[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4883-4890]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON S. CON. RES. 11, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON 
                      THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2016

  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule 
XXII, and at the direction of the Committee on the Budget, I offer a 
motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Price of Georgia moves that the House take from the 
     Speaker's table Senate Concurrent Resolution 11, with the 
     House amendment thereto, insist on the House amendment, and 
     request a conference with the Senate thereon.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I will remind my colleagues that, the week before we left for our 
Easter break, the House passed a budget in this Chamber and that the 
Senate passed a budget as well, and this motion does something very 
simple. It simply says that we will work to combine the best features 
of those two resolutions: to restrain the size and the scope of 
government, to reduce spending, and to balance the budget without 
raising taxes.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the motion.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). The question is on the 
motion offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Tom Price).
  The motion was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


              Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Van Hollen

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to instruct at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Van Hollen moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the resolution S. Con. Res. 11 be instructed--
       (1) to recede from its disagreement with the Senate with 
     respect to section 363 of S. Con. Res. 11 (relating to the 
     requirement for earned paid sick time to address the health 
     needs of workers and their families); and
       (2) to recede from subsection (c)(3) of section 808 of the 
     House Amendment (relating to changing the current Medicare 
     program, and replacing it with premium support payments).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Tom Price) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The House has passed a budget. It is a budget that is wrong for 
America. It does not reflect our country's priorities, and it does not 
reflect our values. What it says to the American people is work harder 
and take home less. That is the House budget. We also have the Senate 
budget. The Senate budget is also wrong for America. The Senate budget 
also says to the American people work harder and take home less. That 
is the message.
  When you have got a House budget that is wrong for America and a 
Senate budget that is wrong for America, both which say to the country 
``work harder and take home less,'' the midpoint between the two--or 
any point between the two--is also wrong for America and also says to 
the American people work harder and take home less.
  Now, why do I say that both the House and the Senate budgets say 
``work harder and take home less''?
  It is because, amazingly, they both actually increase the tax burden 
on working families. How? They actually phase out the increase in the 
child tax

[[Page 4884]]

credit, which helps working families. They phase out the increase, or 
get rid of the increase, in the earned income tax credit. They entirely 
get rid of the higher education deduction. These are deductions that 
families use to help make college more affordable. They get rid of the 
Affordable Care Act tax credits, which help millions of Americans 
afford health insurance. They are squeezing hard-working, middle class 
families.
  At the same time, the House budget calls for a big tax cut for folks 
at the very high end of the income scale--for millionaires. If you look 
at the Romney-Ryan tax plan, which this budget green-lights--sort of 
paves the way for--it would call for a one-third cut in the top tax 
rate. That is a huge windfall for the wealthiest in the country in the 
same budget that is increasing the tax burden on working families.
  What else do the Republican budgets do?
  They disinvest in America. They slash way below the lowest historical 
levels in recorded history the amount that we invest in the categories 
of the budget that help our kids' educations--early education, K-12, 
special education. They devastate that part of the budget that is used 
to invest in innovation and in scientific research, things that have 
helped power our economy.

