[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 24, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H1870-H1895]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016


                             General Leave

  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 27.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 163 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the concurrent 
resolution, H. Con. Res. 27.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Yoder) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1425


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the 
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 27) establishing the budget for the 
United States Government for fiscal year 2016 and setting forth 
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2017 through 2025, with 
Mr. Yoder in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the concurrent resolution is 
considered read the first time.
  General debate shall not exceed 4 hours, with 3 hours confined to the 
congressional budget, equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget, and 1 hour on 
the subject of economic goals and policies, equally divided and 
controlled by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) and the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), or their designees.
  The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Tom Price) and the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) each will control 90 minutes of debate on the 
congressional budget.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I thank the chairman, and I want to thank my ranking member on the 
committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), for his work 
on our budget that we bring forward and the spirited debate that we had 
in committee.
  I want to thank all of our committee members for the productive 
activity

[[Page H1871]]

that they brought forward over the last 10 or 11 weeks to work on our 
budget and produce this product.
  I want to thank our staff. They have done incredible work to get us 
to this point.
  I want to take a special moment to thank Congressional Budget Office 
Director Doug Elmendorf, who will be leaving at the end of the month. I 
know the ranking member and I are going to have some words later on 
about his service, but I want to thank him and his staff for the work 
that they have done.
  Mr. Chairman, I am so proud and pleased to join my Committee on the 
Budget colleagues and Conference member colleagues on this side of the 
aisle to present A Balanced Budget for a Stronger America.
  When I talk with folks back home in the district, the Sixth District 
of Georgia, and across the State of Georgia, truly across this country, 
individuals are concerned. They are very concerned. Many of them are 
angry. Most are frustrated about the direction of America. They feel we 
are adrift, that Washington seems incapable of addressing their 
concerns, that the Federal Government is getting in the way or impeding 
the very spirit of the people. The President's response in his budget? 
More taxes, more spending, more borrowing, more debt, more stagnant 
growth, and a budget that never, ever, ever balances.
  Remember, Mr. Chairman--the American people know this--every dollar 
that is taken for taxes and every dollar that is borrowed, stealing 
from the next generation, is a dollar that can't be used to pay the 
rent, to buy a car, to buy a home, to send a kid to college, to open a 
business or to expand a business and create jobs. We think there is a 
better way.
  Framing that issue, as folks read our report, is our introduction, in 
which we say this: It is often said that a budget is more than a dry 
collection of numbers and budgeting more than a mechanical act. With 
respect to the congressional budget, no one has put it better than the 
renowned political scientist, Aaron Wildavsky, when he said:

       Taxing and spending, resource mobilization, and resource 
     allocation now take up as much or more time on the floors of 
     Congress than all other matters put together. How large 
     government will be, the part it will play in our lives, 
     whether more or less will be done for defense or welfare, how 
     much, and what sort of people will pay for the services, what 
     kind of society, in sum, we Americans want to have, all these 
     are routinely discussed in budget debates.

  This resolution proceeds from that conviction. It seeks to restore 
fundamental principles of budgeting and governing, to reverse the drift 
toward higher spending and larger government, to reinforce the 
innovative and creative spirit stirring among the myriad institutions 
and communities across this country, and to revitalize the prosperity 
that creates ever-expanding opportunities for all Americans to pursue 
their destinies. Put differently, this budget resolution expresses a 
vision, a vision of governing, and of America itself.
  So what is that vision? Mr. Chairman, we believe in promoting the 
greatest amount of opportunity and the greatest amount of success for 
the greatest number of Americans so the greatest number of American 
dreams may be realized, and doing so in a way that demonstrates real 
hope and real compassion and real fairness without Washington picking 
winners and losers.
  Now, Americans just have a common sense about them, and they 
understand that something just isn't right, especially with our debt--
very troubling, over $18 trillion. They know that we can't spend more 
money than we take in forever. They can't do it in their personal 
lives, they can't do it in their families or their businesses or their 
communities, and we can't do it right here in Congress.
  In fact, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said just a few 
years ago, Admiral Mike Mullen, the highest ranking military officer in 
our country, he was asked: What is the greatest threat to national 
security? The highest ranking military officer in our country asked 
what the greatest threat was, and he said the national debt because he 
knows what Americans know, that unless we have economic security, we 
will never have national security.

                              {time}  1430

  So instead of the insecurity and the uncertainty of the President's 
plan, we think there is a better way.
  What are our highlights? We balance the budget in less than 10 years, 
and we do so without raising taxes. Our budget reduces spending by $5.5 
trillion. It stays in balance and sets us on a path to pay off that 
debt--all of it.
  We provide for a vote on the balanced budget amendment in the House 
of Representatives--this Congress--something that folks back home just 
think makes sense.
  We support a strong national defense--providing resources above the 
President's number--when taking into account the base defense budget 
and the global war on terror funding.
  We repeal ObamaCare in its entirety. As a physician, I can tell you 
it is not just harming the health of America; it is harming the economy 
of America.
  We stop the raid on Medicare. We eliminate the Independent Payment 
Advisory Board, where a board of individuals can not pay seniors' 
doctors for caring for them.
  We promote patient-centered health care where patients, families, and 
doctors are making medical decisions, not Washington, D.C.
  We secure economic opportunity. We call for fair and simple and 
comprehensive tax reform to get this economy rolling again and get 
millions of Americans back to work.
  We repeal Dodd-Frank and end the too-big-to-fail bank bailouts. We 
reform Fannie and Freddie. We cut corporate welfare.
  We promote federalism. In fact, a letter sent from Governors across 
this State recently said:

       Over the last several decades, the Federal Government has 
     passed laws and promulgated regulations that restrict the 
     ability of States to innovate while requiring States to 
     implement and run programs dictated by Federal dollars and 
     Federal rules.
       For a long time, States were willing to trade off power and 
     responsibility for Federal taxpayer funds, but we have 
     reached a tipping point where States serve to carry out the 
     wishes of the Federal Government instead of serving as 
     laboratories of democracy.

  So, we give States flexibility--flexibility in programs like Medicaid 
and nutritional assistance. The States are the ones that know how best 
to respond to their population. We return control of education to State 
and local governments.
  We hold Washington accountable, reducing the size of the Federal 
workforce through attrition, and we support selling Federal assets and 
unneeded Federal lands. We call for regulatory reform to free up small 
business and job creation across this land. We require fee-collecting 
programs in the Federal Government to account for that revenue in our 
own appropriations process so the people's Representatives can have a 
say about how that money is spent.
  We cut waste, fraud, and abuse. We would end the double-dipping in 
disability insurance and unemployment insurance. We require able-bodied 
adults of working age to work in order to receive Federal welfare 
benefits.
  We support the rights of conscience for doctors and health care 
providers and employers, and we push back on the executive overreach of 
this administration. We stop the President's war on coal. We prevent 
the carbon tax. We encourage construction of the Keystone pipeline, and 
we hold the IRS accountable for targeting American taxpayers.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a positive vision for our country. It will 
deliver real results for the American people. We responsibly lay out a 
path for a healthy economy, an opportunity economy--one that opens 
doors for people, not subjects them to the dictates of Washington, D.C.
  Mr. Chairman, we believe in America, and we believe in Americans. We 
understand our problems are significant, and we hear the people of this 
Nation crying out for leadership here in Washington, D.C.
  The Balanced Budget for a Stronger America will result in a 
government that is more efficient, more effective, and more 
accountable--one that frees up the American spirit and optimism and 
enthusiasm to do great things and meet great challenges.
  We encourage our colleagues and fellow citizens across this country 
to join us in this exciting opportunity.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H1872]]

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to start by thanking the 
chairman of the committee, Chairman Price, for conducting the business 
of the Budget Committee in a professional manner. We have sharp 
differences but have expressed them in a civil fashion.
  I also want to agree with him with respect to the great job the 
Budget Committee staff has done, both Democrat and Republican, and 
agree with him on one more thing--and it may be the last thing I agree 
with the gentleman on during this debate. Dr. Elmendorf, the current 
head of the Congressional Budget Office, has done a great job, and we 
are going to have a little bit more to say about that later.
  We all believe in America, Mr. Chair, but I do not believe this 
Republican budget reflects the values and priorities. It is the wrong 
direction for America.
  Now, as we gather here today, we are facing some good news, we are 
facing some bad news, and we are facing some really bad news.
  The good news is the economy is improving. More people are going back 
to work. In fact, the private sector has added 12 million new jobs over 
the last 60 months.
  It is not all rosy. Many Americans are still looking for work, but 
the unemployment rate has fallen to 5.5 percent, and trends are good.
  The bad news is that Americans are working harder than ever, but 
their paychecks are flat. This is not a new problem, Mr. Chairman. It 
is not even a problem in the last 2 years or just the last 5 years. It 
goes back quite a ways. In fact, as this chart indicates, we have seen 
a growing gap between worker productivity, which has been rising 
steadily, and the incomes and paychecks of most working Americans.
  If you look at this chart, it is very interesting, because it goes 
from 1948 to the 1970s, and you see these two lines are convergent. 
That means the additional worker productivity--the hard work of 
American workers--was translated into higher paychecks and compensation 
for them.
  But starting around the 1970s, you saw the great divergence. Worker 
productivity went up. People are working harder than ever, better than 
ever, but their paychecks and compensation have been pretty much flat.
  So, where is the value of that hard work going? If people are working 
harder than ever, why aren't their paychecks keeping track?
  Well, that additional value of hard work is no longer going to 
regular working Americans--people working for a paycheck. It has gone, 
overwhelmingly, to folks at the top. And I don't mean just the top 10. 
It has gone, overwhelmingly, to the top 1 percent of Americans, who 
have seen their incomes rise dramatically even as everybody else has 
pretty much been running in place and flat.
  So, our challenge to all those people working really hard--harder 
than ever--is: How can we make sure that they benefit from that 
increased productivity?
  Mr. Chairman, we had some hope right after the November election. I 
remember opening up the newspaper--The Wall Street Journal. There was 
an op-ed piece by Speaker Boehner and Republican Senate Leader Mitch 
McConnell, and here is what they said. They said that they were humbled 
by the opportunity to ``help struggling middle class Americans'' and to 
deal with ``wage stagnation.'' That is what they said right after the 
election.
  But, Mr. Chairman, the very bad news today for the country is, if you 
look at this Republican budget, it turns out they were just kidding. 
This Republican budget is really hard on hard-working Americans and 
those who are looking hard to find a job. It says, Keep working harder, 
but you are going to get less.
  It will do nothing to increase paychecks and take-home pay for 
working families. In fact, it squeezes them even harder and tighter. It 
will increase the tax burden on millions of families--those in the 
middle class and those working hard to join the middle class.
  Amazingly, it just drops the higher education tax credits. It ends 
the boost in the child tax credit. Millions of Americans will lose 
access to Affordable Care tax credits.
  It is not just working families. Students who are working hard to try 
and get a job are going to find college even less affordable than 
today.
  This Republican budget cuts student loans. It increases the cost of 
student loans. It starts charging students interest while they are 
still in college. It cuts $90 billion from Pell--mandatory--and more.
  It is not just students and working families. Seniors who have worked 
hard to secure a healthy retirement are going to see their costs go up 
immediately. Prescription drugs will cost more. Copayments for 
preventive health services go up right away. Nursing home care will get 
much more expensive as they cut $90 billion out of Medicaid, two-thirds 
of which goes to help seniors and disabled individuals. Most of the 
rest goes to families with kids. And then they turn Medicare into a 
voucher program that will reduce Medicare benefits.
  So while this Republican budget squeezes hard-working families, 
increases the cost of college for students, squeezes seniors--higher 
costs for them--it is great for those who are already in the top 1 
percent. It is great for millionaires. In fact, this budget paves the 
way for the Romney-Ryan plan to cut the tax rate for millionaires by a 
third. It paves the way. It green lights it.
  If you look at this budget, it is based on a failed and unproven 
economic theory--top-down, trickle-down economics--the same old theory, 
the theory that collided with the real world under President Bush in 
the 2000s, right? It cut the top tax rate. The theory was that benefits 
would trickle down and lift everybody up. Guess what? Incomes to the 
top 1 percent went up. Everybody else ran aground. Yachts went up. 
Everyone else's boat ran aground. That is what happened.
  Guess what else went up? Deficits went up, Mr. Chairman, but 
everybody else was running in place or fell behind.
  And here is the thing. While this Republican budget makes life harder 
right away for hard-working Americans--life will get harder 
immediately--it also disinvests in our future. It slashes the part of 
the budget we use to invest in our kids' education--from early 
education and Head Start to K-12 and beyond.
  It is a sad day when we start chopping away at the ladder of 
opportunity in this country.
  It will also devastate the investments our country has historically 
made in scientific research and innovation, investments that have 
helped power our economy and keep us at the cutting edge of world 
technology.
  And guess what else? It provides no solution, no answer to the fact 
that in just a few months, in May, we are going to face a shortfall in 
the transportation trust fund that will result in a construction 
slowdown this summer. It does nothing about that in the budget. It 
says: Oh, we're going to come up with something after today--in a 
couple months.
  So, Mr. Chair, when I say that this budget disinvests in America, it 
is not rhetoric. It is a mathematical reality.
  I want people to look at this chart. This is a chart of the share of 
our economy that we spend on the investment portion of our budget--the 
investment in our kids' education, the investment in scientific 
research like the medical research to help find treatments and cures to 
diseases like cancer or diabetes or other diseases that plague American 
families.
  Here is what the Republican budget does. It takes that investment 
budget and throws it off the cliff, to the point that it is 40 percent 
below the lowest level as a share of the economy since we have been 
keeping records in the late 1950s.
  Here is a country that invested in the GI Bill. We invested in our 
infrastructure and the National Highway System. We have invested in our 
kids' education. This Republican budget disinvests in America. So it 
cuts all those things.
  I will tell you one thing it doesn't cut. It doesn't cut one single 
tax break for the purpose of reducing the deficit. Not one penny. Not 
one penny to reduce the deficit.

                              {time}  1445

  We hear that the highest priority is to reduce the deficit; but, yes, 
let's cut our investment in education. Yeah, let's cut our investment 
in innovation. Let's not fund the transportation trust fund--but we are 
not going to cut one

[[Page H1873]]

single tax break for the purpose of reducing the deficit, not for 
corporate jets, not for hedge fund owners, not one.
  Despite all that and despite the deep cuts it makes in our 
investment, the reality is this budget doesn't balance. It doesn't 
balance, not by a long shot, Mr. Chairman.
  This budget takes budget quackery to new heights. It claims to repeal 
the Affordable Care Act, but it uses the revenues and the savings from 
the Affordable Care Act to claim balance at the end of 10 years.
  Senator Enzi, the new Republican chairman of the Senate Budget 
Committee, said that was kind of a budget accounting that he didn't 
think was right. The Heritage Foundation, they called that question as 
well in comments last time this came up.
  Here is the other thing. The budget doesn't account for the almost $1 
trillion in tax extenders that our Republican colleagues brought to the 
floor last fall and are on the way to bringing to the floor now, $1 
trillion. If you add that to the deficit, which is real money, it is 
even farther out of balance.
  Then they go and claim a deficit dividend based on phantom deficit 
reductions. Here is the number. This is in the 10th year. This is in 
the 10th year when they say their budget is really in balance by $33 
billion. Well, it is not.
  If you take out the Affordable Care Act revenue, if you take out the 
Affordable Care Act savings, if you add in the tax extenders costs that 
our Republican colleagues keep bringing to the floor, you don't come 
close to balance, not close, Mr. Chairman. This balanced budget stuff, 
it just isn't true. It is just not true. It would make Enron 
accountants blush.
  I think, Mr. Chairman, most Americans would agree that this budget--
cutting tax rates for the very wealthy, while increasing the tax burden 
on working families, raising the cost to seniors, raising the cost to 
students, cutting vital investments--will simply stack the deck even 
more in favor of the very wealthy and the very powerful and make it 
harder on everyone else to get ahead.
  Mr. Chairman, we can do better. We can do much better, and Democrats 
will propose a budget that promotes a more rapidly growing economy, 
with more broadly shared prosperity. That will be the right direction 
for America.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, so much misinformation just 
presented and we will work through that over the course of the next 3 
hours as we debate this bill.
  I guess the most disheartening thing is the rhetoric that divides the 
American people. This is a time for the country to come together and 
solve the challenges that we have.
  An individual who has been leading in that is the current chairman of 
the Ways and Means Committee, the past chairman of the Budget 
Committee. I am proud to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I just want to, first of all, 
tip my hat to the new Budget chairman. It is a very difficult job 
putting a budget together. I did it for the last 4 years and served in 
the capacity of the gentleman from Maryland as the ranking member of 
the Budget Committee for the prior 4 years before that, so I want to 
thank the gentleman for bringing an outstanding budget to the floor.
  First of all, this is a budget to be proud of. This is a budget that 
makes our country stronger. This is a budget that balances. It is 
pretty important to note that hard-working taxpayers, the people that 
elected us here to represent them, they have to live within their 
means. Well, so should government. That is the basic decision here.
  When you take a look at the budgets that are being considered here 
today, we are basically trying to get the government to get back into 
the business of being honest with people about our finances.
  Here is the problem, Mr. Chairman. Our government is making promises 
to people in this country that it knows it can't keep. That is 
dishonesty. What this budget does is it puts our budget back on track 
so that the government can keep these promises, the promises that 
people are organizing their lives around.
  What the gentleman from Maryland and the President's budget says is 
just keep raising taxes; tax more. Oh, by the way, that is not enough. 
Then we need to borrow more and spend more.
  That seems to be the path to prosperity, according to them, and look 
at where we are, highest poverty rates in a generation. Our economy is 
growing below 2 percent in most cases, below 3, which is what we were 
supposed to be growing at. The gentleman, I just listened to his 
rhetoric. He says this slices, this slashes; we are chopping away at 
opportunity.
  Here is what this budget does. Instead of increasing spending, on 
average, like the President's budget does at 5.1 percent, it does it at 
3.4 percent. We are saying let's get the government to live within its 
means.
  Government spending will still increase, on average, 3.4 percent a 
year, instead of 5.1 percent a year. I guess that is the difference 
between whether people can live the American Dream or not, whether we 
are slashing or chopping or doing all these horrible, awful things to 
people.
  Mr. Chairman, just don't buy all this overheated rhetoric. The 
problem is we have got to balance the budget. We have got to get this 
debt under control.
  We see the storm clouds on the horizon, and what this budget does is 
it gets government to be honest with the taxpayers that give us this 
money in the first place so that we can meet these priorities honestly 
and balance the budget and get this debt on the right track.
  We invest it the right way by giving people more of their own money 
so that they can make decisions on what is right for their family, 
instead of having Washington run it all.
  Now, there is one last thing I would like to say as I get carried 
away on the rhetoric. The CBO is an agency we use quite a bit here, and 
the Congressional Budget Office is a very important government agency 
that gives us all of our cost estimates. This budget is written on 
their estimates.
  For the last 6 years, we have had a Director at the Congressional 
Budget Office by the name of Doug Elmendorf, who has done an 
outstanding job as Director of the CBO. I have worked very closely with 
Dr. Elmendorf and with CBO in my prior capacity. He was a Democratic 
appointee, but the CBO Director is supposed to call the balls and the 
strikes and play it fair. Doug Elmendorf has done that.
  I just simply want to say, for the record, Mr. Chairman, that we wish 
him well. He is leaving at the end of the month. We wish him well. We 
thank him for his service. We thank the Congressional Budget Office for 
all the hard work that they put in so that we can be here on the floor 
with these budgets, and we wish him great success in the future in 
whatever it is he chooses and thank him for his service to this House, 
to this Congress, and to our country.

  Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say this is an outstanding budget that 
deserves our support. Don't buy all the hype you are hearing from the 
other side, and pass this fantastic Price budget.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I listened to my friend and the former chairman and his remarks. The 
reality is that the President's proposal and the Democratic proposal, 
we don't increase tax rates; but, yes, we do get rid of some of the tax 
loopholes in the Tax Code that are riddled with preferences that are 
there not because they make America more productive, but because 
someone had a powerful lobbyist who was getting a special interest 
break for them.
  If you think about it, if the government provides a grant of $1,000 
to somebody, that is $1,000 in value; but if I say to you, Of the taxes 
you have to pay, I am going to give you a special break so it is $1,000 
less, that is a pretty good deal, too.
  The reality is we spend $1.4 trillion, according to the Congressional 
Budget Office, each year on tax expenditures, more than on Social 
Security. Now, some of those are for good purposes, good public policy 
purposes, but some of them are for like corporate jets, and some of 
them are for hedge fund managers.
  Here is the thing. We think that we can get rid of some of those tax 
breaks

[[Page H1874]]

to help reduce the long-term deficit. Our colleagues would just prefer 
to devastate our investments in education and other areas,
  Math is math, to the former chairman. The reality is--and he knows 
it--that the portion of the budget we use to make these investments, 
the Republican budget does absolutely cut that to 40 percent below the 
lowest levels of the shared economy since we have been keeping records. 
That is a fact.
  Another reality is that this Republican budget doesn't balance unless 
you are using phony math.
  Mr. Chairman, I am now very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), a great member of the Budget 
Committee.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding to 
me.
  I want to add my voice to those who congratulate everyone on the 
Budget Committee, particularly the chair and the ranking member, for 
their really hard work--and the staff--that we put into this labor.
  I can tell you that I was, indeed, shocked. Even though I have been 
on the Budget Committee for several cycles, I continue to be shocked at 
how this budget does not reflect what I call democratic values. I mean 
democratic, not as a Democratic Party, but as our democracy. I believe 
that our democracy is really at risk when we put forth such a budget.
  I think that this budget hollows out the middle class; and, based on 
the constructs that we have seen in the past, it would raise taxes on 
middle class families. I am talking about those people earning modest 
incomes--$50,000 to $75,000 a year--by $2,000 a year.
  Of course, it abandons the poor. Of the $5.5 trillion, 69 percent of 
this is on the backs of those who are the most poor and most 
vulnerable. A lot of people just don't care that much about poor 
people; but who do we care about in this budget?
  This budget pulls up the ladder of opportunity from our kids, that 
next generation that is going to make our economy work. They are doing 
us a favor by trying to go to college; yet we cut Pell grants in this 
Republican budget by somewhere around $90 billion.
  It deconstructs our job-creating infrastructure investment by $187 
billion. There used to be a time when the transportation budget was a 
bipartisan thing; but, in the name of balancing a budget, we even throw 
these workers under the bus.
  It pulls the lifeline from seniors, disabled, and kids by block 
granting our Medicaid program and cutting $913 billion, that being a 
portion of the $2 trillion that we cut from health care, a lifeline, by 
repealing the Affordable Care Act and all this in the name of a phony 
balancing of the budget.

                              {time}  1500

  We are going to see a display here at some point. I don't know if you 
call it the king of the hill, the queen-of-the-hill budget, the price-
is-right budget--I don't know--where we are either going to have $94 
billion or $96 billion in a slush fund, the overseas account that is 
$36 billion, $38 billion above what the generals and the President say 
they need for war.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. MOORE. That is $1.4 trillion of entitlements that we spend 
through the Tax Code for gas and oil subsidies, jets, hedge fund 
managers. There is talk in this budget of eliminating the estate tax. 
Millionaires and billionaires are benefiting tremendously on tax income 
from CEO pay.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has again expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.
  Ms. MOORE. Don't believe the hype. I agree with the gentleman from 
Wisconsin. Don't believe the hype. This is not a democratic budget, as 
Americans have come to know it.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this appears to be a common 
theme, moving forward with this rhetoric that is hyperbole and dividing 
American against American. It is just not positive. It is not what this 
Nation needs.
  The gentleman from Maryland said that it is all about math. Math is 
math. And he is right.
  We now spend about $12,000 per American every single year, and we 
collect about $10,000 per every single American each year. It doesn't 
work.
  What does it get you? This is what it gets you. This is the debt-to-
gross domestic product ratio, the debt since 1940 of this country until 
2015. The red line is where the debt is going. This is the President's 
plan. This is the Democrat plan right here. That is what will crush 
this country. Our friends want to stick their heads in the sand and 
ignore that. This is what destroys lives. This destroys every American.
  We stand for all Americans. We believe that having a balanced budget 
for a stronger America is the way to solve these challenges. We believe 
it is important to save and strengthen and secure the programs that are 
so vital for the American people.
  I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Rokita), the vice chairman of the Budget Committee who has been working 
diligently on this from the very beginning.
  Mr. ROKITA. I thank the chairman for his hard work. I thank all of my 
Budget Committee colleagues for their hard work.
  Mr. Chairman, it has been hard work--it continues to be--to have this 
honest conversation with the American people.
  The whole goal here is to allow the opportunity for Americans to 
build better lives for themselves and their families, not for the 
Federal Government to attempt to provide that better life because, Mr. 
Chairman, after 50 years of the War on Poverty, for example, we know 
that the Federal Government can't do the job.
  There is a lot of rhetoric out there. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, for 
the committee, it is not positive and not right either. It is just 
plain wrong.
  We talk about hard work. You know what is hard work? Getting the 
competing priorities and a continuing usurpation of our limited moneys 
in terms of our mandatory spending and getting a budget to balance in 
10 years. Yet again, this Budget Committee and this House of 
Representatives has a plan to do it and, unlike you have heard, to do 
it honestly.
  What is not hard work, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, what is easier to 
do is to never balance, and this chart shows that. The President's 
budget never balances, ever.
  Of course, Mr. Chairman, you know that you can't start paying down 
the $18 trillion of debt that we have with another $100 trillion on the 
way until you first count the balance. We do that in a responsible, 
honest way. We don't try to do it in a year. We do it in a responsible, 
logical 10-year window.
  The Federal budget is very big. It is like an aircraft carrier, Mr. 
Chairman. You have got to turn it, and you have got to turn it 
decisively, but it doesn't turn on a dime. And that is what we show 
here. That is what we do here. Again, it is hard work.
  It is also hard work, as I mentioned earlier, because, as time goes 
on, more and more of our over $3 trillion worth of spending per year is 
spent on programs that are eventually going to bankrupt us if we don't 
reform them. If we don't strengthen them and save them for future 
generations, no one will be able to take advantage of Medicaid, of 
Medicare, of Social Security.
  And I know we all put money into those programs--especially Medicare 
and Social Security--but on average, we only put about 30 percent into 
them, Medicare, for example. And that 70 percent delta goes on the 
backs of our children and grandchildren, a lot of whom haven't yet been 
born. Talk about taxation without representation.
  Our budget solves this problem. We have the ability, and we on the 
committee have had the honesty to have this direct, forthright 
conversation with the American people, frankly, now for 5 years. The 
worst thing we could have done is to turn tail and run and not have 
this honest conversation.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. ROKITA. But we did it 5 years ago when the new crew came in. We 
continue to do it. And I am encouraged, Mr. Chairman. I think the 
American people see the light. They see that unless we correct and 
reform this mandatory overspending, no one can be helped. We can't have 
Americans building better lives for themselves and

[[Page H1875]]

their families. We are going to have them more dependent on the Federal 
Government, and in doing so, more and more people will be hurt.
  Slush fund, no. A very important fund to fight the global war on 
terror, to keep our troops safe and effective. That is an important 
fund. I wouldn't call that a slush fund. And I wouldn't call dependency 
on broken programs good or positive either.
  Republicans on the Budget Committee, Republicans in this Congress, I 
hope all of us eventually will have the courage and ability to not only 
have this conversation with the American people but to start putting 
this conversation into direct action.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I am a little surprised the gentleman from Indiana brought up what is 
called the OCO funding. These are the funds in the overseas contingency 
operations account for overseas contingencies, like wars and other 
contingencies that come up.
  The reality is that what the Republican budget does here is create a 
slush fund out of the overseas contingency account. It sends a signal 
that we are confused about how we are going to fund our defense 
obligations, and it is in total violation of what the Budget Committee 
itself stood for for years.
  I want to read, Mr. Chairman, from the 2015 Republican budget. It is 
just a year ago, but we have got real amnesia among our Republican 
colleagues.
  Here is what they said in their report:

       Abuse of the OCO cap adjustment is a backdoor loophole that 
     undermines the integrity of the budget process;
       The Budget Committee will exercise its oversight 
     responsibilities with respect to the use of the OCO;
       The Budget Committee will oppose increases above the levels 
     the administration and our military commanders say are needed 
     to carry out operations unless it can be clearly demonstrated 
     that such amounts are war-related.

  I didn't write that. Our Republican colleagues put it in their 
report. It is like, ooh, didn't mean it.
  So I am really baffled that our colleagues keep bringing this up. It 
is a total violation of what the Budget Committee has always stood for 
on a bipartisan basis.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. 
Velazquez), the ranking member of the Small Business Committee and a 
great friend to entrepreneurs around the country.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I thank the ranking member for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose a budget that will cut the legs out 
from under our Nation's small businesses. This budget would mean $10 
billion of cuts to initiatives that foster small business growth. Taken 
together, these reductions would mean 190,000 fewer jobs created.
  For many would-be business owners, the SBA's entrepreneurial 
development centers provide critical training and guidance; yet this 
budget would shortchange those programs, removing local resources that 
allow small businesses to take root and grow in our communities. 
Nationally, Small Business Development Centers and Women's Business 
Centers would see cuts of $195 million. This would mean 16,000 fewer 
small businesses are able to launch, while 150,000 existing small 
companies would be deprived assistance that speeds their growth.
  Beyond technical assistance, small firms need capital to expand. 
Sadly, this budget also undermines credit programs. New York City alone 
would see a $22.5 million reduction in microloans--microloans. Do you 
know that 62 percent of microloan borrowers are women, low-income women 
with a default rate of less than 3 percent? Shame on us. This lending 
helps the smallest businesses create opportunity in economically 
stricken communities. So it only makes sense that this budget, which 
targets the most vulnerable, would slash this program too.
  Small businesses would suffer in other ways. For many small 
businesses, having the Federal Government as a customer can mean 
significant revenue and job creation opportunity. Under this plan, 
small business contract awards would be reduced by $142 billion, 
lowering job creation by 2.1 million positions. New York City companies 
would lose out on $3.6 billion worth of Federal work over the budget 
period.
  Mr. Chairman, Republicans like to position themselves as small 
business champions. However, supporting small firms takes more than lip 
service. It requires wise investments in programs promoting 
entrepreneurship. This budget slashes those programs, and I urge my 
colleagues to reject it.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I was amused by my friend 
from Maryland's comments about the global war on terror fund, 
understanding that in 2015, 2014, and 2013, for those fiscal years, he 
voted for the appropriations bills that included the defense money and 
the OCO money. In fact, the levels were $91.9 billion, $91.9 billion, 
and $98.7 billion that the gentleman voted for.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Maybe I will yield to the gentleman later 
if I have time.
  I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. McClintock), my friend and a member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to discuss the budget under the ominously 
growing shadow of unprecedented debt that has literally doubled in the 
last 8 years.
  With crushing debt comes ruinous interest costs that the CBO warns 
will exceed our entire military budget within the decade on our current 
trajectory.
  The budget produced by Chairman Price's House Budget Committee meets 
our current defense demands by adding additional money into the war 
account. But I would reassure the ranking member that it funds that 
increase through a concomitant decrease in other spending. That will 
hold us on a trajectory to balance the budget in less than 10 years and 
then begin paying down the unprecedented debt that this administration 
has run up.
  Unfortunately, this plan is met with opposition from so-called 
defense hawks who want the extra spending for defense, which this 
budget provides, but who don't want to go through the fuss and bother 
of paying for it. And therein lies the problem.
  This is not just a 1-year increase. Because it increases defense 
spending without making other cuts, it changes the overall spending 
trajectory over the next 10 years.
  And here is the simple math of the matter. This adds more than $20 
billion to our total spending this year, and it, in effect, repudiates 
the budget plan for additional reductions next year. On this new 
trajectory that these budget hawks would set, there will be no balanced 
budget in 10 years, even if we enacted every other reform called for in 
the budget and maintained all other departments within these 
constraints.
  After 10 years, we will still be running deficits of nearly $100 
billion a year, and interest costs will have eaten us alive. That is 
why it is so important to pass the budget intact, without the 
amendments being proposed.

                              {time}  1515

  I am curious how the self-proclaimed defense hawks claim to defend 
our country when our credit is shot and our debt service is approaching 
$1 trillion a year. They forget that in the spring of 1945, carrying a 
debt proportional to the one we have today, there was serious doubt 
over whether we could continue to conduct the war for another year.
  When he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike 
Mullin warned that in his professional military judgment, the greatest 
threat to our national security is the national debt. He made that 
warning 5 years and $4\1/2\ trillion of debt ago.
  History warns us that countries that bankrupt themselves aren't 
around very long because before you can provide for the common defense, 
you have to be able to pay for it, and the ability of our Nation to do 
so is coming into grave doubt. The Budget Committee's budget offers us 
a very narrow path out of debt while continuing to fund our military at 
the requested levels, and its adoption, intact, is indispensable both 
to our short-term and to our long-term defense needs.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a stark choice before us: pay for the needed 
increases in defense by reducing other

[[Page H1876]]

spending, or refuse to pay for those increases and sacrifice the long-
term security and prosperity of our country on the altar of instant 
gratification.
  Amongst the most chilling words in history are those attributed to 
Louis XV, ``After us, the flood.'' Let that not be the epitaph of this 
Congress.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, Mr. McClintock is right about this OCO slush fund.
  To the chairman of the committee, you actually made exactly my point 
in your remarks. I did support the OCO money--again, this is for 
overseas contingency operations--at the level requested by the 
President and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, our military commanders. It 
was higher a couple of years ago because we had tens of thousands more 
troops in Afghanistan. The gentleman may recall that we brought a lot 
of those troops home. As a result of that, we don't need as much money 
in our war account, the overseas contingency account.
  So what I did, Mr. Chairman, is exactly what our Republican 
colleagues on the Budget Committee said we should do at that time; in 
other words, I opposed increases above the levels the administration 
and military commanders said were needed to carry out those operations. 
Yes, I did support a budget level at the level the President and our 
military commanders said was necessary, but as Mr. McClintock said, the 
Republican budget does just the opposite. It does what we said we would 
not do--and I say ``we,'' Republicans and Democrats alike. So it is 
important to heed our own words; otherwise, as the Budget Committee 
itself said, we will undermine the integrity of the budget process. 
That was the point Mr. McClintock was making as well.
  I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the 
ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. He 
is somebody who knows we have to fund the modernization of our 
country's infrastructure.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, let's depart from a little bit of the 
acrimony, the acronyms, the magic asterisks, and the end runs. Let's be 
concrete. So let's talk about infrastructure investment and what the 
Republican budget would do.
  We are running a deficit this year. We fall off a cliff the end of 
May, and if we don't put up $10 billion, many States will cancel 
projects this summer. That is not the subject of this budget. This 
budget is for next year.
  So what are they doing for the long term? They are going to reform 
the highway trust fund. Oh, thank you very much. I appreciate that. 
They are going to limit expenditures out of the fund to future income. 
We have been supplementing it from general funds because the income is 
not adequate, but they are going to say: No. No more general funds. You 
live on the income.
  What does that mean? Well, it means, in this budget put forward by 
these people, there would be a 99 percent cut in State funding. Yes. 
No, I'm not exaggerating, 99 percent. Because basically the money is 
paying for past obligations, past projects for the States. When the 
States finish a project, they get reimbursed. While they are building 
it, they don't. So under their budget in fiscal year 2016, your State 
Department of Transportation will get 99 percent less Federal funds. 
That kind of has a pretty big impact in some States here. If you are in 
a bright yellow State, you are over 70 percent, depending on the 
Federal funds; if you are in a green State, 50 to 69; and a light 
green, 30 to 49.
  I would note on the Republican side that the chairman of the 
committee, Georgia, they would get $1.1 billion less. Now, I guess 
Georgia doesn't need the money. The roads, the congestion around 
Atlanta is not a problem. The Speaker's State would get $1.2 billion 
less under this budget; California, $3.2 billion less, the majority 
leader; and Louisiana, the whip, $619 million less. These are facts. 
That is the actual impact of their proposed budget. It digs a hole so 
deep we will never get out of it.
  What happens after the first year of their reform of the trust fund? 
Well, actually, unless we pass a long-term bill with new funding, which 
they are quite resistant to thus far, it would mean 30 percent less 
funding than today for all States and a 60 percent cut in surface 
transportation.
  We already have a system with 147,000 bridges that need repair or 
total replacement. Forty percent of the surface on the National Highway 
System is in such bad condition it has to be dug up--not just 
resurfaced, no, major work--and a $75 billion backlog in transit 
systems. Our legacy systems in our major cities are so obsolete, they 
are killing people. Right here in the Nation's Capital, people are 
dying unnecessarily because they can't afford to bring in modern cars 
without the Federal partnership.
  We held a hearing just last week in the committee, and we heard from 
the Governor of North Carolina--red State, red Governor--the mayor of 
Salt Lake, and the transportation director from Wyoming. They all say 
the Federal partnership is absolutely critical, and you are going to 
reduce it to 1 percent.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would note for the 
gentleman that if he reads the budget resolution, we accommodate for 
appropriate funding for infrastructure and for highways in section 510. 
With a deficit-neutral reserve fund, that means that we actually 
accommodate for paying for it, for transportation and for 
infrastructure, because we believe it is a priority. We believe it is a 
priority for the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), a member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the diligent work on the 
Budget Committee and the leadership you have shown there.
  Mr. Chairman, Americans know that this country was built on a strong 
work ethic. This budget provides a framework to create work 
requirements for able-bodied, working-age adults receiving Federal 
benefits.
  Some may ask, Why work requirements? In 1996, President Clinton, a 
fellow Arkansan from my hometown of Hot Springs but from across the 
aisle, said: Today we are taking an historic chance to make welfare 
what it is meant to be: a second chance, not a way of life. The goal of 
workforce requirements on able-bodied, working-age adults is simply to 
give Americans a hand up, not a hand out.

  Mr. Chairman, we should be concerned about the negative effects these 
Federal benefit programs are having on our American work ethic when we 
review the data. The maximum an individual can earn and still receive 
government assistance under some programs, according to the U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services, is only $1,000.
  The Cato Institute reports that in 39 States, individuals can make 
more on government assistance than by working an 8-hour, $8-per-hour 
job. In six States, government benefits pay more than a $12-per-hour 
job; and in eight States, government assistance pays for more than the 
average salary of an American teacher.
  In my home State, where Medicaid expansion was accepted, 40 percent 
of the able-bodied, working-age adults receiving 100-percent-funded 
Medicaid had zero income. By adding workforce requirements for able-
bodied, working-age adults in the Medicaid population alone, this 
budget establishes a blueprint for work requirements that will result 
in savings by 2022 of up to $376 billion federally, with an additional 
$170 billion saved at the State level.
  President Franklin Roosevelt made clear during a 1935 address to 
Congress that these programs were not intended to be an entitlement but 
a temporary aid to those in need. He said:
  ``The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately 
before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief 
induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive 
to the national fibre. To dole out relief in this way is to administer 
a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to 
the dictates of sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of 
America. Work must be found for able-bodied but destitute workers.''
  The principles President Clinton and President Roosevelt before him 
promoted are more important now than ever before as we find ourselves 
in a fiscal crisis created by dependence and entitlement. President 
Clinton reminded us in 1996 that this is not the end of welfare reform, 
this is the beginning, and we all have to assume responsibility.

