[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 64 (Thursday, April 30, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H2694-H2702]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. CON. RES. 11, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE 
                        BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2016

  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 
231, I call up the conference report on the concurrent resolution (S. 
Con. Res. 11) setting forth the congressional budget for the United 
States Government for fiscal year 2016 and setting forth the 
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2017 through 2025, and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 231, the 
conference report is considered read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
April 29, 2015, at page H2516.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Tom Price) 
and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking everyone involved in getting us 
to this moment, where we have an agreement between the House and the 
Senate Budget conferees on a joint balanced budget proposal before the 
Congress.
  All members of our committee and the conference committee and their 
staffs should be commended for their hard work. And I want to commend 
specifically the staff directors on both sides of the aisle. Rick May 
on the Republican side and Tom Kahn on the Democratic side worked 
yeoman's service in making certain that their respective Members were 
prepared for the activity that we have gone through over the past 4 
months.
  We are set, Mr. Speaker, to adopt the first balanced budget of this 
kind in over a decade. That is important not only from an historical 
perspective but also for what it says about this Congress' commitment 
to doing the work that the American people sent us here to do, to get 
it done, to move forward with positive solutions for a healthier 
economy and a stronger, more secure nation.

                              {time}  1615

  What we have before us today, Mr. Speaker, is a budget that balances 
within 10 years without raising taxes and reduces spending over $5 
trillion over that period of time, which will not only get Washington's 
fiscal house in order, but pave the way for stronger economic growth, 
more jobs, and more opportunity.
  It invests in our Nation's priorities, ensures a strong national 
defense, and saves, strengthens, and protects important programs like 
Medicare and Social Security.
  Mr. Speaker, I know our friends on the other side of the aisle, we 
will hear from them, and they may have a difference of opinion. If past 
is prologue, we are bound to hear from them a few items that they will 
talk about. They will say that our budget will, in their words, ``hurt 
the middle class.'' That statement bears no resemblance to reality, Mr. 
Speaker.
  In fact, what is hurting the middle class right now are the policies 
of our Democrat friends and President Obama that they have put in 
place, policies that have led to the worst economic recovery in the 
modern era, stagnant wages and underwhelming growth in our economy. We 
just heard today, Mr. Speaker, that the economy grew in the first 
quarter by 0.2 percent. There is a reason for that.
  What we need to do is to get the economy rolling. The best thing we 
can do for the middle class--for hard-working American families--is to 
get our economy turned around so more jobs are being created and more 
dreams are being realized.
  Guess what, Mr. Speaker. Our budget does just that through 
responsible reforms that make government more efficient, more 
effective, and more accountable by lifting the oppressive regulatory 
regime here in Washington off the backs of job creators and 
entrepreneurs and by fundamentally reforming our Tax Code so it is 
simpler, fairer, and American companies can better compete more 
effectively in the global economy.
  By doing all of that, Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office 
tells us that we will rein in deficits and lower government spending 
which will have a positive, long-term impact on the economy as well as 
the budget, benefits like increases in the pool of national savings and 
investment which would allow for more growth, job creation, and more 
economic security.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle are fond of attacking our 
efforts to save, strengthen, and protect programs like Medicare, 
Medicaid, and Social Security. Why some folks here in Washington would 
be willing to let these programs go bankrupt is beyond me. Medicare and 
Social Security are going broke. That is not according to me. That is 
according to the trustees of the programs.
  Medicaid is not working for patients or the doctors who would like to 
be able to serve them. The status quo is unsustainable, and doing 
nothing is indefensible. We can save these programs and improve them. 
We have to do so for the sake of their beneficiaries and for future 
generations, and our budget does just that.
  Further, Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned before, our budget 
prioritizes the safety and security of the American people, channeling 
important resources to our men and women in uniform. We do so in a 
responsible way, in a manner consistent with current law, and without 
allowing further across-the-board cuts in defense spending.
  There are those who criticize how we do that, and I respect that 
there are differences of opinion on this, but, Mr. Speaker, I would 
hope that we can all agree that, when we are faced with hugely complex 
national security threats and growing unrest around the world, what we 
need to do is to find a way to move forward to ensure that those 
protecting our lives and our freedom have the support and the training 
that they need.
  I look forward to an open and honest debate about the vision we have 
put forward to get our Nation's fiscal house in order, to strengthen 
our Nation's defenses, to protect our most vulnerable citizens, and to 
ensure a healthier economy for all Americans because that is exactly 
what this budget agreement does.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the agreement, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I rise in strong opposition to this budget conference 
report.
  I do agree with the gentleman on one issue, which is that the staff 
of the Budget Committee on both sides, Republican and Democrat, have 
worked very hard; but, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that the product that 
is brought before us today is the wrong direction for America.
  We began with a House budget that was wrong for America, and we went 
to conference with a Senate budget that was wrong for America. It is 
not surprising, but it is still disappointing,

[[Page H2695]]

that we come to the floor today with a budget that is wrong for 
America.
  Why do I say that? We are all entitled to our opinions, but we don't 
get to make up our own facts. The reality is, according to the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the folks who are referees in 
this House, in this Congress, where people have competing opinions, 
they have said that this Republican budget will slow down the economy 
over the next couple of years.
  It is right here on page 3 of their report. Real GNP, real economic 
growth per person, would be lowered by as much as 0.6 percent under the 
specified paths than under the baseline 2016 to 2018 CBO budget 
estimates.
  Let's translate that. What that means is that, compared to what would 
happen in the economy without the Republican budget--if we didn't have 
this--this will make things worse. This will slow down economic growth. 
This means less economic growth per person in the United States of 
America. That is not me saying it, that is the nonpartisan budget 
experts saying it. So it is going to slow down economic growth, 
although we have good news, some good news in the economy, right. I 
mean, we have seen month after month now of positive economic growth. 
We would like to see the economy grow faster, and we would like to see 
it grow stronger, but we have seen over 61 consecutive months of 
positive economic growth. Why in the world would we want a budget that 
over the next couple of years slows down that economic growth, 
according to the Congressional Budget Office?