                              {time}  1400

  Their budget assumes that the transportation trust fund will run dry 
in a few months. That is not accounted for within their budget numbers.
  So that is what the Republican budgets do, both the House budget and 
the Senate budget. There is no way to remedy those problems in 
conference because any point between those two is bad for America.
  The only way to remedy it would be if we were able to instruct the 
conferees to adopt the House Democratic budget proposal that we put 
forward a few weeks ago which actually provides additional tax relief 
to working families. It significantly increases the child and dependent 
care tax credit, so if you are a working family and want to make sure 
your child is in quality health care, you are going to get a little bit 
more tax relief; or if you have an elderly loved one at home that you 
want to make sure has quality care, you get a little more tax relief. 
If you are a two-worker family, we scale back the marriage penalty. So 
the Democratic budget actually provides more tax relief for working 
Americans while the Republican budget provides tax increases to working 
families.
  The Democratic budget also invests in our future--in our kids' 
education, in scientific research, in transportation--by closing a lot 
of the tax breaks in the Code that actually encourage American 
companies to move jobs and capital overseas. We get rid of those 
loopholes and say let's invest the money here in America. That is what 
the Democratic budget does. The rules don't permit us to instruct the 
conferees to do the right thing and adopt that alternative which does 
reflect the values and priorities of people around the country.
  There are two little things where the Senate budget is actually 
minusculely better than the House budget, but they are important 
things. They are important things that passed in the Senate with a 
large Democratic vote and some Republican Senators as well.
  One is a provision to say let's provide a fund, let's provide room in 
the budget for earned paid sick leave so that moms and dads who have 
kids who are sick at home don't have to choose between forgoing their 
income and caring for their kid at home. They don't have to choose 
between worrying about making their rent payment or their mortgage 
payment or their grocery bill payment on time and making sure their 
kids are cared for when they are sick. That is part of the Senate 
budget. So we are asking our colleagues to instruct the conferees to at 
least adopt that one little glimmer of good news in the Senate budget.
  The other difference relates to the House proposal to turn Medicare 
into a voucher program at the end of the budget window. What does that 
plan do? What it does is it shifts the risks of higher costs within the 
Medicare system onto the backs of seniors, and the Congressional Budget 
Office has shown that for those seniors who choose to remain in the 
traditional Medicare program, their premiums would go up significantly. 
That is what the House budget does. It voucherizes the Medicare 
program. The Senate budget does not. So we are asking our colleagues to 
accept the Senate version which is not good when it comes to Medicare 
generally, but at least on this one point is better than the House 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, that is our motion to instruct. I wish we could instruct 
the conferees to adopt the Democratic budget proposal which, as I said, 
says to working families: We hear you; we know you are working harder 
than ever; we know you feel like you are on a treadmill; we know a lot 
of you feel like you are falling behind; and we have a budget to help 
you.
  The Republican budget doesn't do that. It doesn't help at all. But at 
least maybe, in these two little things, we can send a signal today 
that we understand that working families are struggling, and we want to 
make sure that we do something to help them.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle seem to be so stuck in 
their Washington ways that they can't, they just can't see or recognize 
a positive solution when one is presented. I remind my colleague on the 
other side of the aisle that we are mired in the worst recovery, 
economic recovery in the modern era--the worst economic recovery in the 
modern era--slowest. In fact, there are fewer people working right now, 
Mr. Speaker, than there were when the recession began. That is what the 
other side has brought us. They want to double down on these policies. 
The American people clearly understand that there is a better way. 
There are positive solutions that we ought to be putting in place.
  I want to talk specifically about the Medicare proposal because the 
distortion and mischaracterization of the positive patient-centered 
solution that we have put forward in the area of Medicare continues 
over and over and over from our friends on the other side, and it 
really doesn't contribute to the important work, the important 
conversation that we must have as a nation.
  The fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that, as you know and the 
American people know, the Medicare program is going broke. That is not 
Representative Price saying that. That is not me saying that. That is 
the Medicare actuaries, the folks who are charged with letting us know, 
as a nation, how the program is doing from a financial standpoint. What 
they say is that it is not doing very well, and it is getting worse and 
worse and worse. In fact, in 2030, the fact of the matter is that the 
program will not be able to provide the services that have been 
promised to seniors.
  So the solution for our friends on the other side is what? Do 
nothing. Stick your head in the sand. Don't worry about that. Don't pay 
any attention to that man behind the curtain. Nothing. Under their 
plan, seniors in this country are destined to inherit, in a very short 
period of time, a Medicare program that doesn't provide the services 
promised.
  I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that as a formerly practicing physician, 
folks are concerned. I hear from my medical colleagues daily--
literally, daily--the concerns that they have about our healthcare 
system, and especially about the Medicare program and about the 
challenges that exist because of governmental intervention and because 
of the rules and the regulations that are heaped upon more rules and 
more regulations to make it more difficult for them to even care for 
patients.
  So what do we believe is the appropriate thing to do? We think we 
ought to save and strengthen and secure Medicare. That is the right 
solution. So in spite of the mischaracterization of our friends on the 
other side about the proposal that we put forward, it is, indeed, to 
save and strengthen and secure Medicare. The fact of the matter

[[Page 4885]]

