[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15547-15608]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018


                             General Leave

  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 71, currently under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 553 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the concurrent 
resolution, H. Con. Res. 71.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1402


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the 
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 71) establishing the congressional 
budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2018 and 
setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2019 
through 2027, with Mr. Lamborn in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the concurrent resolution is 
considered read the first time.
  General debate shall not exceed 4 hours, with 3 hours confined to the 
congressional budget, equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget, and 1 hour on 
the subject of economic goals and policies, equally divided and 
controlled by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi) and the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney) or their designees.
  The gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black) and the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth) each will control 90 minutes of debate on the 
congressional budget.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 71, our budget, 
Building a Better America. Our budget takes real, tangible steps to 
balance the budget, build a stronger military, unlock tax reform, and 
support an economy that creates opportunity for all Americans.
  In past years, our budget resolution was a vision document, but this 
year it is different. With the election of President Trump, our budget 
goes from being a vision document to being a governing document that 
outlines how we build a better America for our children and our 
grandchildren.
  Today, we have the opportunity to fulfill our promises to the 
American people. Balancing the budget by 2027 is our top priority. Our 
national debt stands at $20 trillion, with $9 trillion added over just 
the last 8 years. For too long, both parties in Washington have failed 
to abide by a simple principle that all American families and small 
businesses do, that we must live within our means.
  Balancing the budget requires us to make some tough decisions, but 
the consequences of inaction far outweigh any political risk we may 
face.
  Unless we take bold steps to bring our excessive spending and debt 
under control, a sovereign debt crisis is the natural conclusion. 
Failure to take swift and decisive action is not only inexcusable, it 
is immoral.
  The budget resolution before us takes real steps to put our country 
on a sound fiscal path that balances in 10 years and will allow us to 
start paying down our national debt.
  Building a Better America also assumes bold reforms to strengthening 
programs that our seniors and our most vulnerable citizens rely on and 
ensure that these programs can continue to serve them for generations 
to come.
  While our budget includes reforms to discretionary spending, we also 
strongly believe that mandatory spending must be addressed in this 
budget resolution and in budget resolutions to come.
  Mandatory spending is already more than two-thirds of all of our 
Federal spending, and that number will only continue to grow, and that 
is why our committee felt strongly about addressing mandatory spending 
programs in this budget through reconciliation.
  Our budget requires 11 authorizing committees to find a minimum of 
$203 billion in savings and reforms over the 10-year budget window with 
an expectation that the reforms will result in significantly higher 
savings.
  This package of mandatory reforms is the largest since the 1990s, 
through reconciliation, and it is the first step to change the culture 
of Washington in our spending.
  Our budget also promotes tax reform and regulatory reform to get the 
Federal Government out of the way and allow our free market economy to 
thrive. The larger the government, the less freedom individuals and 
businesses have to thrive, grow, hire, and innovate. The Obama economy 
left millions of Americans behind with over 14 million people leaving 
the labor workforce in just the last 8 years.
  Through reconciliation, our budget specifically paves the way for 
progrowth tax reform that will reduce taxes for the middle class 
Americans and free up American businesses to grow and to hire. It will 
also simplify the Tax Code, allowing about 9 out of 10 Americans to 
file their taxes on a simple postcard.
  Many of our friends across the aisle and in the media said that a 1.9 
percent economic growth is the new normal and that we are doomed to 
continue the economic stagnation of the Obama years.
  They have a pessimistic view of our Nation's ability to create jobs 
and to

[[Page 15548]]

build our foundation of greater opportunity for all.
  America has the greatest workers, the greatest innovators, and the 
entrepreneurial ethos to far surpass the economic growth of the last 8 
years, if only the Federal Government would get out of the way.
  In this budget, we put our trust in the American people. But a 
stronger economy is not enough; we must also strengthen our military.
  The number one job of the Federal Government is to protect its 
citizens. Over the last 8 years, the weak foreign policy of President 
Obama has led to an increase in threats from all corners of the globe 
while the funding for our men and women in uniform has failed to keep 
pace. Building a Better America invests $621.5 billion in our military 
and $75 billion specifically for the global war on terrorism for fiscal 
year 2018. These resources will help our men and women in uniform 
complete the mission with which they have been tasked.
  Building a Better America presents us with an opportunity to change 
the trajectory of our country forever. The election of President Trump 
was a signal to all of us that the American people will no longer 
accept the status quo.
  This budget is also a very personal one for me. As I and my committee 
have gone through the long and arduous process of getting this budget 
to the floor, I have had to stop and think about not just what we are 
doing but where we are going.
  I have a picture of my six grandchildren taped to the back of my 
voting card. I was a nurse for more than 40 years and still hold my 
license today. Government and public service was never an ambition of 
mine, but when I saw what was happening in my State and in this 
country, I couldn't sit back and do nothing.
  Every time I put my voting card into a slot, I am reminded of why I 
left the career that I loved to join the political fray. It is for 
them. It is for my children and grandchildren and for yours as well.
  I grew up in an America where a poor girl, whose parents' only 
ambition was for her to finish high school, could graduate from 
college, become a nurse, and eventually become a Member of the House of 
Representatives.
  I grew up in an America that was a land of--that is a land of 
opportunity and was a land of opportunity then of strength and of 
compassion. But that America is slipping away from us. For too many 
young people in this country, the opportunity to live the American 
Dream is out of reach. A government that was supposed to be of, by, and 
for the people has left them behind.
  Building a Better America requires a government that spends within 
its means, a military with the resources to complete the mission, an 
economy that creates the opportunity for all, and a Federal bureaucracy 
that respects the taxpayers.
  It also requires an understanding that the greatness of America does 
not lie in the grand buildings and the stone pillars of Washington, 
D.C. The greatness of America lies in the spirit and the tenacity of 
the people.
  We designed Building a Better America to put this vision into 
practice, to empower individuals to live their version of the American 
Dream. Future generations of Americans are counting on us, and failure 
is not an option.
  I want to take this opportunity to thank the members of this 
committee for their hard work that they have done, for the months that 
we have worked tirelessly to come together and build a budget that 
reflects our principles.
  It hasn't been easy, but producing a budget that puts our vision for 
fiscal sanity into practice will be worth it, and I thank each and 
every one of you for your hard work.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget we are debating here today is a 
shockingly extreme document that gives to the rich and takes from 
everyone else. It calls for more than $5 trillion in spending cuts that 
threaten our economic progress and our national security, and it 
willfully ignores the needs and priorities of the American people.
  This budget isn't about conservative policy or reducing the size of 
our debt and deficits. It is not even about American families. This 
budget is about one thing: using budget reconciliation to ram through 
giant tax giveaways to the wealthy and big corporations and to do it 
without bipartisan support.

                              {time}  1415

  This budget and the tax cuts it exists to support are built on a 
foundation of lies. They are part of a dangerous and deceptive three-
step process Republicans have used before with serious consequences for 
our Nation and the American people.
  This is what they do. First, my Republican colleagues call for 
massive tax cuts for the rich, claiming they will generate so much 
economic growth, that they will pay for themselves. Last week, 
congressional Republicans announced a $2.4 trillion tax cut plan that 
benefits the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. Yes, I said 
trillions with a T.
  For example, under this tax plan, millions of families making $50,000 
a year would be subject to a tax increase, while millionaires get a 
$230,000 average tax cut. That is not tax reform. That is a shakedown.
  In total, individuals will see their taxes go up by more than $450 
billion, while corporations, wealthy pass-through entities, and rich 
estates get a tax cut totaling $2.9 trillion.
  One might justifiably ask why anyone would want to do that. After 
all, the income disparity in the United States is greater than almost 
every other country on Earth, and it is getting larger. Just a few 
decades ago, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans earned about one-
fourth of all national income. Today, it is close to 40 percent. Yet, 
once this plan is fully phased in, 80 percent of the entire tax cut in 
this plan goes to just the top 1 percent, while 45 percent of all 
households with children see a tax increase.
  You could be someone who gets a $1 million salary, owns billions in 
corporate stock, be a partner in a hedge fund, or just the heir to a 
massive fortune, no matter the type of millionaire you are, Republicans 
make sure you will get a tax cut. No matter how many times President 
Trump, Secretary Mnuchin, or my colleagues across the aisle say it and 
how much they hope the American people will fall for it, these tax cuts 
won't pay for themselves.
  That is not just my argument. That is the conclusion of the Federal 
Reserve, the Congressional Budget Office, and respected economists of 
all stripes.
  Conservative economist and former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin 
said: ``There is just no evidence that the tax cuts actually pay for 
themselves.''
  Even Goldman Sachs, Secretary Mnuchin's former employer, says any 
growth will be minimal, maybe up to two-tenths of a percent.
  Bruce Bartlett, the man who wrote Reaganomics, which codified the 
trickle-down theory, told Congress last week that he now thinks it is: 
``bull.'' Well, that is half of the word he used, but you get the idea.
  The historical record is clear. We went through this in the early 
1980s, the early 2000s under George W. Bush, and we recently saw it 
play out to disastrous effect in Kansas. Now congressional Republicans 
want to try it again.
  We all know the truth. The tax cuts in this plan will increase 
deficits and debt by approximately $2.4 trillion in the first 10 years 
alone and trillions more in the years after. These aren't special, 
supernatural tax cuts. They aren't going to magically defy expert 
analysis, historical precedence, and empirical evidence. This budget 
will blow enormous holes in the Federal budget, which brings me to the 
second part of the Republican deception.
  When the growth fails to happen as promised and these tax cuts keep 
digging our economy down deeper and deeper, Republicans will again 
bemoan the horrors of deficits and debt.

[[Page 15549]]

  These cries will lead us to the third and final part of the plan. 
They will call for congressional action, not to roll back the tax cuts 
to the wealthy that caused all the damage, but for drastic cuts to 
important programs that the American people need and support. 
Education, healthcare, research, infrastructure, and veterans' benefits 
are already threatened in this budget. It includes an astonishing $5.4 
trillion in spending cuts; $1.5 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid 
alone. It even assumes $49 billion in cuts to veterans' benefits.
  The enormity of these cuts and the severity of the consequences for 
American families cannot be overstated, but more cuts will be coming if 
my Republicans get their way with this budget. We will see more attacks 
on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, nutrition assistance, on 
important benefits and services that help American families get ahead, 
and on key investments that keep our economy and our Nation strong.
  To be clear, and with all due respect to my friend and colleague from 
Tennessee, by voting on this budget, for this budget, they are 
jeopardizing meals and food assistance for 515,000 hungry children in 
Tennessee so that the wealthiest person in that State, who has a net 
worth of $8.8 billion, can get a massive tax cut.
  Democrats have a different budget and a far different vision for our 
country. Our priorities reflect the priorities of the American people.
  We invest in programs that will grow our economy, create good-paying 
jobs, and provide real support for working families; public investments 
that lead to a brighter future, such as rebuilding roads, bridges, and 
other vital infrastructure; retirement security for seniors now and for 
millions of Americans who fear they will never be able to afford to 
stop working; affordable education so that young people will be able to 
compete for the careers of the future; affordable, quality childcare 
for hardworking parents; and affordable quality healthcare for all 
Americans.
  We believe in a government that helps individuals with nowhere left 
to turn and a Tax Code that helps families get ahead. Those are 
American priorities, and they should be the priorities of this 
Congress.
  I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose this budget and support 
the Democratic alternative.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Rokita), the vice chair of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairwoman and all the members of 
the Budget Committee who voted for this budget, and now it is on the 
floor.
  I encourage all Members of the House to vote in favor of this budget, 
and that is because our national debt continues to grow exponentially 
every day, every hour, every minute, and every second. We cannot afford 
to have any more time waiting to address the spending crisis that we 
are in.
  This budget begins to put these irresponsible elitist policies behind 
us, and creates a culture around here that makes sure that our friends 
and neighbors who really need the help get the help without forcing our 
Nation's bills on our children and grandchildren, future generations, 
some of whom don't even exist yet.
  Specifically, this budget reforms mandatory spending so it is focused 
on those, Mr. Chairman, in our communities who really need help. This 
will ensure that our country will focus limited resources on those who 
are most vulnerable, while encouraging a culture of self-reliance 
instead of government dependence.
  We should be measuring, Mr. Chairman, success of these programs on 
how many people we get off of them, not how many people we trap in 
them.
  Mr. Chairman, as the chart I am holding shows, because mandatory 
spending is over two-thirds of our total annual spending, reforming 
this part of our spending is the only way to really get our debt and 
deficits down. This budget, for the first time, starts addressing this 
part of the pie, $203 billion worth, and that is because of the 
leadership here of Republicans in the House of Representatives.
  Now, this budget also protects our friends and neighbors by making 
sure our families are safe, that the military has the tools that they 
need, and that the administration has the money it needs to secure our 
border.
  This budget also jump-starts tax reform, which will put money back in 
the pockets of hardworking Hoosiers and all Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, as President Ronald Reagan once said: ``We 
don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we 
have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much.''
  That is still true today, Mr. Chairman, except that that $1 trillion 
is now $20 trillion and growing.
  Again, I encourage all my colleagues to vote in favor of this budget.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chair, I would note for my colleague from Indiana 
that by voting for this budget, he will force 1,150,553 seniors, 
disabled individuals, and other seriously ill people in Indiana to pay 
more for lifesaving Medicare all so that the wealthiest person in his 
State, who has a net worth of $8 billion, can get a massive tax break.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moulton), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. MOULTON. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today as a member of the Budget Committee to 
express my strong opposition to this budget resolution, which, if 
passed, would leave countless working families behind, and not to 
mention would, in fact, raise the Federal debt by at least $3 trillion 
over the first decade and by at least $6.6 trillion by the end of the 
second 10 years.
  This proposed budget is an atrocious representation of our values. As 
more Americans find it harder and harder to get by, this budget guts 
what people need to be most successful. It takes away dollars from 
education; it takes away dollars from the programs we rely on for 
retirement, for switching between jobs, for healthcare.
  We should be focused on funding the things that will enable the 
workforce to prepare for the 21st century, not gutting programs that 
will leave them falling further behind.
  Rather than funding luxury travel for the Trump administration, let's 
invest in quality education, job skills training, and properly fund the 
State Department and foreign aid programs that Secretary of Defense 
Mattis and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dunford have said are 
critical to our national security.
  This budget puts working families, our economy, and our national 
security at risk.
  Passage of this budget would also pave the way for Republican tax 
reform, if you want to call it that, which would favor big businesses 
that destroy our small towns.
  It shouldn't be easier for a company to get a tax break on buying 
another robot than training their employees to gain skills for the 
modern economy. We need a tax plan to incentivize companies to invest 
in their workers instead of engaging in a race to the bottom where 
workers are viewed as a burden rather than an asset.
  We need a budget that will foster economic growth for all of our 
people, and we need to make taxes more simple and fair for working 
families, not give handouts to the rich.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this proposed 
budget so that we can go back to the table--or, actually, to go to the 
table for the first time as Democrats and Republicans, and have a 
conversation about funding the resources that will actually move our 
economy and country forward into the 21st century and beyond.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), who is also a member of our committee and 
also of the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chair, I must first start by thanking Chairwoman 
Black for her excellent work on this bill.
  There are a lot of things that I can talk about that are very 
positive in

[[Page 15550]]

this budget, but today I want to emphasize how it prioritizes our 
national security.
  With the growing threats around the globe, it is imperative that we 
fund defense of our Nation in an appropriate and a substantial way. We 
need to invest in our Armed Forces. We have to upgrade our defense 
systems and weapons systems, and we have to ensure the readiness of our 
military.
  The United States must continue to lead on a global scale. This 
budget takes us in that direction by investing in our national defense. 
Obviously, coupled with targeted soft diplomacy funding, we accomplish 
that.
  This budget takes us, as I said, in that direction, and it does so in 
a very positive way. I believe this budget makes those critical 
investments.
  Mr. Chairman, I don't have to tell you that under the previous 
administration, cuts to our defense spending left the world a more 
dangerous place and it left our country in a more vulnerable place. 
Thankfully, the current administration recognizes the failure of the 
last 8 years and is, again, willing to lead again. Now it is up to us 
to do our part to provide the resources to allow the administration and 
our military to lead again. This budget gets us there. I am pleased to 
support it.
  Mr. Chair, I want to thank the chairwoman for her invaluable 
leadership. I urge my colleagues to do the same and, again, make sure 
that we stand toe to toe with our adversaries and we stand, most 
importantly, with the national security interests of the United States.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I want to note for my friend and colleague 
from Florida that by voting for this budget, he is jeopardizing meals 
and food assistance for 1,448,000 hungry children in Florida so that 
the wealthiest person in his State, who has a net worth of $13.2 
billion, can get a massive tax cut.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. 
DelBene), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.
  Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this dangerous budget 
proposal.
  With many working families and businesses still struggling to adapt 
to a rapidly changing economy, our top priority in Congress should be 
to help expand opportunities and sustain long-term economic growth and 
security so no American is left behind as we forge new paths ahead.

