[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 17, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H1697-H1704]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                A BALANCED BUDGET FOR A STRONGER AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, we are here today to talk about the 
Republican budget that was just announced today, and I do that with a 
great amount of pride and excitement as vice chairman of that 
committee.
  I also look forward to working with the gentlelady who just spoke 
during the 1-minute speeches, not only to create a sustainable budget 
and priorities for America, but to debunk many of the things that she 
just said.
  I am pleased to be joined by several members of the Committee on the 
Budget to help me do this.
  Before we get into the details, I feel it appropriate, Mr. Speaker, 
and absolutely necessary to yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Scalise), the majority whip of the House of Representatives, a friend 
of mine, to discuss some of the things that have happened to the great 
citizens in Louisiana.


        Honoring the Louisiana Guardsmen Who Perished Last Week

  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Indiana 
for yielding.
  As we observed a moment of silence on the House floor just a little 
while ago, I rise today in honor of the 11 brave American servicemen 
involved in last week's tragic helicopter crash off the coast of 
Florida. It is heartbreaking events like this, Mr. Speaker, which 
remind us that freedom is not free.
  Four of those heroes were members of the Louisiana National Guard 
stationed within the 1st of the 244th Assault Helicopter Battalion out 
of Hammond, Louisiana, which is located in my district.

[[Page H1698]]

  Our hearts are heavy, Mr. Speaker, as our Nation joins the battalion 
in mourning the loss of Chief Warrant Officer George Wayne Griffin, 
Jr., Chief Warrant Officer George David Strother, Staff Sergeant Lance 
Bergeron, and Staff Sergeant Thomas Florich. Their names will forever 
be engraved in our hearts and in our minds. They were described by 
their fellow soldiers as extraordinary and amazing aviators.
  Colonel Patrick Bossetta, the commander of the State Aviation 
Command, who I spoke with over the weekend, said this, Mr. Speaker:
  ``This crew was made up of the larger-than-life men who have had a 
passion for Army aviation that was so evident in the dedication that 
they had towards their profession. I know this, as I have personally 
flown with each one of them. They were driven by their intense desire 
to selflessly serve their country, fellow soldiers, and marines.''
  I want to talk about what some of their other colleagues said about 
them.
  Lieutenant Colonel John L. Bonnette II, who is the commander of the 
244th said:
  ``When I say they were heroes, I mean it many times over. They risked 
their lives under difficult conditions, flying in combat and during 
national emergencies, to ensure our security and help save thousands of 
people. I don't have the words to sum up their lives in a few 
sentences. You just can't. Our whole aviation family is reeling from 
this loss. The hole that is left is enormous. They were part of the 
fabric of this unit. The difference they made with everyone they served 
with will be a lasting legacy. Personally, flying with all of them was 
a privilege and an honor. I am a better person for having known them.''
  These heroes, Mr. Speaker, were husbands, fathers, and sons. We 
reflect upon the countless sacrifices they made for our great Nation, 
the selfless call they answered to defend our freedoms. They died doing 
what they loved.
  I want to take a few moments now to let the American people know 
about these four members of the Louisiana National Guard who died in 
this tragic accident.
  First is Chief Warrant Officer 4 George Wayne Griffin, Jr., who was 
37 years old. Chief Warrant Officer Griffin was from Delhi, Louisiana, 
and joined the Louisiana National Guard in 1994 and was commissioned as 
a warrant officer in 1999 before going on to become the battalion 
standardization pilot with over 6,000 flight hours, including more than 
1,000 combat hours. He later deployed to Iraq in 2004 to 2005 and again 
was redeployed in 2008 and 2009. He also served during State 
deployments in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Isaac, as 
well as in support of Operations River Guardian and Deepwater Horizon.
  ``G. Wayne Griffin was born to be an Army Aviator,'' said Chief 
Warrant Officer 5 Reggie Lane, commander of Detachment 38, Operational 
Support Airlift Command. ``As one of the most talented and respected 
warrant officers in the Louisiana National Guard, he had a tremendous 
passion for flying and a God-given natural ability to fly both 
helicopters and airplanes and to teach others to be the best aviators 
and crewmembers they could be. He was a great friend and brother to 
all. With his loss, there will be a void that may never be filled.''
  Griffin is survived by his wife, Becky, four children, and his 
father.
  Now, Chief Warrant Officer 4 George David Strother was 44 years old. 
Chief Warrant Officer Strother was from Alexandria and served in the 
Louisiana National Guard from 1988 to 2007 and again from 2009 until 
his death last week. He deployed to Iraq in 2004 and 2005, to 
Afghanistan in 2011, and Kosovo in 2014. He also served during State 
deployments for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Isaac. Strother 
commissioned as a warrant officer in 1994 before going on to become an 
instructor pilot, with over 2,400 flight hours, including more than 700 
combat hours.
  ``To describe Dave Strother as a big personality would not be 
accurate. He was more like a force of nature that could best be 
observed and marveled at, never opposed or altered,'' said Major Andre 
Jeansonne, commander, F Company, 2nd Battalion, 135th Aviation 
Regiment. ``His huge heart touched the lives of all men he met.''
  Strother is survived by his wife, Melissa, his son and a 
stepdaughter, and his mother.
  Staff Sergeant Lance Bergeron, 40 years old. Staff Sergeant Lance 
Bergeron of Thibodaux, Louisiana, enlisted into the U.S. Marine Corps 
in 1998 before joining the Louisiana National Guard in 2001 as a Black 
Hawk repairman. His extensive experience as a qualified enlisted flight 
instructor, graduate of the aircraft crewmember standardization 
instructor course, aircraft maintainer force, and warrior leader course 
made Bergeron a crew chief others aspired to be, according to members 
of his own unit. The combat veteran deployed to Iraq twice, in 2004 to 
2005, and again in 2008 to 2009. Bergeron also served during State 
deployments for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Isaac, and Operation River 
Guardian. Bergeron is survived by his wife, Monique, two children, and 
his mother and father.
  Finally, Staff Sergeant Thomas Florich, 26 years old. Staff Sergeant 
Florich, of Fairfax County, Virginia, enlisted in the Louisiana 
National Guard in 2007 as a Black Hawk repairer. He was posthumously 
promoted from sergeant to staff sergeant. Staff Sergeant Florich served 
during State deployment for Operation Deepwater Horizon and Hurricane 
Isaac. He earned more than 125 flight hours and was a graduate of the 
warrior leader course.
  ``Tom was full of life, and his personality could light the room,'' 
said Marquez. ``He was family with this unit and felt at home working 
with his brothers in Alpha Company. His dedication to duty and loyalty 
was without equal, always ready to accept any mission and extra duty in 
order to help the unit meet the mission. He will be greatly missed by 
the unit and the flight facility.''
  Florich is survived by his wife, Meghan, who is expecting their first 
child, as well as his father and stepmother.