is seniors understand and appreciate that, and they desire us, as a 
body, to come together and solve that challenge, solve that challenge 
together. So I invite my friends to join us in working together for a 
positive solution.
  Further, I do want to thank my colleague for bringing this motion to 
the floor today because this is an important debate that we are having. 
The debate is very fundamental. It is about how we are to build a 
stronger nation, how we are to provide greater opportunity for all 
Americans.
  What we believe is that we recognize that the economy is not moving 
as it should, that wages are stagnant, that the economy is 
underperforming. At the very least, our friends on the other side ought 
to admit that we can do better. So it is a bit troubling to see that 
the policies that they continue to champion look remarkably similar to 
the sorts of policies that have been tried and, frankly, failed over 
the past 6 years. While our Nation has piled up trillions of dollars of 
more debt, our economy hasn't grown as it should. In fact, this has 
been, as I mentioned, the worst recovery in the modern era, leaving 
millions of Americans still struggling simply to make ends meet.
  Our budget is a balanced budget, Mr. Speaker. We adopted a plan that 
would grow our economy, that would empower individuals, that would 
empower families and job creators in our local communities, all the 
while holding Washington accountable and protecting our Nation. Our 
budget, as you will recall, Mr. Speaker, balances in less than 10 
years, and it does so without raising taxes, in contrast to the budget 
of our friends on the other side of the aisle and the President's 
budget, I might add, that never, ever, ever gets to balance.
  We reduce spending at the governmental level by $5.5 trillion over a 
10-year period of time, higher than any previous budget proposal. We 
call for a fairer and simpler Tax Code to promote job creation and a 
healthy economy. We repeal ObamaCare in its entirety, all of its taxes 
and regulations and its mandates so that we can put in place patient-
centered health care, putting patients and families and doctors in 
charge of health care, not Washington, D.C., expanding the opportunity 
for access to quality, affordable health coverage. As I mentioned, we 
have a plan to save and strengthen and secure Medicare and Medicaid, 
things that are absolutely vital for the American people, and they 
understand that.
  Our budget provides for a strong national defense, through robust 
funding of troop training and equipment and compensation. We promote 
innovation and flexibility in the area of Medicaid so that we can save 
that program, provide flexibility in the area of nutrition assistance 
and education and other programs. Our budget proposes to cut waste and 
eliminate redundancies and end the practice of Washington picking 
winners and losers in our economy, all the while calling for reforms to 
our Nation's regulatory system to improve transparency and 
effectiveness and efficiency and accountability.
  Mr. Speaker, we have endorsed an optimistic vision, a vision for 
America's future by credibly--credibly--addressing our fiscal and 
economic challenges so that we can deliver real results for the 
American people. Since both the House and the Senate have passed our 
respective budgets, we must now work together to iron out any 
differences that there may be between the two, and we need to come to 
an agreement for a unified fiscal year 2016 budget.
  This conference committee is the next vital step in the days to come, 
and we will sit down and discuss how to advance these positive 
solutions in order to secure more economic growth and opportunity, hold 
Washington accountable, promote patient-centered health care, and 
ensure a strong national defense. We look forward to working with the 
Senate and the House Conference Committee and follow that with passage 
in this Congress of a unified budget to balance the budget in this 
Nation in less than 10 years.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would remind my colleague that when President Obama was sworn in, 
we were losing 780,000 jobs per month--per month. We were in a 
nosedive. It took a little while to climb out of that deep valley, but 
we have now had 61 consecutive months of positive job growth--12.1 
million jobs, longest streak in history. So job growth is coming back. 
We have got a ways to go, no doubt about it. We need to do even better. 
That is why I don't understand a Republican budget that the 
Congressional Budget Office tells us will slow down economic growth in 
the next couple years. That is what the nonpartisan budget pros tell 
us: it will slow down economic growth. Our Republican colleagues say we 
don't have enough, and yet they have got a budget that the 
Congressional Budget Office says the next couple of years are going to 
slow it down just as we are continuing to grow at record levels.
  They also have a budget, as I indicated, that says to people who are 
out there working hard: You are going to get squeezed even harder on 
your take-home pay. You are working harder than ever, but you know 
what? We are going to actually increase the tax burden on working 
families.
  Now, let me say a little thing about this Medicare voucher plan. The 
way to reduce our healthcare costs is to move toward a system that 
rewards the delivery of value rather than volume in our healthcare 
system. And in fact, one of the great untold success stories we know 
over the last couple years has been because we have begun to move in 
that direction; we have saved trillions of dollars, over a trillion 
dollars, without sacrificing quality of care.
  The problem with the Medicare voucher plan is it doesn't improve 
health care by changing the incentives to move toward more value and 
more quality rather than quantity and volume; it actually saves 
Medicare money by shifting the risk of higher costs onto seniors. In 
fact, the Congressional Budget Office says that under their plan, those 
who choose to stay in the fee-for-service system would pay 50 percent 
more in terms of premiums. So that is the real-world impact of that 
proposal.
  Now, what are the priorities of our Republican colleagues? We keep 
hearing that this is a balanced budget. It just isn't so. This is a 
phony argument. This budget says it is repealing the Affordable Care 
Act, and yet it only claims balance because of the revenues generated 
from the Affordable Care Act they claim to repeal. That would make 
Enron accountants blush.
  What else? This Thursday in this House we are scheduled to vote on a 
proposal to get rid of the estate tax on estates for couples of over 
$10 million--$10 million. That is about 5,500 people a year. A cruise 
ship fits more people than that.

                              {time}  1415

  Here is what it does. For all of the estates in the country, let's 
just be clear what the Republican budget looks out for and what the 
bill they are bringing to the floor this week looks out for.
  Blue, the 99.85 percent, are the estates that already are not 
impacted at all. The bill they are bringing to the floor of the House 
this week is for that teeny little sliver of red, .15 percent of 
estates.
  That is what the Republican budget is all about, and that is what 
they are looking out for in a budget that cuts our kids' education 
funding, cuts our investment in scientific research, and increases the 
tax burden on working families. That is what this is all about.
  Guess what, this estate tax cut for estates of couples over $10 
million is not factored into the Republican budget. That loses $268 
billion in revenue over the next 10 years. That is not accounted for in 
the budget they are talking about today.
  Two days from today, they are going to bring to the floor a bill that 
busts their own budget. That is pretty amazing, and the claim that it 
balances is just a phony claim.
  Finally, while it is providing those big tax breaks to estates of 
over $10 million, it doesn't close a single tax loophole for the 
purpose of reducing the deficit--not one, not for corporate jets, not 
for hedge fund managers, not

[[Page 4886]]