                              {time}  1430

  To spur robust job growth, we must invest in our education system to 
provide the training and skills workers need to be prepared for the 
jobs of today and tomorrow.
  We should invest in infrastructure that will put people to work and 
make our communities better places to do business, and we should invest 
in growing a strong middle class, the backbone of our economy.
  But instead, we are debating a budget that will go nowhere in the 
Senate simply so it can be used as a vehicle to give the wealthiest 
Americans a massive tax cut on the backs of middle class families.
  This reckless budget cuts early childhood, K-12, and higher education 
programs, as well as job training and apprenticeships. It guts 
nutrition assistance, which provides benefits to more than 43 million 
Americans a year, almost half of whom are children. It continues the 
destructive cycle of neglecting our already crumbling infrastructure, 
even though we know the longer we wait, the more costly repairs will be 
in the future and the less economically competitive our communities 
will be.
  Slashing programs that help working families in order to line the 
pockets of the wealthiest Americans has never led to jobs or economic 
growth, and it never will. Every dollar we spend is a reflection of our 
values, which is why I am deeply disappointed that this budget 
demonstrates an utter disregard for middle class Americans, a lack of 
vision for what our future could look like with smart, targeted 
investments, and a complete lack of empathy for the most vulnerable.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a member of the Budget Committee and also the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chair, I want to thank the chairwoman for yielding time 
to me, and I particularly want to congratulate her on doing something 
that is going to be pretty remarkable today. She is bringing a budget 
that actually balances in 10 years.
  My good friends on the other side will bring us three budgets, none 
of which come into balance in 10 years. In that, to be fair, they 
follow the tradition that President Obama set, who never ever brought 
us a budget that balanced and left us with a national debt roughly 
twice the size of the one he had when he came into office. If we don't 
do what Chairwoman Black suggests here, we are going to be in exactly 
that same position.
  I particularly want to congratulate the chairwoman for having the 
courage to take on the tough issue of entitlement and mandatory 
spending reform. She has $200 billion of it. It sounds like a lot of 
money, but it is out of $30 trillion over 10 years. This is something 
we can do--frankly, we should do more of--and that is the way to 
actually move toward balance.
  I also want to congratulate the chairwoman for actually working with 
other committee chairmen to help them identify the cuts so they are 
real. They are not just fictional things in an imaginary document.
  Finally, I particularly want to commend her for a wise investment in 
national security. That is a tough decision to make, but we have all 
seen the ravages left by sequester and by continuing resolutions that 
are the number one enemies of the United States military. We have 
actually, under the last administration, inflicted more damage on the 
military than any enemy could do on any battlefield anyplace in the 
world. Our chairwoman and our committee stops that, reverses that, and 
begins to invest.
  Mr. Chair, I just want to end by pointing out the long-term solution 
here to our problems really is entitlement reform. We have to get 
serious about mandatory spending. It is two-thirds of the budget now. 
Without changing the direction we are going, it will be 81 percent a 
decade from now. It is simply not sustainable.
  It is nice to talk about this discretionary program or that 
discretionary program. The fundamental problem that we face is 
mandatory spending. The chairwoman addresses it in her budget. We can 
come back and build on what she does next year and continue to go after 
the area that really unbalances the budget.
  Mr. Chair, I urge the passage of the budget.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chair, I would note, for my friend and colleague, 
that by voting for this budget, he will force 678,763 seniors, disabled 
individuals, and other seriously ill people in Oklahoma to pay more for 
lifesaving Medicare all so that the wealthiest person in his State, who 
has a net worth of $10.2 billion, gets a massive tax cut.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Carbajal), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the fiscal 
year 2018 Republican budget resolution, a budget that comes nearly 6 
months late and days into the new fiscal year. This Republican budget 
betrays millions of hardworking middle class families, while showering 
billionaires with irresponsible tax cuts.
  By cutting $211 billion over the next 10 years for student loans and 
college aid, it makes it harder to send our kids to college. It 
abandons our Nation's crumbling infrastructure by cutting $245 billion 
over 10 years for transportation. It turns its back on families putting 
food on the table with SNAP by cutting $150 billion from the program 
over the next 10 years. It neglects our grandparents and our seniors 
with a $487 billion cut to Medicare in the next decade, and it assumes 
the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, leaving over 20 million 
Americans uninsured.
  I offered two amendments during the markup of this budget--one to 
fully

[[Page 15551]]

fund programs for our veterans, and another to reject paying for a 
border wall--both of which were blocked by my Republican colleagues.
  This budget boosts defense spending to $622 billion, $72 billion 
above the budget cap for defense and well over even the President's 
request, and it underfunds nondefense spending at $5 billion below the 
cap.
  At the same time, Republicans have included instructions to fast-
track a tax proposal that would add trillions to our Nation's deficit--
trillions. It would end almost all itemized deductions, and according 
to the Tax Policy Center, increase taxes for roughly one in four 
taxpayers.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chair, I yield the gentlemen from California an 
additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Chair, this budget completely ignores a balanced 
approach to achieving fiscal sustainability and stacks the deck even 
higher against middle class families, seniors, and students.
  Mr. Chair, I reject today's Republican budget and ask my colleagues 
to oppose it.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chair, I want to remind my colleagues from the other 
side of the aisle that, during the time of the previous administration, 
there was $9 trillion added to the debt, 1.9 percent economic growth, 
and that was the high of that period of time, and there were 14 million 
people who left the labor workforce. If their policies worked, we 
wouldn't see these kinds of statistics.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McClintock), a member of our Budget Committee.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and 
I thank her for her leadership on this important issue.
  Mr. Chairman, for the first time in many years, this budget uses 
reconciliation for the purpose it was intended: to bring mandatory 
spending under control.
  The appropriations that dominate so much of the debate comprise less 
than one-third of our total spending, and that is called discretionary 
spending. The budget sets a level; the appropriations process spends to 
that level. That is everything from general government to defense.
  We have actually been able to bring that under control, but the other 
two-thirds of spending is called mandatory spending. It is beyond the 
annual control of Congress. It continues automatically until and unless 
the statutes that call for it are actually changed.
  It is the mandatory spending that is eating our country alive. 
Mandatory spending is supposed to be controlled by reconciliation. 
Instructions are sent to the various authorizing committees to make 
whatever changes are necessary in current law to stay within our means. 
But this powerful fiscal tool has been ignored or squandered in past 
budgets, and this neglect is undermining the solvency of our country.
  For the first time in many years, the House budget finally restrains 
mandatory spending by instructing our committees to find at least $200 
billion in savings over the next decade. That means this budget will 
get us back to balance within the decade, and this is why it is so 
important.
  If the Democrats had their way and we maintain our current path, the 
Congressional Budget Office warns that in just 4 years, in 2022, our 
deficits will surpass $1 trillion a year. That is where economists warn 
we run the risk of damage or even loss of our access to credit, a 
sovereign debt crisis.
  If you want to know what that looks like, Venezuela is going through 
it right now, and within our own territory, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
Rico--pension systems implode, basic services falter, the economy 
collapses.
  Two years after that, in 2024, 6 years from now, the CBO warns that 
the annual interest cost on our debt will reach $654 billion. That is 
more than we currently spend on defense.
  I would remind my friends on the left that you cannot provide for the 
common defense or promote the general welfare if you can't pay for it, 
and the ability of our country to do so is being undermined by our 
spending trajectory.
  At the same time, we charge the highest corporate tax rate in the 
industrialized world, sending trillions of dollars of capital and 
hundreds of thousands of jobs to other countries. In the last 8 years, 
we have averaged only half of our postwar economic growth.
  I remind my friends that corporations do not pay corporate taxes. 
Corporate taxes can only be paid in one of three ways: by consumers 
through higher prices, by employees through lower wages, by investors 
through lower earning. Cutting corporate taxes means lower prices for 
consumers, higher wages for employees, and higher earnings for 
investors.
  Tax relief is absolutely vital to reviving the economy, but 
experience does warn us that revenue growth only partially offsets 
revenue lost to tax reductions. Indeed, when we are told that the 
choice is between taxes and debt, those are two sides of the same coin.
  Taxes and debt are the only two possible ways to pay for spending. 
Once we have spent a dollar, we have already decided to tax it. We 
either tax it now, or we borrow it now and tax it later. Either way, it 
is entirely driven by spending. By restraining spending, this budget 
makes possible the tax relief that our economy desperately needs to 
grow.
  Frankly, we could do much more if we summon the political will, and I 
will be presenting such a budget tomorrow on behalf of the Republican 
Study Committee.
  But this budget moves us a long way in the right direction. It sets 
in motion the policies that Presidents from Calvin Coolidge to John F. 
Kennedy to Ronald Reagan have all used to revive and expand our 
economy. It brings us closer to that day when families will awaken to a 
new and prosperous morning for America.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chair, I want to note for my colleague that, by 
voting for this budget, he is jeopardizing meals and food assistance 
for 2,319,000 hungry children in California so that the wealthiest 
person in his State, who has a net worth of $62.4 billion, gets a 
massive tax cut.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Neal), the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chair, since the gentlewoman, my friend from Tennessee, 
remarked upon economic growth, let me, as one who was here at the time, 
perhaps correct the Record.
  Bill Clinton's economic growth was higher than Ron Reagan's, and that 
is not in dispute. Barack Obama's economic growth was higher than 
George W. Bush's. We were losing 800,000 jobs a month at the end of the 
Bush administration, to bring up one point, which, by the way, is 
closer to 2.1 percent.
  People here know I follow these issues like a hawk, but the truth is 
that this budget today that is being put forward is a threat to 
Medicare and Social Security down the road.
  The previous speaker said he is concerned about mandatory spending. I 
gotcha. Put out a plan. Put out a plan on Social Security and Medicare. 
And don't do it in the backdoor way here as they complain about 
deficits and they prepare to embrace a tax cut of $1.5 trillion or, 
over 10 years, $2.2 trillion on top of the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 
2003 which amounted to $2.3 trillion. So we are at $5 trillion worth of 
tax cuts, and the Clinton administration left us with four balanced 
budgets and $5 trillion worth of surplus.
  This is not a budget that supports meaningful tax reform. I am ready, 
and she knows because of our working together in the past, prepared to 
work with Republicans on fundamental tax reform. The system is begging 
for it.
  Don't call tax reform tax reform when it is really a tax cut. And 
that is where this is headed, and I think they know that as well.
  This is a partisan roadmap that has failed in the past. They are 
using reconciliation instruction so that the majority can ram through a 
tax plan here. That is all it is about.
  Last night, by the way, the tradeoff is in some States you can keep 
the

[[Page 15552]]

mortgage interest deduction if you are willing to give up the State and 
local tax deduction.
  I want to tell you something, I guarantee you right now, based on 
long history, we will end up keeping both, and they will have to add 
more to the debt as time goes on.
  Is this a cut for the wealthy? Eighty percent of the tax cut goes to 
the top 1 percent in 2027.

                              {time}  1445

  This is from the Tax Policy Center in Washington. Incidentally, how 
great is it to have a nonpartisan scoring committee offer us a snapshot 
of the future?
  The average tax cut for millionaires, $230,000 a year in 2027. The 
average tax cut for the top one-tenth of 1 percent is $1 million in the 
year 2027.
  The people in this country who need tax relief are the middle class. 
We should be investing in human capital, community colleges; we should 
be investing in vocational education.
  So 45 percent of all households with children will see a tax increase 
in 2027. Among households earning between $50,000 and $150,000, you are 
going to see a one-third tax increase in 2027.
  I look at this and say: Why are we not offering some relief to middle 
class Americans? Why are we not investing in them? Do we not have 
enough faith in them to help them get through what have been difficult 
times with children in college and costs mounting all of the time?
  Instead, it is back to tax relief for people at the very top. I guess 
concentrated wealth in America now is not a big issue. I guess the top 
1 percent in America who, by the way, aren't even asking for tax 
relief--that is the irony of this. They are not asking for tax relief. 
They are arguing for more investment in America rather than 
concentrating more money in fewer hands.
  The American people deserve a Tax Code that is based on fairness. Our 
code should reward hardworking, middle class families, small business, 
innovation, and ensure that no one, no matter how wealthy they are, can 
avoid paying their fair share.
  Our focus is going to be on helping the middle class, creating jobs, 
boosting wages, and giving people the assistance they need in a 
complicated economy with their grocery bills and childcare as well. 
Invest in human capital today.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), a member of our committee.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, it kind of blows my mind. You look 
at the sign that was just displayed by our colleague; it says that the 
Republican budget is a bad deal for working Americans.
  Well, I don't know what Americans you folks are talking to, but the 
middle class Americans that I talk to, they want an economic growing, 
job creating, tax cutting budget and tax relief effort. That is what 
they want out of the House. That is what the Republican plan is 
bringing.
  We not only rebuild our military, but we do something that has not 
been done in years. We begin to get into that mandatory spending and 
the out-of-control spending that we have here in our Nation's Capitol.
  Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that the biggest 
threat to our national security is our national debt. How are we ever 
going to do that if we don't begin to address mandatory spending?
  Mr. Chair, we have brought a good budget, a responsible budget, one 
that balances in 10 years to the floor. We need to get every colleague 
in this Chamber to get behind it because it is good for working 
Americans, it is good for working families, and it is the responsible 
thing to do.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to note for my colleague that, by voting for this budget, he 
will force 2,154,337 seniors, disabled individuals, and other seriously 
ill people in Ohio to pay more for lifesaving Medicare all so that the 
wealthiest person in his State, who has a net worth of $6.2 billion, 
can get a massive tax cut.
  And just in case my colleagues on the other side are wondering where 
this information comes from as to the wealthiest person in each State, 
it is from that notoriously leftwing magazine, Forbes, this year.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Higgins), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee and the Ways 
and Means Committee.
  Mr. HIGGINS of New York. Mr. Chairman, any budget requires an 
examination of how and who pays for it and how that budget impacts the 
economy.
  We were told by President Trump and Treasury Secretary Mnuchin that 
there would be no new tax cuts for the wealthy; and that this budget, 
and its blueprint, is a middle class miracle. That was last Wednesday.
  One week later, this Wednesday, the facts are in. If you make 
$730,000 in America, next year your income will rise by 8.5 percent, or 
$129,000, or $10,750 a month.
  If you make $67,000, your income will rise by 1.2 percent, or $670 
next year, or a whopping $56 a month. This is no miracle. This is fraud 
being perpetrated against the middle class.
  We are told that tax cuts pay for themselves through the magic of 
dynamic scoring. Their budget will increase the deficit by $2.5 
trillion over 10 years. Where are all the deficit hawks? Where are any 
of the deficit hawks?
  Goldman alumnus Mnuchin and Gary Cohn, the National Economic Adviser, 
said that this bill will grow the economy. Goldman economists said that 
their budget will have no good impact in terms of growth in the Federal 
budget over the next several years.
  Finally, infrastructure. The infrastructure budget for America, a 
nation of 300 million people, for the next 10 years is about the same 
as we spent rebuilding the roads and bridges of Iraq and Afghanistan 
over the last 10 years. This is unacceptable. We can do much better.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairwoman for her work on this 
incredible budget that we are talking about here today.
  I rise today in support of the FY18 budget entitled ``Building a 
Better America.'' Never has a budget had a more fitting title. The 
budget set forth by the House Budget Committee will balance the budget 
within 10 years, provide our military with the resources they need for 
national defense, and cut more than $200 billion in mandatory spending.
  Picture this: $6.5 trillion in total deficit reduction over 10 years. 
On that fact alone, I would hope my colleagues would support this 
legislation.
  This budget also paves the way for the recently released Unified 
Framework for Fixing Our Broken Tax Code.
  On a telephone townhall with thousands of constituents on the phone 
from my district, 53 percent of participants reported that their most 
important priority for tax reform is a simpler, fairer Tax Code. The 
framework does just that and more.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the budget, to reduce the 
deficit, and take a huge step toward progrowth tax reform that will 
increase paychecks, spur economic growth, and make our Tax Code simple, 
affordable, and competitive.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chair, I would like to note for my colleague that, 
by voting for this budget, he is jeopardizing meals and food assistance 
for 809,000 hungry children in Georgia so that the wealthiest person in 
his State, who has a net worth of $12.6 billion, can get a massive tax 
cut.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer), the Democratic whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the Budget Act, adopted in 1974, requires 
that the House complete work on its budget for the next fiscal year by 
April 15. That is 172 days ago.
  Yet we now have a budget resolution on the floor, already into the 
fiscal year for which the budget supposedly is planned. Some may ask 
why. The answer is a simple one.
  This is, first of all, not a realistic budget which could or should 
stand as

[[Page 15553]]

a budget resolution. No, this budget is not about putting our country 
on a sustainable fiscal path, and--this is indisputable--it is not a 
budget to inform the appropriators of budget priorities and 
constraints.
  No, the Appropriations Committee will not be informed. Why? Because 
we have already passed the appropriations bills. This budget doesn't 
have anything to do with the appropriation bills. They are passed. they 
are gone. They are in the Senate.
  This is merely a vehicle for achieving partisan tax reform of the 
kind that President Trump and Republican leaders in Congress outlined 
last week. Despite what this sham of a budget pretends, their plan is 
to push through tax changes that massively increase deficits--I call it 
the granddaddy of all debt increases--while shifting even more wealth 
from middle class and working families to people like Donald Trump.
  According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, 80 percent of the tax 
cuts in this proposal would go only to those who make over $900,000 a 
year. Hear me. The tax cuts mainly go to those making, in this Nation, 
over $900,000 per year.
  Despite promises from President Trump and Republicans here in the 
House, their plan actually raises taxes--hear me--while cutting taxes 
on those over $900,000, it actually raises taxes on 1 in 3 middle class 
families who earn between $50,000 and $150,000.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. YARMUTH. I yield the gentleman from Maryland an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. HOYER. Even though Republicans continue to assert the discredited 
supply-side mantra that tax cuts pay for themselves, no responsible 
economist believes that, not one--responsible is the operative word. 
The Tax Policy Center's analysis found that their tax cuts would add 
$2.4 trillion to deficits over the next 10 years.
  The previous speaker said this balances the budget in 9 years. That 
is Alice in Wonderland balance. It will never happen. I have been here 
for 36 years; I have heard those comments all the time. It never 
happened.
  But it is even worse, Mr. Chairman. The budget resolution also 
proposes to disinvest in job creation, pretends Republicans were able 
to repeal the Affordable Care Act--it hasn't been repealed, yet they 
pretend it has been repealed--to kick 23 million off their coverage and 
make those with preexisting conditions uninsurable.
  It guts Medicaid and would end the Medicaid guarantee.
  Furthermore, it would severely cut programs that reduce poverty and 
provide the kind of job training proven to get more people back into 
the workforce.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. YARMUTH. I yield the gentleman from Maryland an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. HOYER. This resolution is a grab bag of all the worst Republican 
policies: partisan tax cuts for the wealthy that leave the middle class 
behind, the cruelty of TrumpCare, and draconian reductions in domestic 
investment. The product is just as bad as the sum of its parts; indeed, 
it is worse.
  Instead, we ought to be working together to enact bipartisan tax 
reform that is fiscally responsible and focused on the middle class.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this resolution, and I ask 
Republicans, who believe that tax reform must be permanent and, 
therefore, bipartisan, to join us in doing so.
  Only one person can stop spending; that is the President of the 
United States. He can veto spending bills.
  The debt under Ronald Reagan increased 189 percent. Under Bush I, 55 
percent; he had 4 years. Under Clinton, 37 percent; under Bush II, 86 
percent; and under Obama, who was dealing with the deepest recession of 
our lifetimes, 87 percent.
  A budget is supposed to inform the Appropriations Committee of how it 
ought to proceed. This budget comes after the fact, and it is only for 
tax cuts for the wealthy.