  But it gets worse than that because one of the chronic problems we 
have seen in our economy, Mr. Speaker, over the last many years--not 
just 2 or 3 or 4, but over decades--is this phenomenon where Americans 
are working harder than ever and they are more productive than ever, 
but their paychecks are flat. Their take-home pay is flat.
  You have rising worker productivity on the one hand; people are 
working harder than ever, but it is not translating into higher wages 
and benefits.
  Back about 30 or 40 years ago--we had a chart with rising worker 
productivity--guess what else was rising with it? It was worker wages. 
But, over the last 30 years, we have seen people working harder than 
ever, and productivity has gone up, but wages for most Americans have 
been pretty flat in real terms.
  The gain of that increased worker productivity has flowed 
dramatically and overwhelmingly to folks at the very top end of the 
economic ladder, and God bless them. But why would we want to bring a 
budget to the floor of the House that squeezes even tighter and harder 
the people who are working hard every day and not seeing their 
paychecks go up?
  How does their budget make life harder for most Americans? First of 
all, Mr. Speaker, it increases taxes on working families. They get rid 
of the bump up in the Child Tax Credit. They get rid of the 
strengthening of the Earned Income Tax Credit.
  They eliminate entirely the college deduction that helps families 
afford college in this era of high tuition rates; they get rid of that. 
They eliminate the Affordable Care Act tax credits, meaning millions of 
Americans will no longer be able to access affordable care.
  Students, they actually start charging students higher interest rates 
on their loans. Right now, a student in college doesn't have to pay 
interest on their loan while they are in college. Our Republican 
colleagues apparently think that $1 trillion of student debt is not 
enough. They want to charge them more. It is a fact under this budget.
  Seniors, they want to reopen the prescription drug doughnut hole. It 
is not a secret. They have said they will do this. As a result, seniors 
with high prescription drug costs on Medicare will be paying lots more, 
and they will be paying higher copays for preventative health care 
under this Republican budget.
  Mr. Speaker, working families, students, and seniors are all squeezed 
even tighter.
  I will tell you who is not squeezed at all under this budget, the 
folks at the very top. This budget green-lights the Romney-Ryan tax 
plan. What does that plan propose? Let's cut the top tax rate for 
millionaires by one-third--by one-third. Let's take it down from 39 
percent to the 28, 25 percent range. That is who gets a big break in 
their tax rates.
  While they are cutting tax rates for folks at the very top, what else 
are they cutting? They are cutting our investment in our kids' 
education. They are cutting our investment in science and research at 
places like NIH. They are cutting our investment in modernizing our 
infrastructure which has helped power our economy.
  Why? It is because they are cutting the portion of the budget we use 
to make those investments by 40 percent below the lowest level as a 
share of the economy since we have been keeping records in the 1950s. 
That is a disinvestment in America, so they are cutting those 
investments.
  I will tell you what they don't cut, Mr. Speaker. They don't cut one 
special interest tax break to help reduce the deficit, not one penny. 
Apparently, that corporate jet tax deduction? Oh, they really need it. 
Apparently, that special tax rate for hedge fund managers? They really 
need it because they don't want to eliminate any of those in order to 
reduce the deficit. They do apparently want to increase taxes on 
working families and cut our investment in education.
  Here is the sad part about it, Mr. Speaker. After all that, it still 
doesn't balance, not by a long shot. Here is the chart. I'm sorry we 
have to go through this math so many times, but I will tell you that 
the current chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Enzi, 
before he became chairman, talked about this budget accounting scam 
that is at the heart of the Republican budget and at the heart of the 
claim that they have a balanced budget because, you see, they claim 
that, at the end of the 10-year window, they are $33 billion in 
balance, but they also say they are eliminating the Affordable Care 
Act.
  Guess what, the budget relies on the same level of revenue as the 
Affordable Care Act. If you get rid of the Affordable Care Act in those 
revenues, you are not close to balance.
  I will tell you what else it doesn't take into account, the tax 
provisions. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that we had on this floor, 
just about 10 days ago, a Republican proposal to eliminate the estate 
tax for estates over $10 million.
  That was the overwhelming economic priority of our Republican 
colleagues, to get rid of the estate tax for estates over $10 million, 
about 5,500 people in this country per year. You can put more people on 
a big cruise ship. That added about $260 billion to the deficit over 
the next 10 years.
  Guess what, it wasn't accounted for in the Republican budget. If you 
did account for that in the other tax cut measures for special 
interests that are being brought to the floor, it is even further out 
of balance, so this is just Alice in Wonderland accounting.
  Mr. Speaker, we really should be going back to the drawing board. We 
haven't even talked about the whole sort of shell game being played 
with the OCO account, which is already having an impact on 
appropriations bills here in the House because our Republican 
colleagues are doing this year the exact opposite of what they said we 
should do just last year. Read the Republican's own budget conference 
committee report.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just close with respect to veterans because the 
reality is that the first bill coming to the floor based on this budget 
conference report for veterans and military construction, the Veterans 
of Foreign Wars says it is bad for veterans.
  It has a lower amount for our veterans than in the President's 
proposal. We believe we should be true to the values and priorities of 
this country, and we don't think that means giving folks at the very 
top, millionaires, another cut in their tax rate while disinvesting in 
the rest of America.
  Mr. Speaker, I must strongly oppose this Republican conference 
committee report because it really does take America down the wrong 
path, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita), the distinguished vice 
chairman of the Budget Committee.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Price for his

[[Page H2696]]

