratic
Caucus, Congressional Black Caucus, and Congressional Progressive
Caucus, which were made in order by the Rules Committee, are each
worthy of support because they fairly balance the need for increased
revenues and responsible reductions in expenditures with the imperative
of making the necessary investments in human capital required to move
our country forward.
Specifically, the Alternative Budgets proposed by the Democratic
Caucus, CBC, and CPC:
help create more jobs now;
replace the sequester;
make key education investments;
invest in research and development and clean energy;
invest in long-term infrastructure;
preserve Medicare as we know it;
protect health reform's benefits for seniors;
protect Medicaid for seniors in nursing homes;
preserve Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP);
reduce the deficit through a smart, targeted, and steady approach
provides tax relief for working families and ends tax breaks for the
wealthy;
take a balanced approach to reducing the long-term deficits and debt;
and
put the budget on a sustainable path.
Mr. Chair, under the Democratic budget, the deficit would fall from 7
percent of GDP in 2012 to under 3 percent of GDP by 2015, and to 2.4
percent of GDP in 2023. The balanced plan put forward by the Democratic
Caucus will bring the budget into primary balance in 2017 and complete
balance by around 2040--about the same time as the House Republican
budget last year.
The Democratic Budget Alternative will generate 1.2 million more jobs
this year compared to the Republicans' ``austerity first'' plan by
investing $200 billion in creating jobs up-front, strengthening the
middle class, creating greater upward mobility, and ensuring
opportunity for our children and future generations.
Included in the Democratic proposal is $50 billion to fund jobs that
address immediate surface transportation priorities and $10 billion to
establish an infrastructure bank, as well as tax incentives to support
small businesses and manufacturing.
Additionally, the Democratic budget immediately ends the sequester,
which would otherwise cost the economy 750,000 jobs by the end of the
year, and replaces it with deficit reduction resulting from a balanced
approach combining responsible spending cuts with increased revenues by
cutting tax breaks for special interests and wealthy individuals
without increasing the tax burden on middle-income Americans.
Finally, Mr. Chair, as a senior member of the Committee on the
Judiciary, let me note my disappointment that an amendment I offered
which would have made this dreadful budget resolution a little less
hurtful was not made in order by the Committee on Rules.
The Jackson Lee Amendment to H. Con. Res. 25 would put the Congress
on record in support of current funding levels for crime prevention
grant programs administered by the Department of Justice. The first and
most important obligation of government is to ensure the safety of the
people and nothing is more destabilizing to communities and inimical to
job creation and economic growth than crime. That is why it is
counterproductive to cut investments in crime prevention under the
guise
[[Page H1799]]
of balancing a budget to spur economic growth.
It is said often, Mr. Chair, but is no less true, that the federal
budget is more than a financial document; it is an expression of the
nation's most cherished values. As the late and great former senator
and Vice-President Hubert Humphrey said:
``The moral test of government is how that government
treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those
who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who
are in shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the
handicapped.''
For that reason that in evaluating the merits of a budget resolution,
it is not enough to subject it only to the test of fiscal
responsibility. To keep faith with the nation's past, to be fair to the
nation's present, and to safeguard the nation's future, the budget must
also pass a ``moral test.''
The Republican budget resolution fails both of these standards. The
Democratic alternatives do not. For these compelling reasons, I stand
in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 25 and urge my colleagues to join
me in voting against this ill-conceived and unwise measure.
Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H. Con. Res.
25 and in support of the Van Hollen substitute.
The majority has offered a budget that literally doubles down on the
sequester. This would be a disaster for El Paso. It would mean twice as
many Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) furloughs as they are already
facing and longer lines at our bridges into the foreseeable future.
Nearly 100,000 jobs in the El Paso region depend on the $80 billion in
yearly cross border trade with Mexico. Longer lines at our ports of
entry equals less trade and fewer jobs for El Pasoans. The majority
budget includes a nearly $100 billion cut to Pell Grants for low-income
students. At the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP), 65% of students
use Pell Grants to afford their education. It would mean deep and
irresponsible cuts to programs my constituents rely on, including
Medicare. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has said
the majority budget will result in 750,000 job losses this year. I
cannot vote to put the future of so many El Pasoans at risk.
We need a credible, long-term plan that does not compromise the
economic recovery now taking place. Although far from perfect, the
substitute budget offered by Mr. Van Hollen comes closest to this goal.
It fully replaces the sequester with a balanced mix of cuts and
revenues and stabilizes our finances by reducing the deficit by $1.8
trillion over the next ten years. If passed, this budget would prevent
the 750,000 job losses associated with the sequester. Ending the
sequester will also prevent furloughs for 20,000 El Pasoans, including
our Border Patrol agents and civilian employees at Fort Bliss. The Van
Hollen substitute also ensures we maintain a strong national defense
while acknowledging that our military will be downsizing as the result
of two wars ending. I support it as the most reasonable budget offered;
however, the Van Hollen substitute fails to offer a solution to
strengthen Medicare and Social Security for the long-term.