                              {time}  1500

  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to remind my colleagues on the other side that 
we are talking about the budget. We are not talking about tax reform. 
We are going to have an opportunity to talk about that later.
  Our budget does not assume that tax cuts pay for themselves, and our 
budget does not reflect that claim. Our budget includes a host of pro-
growth economic policies, including comprehensive tax reform, as one of 
those, but regulatory reform; a reform in the improper payments; 
restoration of incentives for people to work and save and invest.
  Most economists believe that this bundle of pro-growth tax policies 
will lead to a stronger economy than what we have under the current 
law. But we are talking about the budget here. So I would like for my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to speak about the budget, 
and we will talk about tax reform at another time.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas 
(Mr. Westerman), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the budget 
resolution, and I commend Chairwoman Black on her leadership and 
tireless efforts.
  Much has been said about our $20 trillion debt, and I would like to 
add that we know that that debt can only be paid back with tax dollars 
that will be extracted from future taxpayers.
  We debated and passed 12 appropriations bills in this Chamber. As 
heated as those debates were, they were on less than one-third of 
Federal spending. To attack our debt, we have to attack mandatory 
spending. This budget does that.
  As I traveled around my district and talked to people in my district, 
I have been pleased to hear that business is good. Businesses want to 
grow, and they want to expand. But I have not been pleased when they 
told me that they cannot find employees. So I went back and looked at 
data. Arkansas has our lowest unemployment rate ever right now, but we 
have also got the lowest labor participation rate.
  In the years from 2008 to 2016, we saw a 5.7 percent population 
growth. We saw a decrease in unemployment from 6 percent down to 4 
percent, or 5\1/2\ down to 4 percent, but we had fewer people actually 
working in 2016 than we had in 2008. We had a decrease of 0.8 percent 
of people working and a decrease of 2.4 percent of people in the labor 
force during that time period.
  We have to put plans and programs in place to get our economy 
growing. We have to get more people back to work. During that same 
time, we saw an increase in SNAP benefits. We saw 330,000 people, or 
over 14 percent of our State's population of able-bodied, working-age 
adults, getting their health insurance through Medicaid expansion.
  We need to focus on addressing our budget woes. We need an economy 
that is growing and a labor force that is working. We need a military 
that is strong. We have to address the 70 percent component of spending 
that is driving our debt. This budget is the first step in achieving 
those results, and I urge everyone to vote for this budget.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I would note for my colleague that by 
voting for this budget, he will force 594,596 seniors, disabled 
individuals, and other seriously ill people in Arkansas to pay more for 
lifesaving Medicare all so that the wealthiest person in his State, who 
has a net worth of $38.5 billion, can get a massive tax cut.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Lee), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee and the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to thank the gentleman for 
yielding and for his leadership as our ranking member on our Budget 
Committee.
  I rise in strong opposition to the Republican's so-called budget 
plan. I am a member, yes, of the Budget Committee and the 
Appropriations Committee, and I know, because we work on this

[[Page 15554]]

each and every day, that our national budget is a statement of our 
national priorities and our values. I know very well that the 
Republicans have put forward, quite frankly, a sinister budget whose 
chief purpose is to hand tax breaks to billionaires.
  Budgets are moral documents. They should not be rigged in favor of 
special interests and the wealthy few, but the Republican budget is. 
Our Nation's budget should prioritize working families and the middle 
class, too many of whom are making low wages and living below the 
poverty line.
  It should assist those struggling to find a job and investment in 
workforce training, education, job creation, and job training. Instead, 
this Republican budget creates tax cuts for billionaire, millionaires, 
and corporations.
  Our budget should expand to protect healthcare for all. Instead, this 
budget steals nearly $2 trillion from lifesaving Medicaid and Medicare.
  Our budget should also invest in our crumbling infrastructure, which, 
of course, creates jobs. But the Republican budget cuts funding for our 
roads, our bridges, and our railways.
  Finally, with nearly 40 million Americans living in poverty, our 
Nation's budget should contain a serious and effective strategy to end 
poverty, especially for communities of color and rural communities who 
have higher poverty rates.
  The House Republican budget does not do this. In fact, it slashes 
programs that help create good-paying jobs for struggling families by 
$5.4 trillion. No family in America should be forced to go hungry. Yet, 
because wages are so low across this country, millions of families now 
rely on nutrition and food assistance. Yet this budget cuts $150 
billion from SNAP, food assistance, and nutrition assistance, which 
will create more poverty for people who are working. It doesn't make 
any sense. It is fundamentally immoral.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Collins of Georgia). The time of the 
gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chair, once again, Republicans are determined to balance 
their budget on the backs of the most vulnerable; to hand tax breaks to 
millionaires, and billionaires, and corporations; and slush funds for 
Pentagon contractors.
  This budget is cruel and unusual punishment for those who are not 
rich. I urge my colleagues to reject this un-American, heartless 
budget, and to vote ``no.''
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), a member of our Budget Committee.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chair, I would say to my colleague from Kentucky, I 
think the rhetorical device that he is using at the end of each speaker 
is very effective and it is persuasive. But I would challenge him with 
this: I think one of the things that we have got to struggle with as a 
body, both Republicans and Democrats alike, is not being selective on 
the issue of the deficits. What we can't say is deficits are okay if it 
involves more spending for all of us as a body to distribute as we see 
fit, but deficits are not okay if they involve a tax cut and sending 
money back to individuals within each of our communities.
  It is for that reason, again, I have voiced my concerns with regard 
to some of the components of this budget. But I think that the big 
issue for me is, simply, we cannot continue to spend as we are and have 
the ship of America sail forward.
  It was Erskine Bowles who was the Democratic Chief of Staff to former 
President Clinton who observed: ``We are walking our way toward the 
most predictable financial crisis in the history of man if we don't get 
our arms around spending.''
  So, for me, while not perfect--and I certainly cede that point--I 
think the building blocks of what this budget is trying to get toward 
is a sustainable economy.
  How do you have a sustainable economy?
  Many of the things that my Democratic colleagues have talked about in 
terms of education, workforce development, those things. But it is also 
about the foundation of: Is our spending sustainable?
  You can't go on spending more than you take in forever without having 
bad things happen at the individual level, at the corporate level, and 
certainly at the governmental level.
  I think it is about: Is our tax load sustainable?
  Spending drives tax loads, which is interesting. I pulled a chart 
that shows for the first 100 years of our country's existence, we spent 
about 3 percent of GDP. It bumped up after World War II. We are now 
roughly around 20 percent, and we are on our way to 30 percent.
  The question we have to ask in this budget or any other budget like 
it is: Can we continue to do this without going to the exact spot that 
Erskine Bowles was talking about?
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SANFORD. Finally, I would simply make this point: Not only can 
you only squeeze but so much blood from a turnip--and there are 
certainly limits that have shown themselves, which is around 18 or 20 
percent of GDP, regardless of tax rate, up, down; there is that--but 
there is also this: You can pay me now, or you can pay me later in 
life.
  A deficit is simply a deferred tax. A debt is simply an accumulation 
of deferred taxes. One of the things, again, we have to get our arms 
around is that we are stacking up deferred taxes. We are stacking up an 
accumulation of taxes with debt and deficits. This budget, I think, 
begins to nudge us in the right direction in doing something about it.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of my colleague 
from South Carolina, and I certainly have a great deal of respect for 
his thoughtfulness. But I also must note that if he votes for this 
budget, he is jeopardizing meals and food assistance for 366,000 hungry 
children in South Carolina so that the wealthiest person in his State, 
who has a net worth of $3 billion, can get a massive tax cut.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott), the ranking member of the Education and the Workforce 
Committee.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Republican budget resolution and its intent to fast-track tax cuts to 
the wealthiest Americans and corporations. This resolution, first of 
all, is not serious. It assumes $800 billion in savings from the repeal 
of the Affordable Care Act, which we know will not happen. We have the 
Treasury Secretary being quoted as saying that ``massive tax cuts will 
actually reduce the deficit. . . .''
  Well, we know how that works. You cut taxes for the wealthy and say 
they are going to pay for themselves. When that doesn't work and the 
deficit explodes, you come back and demand massive tax and massive cuts 
in Medicare, Social Security, and education.
  Anyway, the Republican budget resolution, even if it did add up, 
makes the wrong choices for America. By calling for trillions of 
dollars in spending reductions, the Republican budget undermines 
America's investments in infrastructure, the environment, scientific 
research, and much more.
  I wanted to use my limited time to focus on its harmful impacts on 
the jurisdiction of the Education and the Workforce Committee, where I 
serve as the Democratic ranking member. Under the Republican budget 
resolution, children in need of a healthy school meal, students in 
pursuit of an affordable college education, and workers in search of 
skills and training to get a better job all take the back seat to tax 
cuts to the wealthiest Americans and corporations.
  In education, the budget harms students and families by undermining 
our Nation's education system, and instructs the House Education and 
the Workforce Committee to eliminate $20 billion in investments in 
higher education by providing less funding for Pell grants and student 
loans.

[[Page 15555]]

  In terms of other instructions, it instructs the Department of Labor 
to reduce funding designed to provide job training, protect workers 
from wage theft, and ensure that there is a sufficient number of 
inspectors to make sure that workers can come home safely from their 
jobs.
  The budget also threatens child nutrition programs. In fact, during 
the Budget Committee's hearings, it was made clear that child nutrition 
programs are a target for savings to pay for tax cuts.
  Today, almost 10 million children and 20,000 schools have access to 
universal, healthy school meals, where children are served nutritious 
meals without the stigma or need for paperwork. Cutting investments in 
programs to ensure that children have healthy school meals to partially 
fund tax cuts shouldn't be our Nation's goal.
  Mr. Chairman, the Federal budget is a statement of our values. Unlike 
other Democratic substitutes that responsibly strengthen our economy 
and expand opportunity for all Americans, the Republican budget 
undermines priorities in which students, workers, and their families 
take a hit, and lays the groundwork for a return to a regressive 
framework benefiting a wealthy few.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting the 
Republican budget resolution.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Roskam), who is the chairman of the Tax Policy 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairwoman Black for yielding.
  Imagine what our opinion would be of a movie review where the 
reviewer simply looked at a movie poster and then wrote the review and 
came to a conclusion that they didn't like the movie. They didn't 
listen to the music. They didn't see the direction. They didn't see the 
pacing. They didn't see the acting. They didn't see the script. They 
didn't see the cinematography. They saw nothing other than a movie 
poster and they came to a conclusion.
  We would dismiss that and we would say: How ridiculous. How absurd.
  Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what the Tax Policy Center did this 
past week. They wrote a review of a proposal as it relates to tax 
reform, and they didn't have the details.
  Why didn't they have the details?
  Because many of these details don't exist.

                              {time}  1515

  Specifically, they wrote a review which was very pejorative, which 
the Wall Street Journal completely trashed. They made this finding, and 
they had no notion of what the income brackets are like in our proposed 
tax reform plan. They had no notion about the anti-abuse rules that the 
Ways and Means Committee is working through to make sure there is not 
an abusive situation as it relates to pass-through entities. They had 
no notion about some of the offshore protections that are being 
contemplated.
  Let's avoid the hyperbole. Let's avoid the hackneyed, old, tired, and 
faded bumper sticker that says that any kind of pro-growth tax reform 
is a sop to the rich. It is complete nonsense.
  I think the proof will be in a tax reform proposal that this House 
hopefully will be considering in the coming weeks and months that will 
bring buoyancy, optimism, and a real opportunity for us to take 
advantage of a once-in-a-generation opportunity for a Tax Code that 
nobody can defend and nobody likes. But let's get real and evaluate 
real numbers and not just look at posters and bumper stickers.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chair, I would note for my colleague from Illinois 
that, by voting for this budget, he will force 2,066,376 seniors, 
disabled individuals, and other seriously ill people in Illinois to pay 
more for lifesaving Medicare, all so that the wealthiest person in his 
State, who has a net worth of $8 billion, can get a massive tax cut.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Lowey), who is the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, I thank Ranking Member Yarmuth for the time to 
speak in opposition to the Republican budget.
  As ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, I am really 
perplexed as to why the majority continues their assault on American 
excellence, following President Trump's lead and divesting from 
investments in American global leadership, science, and infrastructure.
  This budget would cut $5 billion for domestic and international 
investments, while violating the Budget Control Act for defense 
spending and triggering a $72 billion sequester of all defense 
accounts.
  My Republican colleagues might argue that slashing nondefense 
investments is necessary to reduce the debt, but this is a false 
choice. Why would the Republican majority give tax cuts to the very 
wealthiest if it means this country has to take a backseat to China in 
research and development or let our own workforce go without the 
training to fill 21st century jobs?
  We know there is a role for government where the private sector has 
left voids. Many in the private sector believe we should be investing 
more in basic research, STEM programs, and public transportation. This 
budget and the appropriations bills that enact this budget have fallen 
short in these areas.
  Given the budget is 6 months late and the appropriations process has 
actually moved before the budget, we do not have to guess the 
implications of the budget. We have seen what the Republicans would do 
under these draconian levels.
  Just look, Mr. Chairman, at the Labor, Health, and Education bill 
that passed the House last month. That bill eliminated entire job 
training programs like apprenticeship grants, cut the Pell grant 
surplus, and eliminated Supporting Effective Instruction State grants, 
a $2 billion investment that reduces class sizes and improves classroom 
instruction. This cut would cost 8,500 teachers their jobs.
  The transportation spending bill eliminated the Department of 
Transportation's major infrastructure grant program, TIGER, a direct 
contradiction to the President's promise to improve our Nation's 
infrastructure and which Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao confirms 
``funds innovative projects that improve the safety of America's 
passengers and goods.''
  Mr. Chairman, we can and should--we must--do better than this. I urge 
a ``no'' vote on the Republican budget.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Arrington), a member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Chairman, for too long Congress has been allowed 
to play by a different set of rules than the American people in regard 
to how we budget. No one lives in a world where there is seemingly an 
endless supply of money, that is, until you enter the fantasy world of 
Washington, D.C.
  However, hardworking American families, businessmen, and 
businesswomen live in the real world. They have to budget. They have to 
prioritize and make trade-off decisions: wants versus needs, what is 
good and what is essential. The bottom line, they have to live within 
their means.
  But, apparently, our government has been exempt from such basic 
principles of fiscal responsibility under which we the people must 
live. The prevailing budget philosophy over the years among our 
representative leaders has been as follows: as long as we can borrow 
it, you can bet your bottom dollar we can spend it. And spend it they 
have.
  This borrowing-and-spending delusion has left us on the brink of 
bankruptcy. We are $20 trillion in debt, which puts our country in the 
worst debt position in the history of America, and this with the sacred 
constitutional charge to secure liberty for our posterity. That means 
give freedom to our children.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no freedom with this level of debt. If we 
don't do something about this looming debt crisis and stay on our 
current spending trajectory, in less than 10 years, we will be at $30 
trillion in debt. We will have $1 trillion in annual deficit. We will 
be spending more--get this--on our interest on the debt we owe than on 
national defense.

[[Page 15556]]

  Mr. Chairman, enough is enough. I rise in support of this budget, a 
budget that begins to rein in this reckless spending, a budget that 
funds our national priorities and our core responsibilities and 
initiates a historic opportunity for tax relief for middle and working 
class families.
  Let's stop spending our children's future and stop pretending that 
they won't inherit a disaster as a result. Let's live in the same 
reality as every other American. Let's focus on our main mission as a 
limited Federal Government by rebuilding our military, by maintaining 
our infrastructure, and by securing our food supply so we can maintain 
the ability to feed our own people.
  Let's unleash our job creators from the highest tax burden in the 
free world. Let's allow our families and individuals to keep more of 
their hard-earned money, and let's hand this country safer, stronger, 
and freer than we found it.
  Mr. Chairman, let's pass this budget.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to note for my colleague 
that, by voting for this budget, he is jeopardizing meals and food 
assistance for 2,060,000 hungry children in Texas so that the 
wealthiest person in his State, who has a net worth of $38.2 billion, 
can get a massive tax cut.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee), who is a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend, my fellow 
alum, for his leadership. I recognize and thank the chairwoman of the 
committee.
  To my good friend that was on the floor, I think he wants limited 
government when disaster is not in his district.
  So I think it is important as a member of this Budget Committee of 
which I am so very proud of its service, as the Democrats have worked 
so hard, and as a member of the Homeland Security Committee, a 
committee called upon for domestic tranquility and domestic security, 
might I just add that we are now marking up a bill just a few floors 
away from this House that is asking for $15 billion to pay for a border 
wall in the midst of the horror of tragedy and in the midst of a 
lowering number of individuals even coming to the United States across 
the border, the very border wall that was told to us would be paid for 
by the people of Mexico.
  But I think the important point is that my good friends who are 
supporting this dastardly budget that tears at the fabric of America 
are, as well, supporting a tax cut for the wealthy that will provide 
$2.9 trillion of debt to the American people and increase the debt as 
well as the deficit. It will mean that working and middle class 
families will have taxes raised on them by $470 billion. We will see 
the heavy brunt of this budget on low-income families, students 
struggling to afford college, seniors, and persons with disabilities.
  Just a few hours ago, I said the American people do not need to have 
the government step on them; and I can assure you, with this budget, 
which cuts more than $1.5 trillion from Medicaid and Medicare, we will 
step on the American people.
  We will end the Medicare guarantee, and it will narrowly shortchange 
soft power by cutting and decimating the State Department, the very 
partner that we need to continue the security of the American people, 
raising defense, of whom I support all of our military. Texas is a 
military State. But it is $72 billion above cap, and that is not giving 
our military personnel their due. It is going above the needs of the 
military.
  We need to be prepared, but this skinny budget will undermine 
education and the workforce at $326 billion, energy and commerce at 
$1.56 billion, homeland security by $25 billion, justice and the needs 
of civil justice by $67 billion, and veterans by $49 billion.
  It will cut the Community Development Block Grant, and it will hurt 
Virgin Islands U.S. citizens, Puerto Rico U.S. citizens, and Texas, 
that is still struggling.
  Before I came to this floor, I was engaging with my State about more 
disaster food stamp sites because I have people who are unhoused in the 
18th Congressional District, who are needing the resources.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have individuals who our wonderful 
first responders had to drag out of the raging waters in Hurricane 
Harvey. I have homes that were underwater that need disaster relief. I 
have individuals who are walking along highways like oceans, and then I 
have children who are with families who do not have jobs because of 
Hurricane Harvey, who need the Children's Health Insurance Program or 
need the disaster food stamps.
  This is a budget that steps on the American people. It steps on our 
disaster relief, and it does not recognize what the United States 
Government is. It is a refuge and a relief for the American people.
  Vote ``no'' on the Republican budget.
  Mr. Chair, as a member of the Budget Committee, a senior member of 
the Homeland Security Committee, the Ranking Member of the Judiciary 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and 
Investigations, and the proud representative of the 700,000 residents 
of 18th Congressional District of Texas who are still coping with the 
devastation caused by Hurricane Harvey, I rise in strong and unyielding 
opposition to H. Con. Res. 71, the Congressional Budget Resolution for 
Fiscal Year 2018.
  Why do I urge every Member of this House to vote against this 
Republican budget resolution, laughingly called the ``Building a Better 
America Budget,'' but which more accurately should be named the 
``Nightmare on Capitol Hill Budget''?
  Let us count the ways; here are eight to start.
  1. Republican budget mandates $5.4 trillion in spending cuts to top 
priorities like disaster relief, education, infrastructure, research, 
veteran benefits, and programs that expand opportunities for American 
families.
  2. Republican budget provides $2.9 trillion in tax cuts to 
millionaires, billionaires, and wealthy corporations, while raising 
taxes on working and middle class families by $470 billion.
  3. The budget includes fast-track reconciliation procedures to push 
through cuts to programs that tens of millions of Americans count on 
totaling $203 billion across 11 House committees.
  4. The steep reductions in program investments proposed in this 
Republican budget fall most heavily on low-income families, students 
struggling to afford college, seniors, and persons with disabilities.
  5. Republican budget immediately guts investment critical to 
expanding economic opportunity by lowering the already inadequate 
austerity-level spending caps by an additional $5 billion in 2018 and 
by even more in subsequent years.
  6. Republican budget adopts Trumpcare but does even more damage 
because in addition to depriving more than 20 million Americans of 
healthcare, denying protection to persons with preexisting conditions, 
and raising costs for older and low-income adults, cuts more than $1.5 
trillion from Medicaid and Medicare.
  7. Republican budget ends the Medicare guarantee and calls for 
replacing Medicare's guaranteed benefits with fixed payments for the 
purchase of health insurance, shifting costs and financial risks onto 
seniors and disabled workers; this represents a $500 billion cut to 
Medicare over ten years.
  8. The Republican budget focuses too narrowly on the military, 
shortchanging American soft-power and other essential elements of 
national security by increasing defense spending by $72 billion above 
the cap and hollowing out the State Department and foreign aid agencies 
with cuts of $11 billion and environmental and natural resource 
protection by more than $6 billion.
  Mr. Chair, the federal budget is more than a financial document; it 
is an expression of our values and priorities as a nation.
  Sadly, this Republican budget, just like the President's ``skinny 
budget'' fails this moral test of government.
  America will not be made great by stealing another $1.5 trillion from 
Medicare and Medicaid, abandoning seniors and families in need, 
depriving students of realizing a dream to attend college without 
drowning in debt, or disinvesting in the working families just to give 
unwanted tax breaks to wealthy corporations and the top 1 percent.