[[Page H1877]]

  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. This budget incentivizes work, not dependence. This 
budget reduces spending growth instead of growing government. This 
budget moves us in the right direction.
  I encourage my friends on both sides of the aisle to assume 
responsibility by voting for this balanced budget for a stronger, 
working America.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, actually, this Republican budget strips away provisions 
that are in existence today to make work pay. Child tax credits for 
working families, they get rid of the bump up. They get rid of the 
enhanced earned income tax credit for working families. As I said, they 
get rid of the higher education deduction for families so that they can 
send their kids to school.
  I also want to say a word about the transportation trust fund, 
because as the ranking member, as the senior Democrat on the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee just pointed out, this 
Republican budget has no provision inside the budget numbers for 
dealing with the crisis we are going to face in a few months.
  Now, the chairman of the committee mentioned the deficit-neutral 
reserve fund, section 510. I am looking at it now. Deficit-neutral 
reserve funds can play an important role in signaling a policy 
direction. After all, these are 10-year budgets. I would understand if 
we didn't know exactly what we were going to do with our transportation 
trust fund 10 years from now or 9 years from now, but we are talking 
about 1\1/2\ months from now. We are talking about in the first year of 
this budget. In the middle of May, we are going to see a construction 
slowdown.
  Now, the Democratic budget alternative, we have a plan. The President 
put forward a 6-year plan, $478 billion. It is included in his budget 
numbers. It is not like, okay, a little asterisk, we will figure this 
out in a month and a half. The President makes sure we don't have a 
shortfall, and, actually, he says we need to modernize our 
infrastructure so we can compete in this global economy.
  So, Mr. Chairman, it is just reckless to put forward a budget where 
it doesn't even provide any solution to something that is going to face 
us in a month and a half.
  Now I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Pascrell), a terrific member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a stark choice to be made, there is no 
question about it, as I am quoting from the gentleman from California.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the stark choice. Look at this. This is what 
you tried to do to the American people after Bill Clinton left office.
  During his term, 21 million jobs were created. Then the next 8 years 
when we dropped the tax rate down from 39.6 to 35 percent for those 
most affluent, we didn't gain anything. In fact, we lost 463,000 jobs. 
You want to try this again? We are not going to try it again. You want 
to talk about dead on arrival? Those are your words. This is dead on 
arrival.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this budget. Forget 
about the trillions of dollars worth of cuts to programs that help 
people with low or moderate incomes. Forget about the tax increases 
that hit the middle class and working poor so that some millionaires 
and billionaires can squeeze a little more from the stone. Forget about 
repealing ObamaCare for the 56th time, taking affordable health care 
out of the hands of 16 million Americans, leaving them with nothing and 
not having the guts to tell them what is going on. Forget about all of 
that.
  The fundamental problem with this document is that even with all the 
draconian spending cuts and with all the tax increases I just 
described, at the end of the day, it still doesn't balance, as the 
ranking member, just a few moments ago, said over and over again.
  In fact, Mr. Ranking Member, it is not even close.

                              {time}  1530

  This budget, while calling for the complete and total repeal of the 
Affordable Care Act, continues to assume that the law's $2 trillion 
revenue increases and Medicare savings--it assumes that. We will do 
away with the bill, but we will keep the money. I don't know another 
way to put it.
  When we get to taxes, the budget assumes that revenues remain 
unchanged for the current law. Yet you, yourself--you, yourself, Mr. 
Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for you, Doctor--you stated 
explicitly through the Chair that you don't think we should be using 
the current law baseline. You said that, I didn't.
  Last Congress, we passed $956 billion in unpaid-for tax breaks. You 
all voted for that. They weren't assumed in the current law baseline. 
This year, we have already passed $100 billion in unpaid-for tax cuts. 
Where is this money coming from? We are the tax-and-spend Democrats. 
You folks know better than that.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you.
  Two hundred billion dollars more have been reported out of Ways and 
Means. And tomorrow, we are going to report out another $300 billion 
tax cut for Paris Hilton, Ivanka Trump, and others fortunate enough to 
be left a nice inheritance. That is what you are going to do tomorrow.
  My friend, the chairman, might just be assuming that your majority 
will shortly pass a trillion-dollar tax increase to offset these unpaid 
for tax breaks and abide by his budget's revenue assumptions.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote for this budget. It is simply not 
worth the paper it is printed on.
  The CHAIR. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair 
and not to other Members of the body in the second person.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I want to make a comment about the highway trust fund that was 
referenced. My colleague from Maryland stated there is nothing in this 
budget that will deal with the problem that is about to occur in a 
month and a half. And he is right. This budget deals with fiscal year 
2016, which begins in October.
  The good news, Mr. Chairman, however, is that in last year's budget, 
FY15 budget, which addresses this year, this current year that we are 
in right now, we also had a proposal to be able to provide for a 
deficit neutral reserve fund for transportation, which was used 
previously for MAP-21. So a path to how we are able to actually solve 
the challenges before us.
  I am so pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Mimi Walters).
  Mrs. MIMI WALTERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in 
support of the House Republican fiscal year 2016 budget resolution, A 
Balanced Budget for a Stronger America.
  At a time when our Nation is grappling with over $18 trillion in 
national debt and an uncertain economic future, now more than ever 
Washington must learn to live within its means. Washington's spending 
problem is one that cannot be taken lightly.
  According to former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral 
Mike Mullen, the ``single, biggest threat to our national security'' is 
our national debt. House Republicans are working to confront this issue 
head on.
  In our budget proposal, we seek to tackle Washington's spending 
addiction by reducing Federal spending by $5.5 trillion and balancing 
the Federal budget in less than 10 years. This is a sharp contrast to 
President Obama's budget, which never balances, ever, despite the 
President's continued insistence on raising taxes.
  Our budget aims to strengthen vital programs like Medicare and Social 
Security in a fiscally responsible way so that we can fulfill the 
promises we have made to our Nation's seniors.
  One of the Federal Government's top priorities is providing a strong 
national defense. This budget boosts defense spending above the 
President's levels so we can ensure a strong, safe, and secure Nation.
  Furthermore, our proposal repeals ObamaCare in full, including the 
law's taxes, regulations, and mandates that are crippling hard-working 
Americans and small businesses nationwide.

[[Page H1878]]

  We also empower patients by repealing the President's Independent 
Payment Advisory Board, an unelected, unaccountable board of 
bureaucrats charged with making patient's health care decisions.
  The Republican budget is a positive step forward for our Nation. It 
seeks to address our Nation's debt crisis while also supporting the 
programs that are critical to our national and economic security.
  I urge my colleagues to support this budget resolution.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, as we have previously pointed out, this 
Republican budget keeps the revenues from the Affordable Care Act even 
as it claims to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Without that level of 
revenue, along with other savings, it doesn't come close to balancing. 
No accountant would certify this Republican budget close to balance.
  I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham), a terrific member of the committee 
and someone who is an expert on all sorts of issues, including health 
care.
  Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Mr. Chair, I want to thank 
the ranking member.
  This budget, the Republican budget, is a collection of $5.5 trillion 
of devastating cuts to both mandatory and nondefense discretionary 
programs.
  I have heard my colleagues say that we need to treat the budget like 
we do American families: when you can't live within your means, then 
you have to figure that out. The problem is, this is a budget that 
actually takes away those means. If we are going to talk about 
entitlement reform, you have to provide an investment and actually 
create jobs and create opportunities to have careers and meaningful 
wages.
  Now, as we debate these numbers, I really hope that my Republican 
colleagues, when they vote for this budget, will you really know what 
you are doing and what these numbers mean for hard-working American 
families? Because I know what the budget does and how it impacts them.
  Here is what it means. It means 290 fewer New Mexican children are 
going to have access to Head Start. It means 18,700 fewer New Mexico 
residents are going to receive job training and employment services. It 
means 59,000 New Mexican students are going to lose access to their 
Pell grants for college. It means 24,100 New Mexican seniors are likely 
going to have to pay more for their prescription drugs. And about 
431,000--that bears repeating--431,000 New Mexicans receiving SNAP, 
half of which are children, will be in jeopardy of losing their 
nutrition support.
  Now, when we think about the budget, we cannot just think about the 
numbers that sit on a piece of paper. We need to think about the human 
meaning behind the numbers. We need to think about the child that will 
go hungry, the student who can't afford to pay for college, and the 
seniors who won't be able to pay their medical bills. We need to invest 
in economic security for everyone.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this budget and, instead, pass a 
budget that lifts people out of poverty, invests in hard-working 
families who have been left behind by the economy, and that provides 
for shared prosperity.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), a senior member 
of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, back on January 20, 2009, the day 
President Obama took office, the Federal debt in this country stood at 
$10.6 trillion. The Federal debt today, as we stand here today, is over 
$18 trillion. That is an increase of over 70 percent during his tenure.
  Debt now represents 101 percent of the GDP. In other words--let's put 
this in context--America owes more money to its creditors around the 
world than the value of all the goods and all the services that are 
produced right here in the United States in 1 year.
  That level of debt, quite honestly, is unsustainable. In fact, that 
is not just me saying this. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget 
Office, the CBO, states that our ``high and rising debt would have 
serious negative consequences for both the economy and the Federal 
budget.'' And it certainly does.
  Admiral Michael Mullen, also quoted on this floor before, perhaps put 
it best when he said: ``The single, biggest threat to our national 
security'' in this country is what?--``our debt.''
  So, Mr. Chairman, Americans are faced with two paths right now: one 
that continues down the path of blissful neglect of our very real 
budget crisis; or on the other path, one that seeks an honest solution 
to it.
  Instead of solving our debt problem, President Obama has committed to 
exacerbating it.
  The President's budget would add another $8.5 trillion to our already 
staggering debt. But despite his $2.1 trillion in new tax increases, in 
addition, the Obama budget never ever balances. It is a vision that 
consigns our children and grandchildren to a future of crushing debts 
and heavy tax burdens.

  The Republican budget, on the other hand, is a stark alternative to 
the past 6 years of reckless spending and failed policies. Instead of 
ever-increasing debt and ever-higher taxes, Republicans will balance 
the budget in less than 10 years without raising more taxes on you.
  Instead of pretending that Medicare is sound, Republicans will 
strengthen the program by making much-needed structural improvements to 
it.
  Instead of dictating that Washington knows all the answers, 
Republicans will promote by innovation and also by flexibility for 
Medicaid, for education, and other programs by restoring local control.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I urge today all Members of this body to stand up 
to support the budget and to support the American taxpayers, to stand 
up for strengthening our social safety net, and to stand up for our 
children and to stand up for our grandchildren, who do not deserve to 
be handed the bill for our irresponsible spending today.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Republican budget.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I don't think that huge disinvestment in education, starting with 
early education going through K-12, helps our kids in their future. I 
don't think that the efforts that strip away a lot of the job training 
programs help hard-working Americans.
  The President's budget's priority is to accelerate economic growth 
and have more broadly shared prosperity. I would remind my colleagues 
that the day the President was sworn into office we were losing 800,000 
jobs every month in this country. The bottom was falling out. Now we 
have seen over the last 60 months 12 million jobs created. We have got 
a long way to go, but we are certainly on the right track. And the 
President's budget provides for additional economic growth in a 
fiscally responsible way. The President's budget reduces the debt-to-
GDP ratio. The President's budget reduces the deficit's share of the 
economy.
  But what the President's budget does not do is disinvest in our kid's 
education, it does not increase the cost to seniors for prescription 
drugs and copays for preventive health care, and it doesn't get away 
from a lot of the important tax credits and relief for middle class 
Americans and those working to join the middle class. So, no, it does 
not do that.
  Now I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Hahn), who knows a lot about the importance of economic 
growth, especially as it relates to small businesses, a distinguished 
member of the Small Business Committee.
  Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, Chris Van Hollen, for 
the opportunity to speak today.
  Mr. Chairman, I think a budget is a reflection of our priorities. The 
choices we make about how to invest and spend have an impact on our 
American families. We must make it easier for hard-working Americans to 
own a home, to send their kids to college, and to have a secure and 
enjoyable retirement.
  That is why it is so important that we invest in our Nation's ports, 
which create good-paying American jobs and sustain American businesses. 
Providing our ports and waterways with the funding and support they 
need is a high priority for me, and one that is shared by many of my 
colleagues, especially the almost 100 members of the bipartisan 
Congressional PORTS Caucus.

                              {time}  1545

  We know that America must invest more in our ports to remain globally

[[Page H1879]]

competitive and to be prepared for the expansion of the Panama Canal, 
which will impact international trade and shipping routes.
  The budget we are considering today, however, does just the opposite. 
Cutting funding for programs that support American commerce is both 
shortsighted and harmful to the competitiveness of American businesses.
  I applaud the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget because it 
fully meets the targets we set in the 2014 WRRDA bill for the harbor 
maintenance funding, using more of the revenue collected at our ports 
for its intended purpose of maintaining and improving ports and 
navigation channels.
  Let me emphasize that the harbor maintenance trust fund is self-
funded. This is not new spending or new fees. Shippers already pay this 
tax to fund improvements that Congress is refusing to authorize.
  The trust fund now has a surplus of $9 billion in fees that America's 
ports have collected; but unless we act, these funds will not be used 
as intended, which is to improve our ports.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. HAHN. Thank you.
  Mr. Chairman, I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
join me in supporting a budget that returns this tax back to the ports, 
where it is collected.
  I want to thank the bipartisan group of 86 Members who signed the 
letter, which Congressman Boustany and I sent to House appropriators 
last week, calling for the harbor maintenance trust fund funding to be 
at the WRRDA level.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I want to thank the gentlewoman for her comments because she is 
absolutely right. The budget is about priorities, and the priorities 
that we have in our budget, we believe, address in a very responsible 
way the challenges that we face in this Nation.
  What is the President's priority? If you look at where his budget 
would take us, it is debt. This, again, is the chart that demonstrates 
the debt that this Nation has held since 1940. That is the dark area 
here. You see the debt has increased since this President came into 
office. It is at virtually the highest level it has been since World 
War II.
  Where does his path go? Where does the Democrats' path go in their 
budget? Higher than ever before--ever before--that is their plan, 
apparently. It is what their budget outlines. It is what the 
President's budget outlines.
  What does that mean? What that means is the interest on the debt, 
paying the debt service. Everybody knows what interest means. They pay 
it on their credit cards. They pay it on their home mortgages. They pay 
interest when they buy a car. That is money that you pay just to be 
able to borrow the money that you are using for whatever it is.
  In this instance, the interest on the debt, when we get to numbers 
not too far away, consumes the entire Federal budget. That is what we 
are talking about. In a very short period of time, within the budget 
window of this 10-year period of time, interest on the debt rises to 
over $1 trillion a year.
  That is more than the amount spent on defense. That is more than the 
amount spent on Medicare. That is more than the amount spent on 
Medicaid. That is more than the amount spent on education. All of the 
priorities that the American people have is going to be spent on 
interest on the debt.
  That is why we believe it is a moral question. Are we going to leave 
our kids this kind of debt? Are we going to destine them to a life that 
has no opportunity, to have them be servants to the Federal Government 
just to work so they can send their tax money to Washington to pay the 
interest on the debt?
  Mr. Chairman, you know that is not the America we want to leave our 
kids and our grandkids. I don't believe it is the America that our 
friends on the other side of the aisle want to leave our kids and 
grandkids.
  Sadly, that is what their budget does. That is what the President's 
budget does. That is why we are so excited about A Balanced Budget for 
a Stronger America, a budget that puts us on a path to balance within 
less than a 10-year period of time and that saves $5.5 trillion.
  Our friends on the other side say, Oh, no; it really doesn't get to 
balance. Even if you conceded that--and I don't--our goal is to get it 
to balance. Theirs never does. It is more and more and more borrowing, 
more debt, more taxes, more spending. It is not what the American 
people want.
  What we need to do is to come together and address these challenges 
that we have in a positive way, in a real way, in an honest way, and 
get real results for the work that we do here.
  We are proud of the work that this budget does. It lays out a 
positive path, a path of real solutions, one of saving and 
strengthening and securing Medicare and Medicaid, one of tax reform 
that actually works to get this economy rolling again so we can grow 
the economy in this country and put people back to work. Those are the 
positive things that this budget does.
  The safety net programs are vital. They are important. We protect 
those programs. We actually make them work better for the individuals 
who are receiving those moneys, and we encourage them, in a moral way, 
to better their lives and get back on their feet. We assist them in 
getting back to work.
  Those are positive solutions, Mr. Chairman, positive solutions. It is 
A Balanced Budget for a Stronger America.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  As I said at the beginning of this debate, the one thing that the 
Republican budget, unfortunately, will do immediately is make life 
harder for hard-working Americans. How does it do it? As I indicated, 
it actually increases the tax burden on working Americans--middle-
income Americans and people working their way to the middle--while 
providing another tax rate cut for folks at the very top.
  For people who are working harder than ever and feel that they are 
just on a treadmill, it doesn't help them at all. In fact, they are 
going to move farther behind, in addition to the fact that they are 
going to pile more costs on to students by increasing the cost of 
student loans.
  It is right there in their budget. They are going to start charging 
you interest while you are in college. They are going to start charging 
seniors with high prescription drug costs even more because they are 
going to reopen what is called the prescription drug doughnut hole. I 
don't know how that is good for seniors in America.
  It is hard on seniors, hard on students, hard on working families.
  The Democratic budget, like the President's budget, meets those 
priorities. For example, working families are facing huge childcare 
costs, so we propose a significant expansion of the child independent 
care tax credit. We make it a little bit easier for those families who 
are working but who want to make sure their kids have quality 
childcare. We make it easier for them by providing them a significant 
tax credit for that cost.

  For couples who are working, we scale back the marriage penalty so 
the second worker doesn't begin work at the same higher tax rate as the 
first worker in the household. That is the kind of important relief we 
provide to middle class families and to those working to join the 
middle class.
  The Republican budget actually gets rid of some of the important 
provisions that are already there to help those families, but our 
budget does this in a fiscally responsible way. As we have seen, the 
Republican budget doesn't balance, not by a long shot.
  I mentioned a quote in my opening remarks. I am going to quote the 
chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Mr. Enzi, who said:

       One of the problems I have had with budgets that I have 
     looked at is that they use a lot of gimmicks. Now, when there 
     was anticipation that ObamaCare would go away and that all of 
     that money would still be there, that is not realistic. I 
     would like to see us get to real accounting with the budget.