We need a real budget that can get buy-in from both political
parties. Instead of playing to the fears of the political extremes, why
not work to find the middle and compromise? I came here to represent
the interests of El Pasoans and govern responsibly. I hope that we can
put the political posturing of this budget debate behind us and start
finding real solutions.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, as the Ranking Member of the Financial
Services and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee, I am
voting ``no'' on the Continuing Resolution sent back to us by the
Senate. This bill underfunds several important programs and
initiatives, and does not provide adequate funding to continue the
implementation of the Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank. Moreover,
this bill compounds that harm by allowing the sequester to continue.
I am particularly disturbed by serious problems in the Financial
Services and General Government section of the bill.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is flat funded at fiscal year 2012
levels, before taking into account the effects of sequestration. This
funding level will greatly harm the continued implementation of the
Affordable Care Act (ACA). This is a critical year for the ACA as the
state exchanges prepare to go live, and as part of that effort, the IRS
had asked for an additional $254 million in funding to help administer
several upcoming ACA tax credits and tax changes. Failing to provide
this funding will hamper IRS efforts to continue the implementation of
these important efforts--which will help individuals and small
businesses--and will create more confusion by not providing the IRS
with the resources to answer taxpayers' questions.
In addition, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is flat-
funded at fiscal year 2012 levels despite a requested $94 million
increase. This funding level, further reduced by sequestration, will
hinder the SEC in the continued implementation of Dodd-Frank, and will
harm its enforcement duties. The SEC still needs to implement several
of the most important Dodd-Frank rules and reforms, and this funding
level will only slow that effort. This bill prevents the SEC from being
the strong ``cop on the beat'' that we need to ensure that the abuses
that helped cause the fiscal meltdown don't recur.
Moreover, our Federal Public Defenders, who are part of the Federal
Judiciary budget, actually receive a small increase of $9 million above
the fiscal year 2012 level. However, this amount is less than they
requested, and not enough to offset the overwhelming impact of
sequestration. Our Federal Public Defenders provide indigent criminal
defendants with their constitutionally protected right to counsel, and
the effect of the CR and sequestration will substantially damage their
ability to do their utmost to help their clients.
Lastly, federal employees are once again asked to endure a pay
freeze. Our federal employees have already contributed an incredible
amount of money to deficit reduction, and another federal pay freeze
will only prevent the recruitment and retention of a qualified and
committed workforce.
In reality, while this bill purports to maintain finding levels at
the FY 2012 level, sequestration means further damaging cuts to these
and other accounts. We need a solution that will prevent important
services that all Americans depend on from being impacted, and allows
all agencies the flexibility to address the current effect of the
sequester. This bill fails in that regard.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the most important action we can take to
provide for the long term health and prosperity of our nation is
getting people back to work, and ensuring that those who are employed,
stay employed. This can only be done by enacting a budget that achieves
fiscal balance without imperiling economic progress. Unfortunately, the
Republican budget fails this most basic principle. It will cost nearly
2 million jobs next year alone, and that's on top of the 750,000 jobs
that will be lost due to sequestration this year. In Rhode Island, we
have finally started to recover from the Great Recession that began in
2008, and our unemployment rate has dropped below 10 percent for the
first time since 2009. For five years, Rhode Islanders have held on by
their teeth, and the Republican budget would undermine the important
gains we have made.
The prosperity of our nation is predicated on a healthy middle
class--both parties can at least agree on that. Yet the Republican
budget would put our middle class families, the drivers of our economy,
further in debt by shifting the burden of paying for tax breaks for the
wealthy onto working Americans and their kids.
We have seen this budget before. It's the same plan Governor Romney
ran and lost on in November; it's the same budget Chairman Ryan brought
before us in 2012. It is a budget that works for the most privileged,
at the expense of every day Americans. It raises taxes on working
families by as much as $3,000, shifts costs to future seniors by
turning Medicare into a ``premium support'' program, cuts state
Medicaid funding for low income and disabled individuals, and doubles
the cuts to programs that help our veterans find work, keep my
constituent's homes heated, and save children from going hungry.
There's been no shortage of posturing on the budget, and a surplus of
half-truths floating around. What's been in short supply, it seems to
me, are the facts.