[[Page 15557]]

  America will not be positioned to compete and win in the global, 
interconnected, and digital economy by slashing funding for scientific 
research, the arts and humanities, job retraining, and clean energy.
  Even a cursory review leaves the inescapable conclusion that this 
budget represents a betrayal--of our values as a nation, and of the 
promises made by the President during the election campaign.
  This Republican budget is not a budget for the real world that real 
Americans live in but is as much a fantasy budget as the Trump ``Skinny 
Budget'' in that it pretends to achieve balance by assuming that 
painless spending cuts can and will be made by the following standing 
committees of Congress in the following amounts:
  1. Agriculture Committee: cut $207 billion
  2. Armed Services Committee: cut $33 billion
  3. Education and Workforce Committee: $326 billion
  4. Energy and Commerce Committee: $1.656 trillion
  5. Financial Services Committee: cut $124 billion
  6. Homeland Security Committee: cut $25 billion
  7. Judiciary Committee: cut $67 billion
  8. Natural Resources Committee: cut $59 billion
  9. Oversight and Government Reform Committee: cut $282 billion
  10. Transportation and Infrastructure Committee: cut $3 billion
  11. Veterans Affairs Committee: cut $49 billion
  12. Ways and Means Committee: cut $800 billion
  13. Unassigned (i.e., Intelligence; Foreign Affairs; Small Business; 
Science, Space, and Technology Committees: cut $747 billion
  14. Total Cuts: $4.38 trillion
  To put these reckless, irresponsible, and draconian budget cuts in 
perspective, it is useful to examine what they mean when applied to the 
programs depended upon by Americans to rise up the economic ladder, 
plan for the future, provide for their families, and strive to achieve 
the American Dream.
  The elimination of funding for Community Development Block Grants 
(CDBG) drains resources from communities, even in times of disaster 
because CDBG provides flexible grants to local communities for a wide 
range of unique needs, including Meals on Wheels, housing programs, and 
community infrastructure improvements.
  The Republican budget targets disaster grants made by the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, which help families and businesses when 
their disaster-related property losses are not covered by insurance.
  The Republican budget makes higher education more expensive by 
cutting $211 billion from student financial aid programs, like Pell 
Grants, over ten years.
  The Republican budget also eliminates subsidized loans, making it 
difficult for students, particularly low-income students, to afford 
college and compounds the damage by making it more difficult to repay 
student loans by eliminating the Public Sector Loan Forgiveness and 
Teacher Loan Forgiveness programs.
  The Republican budget's solution to the affordable housing crisis 
currently facing cities large and small all across the country is to 
convert all discretionary spending on affordable housing into a block 
grant, which means there will be even less assistance to help the 71 
percent of extremely low income renter households who spend more than 
half their income on housing.
  The Republican budget cuts $154 billion from the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) over the next ten years by 
essentially converting it to a block grant, cutting off funding for 
eligible individuals and requiring cash-strapped states to either fill 
in the gap or take away food assistance from millions of working 
families, children, and seniors.
  Mr. Chair, as economists and policy experts have documented time and 
again, immigration reform would expand the size of the U.S. workforce, 
and in turn would increase the size of the economy and reduce deficits.
  The Republican budget, however, again rejects comprehensive 
immigration reform that would bring clear and just rules for those 
seeking citizenship and help secure the nation's borders.
  In doing so, the Republican budget squanders an opportunity to reduce 
deficits by an estimated $900 billion over the next two decades, boost 
the economy by 5.4 percent, and extend the solvency of Social Security.
  Mr. Chair, none of us can forget the President's favorite boast and 
central campaign promise that he would build a wall on our southern 
border and guarantee that Mexico would be made to pay for it.
  The Republican budget deprives the President of the opportunity to 
make good on his foolish boast by forcing American taxpayers to foot 
the bill for President Trump's $1.6 billion border wall that will do 
nothing to stop unauthorized entry into the country and will not fix 
our broken immigration system.
  The Republican budget continues to target federal employees by 
cutting their compensation and benefits by at least another $163 
billion over ten years, which comes on top of the $182 billion in cuts 
federal employees have already absorbed in the form of higher 
retirement contributions, pay freezes, and furloughs.
  The Republican budget puts U.S. transportation network on the road to 
ruin by slashing transportation spending, by $254 billion over ten 
years, or 25 percent below current estimates.
  The Republican budget cuts hurts veterans by cutting veterans 
benefits by nearly $50 billion over the next ten years, with newly 
eligible veterans experiencing cuts in programs that pay for education 
benefits as well as loan guarantees.
  Finally, Mr. Chair, it must be pointed out that the Republican 
budget's pretension to balance is based on reliance on trillions of 
dollars in budget games and gimmicks to rig the numbers.
  The Republican budget counts a dubious $1.8 trillion ``economic 
dividend'' from cutting taxes and taking away consumer protections that 
is not backed up by any credible analysis and assumes $1.5 trillion of 
this ``dividend'' will go toward deficit reduction.
  The Republican budget assumes, despite all precedent and evidence to 
the contrary, that tax reform will be revenue neutral, even though 
Republican tax plans are projected to lose between $3 trillion and $7 
trillion.
  Given these budgetary shenanigans, never could it more truly be said 
that ``figures don't lie, but liars figure.''
  As the late and great former senator and Vice-President Hubert 
Humphrey said:

       The moral test of government is how that government treats 
     those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who 
     are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are 
     in shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped.

  It is for this reason that in evaluating the merits of a budget 
resolution, it is not enough to subject it only to the test of fiscal 
responsibility.
  To keep faith with the nation's past, to be fair to the nation's 
present, and to safeguard the nation's future, the budget must also 
pass a ``moral test.''
  The Republican budget resolution fails both of these standards.
  Because the American people deserve to know exactly what ills 
Republicans have in store for them, I strongly oppose H. Con. Res. 71 
and urge all Members to join me in voting against this reckless, cruel, 
and heartless measure that will do nothing to improve the lives or 
well-being of middle and working class families.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bergman), who is a member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. BERGMAN. Mr. Chairman, it has been an honor to work with the 
chairman of the Budget Committee as a new Member of Congress because it 
is such a learning curve to understand the challenges that we have in 
our country in so many ways, but especially on the fiscal side of 
things.
  I would like to spend my time talking to my grandchildren right now. 
I am talking to your grandchildren as well.
  In the last 48 hours, I have had an opportunity--it was more of a 
responsibility--to chat with my grandchildren about the horrific events 
that occurred in Las Vegas. When you are 8 or 16, you assimilate those 
things in different ways. I talk to them a lot about responsibility for 
behavior, responsibility for money, and responsibility for their own 
lifestyles.
  I talked to them today to say that we are not going to put you into 
the debt hole caused by the spending that has occurred over the last 
decades in this country. We are not going to pass that along to you, 
because the hole is only getting deeper and more extensive, and we are 
passing it along to those next generations. Not only is it not right, 
it is morally wrong and absolutely irresponsible.
  We have to ask ourselves the questions: If not now, then when do we 
begin to bend the spending curve? If we don't do it, then who will?
  We know that mandatory spending within our grandchildren's lifetime

[[Page 15558]]

will eclipse almost, if not, 100 percent of the Federal budget. That 
means no money for research, for medical, for education, and for all of 
those discretionary dollars that are so wisely spent.
  We have to begin to bend the spending curve now, and that means cuts 
in mandatory spending, while responsibly using the other dollars, the 
discretionary dollars, to advance good programs.

                              {time}  1530

  That takes discipline, that takes effort, that takes making tough 
decisions that are unpopular but necessary for the future of our 
country.
  Our Budget Committee wrestled long and hard to present what you are 
going to vote on, and I am proud of the fact that with the discourse 
and debate that we had over tough issues, in the end, the American 
people are taking a next first step forward towards fiscal 
responsibility that reflects the reality that we owe to our 
grandchildren, just like our parents and grandparents felt that they 
needed to do for us during the Great Depression and a couple of World 
Wars to make sure that we have a physically viable country. This budget 
is a next first step.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I would note for my colleague that, by 
voting for this budget, he will force 1,895,558 seniors, disabled 
individuals, and other seriously ill people in Michigan to pay more for 
lifesaving Medicare all so the wealthiest person in his State, who has 
a net worth of $5.9 billion, can get a massive tax cut.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Connolly), a distinguished member of the Oversight and Government 
Reform Committee and an alumnus of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, ugly is ugly.
  This is an ugly budget, and it exists primarily to be a vehicle for 
tax cuts for the already fortunate, the top 1 or 2 percent in America, 
at the expense of everybody else. It will hemorrhage red ink for as far 
as the eye can see.
  That is not a theory. That is what happened in the previous massive 
tax cuts, both under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
  Let me give you one example of the ruinous aspects of this budget, 
and it has to do with Federal employees.
  This budget cuts Federal employee compensation and benefits by 
another $163 billion over the next 10 years, $32 billion of which is 
included in reconciliation and instructions which I sought to strike 
with an amendment submitted to the Rules Committee that was not 
allowed.
  The Republican cuts include higher retirement contributions; 
elimination of the FERS supplement, which law enforcement retirees 
heavily benefit from; lower annuities by changing the retirement 
calculation and reduced healthcare benefits; a 10 percent reduction in 
the Federal workforce at nonsecurity agencies, even though nearly all 
of the workforce increases, since 2001, occurred in security-related 
agencies.
  The Federal workforce provides vital services to our Nation. It 
includes those who patrol and secure our borders, protect us from 
terrorists, take care of our veterans, help run our airports, counter 
cybersecurity attacks, find cures for deadly diseases, and keep our 
food supply safe. Veterans make up 31 percent of those Federal 
employees.
  Federal employee pay and benefits are not the cause of this country's 
deficit and debt. The Federal workforce has already contributed nearly 
$200 billion toward reducing the country's deficit in the form of pay 
freezes, pay raises insufficient to keep pace with inflation, 
furloughs, and increased retirement contributions.
  We should honor and revere the service of our Federal workforce, not 
denigrate it with the attacks included in this ugly budget.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Womack), my dear friend.
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chair of the 
Budget Committee for a job well done.
  Mr. Chairman, I came to the floor today to weigh in on this budget 
debate.
  I find it incredible that my friends on the other side of the aisle 
seem to be in a state of denial on the fact that this country, the 
greatest on the planet, is $20 trillion in debt.
  These are the same people in opposition, Mr. Chairman, who will 
present a budget tomorrow that will add nearly $3 trillion in more 
taxes and more than $6 trillion in more spending. This debt is going to 
land squarely on the shoulders of our children, our grandchildren, 
and--let me just say it for the record--is so large that it is going to 
land on our grandchildren's grandchildren.
  When does this insanity stop?
  There is not an easy way out of the mess. This budget puts us on a 
path to fiscal sanity. It targets Federal spending that is outside the 
purview of the Appropriations Committee.
  The budget ensures a strong national defense. It puts us on a path to 
fiscal sustainability, and it gives us the opportunity to do deficit 
reduction. The budget has progrowth policies that move us in a more 
sustainable direction.
  I understand the opposition coming from the other side. Their answer, 
Mr. Chairman, as always, is: let's tax more and let's spend more. That 
is not a responsible course. It won't lead to a good outcome for this 
country.
  Mr. Chairman, let me finally say that it is time we had a national 
conversation about the math problem facing this country. This budget 
starts that conversation. I encourage all my colleagues to support it, 
recognize where we are as a country, and resolve to do something about 
it.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to note for my colleague that 
by voting for this budget, he is jeopardizing meals and food assistance 
for 200,000 hungry children in Arkansas all so that the wealthiest 
person in his State, who has a net worth of $38.5 billion, can get a 
massive tax cut.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Pascrell), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the budget 
resolution before us today.
  You have got to get a charge out of what you are hearing and 
listening to today.
  If one were to draw a chart from 2001 and 2003 to the present time, 
what contributes to the deficit and the debt?
  I am glad to hear someone from the other side talk about that debt, 
because I thought you forgot all about it. This budget seems to think 
that you have amnesia.
  If you look at the chart, what grows the debt? The tax cuts that you 
put into effect in 2001 and 2003, which helped the rich and brought us 
to an economic abyss 4 years later. You did it, and you are trying to 
do it again.
  So we will see if Democrats are irrelevant, since you didn't include 
us, so far, up to this point. So much for our bipartisanship.
  You asked for $203 billion in mandatory spending cuts across 11 
committees. It will have to be reconciled with a Senate budget that 
explodes our deficit by $1.5 trillion. Good luck.
  While this Republican budget claims to balance in 10 years, it does 
so with unnamed cuts, gimmicks, and magical thinking about the economic 
growth.
  The budget is built on the same premise on which you tried to cut the 
ACA, the Affordable Care Act. Let's take $750,000, cut down on 
Medicaid, and we will give that money in tax cuts to the very wealthy. 
That was your plan. You saw how the country received it.
  This budget cuts Medicare by $487 billion by eliminating the Medicare 
guarantee. How can you justify that and look into the eyes of seniors 
in this country?
  It assumes repeal of the Affordable Care Act. You want to use the 
Affordable Care Act's money, but you want to dissolve it, choke it, and 
starve it. It assumes an appeal of that act, which would take 23 
million Americans off their healthcare insurance.
  It assumes a $1 trillion cut to Medicaid--it is in your budget--and 
$2.5 trillion in other mandatory cuts, with no specifics.

[[Page 15559]]

  The gentleman from Michigan needs to study the facts. You have got to 
get him the facts.
  The greatest contributor, as I said, were the two tax cuts of 2001 
and 2003. We know the breakdown of where that went to.
  This is not a serious budget. It is a desperate attempt to enact 
deficit-exploding tax cuts.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. YARMUTH. I yield the gentleman from New Jersey an additional 30 
seconds.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is reminded to direct all remarks to 
the Chair.
  Mr. PASCRELL. I am making all my remarks through the Chair.
  Mr. Chairman, 1 percent would be the recipients of 80 percent of the 
Republican tax cuts within 10 years.
  This budget, like the phony tax plan, is a joke and is insulting to 
us as Members of Congress. I know you have some problems with your own 
Conference. I don't know how you are going to figure that out. Don't 
expect us to bail you out.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Ferguson), a member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to thank the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee for her leadership during this budget 
process. She has done an amazing job of showing wisdom and patience and 
negotiating this all through this process. My sincere thanks are given 
to the gentlewoman.
  This budget is a critical step in getting our economy growing and our 
national debt under control. Not only does it balance in 10 years and 
put our country on the path to fiscal stability, it also lays the 
groundwork for tax reform.
  With this budget, we are demonstrating that it is possible to have 
fiscal discipline and keep our promises to the American people. We can 
no longer continue to kick the can down the road on our mandatory 
spending crisis. We are leaving behind more and more debt for our 
children and grandchildren, and it is morally wrong.
  We must put politics aside and have tough conversations to ensure 
that we can keep the promises that we have made to Americans and to 
future generations.
  This budget does not solve our mandatory spending crisis overnight, 
but it begins that process by achieving a $203 billion savings in 
mandatory spending.
  By passing this budget, we will also kick-start tax reform. I have 
said time and time again that America should be the best place in the 
world to do business, yet we have a Tax Code that tells our businesses 
that they should take their jobs and their profits overseas.
  Every American benefits from lower taxes and growing the economy. The 
tax reform framework we released last week will do just that. Americans 
will get to keep more of their hard-earned paychecks, companies will 
have the freedom to reinvest in their businesses and workers, and more 
people can move to the American Dream.
  Before we can make these changes, we must pass the budget. The 
reconciliation instructions in the budget will set us on a path to 
comprehensive tax reform in both the House and the Senate.
  This is not just a conversation about dollars and cents. It is about 
Americans who are counting on us to keep our commitments. We must do 
the tough work of reforming our mandatory spending programs and 
reforming our Tax Code.
  I am excited to support this budget to build a better America and 
pledge to continue working toward comprehensive mandatory spending 
reform.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I would note for my colleague that, by 
voting for this budget, he will force 1,519,461 seniors, disabled 
individuals, and other seriously ill people in Georgia to pay more for 
lifesaving Medicare all so that the wealthiest person in his State, who 
has a net worth of $12.6 billion, can get a massive tax cut.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Crowley) the Democratic Caucus chairman.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, my friend and 
colleague from Kentucky, for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget proposal is just cruel. It isn't 
just cruel; it will set our country backwards. It is worse than cruel.
  It puts more than $5 trillion in cuts on the backs of working and 
middle class Americans. At the same time, it doles out billions of 
dollars in tax breaks to wealthy individuals, while leaving everyday 
Americans emptyhanded.
  Are you a senior who relies on Medicare or Medicaid for important 
healthcare needs?
  Too bad, says the Republican budget. Your care will simply be cut.
  Are you a student looking to get a good education and launch your 
career?
  Tough luck, says the Republican budget. Pell grants are on the 
chopping block, if Republicans have their way.
  Are you struggling to recover after a natural disaster?
  Forget about it, says the Republican budget. Grants from FEMA and 
other programs that help rebuild our Nation will be eliminated.
  The facts are clear: this Republican budget does nothing to invest in 
America, the American people, or our future. It cuts funds for our 
crumbling infrastructure, rather than rebuilding our schools and roads 
and putting millions back to work. It slashes investment in green 
energy technology, rather than preparing a new generation of Americans 
to lead us into the economy of tomorrow.
  Worst of all, it ramps up funding for endless wars overseas while 
gutting programs that help the brave veterans who served their country 
so well.
  Eighty years ago, then-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke of a 
national nightmare when he saw a third of our Nation ``ill-housed, ill-
clad, and ill-nourished.''