  That is what Senator Enzi said; yet this budget assumes the revenue 
from the Affordable Care Act at the same time it repeals the Affordable 
Care Act.
  What the President's and the Democratic budgets do is put us on a 
fiscally

[[Page H1880]]

responsible path, reducing the debt to GDP ratio and doing it in a way 
that improves economic growth and provides for more shared prosperity, 
not a budget that provides another round of tax cuts for folks at the 
top with the hope that somehow it is going to trickle down and lift 
everybody up.
  Somebody who knows a lot about these areas is someone who is both a 
member of the Budget Committee and the Ways and Means Committee.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, a budget is a statement of values and 
priorities.
  You have heard people standing up here, talking about what their 
priorities are, that we don't want to load up our kids with debt, that 
we don't want to do all this kind of stuff; yet the budget that is put 
forward by my Republican colleagues is a shortsighted statement that 
has no view of the future.
  It gambles away the future of the next generation's in order to 
supply business and the ultrawealthy with near-term gains. What has 
made this country great is the strategic Federal investments in health 
care, roads, education, bridges, research--the types of investment that 
build the middle class and America.
  Now, the Republicans say their budget plan balances the budget in 9 
years. What they don't tell you is that they do this at the expense of 
Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, Pell grants--everything in the social budget.
  What you learn from this budget is that, when they say they are 
balancing the budget, they mean we are cutting domestic programs. We 
are cutting anything that helps hard-working families in this country.
  It also fails to cut one single dime from the military, not one 
single dime. They actually want to give the military more than they 
asked for. Now, despite raising taxes, you would think they could at 
least cut a dime from the Defense Department.
  By now, people's eyes are kind of glazed over at home in thinking 
about this, but let me talk to one group of people, to anybody who has 
a student with student debt. It is the largest debt load we have in 
this country. We have made our kids indentured servants of banks and of 
the Federal Government.
  This budget contains $127 billion over the next 10 years that we will 
have extracted from students in interest on their loans to give cuts in 
taxes to the wealthy, to lower the rates, to make it better for the 
rich.
  If you know anything about student loans, those loans can't be 
renegotiated. You can renegotiate on your house, or you can renegotiate 
on anything else, but not on a student loan. When a student and his 
mother and father or her mother and father sign up for a loan and put 
their home in the deal and put their futures and their 401(k)'s and 
everything behind that kid's education, they are stuck with that loan 
rate.
  You have got people in this country who are paying 6, 8, 9 percent--
as high as 13--on loans, and they can't renegotiate them. Is that fair? 
Is that the future you want, to stick the kids in this country with 
those kinds of loans?
  In my view, this budget has no humanity and no view of the future for 
our kids.
  I urge Members to vote ``no.''
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Moolenaar), a freshman 
Member and a member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. MOOLENAAR. Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government has a spending 
problem.
  Last week, the Government Accountability Office released a report 
estimating that the government made $124 billion in improper payments 
during 2014. Wasteful spending like this is one of the reasons the 
national debt has skyrocketed to $18 trillion today.
  Divided among 320 million Americans, a child born today inherits 
$56,250 in debt--or $225,000 for a family of four. Americans work too 
hard to have the government waste their tax dollars. It is time to 
start our country on a new course. This Republican budget puts America 
on a more sustainable and responsible fiscal path.
  In my district, there are over 130,000 Medicare-eligible residents 
and over 169,000 Social Security recipients. This budget keeps the 
promises that have been made to our seniors and to those near 
retirement age by stabilizing the Social Security trust fund. It also 
grants flexibility to the States on Medicaid, allowing them to craft 
their own programs to serve the needs of their States and their local 
communities.
  This budget also enhances our national security. Former Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, said our debt is 
``the single biggest threat to our national security.'' Over 20 percent 
of it is held by foreign governments.
  By balancing within 10 years, this budget ends deficits and slows the 
amount that will have to be paid to other countries. With less spending 
needed for debt payments, more future funding can go to our national 
security.

                              {time}  1600

  This is a budget for solving problems and creating a better future. 
This budget addresses our country's fiscal problems in a responsible 
way, without raising taxes, and puts our Nation on a brighter path for 
our children and grandchildren.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I do want to say a word about the impact on seniors. We have already 
talked about the fact that the Republican budget will immediately 
increase the cost to seniors with high prescription drug burdens, it 
will increase the copays immediately for preventive services.
  Let me just say a word about what it will do to seniors who are in 
nursing homes and other settings that rely on Medicaid. The previous 
gentleman just mentioned the number of people in his district on 
Medicaid. Let me just say that seniors and people with disabilities 
account for 85 percent of Medicaid spending; 65 percent of that 
spending is to the aged and the disabled, 20 percent to kids.
  Now, here is what the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan 
folks, said about the Medicaid cuts of this magnitude in the Republican 
budget and the impact that they would have on States: even with 
significant efficiency gains, in other words, even if you imagine that 
the States are going to somehow come up with incredible efficiencies, 
even with that, the magnitude of the reduction in spending relative to 
such spending in other scenarios means that States would need to 
increase their spending on these programs, make considerable cutbacks 
in them, or both; in other words, you are just passing the buck down to 
the States. So they have a choice: either they raise taxes to make sure 
that folks in senior homes, seniors in nursing homes don't take a hit, 
or seniors in nursing homes take a hit through fewer benefits. You just 
can't have it both ways when you are cutting $900 billion out of the 
program that helps seniors and the disabled; right?
  Okay. Here, States, you do it on your own; we are just going to give 
you $900 billion less. Any nonpartisan person looking at this would 
arrive at the conclusion the nonpartisan budget folks at CBO concluded, 
which is: either States are going to increase their taxes to maintain 
those services, or those people are going to get less services. That is 
why this Republican budget is hard on seniors, just like it is hard on 
students and why it is hard on working families around the country.
  As I said, it is great if you are already at the top; right? If you 
are a millionaire, you are going to get green-lighted for the Romney-
Ryan tax plan that cuts your rate by 30 percent while increasing the 
tax burden on working Americans. That is just not right.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard our friends on the other side talk about 
gimmicks. If you want to talk about a gimmick, let's talk about the 
President's budget and what he does for defense. The President comes 
out and pounds his chest and says: I am a big defense hawk. I think we 
need to give our defense folks more money--something that we actually 
believe--to keep this Nation safe, protect us from the threats we have 
today. The President

[[Page H1881]]

says: Oh, oh, I believe in our budget, we will put $566 billion in our 
budget for defense, in the base defense budget.
  What the President knows, what our friends on the other side of the 
aisle know, is that that number is fiction. You talk about a gimmick. 
The President doesn't lay out any path at all to deal with the 
sequester cap, to deal with the law of the land right now that says 
that that number is going to be $523 billion unless the law is changed, 
which is why we positively, honestly, sincerely bring about appropriate 
increases for our men and women who are in harm's way and defending our 
liberty and freedom.
  If this House actually stuck with the President's number, went with 
the President's number--and the President lays out no path to be able 
to change the law--that number would snap right back down to $523 
billion as soon as the next fiscal year, the next calendar year begins. 
That is why we believe it is appropriate to lay out that path, to lay 
out the path to be able to solve the challenge that we have, and we do 
that in our budget.
  You talk about gimmicks, Mr. Chairman, the President's budget is full 
of gimmicks. What it isn't full of is responsibility, as I mentioned 
before, increasing the debt beyond where the eye can see. So we have 
got a positive budget, A Balanced Budget for a Stronger America.
  I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the great State 
of Georgia (Mr. Woodall), my colleague on the Committee on the Budget, 
to talk about the responsible things that this budget can do.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my chairman for yielding me the 
time. It has been a great privilege to work with Chairman Tom Price on 
the Committee on the Budget.
  I was down here earlier bringing the rule to the floor, but I was 
trying to defend a rule that was going to allow all the ideas. Now we 
actually get to talk about which ideas are the good ideas. That is why 
I wanted to come down here and speak.
  I heard my friend from Maryland speak with such passion and 
conviction on Medicaid, and I share his passion, and I know his 
conviction to be true. But if we do nothing, interest payments alone 
are going to be larger than the entire Medicaid budget. We have six 
different budgets that we can consider down here on the House floor. 
Three of them balance; three of them never, ever do.
  I was listening to what the chairman said earlier. He said: I do not 
concede any of the discussion from the other side about whether or not 
this budget balances or not. But the point is at least we are trying. 
Even if you are right that the numbers don't work out, even if the 
economic circumstances change, we have as a goal ending this wasted 
taxpayer resource, which is interest to our creditors. It dwarfs 
everything--everything. It is larger than the defense budget. It is 
larger than the Medicaid budget. It is five times larger than the 
education budget, five times larger than the transportation budget.
  Whatever it is you care about, whatever investments in America you 
want to make, by failing to commit yourself to a balanced budget today, 
you are trading away those opportunities. Every dollar borrowed today 
is a tax increase on children and grandchildren or a benefit cut for 
children and grandchildren.
  I could not be prouder. When faced with a deteriorating economic 
situation, where every year the CBO says we are constraining growth 
more and more and more, it has been the hardest year since I have been 
here to balance the budget. Our chairman said: If it is a big 
challenge, I want it in my committee. And he has done it.
  It is a partnership in that committee. I have great respect for the 
ranking member from Maryland and his leadership of that committee as 
well. We are trading it all away. Balance this budget. Let's do it 
together; let's do it responsibly. But let it not be a question 
of whether or not we do it; let it be a question of when we do it. We 
will have that debate together.

  I thank my chairman.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, just a couple of points. Again--and we keep hearing 
that the Republican budget balances--it does not balance. It is 
interesting that instead of having the priority right now be 
accelerated economic growth with rising paychecks and rising wages for 
Americans, our Republican colleagues have made the absolute priority a 
balance which their own budget doesn't achieve.
  In fact, the Republican budget that was brought to the floor just 3 
years ago didn't balance until something like 2047, and yet now instead 
of having the priority be growing the economy in a way that raises 
wages for all families, they have got a priority which their own budget 
doesn't meet.
  Now, American families who are focusing on their pocketbooks know 
that from time to time they do borrow to invest in their future. They 
borrow to buy a home that can go up in value. They sometimes borrow for 
education because they know that is a good investment.
  Actually, interest rates are very low right now. We should be 
investing in our national infrastructure so we don't become a pothole 
nation in the days ahead. You know, the chairman of the committee 
mentioned again the transportation trust fund a little earlier today.
  The reality is that the President's proposal puts forward in the 
budget a 6-year transportation plan that avoids the shortfall and 
actually helps to boost our national infrastructure, our investment in 
roads and bridges and modernizing our national infrastructure, so that 
we can remain at the cutting edge and don't fall behind. The Republican 
budget has no plan more than the 10-months plan we have had, and in 
this budget nothing real at all.
  Now, I do want to say one word about what the chairman said about the 
President's defense spending and the way the President did it. You 
ought to know, the President did not put it in the slush fund. He put 
our base defense needs where they always have been: in the defense 
budget for the Defense Department. In fact, I was really surprised to 
hear the chairman say that, because the Republican study group budget--
I believe the Republican study group budget represents a majority of 
Republicans; I am not sure--does it the same way the President did it, 
in a straightforward manner. They put the funds that the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff say they need for our base defense needs, they put it in their 
budget. They do exactly what the chairman said the President was doing 
in some indirect way.
  Look, I really am pretty surprised that our colleagues keep coming 
back to this point because it is a total violation of what they, 
themselves, said, wrote down on paper a year ago, that you shouldn't be 
funding our defense needs as part of the ongoing defense budget by 
putting them in a slush fund for the overseas contingency account when 
the military leadership says they don't need that money for that 
purpose.
  I am pleased the President did this in a straightforward manner, in 
the manner that the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the military leadership 
said. In fact, it turns out the same way the Republican study group 
did, but apparently not the way the Republican majority wants to do 
business anymore.
  I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Maxine Waters), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee 
on Financial Services, who understands the impact that the Republican 
budget decisions are going to have on everyday Americans, including in 
their pocketbooks.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Van Hollen 
for his leadership on the Committee on the Budget.
  As ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services, I would 
like to express my serious concerns about how this budget resolution 
undermines our financial stability, protection for American consumers, 
and the entire housing market.
  It is now 7 years since our country's financial system was rocked by 
Wall Street greed and predatory lending. All of our constituents bore 
witness to an economy where family members lost their jobs, friends 
were made homeless, and everyone's savings, no matter how modest, were 
depleted. In all, trillions of dollars of wealth vanished in the span 
of a few months. When some of the money returned, it was not shared 
equally.

[[Page H1882]]

  Democrats in Congress worked to prevent a repeat of this disaster by, 
among other things, putting in place the tools necessary to prevent 
bailouts of megabanks and creating an independent regulator solely 
tasked with defending consumers from financial harm.
  Rehashing failed policies, the Republican budget resolution would 
repeal these tools and bind the hands of the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau. The Republicans would return us to a system where a 
company like AIG would once again threaten the entire financial system. 
The Republicans would return us to a system where lenders can make 
predatory mortgages to some of the most disadvantaged communities, 
including communities of color, but that is not all.

                              {time}  1615

  This budget resolution goes even further. It would privatize Fannie 
Mae and Freddie Mac along the lines of the failed PATH Act, a terrible 
piece of legislation rejected by everyone--housing advocates, realtors, 
mortgage banks, academics, and, I might add, a majority of Members in 
the House.
  Why do we all reject it? We fear it would be the end of safe 
mortgages like the 30-year fixed rate mortgage. We fear it would favor 
only the big megabanks, hurting community banks. We fear that it would 
further widen the wealth gap in this country.
  This budget resolution is built upon a flawed foundation that harms 
some of our most vulnerable communities. I urge that the Members of 
this House oppose the Republican budget resolution.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman), a very productive member 
of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. STUTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Republican House budget, A Balanced Budget for a Stronger America.
  Mr. Chairman, as we have seen over the last several years, the tax-
and-spend policies of this President have made our economy very 
sluggish. It is a very slow recovery. Our wages are stagnant. Our 
national debt has increased to more than $18 trillion. This is a 70 
percent increase since President Obama took office. And if the 
President had his way, we would actually add another $8.5 trillion of 
debt over the next 10 years.
  Mr. Chairman, if we look at this chart, it shows interest versus 
other spending. This line right here--net interest--is the one that we 
should all be very concerned about because this is something that we 
have to pay for. This is not a line item that we can all of a sudden 
say: No, we're not going to pay as much on net interest as we're going 
to maybe on defense or education or transportation. This is something 
that we as American people have to pay because of the interest on our 
debt. This only gets worse if we don't do something sooner.
  And so today, in contrast to the President's budget that increases 
taxes and increases spending--and his budget actually never, ever 
balances--we, as Republicans, are putting forward a responsible budget, 
a balanced budget, and one that I believe is critically important for 
the future of our country and for the future of our economy. Our budget 
balances in 10 years.
  So, Mr. Chairman, if you look at this chart, it doesn't take an 
economist to see which plan will ultimately lead to debt and decline 
and which plan will lead us to growth and prosperity.
  The House Republican budget begins making payments on our national 
debt in year 2024, and the President's budget just digs us deeper and 
deeper into the hole.
  I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, I have two sons, Payton and Preston, 13 
and 9 years old. We cannot continue to hand them the bill and expect 
them and future generations to pay for the spending of Washington that 
is out of control. That is why we have to get to a balanced budget 
sooner rather than later.
  On top of balancing the budget, this plan calls for a fair and 
simpler Tax Code. It ends ObamaCare's broken promises and strengthens 
our entitlement programs for current seniors and for future 
beneficiaries. In light of current threats, this budget also increases 
defense spending, which is a priority for us, so that our military--our 
men and women in uniform--can defend this country at a very dangerous 
time.
  This plan is an opportunity for us to stand together and to show the 
American people that we are committed to A Balanced Budget for a 
Stronger America, to starting to pay our debt down to make sure that 
future generations don't have to pay for those debts and that we can 
work together on commonsense reforms.
  I thank the chairman for his work on this particular budget. I am 
proudly standing here today in support of that hard work, and I ask my 
colleagues to support it as well.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, not only does the Republican budget not 
balance, but it doesn't eliminate one special interest tax break for 
the purpose of reducing the deficit. Not one. These are tax breaks that 
powerful interests have put into the Tax Code over many years.
  Apparently, it is okay to deeply cut our investment in our kids' 
education. Apparently, it is okay to increase the cost of prescription 
drugs for seniors on Medicare, but, for some reason, we are not going 
to get rid of one corporate tax break for the purpose of reducing the 
deficit. Those are not Americans' priorities.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. 
Edwards), someone who understands the importance of moving America 
forward, my colleague and friend and a member of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee.
  Ms. EDWARDS. I thank my friend and colleague from Maryland for his 
leadership on the Budget Committee, and also the Democrats on the 
Budget Committee.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress is really tasked at this time of year with 
developing a budget that lays out our Nation's priorities and spending, 
but those priorities really should reflect our values. As hard as it is 
to imagine--and it is hard--this Price budget resolution is actually 
worse than the previous Ryan budget for hard-working American families.
  Once again, we see how little Republicans value protecting critical 
priorities that actually help Americans live a healthy life and enjoy a 
secure retirement. In fact, the Republican budget would force working 
families to pay more in taxes. It would make college education less 
affordable. It would force seniors to pay more for their health care 
and prescription drugs. It would end the Medicare guarantee by turning 
it into a voucher program. Lastly, Mr. Chairman, it would block grant 
both Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
  The fact is that this budget would decimate our Nation's already 
crumbling infrastructure by reducing funding by 19 percent over the 
next decade. If you would imagine that, that means that every road that 
needs to be repaired, the bridges that are falling apart, the mass 
transit that needs investing in, this budget would actually cut our 
spending by 19 percent over the next decade.
  It would require an additional $318 billion from Federal and postal 
employees and their retirees--hard-working people who have given all 
that they can to deficit reduction. In fact, that is a constituency 
that has already contributed $159 billion to deficit reduction.
  Mr. Chairman, Republican priorities are making tax cuts for the 
wealthy permanent, and they are shrinking the size of government, 
regardless of the damage--great damage--that it would cause.
  House Democrats, I believe, are investing in hard-working Americans. 
We have said it is important for us to improve access to high-quality 
child care and dependent care. It is important to invest in quality 
education for all our children. It is important to end the draconian 
across-the-board sequester cuts.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania). The time of the 
gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. EDWARDS. The Democrats' budget would protect seniors' health care 
and retirement. It would create jobs in America through rebuilding our 
infrastructure and support jobs by making sure our Nation's 
manufacturers get to invest in the research and development that they 
need.