one tax loophole closed, when they claim they want to reduce the 
deficit.
  When you dig a little deeper, Mr. Speaker, this Republican budget is 
wrong for the country. It is great for folks who have already climbed 
that ladder. Most people who climb the ladder want to keep that ladder 
there, so more people can climb up, but this is a budget where people 
who climbed it just yanked the ladder up and said: We're on the top. 
Forget about the rest.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), one of the people who will be designated as 
one of my fellow conferees.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I could just sit down and say I agree with 
everything that the gentleman has said, but I want to add my voice to 
this debate and rise to support the Democratic motion to instruct 
conferees.
  As Mr. Van Hollen has said, there are provisions in the Senate 
version that are very, very worthy of our adopting. There is the 
reserve fund on paid sick leave, and it also rejects the House 
provision on Medicare premium support, the vouchers.
  I have been a member of this Budget Committee for over 5 years, and I 
can tell you that, while I have an appetite for leftovers, this has 
just been warmed over too many times. This budget is just another 
variation of the same themes that we have seen in the past several 
years.
  What is this thing? The majority party has recommitted themselves to 
benefit the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans while balancing the 
budget on the backs of the poor.
  Now, I know there are many people--unfortunately, on both sides of 
the aisle--who are not all that concerned about the poor. They figure 
that the poor have done this to themselves; but what has the middle 
class done to deserve being hollowed even more while we provide tax 
breaks for the wealthiest two-tenths of 1 percent?
  What have hard-working men and women and cities and mayors all over 
this country done so that we just ignore infrastructure improvements, 
ignore devolving money to the States, all in the name of providing tax 
breaks for the richest of the rich?
  Now, the commonsense approach would be to adopt our Democratic motion 
to instruct conferees, and it would be very much in league with the 
bipartisan actions we have seen over in the Senate. It has been 
historic, miraculous, to see 61 Senators--both Senators from my State, 
both parties--voting to establish a deficit neutral reserve fund to 
allow workers to earn paid sick leave. It is a filibuster-proof 
majority over there.
  Paid sick leave is good for Americans, the 13 million working men and 
women who don't have paid sick leave when they need it. Millions are 
unable to take care of their sick kids, their parents, or their spouses 
because they can't afford to do it.
  Workers have agonizing choices when their kids fall ill. Nearly a 
quarter of working adults have reported that they have lost or come 
close to losing their job, Mr. Speaker, for taking sick time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 
minute.
  Ms. MOORE. I will use it expeditiously.
  I mean, 3\1/2\ days of pay loss is equivalent to a month of 
groceries. People can't afford to do it. It is not just good for 
people, it is good for our economy as well. People won't use the 
emergency room as much. There are 1.3 million emergency room visits 
every year because we don't have sick leave. People won't come to work 
and pass communicable diseases with paid sick leave.
  Again, the Medicare voucher is just a sham, Mr. Speaker. Senior 
citizens and people with disabilities rely on this for their health 
security. I guess the Republicans have said it time and again that they 
would like to see Medicare wither on the vine, and adopting the 
provisions in the House budget will in fact accomplish that.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to instruct conferees.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), a member of the 
Budget Committee and Rules Committee.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my chairman for yielding me 
the time.
  I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from Maryland. I am 
just categorically opposed to the motion to instruct, but it is good 
that we are down here doing motions to instruct. Because what we have 
an opportunity to do, Mr. Speaker, for the first time since I was 
elected to this body 4 years ago, is to send House Members and Senate 
Members together and actually establish a budget of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I wasn't teasing. I was elected 4 years and 4 months 
ago, and this is the first time that we have been able to come 
together--and not just on a budget, but on a balanced budget--under the 
idea that it might be immoral to pay for our benefits today on the 
backs of our children yet to be born, that that might just be the wrong 
thing to do.
  Mr. Speaker, in particular, in this motion to instruct, what troubles 
me is the attempt to do away with the Medicare premium support program 
that we have been working so hard to establish.
  If anyone has a mom or dad who is on Medicare, if anybody is on 
Medicare themselves, they have experienced two things. They have 
experienced going into the doctor's office and questioning some 
provision of benefits, asking the question about whether or not this 
should be provided, whether or not this is the right cost, and they 
have had a physician say, they have had a hospital attendant say: What 
do you care? Medicare is going to pick that up.
  You know it is true. Every single person has had that happen in their 
family, and the result of that is a Medicare Program that will not be 
there for us.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't know if everybody across the country knows, but 
everybody in this Chamber knows that most American families pay more in 
Medicare and Social Security taxes than they do in income taxes. The 
highest tax burden on most American families is not the income tax; it 
is the tax we pay for the promise that Social Security and Medicare 
will be there for us when we need it the most.
  There is only one budget we have got to vote on in this town that 
solves that Medicare issue, that says: You know what, we know the 
program is going to go bankrupt, and we know there are no easy 
solutions, but we are going to make the tough decisions today. We are 
not going to put it off until tomorrow.
  My friend from Maryland said he wished the rules were different so 
that we could just substitute the Democratic budget for the budget that 
was passed in this House. Of course, that budget raised taxes by $2 
trillion and did nothing to solve this problem--nothing to solve this 
problem.
  The Medicare premium support system holds the promise of keeping the 
commitments that we have made to every single working American through 
the Medicare and Social Security Programs.
  If you didn't want to take tough votes, don't run for Congress. If 
you didn't want to be in the solutions business, you just wanted to be 
in the blame business, don't run for Congress.
  If you want to be in the business of restoring the faith of the folks 
who pay that heavy tax burden, that the promises we make today will be 
there for them tomorrow, there is but one budget on Capitol Hill that 
fills that need, and this House had the wisdom to pass it. This House 
had the wisdom to pass it, Mr. Speaker.
  I am so proud that, when we had an opportunity to either kick the can 
down the road or make the tough decisions, we said, Not on our watch 
will we break more of these promises. It is all done by giving patients 
more choice. Imagine that radical idea: give patients choice in their 
medical decisions.
  Folks love their Medicare, Mr. Speaker, but they don't love it as 
much as they love their Medicare Advantage. Have you seen those 
numbers? Folks love their Medicare Advantage. For the