                              {time}  1545

  When you look at this budget, it is not hard to see why FDR's words 
haunt us to this day, because this budget would take us back to that 
terrible time when dreams were dashed, futures were uncertain, and hope 
was all but lost, put back to a time when people were hurting.
  That is not the America I want. That is not the America our 
constituents deserve. They deserve a better deal for all Americans.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from New York.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, Democrats believe that our constituents 
deserve a better deal, a better deal for all Americans, a plan to bring 
better jobs, better wages, and a better future to everyone, and a 
vision to give every American the opportunity to prosper and to 
succeed.
  That is the kind of America we should be working towards. That is the 
better idea that America should be working towards. That is why I will 
vote ``no'' on this terrible plan.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I tell you what is cruel. That is doing the 
same thing over and over again and getting the same results. That is 
cruel. Especially when we look in our grandchildren's eyes and say: We 
are really sorry we didn't take 40-year-old programs and reform them so 
they could be better, so we could reduce the spending, we could give 
good services and reduce the spending. That is cruel when you don't do 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Lewis), a member of our Budget Committee.
  Mr. LEWIS of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
Building a Better America budget. Last month, our country's national 
debt exceeded $20 trillion. Interest payments under that alone are 
scheduled to go up to $768 billion per year and will skyrocket to $1 
trillion should these artificially low interest rates return to their 
normal levels.

[[Page 15560]]

  The debt not only threatens to bankrupt our country, it threatens our 
children's future and the American Dream.
  Now, we can't change the culture of spending in Washington overnight, 
but this budget puts us on the right path to fiscal sustainability. Our 
budget balances in 10 years, works to begin paying down the debt, and 
promotes job growth policies like tax, regulatory, and entitlement 
reform.
  For the first time in decades, this budget resolution finally directs 
Congress to address mandatory spending, the main driver of these 
deficits. As this graph shows, if nothing is done to address 
entitlement programs and our interest payments, mandatory spending will 
fully eclipse the Federal budget in the next few years.
  Now, politicians in Washington have promised to address exploding 
debt and deficits for years, but now we have the opportunity to 
actually do it. We cannot solve our debt crisis, however, without 
economic growth. That is why our budget provides reconciliation 
instructions for tax reform.
  Today we have a Tax Code that is overly complicated, punishes work, 
rewards special interests, and discourages job creation and investments 
here in America. The result has been an anemic recovery of only 1 or 2 
percent. This stagnation has made it harder for families in Minnesota 
and all over the United States to realize the American Dream.
  That is what this is about. Every time tax reform has been tried in 
the 1920s, in the 1960s, in the 1980s, it has worked to make America 
globally competitive by encouraging private sector investment that is 
more productive.
  That is why today I urge my colleagues to support this budget, tax 
reform, economic growth, and fiscal sanity.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to note for my friend and 
colleague that by voting for this budget, he is jeopardizing meals and 
food assistance for 216,000 hungry children in Minnesota so that the 
wealthiest person in his State, who has a net worth of $5.4 billion, 
gets a massive tax cut.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Maxine Waters), the ranking member of the Financial Services 
Committee.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong 
opposition to the Republican's 2018 budget, which would dramatically 
increase our deficit and debt by trillions of dollars to give 
millionaires and billionaires a massive tax cut.
  Don't be fooled. This plan directly benefits President Trump, his 
family, and his administration, including Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, 
Education Secretary DeVos, and Commerce Secretary Ross, but offers 
breadcrumbs for the middle class and nothing for low-income Americans.
  The craziest thing about all of this is that Republicans have been 
crowing for 7 years that the deficit is too large and that it is 
hurting our job growth, yet here they go abandoning their principles to 
cash out their rich benefactors.
  I also want to talk about some of the ways Republicans partially pay 
for this tax cut for the rich. During the same week that Equifax and 
Wells Fargo executives are testifying about the harm they have caused 
to millions of Americans, Republicans propose gutting the Consumer 
Bureau, which has successfully helped millions of our constituents 
receive compensation by effectively eliminating its funding and 
independence.
  What is more, Republicans would eliminate the backup authority to 
safely unwind failing megabanks without harm to our economy. Rather 
than eliminate this tool, we should instead be talking about how to 
break up bad megabanks like Wells Fargo, who repeatedly break the law 
and harm millions of consumers. Yet, both the Consumer Bureau and the 
megabank wind-down authority are sacrificed to pay for the richest 1 
percent tax cut.
  So I would urge all of my colleagues to reject this measure.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Mitchell).
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Building a 
Better America budget. That is truly what it does. For too long, our 
government has spent money on a credit card with our children and 
grandchildren's name on it. It shocks some here in this Chamber, but 
the era of overspending is over.
  Adopting this budget will allow us to deliver the key promises we 
have made to Americans: getting our spending under control, balancing 
the budget, and paving the way to deliver meaningful tax reform.
  This resolution balances the budget within 10 years and produces a $9 
billion surplus in fiscal year 2027. It achieves deficit reduction of 
$6.5 trillion over 10 years. It also reduces the size of our bloated 
government by giving instructions to 11 House committees to achieve at 
least $203 billion in mandatory savings.
  This resolution curbs our unsustainable spending while maintaining a 
strong defense and protecting critical programs like Medicare.
  There is much work to be done to create jobs and get our economy 
moving beyond the pathetic 2 percent growth. This budget is an 
important step to doing just that.
  This budget allows us to deliver on our promise to the American 
people to fix our broken Tax Code. Workers living paycheck to paycheck, 
like my parents did, need relief and they need it now. We cannot delay 
any longer.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle seek to raise taxes by 
$3 trillion and simply spend more. I suggest they study how that 
approach worked in Greece.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Building a Better America budget.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I would note for my colleague that by 
voting for this budget, he will force 1,895,558 seniors, disabled 
individuals, and other seriously ill people in Michigan to pay more for 
lifesaving Medicare all so that the wealthiest person in his State, who 
has net worth of $5.9 billion, can get a massive tax cut.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Khanna), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Chairman, in a nutshell, here is the Republican and 
the President's case. They want you to believe that if you cut 
corporate taxes, if you cut taxes on the investor class, that this is 
going to raise wages. That is the President's argument.
  Here is what I don't understand. If you want to raise wages, why not 
just raise wages? Why not just give the tax credits to working 
families?
  The President's Wall Street bankers have a different theory that only 
gets credence in the beltway. This is not about economics. This is 
about common sense. Think about it. You don't have to be a Ph.D. 
economist to know that the better way to raise wages is not to cut 
taxes for corporations, but to actually give the tax relief to people 
making under $75,000.
  You don't have to be a Ph.D. economist to know that if you cut taxes 
for shareholders and corporate CEOs, they are probably going to invest 
it overseas. If you cut the taxes or give the tax relief to people 
making 50 grand in Michigan or Ohio, they are going to spend it and 
create jobs in the United States.
  This is just common sense. You don't have to be a Ph.D. economist to 
know that if you really want to create jobs, invest in technical 
training for the million skills gap we have, instead of putting hopes 
on corporate CEOs who already have record profits, that somehow they 
are going to create more jobs.
  Mr. Chair, it used to be that there were serious thinkers on the 
Republican side, people like Jack Kemp. I disagreed with him, but at 
least he had innovative ideas of enterprise zones and how to really 
create jobs. But for the past 20 years, the Republican party has been 
devoid of ideas.
  It is a mantra: tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts.
  Oh, we are changing into a digital economy. How do we solve it? Tax 
cuts. That is not a constructive solution.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I do want to talk about common sense just 
for a moment. Common sense is if our other OECD countries have an 
average corporate rate of 18 to 20 percent and ours is between 35 and 
39, and we have

[[Page 15561]]

companies that now decide to go overseas. It seems to me to be common 
sense to at least be equal to what other countries are doing.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Smucker), a member of our Budget Committee.
  Mr. SMUCKER. Mr. Chairman, the national debt is a staggering $20 
trillion. We are handcuffing future generations with what--if we don't 
take action--will become an unsurmountable fiscal crisis. This budget 
resolution before us today is a step toward putting our Nation back on 
a sustainable fiscal path. But even more, it will lead to greater 
prosperity and opportunity for American families and generations to 
come.
  My own experience as a 17-year-old, I had the good fortune to be able 
to buy a small construction company from my older brother for $1,000 
when I was fresh out of high school. Through a lot of hard work and a 
dedicated team of individuals, we were able to grow that company, 
employing over 150 people with family-sustaining jobs, family-
sustaining wages.
  That is what we call the American Dream. There are countless stories 
like that: the idea that we can begin with little or nothing, work 
hard, play by the rules, and achieve our dreams.
  Unfortunately, in today's economic environment, for many, the 
American Dream seems out of reach.
  Mr. Chair, that is why this budget is so important. Not only will it 
put us on a sustainable fiscal path, but it lays out the path forward 
for tax reform that will give American families the opportunity to 
improve their lives.
  Consider a constituent that I spoke to this week. This particular 
constituent is a single father of 5 in Lancaster County. He asked me if 
our tax plan means more money in his paycheck. Now, he makes it work 
today, but it is difficult for him, and he could use some help. This is 
exactly the kind of hardworking American we are trying to help with our 
reforms.
  Americans deserve this budget because it lets us pass tax reform to 
help families like the one I just described. They deserve it because 
too many Americans today do everything right but still struggle to make 
ends meet. Americans deserve it because they should have a more honest 
Federal Tax Code and a simplified filing process that allows them to 
spend more time with their family, to save for their children's college 
fund, or to plan for their retirement.
  Passing this budget helps to make these things possible, and I 
strongly urge my colleagues in this Chamber to support it.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I want to note for my colleague that by 
voting for this budget, he is jeopardizing meals and food assistance 
for 734,000 hungry children in Pennsylvania all so that the wealthiest 
person in his State, who has a net worth of $3.8 billion, gets a 
massive tax cut.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, debating this budget resolution 
is a partisan and pointless exercise, and I will point out to the 
chairman that it is October, after the fiscal year has expired and 
after we have already passed every single appropriations bill out of 
the House of Representatives, and, I might add, a continuing budget 
resolution.

                              {time}  1600

  Just as when we considered it in committee this summer, this 
resolution stands as a demonstration of the majority's willful and 
disgraceful neglect of the needs of the American people.
  With so many critical legislative issues for us to discuss, the 
majority has decided it is a better use of our time to discuss tax 
breaks for millionaires and wealthy corporations; taking healthcare 
away from 20 million Americans; blowing up our deficit with an 
ineffective, immoral border wall; and gutting crucial investments in 
jobs, education, and medical research.
  Instead, this House should be enacting legislation to expand 
background checks and ban assault weapons to combat senseless firearm 
violence after this Nation witnessed, once again, the deadliest mass 
shooting in U.S. history.
  This House should be passing the Dream Act to protect DREAMers who 
call this Nation home and protect them from this administration's 
heartless deportations.
  Finally, instead of wasting taxpayer dollars and our constituents' 
time with this harmful budget resolution, this House should be 
reauthorizing CHIP, the bipartisan-backed Children's Health Insurance 
Program, which expired over the weekend and which potentially is going 
to leave children who badly need healthcare insurance twisting in the 
wind without it.
  Congressional Republicans have chosen instead to bring this 
incredibly irresponsible and extreme bill to the floor.
  In stunning ignorance of reality, it assumes TrumpCare will still 
pass. Just how many times must the majority be reminded that TrumpCare 
is not going to become law and the Affordable Care Act is the law of 
the land that Americans support?
  How many times will the majority try to cut Medicaid by $1 trillion, 
cut Medicare benefits, and raise insurance costs on elderly and low-
income Americans?
  Enough is enough. Instead of pandering to the well connected and our 
worst impulses, this budget should embody America's best values, and it 
is far from it.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Weber of Texas). The time of the gentlewoman 
has expired.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chair, I yield the gentlewoman from Florida an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Sadly, this budget does not reflect our 
responsibility to care for and invest in the American people.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Norman).
  Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the proposed budget 
resolution, which will provide the spending cuts that Washington needs 
and give a pathway to reconciliation for tax reform.
  Our national debt sits at an astronomical $20 trillion and is 
projected to reach close to $30 trillion within 10 years. Washington's 
out-of-control spending hinders our economy, Mr. Chair, and by kicking 
the can down the road, it puts the financial burden on the backs of our 
children and of our grandchildren.
  Not only is our debt unsustainable, but high levels of government 
debt needs substantial resources, and taxpayers' dollars must go to 
servicing our debt. Over the next decade, the cost to service our debt 
will rise 219 percent, meaning we will spend close to $800 billion by 
the year 2027 simply to pay the interest on our debt.
  This budget reduces spending by $5.4 trillion over a 10-year window. 
It does not expand the size of Federal Government. It does not encroach 
on State or local authority.
  This is a conservative path forward and will help us accomplish what 
we came here to do: meaningful tax reform.
  While I would like to see our government make even more wise choices 
with taxpayers' dollars, this budget resolution puts us on the road to 
achieving that goal. With this resolution as a vehicle for updating our 
outdated Tax Code, Mr. Chair, I truly believe we can accomplish 
something that has not been done in over 30 years.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this budget resolution.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I would remind my colleague that, by 
voting for this budget, he will force 941,169 seniors, disabled 
individuals, and other seriously ill people in South Carolina to pay 
more for lifesaving Medicare, all so that the wealthiest person in his 
State, who has a net worth of $3 billion, can get a massive tax cut.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Krishnamoorthi), a distinguished member of the Oversight and Government 
Reform Committee.

[[Page 15562]]


  Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chair, the budget before us today sets up a tax plan that would 
harm hundreds of thousands of working families in Illinois and millions 
across the Nation.
  It has been widely reported that this tax plan enables a budget that 
would eliminate the State and local tax deduction, also known as the 
SALT deduction, S-A-L-T, SALT deduction.
  In my home State of Illinois, this SALT deduction represents a 
sizeable portion of taxpayers' income, accounting for approximately 6 
percent of the average itemizers' average gross income.
  Within my district, the SALT deduction allows families in Cook County 
to save an average of $4,000 a year. In Kane and DuPage Counties, the 
numbers are even greater, $5,000 and $6,600, respectively.
  Simply put, Mr. Chair, this SALT deduction prohibits double taxation 
on working families. That is why numerous bipartisan and nonpartisan 
organizations have spoken out in support of the SALT deduction, 
including the National Governors Association and the United States 
Conference of Mayors.
  If this budget passes, the tax structure it creates will cause a 
dramatic increase in the tax burden on working families.
  There is no doubt that our Tax Code needs to b updated, but we need 
to do so in a way that upholds the President's promise that working 
families would not see a tax increase.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this double taxation budget 
and this increase in taxes on working families.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the fiscal year 2018 
budget resolution, and I thank Chairman Black for her hard work 
developing this blueprint.
  Our Nation's national debt now exceeds $20 trillion. While there are 
many factors driving our Nation's fiscal health and long-term spending 
outlook, I am working to address one of those items this year: our 
Nation's need to dispose of spent nuclear fuel.
  In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and enacted a 
formal nuclear waste management program for the Federal Government and 
set a 1998 deadline for the Department of Energy to begin to dispose of 
used fuel. Nuclear utilities signed a contract with DOE requiring this 
deadline to be met. Unfortunately, the Federal Government did not meet 
that deadline and has yet to take title to this material.
  Since then, the Federal Government has been held liable for not 
meeting this deadline, and the courts awarded financial damages to 
utilities due to the breach of contract. The payments resulting from 
these lawsuits are paid from a specific Department of the Treasury 
account, known as the judgment fund, a permanent, unlimited fund not 
subject to budget caps or annual appropriations.
  Since 2009, DOE's total liability has escalated from $12 billion to 
nearly $30 billion, or over $2 billion in total liability for each year 
of delay. Last year alone, the nuclear waste costs were about one-third 
of all Federal Government payments due to litigation. Put another way, 
American taxpayers are paying over $2 million every single day in which 
we neglect our moral and legal obligation to permanently dispose of 
spent nuclear fuel.
  It is time to get our nuclear waste management program back on track. 
Bipartisan legislation I introduced, H.R. 3053, the Nuclear Waste 
Policy Amendments Act of 2017, which passed out of the Committee of 
Energy and Commerce by an overwhelming vote of 49-4, would do just 
that. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to 
address this budget challenge.
  Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Black again for her leadership and 
support of this important issue.
  Mr. Chair, I urge support of this budget.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Brady), the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chair, first, let me thank Chairman Black for 
her leadership on this remarkable budget.
  When I ask my constituents from Texas about their biggest concerns 
for their family and the Nation's future, the overwhelming response is 
about the debt our country faces. Washington's spending just continues 
to grow too fast. Our national debt has topped $20 trillion, and 
without action, our great country is poised for a difficult and painful 
fiscal reckoning.
  Today, with this budget, we have the opportunity to do something 
about it, the opportunity to tackle our Nation's fiscal challenges 
head-on with a strong, two-part approach.
  First, this budget provides real fiscal responsibility. It balances 
within 10 years. It preserves and improves Medicare for the long term. 
It returns power to our State and local governments so they can do what 
is best for their communities, not Washington.
  Now, these measures get us moving in the right direction, but fiscal 
accountability is only one crucial piece of the puzzle. If we want a 
healthier American economy for the long term, we need a growing 
American economy for the long term. That is why this budget by 
Chairwoman Black also lays the groundwork--the runway, if you will--for 
a once-in-a-generation pro-growth, pro-family, pro-middle class tax 
reform.
  The House and the Senate are unified with President Trump in 
delivering a new Tax Code for a new era of American prosperity. We have 
released bold ideas to deliver more jobs, fairer taxes, and bigger 
paychecks for the American people, especially our middle class 
families.
  We are united in getting tax reform legislation to the President's 
desk this year, but if we do not pass the budget, tax reform doesn't 
move forward. So I would like to ask all my colleagues today on both 
sides of the aisle: Where do you stand? Are you content with an 
unsustainable national debt, a slow-growth economy, and a broken pro-
Washington, pro-special interest Tax Code, or do you stand in support 
of fiscal responsibility and pro-growth tax reform that allows all 
Americans to keep more of their paychecks?
  This is our time to show the American people we don't accept that 
slow-growth future.
  Mr. Chair, I would like to thank Chairman Black of the Budget 
Committee for her remarkable leadership in bringing this budget 
forward.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time both sides have 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 33\1/4\ minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from Tennessee has 37\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise today in support of the fiscal 
year 2018 budget resolution.
  On behalf of Chairman Hensarling, I would like to take a moment to 
speak about the instructions given by the chairwoman of the Budget 
Committee to the Financial Services Committee to find savings of $14 
billion.
  Now, that is what we were sent here to do: to find those places where 
it makes sense to cut the budget and we don't harm anything. In fact, 
in this case, the Financial Services Committee is going to help things 
in rural communities by finding those savings that the chairwoman 
instructed us to find.
  Several years ago, the Democratic majority passed the Dodd-Frank 
resolution, the Dodd-Frank Act. That enshrined too big to fail. It 
created unaccountable agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau.
  Earlier this year, this body passed H.R. 10, the Financial CHOICE 
Act. That was trying to prune back the capabilities of CFPB to hurt the 
rural