                              {time}  1630

  Clearly, Mr. Speaker, these four men served their country and the 
people of Louisiana with great honor. They deployed to war zones and 
served during times of great emergency for our State. They represent 
the very best of what our military stands for.
  On behalf of my family, the Louisiana congressional delegation, and 
the entire House of Representatives, I want to say thank you to these 
four men and their families for the sacrifices they have made and for 
their service to our country. Their service and sacrifice will not be 
forgotten. They will remain in our prayers.
  God bless these heroes, and God bless America.
  Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for those eulogies 
and for being all too appropriate in the honor that we should give 
these fallen Americans, as great as they have been.
  Today, after votes for the day, Mr. Speaker, I want to recap some of 
the things that happened earlier in the day.
  Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to say that at about 10:45 this 
morning, the Republican members of the Budget Committee held a press 
conference where we explained to the American people our vision for our 
priorities and for the priorities of America to get us back on track. 
``A Balanced Budget for a Stronger America,'' is our theme.
  Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased and proud to say that this theme isn't 
altogether new for the United States House of Representatives 
Republicans. In fact, in large part, this is the fifth year in a row 
that we have proposed these kinds of ideas so that we can live 
responsibly in the here and now to produce and afford a better tomorrow 
for our children and grandchildren.
  Isn't that, Mr. Speaker, what we are here to be about? Hasn't it 
always been the history of these great United States that we would 
leave the next generation better off than the current generation has 
had it?
  As you know, Mr. Speaker, and as my colleagues will help me point out 
here over the next hour, we stand here as actually the first generation 
in American history that is poised to leave the next one worse off by 
any objective measure.
  That is why the budgets that we produce, the spending that we 
promulgate here in the United States Congress really needs to be 
scrutinized, really needs to be prioritized.
  It is going to take people with a great degree of personal 
responsibility

[[Page H1699]]

and leadership, Mr. Speaker, to have a great, truthful conversation 
with the American people to, number one, tell them what the situation 
really is, but just as important, number two, to let them know that 
there are solutions, that we can fix it if we just show them what they 
are.
  Let me quickly go through some of the points of our budget that we 
will mark up in committee tomorrow and expect to be on the floor next 
week for a vote.
  Again, the first point, this plan will balance the budget in less 
than 10 years. That is faster than any of the recent House Republican 
budgets. Mr. Speaker, it is in stark contrast to the President's 
budget, which never balances, ever.
  How can we pay off this $18 trillion-plus in debt that we have right 
now, plus the hundred trillion that is on the way over the next several 
decades, if we never first get it to balance? This Republican budget 
does that. We do it in less than 10 years.
  Now, many American families are saying, 10 years? I wish I had 10 
years to balance our budget. I have to balance it immediately in our 
households, some might say. For a government that spends over $3 
trillion a year, it takes a while to turn that big aircraft carrier, so 
to speak, around.
  That is why I use the word ``responsible,'' Mr. Speaker. We are being 
responsible in these reforms, in these priority changes, so that people 
have time to adapt, so that we can get the economy going again to 
produce more revenue to make perhaps that 10 years even go by quicker, 
but this is a responsible way to do it.
  All we have to do is show the rest of the world that we have a 
pathway to prosperity and we will continue to be the best place in the 
world to invest, to grow a business, to grow a family for the next 
several decades, as we have been for the last several hundred years.
  The other thing our budget does, Mr. Speaker, is it repeals 
ObamaCare, saving nearly $2 trillion in the process. This is 
government-controlled health care. It has never worked in the past. It 
is not going to work now.
  We get rid of it, encouraging us to start over with health care 
reforms in a way that Americans feel comfortable in keeping their 
doctor, for example, in ways that respect free market principles of 
supply and demand, in ways that naturally stop us from overconsuming. 
That is the baseline from which we should have a health care reform 
debate and policy, not from a government-controlled perspective.
  Our budget also proudly relies on a fairer and simpler Tax Code. It 
is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that the Congressional Budget 
Office, those that are tasked with keeping track of our economic 
indicators and scoring the different bills that come through Congress, 
has indicated that our GDP--our gross domestic product in this 
country--will be assumed to be about 2.3 percent over the next several 
years.
  Now, that is new information, Mr. Speaker. Never before has our GDP 
growth been calculated to be that low; yet it is because of our current 
policies over the last several years that they must calculate our GDP 
growth to be that low. We call for changing that formula.
  A fairer, simpler Tax Code allows for job creators to create those 
jobs, to create more investment, and to invest more in their people and 
businesses. That creates a net economic positive effect that creates 
economic value that ultimately, Mr. Speaker, will allow more tax 
revenue into the government's coffers to help balance the budget and 
then begin to pay off our debt.
  Mr. Speaker, our budget also proudly provides for a strong national 
defense. As we have heard now for the last several weeks, months, and 
years, the global war on terror is very much alive, very much real, 
very much a serious threat, and it would be irresponsible of us to 
continue cutting our military at a time when these threats exist. Our 
budget recognizes that.
  Our budget calls for more spending in our military than President 
Obama, the Commander in Chief, has said he needs; and I think it 
reflects the reality of the situation around the world today, Mr. 
Speaker. You will see the Republicans stand strong for our military men 
and women and the defense budget that they need.
  This budget also, Mr. Speaker, gives power back to the States. In 
legislative parlance and philosophical parlance, that is called 
federalism. Really what this budget is and recognizes is that those 
individuals and the States are much better at governing the affairs of 
their respective lives and their respective people than a prescriptive, 
one-size-fits-all recipe from Washington.
  Our budget calls for flexibility, giving the property of individuals 
and States, i.e., their tax dollars, back to them so they can run 
social programs that they think are important, that fit the needs of 
their constituencies and their communities, and that gets Washington 
out of the way.
  Our Medicaid reform proposals, for example, are a great example of 
this concept, where we send the States' and the individuals' property 
back to them--their tax dollars, in terms of Medicaid--and say: You 
know what, you are better at determining who is really poor in your 
communities and your States and what kind and what amounts of health 
care those people need.