extraordinary leadership throughout this entire process. And I want to 
thank my fellow conferees for their hard work, many hours over many 
days, to get us to where we are today and, of course, my fellow Budget 
Committee members, both Republican and Democrat, for the robust 
discussion, debate, spirit, as it was sometimes. The process worked. We 
did go late into the night a few times. But we came out of those late 
nights, those long hours, with the product here today.
  The product here today, unfortunately, is a more rare product than it 
should be. Mr. Speaker, for the first time since 2001, 14 years, we 
have a balanced joint budget resolution, bicameral.
  As a relatively new person to this Chamber, in my fifth year, and you 
think about why that is the case, you, unfortunately, in my opinion, 
have to conclude it is because most of the time we are talking about 
the demagoguery, like some of which we just heard, half the story, so 
to speak, about what is really going on here. If we had full 
discussions about where this country really needs to go, where this 
Federal Government needs to go in terms of improving its debt and 
deficit picture, the whole budget picture, you would really see that 
the economy in this country could be better off with those honest, full 
discussions.
  This budget, for example, does balance in less than 10 years without 
raising taxes--without raising taxes. The gentleman very much knows 
that the Budget Committee doesn't write tax prescriptions; it is the 
Ways and Means Committee. We say in our budget document that the Ways 
and Means Committee should get on with the business of tax reform.
  What the Congressional Budget Office that the gentleman mentioned 
says is that over the 10-year window of this budget agreement, the 
economy will grow $400 billion. That is hardly a contraction. $400 
billion, at least to some of us, is a lot of money, and that is great 
for economic growth. This budget agreement does that.
  Do you see what I mean, Mr. Speaker, by ``the whole story''?
  It also ensures a strong national defense, making sure that our 
troops have the money they need, but remain accountable to the money 
that is given. It gives us a chance to repeal in full, taxes and all, 
ObamaCare, and allows us a chance to start over with patient-centered 
health reform. It hasn't been done. We haven't had that chance in a 
long time. ObamaCare, Mr. Speaker, is an expensive proposition, and we 
are seeing more and more proof of that every day.
  It strengthens Medicare in the future without affecting those in or 
near retirement now. This is important. Some of us, for my friends on 
the conservative side, have looked at the press reports and found, hey, 
we have given up on Medicare. Absolutely not; nor for Social Security.
  These are the drivers of our debt, Mr. Speaker, and our budget 
language remains intact. The fact of the matter is this conference 
committee report is numerically driven, not policy driven.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. ROKITA. And for everyone, this is what is driving our debt. These 
pieces of the pie. They are all attached together, whether it is Social 
Security, Medicare or Medicaid, or the interest we owe ourselves and 
others for the amount of money we are borrowing.
  Our ideas for correcting this debt, the drivers of our debt, are 
still in place. I call upon the authorizing committees, whether it be 
Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, Education and the Workforce, or 
any other committee, to start working on reforming this debt.
  This budget agreement, Mr. Speaker, gives us the opportunity, 
finally, after 14 years, to start down that road. This is not a 
conclusion; this is a beginning, and I ask my Democratic friends to 
join us down that road.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would actually encourage all those authorizing committees to get to 
work trying to implement this budget so the American people can see 
just how bad it is. I would be curious as to whether they are actually 
going to do it in the next couple of months.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member.
  I rise in strong opposition to this budget.
  There is football and then there is fantasy football. Mr. Ranking 
Member, you were being very charitable when you used the word ``scam.'' 
This is a real lemon by any stretch--and you don't have to use your 
imagination.
  This is a formula for another 2007-2008. This will be a duplication. 
And the pain caused by that decade, that 8 years of the 21st century, 
the budgets from 2001-2008 when we cut taxes in 2001 and we cut taxes 
in 2003, and then 2007 and 2008 the world fell apart. Why? An enormous 
loss of jobs every month. Look at the numbers. You want to hold up 
charts, hold them up.
  This agreement uses gimmicks to balance the budget and does so on the 
backs of the poor and the middle class and senior citizens. It imposes 
its cuts on programs that assist low- and modest-income Americans even 
though they constitute--those programs--less than one-fourth of the 
Federal spending.
  The Republican plan would cause tens of millions of people to become 
uninsured or underinsured. I know how you are careful to even talk 
about that. In other words, if we are going to repeal the Affordable 
Care Act, make sure you put in a sentence about what we need to do 
about those people who have preconditions.
  Phony, phony, phony. You said it; we didn't.
  Slashing funding for education, for research, for infrastructure. 
Wait until the bridges fall down and more people fall into the water. 
Cuts to nutrition, cuts to health will only increase poverty. Your 
claims that this budget balances is a total farce--not a semi-farce, a 
total farce.

  Congressman Van Hollen produced a very strong, fair budget. It was a 
strong budget. It was dismissed. But I like it. I like it. Through the 
Chair to my ranking member, I like it when we are seen as irrelevant. 
We do our best work.
  So that is what you have got in front of you. This budget, while 
calling for a complete and total repeal of the Affordable Care Act, 
continues to assume the law's $2 trillion revenue. That is not a farce. 
That is fantasy football. How could you do that? The bill stinks, but 
we will use the money in the bill. Explain that one.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman from New Jersey an additional 
30 seconds.
  Mr. PASCRELL. To me, when we get the taxes, this budget assumes that 
revenues remained unchanged from our current law. Someone needs to have 
a conversation with the chairman of Ways and Means, because he seems to 
be unaware. In fact, he stated explicitly that he doesn't think we 
should be using the current law baseline. He said it; I didn't.
  Two weeks ago, this same majority--and I end on this point, Mr. 
Speaker--we passed $294.8 billion in unpaid-for tax breaks for Paris 
Hilton and Ivanka Trump and the rest of that crowd and their fortune 
enough to be left a nice inheritance. Much of that money has never been 
taxed in the first place.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair, not to other Members in the second person.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  As I said when we talked about this the first time around, folks 
across this land, if they turn on the television and they take a look, 
you have got one parent yelling at the other: Hide the dog and the cat 
and the kids, sweetheart, they are talking about the budget.
  The distortion and the misrepresentation that is coming from the 
other side, Mr. Speaker, it really is absolutely phenomenal.
  I am pleased to hear that the gentleman likes their budget, and I 
commend him for liking their budget; but let me just state for the 
Record, Mr. Speaker, that neither their budget nor the President's 
budget ever, ever, ever gets to balance. If the American people can't 
live on borrowed money, their

[[Page H2697]]