[[Page H1883]]

  In short, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote down this 
draconian Republican budget and support each of the Democratic 
alternatives. I know I will be voting for them because each of them, 
even though they are different, would be way better than the draconian 
budget that has been proposed by Republicans.
  I thank my colleague from Maryland for his leadership. We need to 
invest in America's future, including our hard-working men and women.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), a member of the 
Budget Committee.
  Mr. SANFORD. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I just heard the budget described as draconian. I would 
say that doing nothing, ultimately, is draconian because what the 
numbers show is that if we do nothing, roughly in 10 years we will be 
spending about $800 billion a year in interest alone--more than we 
spend on all of our Nation's defense.
  I could give any number of different indicators that say if we do 
nothing, we are headed for a train wreck that will have real impact on 
the very constituencies that my Democratic colleagues were just 
alluding to.
  It is not a perfect budget. We are having an intense debate, whether 
it is on the Democratic side or, frankly, even within the Republican 
family.
  I just had a conversation with my colleague, Mike Turner from Ohio, 
who is really passionate about the need to spend more on defense. We 
are still working out those wrinkles. But what I do know, in fairness 
to the chairman and what he has tried to do in managing the different 
folks that are affected by this budget, is to say: If you are in a 
hole, you quit digging. And fundamentally, if you look at our Nation's 
budget trajectory, we are in a hole that is going to get far worse if 
we don't do what the chairman and the committee have suggested.
  I would say, one, we are spending too much. And yet the President's 
proposal is to go from spending roughly around 20 percent of GDP up to 
22 percent of GDP, from a historic average of, frankly, around 18 
percent.
  We are taxing too much. We are going to go in the President's 
proposal from spending of around 18 percent to around 20 percent--a 
little bit over that. That doesn't sound like much, but you take two 
points of a GDP in 2025, and you are looking at more than $500 
billion--more than, again, roughly what we spend in defense for our 
entire Nation on a yearly basis.
  We have a budget trajectory where we are handing too much debt to the 
next generation. And we are headed, again, for this unsustainable train 
wreck.
  Think about it this way. It took our country 200 years to accumulate 
$5 trillion in debt. Under the Bush administration, in fairness to my 
Democratic colleagues, it went from $5 trillion to $10 trillion in the 
course of about 8 years. And then, under the Obama administration, it 
has gone from $10 trillion to roughly $20 trillion.
  The growth is becoming geometric. And the question is: What are we 
going to do about it? What we can do is what the President has 
proposed, which is nothing--adding $2 trillion in new taxes, adding $8 
trillion in new debt, and going from structural $500 billion deficits 
to $1.1 trillion deficits.
  I think that what we are talking about here is ultimately made 
important by what Admiral Mike Mullen had to say on the subject. When 
asked what the biggest threat is to the American civilization, his 
response was the American debt and deficit.
  We are reaching this tipping point. If you look at the numbers, by 
2025 we will only have enough money for interest and entitlements, and 
nothing else, without raising taxes substantially or cutting those 
benefits that my colleagues have just been talking about.
  I will leave you with one point, and I think it is this. Sir 
Alexander Fraser Tytler studied history for the whole of his life.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. SANFORD. He got to the end of his life and the quote that was 
attributed to him at life's end was: A democracy cannot exist as a 
permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters 
discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public 
treasury, with the result that democracy always fails under a loose 
fiscal policy, and it is generally followed by dictatorship.
  The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 
years. These nations have progressed to this sequence: from bondage to 
spiritual faith; spiritual faith to great courage; great courage to 
liberty; liberty to abundance; abundance to selfishness; selfishness to 
complacency; complacency to apathy; apathy to dependency; and from 
dependency back again into bondage.
  Ultimately, what I think that this budget is about is avoiding that 
very bondage that that historian and many others have talked about over 
the years.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip, who understands the 
importance of a growing economy--a growing economy with shared 
prosperity and a growing economy with fiscal responsibility.
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend, Mr. Van Hollen, for yielding, and I 
thank him for the extraordinary job that he has done as ranking member 
of the Budget Committee.
  My friend from South Carolina has left the floor. I regret that. He 
was the Governor of a State. This budget would not have been tenable 
during his administration or, frankly, the administration of my own 
Governor, who happens to be a Republican. We have had Democrats in the 
past.
  The gentleman ended with a number of cautions about the path of 
fiscal irresponsibility and what it would lead to. I agree with him on 
that, but I will tell him it is indeed unfortunate that, once again, we 
have a budget that does not put us on a path of fiscal sustainability. 
We have a budget that is not real. We have a budget that pretends. That 
is what USA Today said today.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the budget resolutions offered 
by the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Price, for whom I have 
great respect. I say budget resolutions, plural, because there are two 
of them. One was reported by the committee that channels $36 billion 
into the overseas contingency operations account, disguising it as 
emergency war funding as a way of getting around the defense sequester 
caps while offering token language providing about $20 billion to be 
offset at a later date.
  The other budget was unveiled by Republicans yesterday. It includes 
an additional $2 billion on top of that $36 billion in overseas 
contingency operations and removes any mention of paying for this 
effective negation of the defense sequester. The gentleman from South 
Carolina referred to devices like that.

                              {time}  1630

  This dueling budget strategy came about because Republicans didn't 
have the votes for their own proposal yet again. They are offering 
their Members two options: blow through the defense sequester ceiling 
by $36 billion or blow through it by $38 billion.
  Apparently, some are going to mask their either hawkish perspective 
on the defense or hawkish perspective on the deficit by a vote either 
for A or for A.
  Of course, while they blow through the cap on the defense side, they 
continue the cap on the domestic side for this year, before cutting 
dramatically below that level in future years, mercilessly gutting 
priority investments in education, job training, innovation, research, 
and other priorities of this Nation if it is to remain competitive in 
world markets, if it is to remain a growing, thriving nation.
  This budget is a severe disinvestment in America's future and our 
long-term economic competitiveness. This approach is not a blueprint 
for growth and opportunity for America's businesses and workers. It is, 
rather, sadly, a recipe for economic and fiscal disaster in the years 
to come.
  Mr. Chairman, if we fail to invest in the next generation or to 
continue the War on Poverty in this country, we are doing a grave 
disservice to our children and our grandchildren by not giving them the 
tools they need to secure the

[[Page H1884]]

jobs and opportunities that open doors to the middle class.
  Like the Ryan budgets, which were never implemented by the majority 
party at any point in time from this House--forget about blaming 
Senator Reid or the Senate, they were never implemented in this House--
Mr. Price's budgets rely on a magic asterisk, hiding the specifics 
behind over $1 trillion in cuts in order to appear to balance it in its 
stated goal of 9 years.
  No one--no one--knows exactly what programs Republicans would cut or 
by how much. That is not being honest with the American people. They 
would turn Medicare into a voucher program and would take access to 
affordable health care away from millions of Americans by repealing the 
Affordable Care Act.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, make no mistake. These budget alternatives 
are political documents that are unworkable and unserious when it comes 
to governing.
  Like previous Republican budgets that rely on sequestration, I have 
no doubt that the majority will not be able to enact appropriation 
bills that adhere to whichever version that you will pass. You have not 
done so in the past, and you will not do so this year.
  They will continue to be, as the Republican chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, Mr. Rogers, said, ``unrealistic and ill-
conceived.''
  Budget Committee Democrats, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and 
the Congressional Black Caucus have all put forward alternatives that 
are far better than these dueling Republican budget resolutions.
  Democrats prioritize replacing the sequester, which Mr. Rogers 
believes should be done, on both the defense and domestic sides, so 
that we can make investments in America's future that are fiscally 
sustainable.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the two Republican budget alternatives 
and their strategy of selective sequester.
  The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to direct all their remarks to 
the Chair.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I want to first thank Chairman Price and 
his staff for their hard work on this budget. With all the difficulties 
and complexities in drafting a budget, including inheriting an $18 
trillion debt, Chairman Price and the committee have managed to find 
savings of $5.5 trillion and to balance the budget in 10 years, all 
without any new taxes.
  This has not been an easy task, but this budget resolution stands in 
stark contrast to what the President sent us. The President's 
irresponsible proposal makes no attempt to balance the budget, leaving 
future generations with even more debt. Indeed, his plan proposes 
returning to trillion-dollar deficits, leaving a legacy of staggering 
debt and further eroding our standing in the world.
  For decades, Americans have been told that spending for things you 
can't pay for is good fiscal policy and that debts and deficits don't 
matter. President Obama believes that maxing out the Federal credit 
card to pay for government programs and using more of the taxpayers' 
hard-earned dollars to pay interest on the debt is actually good for 
our economy.
  Well, the ruse is over. Families aren't buying it. The ``charge now 
and pay later'' mentality is no longer affordable. Parents know debt 
and interest payments add up. They understand that out-of-control debt 
cripples their ability to respond to an emergency, for example, when 
the basement floods or the furnace goes out.
  Mr. Chairman, what is true for American families is true for the 
Federal Government. Just like working families must do, so must the 
government. Purchases we can't afford need to be put on hold until we 
can afford it; tough choices must be made.
  Every day, families make responsible financial decisions. Do we sign 
up the kids for Little League, or do we buy the bigger van? The same 
principle must apply in our government.
  This budget, Mr. Chairman, acknowledges that addressing our debt is a 
national priority. It puts forth parameters that will force the 
government to make reforms and live within its means so we can start to 
address a debt that now exceeds $18 trillion.
  This budget eliminates all of the ObamaCare taxes and mandates that 
are costing small businesses tens of thousands of dollars, cutting into 
Americans' take-home pay, and driving up healthcare costs for the 
American consumer.
  Importantly, Mr. Chairman, this resolution sets the stage for us to 
pass real healthcare reform that will actually address cost and 
coverage and help American families in their healthcare choices with 
more freedom, more choice, and less bureaucracy. This budget respects 
the rights of conscience for our Nation's doctors and religious 
institutions and people of faith.
  Finally, this budget will result in a leaner, more efficient 
government that is transparent and accountable to the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, the Budget Committee's resolution makes the hard 
choices needed to move the country forward, to make possible increases 
in our defense budget needed to address the threats in our world, and 
to set us on a path to a balanced budget.
  Again, I thank Chairman Price for the work of him and his committee.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, this budget doesn't make tough choices. 
The Republican budget makes bad choices. It doesn't cut one single 
special interest tax break in the Code while it makes deep cuts to our 
kids' early education. That is a bad choice, not a tough choice.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Connolly), a distinguished member of the Oversight and Government 
Reform Committee.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I honor my friend from Maryland for his 
extraordinary and outstanding leadership on a very difficult set of 
complex numbers and policies known as the U.S. budget. Thank you so 
much for your leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, this year's Republican budget resolution is 
incredulously titled ``A Balanced Budget for a Stronger America,'' but 
by every measure, the draconian cuts proposed in this budget would 
severely weaken America's innovative advantage and competitiveness. It 
might as well be called ``Let's Disinvest in America.''
  Consider the cuts to basic research, once a bedrock, a Federal 
priority that spurred new discoveries that are now vital in our daily 
lives and the economy. R&D is critical for my northern Virginia 
district, where the technology community is driving innovation.
  This Republican budget would slash R&D funding by 15 percent, to its 
lowest level since 2002. That is a retreat from America's role as the 
global innovation leader and, essentially, cedes the playing field to 
our international competition.
  Similarly, the Republican budget would disinvest in our classrooms. 
To achieve their ruse of balancing the budget over 10 years, 
Republicans would cut nondefense spending 24 percent below the already 
reduced sequester levels.
  For K-12 education, that translates into an $89 billion cut over the 
next decade and would surely leave every child behind their 
international peers. It would also put higher education further out of 
reach for low and middle class families. America did not ascend to its 
role as the world's leading economy by quashing the potential of future 
innovators and leaders.
  Mr. Chairman, our Republican colleagues are, once again, showing they 
know the cost of everything and the value of very little. I often hear 
my colleagues lament that we should run government more like a 
business.
  Well, if that is the case, perhaps we should start by listening to 
the business community which is advocating for us to invest more--not 
less--in R&D, in education, and in infrastructure for the future 
workforce of America and the building blocks of a competitive economy.
  These are investments that yield tremendous returns for our families, 
for our children, for our future; and the Republican budget would 
eviscerate those pillars of American exceptionalism.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for

[[Page H1885]]

bringing up the issue of business in America, jobs in America.
  I include in the Record letters from the Chamber of Commerce of the 
United States of America and from the National Federation of 
Independent Business in support of our budget.

                                        Chamber of Commerce of the


                                     United States of America,

                                   Washington, DC, March 18, 2015.
     Hon. Tom Price,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC
       Dear Chairman Price: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the 
     world's largest business federation, representing the 
     interests of more than three million businesses of all sizes, 
     sectors, and regions, as well as state and local chambers of 
     commerce, and dedicated to promoting, protecting, and 
     defending America's free enterprise system, appreciates your 
     proposed budget resolution, ``A Balanced Budget for a 
     Stronger America,'' which would establish the budget for 
     fiscal year 2016.
       This proposal recognizes the importance of restraining 
     federal spending, correcting the unsustainable growth path of 
     entitlement spending, reducing federal budget deficits, 
     containing the growth of federal debt, and enacting 
     comprehensive tax reform--all goals shared by the Chamber.
       The proposal would balance the budget within 10 years 
     without raising taxes through $5.5 trillion in spending 
     reductions, out of a base spending level of $48.6 trillion. 
     The Congressional Budget Office estimated the macroeconomic 
     effects of the proposed deficit reduction and concluded 
     output per person would be 1.5 percent higher at the end of 
     10 years, which in turn would reduce the budget deficit an 
     additional $147 billion. Such budgetary savings would move 
     the budget from modest deficit to modest surplus by 2024.
       The nation faces many challenging issues in budget policy 
     that will require sustained debate over many months and, in 
     some cases, years. Over the long term, the budget is a 
     blueprint for restoring fiscal discipline by shrinking the 
     size of government and debt compared to current law.
       This budget proposal marks an important step toward a more 
     sensible, more sustainable, pro-growth fiscal policy. The 
     Chamber urges the Committee and the full House of 
     Representatives to debate the issues fully and then adopt a 
     budget resolution on a timely basis. The Chamber further 
     urges the United States Senate likewise to meet its 
     responsibility by passing a budget addressing our long-term 
     challenges. The Chamber looks forward to working with 
     Congress on the vital reforms to entitlements and our tax 
     code necessary to get our fiscal house in order.
           Sincerely,
     R. Bruce Josten.
                                  ____

                                               National Federation


                                      of Independent Business,

                                   Washington, DC, March 23, 2015.
     Hon. Tom Price,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget, House of Representatives, 
         Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Price: On behalf of the National Federation 
     of Independent Business (NFIB), the nation's leading small 
     business advocacy organization, thank you for your efforts to 
     address our nation's fiscal problems in the Fiscal Year 2016 
     Budget Resolution.
       A budget that balances in fewer than ten years, and 
     includes support for comprehensive tax reform, regulatory 
     reform, and repeal of the Affordable Care Act, is a budget 
     that addresses the top concerns of small business owners--our 
     nation's job creators. NFIB and small business owners 
     strongly support these efforts.


                        Comprehensive Tax Reform

       In your budget blueprint you state, ``The U.S. tax code is 
     absurdly complicated, patently unfair, and highly 
     inefficient.'' NFIB members could not agree more and strongly 
     support the inclusion of comprehensive tax reform in the 
     budget resolution. The complicated tax code, which forces 
     small businesses to pay 67 percent more for tax compliance 
     than larger corporations, needs to be simplified. Most 
     importantly, high tax rates continue to be a persistent 
     problem for small business owners. Specific tax concerns 
     account for five of the top ten most severe problems facing 
     business owners. As over 75 percent of small businesses are 
     structured as pass-through entities, lowering individual 
     income tax rates is especially important. Pass-through 
     entities employ 54 percent of all private-sector workers--
     their tax burden is directly tied to their ability to keep 
     their workers employed.


                       Sensible Regulatory Reform

       NFIB appreciates that your budget ``calls on Congress, in 
     consultation with the public, to enact legislation to reform 
     our regulatory system.'' While regulation is necessary, it 
     must be pragmatic. Unfortunately, federal agencies rarely 
     take into account how their regulations affect small 
     business. Federal regulators should work with small business 
     owners to help ensure compliance, rather than aggressively 
     impose fines for violations that result from confusion. 
     Government regulations rank as the fifth most severe problem 
     for small business owners in the NFIB Research Foundation's 
     most recent Small Business Problems and Priorities survey. 
     Federal agencies, notably the Environmental Protection Agency 
     and Occupational Safety and Health Administration, continue 
     to demonstrate a lack of understanding of how regulatory 
     proposals impact small business operations.
       In order to provide for meaningful regulatory reform, 
     Congress should eliminate loopholes and clarify language in 
     the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) to ensure that all 
     federal agencies take into account, and make public, both 
     direct and indirect costs to small businesses in their 
     rulemaking; expand the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
     and Fairness Act (SBREFA) and Small Business Advocacy Review 
     (SBAR) panels to apply to all federal agencies; waive fines 
     for first time paperwork errors and provide small business 
     with a grace period to fix minor violations when the public 
     and employees are not at risk; and make compliance assistance 
     programs a priority, instead of minimizing them in order to 
     provide for the expansion of enforcement programs.


                           Healthcare Reform

       The budget resolution also addresses small business owners' 
     most severe business problem: the cost of health insurance. 
     NFIB members continue to advocate for full repeal of the 
     Affordable Care Act. Thank you for including this provision 
     in the budget resolution. The Affordable Care Act only 
     exacerbates a system of health insurance that is financially 
     unsustainable, threatening the health and financial security 
     of Americans. Small business owners and their employees are 
     especially vulnerable to the weaknesses of the current 
     system. As Congress addresses future healthcare policy, we 
     urge you to put forward reforms to balance the competing 
     goals of affordability, access to quality care, 
     predictability and consumer choice.
       According to a December 2014 survey by the NFIB Research 
     Foundation, ten percent of small business owners had their 
     personal insurance plans cancelled last year, something the 
     President and the law's supporters promised wouldn't happen. 
     Twelve percent of owners renewed their old plans early in 
     order to avoid higher premiums and narrower choices, two 
     results that were also not part of the deal. The NFIB survey 
     found that 62 percent of small business owners are paying 
     higher premiums while only eight percent say their costs have 
     dropped. The President's sales pitch for the law included 
     promised health insurance premium relief for small 
     businesses. Five years later, a substantial majority of small 
     business owners are reporting the opposite result.


                    Providing for a Balanced Budget

       Small business owners have long supported balancing the 
     federal budget. Additionally, according to the NFIB Federal 
     Ballot, 90 percent of NFIB members support a balanced budget 
     amendment to the Constitution. Our nation's small businesses 
     are calling on Congress to fix our dangerous fiscal situation 
     without damaging economic growth or raising taxes on job 
     creators. If our long-term fiscal outlook is not addressed by 
     lawmakers today, future generations will continue to be faced 
     with higher debt and interest payments, increased tax rates 
     and fewer investment opportunities. Small business owners 
     must compete in today's economy while operating within their 
     budgets and so too should the federal government.
       Thank you again for introducing the Fiscal Year 2016 Budget 
     Resolution. NFIB strongly supports its passage when 
     considered by the full House of Representatives. We look 
     forward to working with you on this, and similar measures to 
     protect small business as the 114th Congress moves forward.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Amanda Austin,
                                    Vice President, Public Policy.