[[Page 15563]]

areas, which it had been doing in my district.
  Carlsbad National Bank recently shared with us how it takes them 185 
pages to complete a mortgage loan, 185 pages for a small bank for just 
the simple resolution of buying a home.
  Many times our community banks are simply stopping to offer that 
service. No one else is willing to come in to New Mexico and lend into 
these rural communities. So we are facing a very serious problem.
  Sometimes community banks are having to consolidate. That hurts rural 
communities even worse, because the consolidation usually moves the 
bank's headquarters outside the State or outside the community. It 
weakens the fabric of the community.
  So by finding the savings in this budget resolution which we were 
instructed to do, we not only save the money, but we also stop the 
encroaching regulations that CFPB is putting out, harming the rural 
communities, harming rural homeowners.
  So for those reasons, I gladly support H. Con. Res. 71, the Budget 
Resolution Act, and urge its passage.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Black and Chairman 
Bishop for including ANWR, the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, in the 
budget process.
  I am looking forward to this. With this legislation, we contribute 
money to solving some of our national debt.
  The small area of 1002 in the National Wildlife Refuge is an area of 
2,000 acres, smaller than Dulles Airport.

                              {time}  1615

  Potentially, though, we have a little over 20 billion barrels of oil. 
Think how much money that would bring to the Treasury immediately 
through the bidding process.
  This is an issue I have been working on for the last 45 years. It is 
time we passed it. Once it went to the Senate, and President Clinton 
vetoed it because it wouldn't help us with that embargo we had at that 
time.
  Now is the time to make sure this Nation is independent totally. It 
won't happen overnight, but only Congress can do this. It is not a 
wilderness area. It is designated to be drilled at the behest of the 
Congress for the good of the Nation.
  It will reduce the debt. Again, I said I expect bids of about $10 
billion to $20 billion just to have the right to drill. With the new 
royalties that are coming down from the Secretary of the Interior, we 
will have not only a large amount going into the Treasury, we will have 
about 776,000 new jobs created by the discovery of this oil.
  We have already seen what we have been able to do in other States by 
fracking and becoming more energy independent and how that controls the 
OPEC nations. But this is the area which oil has been developed by God. 
It is only going to be available to the United States, and it is time 
that this Congress steps forth and brings this to fruition for the 
people.
  We will hear a lot from the other side of those interest groups that 
have no knowledge at all about the area I am talking about. We hear 
that the caribou herd will be affected. It is ironic that Prudhoe Bay 
has produced 17 billion barrels of oil, and when we started, there were 
5,000 caribou. Now we have about 31,000 caribou. Oil didn't disturb 
them.
  Oil is not evil. It is the necessity for this Nation socially to 
create jobs. It will make a healthier economy. I am asking my 
colleagues again to consider this legislation. It is necessary for this 
Nation. It is necessary, very frankly, for the good of this Congress. 
With $20 trillion in debt, I have yet to hear anything that will create 
new wealth. You can cut all you want to cut, I will cut what I want to 
cut, but you have to create new wealth. You have to bring it into the 
fold of the general budget process and for the economy of this Nation.
  Let's not keep putting our heads in the sand and saying: Oh, we don't 
need to do this; it is not the time to do it. Now is the time for the 
good of the Nation and because we are in debt.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to consider this in this budget. I 
compliment Mrs. Black and her work, her chairmanship, on the budget. It 
is a very difficult process.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time so we can 
hear from the Joint Economic Committee.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi) and the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney) each will control 
30 minutes on the subject of economic goals and policies.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, we are making a choice today about the kind of future that 
we want. We can choose a future of more deficits and more debt piled 
onto our children, or we can continue having a weak economy where 
people in their prime working years can keep leaving the job market.
  Or we can choose a future where America's job creators, people who go 
to work every day, decide that they will be better off starting or 
moving their business overseas.
  Or we can choose the future of more of the same, and it is not the 
wealthy who will suffer more of the same. It is the most vulnerable, 
low-income Americans trying to climb out of poverty. It is the middle 
class families who find it harder and harder to keep up, to get ahead--
people like my dad, a machine operator who is now retired as a United 
Steelworker.
  It is our children and our grandchildren who will have to pay 
tomorrow for the mistakes that we make today.
  But we can instead choose a better future, Mr. Chair, where the 
government learns to live within its means and move forward toward 
balanced budgets; a future where job-creating small businesses aren't 
punished by our Tax Code when they succeed; a future where we stop 
losing jobs and businesses to foreign countries with lower tax rates, 
when workers can finally get the pay raises they deserve, more money in 
their pockets, and more prosperity is widespread, not just concentrated 
on our coasts and a few large urban cities.
  We will be voting soon on a budget that restores fiscal 
responsibility and paves the way for a world class Tax Code built for 
growth and a better future for our kids and our grandkids.
  Yesterday, at the Joint Economic Committee, Mr. Chair, we held a 
hearing on the decline in business startups, the engines of job growth 
and innovation in America, and the role tax reform could play in 
reversing this downward spiral.
  Among other things, here is what we heard yesterday at the hearing. 
First, simplify the Tax Code. Entrepreneurs spend way too much time and 
way too much money complying with the Tax Code instead of focusing on 
growing their businesses.
  Second, lower the tax rates that our companies and employers pay. 
That is something that foreign governments around the world, both 
friends and foes, have already done to attract more jobs, more 
businesses.
  Third, let companies of all sizes write off the cost of their growth-
producing investment immediately, this is called expensing, instead of 
deducting them slowly from the taxes over many years under very 
complicated depreciation rules.
  Fourth, stop punishing our businesses for investing overseas profits 
by bringing them back home to America. Move away from the system that 
double taxes American companies that do business overseas.
  These steps will boost economic growth. Growing markets will give 
entrepreneurs the confidence to risk starting a business, which many 
won't even do today, as we have seen more and more startups not making 
it to the starting line.
  More startups create more jobs, an average of six new jobs per 
startup, and more economic growth means continuing to spread that 
prosperity.

[[Page 15564]]

  I am happy to report that these recommendations are a large part of 
our tax reform framework that has just recently been unveiled: 
simplicity, lower tax rates, expensing, stop double taxing our American 
businesses that do business abroad, reward investment in America, and 
boost economic growth.
  We need a Tax Code that makes America the best place in the world to 
do business and grow your business and keep your business.
  Our job creators who are corporate taxpayers now face the highest tax 
rate in the developed world. While other countries aggressively lower 
their tax rate, Mr. Chair, to attract new businesses, we left our 
businesses standing still.
  Mr. Chair, the tax reform framework would slash our corporate rate 
from the highest in the world, at 35 percent, to a competitive 20 
percent. Instead of the worst, we get much better. In a global economy, 
that is just not a luxury, that is a necessity.
  Our tax reform framework will not only help American companies 
compete with foreign ones, but also bring capital back to America to 
invest and grow jobs here at home.
  Let's look at how the Tax Code is punishing our small businesses who 
pay individual taxes as pass-throughs, not just with complex taxes but 
also high tax rates.
  When Main Street businessowners went to sleep on December 31 of 2012, 
their highest tax rate was 35 percent. When they woke up the following 
year in January of 2013, Mr. Chair, their top rate spiked to 44.6 
percent due to Obama administration policies.
  Many on the other side of the aisle will say that most small 
businesses don't pay the top rate, but taxpayers who do pay the top 
rate, those small businesses, in many cases, are responsible for much 
of our economic activity and our employment as pass-through businesses.
  Every small business owner dreams of being successful, and the high 
top rate punishes the very success that we want them to achieve in 
America. Adding to the Federal rate, the tax rate, the local rate, many 
of these small businesses pay over 50 percent in taxes.
  The tax reform framework not only slashes rates for American 
employers but our small businesses as well. The top rate for pass-
throughs will be 25 percent.
  Another feature of the tax reform framework, Mr. Chair, would allow 
businesses of all sizes to deduct their business expenses, their 
investments, immediately through expensing. This would encourage 
companies to make the kind of investment like buying state-of-the-art 
equipment that would lead businesses to grow, create more jobs, pay 
better wages, higher economic growth, and the best part of all, larger 
paychecks for workers.
  Mr. Chair, we have a choice to make. We can turn our backs on the 
most vulnerable Americans and doom them to more of the same, subpar 
growth, stagnant wages, more debt, less opportunity, a complex and 
outdated Tax Code that punishes job creation and investment in America, 
or I hope we choose a better path forward, a better future for 
Americans, bigger paychecks, and it starts today with the passing of 
this budget.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this budget.
  Ultimately, a national budget is like a deal between the American 
taxpayers and Congress about how this country will spend their money. 
Anyone who looks at the fine print in this budget plan can tell, with a 
glance, that the American people want, need, and deserve a better deal.
  In the Republican tax plan that goes with this budget, 80 percent of 
the Republican tax cuts go to the top 1 percent. The top 1 percent gets 
an average of $200,000 in tax cuts.
  A better deal would drop plans to slash Medicare and Medicaid to pay 
for massive tax cuts for the wealthiest few--a deal that instead would 
be a bipartisan effort to bring middle class tax relief, badly needed 
investments, and greater opportunity.
  But what we have instead is a budget that cuts $5.4 trillion in 
spending over 10 years, including $4.4 trillion in cuts to the 
mandatory programs that help average Americans get and stay ahead.
  These aren't just paper cuts. These are huge cuts--cuts that would 
cause enormous damage in the lives of children, students, veterans, and 
other Americans. About half of these cuts in nondefense spending are in 
programs that help people who need the help the most--cuts in programs 
that provide food to those in need, programs that help students from 
low-income families afford a college education. They even have cuts in 
the badly needed disaster relief that is helping so many in our 
country.
  In fact, by 2027, more than one-third of the resources for low- and 
middle-income people would be gone. Struggling Americans deserve a 
better deal than that. And who pays under the Republican tax plan? 
Seniors, single parents, and middle class families, it goes up.
  Nondefense discretionary is already at its lowest level since the 
category has been tracked. Republicans want to cut even more, and so 
they target senior citizens and healthcare.
  This budget cuts half a trillion dollars from Medicare, replacing 
Medicare's guaranteed benefits with a voucher-like system and 
increasing its eligibility age to 67.

                              {time}  1630

  The CBO estimates that these cuts would cause part B premiums to 
increase 25 percent by 2020. And this budget claims that it ``saves'' 
$1.5 trillion by repealing the Affordable Care Act, even though they 
have already tried to repeal it about 60 times on this floor, without 
success, thank God, and the American people have made it clear that 
they don't want it repealed.
  They still have no replacement plan for the Affordable Care Act. So 
that means that they would just be leaving millions without health 
insurance and threatening the coverage of all those with preexisting 
conditions and chronic illnesses, and would leave millions facing huge 
premium increases.
  Their plan also cuts $114 billion from Medicaid, ripping away 
coverage from low-income families and the disabled. This is just plain 
wrong. Our seniors deserve a much better deal than that.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Francis Rooney).
  Mr. FRANCIS ROONEY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for the opportunity to speak a little bit here about the tax reform 
opportunities that we are seeing now.
  Some people don't like to admit it, but there is a proven, 
inescapable correlation among tax treatment, capital investment, and 
job creation. As this chart right here shows, unequivocally correlating 
an investment of capital with economic change, when you have more money 
put in, you get more jobs and more economic growth. And some people 
don't like to admit that connection, but it is inescapable. It has been 
that way ever since the first commerce took place in the Roman era.
  We have a second chart that shows the post-World War II GDP change, 
an average of 3.1. The American middle class was built on opportunity, 
lower taxes, economic stimuli, and growth. It wasn't built on this 2.3 
to 1.6 that we are going to get if we don't get back to some serious 
business-centric, investment-centric tax reform.
  There is another equally inescapable fact, and that is that capital 
is fungible. If tax treatment nurtures it, like watering your yard, it 
will grow. If not, it will be invested somewhere else. Just look at 
Texas, just look at my home State of Florida, and look at Ireland, for 
example.
  When the tax climate is nurturing and favorable for investment, you 
get money put in, you get jobs created, you get economic growth. 
Investment goes where it is most favorably treated. So going to 20 and 
25 percent from 35 to 40 percent will unleash a torrent of capital 
investment and job formation.
  Rapid capital recovery by expensing capital assets purchases will 
attract massive investments, stimulate our

[[Page 15565]]

economy, make our manufacturing companies do better, and build up the 
capital stock of our country again, like we used to do. This is going 
to create one thing: job-creating economic growth.
  That is what we need and that is what the Republican reform program 
offers.
  It also offers one more thing and it changes treatment of foreign 
income, which is something I have some experience in, and it will 
incentivize companies to keep their income here. That is a good thing 
for America.
  So I might just mention for just a second about what they say and 
what we say. They say tax cut for the wealthy. No, it is not a tax cut 
for the wealthy. It lowers taxes on all businesses and middle class 
Americans.
  They say rising brackets on low income. This is an absolute 
incorrigible falsehood. No. We are taking the 10 percent rate to zero. 
We are taking the 15 percent rate to 10. By the way, Ronald Reagan 
reduced the 11 percent rate to zero.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. FRANCIS ROONEY of Florida. They say it will explode the deficit, 
but we all know that economic growth shrinks deficits. Ronald Reagan 
proved that in spades, and we are going to see it again. When we 
eliminate many of these narrowly-crafted, special interest, lobbyist-
driven credits and deductions, we are going to save enough money. 
Especially when we eliminate the State and local tax deduction, we are 
going to save a couple of trillion dollars that will help balance this.
  Then they say loss of itemized deductions is a bad thing. When we 
double the standard exemption, no one is going to need to itemize. The 
people that do itemize, fine, they can have mortgage interest 
reduction, charitable reduction, whatever. But most Americans are going 
to be able to pay their taxes on a postcard.
  In the polling in this country, the frustration of Americans with the 
IRS is directly related to the fact that nobody can fill out a tax form 
anymore. So we have great progress here.
  Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to speak.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, 80 percent of the 
Republican tax cuts go to the top 1 percent, and the top 1 percent gets 
an average of $200,000 in tax cuts. And what we see in this budget is a 
slashing of investments in the future strength of our country.
  Instead of slashing infrastructure spending, as this budget does, we 
should be increasing our spending to fill the giant infrastructure 
pothole that Republican policies have left us with.
  We have airports that feel Third World. We have bridges that are 
crumbling, tunnels that need replacing, roads that need fixing. Failing 
to do so costs all of us in time, money, and economic development.
  This budget totally fails to recognize the value of infrastructure 
investment. It cuts $254 billion from transportation over 10 years. 
Funding would drop from $92 billion next year to just $65 billion in 
2022.
  It eliminates the Transportation Investment Generating Economic 
Recovery grant program used for infrastructure development and repair 
projects for interstate highways, bridge improvements, and ports. This 
is incredibly shortsighted.
  According to a study by the American Society of Civil Engineers, 
failing to close the infrastructure investment gap brings serious 
economic consequences: $3.9 trillion in losses to the U.S. GDP by 2025; 
$7 trillion in lost business sales in 2025; and 2.5 million lost 
American jobs in 2025.
  I have seen with my own eyes what infrastructure development can mean 
to business development and the quality of life in the city that I 
serve. The Second Avenue Subway, built with the help of Federal funds, 
opened in January and has already had a huge economic impact. Stores 
say their business is up 20 to 30 percent along that line and it has 
cut overcrowding and reduced traveling times.
  New York's old Kosciuszko Bridge, which was first opened in 1939, was 
originally designed for 10,000 vehicles a day. It was carrying 18 times 
that and had become an accident choke point.
  Thanks to Federal funding, it has been replaced, and the biggest city 
in the country will have a brand-new, 21st century bridge soon because 
these kinds of investments boost productivity and bolster our economy, 
with each $1 in infrastructure investment generating up to $1.80 in 
additional economic activity.
  The American Society of Civil Engineers gives our national 
infrastructure an overall grade of D-plus and our transit system a D-
minus. It is just plain irresponsible to slash spending on our 
crumbling highways and bridges now, because if we don't make needed 
investments today, we will jeopardize our competitiveness tomorrow.
  Let's be clear: we are already significantly underinvesting in 
infrastructure. As you can see from this chart, public investments in 
infrastructure and other public fixed assets have fallen over the last 
few years, dropping to a low of $274 billion in 2014, from more than 
$357 billion in 2009.
  We have created a giant infrastructure spending pothole that you see 
right here. All told, it costs our Nation more than half a trillion 
dollars in lost investment over 5 years.
  The people of this country deserve modern infrastructure. They 
deserve a better deal.
  This budget also cuts $154 billion from nutrition, from the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, ignoring the more than 40 
million low-income families, including children, the working poor, the 
elderly, and the disabled, to say nothing of the 8 million people, 
including 4 million children it lifts out of poverty. The hungry 
children of America deserve a better deal than that.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), a senior member of the Joint Economic 
Committee, as well as a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Chairman, the budget that is being considered here 
today sets in motion the process of the first major tax reform that we 
will have been able to see in 3 decades. We are on the cusp of a really 
exciting opportunity to give Americans what they deserve: a Tax Code 
that works for them, not against them.
  Now, on the House Ways and Means Committee, we spent many months 
meeting, holding hearings, discussing, working on almost a daily basis 
ways to craft a tax plan that is simpler and fairer for all Americans. 
The framework that was just rolled out last week takes that into 
account and lays out a plan that will lead to more jobs and, most 
importantly, bigger paychecks.
  You know, the economic ``recovery'' since the Great Recession hasn't 
worked for a lot of Americans. It certainly hasn't worked for a lot of 
Minnesotans that I represent. Economic growth has been anemic, and we 
remain uncompetitive in far too many areas. Many are living paycheck to 
paycheck, and either have or now are at risk of having a lower standard 
of living than their parents.
  Young people, like my daughter's generation, will go backwards if 
this country is not fundamentally more competitive economically. They 
feel like they just can't get ahead.
  Meanwhile, seniors, and baby boomers who will soon become seniors, 
are also at great risk. Their savings, as well as the government's 
ability to fulfill its commitment to Social Security and Medicare, 
could be undermined if we don't grow our economy at a higher rate.
  So both Republicans and Democrats agree that it is time to fix our 
broken Tax Code. No one is defending the status quo, Mr. Chair. Our 
current Tax Code punishes American workers and manufacturers. It is a 
maze of special-interest loopholes that are unfair to hardworking 
Americans. It burdens