Federal Government ought not do so either.
  Our budget gets to balance within a 10-year period of time. It does 
so without raising taxes. That is why the American people are going to 
appreciate the work that is being done right here.
  I am very, very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Black), an incredibly productive member of our 
committee, and a member of the conference committee.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, what a difference a year makes. Since I came to Congress 
in 2011, my House Republican colleagues and I worked every year to pass 
a responsible, timely budget that confronts our runaway spending in 
Washington; but meanwhile, the Senate Democrats refused to pass a 
budget during 4 of the last 5 years. That ends now.
  This year, our new American Congress worked to pass a balanced budget 
in both the House and the Senate and to then unify our budgets through 
regular order. I had the distinct privilege of serving on the budget 
conference committee, and I am pleased with the final product that we 
were able to deliver. This will mark the first balanced budget, joint 
budget resolution, since 2002, and we did it without raising taxes.
  But we didn't stop there. This budget would also erase the 
President's disastrous healthcare law, allowing us to start over on 
reforms that put patients and their doctors in charge, not Washington 
bureaucrats. And we used the critical reconciliation tool to help 
ensure an ObamaCare repeal bill that reaches the President's desk so 
that we can put him on record, forcing him to make a decision and 
defend that to the American people.
  What is more, this plan supports the growth of 1.2 million jobs over 
the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget 
Office.
  Mr. Speaker, as has been said many times before, budgets aren't just 
a series of numbers; they are a statement of our values. I believe the 
priorities found in this budget are shared by my constituents and 
reflect the values that we can all be proud of.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  We keep hearing this mathematical fantasy that somehow the Republican 
budget balances.
  I just want to turn to an authority. He is the now-chairman of the 
Senate Budget Committee. Here is what he said last year:

       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 an anticipation that ObamaCare would go away, and that 
     all of that money would still be there, that's not realistic. 
     I'd like to see us get to a real accounting with the budget.

  Well, guess what, Mr. Speaker; the Affordable Care Act is still here, 
the revenue is still here, and the Republican budget assumes that 
revenue for the purpose of achieving balance at the same time they are 
getting rid of the Affordable Care Act. That leaves people's heads 
spinning and it means the budget is not in balance.
  I am now happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Yarmuth), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Mr. Van Hollen yielding.
  We are talking a lot about gimmicks. Even the conservative Financial 
Times said the Republicans had to resort to smoke and mirrors to make 
this budget balance. But I want to talk about one of the other tricks 
that is used.
  What the Republicans' budget uses is they do something called dynamic 
scoring, which basically allows you to project all sorts of, probably, 
at least, speculative growth based on policies that they would 
anticipate doing.
  Now, here is a real-world example of that. This weekend is the 
Kentucky Derby. It would be as if somebody went out and said: I am 
going to buy a 2-year-old for $2 million. And then that 2-year-old I am 
sure is going to win the Kentucky Derby, so I am going to use that $3 
million purse that that horse is certainly going to win next year, and 
I am going to plug that into my budget so my budget comes out ahead.
  Yes, it could happen, but there is no evidence to believe it will 
happen. That is one of the ways that this budget reaches so-called 
balance.
  There are other macroeconomic effects which we ought to consider, 
however. As we have mentioned several times, this budget would direct 
the repeal of the Affordable Care Act.
  The Deloitte professional services firm just did an audit of 
Kentucky's experience over the last 14 months, 15 months, with the 
Affordable Care Act. Here is what it said would happen in Kentucky over 
the next 6 years.

                              {time}  1645

  $30 billion in increased economic activity, 44,000 new jobs, and a 
positive impact on the Kentucky State budget of $850 million--that is 
what would be eliminated from Kentucky. That is another effect of the 
Republican budget. Think about what it might do in other States--
California, New York, Florida. For it to have that much impact in a 
State like Kentucky, the national effect would be very consequential.
  Aside from all of the truly damaging ways in which this budget 
affects our economy and our citizens, we have to take note of the fact 
that there are impacts beyond just the Federal budget, and this budget 
would be a disaster for the American economy and the American people. I 
urge its defeat.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Moolenaar), a productive 
and delightful member of our Budget Committee and a freshman member of 
our conference.
  Mr. MOOLENAAR. I thank the chairman for his kind words and for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I am excited to say that, for the first time in many 
years, the House and Senate will adopt a unified resolution for a 
balanced budget. The 2016 Federal budget resolution will set the 
guardrails for Federal spending, and it is a step in the right 
direction for our country.
  Families in my home State of Michigan and across the country tighten 
their belts when there is a change in household income or expenses, and 
Washington needs to do the same. The 2016 budget resolution does not 
raise taxes on hard-working Americans. It keeps the promises that have 
been made to seniors while slowing the soaring national debt. Leaving 
less debt to our children is vital, and if we fail to act, debt 
payments will crowd out spending for the priorities of the American 
people, including national security and protecting the Great Lakes.
  This budget provides for flexibility, and it gives States the 
opportunity to innovate on Medicaid policy, allowing them to design a 
safety net that works best for those in need. This will move Medicaid 
further away from Washington bureaucrats and closer to the people it 
was meant to serve.
  This budget also calls for tax reform, which has the potential to add 
1 million new private sector jobs. The Tax Code is over 74,000 pages 
long and was last overhauled 29 years ago. It is time for a pro-growth 
Tax Code that is simpler and fairer.
  This budget addresses our country's fiscal problems in a responsible 
way, and it puts our Nation on a brighter path for our children and 
grandchildren.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my friend and colleague and the 
distinguished Democratic whip.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report.
  Written by House and Senate Republicans alone, it reaffirms their 
commitment to a severe and unworkable policy agenda that would harm the 
economy and that stands little chance of being implemented.
  This budget conference report draws heavily on the House Republicans' 
budget framework by eliminating the Medicare guarantee, turning 
Medicaid into a capped block grant, limiting Pell grants for college 
students, and cutting nutrition assistance while hiding $1 trillion in 
additional cuts behind a magic asterisk to be filled in at some time in 
the future.
  These proposals, if implemented, would be disastrous for our country, 
and I suspect even most Republicans wouldn't vote to make them law, and 
I predict they will not vote to make them law. Still, many of its 
proposals must be taken very seriously.