  Then, finally, the third leg to that is what the delivery system for 
those services would look like.
  Who says that we have the answers to all this? It is no one-size-
fits-all, prescriptive policy. The States are where it is at. The 
individuals and their communities know better than we do how to serve 
those most in need.
  That gets right to the heart of Ms. Bonamici's allegations during her 
1-minute speech. Throwing money at something--into a system that is 
broken, that doesn't work--is no way to fix a problem. It only grows 
our debt and makes people more dependent on broken programs.
  Let's trust our fellow citizens. Let's trust our local elected 
officials to know their communities and their constituencies best. That 
is how you get people out of dependency.
  Our goal with the Republican budget is to get people off these 
programs, not to make them lifetime dependents. There is no freedom, 
there is no liberty, there is no personal responsibility in that.
  The Republican budget also recognizes and focuses on the dignity that 
comes with a job, the dignity that comes with work. That is altogether 
important and, Mr. Speaker, altogether lost in so many ways in so many 
places in this city and in this Congress--the dignity of work, earning 
the success, the happiness that comes with that. This Republican budget 
reflects all of that.
  I am pleased at this time to yield the floor to several members of 
the Budget Committee, all of whom have helped put this document 
together, all of whom have worked diligently and seriously on behalf of 
the American people--and especially their constituents--to make this 
document not only bold, but accurate, in terms of its numbers and 
philosophically correct.
  First, I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia, a new Member to 
this body, Congressman Alex Mooney. He lives in Charles Town in 
Jefferson County in West Virginia and has three children. He is the son 
of a Cuban refugee and Vietnam veteran.
  Alex grew up with a deep sense of appreciation for the American 
ideals of individual freedom and personal responsibility. That, Mr. 
Speaker, is what makes him a great member of the House Budget 
Committee.
  Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia. Mr. Speaker, thank you to Congressman 
Todd Rokita for arranging this Special Order to talk about the House 
budget released today titled: ``A Balanced Budget for a Stronger 
America.''
  As a freshman member of the House Budget Committee and the 
Representative of West Virginia on the committee, I worked to deliver 
on West Virginia priorities in the House budget.
  The first of these priorities is to balance the Federal budget. It is 
totally unacceptable for West Virginia--and all Americans--to live 
within their means while the Federal Government allows spending and 
debt to run rampant. While the House budget released today is not 
perfect, it balances, unlike the President's budget.
  As you can see right here, it is a 10-year budget cycle. Our budget 
balances in year nine. Not only does the President's budget not 
balance, it creates more debt and deficit each and every year as you go 
along. We don't have a

[[Page H1700]]

partner to work with at the administrative level in the President's 
office to balance the budget.
  We had to do this on our own because the American people demand and 
deserve a balanced budget. It is the right thing to do, and that is a 
bipartisan statement. As I traveled my State and my district last year, 
I heard from everybody, Republican and Democrat, that they wanted a 
balanced budget. This puts us on the path to do so.
  I also successfully led three budget proposals through the committee 
process, and each are now included in the final House budget released 
today. The first two will stop the President's war on coal in its 
tracks, and the third cuts unnecessary Federal spending.
  The first proposal stops the administration's efforts to close coal-
fired power plants. We simply did this by eliminating any funding for 
the development and implementation of new ozone standard regulations by 
the Environmental Protection Agency, or the EPA.
  The coal industry has already spent billions of dollars over the last 
few years coming into compliance with previous ozone standard rules, 
but the President's EPA is expected to release new ozone standards 
anyway, designed intentionally to shutter coal plants.
  The President and his radical environmentalist allies fail to 
recognize that many States still rely on coal to provide energy at 
affordable household prices.
  Over 90 percent of West Virginia households rely on coal for 
affordable, reliable energy. Recent estimates say implementation of the 
President's new rule would cost over 10,000 jobs in West Virginia.
  The second proposal I secured in the House budget to stop the 
President's war on coal was to prevent funding for a new stream buffer 
rule from the Department of the Interior.
  The administration has already spent over $7 million writing this 
rule, which is designed to allow the administration to claim regulatory 
jurisdiction within 100 feet of anything they deem to be a stream.