  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from the Commonwealth of Virginia (Mr. Forbes), a senior 
member of the Republican Conference.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I first want to commend Chairman Price for 
shepherding this budget to the floor and doing such a tremendous job; 
yet, with the great job he has done, I know it is confusing, probably, 
to people listening to this debate at home because, throughout today 
and tomorrow, a lot of very smart men and women are going to come to 
this floor and argue various debates.
  When all those voices have silenced and everybody sits back down in 
their chairs, we all know that it is going to come down to two choices. 
Those two choices are going to be what we refer to as Price 1 or Price 
2.
  Mr. Chairman, we also all know that the difference between those two 
bills is going to be how much we are willing to spend for the national 
defense of this country to defend the greatest nation the world has 
ever known.
  In addition, one of the things that will be clear is not that we will 
be spending what we need to defend the country, but we will be spending 
the amount we have to spend to keep from putting our national defense 
in a crisis situation and a devastating situation to the men and women 
who serve this country around the globe.
  Just two points I would like to leave Members with as they cast those 
votes

[[Page H1886]]

and the first one is this. The difference in the amount of money we 
will be spending for national defense between Price 1 and Price 2, if 
the budget were $1, would be equal to half of this penny if I could cut 
it in two--half of this penny; yet, as small as that may seem, it makes 
the difference between a crisis in national defense and a devastating 
situation to our men and women in uniform.
  The last thing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to leave everyone with as 
they cast those votes is this. It will not be about the men and women 
in suits who make speeches in here, but it is going to be about the men 
and women who wear uniforms around the globe because they will fight to 
defend this country, regardless of what we do.
  The question is whether we will leave them in a crisis situation and 
a devastating situation. That is why I hope this body will vote ``no'' 
to Price 1, ``yes'' to Price 2, and then, if Price 2 passes, vote for 
final passage of this budget, which is a well-done document by the 
chairman.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, just for all Members listening, the 
last gentleman was talking about the differences between the two 
versions of the Republican budget.
  I want to point out that the President of the United States funds our 
defense budget in the straightforward way and in the way that the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff have asked for, funding the base budget as it should be 
and funding the OCO budget as it should be.
  I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the 
ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee who 
understands that growing our economy depends on our kids getting a good 
education.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
underlying Republican budget for fiscal year 2016, and I also rise to 
commend the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) for his strong 
opposition.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget is not a serious plan. It contains 
trillions of dollars in tax cuts, but it doesn't show a dime's worth of 
tax increases when they say it is going to be revenue neutral. It 
includes trillions of dollars in unspecified cuts that will not be 
made. For example, are we really going to repeal Medicare as we know 
it?
  If you actually believe that the Republican majority will carry out 
this plan, it would actually devastate our economy by balancing the 
budget on the backs of students, workers, seniors, the disabled, and 
vulnerable communities across the Nation.
  The Republican budget assumes that sequestration cuts will be enacted 
and then adds an additional $759 billion in nondefense discretionary 
spending cuts. That is the part of the budget that invests in 
education, workforce training, scientific research, transportation, and 
infrastructure.
  With those cuts, the budget would be funded at 40 percent below the 
lowest level in the last 50 years as a percentage of GDP. Those cuts 
will not be made, but if they are, that would be devastating.
  As the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce, I am particularly concerned about the cuts in education. 
Education funding would be cut by $103 billion over 10 years. That is a 
22 percent cut in Federal aid to teachers, principals, school 
districts, colleges, and universities.
  That will include significant cuts in title I funding, resources that 
go to areas of high poverty school districts. It would cut the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which supports educational 
services and resources for students with disabilities, and there would 
be significant cuts to Head Start. College students are having trouble 
paying for tuition, room, and board. Well, this budget cuts Pell 
grants.
  In the area of job training and employment services, the budget would 
result in 2 million fewer workers receiving critical support and does 
nothing to help the long-term unemployed get back into the workforce.
  Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget sends students, families, and 
workers down the wrong path at this important crossroad. We need a 
strong budget that reflects the values of all Americans and makes the 
necessary investments in programs that we know will expand the economy 
for all.
  The Republican budget fails to do this and, therefore, should be 
rejected.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), the former mayor of 
the great city of Dayton.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend Chairman Price for the 
work that he has done. The chairmanship of the Budget Committee is one 
of the most difficult.
  He has a 360-degree responsibility of all aspects of funding the 
Federal Government, balancing our priorities, looking at our financial 
security, and most of the time, we ask the Budget Committee chairman to 
produce a budget. In this instance, we asked him to produce two.
  I greatly appreciate that the chairman has produced two. We have what 
is coming to this floor, Price 1 and Price 2. I am here to speak in 
support of Price 2, but even beyond that, I am asking people to vote 
``no'' on Price 1.
  It is very important that you vote ``no'' on Price 1. We can't pass 
multiple budgets. We have to have one agenda coming out of this House, 
and that one agenda is only the difference between Price 1 and Price 2 
with respect to how do we defend this Nation.
  Now, Price 2 has $523 billion for the Department of Defense and $96 
billion in overseas contingency operations funding. It fully funds our 
national defense. It is the amount that is endorsed by Chairman 
Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Department of 
Defense.
  It is what he has asked for from this House and what he says is 
necessary in the face of things such as ISIS, ISIL, what is happening 
in Libya, what is happening with Putin and his aggressiveness.
  The Secretary General of NATO was just here today and spoke to 
Members of Congress, and he said we are facing a Russia that is both 
willing to use its military force, modernizing its military force, and 
also is not being bound by international agreements. This is only going 
to be able to be responded to not by force, but by strength, a strength 
that we must give in this budget of Price 2.
  Secondly, the Chief of Staff of the Army, General Ray Odierno, was 
before us, and I asked him: What will happen if we go to the 
sequestration levels? What happens if we don't fully fund, as in Price 
2? He says that it means that it will take us longer to do our mission. 
It will cost us in lives. It will cost us in injuries.
  The difference between Price 1 and Price 2, from the Chief of Staff 
of the Army, is lives and whether or not we can win and do our mission 
and whether or not our men and women in uniform are injured.
  That is serious stuff. It is serious enough that people in this 
Congress need to vote ``no'' on Price 1 and ``yes'' on Price 2.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to jeopardize our national security 
and reduce funding for defense anymore. Our men and women in uniform 
need to have a clear message, and that clear message is that we are 
behind them. That message only comes by a vote ``no'' on Price 1 and a 
vote ``yes'' on Price 2.
  I urge all Members of Congress to support our men and women. Vote 
``yes'' on Price 2.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I am now really pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), a terrific member of the 
Budget Committee.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I have been in Congress now 13 years, 
and I have had many discussions with the chairman over the course of my 
career, but I am stunned--and I know he won't be stunned that I am 
stunned--with the inability of the Republican Party to govern this 
Chamber or to govern the country.
  I mean, if you just look at Price 1, Price 2, the contortions that 
the Republican Party has to go through in order to meet the basic 
standard of trying to govern the country is mind-blowing--and then to 
go through all these contortions just so you don't have to fund the 
domestic agenda that is going to actually grow the economy in the 
United States.

  I say this because I was here and watched when President Bush was 
here

[[Page H1887]]

and the Republicans controlled Congress: cut taxes, deregulate, and the 
economy will grow, and jobs will be created.
  We had a stagnant decade of growth because we failed to make the 
kinds of investments that we need to make in this country in order to 
grow the pie.
  Here we are today, after we were able to survive a huge economic 
collapse after that agenda was fully implemented, and we have the 
average CEO making $296 for every $1 that the worker makes; we have the 
top 1 percent getting 17 percent of the tax expenditures that this 
Chamber and this government doles out, and wages have been stagnant.
  I think we have got to go back and ask ourselves: How did we grow 
this great middle class? How did we grow this economy? How did we have 
the highest standards and the highest wages in the entire world for 
such a long period of time? We invested in research and development at 
the National Science Foundation. Now, we are down hundreds of grants 
from the National Science Foundation.
  Do you think China is not putting money into these programs? India? 
Pacific rim countries? They are investing in research, development, 
technologies, alternative energy; and they are beating us to the punch. 
We are cutting our budgets and some of these programs that ultimately 
lead to growth.
  These budgets are supposed to provide stability for the government 
and the private sector. We say: well, we are providing stability, but 
we will tell you what the tax rates are going to be later. We are going 
to fund transportation; we will tell you how later.
  This formula is fairly simple: invest in research, educate your 
workforce, invest in transportation, and make sure that everybody has 
access to a decent education, and your economy will take off.
  This budget does the exact opposite. The ultimate contradictions are 
the deep cuts in the SNAP program, the cuts in the Medicaid, and 
everyone is supposed to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and go 
to work, but then we try to raise the minimum wage, and you fight us on 
that.
  I think that we have proven how to grow this economy. I am sure most 
Americans would want to go back and say: we will take the Clinton 
economy; we will take the Democratic budget in '93, and we will grow 
the economy where we see every income group increase in the incomes 
that their families are making.
  This budget continues to hollow out our military and our domestic 
priorities.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the chairman for his hard work on this budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the House Republican budget 
with the defense fix. Our country needs to get back on a responsible 
financial path, a path that protects our national security, repeals 
ObamaCare, and reforms our entitlement programs so they are 
sustainable.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to remind us of the rapidly deteriorating 
security situation we face. Russia has invaded Ukraine. ISIS is 
spreading. Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons and long-range missiles 
while actively supporting terrorist organizations around the world.
  North Korea is pursuing a submarine-launched ballistic missile 
capability to go with its nuclear weapons program. China is threatening 
our friends and allies in Asia. This is just a laundry list of bad 
actors that threaten the very safety of our Nation.
  Meanwhile, President Obama's foreign policy is a disaster, which puts 
us at even greater risk. Shockingly, the President is even turning his 
back on Israel, damaging our partnership with our closest ally in the 
Middle East.
  Our military has already faced drastic cuts. The Air Force is the 
smallest it has ever been. The Army is on a path to being the smallest 
since 1940. The Navy will soon be the smallest since 1915.
  Mr. Chairman, I firmly believe most Americans agree that now is not 
the time to cut our national security spending. Russia isn't cutting 
its military budget. Iran isn't cutting its military budget. ISIS 
certainly isn't cutting its military budget.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this budget by voting 
``yes'' on Price 2. This is a vital step in keeping our military strong 
in the face of dangerous threats around the world.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I am now really pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), a member of the 
Budget Committee.
  Mr. YARMUTH. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, as a 6-year member of the Budget Committee and the 
second ranking Democrat, I have seen this budget proposal up close and 
personal. I have seen the way it has been reshaped over the years, from 
its early days as the first Ryan budget, to the collection of budget 
tricks and gimmicks we find before us today.
  Despite the highly questionable math and mysterious growth 
projections, the consequences are clear. This budget hurts American 
families now and in the future, hitting their pocketbooks and their 
checkbooks today while disinvesting in our and their future.
  It immediately raises taxes on the hard-working families who are 
simply looking for a shot at the American Dream: owning a home, 
providing their kids with access to a good education, living a healthy 
life, and being able to save for retirement while their parents enjoy 
theirs.
  It makes college more expensive for those families, cutting Pell 
grants by $90 billion and eliminating higher education tax credits. It 
cuts investment in our infrastructure and innovation, leaving us less 
competitive in the global economy.
  This budget takes more than 16 million men, women, and children off 
of the health insurance plan they have now, thanks to the Affordable 
Care Act. People will, again, be denied care because of preexisting 
conditions. Lifetime caps on coverage return.
  If the Affordable Care Act were repealed, as proposed in the 
Republicans' ``work harder for less'' budget, here is what would happen 
in my State: more than 500,000 Kentuckians would lose their healthcare 
coverage.
  We wouldn't gain the 40,000 new jobs that are projected over the next 
6 years because of the Affordable Care Act, and the Kentucky budget 
would miss out on $800 million more in revenue.
  For seniors, this budget ends the guarantee of Medicare as we know 
it. Prescription drug costs will go up on day one. Copays will 
increase. The prescription drug doughnut hole will reopen.
  Eventually, seniors will be given a voucher and sent on their way, 
told to find their own health plan--ironically, something that very, 
very closely resembles the healthcare exchanges that our friends on the 
other side despise so much.
  This is not what the American people want. They want us to invest in 
our people, invest in innovation, and continue our economic recovery by 
creating new opportunities.
  The Democratic budget will do just that, cutting taxes for working 
families, making college more affordable, health care more accessible, 
and retirement more secure.
  It is time we reward hard work, and I urge my colleagues to reject 
the Republican budget and support the Democratic alternative.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, it gives me particular 
pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the great State of 
Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), one of the most diligent and dedicated 
Members of this Congress who is a member of both the Armed Services 
Committee and the Budget Committee.

                              {time}  1700

  Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you very much, Chairman. You are a wonderful 
chairman and have helped us produce a wonderful, responsible budget.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget goes a long way to address the out-of-
control spending problem and crushing debt the administration has 
fostered over the last few years. Unlike the President's proposal, 
though, our budget contains progrowth economic reforms, repeals 
ObamaCare, and it balances. Most importantly, Price 2 restores harmful 
defense cuts and provides the necessary resources our warfighters need.
  The threats facing this Nation and the world right now are vast, 
real, and

[[Page H1888]]

expanding: ISIL has proclaimed a caliphate in the Middle East, and it 
is now looking to expand into other countries; Russia is continually 
making headlines with aggression and invasions into Ukraine and 
surrounding areas; China continues to build its military as it gains 
more and more power globally; and Islamic extremism continues to spread 
to more and more countries.
  We, as representatives of the people, are charged with providing for 
the common defense. Given the size, reach, and increasingly brutal 
nature of the threats we face, we should feel obliged to make sure that 
we create a budget that gives our military the tools necessary to 
address today's threats and be fully prepared to address the threats of 
tomorrow, whatever they may be and wherever they may come from.
  As the only Member to sit on both the House Budget Committee and the 
House Armed Services Committee, I am proud that these two committees 
have come together for Price 2 to provide total defense funding 
spending above the President's request.
  Missouri's Fourth Congressional District is proud to be one of our 
Nation's most military-intensive congressional districts, home of two 
major military installations--Whiteman Air Force Base and Fort Leonard 
Wood--and thousands of dedicated military families sacrificing so much 
to keep us safe.
  Providing our military the resources necessary to safeguard our 
liberties and protect our shores is one of the top legislative 
priorities I have, and I am proud that these resources are provided in 
Price 2.
  Again, I thank Chairman Price for his leadership on this committee 
and in this process, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on Price 
2.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I think our colleagues can hear that 
there is an awful lot of confusion and uncertainty among our Republican 
colleagues about funding our national defense. The President's budget 
is very clear. He funds the national defense the way the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff proposed is best for the country.
  Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a distinguished member of the Judiciary 
Committee who fights for justice and other really important causes.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank my good friend from Maryland for his 
leadership consistently that really speaks to the hearts and minds of 
Americans because we know what Americans want: just a simple 
opportunity to live, thrive, and to create the values that we have 
built this country on. If you work hard, you are successful.
  Mr. Chairman, the budgeteers on the majority side have a very poor 
track record when it comes to economic forecasts and projections.
  Let me also acknowledge the chairman of this committee for the work 
that he has done. We just happen to disagree.
  Ever since the Affordable Care Act was passed, it has been the 
challenge of Republicans to suggest that it wasn't working. We have 
close to 11 million people insured. Some populations who were never 
insured now have high numbers--citizens who were uninsured. And so the 
idea of the Affordable Care being a failure, you are just dead wrong.
  I am very glad to support the Democratic alternative because it is 
the opposite of the Republican budget, which says work harder for less 
when we know what Americans need and what they want for their families. 
They want to be able to buy a home; they want to be able to send their 
kids to college, and they want a secure retirement. Under the GOP 
budget, it is harder to buy a home, absolutely almost impossible to 
send your children to college, and certainly harder to enjoy a secure 
retirement.
  House Republicans oppose increasing the minimum wage, claiming that 
it costs jobs. Wrong again. For every increase in the minimum wage, it 
has been accompanied by an expanding economy.
  House Republicans opposing comprehensive immigration reform, wrong 
again. Studies conducted by groups as far apart as the Chamber of 
Commerce and the AFL-CIO indicate that the gross domestic product will 
grow $1.5 trillion over 10 years.
  This is a sorry track record of economic forecasting, and therefore, 
this budget is one that I have to oppose because it favors the wealthy 
over working class families and those struggling to enter or remain in 
the middle class. I oppose the Republican budget because it asks major 
sacrifices of seniors who can barely make ends meet and fundamentally 
alters the social contract by turning Medicaid and the SNAP program 
into a block program and Medicare into a voucher.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 
30 seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. It is clearly not a working road map for success. If 
the House Republican's ``work harder to get less'' budget were adopted, 
here is a sample of the pain and misery that will be visited on working 
families: an end to higher education tax credits, an end to needed 
increases in the child tax credit, the loss of access to tax credits 
for the Affordable Care Act, a reduction in tax rates for the wealthy, 
yielding average tax cuts of $200,000 for millionaires financed by a 
$2,000 tax increase on the typical working class family.
  Mr. Chairman, this ``Price is not right'' budget will make it harder 
to get to the middle and working class parents to send their kids to 
college, ending these higher education tax credits and cutting student 
loan programs and Pell grants.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has again expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 
30 seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. As I close, let me thank the gentleman for his 
courtesy.
  Mr. Van Hollen is right. I have served on the Judiciary Committee. It 
is there that we deal with the problems, particularly on the Crime 
Subcommittee, at the end of someone's detour in life. Do you know what, 
Mr. Chairman? Those detours in life that wind up with 75,000 persons in 
the Federal prison system on mandatory minimums has been because people 
cannot read, do not have opportunities, and do not have jobs.
  I want to invest in a budget that lifts the boats of all people; if 
you work hard, you get a home; if you work hard, you can send your kids 
to school; if you work hard, you can retire. That is the budget I want 
to support, not this no-success budget that is being proposed by our 
Republican friends.
  I ask my colleagues to support the alternative budget along with the 
CPC and the CBC budget.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 27, the House 
Republicans' ``Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2016'' because it 
continues the reckless and irresponsible approach to fiscal policy that 
the House majority has championed for years, with disastrous results.
  Mr. Chair, the budgeteers on the majority side have a very poor track 
record when it comes to economic forecasts and projections.
  For years, they have based their entire legislative agenda and 
strategy on their belief that the Affordable Care Act or ``Obamacare'' 
would be a failure.
  The wish was father to the thought. But they were wrong.
  Because of Obamacare more than 16.4 million Americans now know the 
peace of mind that comes from affordable, quality health insurance that 
is there when you need it.
  House Republicans oppose increasing the minimum wage, claiming that 
it costs jobs. Wrong again.
  Every increase in the minimum wage has been accompanied by an 
expanding economy, especially during the Clinton Administration.
  House Republicans opposing comprehensive immigration reform claim 
that it will lead to lower incomes and lost jobs.
  Wrong again. Studies conducted by groups as far apart as the Chamber 
of Commerce and the AFL-CIO consistently show that comprehensive 
immigration reform will grow the Gross Domestic Product by $1.5 
trillion over 10 years.
  Given this sorry track record of economic forecasting, I strongly 
oppose the Republican budget because it favors the wealthy over middle 
class families and those struggling to enter or remain in the middle 
class.
  I oppose this Republican budget because it asks major sacrifices of 
seniors who can barely make ends meet, and fundamentally alters the 
social contract by turning Medicaid and SNAP programs into a block 
grant and Medicare into a voucher.
  I cannot and will not support a resolution that attempts to balance 
the budget on the

[[Page H1889]]

backs of working families, 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, the GOP ``Work Harder, Get Less'' Budget squeezes hard-
working Americans by making it: 1. Harder to buy a home by keeping 
their paychecks stagnant; 2. harder to send your kids to college by 
cutting student loans; and 3. harder to enjoy a secure retirement by 
privatizing Medicare.
  If the House Republicans' ``Work Harder to Get Less'' budget were 
adopted, here is a sample of the pain and misery that will be visited 
on middle-class and working families: 1. An end to higher education tax 
credits; 2. an end to needed increases in the child tax credit; 3. the 
loss of access to tax credits for affordable health care for millions 
of Americans; and 4. a reduction in tax rates for the wealthy yielding 
an average tax cut of $200,000 for millionaires financed by a $2,000 
tax increase on the typical middle class family.
  Mr. Chair, this ``Price is not Right'' budget will make it harder to 
middle and working class parents to send their kids to college by: 1. 
Ending higher education tax credits; and 2. cutting student loan 
programs and Pell Grants, making college less affordable and adding to 
the already huge levels of student debt.