[[Page H2698]]

  The Republican budget conference report includes reconciliation 
instructions to fast-track yet another vote to repeal the Affordable 
Care Act, jeopardizing affordable coverage for millions of Americans 
with no alternative in sight.
  It continues the Republican policy of sequester for nondefense 
priorities this year--a disinvestment suggestion, an undermining of 
America's economy and its quality of life--and further limits our 
ability to invest in priorities like education, research, and 
infrastructure by $496 billion below sequester levels over the ensuing 
decade. This is the same sequester policy that the Republican chairman 
of the Appropriations Committee called ``unrealistic and ill-
conceived.'' Let me repeat that. He is the Republican chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, Hal Rogers of Kentucky, and he said that the 
policies being pursued in this budget are ``unrealistic and ill-
conceived.'' He is right.
  Shamelessly, they propose to do all of this while exempting defense 
spending from the sequester caps. Defense spending needs to be raised. 
It ought to be raised honestly and not pretend that some slush fund 
will pay for, not contingencies, which it is intended to do, but for 
regular defense investments, which we need to do.
  This budget conference report is, essentially, a work of fiction, 
promulgated as a message to the Republican base. I urge my colleagues 
to defeat it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. HOYER. Instead, let us work together in a bipartisan way to 
replace the unrealistic and ill-conceived--not my words but Hal Rogers' 
words--and, I would add, completely unworkable sequester caps with an 
alternative that enables Congress to invest in America's future growth 
and prosperity.
  That is what our constituents want. That is what we owe them--honesty 
and responsibility. I hope this resolution is defeated.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would just remind my friend 
that we look forward to enacting and bringing forward the policies that 
are incorporated within this budget. In fact, just last night, the 
Armed Services Committee passed out on a 60-2 vote policies that are 
consistent with the spending on the defense area in this budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), who is a wonderfully productive and 
energetic member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. SANFORD. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, in watching this debate back and forth, I am reminded of 
the saying: ``If you like sausage, don't watch it being made.'' The 
same is true, certainly, with the budget process, in fairness to my 
colleague from Maryland, and the same is true for the overall 
legislative process. It is a decidedly human and imperfect process.
  What we have here is a result of the House and Senate coming together 
on a budget, and it is something that we haven't seen for a long, long 
while. We certainly didn't see it while Harry Reid was running the 
Senate. As a consequence of the House and Senate coming together on a 
budget, we will see debate go to 11:30 or midnight tonight on 
appropriations bills, and they will do that week, after week, after 
week going forward. I, myself, will come down with an amendment on 
Energy and Water. I suspect other Members in this very Chamber 
will come down with similar amendments, saying, ``I think we need to 
add something here,'' or ``we need to subtract something here.''

  That process of scrubbing the budget is something that has been 
absent for years. That process is called regular order, but regular 
folks back home would call it, simply, common sense because it is what 
they do every day. Vital to any well-run organization is that ability 
to go in and say, ``This isn't working so well over here. I think we 
need to take from here this low performer and add to this high 
performer.'' It is done in churches; it is done in families; it is done 
in businesses; and it needs to be done in the Federal Government.
  I think, as a matter of process, what we have is awfully, awfully 
important. For too long, our Federal Government has been running on 
automatic pilot. Entitlements run on automatic pilot, but, in essence, 
domestic discretionary has been running on automatic pilot as we run on 
CRs and omnibus bills. I mean, you would go bankrupt in no time if your 
mode of operation were to simply say, ``I will take what I spent last 
year, and I am going to spend it again this year.'' Yet that is the way 
the Federal Government has been running, and it is this budget that 
actually moves us away from that process.
  In fairness to my Democratic colleagues, this is important from the 
standpoint of democracy. When you have an omnibus bill or a CR, 
somebody is still deciding what goes into that stuff. It is oftentimes 
leadership and staff as opposed to rank and file Members going down to 
the floor and saying, ``I think we need to subtract here or to add 
here.'' So there are two different levels that, I think, are awfully 
important.
  Are there still deficiencies? Obviously so. I mean, I think that when 
you look at the budget cap issue and when you look at the issue of off 
budget those are both pathways to financial oblivion, and they have got 
to be addressed. The bigger framework that has been set in place is by 
moving to regular order and by the House and Senate coming together on 
a budget--thanks to your leadership, Mr. Chairman--which, I think, is 
vital. As a consequence, I will be supporting this measure.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton), a terrific new member of the Budget 
Committee.
  Mr. MOULTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to 
the Republican budget because of the way that it treats our Nation's 
veterans.
  As I have said during the Budget Committee debates, the Republican 
proposal does not provide our past and present servicemembers with the 
resources they need upon their return. Protecting our veterans is not 
an option--it is our duty. We owe it to our veterans to provide them 
with quality health care, education, job training, and the long-term 
treatment they have earned through their service to our Nation.
  It is more than just a moral obligation. It is also a wise investment 
in America's future. The Greatest Generation was not called ``the 
Greatest Generation'' in 1946. That term didn't come about until the 
1990s. It had as much to do with what our veterans of World War II did 
after the war, when they came home, as with what they did in it. To 
ensure success for today's veterans, we need to do much better than the 
Republican proposal.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. MOULTON. As a veteran, I see firsthand that insufficient funding 
for VA programs creates an environment in which our veterans fall 
through the cracks. I do not support simply throwing money at the 
current bureaucracy, but insufficient funding for the VA and its 
programs will only exacerbate this problem.
  We ought to be able to agree that caring for our veterans should be a 
national priority. The budget before us today fails to prioritize our 
servicemen and -women, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much 
time remains on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 13\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Maryland has 8\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), a very 
diligent and dedicated senior member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I first need to commend and thank 
Chairman Price for all of his hard work in putting this budget 
resolution together. This is a rare occasion on this floor. It has been 
a long time since we have had a budget agreement, and it is not an easy 
thing to do. As one of the House budget conferees, I can tell you that 
a lot of work has to be done and that a lot of difficult choices have 
to be made.
  Mr. Chairman, you have done a spectacular job in getting this here to 
the floor.

[[Page H2699]]

  One of the most important things, Mr. Speaker, that the budget 
resolution has to do is to, frankly, set the stage so that we can move 
forward on the appropriations process. We need a budget that puts 
Congress and our committees on a path to move forward, and this budget 
resolution does it. It balances the budget within 10 years, and it does 
so without raising taxes.
  It is no secret, I believe--and I think many of us believe--that the 
first responsibility of the Federal Government is to protect the 
American people, and it is no secret that the world around us--I think 
greatly due to the failed foreign policy of this administration--is 
almost in flames. We see a growing instability, and we see a growing 
pressure to our allies, and we see the thugs and the enemies of freedom 
who believe they have a green light.
  We must provide for a strong national defense through the robust 
funding of our troops, of their training, of their equipment, of their 
readiness. This budget does so. It accomplishes these goals while 
staying under the budget control caps--in other words, adhering to the 
law of the land.