                              {time}  1645

  That dubious proposition would allow Federal regulators to shut down 
surface mining operations in almost every region of West Virginia with 
the stroke of a pen. That is not how we make laws.
  Some studies estimate that Federal and State governments will lose $4 
billion to $5 billion in tax revenue if it is enacted, and the coal 
industry would lose $14 billion to $20 billion in revenue and as many 
as 85,000 jobs in our region.
  Stopping the War on Coal is good policy for hardworking West Virginia 
taxpayers and good policy for our Nation. We must continue to pursue an 
all-of-the-above energy approach to secure energy independence and grow 
our economy.
  I am proud of this budget's rejection of discrimination against 
certain forms of energy production, such as coal, which the President 
deems to not be politically correct.
  To cut Federal waste, my third proposal defunds the Legal Services 
Corporation, an agency which operates far outside its original mandate 
after decades absent of any congressional oversight.
  Defunding the Legal Services Corporation is a proposal supported by 
both the Congressional Budget Office and The Heritage Foundation. 
Instead of providing legal services to the poor, as is its mandate, the 
organization has been used to advance pro-abortion and politically 
ideological policies, as well as increase spending on welfare.
  Defunding this organization would remove a Federal agency operating 
outside of its mandate and would also save taxpayers millions of 
dollars.
  I am proud these proposals were included in the House budget to stop 
the President's assault on energy jobs and cut waste from the Federal 
Government. I look forward to continuing to fight for West Virginia 
priorities as the budget process continues. With real solutions, we can 
restore fiscal conservatism to Washington and foster economic 
prosperity for our Nation.
  Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentleman. If the gentleman would stay, I 
would like to engage him in a question if he could.
  I am very interested in what you are saying. You come from an area of 
this country, like so many areas of this country, that understand the 
meaning of the fact that when you pull something out of the ground and 
you process it, you have just created wealth. You have just created 
jobs for people.
  That is not a dirty thing. And, in fact, the coal industry and the 
fossil fuel industry today, they are the cleanest they have ever been 
and have done so much good work. They have been chided and bullied for 
so many years now.
  But I want you to tell us about how the electricity that comes from 
coal eventually not just is less dirty than it was before, but that it 
produces the electricity that gives people clean water, and not just in 
West Virginia or in Indiana, but in Africa. It raises people altogether 
out of poverty.
  Could you talk more about what happens in West Virginia and the good 
it brings to people there and around the world?
  Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia. Sure. We burn clean coal and we see the 
use of coal. As I mentioned, 90 percent of our State uses coal for 
their energy. It is the cheapest, most affordable type of energy, 
electricity, that can be created, so it is a blessing to have that in 
our State and other States that have it as well.
  We already burn it clean. The coal industry has dealt with 
regulations under previous administrations for many years. We are 
burning it clean.
  It is not an accident. It is an intention of this administration 
because they stated it when they said they want a war on coal. They 
stated they are going to make it--the President himself said he is 
going to make it so expensive that it would bankrupt the coal 
production companies and shut down coal that way. So it is their goal 
to make standards that aren't just reasonable, but that are intended to 
stop an agency from producing.
  I would like to also point out, we ship coal to other countries. We 
ship coal to China, for example. Well, guess what?
  There is no EPA in China. They burn the coal there much, much dirtier 
than we do in this country. So it is cleaner to burn it here anyway 
than to ship it to other countries and have them burn it. So it makes 
no sense.
  In fact, they are harming the environment. These very policies that 
are intended to help the environment are actually harming the 
environment. It makes no sense. It is harming every taxpayer, every 
family who wants this affordable form of energy.
  Mr. ROKITA. Right. Reclaiming my time, I would say that every person 
we employ in West Virginia, in Indiana, and anywhere else in the 
country, gets a paycheck for sure. That is a great thing.
  The government, both at the State and Federal levels and maybe even 
the local level, gets a cut of that, right? And that eventually gets 
here to Washington, D.C.
  Sir, does it not make sense then that that would help pay down--
excuse me, let's look at your chart--pay down the deficits, eventually 
getting us to balance, as we stated, in less than 10 years, and then 
allowing us to begin to work on our surplus over the next several 
decades?
  So we certainly have to cut spending, and that is the main driver of 
our debt, and reform the social entitlement programs that are driving 
the debt. But every little bit of economic growth, economic activity 
that comes with a job, that comes with a paycheck, allows us, if we 
wanted to, like we do in this budget, to pay down those deficits in the 
debt.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia. Yes. Thank you for yielding.
  I would say tens and really hundreds of thousands of jobs are on the 
line with these coal policies that prevent people from having good-
paying jobs and feeding their families. And both parties can agree--it 
is a bipartisan proposal--the best way to help the poor or to help 
anybody not get on government assistance is to get a good-paying job, 
and that is what we are trying to provide here, good-paying jobs, the 
dignity that you mentioned, Congressman, in your earlier remarks about 
the dignity of having a good-paying job.
  Folks in my State and, I am sure, others, want those good-paying jobs 
because they want that dignity. They