[[Page 4887]]

first time in Medicare history, we gave patients choice. It is the most 
popular program in Medicare.
  For reasons unbeknownst to me, this administration has been trying to 
stomp the life out of that program since the day it was elected, but 
the program persists because the American people love it.
  You want to talk about doubling down on something, Mr. Speaker; we 
are doubling down on patient choice. We are doubling down on the idea 
that, if you put Americans in charge of their own healthcare decisions, 
they will make better decisions than the government will on their 
behalf.
  We cannot fail at this. We cannot fail. We owe America a balanced 
budget, and we owe America the confidence that the promises we made in 
exchange for the highest tax bill that they pay will be there for them 
when they retire.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My friend and colleague from Georgia mentioned tough choices. It is 
interesting that the Republican budget chooses not to cut one corporate 
tax break for the purpose of reducing the deficit. Apparently, that is 
too tough of a choice for our Republican colleagues--not to close the 
corporate tax break, not to cut the tax break that benefits hedge fund 
managers.
  They don't cut a single one of those tax breaks to help reduce our 
deficit, but they do want to increase the premiums on seniors who 
choose to stay in the traditional Medicare Program.
  They may call it a choice, but for most Americans, if I say your 
premium is going to go up 50 percent, yeah, you can choose to have your 
premium go up, or you can go somewhere else.
  That is not a heck of a real choice for most seniors who are 
struggling financially. Sure, it is a pay-to-stay plan, but you have 
got to pay a lot more in premiums, according to the Congressional 
Budget Office. It is not according to me; this is according to the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
  The Democratic budget does make the decision to close some of those 
special interest tax breaks to help reduce the long-term deficit, so we 
don't have to increase the costs and risks to seniors on Medicare, so 
we don't have to increase the cost on student loans and start charging 
students interest while they are still in college. No, we don't do 
that.

                              {time}  1430

  They are right. We think those are the right decisions that we made 
not to increase the costs of student loans and not to increase the 
costs and risks to seniors on Medicare.
  Yes, we choose to cut some of those special interest tax breaks 
instead. And we certainly don't think that we should be providing 
another big tax break to those estates in the country worth more than 
$10 million.
  Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased now to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), another person who is going to 
be designated a conferee, a member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Maryland for 
yielding.
  I like to read the comic strip in the paper every day, ``The Wizard 
of Id,'' and, to me, the budgets that we have seen coming out of the 
House and Senate are kind of like ``The Wizard of Id'' budgets. He cast 
a magic spell, he went ``poof,'' and all of a sudden we have created a 
balanced budget that is going to solve all this Nation's problems in 
the next 10 years. I don't think there are many gullible people out 
there who actually believe that will be the case.
  But we know some things for certain in this budget. We know that 
many, many important government investments are going to be cut beyond 
any reasonable limit, and to dangerous limits.
  We know, for instance, that within a matter of months, the highway 
trust fund is going to run out of money. We have $2 trillion worth of 
unmet infrastructure needs currently on the drawing board. These two 
budgets cut funding to make up some of that incredibly necessary 
infrastructure work.
  This budget slashes money for innovation, for research. The one 
greatest advantage this country has in the global economy is our 
innovative talent. This budget says we can wait for that. Not in this 
world that is moving 100 miles an hour. We can't wait for that. Every 
time we cut research we are setting back, again, our greatest advantage 
for years.
  As my colleague from Maryland mentioned, education: devastating cuts 
to Head Start, K-12 education, the one thing that can guarantee a hard-
working American family's children the opportunity to succeed and have 
a life that they dream about.
  So I fully support our motion to instruct. I think we deal with two 
problems that clearly face us and face working families throughout our 
country: the ability to actually care for yourself if you are sick, or 
your family member, and not lose income, something virtually every 
industrialized nation has. We can do that.
  When my friend from Georgia talked about making hard choices, this is 
an easy choice. Let's not worry about too many of the hard choices. 
Let's make the easy ones that can help.
  We can do comprehensive immigration reform, which is contemplated in 
the Democratic budget. That not only helps reduce the deficit, it 
solves one of our most daunting national challenges. We could do that. 
That would be an easy choice.
  But we do have hard choices to make. The Republicans want to 
voucherize the Medicare system. They say it creates choice. It also 
puts insurance companies back in charge of seniors' health care. I am 
not sure American seniors look forward to that scenario.
  So we want to go in a different direction, again, providing sick 
leave so that people can take care of their families without losing 
their income, and also involving doing away with the Medicare voucher 
system.
  We think that this will help make the budget a better budget. It is 
still a disastrous budget, but I urge that we accept the motion to 
instruct.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), a 
wonderfully contributing member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I was recently asked, What one issue 
keeps you up at night? I answered in an instant, Our government's debt: 
a debt that has doubled in just 8 years, a debt that now exceeds the 
size of our entire annual economy, a debt that is generating interest 
costs that are now eating us alive, roughly a quarter-trillion dollars 
a year just to rent the money that we have already spent.
  The Congressional Budget Office warns us, in 10 years, interest costs 
will exceed our entire defense spending if we continue down the road we 
are on.
  Admiral Mullen wasn't just blowing smoke when he said that, in his 
professional military judgment, the greatest threat to our national 
security was our national debt, because before you can provide for the 
common defense and promote the general welfare, you have to be able to 
pay for it, and the ability of our country to do so is coming into 
grave doubt.
  For 4 years, this House had passed budgets that put our Nation back 
on the path to fiscal solvency and began paying down this enormous debt 
that is sapping our prosperity and threatening our futures. For 4 
years, the Senate simply refused to act and, as the gentleman from 
Georgia said, we just kicked the can down the road.
  Well, last November's election changed that. Now the Senate has also 
passed a budget that balances in 10 years.
  Now, for the first time in many years, we have the fleeting 
opportunity to invoke a conference process and put this Nation back on 
the road to solvency. Time is not our friend, and we don't have much of 
it left.
  The conference committee must have full latitude to act on a budget 
that both Houses can agree to, and the Democratic motion would 
hamstring that conference.
  My friend from Maryland, on behalf of the House Democrats, says this 
budget isn't right for America. Well,