                              {time}  1700

  It funds the military over the President's request, without breaking 
the law and without raising taxes. Again, something that is easier said 
than done, but Chairman Price has been able to do that.
  At a time when we see China's rapidly growing defense capabilities, 
North Korea's nuclear weapons program, Iran pursuing theirs, and 
growing threats from terrorist groups, let's not forget what our number 
one priority has to be.
  This budget resolution reflects our commitment to our national 
security, to the men and women in uniform, to the safety of the 
American people. It does so, balancing the budget within 10 years. It 
does so without raising taxes.
  I know it is very easy to be critical; it is very easy to lecture why 
this is not perfect. It has been a long time coming. I am grateful for 
the leadership of Mr. Price, of his counterpart in the Senate, Chairman 
Enzi. I ask the Members of this distinguished body to approve this 
well-thought-out, hard-negotiated budget that funds our priorities, 
doesn't raise taxes, and even balances within 10 years.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lee), who has been focused on trying to make sure 
we have an economy that works for all Americans.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank Mr. Van Hollen for yielding. More 
importantly, I want to thank him for his tireless work as our ranking 
member on the Committee on the Budget. It is truly a pleasure to serve 
with him.
  A budget is a moral document, a document that really reflects our 
values as a nation. Unfortunately, this budget just does the opposite. 
Mr. Speaker, once again, this Congress is poised to take a huge step in 
the wrong direction.
  The budget agreement before us is truly a work hard, get less budget 
that uses accounting gimmicks to balance the budget, once again on the 
backs of the most vulnerable. It calls for cuts to nondefense 
discretionary programs totaling $496 billion below the already dismally 
low sequestered level.
  This means further draconian cuts to our education, our 
infrastructure, veterans, and health programs that have already been 
eviscerated by slash-and-burn Republican austerity plans.
  Today, more than 45 million of our fellow Americans are living in 
poverty. This agreement will push more people over the brink. With $300 
billion in cuts to SNAP--that is our food assistance--$431 billion in 
cuts to Medicare, and a half trillion in cuts to Medicaid, struggling 
families will continue to fall further and further behind.
  We can't forget how these cuts disproportionately affect our 
communities of color, who are more likely to be living in poverty. What 
is more, this is the latest in the misguided Republican fixation on 
repealing the Affordable Care Act, which the House has already voted to 
repeal over 50 times.
  The number of uninsured Americans has gone down by 16 million since 
it was enacted. Why in the world do you want to take health care away 
from 16 million people? That is mean.
  This agreement continues to use the overseas contingency operation, 
OCO, account as a slush fund for overbudget Pentagon spending by 
including--I think it is--$38 billion over the President's request.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentlewoman another 30 seconds.
  Ms. LEE. I introduced an amendment in committee to eliminate the OCO 
account increase of $36 billion that was included in the House 
Republican budget. Members on both sides of the aisle have criticized 
OCO as an affront to transparency and Congress' constitutionally 
mandated oversight responsibilities.
  Mr. Speaker, last month, we introduced our Democratic, Congressional 
Progressive Caucus, and Congressional Black Caucus alternative budgets. 
Those budgets reflect real solutions to lift Americans out of poverty 
and to support the middle class.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided and very cynical 
agreement that would put us on a path to a greater unequal America that 
provides less liberty and less justice for all. It doesn't reflect who 
we are as a nation.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McClintock), a senior, thoughtful member of the 
Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, with this vote, our Nation is about to take its first 
step away from financial ruin and back to prosperity and solvency. Our 
Nation's debt has literally doubled in 8 years, now exceeding the size 
of our entire economy. That debt requires us to make interest payments 
of $230 billion this year. That is nearly $2,000 from an average 
family's taxes just to rent the money that we have already spent.
  On our current path, that burden will triple within a decade, 
eclipsing our entire defense budget. Medicare and Social Security will 
collapse just a few years after that. Time is not our ally, and the 
future is not a pleasant place if we continue just a few more years 
down the road that we have been on.
  That is why this budget is so important. It changes the fiscal course 
of our Nation, slowly pointing us back toward solvency and prosperity. 
It restores congressional oversight of an abusive Federal bureaucracy.
  It rescues our healthcare system from the nightmare of ObamaCare. It 
rescues Medicare from collapse. It adopts the time-tested progrowth 
policies that produced the Reagan economic recovery and the 
unprecedented prosperity of the 1980s.
  If we can implement this budget, in 10 years, deficits will turn to 
surpluses, and we can begin paying down this ruinous debt at a pace 
that ensures that students now in college will retire into a 
prosperous, secure, and debt-free America.

  It is not perfect, and it is not complete. Ahead of us are many 
months of legislating to build the governmental streamlining and 
reforms that it calls for, but if we can set this course and if we can 
stay this course, one day in the very near future, a new generation of 
Americans can know just how wonderful it is to awaken and realize that 
it is morning again in America.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Mrs. Dingell), another one of our terrific new members of the 
Committee on the Budget.
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the conference report before us today is 
deeply flawed. It forces hard-working families to work more and take 
home less and puts our country on the wrong path.
  It concerns me that the budget put forth by my Republican colleagues 
does not address the deep, arbitrary, and damaging budget caps we are 
facing right now. These caps, which are so bad that they were never 
meant to become law, are now a reality, a reality that we are gutting 
our military and harming working men and women and their families in 
multiple ways.
  The gimmicks in the conference report do nothing to address the long-
term structural problems that budget cuts have created at the Pentagon, 
and they do nothing on the nondefense side to help hard-working 
families buy a home, send their children to college, or enjoy a safe, 
secure retirement with adequate health care.