[[Page H1701]]

want to work. They don't want to have to be relying on government 
programs.
  So the assault on the coal industry and the energy industry in 
general is something that is particularly harmful to our State. And 
anyone listening across this country, I would be careful, because if 
they can discriminate against one form of energy, which is coal, what 
is next?
  There is an agenda here that exists to discriminate against various 
types of energy production. Look, we just want to be fair. We want an 
all-of-the-above energy policy. We want these jobs here at home that 
are going to happen anyway because they are doing it in other 
countries, so we want these jobs here at home. They are good-paying 
jobs.
  Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentleman.
  Reclaiming my time, I thank Congressman Mooney for his expertise in 
this area, coming from the State of West Virginia.
  Again, I would say he is an excellent member of the Budget Committee 
and takes his job seriously, and I welcome him to continue with our 
discussion here.
  Mr. Speaker, if I can inquire how much time we have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 28 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn our attention now to 
another hard-charging member of the Budget Committee, someone else who 
is new to Congress and who is bringing that energy, along with great 
ideas, to the discussion. A lot of his ideas are found in this budget.
  Congressman John Moolenaar of Michigan was a chemist, or perhaps is 
still a chemist. He worked in the private sector prior to joining us 
here. He is an example of a team that created the jobs that better our 
economy, that allow us to crawl out of this deficit and debt that we 
are facing because of our overspending, and his experience will allow 
us to be part--allow the conversation to illustrate the solutions that 
come with raising our GDP level back to where it used to be not just a 
few years ago so that we can have a better economy now and a better 
future for our children.
  Before serving in Congress, John Moolenaar served on the Midland City 
Council and in the State legislature.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Moolenaar).
  Mr. MOOLENAAR. Thank you very much. I want to thank my colleague from 
Indiana for his leadership organizing this presentation today.
  Mr. Speaker, as it is clear from the charts and the discussion we 
have already had today, Washington has a spending problem.
  In January, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated 
that the Federal Government would collect $3.4 trillion in revenue in 
fiscal year 2016.
  The week after that, the Obama administration released a $4 trillion 
spending plan that raises taxes and never balances, a refusal to live 
within the government's means.
  Out-of-control Federal spending has exploded the national debt. In 
2014, revenue to the Federal Government was 49 percent higher than in 
2000. Yet, spending for 2014 was 95 percent higher than 2000.
  As part of the economy, the debt is at its highest point since the 
1950s. Much of the problem is spending required by unsustainable 
government programs. This spending has increased dramatically and 
crowded out funding for national security and other priorities.
  Mandatory spending alone in 2014 cost $2.3 trillion, more than was 
spent funding the entire government in 2004.
  As a member of the House Budget Committee, I have worked with our 
colleagues to craft a budget that addresses our country's fiscal 
challenges. The House Republican budget balances within 10 years and 
does not raise taxes.
  It reforms unsustainable government programs while keeping the 
promises that have been made to our seniors. It grants flexibility to 
the States on Medicaid, allowing them to craft their own health care 
programs for those in need. This change brings Medicaid closer to the 
American people it was meant to serve.
  I hope that Members of both parties, in both the Senate and the 
House, will be able to come together and address the budget in a 
responsible way, without raising taxes on hardworking families who have 
seen their wages stagnate during this historically slow economic 
recovery.
  The House Republican budget puts our country on a path toward a more 
stable and responsible fiscal future.
  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Moolenaar points out some of the obvious 
and perhaps maybe not so obvious problems the budget faces and what we 
face as a Congress.
  Really quickly, before introducing a veteran member of the committee, 
I want to illustrate a little bit what, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Moolenaar was 
discussing.
  Here you see, in a pie graph form, what our Federal Government, what 
your Federal Government spends its money on. I have taken the liberty 
of dissecting or pushing out two pieces of that pie to show you, 
really, from a year-to-year perspective situation, what we get to vote 
on as Members of Congress.
  It is defense discretionary, as we call it, and there is nondefense 
discretionary. In terms of the fund centers and the lines in the 
budget, we can dial those up or dial those amounts down year to year, 
Budget Control Act deals and all that notwithstanding.
  But it is the rest of this pie that Mr. Moolenaar indicates that is 
so alarming, because the rest of this pie, I can't, Mr. Speaker, you 
can't, Mr. Moolenaar can't dial up the spending or dial it down year to 
year by our vote on the budget or our vote on appropriations bills 
because the funding formula for those programs is found in the 
underlying law.
  So Congressman Rokita doesn't get to decide how much Social Security 
an eligible citizen receives year to year, or what the Medicare 
services are going to be, or what the costs or payouts for them are 
going to be, or determine right now what the one-size-fits-all Medicaid 
program looks like. That is all determined by the underlying law.
  This spending, until we reform these programs, is on autopilot. It 
just goes on and on and on and on, and that is why these programs too 
need to be reformed.
  So we have taken the extra step in our House Republican budget and 
outlined solutions for the other committees, for Members of Congress, 
for the American people, that would work to not only pay down the 
deficits but then our debt over time after we come into balance, 
recognizing, being honest with the American people about what is 
causing our debt.
  If you see from this pie graph, it is only about 40 percent of our 
budget year to year that we can dial up or down simply by a vote on the 
budget.