It is a fact that federal spending over the past three years has
grown at its slowest pace since the Eisenhower administration. It is a
fact that we have already cut $2.4 trillion from the budget over the
next ten years--and the Democratic alternative budget would increase
that reduction to over $4 trillion. It is a fact that we have cut
nearly three dollars in spending for every dollar of revenue, greater
than the ratio of cuts-to-revenue proposed in Simpson-Bowles. And
according to the Congressional Budget Office, it is a fact that half of
the projected budget deficit for 2013 is a result of automatic
stabilizers, like unemployment insurance.
There's another important fact here that my Republican colleagues
appear to be ignoring. They seem to think that if you reduce budgets
for our schools, housing agencies, workforce training programs,
veterans services, the Social Security Administration, and the FBI, the
services these agencies provide to our communities won't diminish.
Their workload certainly won't--in many cases it's on the rise--yet
they will have fewer staff and fewer resources to serve our
constituents and communities.
This is not a budget I can support in good conscience, and it is not
a path that will lead to economic stability. Democrats have offered a
fair and balanced approach that keeps the promises made to our seniors,
preserves our
[[Page H1800]]
social safety net, and asks all Americans to pay their fair share in
reducing the deficit. Rhode Islanders understand these choices,
Americans understand these choices, and they responded loud and clear
last November as to which direction they wanted our nation follow. The
Republican budget is not what the American people voted for, this is
not what Rhode Islanders want, and it is not what our children, our
business owners, and our communities deserve.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I rise today in opposition to the
Republican budget developed by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan.
This budget would not only jeopardize seniors, families, and the most
vulnerable in our society, it would also destroy jobs and put our
Nation's economic recovery at risk. In fact, some estimate that 2
million American jobs could be lost in 2014 under the Ryan budget.
The Ryan budget would protect the wealthy while severely harming
seniors and the American middle class. Millionaires would receive an
average net tax cut of $200,000, while middle class families could see
their taxes rise by an average of $2,000. This approach is neither
equitable nor balanced.
The Ryan budget would cut the crucial programs our families rely on
by slashing non-defense discretionary spending by more than $1 trillion
below the level of the 2011 Budget Control Act caps. This budget denies
Americans access to life-saving health care by ending the Medicare
guarantee, drastically cutting the Medicaid program, and repealing the
Affordable Care Act. These cuts would immediately raise health
insurance and prescription drug costs for women, while reducing access
to care and support for nursing home residents. The Ryan budget could
also result in an 18% cut in help with child care expenses to families
working hard to make ends meet, and could cause about 200,000 children
to lose access to Head Start in 2014 alone.
We all know that tough decisions must be made regarding the deficit,
but our budget must not be balanced on the backs of women, children,
seniors, and middle class families. Instead, we must invest in our
children, in our students, and in our families to move our Nation
forward. We must ensure that all Americans have access to health care.
And we must invest in our infrastructure to create jobs and pave the
way for a stronger economic future. I urge my colleagues to oppose the
Ryan budget and work together to create jobs and protect middle class
families.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H. Con. Res. 25, the
fiscal year (FY) 2014 budget resolution. Once again, this body is
considering another misguided budget that asks seniors and middle class
Americans to make great sacrifices so the wealthiest among us can get a
tax cut. While supporters of this budget claim they deserve credit for
producing a budget that balances, this is not a balanced plan, nor a
serious one.
The Republican budget is a slippery, dishonest collection of old,
failed ideas that the American people roundly rejected in the last
election. Some say that this budget plan represents a serious attempt
to reform Medicare; in fact, nothing could be farther from the truth.
It ends Medicare as we know it by creating a voucher program which
would shift costs to our seniors. It also repeals the Affordable Care
Act which is already providing critical benefits to those in need
across our country and that has been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court
as constitutional. By reopening the Medicare prescription drug coverage
gap, beneficiaries would see their costs increase by over $13,000 from
now through 2022. This is not the treatment our seniors deserve, and I
know we can do better for them.
Instead of making critical investments in our economy to promote
growth and create jobs, vital domestic programs would face drastic
cuts. The entire mandatory Pell grant program would be cut by $98
billion over 10 years, virtually eliminating the program. Student loan
rates would rise from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent in July, which would
have a negative impact on college students across the nation. The
budget also doubles down on the disastrous sequester and goes even
further than that by cutting an extra $55 billion from domestic
discretionary spending in FY 2014 alone. To top it off, the top tax
rate would be lowered to 25 percent, costing our nation nearly $6
trillion over 10 years. In order to pay for these disastrous proposals,
critical tax deductions for middle class families would be eliminated,
leaving the average family with an increase of $3,000 in their tax
bill. The priorities of this budget are completely backwards.