[[Page H2700]]

  Democrats have a better way, a better budget, one that creates 
greater opportunity for a secure future. We need a secure budget, and 
we shouldn't stand for anything less.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to gentleman 
from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished majority leader of 
the House of Representatives.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to take a 
moment and thank the chairman. He has done a tremendous job. Again, he 
has brought another budget to the floor that balances, but he has done 
something no one has done in 6 years. He has brought a bicameral 
budget.
  That is something that we shouldn't just take for granted, something 
that the House and Senate couldn't do for quite sometime. Your 
leadership has been tremendous.
  To my friend on the other side, you make a lot of debates, and I look 
forward to hearing them. I am thankful this time you have more 
Democrats on the floor helping you than you did a couple weeks ago, and 
that is helpful. That is helpful for a debate. This is the place we 
should have it.
  Two weeks ago, I was on this floor to talk about a budget. I said 
that a budget is a vision for the future; it sets out your priorities, 
but it also shows your values. Well, for the first time in 6 years, the 
House and Senate have gotten together, worked out our differences, and 
drafted a bicameral budget. This budget shows America exactly where we 
stand.
  With this budget, we have a choice before us. Do we keep going down 
our current path? Or do we change course? Our current path adds to the 
debt; it is stuck in the past. In fact, the budget the Democrats 
offered would never balance.
  I say to my friend, the ranking member: we have a family close in 
age; we have children about the same age. My question to the other side 
is simply this: How will our kids invest in the future when they are 
busy paying for our past?
  The budget is a different course. It says that we will balance the 
budget and then actually start paying down the debt. It says that it is 
a more dangerous world, so we will increase spending for defense. It 
says we will repeal ObamaCare, and it says no new taxes. It says that 
it is time to grow America's economy, not Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, the future is not about Washington; it is not about 
government trying and failing to solve our problems while adding more 
and more debt that our children and grandchildren have to pay. 
America's future, our 21st century, will be built by American people. 
That is what this budget would do. It is the foundation for a strong 
American future and a future even brighter than our past.
  I look forward to taking the first steps to that future. I look 
forward to not leaving our children our debt, but leaving them a 
brighter future where they have greater opportunities.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the Republican leader, who mentioned 
the children of America, that if the children of America learn 
Republican math, we are going to be in real trouble because they won't 
be able to count.
  As the Republican chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget has 
said, this kind of budget approach that claims balance because they 
take the level of revenue from the Affordable Care Act, when at the 
same time say they are repealing the Affordable Care Act, I think most 
kids can figure out that that is a shell game, and we are going to be 
in real trouble if that is the basis of teaching math in our schools, 
not to mention the fact that we have got a budget here that is 
squeezing people who are really working hard while providing a green 
light to tax cuts for people at the very top. That is also not a set of 
priorities I think that we want to pass on to our children.
  We want an economy that works for everybody, an economy where 
everyone who works hard can get ahead. I don't see how we are going to 
get our kids ahead by providing tax cuts to folks at the top while 
cutting our kids' education and making them pay more for their college 
loans. That is a recipe for decline.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the distinguished majority whip.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia 
for yielding and also for his leadership in bringing this budget to the 
floor. I really want to thank the entire Committee on the Budget and 
the conferees for doing the hard work and the responsible work of 
finally focusing on bringing responsibility and fiscal discipline back 
to Washington.
  If you look at what has been happening all across the country, people 
are struggling. These are tough times. It is a tough economy. People's 
wages are stagnant. They are paying more for food. They are paying more 
for electricity. They are surely paying more for health care.
  They are looking to Washington and saying: Why doesn't Washington 
start focusing on these problems? Why doesn't Washington do what 
families are doing? Hard-working taxpayers live within their means. Why 
can't Washington do the same?
  This budget does that. It focuses on creating a healthy economy, 
actually getting jobs, and getting people back to work in this country, 
forcing Washington to finally balance the Federal budget.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. Speaker, when we pass this budget, it will represent the first 
time since 2001 that Congress has come together to pass a budget that 
balances in the 10-year window. That shouldn't be something that 
happens every 14 years; that should be something we do every year.
  The other side surely didn't do it when they were in the majority. In 
fact, none of the budgets they brought to the floor ever get to 
balance--not 10 years, not 20 years, not 50 years. They rack up more 
debt. They increase taxes. There are over $2 trillion of new taxes in 
the President's budget that he proposed, and he never gets to balance.
  This budget not only calls for good tax reform to make our country 
competitive again, lower rates so that families can keep more of their 
money and invest in themselves and not grow the size of government, but 
it actually focuses on getting more jobs in this country and stop 
shipping jobs out of the country.
  It repeals the President's healthcare law that is causing so many 
problems, millions of people losing the good healthcare plans they have 
and paying more for it.
  We have got to finally bring this discipline back and finally force 
Washington to do what families have been doing and be responsible.
  It is a good budget. I am glad that we are going to be bringing it to 
the floor and passing it. Let's get to doing the other work we need to 
do to get our economy back on track, and it starts here.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each 
side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Maryland has 3\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This budget does not reflect the priorities of the American people. 
If you ask most Americans what kind of economy they want, they would 
say they want an economy that is growing rapidly, with more shared 
prosperity.
  You don't get that kind of economy with trickle-down economics with 
the kind of theory that is embedded in the Republican budget. That 
theory is that if you provide tax rate cuts to people at the very top--
to millionaires--somehow the benefits are going to trickle down and 
lift everybody up. We tried that in the 2000s under George Bush. It 
didn't work.
  What happened--not surprisingly--is folks at the top who got tax cuts 
ended up with even more take-home income. Everybody else was either 
treading water or falling behind. Why we would want a budget based on a 
failed economic strategy is going to leave the American public 
scratching their heads.

[[Page H2701]]

  The approach we recommended was one where we provide more tax relief 
to hard-working Americans. We wanted to expand the provision for child 
and dependent tax credits so that people can make sure their kids are 
in a safe environment while they are at work and not have to break the 
family bank in order to do it.
  We want to invest in our kids' education; we want to invest in 
scientific research, and we want to pay for it by closing some of those 
tax breaks that encourage American corporations to ship American jobs 
and money overseas and getting rid of the special tax rates that hedge 
fund managers have that hard-working Americans don't.
  We proposed fixing a tax system that is rigged in favor of the 
special interests and the very powerful and changing in a way that 
provides additional help to people who are being squeezed and are in 
the middle or working their way into the middle. That is an economic 
plan that works for everybody in the country, not one that just works 
for people at the very top.
  What we saw just last week was the number one economic priority of 
our Republican colleagues was to eliminate the estate tax on estates 
above $10 million, help 5,500 Americans run up the deficit by $270 
billion, and then come back and say, Hey, the deficit just went up by 
$270 billion because we provided an estate tax cut to estates $10 
million and up. Now, let's cut our kids' education. Let's increase the 
amount we charge seniors for their prescription drugs. Let's raise the 
cost of student loans. Let's cut our investment in kids' education.
  That is what this Republican budget does. It is not that our 
colleagues don't believe in this failed theory, but you would think, at 
some point, reality would intrude, and people would say we need an 
economy that works for every American, not just a few.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this budget. Let's start again in a 
way that really reflects the greatness of America.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                             General Leave

  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks on the conference report on S. Con. Res. 11.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I guess it is appropriate that we begin the process of 
this debate that is called ``and now for the rest of the story.''
  For folks who are watching and for our colleagues who have been 
observing this debate and want more information, I would urge you to go 
to the Web site and take a peek at the resolution, budget.house.gov. 
You can get all sorts of information about the positive solutions that 
we are putting forward.
  It is not just our opinion. We have got a lot of folks who are out 
there supporting the resolution that we put forward.
  The 60 Plus Association says:

       On behalf of more than 7 million senior citizen activists, 
     the 60 Plus Association applauds the leadership of you and 
     Senate Budget Committee Chairman Enzi in putting forth a 
     responsible balanced budget plan. Not only will this 
     legislation protect today's seniors, but it will also protect 
     our children and grandchildren.