                              {time}  1700

  Over 60 percent is on autopilot.
  So you can't possibly pay off our deficits and our debt until you 
address the underlying cause--what is driving our debt--and that is 
these entitlement programs of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the 
interest we owe ourselves and other countries for this debt we are 
racking up, and a smorgasbord of other mandatory spending, mostly 
welfare programs.
  The Republican budget not only recognizes that, not only tells the 
American people the truth, but then offers solutions of what could 
solve the situation over a reasonable amount of time.
  A fellow who has been integral to making sure that these good ideas 
have stayed in our budget now for the fifth time in the last several 
years is a gentleman I have come to know as a good friend, a trusted 
confidant, a fellow whom I have said from this microphone before 
represents the people in his district in Georgia so very, very well, 
and not only that but represents America so well because of his 
excellent oratory, his good ideas, and his intense work ethic, which we 
need more of, frankly, around here, Mr. Speaker.
  I yield to the gentleman from the great State of Georgia, Mr. Robert 
Woodall.
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend, the vice chairman for yielding.
  I know the vice chairman won't brag about himself, Mr. Speaker. So 
let me brag about him just for a second.
  He got elected when I got elected 4 years ago. But when you think 
about what the American people have asked for from this Congress in 
terms of solving the problems that affect their lives,

[[Page H1702]]

in terms of dealing with the issues that threaten economic prosperity, 
in terms of doing the heavy lifting that is required, they have cleared 
out more than half of this institution.
  Well, if you got elected in the class that the vice chairman and I 
were elected in 4 years ago, you are already in the top 50 percent of 
seniority in this institution.
  We talk about how folks come to Congress and stay forever. America 
has been turning people out on their ear left and right over these last 
4 years, which has allowed folks like the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Rokita) to rise to these levels where they can lead on these issues.
  Mr. Speaker, as you know, the vice chairman didn't come from a 
legislative background. He came from a background as a shot-caller. He 
was the secretary of State in Indiana. He didn't have somebody else to 
blame when things went wrong. The buck stopped on his desk. Every 
single day, the buck stopped on his desk, exactly like it does for 
every father and every mother and every employer anywhere across this 
country. And when you now have filled this institution with folks who 
were shot-callers yesterday and now have been asked to find agreement 
among 435 of their colleagues, you get exciting results, exciting 
results.
  I am going to keep the chart that the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Mooney) had up here, Mr. Speaker.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Moolenaar) is a freshman. He sold 
himself short when he talked about the hard work to get this budget 
done, and you need look no further than this chart to see it.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't fault the President's work ethic. I think the 
President works hard to do what he thinks is best for this country. But 
there is not one family in America that believes you can borrow as much 
as you want to borrow, spend as much as you want to spend, and your 
family's economic future will be secure. They all know that is a path 
to disaster.
  This blue line represents the budget deficits in the President's 
budget, the budget that he just sent to Congress. It is his legal 
responsibility to do it. He did it. This is the plan that he laid out 
for America--deficits as far as the eye can see, borrowing not just for 
the next year or the next 10 years or the next 20 years or the next 30 
years, but forever.
  The work that Mr. Moolenaar and Mr. Rokita have done isn't easy. It 
is unpleasant work. I don't know why you took the job, I will say to my 
friend from Indiana. It is an awful job to be vice chairman of the 
Budget Committee because your job is to do the things that haven't 
gotten done before. Your job is to do the things that were too hard for 
everybody else to do, and you have stepped into the breach to do it.
  This red line, Mr. Speaker, represents deficits under the budget that 
Mr. Rokita and Chairman Tom Price of Georgia are bringing to a markup 
in the Budget Committee tomorrow. They couldn't balance the budget in 
day one. There is a lot of sweat equity in this chart. They could not 
balance the budget in day one because the red ink is just too thick. 
You have got to do it in a responsible way. They made the tough 
decisions to cut deficits in half by year two, in half by year two and 
on out to budget surpluses by the time you get to the end of the 10-
year window, a balanced budget for America.
  You can't see the sweat stains on this chart, Mr. Speaker. But there 
is sweat equity in this chart. We are not talking about, are you going 
to spend an extra million dollars here, an extra million dollars there. 
We are not talking about, are you going to prioritize environmental 
spending or national park spending. We are not talking about, are you 
going to prioritize transportation spending via roads or transportation 
spending via air.
  We are talking about, are you going to balance the budget ever. Or 
are you going to borrow from your children and your grandchildren as 
far as the eye can see?
  And I have news, Mr. Speaker. Every single one of these dollars and 
deficits you see in the President's budget represents a dollar of 
future tax increases or future benefit cuts. I want you to think about 
that.
  What Mr. Rokita and the Budget Committee have done is to put together 
a courageous package that says, We should pay for the bills today that 
we are incurring today. We should not sacrifice tomorrow's prosperity 
for today's indulgence. We should do the tough things when we can so 
that our children don't have to labor under those burdens.
  Every single one of these dollars that the President borrows and 
spends--and, I should add, this is with a $1 trillion tax increase; 
even with $1 trillion in new taxes, the President still is running 
these kinds of deficits--represents either a tax increase for your 
children and your grandchildren or a benefit cut for your children and 
your grandchildren. Those are the only two ways to get a dollar in this 
country.
  We should have the courage, if we want to spend money, to go find the 
money to spend. We should have the courage that if we want to cut 
benefits, to cut those benefits today, not 100 years from today. We 
should have the courage to do the difficult things that need to be 
done. And I am just grateful to the gentleman from Indiana and his 
leadership on the committee. What we are going to mark up--it will 
probably be a 12-hour markup tomorrow. I am so excited about it. I am 
so excited about it. What we are going to mark up is a budget that 
every Member of this Chamber can be proud of.
  And I will tell you a secret, Mr. Speaker. I don't want to let the 
cat out of the bag. I don't think it is too soon to break the news. But 
I have seen some patterns in the 4 years I have been here. My 
expectation is that, as hard as the Budget Committee has worked on this 
document, as much sweat equity has gone into doing the difficult things 
that need to be done, my guess is that they are going to allow any 
Member of this Chamber who wants to write a budget to offer their ideas 
and get a vote on those ideas too. We have seen it year after year 
after year. I suspect we are going to see it again.