I commend the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Van Hollen, for offering a
balanced approach in the Democratic substitute budget. This budget
replaces the sequester, makes investments which are critical for
economic growth, and puts our nation on a sustainable fiscal path. It
gives critical support to transportation, education, and small
businesses programs which will have a real impact on middle class
families and help maintain the upward trajectory of our economy. The
Democratic budget also includes $50 billion for immediate surface
transportation projects which will create jobs today, in addition to
vital tax incentives for the manufacturing sector which has been so
critical to our economic recovery. All of these important goals are
achieved while continuing the Medicare guarantee for our seniors and
generating enough deficit reduction to eliminate the sequester, thereby
avoiding losing 750,000 jobs which would occur if sequestration is
allowed to continue.
If my Republican colleagues are serious about producing a balanced
budget then let us set aside this partisan rhetoric and recycled ideas
and come to the table willing and ready to make tough decisions for the
benefit of our country. American families across the country make tough
decisions about their family's budget on a daily budget. Whether it is
postponing that new car purchase, refinancing their homes, or cutting
back on the types of groceries they buy, American families do not have
the luxury to return to past bad ideas. They have to make the tough
decisions now or face losing their home, missing a tuition payment, or
having their heat turned off. Instead of debating political documents
such as this one, Congress must put aside the political games and come
together to find common ground to put our nation on a sustainable
fiscal path in the long term while making much needed investments in
the short term. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the
Republican budget.
Mr. BARR. Mr. Chair, for far too long, Washington has failed to take
its spending problem and its budgetary responsibilities seriously. That
ends now. With our nation's debt exceeding $16.7 trillion and billions
more added to the debt every day, I am proud to finally help put our
nation on a significantly different, more-prosperous path with my
support of this year's House Budget from Chairman Paul Ryan.
This is a responsible budget that will promote a healthier economy,
encourage growth and opportunity for all Americans, help create jobs,
and avert a debt crisis. This budget will enable us to avoid austerity
measures and painful cuts that are inevitable if we fail to reform the
status quo.
This budget balances our nation's finances in ten years, because it's
wrong to keep spending money we do not have. This budget cuts wasteful
spending and repeals Obamacare. This budget forces the government to
live within its means, because it's unfair to leave young people and
the next generation with a future of debt and decline. This budget
moves us closer to pro-growth tax reform without raising taxes--because
families and small businesses should be able to keep more of their
hard-earned income instead of having it wasted by Washington
bureaucrats.
Importantly, this budget protects and strengthens Medicare for
current and future generations of retirees. Last year, I made a promise
that I would not support changes to Medicare for people age 55 and
older--those born before 1959. Today, I made good on that promise with
my support of Paul Ryan's budget. However, let me be clear: Congress,
the President, and the American people cannot again afford to ignore
fixing our broken entitlement system this year. The problem with
Medicare's looming insolvency gets dramatically worse and more costly
each year we delay fixing it, and the current solutions will no longer
be sustainable or available if we fail to act this year. If we want to
avoid forcing Medicare changes and dramatic cuts for individuals
nearing retirement, we need both sides of the aisle to get serious
immediately.
This House plan presents a clear vision of what we need to do to
balance the budget and foster a healthier economy for today and the
future. In fact, according to an analysis conducted by two Stanford
economists, the House Budget ``would boost the economy immediately,''
and ``raise gross domestic product by one percentage point in 2014,
equivalent to about a $1,500 increase in annual income for each U.S.
household.'' Additionally, these economists estimate that ten years
from now, ``the entire plan would raise GDP by three percentage points,
or more than $4,000 for each U.S. household.''
By contrast, the budgets proposed by Democrat leaders in Congress are
full of budget tricks, accounting gimmicks and empty promises. Their
budgets ignore the entitlement crisis--the most significant driver of
our debt--increase taxes and stimulus spending by trillions of dollars,
and never balance--ever.
I ran for Congress because we have a solemn responsibility to pass on
a better future to our children, just like our parents did for us.
Today, I am pleased that we took a vital step to turn things around and
finally put us on a more responsible, prosperous path for the future.
But our work and responsibilities continue. The United States can and
will remain the greatest country on Earth for generations to come, but
it will require a fresh approach to Washington's old ways of doing
business.
The CHAIR. All time for debate has expired.
[[Page H1801]]
Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Collins of Georgia) 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, and,
pursuant to House Resolution 122, he reported the concurrent resolution
back to the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the concurrent resolution.
Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the previous order of the House,
this 15-minute vote on adoption of H. Con. Res. 25 will be followed by
5-minute votes on adoption of the motion to concur in the Senate
amendments to H.R. 933, and approval of the Journal, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221,
nays 207, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 88]
YEAS--221
Aderholt
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--207
Amash
Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crawford
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Forbes
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Markey
Massie
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinley
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--4
Amodei
Engel
Miller, George
Wasserman Schultz
{time} 1044
Ms. SINEMA, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California and Mr. SMITH of
Washington changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. STIVERS and STOCKMAN and Mrs. LUMMIS changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
____________________