  The damage caused by the Republican budget is not limited to working 
families and students; there are also lumps of coal for seniors who 
have earned and deserve a secure retirement: 1. The Medicare guarantee 
is turned into a voucher program with increased costs for seniors. 2. 
Seniors who have worked hard for a financially secure retirement will 
immediately have to pay new co-pays for preventive care and much higher 
costs for prescription drugs.
  The Republican budget also disinvests in America's future: 1. Slashes 
the part of the budget we use to invest in our children's education; 
and 2. devastates our investments in scientific research and 
innovation.
  Mr. Chair, the Republican budget exacerbates the drag on the economy 
resulting from a crumbling infrastructure by cutting $187 billion, or 
more than 19 percent, from transportation funding over the coming 
decade and provides no solution to address the current shortfall in the 
federal transportation fund, which means we can expect construction 
slowdowns beginning this summer.
  Mr. Chair, compared to the President's budget, the Republican budget 
would result this fiscal year in 35,000 fewer children in Head Start 
and up to 6,000 fewer special education teachers, paraprofessionals, 
and other related staff.
  The Republican budget also shortchanges America's future by cutting 
investments in scientific research and innovation in real terms by 
failing to lift the draconian sequester on domestic priorities.
  As a result, under the Republican budget, there would be 1,300 fewer 
medical research grants at National Institutes H and 950 fewer 
competitive science research awards at the NSF, affecting 11,600 
researchers, technicians, and students.
  Finally, Mr. Chair, the Republican Budget mistreats the poorest and 
most vulnerable persons in our country.
  The Republican ``Work Harder, Get Less'' budget takes aim at millions 
of families with children struggling to make ends meet and put food on 
the table by converting the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 
(SNAP) into a block grant beginning in 2021 and cutting funding 
steeply--by $125 billion (34 percent) between 2021 and by 2025.
  These dramatic cuts could mean in 2021 through 2025 either cutting 
off assistance to 11 to 12 million eligible people each year, or 
cutting benefits by almost $55 per person per month.
  In contrast, the Democratic Budget works FOR American families by 
giving them the tools to buy a home, send their kids to college and 
enjoy a secure retirement.
  Mr. Chair, the Democratic Budget represents a better way.
  We Democrats 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, 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 be adopted by 
Congress, 206,304 Texas seniors would pay more for prescription drugs 
next year.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), a senior 
member of the Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Thank you, Chairman Price, for your 
extraordinary leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, I am grateful today to join with my House Armed 
Services Committee colleagues and speak in support of Chairman Price's 
defense alternative budget, Price 2.
  As the chairman of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee 
on the House Armed Services Committee, my top priority is to provide 
adequate funding for our Special Operations Forces who are currently 
deployed in more than 80 countries worldwide defeating the terrorists 
overseas. I support our cyber forces who play a critical role in the 
defense of our national security from state and nonstate aggressors 
alike. And I appreciate our scientists and engineers who develop the 
cutting-edge technologies provided for our warfighters to protect 
American families.
  In an environment where our Air Force is the smallest since its 
creation, the Army is on the path to being the smallest since 1939, and 
the Navy will soon be the smallest since 1915, we cannot risk reducing 
our national defense. We can best provide for peace through strength.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that tomorrow we will be 
taking a vote on two seemingly similar budgets, Price 1 and Price 2, 
but there are two major differences between the budgets. Price 2 
represents the product of fruitful negotiations between the leadership, 
the House Budget Committee, and the House Armed Services Committee.
  In Director of National Intelligence James Clapper's recent Worldwide 
Threat Assessment before the Senate Armed Services Committee, he said:

       In 2013, just over 11,500 terrorist attacks worldwide 
     killed approximately 22,000 people. Preliminary data just for 
     the first 9 months of 2014 indicate nearly 13,000 attacks, 
     which killed 31,000 people. When the accounting is done, 2014 
     will have been the most lethal year for global terrorism in 
     the 45 years such data has been compiled.

  The world is becoming more dangerous, and it is time Congress came 
together and funded our troops appropriately. Terrorists have declared 
war on American families.
  I would like to thank our leadership team, Chairman Price and 
Chairman Mac Thornberry, for their work in negotiating Chairman Price's 
defense alternative, Price 2, and it is my hope that tomorrow we can 
come together and pass Price 2.
  In conclusion, God bless our troops, and may the President by his 
actions never forget September the 11th in the global war on terrorism.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to my Republican 
colleagues, if you want to vote for a defense budget in a 
straightforward manner the way the Joint Chiefs of Staff have 
recommended, then vote for the Democratic alternative.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as how much 
time remains on each side?
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hill). The gentleman from Georgia has 27 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Maryland has 10\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), a member of the 
Armed Services Committee and a gentleman who has served this country in 
the armed services.

[[Page H1890]]

  Mr. HUNTER. I would like to thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
dealing with the entire Congress and coming up with only two budgets, 
Price 1 and Price 2.
  I think that the chairman has been pulled in just about every 
different direction, and I am actually glad that this is coming to 
fruition.
  I would like to urge my colleagues to vote for Price 2, the defense 
budget that Chairman Price is putting out, and vote ``no'' on Price 1. 
There is a reason for that: Price 2 is the defense budget.
  Our job as Members of Congress is to do a lot of things. We go to 
different meetings. We vote on transportation, education, labor issues, 
and all kinds of things. But our number one job, our number one job of 
the American people is to keep them safe. It is national security. That 
is why I am here.
  I did three tours. I did two tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. I 
was in Iraq when we didn't have up-armored Humvees. I was in Iraq when 
we didn't have enough scopes for our Marines and security forces. I was 
in Afghanistan when we didn't have enough stuff, too. In fact, if you 
vote for Price 2, you are still only voting for the ragged edge of what 
our Defense Department needs.
  We have things going off all over right now. Africa is gone. The 
Middle East is gone and going. Eastern Europe is going now because of 
the Russians. And Asia and China, China is impinging and coming 
eastward towards the United States. Things will never be safer. Things 
will never be safer. I think the American people have to realize that, 
but they have to contend with it.
  The American people need to know that their Navy is patrolling the 
ocean, that their Marines and their Army are able to go wherever we ask 
them to at a moment's notice and wherever we need them to. The American 
people need to know that their Air Force is patrolling the skies.
  If we are $20 billion under the ragged edge of what our Defense 
Department needs, we are going to have to make sacrifices, and the 
American people are not going to be as safe. If we vote and Price 1 
wins, we are going to have to leave here and tell the American people 
that the American military cannot do what they think it can do. Price 2 
will fund the U.S. military where it needs to be to face all these 
challenges, still barely--still barely--but the American military will 
be able to do it.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to look around the world and 
ask themselves one question: What is their job as a U.S. Congress 
Member? What is their number one job? There is no social security 
without national security. It doesn't matter what our education budget 
is if another 9/11 happens.
  I wear this 9/11 memorial bracelet on my wrist. That is what made me 
join the Marine Corps is when our towers went down. When those towers 
fell, we realized what was important, and it was keeping this country 
safe. Price 2 will help keep this country safe; Price 1 will make it a 
more dangerous place. Again, Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues 
to vote ``no'' on Price 1 and vote ``yes'' on Price 2.
  Again, I thank the chairman for giving his heart and soul to this and 
listening to so many people and trying to come up with something that 
this side of the aisle can agree on.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I just point out to my colleagues that 
both of what we are referring to as Price 1 and Price 2 are a total 
violation of what the Budget Committee, on a bipartisan basis, has said 
we would not do with respect to using the overseas contingency account 
as a slush fund. Both Price 1 and Price 2 do that to different degrees. 
If you want to fund defense in the straightforward manner that the 
military leadership has recommended to the President and the President 
has put in the budget, then you should support the Democratic 
alternative.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  It saddens me to have our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
talk about a slush fund when they are talking about the military. I 
think it maligns our military. It doesn't give the honor and the 
dignity to the men and women who stand in harm's way every single day 
to protect our liberty and protect our freedom. It is hard to even 
recognize the comment when you are talking about those men and women of 
a slush fund.
  I have great respect for members of the armed services, incredible 
respect for their leadership. We believe strongly in their ability to 
take the resources that we provide them and do the job, do the mission, 
make certain that this Nation is safe and kept from harm.
  So I would encourage our colleagues on the other side to rethink 
their language and their rhetoric. Words mean something. Words mean 
something. I hope that they are able to recognize that that language 
doesn't do dignity to this Chamber, it doesn't do dignity to the men 
and women who stand in the breach.
  I want to take a few minutes, Mr. Chairman, and I want to recognize 
those folks who have recognized us in supporting A Balanced Budget for 
a Stronger America, groups all across this Nation, men and women who 
stand up and say: We know that there is a challenge out there, we know 
that the fiscal situation of this Nation is difficult, and we want to 
support those who are actually providing positive solutions:
  Council for Citizens Against Government Waste--I have a letter from 
the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste supporting our 
budget; Americans for Tax Reform, supporting our budget; Americans for 
Prosperity, supporting our budget; National Taxpayers Union, supporting 
our budget; 60 Plus Association, supporting our budget; Association of 
Mature American Citizens, supporting our budget. And I mentioned before 
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and National Federation of Independent 
Business.
  Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record letters of support that have 
been provided by these organizations.

                                          Americans for Tax Reform
                                   Washington, DC. March 17, 2015.
     Chairman Tom Price,
     Committee on the Budget,
     House of Representatives.
       Dear Chairmen Price: On behalf of Americans for Tax Reform, 
     I write in strong support of the recently released U.S. House 
     of Representatives budget proposal. The budget blueprint 
     authored by House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-GA) 
     will ensure that Washington lives within its means by 
     balancing the budget in less than ten years and cutting $5.5 
     trillion in federal spending.
       The budget proposal calls for a fairer, simpler tax code, 
     reforms struggling entitlement programs, clamps down on 
     inefficient and ineffective government programs, and lays the 
     groundwork for strong economic growth. The plan also empowers 
     the states to make their own decisions by restoring the 
     principle of federalism.
       By keeping to the proposed reforms, Congress stands to 
     secure America's economic prospects, protect jobs, and 
     accelerate economic development to levels which would be 
     unattainable given the current spending policies. Lower, 
     flatter taxes plus a competitive international tax regime 
     would enshrine our place as the world's number 1 destination 
     for entrepreneurship. Simply put, asking taxpayers to pay 
     $160 billion per year is an undue burden that we can do 
     without.
       Notably, the House budget repeals Obamacare in its entirety 
     and reforms the health care system to increase access to 
     affordable care and provide patients with better medical 
     choices. Repealing Obamacare would eliminate numerous job 
     killing regulations including the employer mandate and the 
     individual mandate. In place of this complex system, the 
     House budget prioritizes a patient-centered approach that 
     gives power back to the individual.
       Repealing Obamacare will also put a stop to the raiding of 
     the Medicare trust fund. In turn, this will help secure and 
     strengthen Medicare so the program can continue to provide 
     retirees with the care that they deserve. The budget will 
     also build a new premium support program for Medicare that 
     will further empower seniors to make their own choices.
       Finally, the budget implements improvements to Medicaid. 
     Specifically, it repeals the Obamacare Medicaid expansion and 
     grants increased flexibility to the states, which will allow 
     the states the opportunity to build a strong and sustainable 
     system of Medicaid that suits their needs.
       The House Budget maintains the spending restrictions 
     mandated in the Budget Control Act of 2011, ensuring the 
     continuation of the savings from discretionary spending. In 
     contrast to the White House budget, which ignores 2011 
     spending caps and raises spending through misleading 
     promises, the House budget abides by federal law. The budget 
     allocates funding to the DOD's Overseas Contingency 
     Operations (OCO) fund to meet the

[[Page H1891]]

     complex and dangerous global threats, balanced by cuts to 
     mandatory spending.
       It is important to keeps the caps in place that have 
     stabilized federal spending since 2011 and will lead to $1.79 
     trillion in savings through 2021. You should be congratulated 
     for proposing a more fiscally responsible solution despite 
     the urging of some of his more reckless colleagues to break 
     spending caps and undo years of fiscal restraint.
       We urge the House Budget committee to support this bold 
     pro-growth proposal. It returns power to states and 
     localities while making great, positive strides in the tax 
     code.
           Sincerely,

                                           Grover G. Norquist,

                                                       President, 
     Americans for Tax Reform.
                                  ____

                                          The 60 Plus Association,
                                   Alexandria, VA, March 18, 2015.
     Hon. Tom Price,
     Chairman, House Committee on the Budget,
     Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Price: On behalf of more than seven million 
     senior citizen activists, the 60 Plus Association applauds 
     your leadership in putting forth a responsible Balanced 
     Budget plan. Not only will this legislation protect seniors 
     but also our children and grandchildren.
       We need positive, common sense solutions to put our 
     nation's spending on a path of sustainability that both 
     strengthens and preserves our Social Security and Medicare 
     benefits. By reducing spending though responsible government-
     wide reforms, the House Republican budget also ensures 
     America's economic security.
       Again, we thank you for your efforts and introducing a 
     Balanced Budget that puts our nation back on the right path! 
     This plan will protect the investment of our generation as 
     well as for future generations.
           Sincerely,
                                                  James L. Martin,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                                    Association of


                                     Mature American Citizens,

                                                   March 18, 2015.
     Hon. Tom Price,
     6th District, Georgia, Cannon House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Chris Van Hollen,
     8th District, Maryland, Cannon House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Price and Ranking Member Van Hollen, On 
     behalf of the 1.3 million members of AMAC, the Association of 
     Mature American Citizens, I am writing to convey our strong 
     support for many of the policies set forth in the House 
     Budget Committee's FY 2016 budget resolution, ``A Balanced 
     Budget for a Stronger America.'' This budget proposal 
     correctly identifies the financial and economic challenges 
     facing America today and provides a blueprint for tackling 
     those problems with positive, responsible solutions.
       Time and again, it is has been said that America's national 
     debt is the single biggest threat to our national security. 
     For this reason, it is imperative that Congress unite around 
     a plan to pay down our debt and balance the budget so that 
     Washington can begin living within its means. ``A Balanced 
     Budget for a Stronger America'' promises to balance the 
     budget in less than 10 years without raising taxes by 
     reducing federal spending by $5.5 trillion and making 
     government programs more effective and efficient.
       Not only does this budget promote healthy economic policies 
     and reduce federal spending, it also provides a path forward 
     to save and strengthen vital programs like Social Security 
     and Medicare. On Social Security, the budget clearly states 
     that Congress should not raid the retirement trust fund to 
     temporarily patch the disability program, which is projected 
     to be insolvent in 2016. AMAC strongly supports this policy 
     position and believes this is the kind of forward-thinking 
     leadership that is required to save and secure this critical 
     program. While these important senior programs face uncertain 
     futures, AMAC appreciates that this budget compels Congress 
     to adopt long-term legislative solutions that will guarantee 
     Social Security and Medicare benefits for today's seniors and 
     tomorrow's retirees.
       Last, AMAC is pleased to see that the budget fully repeals 
     the ``Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,'' or 
     ``ObamaCare.'' Repealing ObamaCare will save over $2 
     trillion, will end the egregious $700 billion raid on 
     Medicare, and will unburden the public from obtrusive 
     government mandates and regulations. Instead of imposing one-
     size-fits-all government health care on the American people, 
     this budget proposes health reform that is patient-centered. 
     AMAC supports the budget's patient-centered approach to 
     health care that places value on increased access to quality, 
     affordable care and expanded choices for individuals, 
     families, and businesses.
       As an organization committed to representing the interests 
     of mature Americans and seniors, AMAC is encouraged by the 
     positive vision outlined in ``A Balanced Budget for a 
     Stronger America.'' We feel that this budget will help to 
     restore our nation's financial and economic security and will 
     put America on a path toward greater prosperity.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Dan Weber,
     President and Founder of AMAC.
                                  ____


         CCAGW Praises FY 2016 House Balanced Budget Resolution

       (Washington, DC).--Today, the Council for Citizens Against 
     Government Waste (CCAGW) praised House Budget Committee 
     Chairman Tom Price's (R-Ga.) fiscal year (FY) 2016 Budget 
     Resolution. The blueprint balances the budget in less than 10 
     years, a clear divergence from President Obama's budget, 
     which never balances at all.
       The budget proposal cuts waste, improves accountability, 
     and eliminates redundancies in the federal government. A 
     particularly laudable component is the elimination of 
     ``double dipping'' of Social Security Disability Insurance 
     and Unemployment Insurance, as recommended by the Government 
     Accountability Office (GAO) on March 4, 2015. The budget 
     proposal also makes note of duplicative programs that need to 
     be consolidated, including food aid and housing assistance 
     that not only waste millions of taxpayer dollars but also 
     fail to achieve their stated objectives.
       The budget includes numerous recommendations from ``Prime 
     Cuts,'' such as the privatization of Fannie Mae and Freddie 
     Mac, the elimination of the Commerce Department's Hollings 
     Manufacturing Extension Program and International Trade 
     Promotion Activities, and the termination of dozens of green 
     energy grants funded in the stimulus bill that would 
     ``protect taxpayers from being on the hook for future 
     boondoggles.'' The 2015 Prime Cuts will be released on April 
     1.
       Moreover, the budget proposal's commitment to devolving 
     programs to the states, particularly Medicaid, food stamps, 
     and educational programs, will spur innovation, increase 
     flexibility, and save taxpayers money. Government that is 
     closer to the people governs more effectively, with less 
     waste and more accountability.
       ``We are very supportive of Chairman Price's budget 
     proposal and look forward to working closely with the 
     committee to safeguard the interests of taxpayers,'' CCAGW 
     President Tom Schatz said. ``We are also pleased to see the 
     budget contains many Prime Cuts recommendations. With the 
     national debt more than $18 trillion, it is time to balance 
     the budget and end deficit spending in Washington.''
       The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste is the 
     lobbying arm of the nation's largest nonpartisan, nonprofit 
     organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, 
     and mismanagement in government.
                                  ____


                            [March 17, 2015]

         Americans for Prosperity on the House Budget Proposal

       Arlington, VA.--Today Americans for Prosperity, the 
     nation's largest grassroots advocate for economic freedom, 
     applauded the House Budget Committee for introducing a budget 
     resolution this morning. AFP Vice President of Government 
     Affairs Brent Gardner issued the following statement:
       ``We applaud House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price for 
     putting together a common sense budget resolution. While not 
     perfect, we are pleased to see a number of positive policies 
     proposed in this common sense budget. We applaud Chairman 
     Price for holding firm on Congress's past agreement to 
     control spending by adhering to the discretionary spending 
     caps established in the Budget Control Act. Keeping these 
     caps is the best tool for lawmakers to restrain spending, and 
     we encourage Congress to keep these caps.
       ``This is a welcome change from the President's recent call 
     for higher levels of federal spending and higher taxes on 
     American families. Additional reforms that Americans for 
     Prosperity supports in this budget resolution is that it 
     balances within 10 years, sets the stage for comprehensive 
     tax reform, and turns control over certain mandatory programs 
     over to the states. It also includes a full repeal of the 
     President's health care law that has already seen millions of 
     people lose their health care plans. Overall, this budget 
     resolution is a strong step in the right direction.''
       Earlier in March, Americans for Prosperity sent a letter of 
     specific items that should be included in the upcoming budget 
     resolutions in Congress. Online here. We continue to 
     encourage federal lawmakers to work towards budget solutions 
     that protect American taxpayers and reduce spending.
                                  ____

       Groups Supporting: Americans for Tax Reform; Council for 
     Citizens Against Government Waste; Americans for Prosperity; 
     US Chamber of Commerce; Association of Mature American 
     Citizens; National Federation for Independent Business 
     (NFIB); 60 Plus Association.