  The National Federation of Independent Business says:

       On behalf of the NFIB, the Nation's leading small business 
     advocacy organization, thank you for your efforts . . . NFIB 
     and small-business owners strongly support your efforts.

  U.S. Chamber of Commerce: the world's largest business federation 
representing interests of more than 3 million businesses--those are 
jobs, Mr. Speaker--of all sizes, sectors, and regions strongly supports 
your resolution.
  The Association of Mature American Citizens:

       On behalf of 1.3 million members of AMAC . . . I am writing 
     to applaud the House and Senate for working to pass a budget 
     this year and to convey our strong support for the policies 
     set forth therein.

  There is significant support literally from across the country, Mr. 
Speaker.
  I want to address some very specific issues that have come forward 
because, as I say, now, it is time for the rest of the story.
  Our friends talk about the lack of growth within our budget. In fact, 
that is not the case. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office 
stipulates that over $400 million in growth will occur in the first 10-
year period of time. We believe it will be much more than that because 
we believe in a dynamic market.
  We believe that, when you allow the economy to thrive, when you allow 
folks to have more jobs and more opportunity and more dreams realized, 
that in fact you get the economy rolling to a greater degree and 
actually more increase in growth will occur within the economy.
  We have heard from our friends on the other side about all these tax 
increases that are in this budget. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you very 
clearly: there are no tax increases in this budget. We balance the 
budget within a 10-year period of time with no tax increases. What they 
describe is their extrapolation on what they think policy is going to 
be.
  As you know and our colleagues in this Chamber know, it is not the 
Budget Committee that brings forward tax resolutions. It is the Ways 
and Means Committee. We charge the Ways and Means Committee with coming 
forward with progrowth tax policy to get this economy rolling again and 
to actually get rates down--yes, for large and small businesses, so 
that we can create more jobs, but, yes, Mr. Speaker, for the American 
people as well.
  That is our vision. That is our goal. That is what we think ought to 
occur again so that more dreams can be realized and more Americans can 
have the kind of opportunity that they so desire.
  We have heard a lot of talk about student loans. Mr. Speaker, this 
budget resolution does not decrease student loans, does not decrease 
the Pell grants. It is important that the American people know that. If 
you don't believe it, just go to the Web site. Read the resolution at 
budget.house.gov.
  We have heard over and over and over again about the talk on health 
care. In fact, one individual on the other side of the aisle said we 
were ``taking away health care from 16 million.''
  Nonsense, Mr. Speaker, nonsense--it just simply is not so. What we 
believe is that we ought to have a healthcare system that actually 
works for patients and families and doctors and allows them to make 
medical decisions and healthcare decisions, not Washington, D.C., not 
the Federal Government. That is not what the American people want.
  We are mired in a system right now that the President forced down the 
throats of the American people and our friends on the other side of the 
aisle forced down the throats of those of us in this Congress a few 
short years ago. We are mired in a system that actually is providing 
less quality of care and less affordability and less access to care.
  That is not what we believe ought to happen. What we do is charge the 
committees with coming forward with that patient-centered solution, a 
solution that will again put patients and families and doctors in 
charge.
  Then we hear about continuing the sequester. You are right. We do 
follow the law of the land, Mr. Speaker, because the budget resolution 
can't change the sequester.
  I challenge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and I invite 
them to work together as we move forward over the next number of months 
to get together and solve the challenge of sequester in a responsible 
way by decreasing spending on the mandatory side so that we can find 
the resources that are so vitally necessary on the discretionary side. 
I welcome the opportunity to work with my colleagues.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a budget that gets our Nation's fiscal house in 
order. It is a budget that would get folks back to work. It is a budget 
that would save and strengthen and secure Medicare and Medicaid, put us 
on a path to saving Social Security. It is a budget that protects our 
national defense. It is a budget that deserves support in this Chamber.
  I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the staff of 
the House Budget Committee and the Office of the Sixth District of 
Georgia. We are on the cusp of agreeing to

[[Page H2702]]

this budget resolution, due in large part, to the hard work and 
dedication of my staff. For the past four months, they have worked many 
long hours and out of the spotlight to help build a budget that 
balances within 10 years. It has been an honor to work with each of 
these staff members as they have helped craft a budget this Congress 
can be proud of, and the staff should be proud of what they have helped 
accomplish.


                      House Budget Committee Staff

  Alex Campau, Alex Stoddard, Amanda Street, Andy Morton, Ben 
Garndenhour, Brad Watson, Dick Magee, Eric Davis, Emily Goff, Ersin 
Aydin, Jane Lee, Jenna Spealman, Jim Bates, Jim Herz, Jon Romito, Jose 
Guillen, Justin Bogie, Kara McKee, Kelle Long, Kyle Cormney, Mary 
Popadiuk, Pat Knudsen, Paul Restuccia, Rich Kisielowski, Rick May, Ryan 
Murphy, Tim Flynn, William Allison.


                   Personal and district office staff

  Brent Robertson, Carla DiBlasio, Charlene Puchalla, Cheyenne Foster, 
Daniel Grey, Devin Krecl, Gary Beck, Jennifer Poole, Kris Skrzycki, 
Kyle McGowan, Kyle Zebley, Megan Wells, Meghan Dugan, Meghan Graf, Ryan 
Brooks, Tina McIntosh, Warren Negri.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 231, the previous question is ordered on 
the conference report.
  The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
will be postponed.

                          ____________________