[[Page 4888]]

America needs to know that the Democratic budget never balances. It 
would continue our country down the road of debt and doubt and despair 
that we have been on during these long, cold years.
  The gentleman from Maryland criticizes premium support to save 
Medicare. Well, Americans need to know that the Medicare trustees 
themselves are screaming this warning at us, that, without reform, 
Medicare will bankrupt within 15 years. That means if you are 50 years 
or younger, it won't be there for you.
  When the Democrats say don't reform Medicare, what they mean is they 
are quite all right with that system collapsing on an entire generation 
of Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, all that stands between this Nation and the road to 
solvency and recovery is the conference process that can produce a plan 
to balance the budget, and all that stands against that, an unfettered 
conference process, is this motion.
  As I said, we don't have much time left.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. With my remaining time, let me suggest that, with the 
time our country has left, we do something worthy of our time here, 
that we balance our budget, redeem our debt, and save our country.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would just make two points. The first, as I mentioned earlier, one 
of the great untold success stories of the Affordable Care Act reforms, 
as well as other reforms in the health care system in recent years, is 
that we have dramatically reduced the cost of health care on a per 
capita basis.
  In other words, the increased costs per person of health care have 
been dramatically slowed down, according to the Congressional Budget 
Office, which has helped save Medicare and other health care programs 
over $1 trillion. That is the right way to do it, by realigning the 
incentives so we are rewarding value in our Medicare system, not 
volume, as opposed to the Republican voucher plan, which saves money by 
shifting the risk onto seniors.
  The other point--and we have talked about this over and over--it just 
ain't so that the Republican budget balances. Again, it requires the 
revenue from the Affordable Care Act, that amount of revenue, in order 
to balance, at the same time they say they are getting rid of it.
  Two days from now, they are going to add over $268 billion to the 
deficit by getting rid of the estate tax for estates over $10 million. 
That is not accounted for in their budget. It puts their budget out of 
balance.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), another 
member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman. I would join in 
urging my colleagues to defeat this Democratic motion to instruct the 
conferees, and I do so very much tied to the working families that I 
talked to back home because working families back home believe in 
balancing the checkbook. They have to do it every day in their lives.
  What they say to me is, Why in the world can't you guys do the same 
up in Washington, D.C.?
  In that regard, if we were to go the other route--I mean, keep in 
mind, the President's budget proposed going from running structural 
$500 billion a year deficits to $1.1 trillion a year deficits. This is 
moving in the wrong direction if we go with the instructions.
  I think that when I talk to working families back home, what they 
tell me is we have got to deal with problems as they come along. Doing 
nothing is not an option.
  So when there is a hole in the roof, they are out there with tin or 
they are out there with shingles and they are, in fact, repairing the 
roof. When there is a problem with the septic tank, they are out there 
with a shovel, digging and trying to fix it.
  In the same regard, I think what the committee and what the 
conference have come up with with regard to looking at a way of saving 
Medicare could be very, very instructive. As has already been noted, 
within 15 years, the actuaries say that the Medicare fund will be out 
of money. Doing nothing is, indeed, not an option.
  I think philosophically you have got to look at this and say, Did 
Medicare D work? It has worked. This is giving choice.
  So, in essence, 50 million seniors get to decide the future of 
Medicare versus 15 unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.
  Finally, I would say, what is important about this, I think, from the 
standpoint of working families, what they tell me is that borrowing 
from Peter to pay for Paul never works. It doesn't work in their 
budgets at home; it shouldn't work in Washington, D.C.
  Yet, with this proposal to come up with paid sick leave, a lot of 
people would love that, but it ought to be addressed at the State 
level. States run on balanced budget requirements. A number of States 
could come in with proposals to that effect, but if we do it here in 
Washington, D.C., at the very time when we are running structural $500 
billion deficits, it means that we are handing the bill off to the kids 
to pay for this. We are, indeed, borrowing from Peter to pay for Paul.
  It is for those very reasons that I urge defeat of the Democratic 
motion to instruct.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 12\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Maryland has 5\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Who has the right to close, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has the right to 
close.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. May I inquire as to whether or not the 
gentleman has any more speakers?
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I do not. I am prepared to close.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I appreciate the comments that have been made by my colleagues to 
bring into focus the positive solutions that we have been working for 
with our budget. I reluctantly oppose the motion to instruct, as it 
compromises the ability of the conference committee to fashion the best 
possible solution.
  I will say, Mr. Speaker, however, that the distortions that have been 
presented, I think they have gone past frustrating the American people. 
They anger the American people about the distortion of positions here 
in Washington. The American people are smarter than that.
  Our side of the aisle, we are interested in making certain that we 
assist all Americans, every single American, so that he or she has the 
greatest opportunity to realize the greatest amount of success in their 
own dreams, in their own lives, in the way that they deem to be most 
appropriate, not with Washington dictating to them what they must do.