  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I also want to address this 
issue of morality. We have had a number of folks on the other side of 
the aisle talk about the morality of a budget. And budgeting is 
priorities, it is a moral document; there is no doubt about it.
  In the earlier debate, a number of folks on the other side talked 
about this notion that moral documents, moral issues, are raised in 
budgets. And I agree, there is no doubt about it. Budgets say what kind 
of people we are. They say what kind of people we want to be.
  So I want to ask this question, Mr. Chairman:

[[Page H1892]]

  What is the morality of trapping disadvantaged people in a web of 
welfare programs that discourage self-sufficiency and instead shackle 
them to government dependency? What is the morality of that?
  What is the morality of keeping retirees in a health care coverage 
program that is going bankrupt, becoming insolvent, not according to my 
numbers, according to the trustees of the program itself, and that 
can't keep its promises if its so-called providers keep blocking 
reform? What is the morality of that?
  What is the morality, Mr. Chairman, of forcing low-income people into 
a second-rate health care program in which many can't get appointments 
with doctors and those doctors are grossly under-reimbursed by the 
government? What is the morality of that?
  What is the morality, Mr. Chairman, of stifling medical innovation, 
preventing new treatments from reaching patients because of ever-
expanding Washington bureaucracy and red tape? Where is the morality in 
that kind of program?
  What is the morality of tying college students to years of crippling 
debt because of a government-run student loan program that drives up 
tuitions? I hear my friends on the other side talk about how difficult 
it is for students, and it is. Mr. Chairman, it is difficult because of 
the student loan program that they put in place when they were in the 
majority that doesn't give students access to low interest rate loans. 
Where is the morality of that?
  Where is the morality of heaping trillions of dollars of debt onto 
future generations to finance today's government spending because 
today's policymakers refuse to stop outspending our tax revenue? Where 
is the morality in that, Mr. Chairman?
  And these are only a few examples of the regrettable consequences of 
well-intentioned, government-sponsored compassion.
  Our Republican budget aims to break that pattern. We aim to respect 
the American people and talk to them about the seriousness of the 
challenges that we face, but provide positive alternatives, real 
solutions with real results. That is what they are longing for, real 
leadership in this town.
  Our budget isn't about cutting programs, it is about improving and 
saving them to ensure a sustainable safety net for those who need it, 
while encouraging and helping others sustain themselves, the most truly 
compassionate thing one can do for another. That is the morality of our 
Republican budget.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me just start with some comments about the importance of making 
sure we make investments in defense in a straightforward and honest 
way.
  The chairman's comments were directly contrary to the position he 
took 1 year ago. Here is what he said as part of the Republican 
majority: ``Abuse of the OCO''--that is the overseas contingency 
account--``is a backdoor loophole that undermines the integrity of the 
budget process.'' That is what our Republican colleagues said. They 
said they weren't going to allow it. They are using the overseas 
contingency account as a slush fund for moneys that should be invested 
in the normal Defense Department accounts. That is what they said last 
year. They have done a 180 here. That is a discredit to this House.
  We keep hearing all day about Price 1 and Price 2. What is that all 
about? I am sure colleagues listening have got to be going: What is 
going on, Price 1 and Price 2? It is because our Republican colleagues 
haven't figured out how they are going to fund the defense of the 
country. But both Price 1 and Price 2 are a violation of the position 
our Republican colleagues took just a year ago.
  So let's do this in a way that honors our commitment to our defense 
and do it in a straightforward manner, the way that the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff and others have recommended.
  Now, it is always interesting to understand people's different 
perceptions in morality. I would just ask a question: Is it right to 
have a budget that refuses to cut a single special interest tax break 
in order to reduce the deficit while cutting our investment in our 
kids' education? Is it right to have a budget that won't cut a 
corporate tax break, like the corporate jet loophole, but cuts our 
investment in our kids' education, increases the cost of prescription 
drugs to seniors, says to students you are going to pay more for your 
student loans?
  I was really interested to hear the chairman's comments about the 
student loan program. What the Democrats did when they were in the 
majority was get rid of a system where the big banks were making 
guaranteed returns off of taxpayer dollars that were not going to 
students. They were making guaranteed 9 percent returns.
  So we said: Why should we have a system where the big banks are 
getting these guaranteed taxpayer-subsidized returns? And we moved to a 
direct loan program. That meant every dollar could go farther in terms 
of providing student loans. Cut out the big banks. They were just 
siphoning off dollars that were intended to go to students. That is 
what we did. But we also understand that despite those improvements, 
our students are finding it costly to go to college.
  That is why actually in our budget we provide for increased 
opportunity and more affordable college, the opposite of what our 
Republicans do, which is they say they want to increase interest rates 
on student loans and cut $90 billion-plus from Pell grants.
  Is it moral or, I should just ask: Does the country really think it 
is right to have a budget that paves the way for cutting the top tax 
rate for the wealthiest people in the country, the people who have done 
just great over the last 20, 30 years? Is it right to cut their tax 
rates by one-third, from 39 percent down to the mid-20s, while 
increasing the tax burden on working families, middle class families, 
and those who are working their way into the middle class, getting rid 
of the deduction for higher education, getting rid of the increase in 
the child tax credit, getting rid of the Affordable Care Act tax 
credits that help people afford education?
  The Tax Policy Center did a study that said a proposal like the 
Romney-Ryan plan would provide about an average tax cut of $200,000 to 
millionaires and increase the tax burden on middle-income families by 
$2,000. Is that right?
  Look, the issue here is whether you believe that we should grow our 
economy and accelerate economic growth in a way with more shared 
prosperity, or whether you believe in an economy that grows through 
trickle down, the idea that cutting tax rates for the top will somehow 
lift everybody up. That theory ran into the hard wall of reality. Folks 
at the top had their incomes go up, everybody else was running in 
place. We should not go back to that.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I am amused by my colleague's interpretation of what happened with 
student loans. It is an interesting rewriting of history.
  What the translation is is that the Federal Government now controls 
the vast majority of student loans, controls and dictates interest on 
those loans. So the money that the students are paying out there in 
interest on those loans, where is it going? It is going to the Federal 
Government when, in fact, those students could actually get loans at a 
lower rate, but that is now precluded. So our friends have a proclivity 
for rewriting history. Their plan, by the way; that was their plan to 
put the Federal Government in charge of student loans.
  The gentleman says, What has changed in a year? Well, a lot has 
changed, Mr. Chairman: Russian aggression in Eastern Europe, ISIS, 
Chinese making more noise.
  Look, I admit that funding the defense for our country in this way, 
$613 billion--$523 billion in the base budget and $90 billion in the 
global war on terror fund--is not ideal.
  Why are we doing that? The President so far has refused to lay out a 
path to change the law, which it takes in order to put it in the base 
defense budget, which is why we in our budget responsibly, proactively, 
honestly lay forth the path to be able to get that done.
  Our friends know that if the President's number were included in the 
budget, as soon as the next year begins,

[[Page H1893]]

boom, right back down to $523 billion. He can talk about the number he 
has got all he wants, but the law of the land brings it right back down 
to $523 billion unless the law is changed.
  We look forward to working with our colleagues, we look forward to 
working with the administration, so that we can actually do so in a way 
that modifies the base defense budget. I hope that that is able to 
happen, I hope that that is able to happen.
  I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Diaz-Balart), a very active member of the Appropriations Committee 
and of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I rise today, first, to thank the 
chairman of the Budget Committee for the job he has done and the staff 
of that committee.
  As the chairman stated, this budget actually deals with the issues 
that are important to our country. The President has put together and 
has put forward a budget, but as the chairman stated, it is a budget 
that assumes that the law is not the law. He assumes that you can just 
throw money on top of the law and that it is going to stay there by 
some miracle of nature when the reality is that we know, as the 
chairman stated, that that is fake, because if we were to mark up to 
those numbers, the sequester would kick in and just eliminate those 
funds outright.

                              {time}  1730

  This budget deals with reality. This budget deals with the fact that, 
if we don't deal with and if we don't reform what is causing, frankly, 
the debt, the deficits--which is mandatory spending--it will consume 
100 percent of the budget in a generation.
  This budget also demands from Congress tax reform, tax reform that we 
all know would increase the economy, that would create more jobs, that 
would make it easier for Americans to open businesses--small, medium, 
and large--to create jobs here in this country.
  I want to thank the chairman because it also recognizes the fact 
that, no, al Qaeda is not on the run; that, no, we have not defeated 
terrorism; and that the world is not as safe as any of us would like it 
to be. This recognizes that we have to give our military what it needs 
to do its job.
  Yes, the President adds money to the base, but I repeat--and the 
chairman mentioned this--that that is fake because, unless you change 
the law, which this budget cannot do, that money automatically goes 
away.
  The one thing that we can do that is in the hands of this bill, of 
this budget that is in front of us, is to do precisely what the 
chairman has put forward.
  Is it perfect? Absolutely not--it is responsible. It helps create 
jobs, and it will grow the economy. It will stop this out-of-control 
spending; and, yes, it will deal with making sure that our military has 
the tools that it needs to fight the enemies of freedom and the enemies 
of America. It does it in a realistic fashion, not in this dream world 
that the President's budget seems to be living in.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this effort from our chairman of 
the Budget Committee. Again, I thank the chairman for his effort.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I am just a little puzzled by the 
comments from the gentleman from Florida since the Republican study 
group's budget--and I understand the Republican study group consists of 
about 170 members of a big majority of the Republican caucus--funds 
defense in a straightforward way that the President's budget does and 
that the Democratic alternative budget does.
  I am interested to hear the Republican study group's budget approach 
to defense characterized as a fake. I think that would be a surprise to 
the members of the Republican study group.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I would like to put a little more meat on the bones, if you will, of 
this issue of discretionary spending and of mandatory spending because 
it really is the locus of the problem that we have, and I think our 
friends on the other side of the aisle would agree.
  When you look at history, over the last 50 years or so--the red on 
this is mandatory spending, and the blue is discretionary spending--
back in 1962, mandatory spending was about a third of our Federal 
budget, and discretionary spending was about two-thirds.
  Over the last 50 years, what has happened is that that has flipped, 
and mandatory spending has become two-thirds or even more of Federal 
spending, and discretionary spending has become about a third.
  Now, why is that important? All of the things that we say that we 
care about outside of Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, 
basically, are in this blue area. Defense is in the blue area, as are 
transportation, energy, education, research.
  All of the things we say that we want to protect are in the blue 
area. This is what our Appropriations Committee deals with. The 
automatic spending--the mandatory programs--are crowding out, as you 
see, Mr. Chairman, the discretionary spending. The challenge to my 
colleagues is to recognize this problem, to recognize what needs to be 
done.
  What needs to be done is that the mandatory programs need to be 
addressed. You can't bury your head in the sand and say it doesn't make 
any difference. We spend about $3.6 trillion a year on the entire 
Federal budget.
  About $2.6 trillion--ballpark figures of $2.5 trillion, $2.6 
trillion--is of basically three things, which is Medicare and Medicaid, 
Social Security, and interest on the debt, which has been talked about 
and that we aren't able to do anything about. We can't change it.
  When you think about the Federal Government, everything else is about 
$1 trillion a year: education, energy, legislative branch, judiciary, 
court system, transportation, research, defense. Everything else in the 
Federal Government, with the exception of Medicare, Medicaid, and 
Social Security, is about $1 trillion.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, people out there across this great Nation know 
that, for 4 out of the last 6 years, Washington--this country--has run 
a deficit of greater than $1 trillion each year, which means that you 
could do away with the entire Federal Government--the entire thing, 
everything--with the exception of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social 
Security, and you wouldn't even balance the budget. That is the 
challenge. Very shortly, mandatory spending is going to consume the 
entire Federal budget.
  We have got a problem that we have got to deal with. If we don't, 
what happens is that we are no longer going to be able to pass off to 
our kids and our grandkids the kind of opportunity for them to realize 
their dreams.
  That is what we need to do, Mr. Chairman. We need to recognize the 
problems, and we need to recognize the challenges, and that is what our 
budget does. It recognizes that mandatory spending can't continue on 
the path that it is on.
  Sadly, in that mandatory spending, those programs are actually going 
broke: Medicare, insolvent by 2033; Social Security, insolvent by 2034.
  What our budget does is responsibly, positively, honestly say to the 
American people that we recognize that challenge. It is reckless for us 
not to recognize and address that challenge, so we do in our budget put 
forward positive solutions to those challenges so that we can, as a 
percentage of the amount of spending in the Federal Government, narrow 
the amount of money spent on mandatory programs so that we have more 
moneys available for the kinds of things that everybody on this House 
floor and everybody in this Chamber wants to do.
  We want to make certain that we have the greatest opportunity for the 
next generation, but that light is getting dim unless we address the 
challenges that we face. That is why it is so important to adopt a 
positive budget, an honest budget, a sincere budget, a budget that 
recognizes these challenges but that puts in place positive solutions.
  I appreciate the conversations and the discussions of my friends on 
the other side of the aisle, but it is absolutely vital that we, as 
Representatives of the people, come together and solve these challenges 
that we have from a financial standpoint so that we can pass on to our 
kids and our grandkids the greatest nation the world has ever known.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on both sides?

[[Page H1894]]

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Curbelo of Florida). The gentleman from 
Maryland has 4 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Georgia has 6\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve unless the gentleman wants to 
close.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. I would say to my friend that I am prepared 
to close, so I am happy to have the gentleman close.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  When we are talking about the budget and priorities, the chairman of 
the committee left out one of the biggest areas of ``spending'' in the 
Tax Code according to the Congressional Budget Office, and that is the 
amount of spending that goes through a whole range of tax breaks.
  If you look at this chart, you will find that what the Congressional 
Budget Office calls ``tax expenditures'' exceed the amount spent each 
year on Social Security, on Medicare and Medicaid, on defense: $1.4 
billion in tax breaks.
  Now, some of those are for good policy purposes, but some of them and 
a lot of them are there because some powerful special interest got some 
special break that helps him and nobody else, and this Republican 
budget doesn't touch one of those in order to reduce the deficit, not 
one. It doesn't close one of those $1.4 trillion in tax expenditures to 
reduce the deficit.
  What it does do is make life harder for people who are working hard 
every day. It increases the tax burden on middle class Americans and on 
those who are working to join the middle class. It raises the cost of 
going to college by increasing the cost of student loans. It increases 
the daily costs of seniors, who are going to face higher prescription 
drug costs and higher fees for copayments--seniors, students, working 
class families.
  I started this discussion by pointing out that we have seen worker 
productivity grow. American workers are working harder than ever, but 
their paychecks have been flat. Our Democratic alternative budget will 
address that issue.
  This Republican budget makes the situation worse. It doesn't do 
anything to help hard-working Americans get ahead. It says, Work 
harder, but get less. You are going to take home less, and you are 
going to get hit with higher taxes because they take away certain 
important tax benefits for middle-income and working people.
  Why in the world we would want to pass a budget that makes it harder 
on hard-working people today and that disinvests in the future of 
America tomorrow, I don't know. There is a much better way to do it. We 
will present an alternative tomorrow which does that.
  It says we should have a Tax Code that is not rigged in favor of 
making money off of money, but that actually favors people who earn a 
living through hard work every day. Our current Tax Code actually gives 
better tax rates to unearned income than to earned income. That doesn't 
make sense.
  We propose to provide important tax incentives and benefits to hard-
working Americans; whereas the Republican budget just provides another 
tax rate cut for folks at the top on the failed theory that it is going 
to trickle down and lift everybody up. That is not the way to 
accelerate economic growth.
  The way to accelerate economic growth is to make sure all hard-
working Americans can bring back bigger paychecks to provide for their 
families, to make sure their families can achieve the American Dream.
  That is an economy in which everyone moves forward together, as 
opposed to an economy that says to the folks at the top: you have made 
it; we are going to give you even more tax breaks, and once you climb 
the ladder of opportunity, it is okay to lift the ladder up after you.
  That has not been the way our country has worked from the beginning. 
Let's reject this budget. There is a better way, and we will have a 
chance to debate that tomorrow.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  In closing, we have heard a lot of conversation this afternoon about 
the budget; a lot of hyperbole, a lot of misinformation, I would 
suggest.
  I suspect that those out there watching, if they are looking at this, 
have said to their spouses: hide the kids and pets, dear; they are 
talking about the budget.
  Let me set the record straight on a couple of items. Some folks on 
the other side have talked about the research budget is being 
decimated. Table one in the budget report has a line item for general 
science, space, and technology. That is research and innovation--for 
2016, $28.381 billion; in going to 2025, $34.488 billion; for the 10-
year window, $313 billion to research and innovation.
  Chairman Ryan, early on in this conversation, in this debate, talked 
about all of the hyperbole on the other side and of the words 
``slashing'' and ``cutting'' and ``decimating'' and ``destroying.''
  Mr. Chairman, what the other side proposes, what the President 
proposes, is a growth in the budget of 5.1 percent on average. That is 
what gets you this amount of debt.

                              {time}  1745

  It crowds out everything else that we want to do in our society. Our 
growth rate, 3.4 percent--3.4 percent. That is what gets you A Balanced 
Budget for a Stronger America.
  Now, my friend talks about the productivity in this country; and it 
is true, productivity is up, but let me talk about the growth. If they 
want to double down on the policies that we have had for the last 6 
years, let's talk about what has happened. This is the Congressional 
Budget Office estimate of growth over the ensuing 10 years: in 2012, 
they predicted that the growth was going to average 3 percent; in 2013, 
2.9 percent; in 2014, 2.5 percent; this year, 2.3 percent growth over 
the next 10 years.
  Now, what does that mean? What that means is that a full percent 
growth off the average growth rate over the last 40 years, and such a 
distinctive decrease in growth that jobs aren't going to be able to be 
created at the numbers that they need to be, that the economy doesn't 
get to be roaring at the way that it needs to be, that revenue into the 
Federal Government is diminished because the growth isn't projected to 
be what it ought to be.
  How much? Is it a little bit? If we--if, when, we are able to adopt 
the policies in our budget, A Balanced Budget for a Stronger America 
projection, we would suggest that we can return to the average growth 
rate of the last 40 years, 3.2, 3.3 percent. What that means is more 
jobs, more activity, more economic vitality out there. What that means 
is nearly $3 trillion, $3 trillion more to the Federal Government in 
terms of revenue just because of the increased activity in our economy. 
Imagine what we could do with those kinds of resources, to balance the 
budget, to get this economy going again, to allow the American people 
to realize their dreams in so many, many wonderful and vital ways.
  How do you do that? You do that with tax reform. You do that with tax 
reform. My friends on the other side of the aisle say: Well, no, you 
haven't identified what you are going to do. No, that is the 
responsibility of the Committee on Ways and Means. The budget lays out 
the pathway, and then the committees of jurisdiction go to work and 
accomplish that pathway, put in place the programs that would 
accomplish that pathway, A Balanced Budget for a Stronger America.
  I want to reiterate once again, remember, Mr. Chairman, that every 
dollar that is taken in taxes from the American people and every dollar 
that is borrowed is a dollar that can't be used to pay the rent, can't 
be used to buy a house, can't be used to buy a car, can't be used to 
send a kid to college, can't be used to expand or to begin a business.
  So what we need are positive solutions, real solutions, honest 
solutions, like we put forward in our budget. Highlights once again: We 
balance the budget in less than 10 years without raising taxes. Our 
budget decreases spending by over $5.5 trillion in the 10-year budget 
window--$5.5 trillion--instead of adding trillions of dollars of 
spending. We support a strong national defense; we have defined that, 
$613 billion combined with base defense spending and global war on 
terror spending. We repeal ObamaCare in its entirety, once again, as a 
physician, not just because it is harming the economy, but it

[[Page H1895]]

is also harming the health of the American people. We secure economic 
opportunity for all citizens.
  We don't leave anybody behind. We recognize the imperative and the 
opportunity that is so necessary for folks. We do, however, believe 
that there are places where appropriate federalism ought to occur, 
where States and local communities can better respond to the needs of 
their citizens, whether it is in the area of health care, whether it is 
in the area of nutritional assistance, or whether it is in the area of 
education, something that so many State legislatures and so many 
Governors are talking about as we speak.
  We hold Washington accountable. We think it is important to have a 
right size of Washington, not an expanded Federal bureaucracy that 
continues to overreach and continues to affect adversely, in regulatory 
schemes, the lives of the American people. We cut waste and fraud and 
abuse all across the Federal Government, defining areas that need to be 
audited and where we need to find savings. The American people, the 
hardworking American people, they are sick and tired of the kind of 
waste in this government. We support rights of conscience for 
physicians all across this land, and we push back on the executive 
overreach.
  This is A Balanced Budget for a Stronger America. It will result in a 
greater efficiency, greater effectiveness, and greater accountability 
of this government. I urge my colleagues to support A Balanced Budget 
for a Stronger America.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate on the congressional 
budget has expired.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Moolenaar) having assumed the chair, Mr. Curbelo of Florida, Acting 
Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the 
resolution (H. Con. Res. 27) establishing the budget for the United 
States Government for fiscal year 2016 and setting forth appropriate 
budgetary levels for fiscal years 2017 through 2025, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________