[[Page 15566]]

families and small businesses with excessive paperwork and compliance 
costs, creating unnecessary frustration each and every tax season 
throughout the year. That is why 9 out of 10 Americans either pay 
someone to do their taxes or have to buy the financial software to do 
their taxes.
  Mr. Chair, our Tax Code is holding our country back. It is holding 
our economy back. So we have a stark choice. We can either truly grow 
the economy and put ourselves back on a path to real prosperity, or we 
can continue with weak economic growth, which only benefits ``the few'' 
and will do nothing for the rest of us when the next economic downturn 
happens.
  Tax reform, for me, is about one thing and one thing only. It is 
about restoring the hope for a prosperous future for ourselves, for our 
parents, and, most importantly, for our children.
  It is about Paula in my district, in Plymouth, Minnesota, who said 
that the Tax Code is hurting her small business and preventing her from 
hiring more employees and giving them a raise.
  It is about an owner of an extrusion company in Chaska, Minnesota, 
that I just spoke to. He said he would invest in new equipment and 
machines if this tax plan passes.
  And it is about lowering rates across the board for all Americans, as 
well as small businesses, so that they can keep more of their first 
dollars earned.
  Tax reform means increasing the personal income for average Americans 
and reducing the cost of living so that day-to-day expenses are more 
affordable. This will lead to families being able to save for their 
future and their retirement. It will allow people to take more control 
of their lives and their finances so that they can save and spend and 
invest their hard-earned money as they see fit.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a really important opportunity we cannot let 
slip away to help middle-income families and small businesses. Passing 
this budget puts us on a path for tax reform that has so much potential 
to unleash and grow our economy to the benefit of middle-income 
families in Minnesota and across the country.

                              {time}  1645

  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, in 2001, some of 
our colleagues across the aisle said many of the same things we are 
hearing today about the miracle of tax cuts: that huge tax cuts for the 
most fortunate would pay for themselves, and that they would help grow 
our economy by trickling down through the miracle of so-called dynamic 
scoring.
  But as we know from history, that was not the case. One year after 
the Bush tax cuts in 2002, here is what Brookings Institute said was 
happening in real life:

       Our findings suggest that Bush tax cuts will reduce the 
     size of the future economy, raise interest rates, make taxes 
     more aggressive, increase tax complexity, and prove fiscally 
     unsustainable.

  A year after that, in 2003, the Brookings Institute said: ``Over the 
past 2 years our country has experienced a dramatic deterioration in 
the Federal budget outlook.''
  In January 2001, when President George Bush took office, the 
Congressional Budget Office projected surpluses of $5.6 trillion--as in 
``T,'' trillion--from 2000 to 2011.
  But in 2011, nearly a decade after the GOP promised their budget 
would unleash the economy through tax cuts for the wealthy and budgets 
that cut services to the vulnerable, this is what we found, from 
National Public Radio: ``Conservatives often promote tax cuts as a way 
to stimulate economic growth, but the years after 2001 were marked by 
the slowest growth since World War II.''
  All of us remember when President Obama came to office that this 
country was shedding 800,000 jobs a month and it was a long time to dig 
ourselves out of that big Republican hole and get us moving in the 
right direction with job growth.
  So let's not go down that road again. I call upon my colleagues to 
remember history.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Chairman, I would again like to point out this little 
chart that shows facts. At the bottom of the chart, if the viewers can 
see, is the United States with our corporate tax rate. All of these 
other countries, most of whom are our friends, even France, is lower 
than the United States, Spain, Canada, Netherlands, Austria, Turkey, 
Italy, New Zealand, Japan--you can go on and on.
  Mr. Chairman, we have the highest corporate rate in the 
industrialized developed world. Facts are a stubborn thing to deal 
with, Mr. Chairman. This budget, as Congressman Paulsen said, is the 
first step into dealing with something that we haven't dealt with in 31 
years.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer), my distinguished colleague.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to address the 
House on this issue. I hear so much from my friends on the other side 
that I agree with, and I very much would like to work closely with 
them.
  I point out to the chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, my 
friend from Ohio, that while we have the highest corporate rate in the 
world, 35 percent, which is clearly not desirable, I served in 
Switzerland for 4 years, where there were 700 American companies 
because the tax rate was so much lower. Yet that 35 percent rate, in 
actuality, turned out to be less than 14 percent across all American 
corporations, and a quarter of American corporations pay zero.
  As we look at refining this, it is not just about dropping that rate. 
It is about making sure that every American corporation pays a fair 
share of their taxes to the U.S. citizens.
  I rise in opposition to the Republican budget resolution. Budget 
resolutions, by their nature, are political documents. But this one 
also has an instrumental purpose, because the only reason this budget 
resolution is on the floor is to pave the way for the partisan process 
for the tax bill, which will significantly increase the deficit in 
order to give tax breaks to those who need them least.
  I think everyone in this body agrees that the average American 
taxpayer, those who have had virtually no raise for 30 years, deserve 
and need tax breaks. If we can give them that tax relief, the economy 
will grow faster.
  But the Senate reconciliation instructions that will ultimately pass 
are written to allow for a $1.5 trillion increase in the deficit, and 
that is assuming that the fuzzy math and the rosy expectations actually 
work out. I appreciate the charts that my friend and colleague, Mr. 
Rooney, showed that pointed out that we would like to get to 3.1 
percent economic growth. I heartily agree.
  But if we look at the period right now where we now have the worst 
disparity in wealth and the worst disparity in income that we have had 
in a long time, that tracks this decline from 3.1 percent to 1.6, 1.8, 
2 percent.
  When I started off in our family business, the corporate tax rate was 
78 percent, and our economic growth was a lot higher. Not that we want 
to go back to 78 percent, but putting more money in the hands of the 
top 1 percent is not what is going to make this economy grow more 
quickly.
  Actually, looking at the critical programs that are cut in this 
Republican budget gives us almost a handy guide of more effective ways 
to spend money. For example, this budget cuts transportation spending 
by 25 percent at a time when we have a D in our infrastructure by the 
American Society of Civil Engineers, when President Trump and candidate 
Hillary Clinton both campaigned hard on more infrastructure investment, 
not a cut.
  This budget cuts student aid by $211 billion when we know from our 
Joint Economic Committee hearings that the student debt our young 
people carry is one of the reasons they don't start new businesses, one 
of the things that suppresses the growth of new businesses in America.
  We also know that human capital is the key to economic growth all

[[Page 15567]]

through history and today. It contains massive cuts to Medicare and 
Medicaid, making healthcare more expensive for those who can least 
afford it, and that is not a way to grow the economy.
  We have an opportunity to enact fiscally responsible, sustainable, 
bipartisan tax reform that focuses on the Americans whose wages have 
been stagnant for 30 years. I believe the Democrats are prepared to 
engage in real reform. It should be simpler. It should be fairer. We 
should absolutely do away with the special deals and credits and 
gimmicks, but we need a lower rate for most Americans, and not make 
sure that 80 percent of the tax benefits go to the people who need them 
the least, who have the smallest propensity to spend and to invest.
  There are many other things wrong with this budget. Let me just point 
out two particular problems. Number one, the budget attacks the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge. It essentially sacrifices wildlife and 
environmental protections to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest.
  ANWR encompasses more than 19 million acres and is one of the last 
intact landscapes in America. It is essential that we protect this wild 
and spectacular land. The government briefly opened ANWR to seismic 
testing in the 1980s, and the damage from that activity is still 
visible today. Truck tracks still scar the expansive tundra where the 
permafrost never healed. Since then, the Federal Government has 
protected ANWR from harmful oil and gas drilling because of concerns 
about the impact on species like polar bears, muskoxen, and caribou.
  Mr. Chairman, there are 37 land mammal species, 8 marine mammal 
species, 42 fish species, and more than 200 migratory birds that 
inhabit the ANWR. Seismic testing could do lasting damage to the 
fragile ecosystem way before drilling. Seismic activity sends shock 
waves underground, disturbing denning polar bears.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 
2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, the caribou are a food source for Alaskan 
indigenous groups who have lived off the land for thousands of years. 
All of this devastation will likely do very little in the short run to 
reduce the deficit. The oil prices are so low that no oil company is 
going to attempt to extract fossil fuels at this time.
  We believe the ANWR must be protected from the budget for future 
generations, its wildlife, and the native people who inhabit it.
  Part two, Mr. Chairman, is the budget also attacks Federal Government 
employee retirement benefits. It instructs the Oversight and Government 
Reform Committee to reduce the deficit by $32 billion. This clearly 
targets Federal employee retirement benefits because that is the only 
substantial mandatory spending within the Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform's jurisdiction.
  By slashing these promised benefits, the budget will eliminate any 
sense of financial security that Federal employees currently have. We 
should be protecting their rights and benefits. This was the original 
bargain they made. Most gave up much more lucrative careers in the 
private sector for the opportunity to serve all Americans, and for a 
small but secure Federal pension.
  It is also going to make it a lot more difficult for us to recruit 
and retain the quality employees who make America great.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this budget, and let's work 
together to create a Tax Code that really does simulate our economy and 
that works for all Americans.
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. LaHood), who represents the central part of Illinois, and 
is a new member of the Joint Economic Committee.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 71, the fiscal 
year 2018 budget resolution. This bill makes necessary and responsible 
funding determinations by reducing the size and scope of government, 
cutting Federal spending by $5.4 trillion over 10 years, and balancing 
the Federal budget in fiscal year 2027.
  Given our Nation's more than $20 trillion in debt, it is past time to 
get serious about our Federal spending so that important programs are 
able to be sustained long term. In addition, this bill sets the stage 
for much-needed tax reform. Small businesses and farmers are the 
bedrock of the American economy. For decades, we have allowed our Tax 
Code to balloon with loopholes and tax breaks for special interests, 
hurting our local economies and middle class workers.
  That is why it is so crucial that we pass this commonsense budget as 
the first step in reforming our Nation's outdated Tax Code. Our current 
system continues to fail small business owners, farmers, and middle 
class families with its overwhelmingly complex system. That is why over 
90 percent of Americans have to pay for help with filing their taxes 
every year.
  Not only does this cost people their hard-earned money, but this also 
costs us our valuable time. Every year we spend a combined 8.9 billion 
hours filing our taxes. That is time we could be using to focus on our 
work and families. For businesses, that is time they could use for 
expanding and growing our economy.
  The solution here is not to defend the status quo, as some on the 
other side of the aisle continue to do, but to simplify our Tax Code 
and lower the rates for businesses and the middle class.
  Another crucial part of reforming our Tax Code must be the 
elimination of the death tax, which harms farmers like those in the 
18th Congressional District of Illinois. Family-owned businesses and 
farms that use their hard-earned dollars to invest back in their 
businesses are often forced to sell off parts or all in order to pay 
the death tax.
  There is nothing fair about penalizing our job creators and the 
drivers of our economy for investing in and growing their business. In 
fact, it is estimated that repealing the death tax would grow our 
economy by 0.9 percent over 10 years.
  These small business investments are often necessary for small 
businesses and farmers who depend upon expensive machinery to earn 
their living. Our current Tax Code, however, encourages businessowners 
to put off their investments as they are only able to deduct the cost 
of equipment over many years. By allowing full expensing, businesses 
and farmers can fully invest in the tools they need to become more 
productive, all the while earning more savings.
  According to the Tax Foundation, full expensing would save businesses 
money, leading to nearly a 5 percent increase in income for low- and 
middle-income workers.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chair, tax reform is about getting our economy back 
to working for the middle class, and for our small businesses, growing 
it from the inside out. This budget is the necessary first step in that 
process, and I am proud to support it. It will help bring relief to 
those who need it most.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, just to remind my colleagues, the nonpartisan Tax Policy 
Center points out that 80 percent of the Republican tax cuts go to the 
top 1 percent.
  But in this budget resolution that we are discussing, it slashes 
education funding, putting the drain of a college education for average 
Americans even further out of reach. It asks the American people who 
already experience crippling student loan debt to reach even deeper 
into their pockets for their education by cutting $211 billion from 
student financial aid programs.

                              {time}  1700

  It freezes the maximum level awarded by a Pell grant at $5,900, 
covering

[[Page 15568]]

just 23 percent of an education by 2026, compared to the 30 percent it 
covers today or the 77 percent it covered in 1980. In addition, it also 
cuts $3.3 billion from the Pell grant surplus, which provides a much-
needed reserve to cover the cost of future education.
  If that is not enough, after students graduate, this budget makes it 
increasingly difficult to pay off student loans and steers graduates 
away from public service and teaching jobs by eliminating the Public 
Service Loan Forgiveness and Teacher Loan Forgiveness programs. Our 
students and our teachers deserve a better deal than that.
  I must say that we are suffering from three hurricanes, devastating 
hurricanes, yet this budget eliminates three programs that play very 
key roles in disaster relief. The Community Development Block Grant 
program, AmeriCorps, and the Legal Services Corporation are all 
eliminated. This budget abolishes these programs that are literally 
supporting our relief efforts from Harvey, Irma, and Maria.
  Our Nation's veterans--our Nation's veterans--our bravest, are not 
spared the carnage of this heartless proposal. The GOP budget proposes 
$50 billion in cuts to mandatory spending on veterans programs over 10 
years, including education benefits and loan guarantees. So after we 
have already asked so much of our men and women in uniform, this budget 
refuses to give them the tools they need to transition to civilian 
life. Our veterans deserve a better deal than that from the country 
that they have served so honorably.
  Cuts to research, where research is the future of our country, and 
this budget would also cut investments that are directly tied to our 
country's future prosperity by slashing basic research funding.
  I want to point out how important research funding is to our country. 
In 1996, two Stanford graduate students took a $4.5 million research 
grant from the National Science Foundation and developed a new 
algorithm called PageRank. Two years later, these same students took 
PageRank and launched a new internet search engine we now call Google. 
Today Google is worth over $600 billion and employs over 72,000 
Americans, and it all began with a Federal basic research grant of $4.5 
million.
  Google is just one example on a long list of technological 
advancement companies and, most importantly, jobs that trace their 
roots to basic research investment. It is what has kept this country on 
top.
  According to the Brookings Institution, two-thirds of the most 
influential technologies over the past 50 years were supported by 
Federal research grants. It has brought us lifesaving vaccines, the 
laser, touchscreen, GPS, and even the internet, technology that has 
served as a launching pad for cutting-edge medical treatment.
  Sadly, the chart behind me reflects a sharp decline in the Federal 
share of funding of basic research dropping from 72 percent in 1967 to 
44 percent in 2015. This GOP budget proposal follows that same trend 
with instructions to cut $41 billion from science, space, and 
technology precisely at a time when we should be increasing investments 
in these sectors.
  It is important to the future prosperity of America. Cuts now mean 
fewer jobs and economic growth in the future; they mean less innovation 
and less prosperity. So if my colleagues across the aisle want to grow 
the economy, turning this trend around is an important way to do it.
  Now, I have heard all day from my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle how very, very concerned they are about the deficit, but the GOP 
tax plan makes it worse. The tax framework released last week by the 
White House and Republican leaders would add $2.4 trillion to the 
deficit in the first 10 years and another $3.2 trillion in the next 10 
years.
  So the Republican budget is just totally unacceptable. This budget 
flat-out ignores the reality. So if Republicans are concerned about the 
deficit, then they should really rewrite their budget proposal.
  In conclusion, look at the fine print of this proposed deal and 
imagine the harm it would cause to millions of American families, to 
our children, to our seniors, to our sick and suffering, to our 
disabled and our destitute, to our economy, to our research, and to our 
infrastructure. It is clear--clear--beyond any and all doubt that 
Americans deserve a better deal.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Conaway), who is the distinguished chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the budget 
before the House.
  As a legislator, but more importantly, as a father and grandfather, I 
am seriously concerned about the mountain of debt our Nation is passing 
on to our children and grandchildren. Our Nation's total Federal debt 
is now bigger than our gross domestic product.
  Think about that. As the leader of the free world and the driver of 
global innovation and entrepreneurship, over the next 10 years, we 
expect to reach a point where annual interest payments to our creditors 
will exceed the amount we spend on defending our Nation.
  It is imperative that we change this trajectory, and I commend 
Chairwoman Black and her colleagues on the Budget Committee for 
providing a blueprint for tackling the problem. While Congress has made 
many decisions ahead of us to rein in mandatory spending, this budget 
is a critical starting point.
  Not only is budgeting a fundamental principle of good governance, it 
is essential to our efforts to reform our outdated tax system to ensure 
it is simpler and reduces the tax burden for all Americans.
  As a CPA with a current license, I look forward to the very real 
prospect of fundamental tax reform. This budget is the vehicle that can 
make that happen.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this budget.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I request the amount 
of time that is remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Zeldin). The gentlewoman from New York has 4 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio has 10\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. Chair, in closing, I believe that this proposal that is before us 
is an absolute disaster. We should be charting a fundamentally 
different course.
  When you listen to people around their dinner table in America 
tonight, they would be talking about their concerns in education, 
infrastructure, jobs, healthcare, security, environment, and disaster 
relief. But this plan delivers, instead, deep and sometimes disabling 
cuts to badly needed programs for millions in order to give away 
benefits to a fortunate few. This is just plain wrong. Budgets are 
about values and priorities, and the people of this country deserve 
better.
  We should not be cutting our education spending. Failing to train the 
world's most highly educated workforce is irresponsible and puts our 
entire economy at a disadvantage. We should be investing more in 
education at every level--early education and high schools--motivating 
students to become engaged in science, technology, math, and 
engineering. We should be leading the way in developing new and 
improved technical and trade training programs for those who would 
prefer it. We should be doing more, not less, to make college and 
postgrad study affordable once again. To do anything less is to fail in 
our obligation to the rising generation.
  We already trail much of the economically advanced world when it 
comes to healthcare. We get sicker, die sooner, and pay more for our 
care than most developed nations. Millions are just one serious illness 
away from financial ruin. But this budget plan would cut spending for 
healthcare, and this budget would weaken the pillars of financial 
security for our seniors. The proposed cuts to Medicare and Medicaid 
will come at the expense of seniors, the disabled, and the middle 
class.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford this budget. I urge my colleagues to 
reject