  This isn't about trying to shut folks out of the process, Mr. 
Speaker. This is about trying to bring folks into the process. The kind 
of collaborative process the vice chairman of the committee has driven, 
along with Chairman Tom Price, is the difference between taking the 
responsibility on our shoulders, as parents, grandparents, legislators, 
citizens, or kicking that can down the road to the next generation.
  I just couldn't be more proud of the effort and the work product that 
my friend from Indiana has created.
  Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentleman from Georgia. As much as I 
appreciate his comments about the work we have all done on the Budget 
Committee, they are certainly undeserved with regards to me. It was a 
team effort from the beginning. It continues to be a team effort.
  I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman from Georgia is exactly 
right, though, that every Member of this Chamber--and that is 
Republican or Democrat--can be proud of this budget. This honestly and 
accurately solves this country's Federal Government fiscal problems. 
And they should also be proud of the fact that, as the gentleman 
mentions, other ideas are going to be accepted in regular order and be 
voted on. And it really doesn't get more American than that. That will 
be an honor that has continued to be our tradition, and I see no reason 
that that won't continue.
  If the gentleman would, I would like to hear his thoughts on the 
Medicare part of our budget.
  The gentleman heard me reference the fact that the autopilot 
spending, these social programs need to be reformed. And I want to be 
very clear not only with my colleagues, with the gentleman from 
Georgia, but also with the American people, Mr. Speaker, that we are 
not cutting, we are not slashing, we are not ending Medicare or these 
other programs, as I know perhaps there will be some scare tactic 
language presented. I hope that is not the case. I continue to hope. 
But the fact of the matter is, we save and we strengthen Medicare.
  I yield to the gentleman for his comments in that regard.
  Mr. WOODALL. Well, I appreciate my friend for yielding.
  I know my friend is well known in this body for his work on Medicaid 
and the effort to save that important health care program as well, and 
I thank him for that.
  Medicare is a great example. It is a great example. There is not a 
Member

[[Page H1703]]

in this institution, Mr. Speaker, who believes that we have the money 
or could even find the money to pay for Medicare as it is structured 
today.
  It is not a question of, is it going to go bankrupt; it is a question 
of when is it going to go bankrupt. And that is not a Budget Committee 
member from the State of Georgia talking. Those are the Medicare 
trustees talking. The folks who are in charge of looking after the 
program year after year after year tell us that it is going to go 
under.
  What people in my district ask for, I will say to my friend from 
Indiana, is not a leg up, not something for nothing, not a free lunch. 
They just want to know what the rules are. And if you tell them what 
the rules are, they will rise to the occasion.
  I am in my forties. I know Medicare is not going to be there for me 
the way it is for my parents. I worry it won't be there at all for 
folks in my age bracket.
  What the Budget Committee has done in this budget is absolutely to 
protect Medicare. It has gone from something that might not be there 
for me--and certainly wouldn't be there for me in the way that my 
parents have known it--to a commitment that I can count on. Not I, the 
United States Congressman; I, as a 45-year-old citizen in America for 
whom payroll taxes--those taxes that pay for Medicare--have been the 
largest tax burden that 80 percent of American families have paid all 
of their lives.
  These dollars that you see here represent dollars that the President, 
in many cases, is frittering away on today's consumption but that we 
are reinvesting in Medicare to ensure that it survives for another day.
  And what it does, Mr. Speaker--I don't know how deeply you have dug 
into the Budget Committee Medicare proposal--it anticipates providing 
choice in the Medicare system the likes of which Medicare has never 
seen.
  I mean, America has seen that wildly successful Medicare Advantage 
program. Have you seen that, Mr. Speaker? I mean, it has been the 
source of attempts to slash over and over and over again by this 
administration for reasons that I cannot imagine because it is the most 
popular Medicare program in America, Medicare Advantage, which for the 
first time allowed taxpayers to make choices about how they were going 
to receive their Medicare benefits.
  What the gentleman from Indiana and our entire committee has put 
together in this budget is a pathway through that premium support 
program to let every Medicare beneficiary going forward, folks--even 
young people like me at 45, folks at 18--know that when they get to 
Medicare, not only will it still be there for them, but they will have 
a choice of plans to choose the one that works best for them.
  Mr. ROKITA. If the gentleman will yield, that is so very important 
and critical to understanding our reform efforts because of the fact 
that our proposed changes don't even have to affect anyone who is on 
these programs or near to being on them.
  Our modeling, our reform, our ideas would start in 2024. So the 
younger guys--men and women, of course--in America, those of the age 
group that the gentleman from Georgia referenced, would have time to 
prepare.
  And it is not like these changes would be draconian. They would just 
reflect how we live now and how long we live in the 21st century. 
Again, the main part of our reform is giving people choice.
  We believe and we know from data and from experiences in the States--
those laboratories of democracy that I referenced earlier, the notion 
of Federalism, where the best government comes from those that govern 
closest to the people--that if you give people a choice, no matter 
their socioeconomic background, now matter how old or young they are or 
how smart or simple some may think they are, they can make the best 
choices for themselves in all facets of their lives. And that includes 
health care. Once we do that, once we have folks invested in the 
decision-making process, you will see costs naturally go down.