                              {time}  1445

  I want to touch on a couple of very specific issues that have been 
mentioned by my friend from Maryland and others on the other side of 
the aisle.
  Our balanced budget proposal gets to balance within a 10-year period 
of time. It does so without raising taxes, and it increases growth. 
Now, the growth is important, Mr. Speaker, and our friends mentioned it 
on the other side of the aisle, as if the policies that have been in 
place over the past 6 years had some magical solution that they 
increased growth in this country.
  Well, the fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that as we see it in 
this chart--this is from the Congressional Budget Office, the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, as my friend

[[Page 4889]]

from Maryland says. These are the projections of growth that the 
Congressional Budget Office has had over the last 4 years.
  Four years ago, 3.0 percent. The average, Mr. Speaker, as you all 
well know, is about 3.3 percent over the last 40 years, growth in this 
country. That is in the economy, growing every year, 3.3 percent on 
average. And the projection 4 years ago was that it would be 3 percent. 
Three years ago, it was down to 2.9 percent; 2 years ago, 2.5 percent; 
this year, 2.3 percent. This is lost jobs, lost opportunity, fewer 
dreams realized all because of the policies coming out of Washington, 
D.C., and our friends on the other side want to double down on those 
policies.
  Our proposal, our budget that gets to balance--which our friends on 
the other side of the aisle and their budget never does; the 
President's budget never gets to balance; something that folks back 
home can't do. They can't do it in their personal lives. They can't do 
it in their businesses. Our budget gets to balance and increases 
growth--increases growth--because that is what we have got to do. We 
have got to increase growth in this economy so that more dreams can be 
realized, more jobs can be created, wages can be increased. The way you 
increase wages is to increase the vitality of the economy, not have 
Washington dictate it to people.
  And then this tired old characterization of our proposal to save and 
strengthen and secure Medicare and the way that it is characterized is 
to voucherize it. Well, this is nonsense, Mr. Speaker, and the American 
people know it.
  What we propose to do is to save Medicare, not allow it to die on the 
vine, which is what our friends on the other side of the aisle 
apparently want to do. Because when you read their policies, they don't 
do anything to address the insolvency of Medicare that is coming in a 
very short period of time--not according to me, but according to the 
Medicare trustees--and what that means is that patients, seniors, won't 
be able to get provided the services that they have been promised. That 
is not the right thing to do, Mr. Speaker.
  Our friends on the other side talk about all the tax loopholes, and 
goodness knows we have been for cutting tax loopholes and closing tax 
loopholes before closing tax loopholes was cool. We just can't get out 
and get folks to rally to the cause in a positive way from our friends 
on the other side of the aisle.
  My friend from Maryland knows that the way that that is fashioned is 
in the Ways and Means Committee. It is not in the Budget Committee. The 
Budget Committee lays out the vision, lays out the plan, lays out the 
parameters that are able to be utilized. As my friend from Maryland 
knows, the Ways and Means Committee is actively working right now--
actively working right now--on appropriate tax reform.
  It was the tax reform proposal that was put forward by our side of 
the aisle last year that demonstrated our willingness and desire to 
close loopholes and to end special treatments through the Tax Code. We 
believe everybody ought to be treated equally in the Tax Code, not have 
Washington picking winners and losers, which is what our friends on the 
other side tend to desire.
  Then again, this distorted notion about healthcare costs and where 
healthcare costs are going right now. Healthcare costs are down. That 
is right, Mr. Speaker. Who are they down for? They are down for the 
Federal Government. Who are they not down for? The American people. 
That is who they are not down for.
  What we have done with the President's healthcare program is to shift 
huge costs--huge costs--to the American people. If you are an 
individual out there, you make $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 right now, and 
the coverage that you are able to purchase right now--because ObamaCare 
has a deduction, has a deductible in your health plan of between $6,000 
and $12,000, which countless Americans have right now. Let me suggest, 
Mr. Speaker, that you don't have health coverage because you can't 
afford the deductible. But that is the proposal that our friends on the 
other side of the aisle embrace. That is the one that they want to put 
forward.
  And who are they harming? They are harming the American people, and 
the American people know it. They know there is a better solution. They 
know that there is a better way. There is a positive way, a patient-
centered solution manner to be able to get health care back on track, 
and that is what we propose in the area of health care.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I think I have got one more speaker who is 
desirous of coming to the floor, so I will reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am going to continue to reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Let me inquire, once again, Mr. Speaker, if 
I may, of how much time remains on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 6 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Maryland has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Well, as I await one of our Members who is 
heading to the floor to share his concerns about the motion to 
instruct, let me just revisit, once again, the positive solutions that 
we have put forward in our budget.
  This is a balanced budget for a stronger America. It is a budget that 
gets to balance within a 10-year period of time and does so without 
raising taxes. It recognizes that the American people have realized not 
the full glory of ObamaCare yet, but they have seen enough. And they 
recognize that it is harming not just their health care; it is harming 
the economy.
  So we repeal all of ObamaCare--yes, all of it, taxes, regulations, 
mandates, all of it--and we do so, again, not just because it is 
harming the economy, but, as a formerly practicing physician, I can 
tell you it is harming the health care of the American people.
  We eliminate the Independent Payment Advisory Board. Mr. Speaker, as 
you know, that is the 15-member panel that was prescribed for by the 
Affordable Care Act, by ObamaCare, that stipulates to physicians 
whether or not they are going to pay the doctor for services rendered 
to seniors not just before the fact of the care being provided, but 
after the fact, harming the ability of seniors to be able to access 
quality care in this country.
  We provide for a strong national defense, the resources necessary for 
a strong national defense, and do so at a level above the President's 
level.
  We secure our future in the area of Medicare and Medicaid and provide 
an idea for how we make certain that the Social Security disability 
trust fund does not go broke and moves forward in a positive way.
  We restore the issue of Federalism, increasing choices and 
opportunity for the American people at the local level, whether it is 
in Medicaid or nutrition assistance or in the area of education or 
other programs.
  And then finally, Mr. Speaker, we cut waste and corporate welfare and 
improve accountability. We do so by ending the practice of Washington 
picking winners and losers. We call for reform for the regulatory 
system so that we increase transparency and efficiency and 
effectiveness and accountability.
  It is a positive solution, a positive solution that the American 
people have been crying out for. They have been crying out for not just 
solutions here, but leadership here in Washington.
  My colleagues on our side of the aisle have talked about how 
enthusiastic they are about the opportunity to have the Senate and the 
House come together, come together for a positive solution in the area 
of budget process and budget activity. So I am pleased that the 
gentleman from Maryland brought the motion to instruct forward. As I 
say, I reluctantly have to oppose it because I think it compromises and 
ties the hands of individuals within the conference committee.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to instruct, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  First of all, the Republican budget doesn't balance. You can't claim 
the revenues from the Affordable Care Act at the same time you claim to 
repeal

