[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.

                          ____________________