                              {time}  1715

  That is a large part of our plan. Let people choose what works best 
for them, what works best for that time in their lives, and you will 
see them take an ownership interest just like they would an ownership 
interest in any other thing that they have a vested interest in, 
whether it is repairing their automobile, buying an automobile, or even 
their health care. It will work the same way. That is a good portion of 
our plan.
  Again, anyone who is on these programs or near to be on them can take 
the promises that were offered, the deal that was given, and can 
continue on with their lives and planning for their future.
  The gentleman from Georgia, I, members of the Budget Committee, and 
previous Congresses now for 4 years in a row have talked to the 
American people about this idea of down the road let's change the 
system, not so it goes away, but so that it can be strengthened and 
saved so that it can be around for those in the future. I think what 
every parent and every grandparent ultimately wants is a better life 
for their children and grandchildren.
  Now, if we contrast that for a minute with the President's idea, you 
see a much different picture. First of all, in order to fund his 
government-controlled health care plan, Mr. Speaker, he basically takes 
from Medicare. The President's health care law makes drastic cuts to 
the Medicare program without improving the long-term solvency of that 
program. In addition to the reductions already proposed in the law, 
ObamaCare created the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a Board of 15 
unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats who will cut Medicare in ways that 
would deny care to current seniors. That is not the way forward. That 
doesn't save and strengthen these popular programs. That is what will 
end up destroying them for future generations.
  Some may ask--I know the gentleman from Georgia has heard this 
question--well, didn't the President's health care law improve 
Medicare's solvency? No. It absolutely did not. The President's health 
care law raided Medicare to fund ObamaCare. Advocates of the 
President's health care law claimed that the law both improved Medicare 
solvency and paid for the new entitlement at the same time, but this 
claim is contradictory. Medicare's chief actuary testified before the 
House Budget Committee that the Medicare savings had been double 
counted.
  The House Republican budget stops the raid on Medicare and ensures 
that any current law Medicare savings are devoted to saving Medicare. 
So that is what I mean when I say and when the gentleman from Georgia 
says that this is an honest budget. It is truth telling to and for the 
American people, but it also offers the solutions that can honestly and 
responsibly get us out of this situation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. WOODALL. What my friend says about people being able to rely on 
this budget, about the honesty and integrity in the budget, it really 
is contrasted with these deficit numbers that you see coming out of the 
White House, because there is not an honest broker in this room who 
would not tell you that if you continue to run these deficits, 
eventually you are going to hit the wall. You are going to have to pull 
the rug out from under current beneficiaries. That is what bankruptcy 
means.
  Mr. Speaker, that is what we mean when we say ``bankruptcy.'' We 
don't mean that Social Security goes away and Medicare goes away and 
you get zero. We mean you are still stuck on the program, but we are 
slashing your benefits in half overnight. That is immoral. It is 
immoral to make promises to people and not keep them.
  I don't want the gentleman from Indiana's job, Mr. Speaker. I don't 
want it. Being vice chairman of the Budget Committee is hard because 
you have to make tough decisions. And the decision that the Budget 
Committee made was we can be honest with folks who have not yet 
attained Medicare age that the program will not be there for them as it 
was for their parents if we make no changes. We can keep our commitment 
to older seniors--those folks on the program--to say, if we promise it 
to you, you are going to get it. Then we can bring in this new element 
of choice, again, for folks in my age bracket, to say, when you get to 
Medicare, we will have protected it, and you

[[Page H1704]]

will have some personal decisionmaking in terms of how do you get the 
benefit package that best serves you, best serves your spouse, and best 
serves your family.
  I am so appreciative in a town where people dodge responsibility like 
it is the plague that the Budget Committee has said that we are either 
going to break promises tomorrow when we run out of money or we are 
going to be honest with people today about the state of the affairs 
that we are in: $400 billion deficits, $600 billion deficits, trillion-
dollar deficits in the President's budget. And if you saw the chart 
that the vice chairman held up earlier, that pie chart of where America 
spends its money, interest that we are paying today dwarfs education 
spending, transportation spending, environmental spending, and the 
like.
  I thank the gentleman for his leadership.
  Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentleman from Georgia again. He is not only 
a blessing to his State, he is a blessing to this Congress and to this 
country for his integrity, his hard work, and for his oratory. Thank 
you, sir, very, very much.
  Mr. Speaker and Members of this body, please pay attention to the 
House Budget Committee tomorrow as we mark up this bill, hopefully not 
for 12 hours, but maybe so. We will be there for as long as it takes. 
And be ready--be ready and be proud--to vote on the floor of this House 
next week for a budget that offers honesty, real solutions, a balanced 
budget for a stronger America.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________