[[Page 4890]]

the Affordable Care Act. You can't claim balance and then 2 days later 
bring to the floor of the House a bill that provides tax breaks to 
American estates over $10 million that is not accounted for in the 
budget that you claim balanced. So it doesn't balance.
  It actually does increase the tax burden on working families. How? 
Again, it gets rid of the increase in the child tax credit; it gets rid 
of the bump-up in the earned income tax credit; it eliminates the 
Affordable Care Act tax credits; and it eliminates the higher education 
deduction that helps families afford to send their kids to college. So, 
in fact, it is increasing the tax burden on working families.
  Who is it not increasing the tax burden on? Folks at the very, very 
top.
  The chairman of the committee talks about economic growth. We need 
economic growth. History has taught us that economic growth comes when 
you have a country where the hard work of Americans and increased 
worker productivity is translated into higher pay and benefits so they 
can go out and spend money on goods and services, and the economy and 
everybody can move forward together.
  What we have got in this budget is the same old-same old. This is 
trickle-down economics all over again. This is based on the theory that 
has been disproven in the real world, that you grow the economy by 
cutting tax rates for millionaires. We tried that in the early 2000s. 
What happened? Surprise, surprise. The incomes of folks at the very top 
went up. Incomes of everybody else, flat. What else went up? Deficits 
went up.
  The chairman says the Republican budget is a budget for all 
Americans. Two days from today they are going to bring to the floor a 
bill that gets rid of the estate tax for estates over $10 million, 0.15 
percent, about 5,500 American families. As I said earlier, you can put 
more people on a cruise ship. That is who the Republican budget looks 
after.
  Now, look. The Democratic budget, it takes the opposite approach. It 
actually provides tax relief for working families. Yes, we do close 
some tax breaks for special interests to help reduce our long-term 
deficit.
  We also call for increasing the minimum wage for millions of 
Americans who are working hard every day, yet at the end of the year, 
the amount they earn still puts them below the Federal poverty level. 
That is not right.
  We also call for equal pay for equal work. Today is Equal Pay Day. 
Today represents the number of days since the end of last year, the 
number of days more that women have to work to achieve the same pay as 
men in the workplace. That is not right, and the Democratic budget 
addresses that issue.
  We also say it is not right that corporations should be able to cut 
their employee pay or cut their workforce and still get a tax deduction 
for CEO and executive bonuses over $1 million. Right? Pay your CEOs 
whatever bonus you want, pay your executives whatever bonus you want, 
but for goodness' sake, why should they get a tax deduction for those 
bonuses if they are not increasing the pay of their own workers? That 
is not right. That is what the Democratic budget says: we should get 
rid of that inequity and actually use the Tax Code not to incentivize 
corporate jets, but actually to incentivize greater pay for more 
workers.
  And this motion to instruct also says, for goodness' sake, let's do 
what the Senate agreed to do. Let's do what the Senate agreed to do. 
Let's call for an earned paid sick leave provision so that families 
don't have to say that, in order to take care of a sick loved one at 
home, they have to forgo the paycheck that allows them to pay their 
rent and the mortgage and put food on the table.
  And yes, we do not believe that you should turn Medicare into a 
voucher plan. We have put forward proposals for reform to move toward a 
system that rewards value over volume.
  By the way, Mr. Speaker, despite passing on the risks of higher 
health care costs to seniors through that plan, there is not a shred of 
evidence that that plan in this particular budget will actually do 
anything in the end to help Medicare other than to shift that burden 
onto seniors.
  So the Republican budget is the wrong way to go for the country. It 
is a budget based on a failed ideology that somehow we are going to 
grow our economy through trickle-down economics, top-down, trickle-
down. That failed our economy.
  Let's have an economy based on broadly shared prosperity. Let's 
reject the Republican budget, accept the motion to instruct, and 
ultimately adopt the Democratic alternative.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________