[[Page 15569]]

it, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, America is at a crossroads, and this budget is about 
choices.
  Mr. Chairman, there are moms and dads, single moms and elderly folks 
sitting at the kitchen table every night making choices on what to buy 
and what to pay for. They have to live within their means, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The Federal Government, for too long, hasn't lived within its means, 
and this budget is about that. This budget is about tax reform. This 
budget is about growing our economy. We haven't seen the growth in this 
recovery that we have seen in others.
  Mr. Chairman, I remember when I got my first job at McDonald's. My 
immigrant mother and my immigrant father sat me down and talked to me 
about the taxes that I would pay coming out of my first paycheck. I 
clearly remember my dad saying to me: Don't let the taxes that you pay 
stop you from saving most of this money, because in America, not only 
do you get taxed when you earn it, you get taxed when you save it, and 
if you save enough, you will get taxed when you die. That was my 
immigrant father with a fifth grade education. He was a steelworker.
  Mr. Chairman, it is incredibly sad in America today when a successful 
entrepreneur will pay over 50 percent of what he or she makes in taxes 
at the Federal, State, and local levels.
  Mr. Chairman, it has been 31 years since we reformed our outdated Tax 
Code, and now is the time--now is the time--at this crossroads to 
change the direction of America for our kids and our grandkids. I urge 
a ``yes'' vote on this responsible budget to live within our means, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Tennessee has 33 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Kentucky has 33\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I do want to just begin this next section by making a 
brief comment about my good friend from Kentucky, who has been using 
some information off of Forbes as he responds to our speakers. I just 
want to say, I went out to look at Forbes to see what was on Forbes 
while we were on this brief intermission, and I found this article that 
was in Forbes just the day before yesterday that does say that the GOP 
tax framework is a pay raise for middle class families.

                              {time}  1715

  I encourage people to take a look at this. It actually does some 
scenarios for what we know at this point in time. However, I do want to 
say that what has been put out is a framework. It doesn't really have 
enough details to give too much on these scenarios, because there are 
some very important pieces that are missing.
  Guessing on these key points really doesn't allow us to do a proper 
analysis. Things like the brackets have not been definitively defined, 
and neither have the income thresholds or the enhanced child credit.
  I think it is a little bit disingenuous to think that is really where 
we should be using those numbers right at this point in time to give a 
definitive scenario. I did want to say that that would be a good thing 
for people to look at if they would like to get a brief idea.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a distinguished member of the Budget 
Committee.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Yarmuth), our ranking member, for yielding and also for his tremendous 
leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this deeply flawed 
Republican budget resolution.
  When we considered this resolution in July, Democrats offered 28 
amendments. The amendments that we offered were meant to help set a 
course away from the disastrous path that the Republican majority and 
the Trump administration are steering us down.
  We offered amendments on a broad range of issues important to our 
communities and our families. These included protecting our communities 
from the effects of climate change; preserving healthcare; investing in 
public health, research, and diplomacy; and investing in our Nation's 
workforce and infrastructure. Not surprisingly, not a single one of 
those made it through.
  Instead, we have the resolution: a love letter to millionaires, 
billionaires, and corporations, and nothing but a manifesto of contempt 
for America's working families.
  Mr. Chairman, the resolution we will be asked to vote on is based on 
the same faulty assumptions as the bill that came through committee. 
These include assuming that the repeal of the Affordable Care Act 
happened, which it did not, and an unrealistic economic growth of 3 
percent.
  The Republican budget resolution does little but hurt millions of 
American families in order to fast-track tax cuts for millionaires, 
billionaires, and corporations.
  In addition, after all the Republican talk of deficit reduction, this 
cruel budget resolution massively increases the Federal debt by over 
$2.4 trillion over the next 10 years and $3.2 trillion in the 10 years 
after.
  Where does putting the interests of corporations and the wealthiest 
ahead of working families get us?
  Well, we have seen where this ends.
  Earlier this summer, the Republican-dominated Kansas Legislature was 
forced to roll back its 2012 tax cuts. In fact, a recent Brookings 
Institution analysis found that the tax cuts resulted in an ``anemic 
level of revenues, which led to ballooning shortfalls, causing 
significant cutbacks in vital programs such as Medicaid, education, 
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, court funding, and 
infrastructure.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman from Washington an 
additional 1 minute.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. This Republican budget resolution will lead us into that 
same hole, yet we know that this will only give Republicans license to 
call for further cuts to critical programs like Medicare, Social 
Security, and education.
  We know who wins under this budget resolution. It paves the way for a 
Republican tax proposal that gives a huge tax cut to the wealthiest in 
our country.
  Consider this: 80 percent of the Republican tax cut goes to the top 1 
percent by 2027; the average tax cut for the top 1 percent would be 
$207,000; for millionaires, the tax cut would provide $230,000 a year; 
and 42 million middle class households would face a tax increase, 
including those people earning between $50,000 and $150,000.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget resolution is unfair to working families 
and to our country's future. I urge my colleagues to vote against this 
resolution. Let's work together on a moral budget blueprint that 
supports all Americans.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Judy Chu), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Chair, typically, a budget is a 
blueprint for how our government plans to meet our obligations to our 
people; but not this time.
  By including reconciliation instructions for their tax plan, the 
Republicans are using this budget as a blueprint to give tax cuts to 
the wealthiest few, without requiring bipartisan support.
  Under this bill, a family making $50,000 a year could see their tax 
burden go up, while millionaires will save $230,000. And who will pay 
to make the rich richer? Our working families, children, and seniors.
  This budget slashes priorities like education, infrastructure, and 
veterans' benefits, and even guts Medicare and Medicaid by $1.5 
trillion.

[[Page 15570]]

  ``You can't make guarantees,'' is how Treasury Secretary Mnuchin 
responded when asked if the Republican tax plan would help the middle 
class. But the thing is, you can make guarantees. If this Republican 
budget moves forward, it will guarantee that inequality gets worse, 
while the rest of us pay to help make millionaires into billionaires.
  Mr. Chairman, I reject this budget and ask my colleagues to oppose 
it.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a distinguished member of the Appropriations 
Committee.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this budget 
resolution.
  A budget is a moral document. It reflects our values. This budget is 
a stark reminder that the majority and the Trump administration are 
waging a war on the middle class and eviscerating the social safety net 
programs that help our most vulnerable citizens.
  The social safety net was built on a bipartisan basis. Why is the 
majority hell-bent on destroying it?
  Older Americans will suffer under this budget. It cuts $1.5 trillion 
from Medicare and Medicaid. It betrays middle class job seekers by 
cutting job training, education programs, and other nondefense programs 
by 34 percent over the next 10 years.
  It decimates the Food Stamp program, SNAP benefits and assumes the 
enactment of the House-passed repeal of the Affordable Care Act, 
targeting American families who are struggling to get by.
  If we were serious about addressing the problems that face middle 
class families, we would be voting on a budget resolution that invests 
in their priorities: job training, apprenticeships, paid family and 
medical leave, fair trade, and equal pay for equal work.
  Instead, we are considering a budget that is merely a means for the 
majority to jam through their tax cuts for the wealthy and for 
corporations.
  The biggest economic challenge of our time is that too many people 
now are in jobs that do not pay them enough to live on. We should be 
growing the middle class and looking for solutions that work for 
America's families.
  We ought to be prioritizing the needs of working families, the ones 
who have entrusted us to come to Washington to fight for them and to 
fight for their families. Instead, this budget puts corporate profits 
first. It caters to those with the most lobbyists.
  This budget is a disgrace to the promises that we have made to the 
American people, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in strong opposition to the Republican budget proposal.
  As the ranking member on the Transportation Committee, I want to 
focus in a little bit on what they do to transportation.
  We heard great promises from President Trump of a trillion dollars in 
new investment. Nothing has come from the White House. The first 
substantive action on transportation in this Congress is going to be 
the Republicans in the House of Representatives cutting transportation 
funding by $254 billion.
  That is right. No trillion dollars of new spending. We are going to 
spend $254 billion less.
  They are going to eliminate all long-route trains, isolating rural 
America. They are going to lose essential air service in rural America. 
And, by the way, the Republicans want to toll your interstate. So if 
you live in rural America, you can get in your car to go somewhere, but 
now you are going to have to pay to use the highway you already paid 
for.
  Secondly, it eliminates critical funding for our urban areas, the 
economic engines of this country. It eliminates TIGER grants for 
freight and multimodal projects. It eliminates new investment in 
transit, new start projects. It eliminates all investments in high-
speed rail and eliminates specific funding for bicycle and pedestrian 
projects. The Republicans just hate bicycles.
  It also goes on--and this is totally amazing--seriously, you are 
going to cut funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency? 
Haven't you been watching television? I think they are already out of 
money. You are going to cut funding?
  We want to do away with those programs that might mitigate the 
disaster of future floods and hurricanes. You are going to cut grants 
for firefighters.
  Then, that is not enough. We are going to roll back Davis-Bacon 
protections for people who work on federally funded projects. We are 
going to roll back Buy American? Really? So it is ``Buy Chinese'' in 
the Republican budget. Buy Chinese.
  They want to devolve the obligation to fund Federal highways to the 
States. I have got news for you: we have tried that.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Oregon an 
additional 1 minute.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. This is Kansas and Oklahoma. This is Kansas before we 
had the Eisenhower--by the way, a Republican--National Highway Program. 
They built their turnpike. Oklahoma said they would build theirs. They 
didn't. They were out of money. They didn't build it until they got an 
80 percent Federal match.
  So let's go back to the good, old days. We are going to devolve the 
obligations of putting together a 21st century transportation system in 
this country, knitting our country together, getting rid of congestion, 
moving people and goods more efficiently, but we are going to do it on 
a State-by-State basis. That is nuts. I just can't believe this.
  Then, there is another little trick. The chairman of my committee 
wants to privatize the airspace in the United States and reduce the 
ticket tax that pays for air traffic control. That would be a $10 
billion windfall to the airline industry, because they will raise 
prices. Then they are going to charge you a head fee to get on the 
plane.
  Even better, it creates $100 billion of new deficit. So this nifty 
little thing here contains a reserve fund of $100 billion to try and 
make up for the fact and hide the fact that they are cutting $100 
billion of taxes that pay for the current system.
  How are you going to pay for the next system?
  The airlines will determine that, not Congress.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter that has been signed 
by 242 agencies and think tanks supporting this budget.
  Among those who have signed this letter are the American Bankers 
Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, Americans for Tax Reform, 
Business Roundtable, Financial Services Forum, Manufactured Housing 
Institute, National Association of Manufacturers, the National Black 
Chamber of Commerce, National Grocers Association, National Retail 
Federation, Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry, The Kentucky 
Chamber, and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, among many others.

                                               September 28, 2017.
     To The Members of the United States Congress: We urge 
     Congress to expeditiously pass a budget resolution with 
     reconciliation instructions so that the promise of tax reform 
     can be made a reality.
       It has been 31 years since Congress last reformed the tax 
     code. Since then, the code has become an anchor weighing down 
     the economy, job creation, and wage growth for American 
     families.
       This Congress has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix 
     the problem. Over the past several years, tremendous work has 
     been done to prepare for this moment. In the 113th Congress 
     the Ways and Means Committee conducted a comprehensive look 
     at tax reform. Last year House Republicans released a 
     Blueprint for reform. During the last Congress, the Senate 
     Finance Committee convened bi-partisan working groups that 
     tackled all the major aspects of reform.
       President Trump has outlined his goals for reform, and the 
     ``Group of Six''--consisting

[[Page 15571]]

     of members from the House, Senate, and Administration--has 
     presented a framework to guide the drafting and markup of 
     legislation in the Ways and Means and Finance Committees.
       While much work remains to be done, we believe Congress is 
     well-positioned to move forward with comprehensive, pro-
     growth tax reform.
       The single-most important next step is for Congress to 
     adopt a budget resolution with reconciliation instructions 
     that will permit tax reform to move forward without the 
     threat of a filibuster.
       Just like Members of Congress, each of our organizations 
     will continue to advocate for specific priorities within tax 
     reform as the relevant committees and ultimately the full 
     House and Senate consider tax reform legislation.
       But failing to pass a budget resolution now may mean that 
     tax reform never moves forward. That outcome is unacceptable 
     to all of us and ought to be unacceptable to every Member of 
     Congress who has advocated for reform.
           Sincerely,
       Aerospace Industries Association, African American Chamber 
     of Commerce of New Jersey, Air Conditioning Contractors of 
     America (ACCA), Alabama Retail Association, Alaska Chamber, 
     Allen Fairview Chamber of Commerce (TX), Alliance for 
     Competitive Taxation (ACT), American Bakers Association, 
     American Bankers Association, American Council of Engineering 
     Companies, American Exploration & Production Council, 
     American Farm Bureau Federation, American Forest & Paper 
     Association, American Foundry Society, American Gas 
     Association, American Hotel & Lodging Association, American 
     International Automobile Dealers Association, American Iron 
     and Steel Institute, American Made Coalition, American 
     Petroleum Institute (API).
       American Supply Association, Americans for Tax Reform, Ames 
     Chamber of Commerce (IA), Argentum, Arizona Chamber of 
     Commerce and Industry, Asian American Hotel Owners 
     Association, Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association, 
     Associated Builders and Contractors, Associated Equipment 
     Distributors, Associated General Contractors of America, 
     Associated Wire Rope Fabricators, Association for Hose and 
     Accessories Distribution (NAHAD), Association of American 
     Railroads, Association of Equipment Manufacturers, 
     Association of Washington Business, Auto Care Association, 
     Baton Rouge Area Chamber (LA), Battle Creek Area Chamber of 
     Commerce (MI), Boca Raton Chamber of Commerce (FL), Brainerd 
     Lakes Chamber of Commerce (MN).
       Bristol County Chamber of Commerce (MA), Buckeye Valley 
     Chamber (AZ), Buffalo Niagara Partnership (NY), Business 
     Council of Alabama, Business Council of New York State, 
     Business Roundtable, Cedar Rapids Metro Economic Alliance 
     (IA), Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association 
     (CTIA), Central Louisiana Regional Chamber of Commerce, 
     Chambers of Commerce Alliance of Ventura & Santa Barbara 
     Counties (CA), Chester County Chamber of Business & Industry 
     (PA), Coeur d'Alene Chamber of Commerce (ID), Colorado 
     Association of Commerce and Industry, Colorado Retail 
     Association, Consumer Bankers Association, Convenience 
     Distribution Association, Coral Gables Chamber of Commerce 
     (FL), Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, 
     Covington County Chamber of Commerce (MS), Crowley Chamber of 
     Commerce (LA).
       Davis Chamber of Commerce (UT), Dayton Area Chamber of 
     Commerce (OH), Eatonton-Putnam Chamber of Commerce (GA), 
     Edison Electric Institute (EEI), Edmond Area Chamber of 
     Commerce (OK), Edwardsville/Glen Carbon Chamber of Commerce 
     (IL), Energy Equipment and Infrastructure Alliance, 
     Entertainment Software Association, Financial Services Forum, 
     Florida Chamber of Commerce, Florida Retail Federation, Food 
     Marketing Institute, Fox Cities Chamber of Commerce (WI), Gas 
     and Welding Distributors Association, Georgia Chamber of 
     Commerce, Georgia Retail Federation, Glenwood Springs Chamber 
     Resort Association & Film Commission (CO), Granbury Chamber 
     of Commerce (TX).
       Grand Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce (MI), Greater 
     Bakersfield Chamber (CA), Greater Cedar Valley Alliance & 
     Chamber (IA), Greater Coachella Valley Chamber of Commerce 
     (CA), Greater El Paso Chamber of Commerce (TX), Greater 
     Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce (AZ), Greater Ketchikan Chamber 
     of Commerce (AK), Greater Lehigh Valley Chamber of Commerce 
     (PA), Greater Louisville Inc. (KY), Greater North Dakota 
     Chamber, Greater Oklahoma City Chamber (OK), Greater Phoenix 
     Chamber of Commerce (AZ), Greater Pittsburgh Chamber of 
     Commerce (PA), Greater Shreveport Chamber of Commerce (LA), 
     Greater Springfield Chamber of Commerce (VA), Greater Toms 
     River Chamber of Commerce (NJ), Greater Yakima Chamber of 
     Commerce (WA), Grocery Manufacturers Association, Hastings 
     Area Chamber of Commerce (NE), Heating, Air-conditioning & 
     Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI), Henderson 
     Chamber of Commerce (NV).
       Hilliard Area Chamber of Commerce (OH), Hillsboro Chamber 
     of Commerce (OR), Home Furnishings Association, Illinois 
     Chamber of Commerce, Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers 
     of America, Independent Office Products & Furniture Dealers 
     Alliance, Independent Petroleum Association of America, 
     Indiana Chamber of Commerce, International Foodservice 
     Distributors Association, International Warehouse Logistics 
     Association, Iowa Chamber Alliance, Irrigation Association, 
     ISSA, The Worldwide Cleaning Industry Association, Jefferson 
     Chamber of Commerce (LA), Jenkins County Chamber of Commerce 
     (GA), Job Creators Network, Johnson City/Jonesborough/
     Washington County TN Chamber, Joliet Region Chamber of 
     Commerce & Industry (MO), Kalispell Chamber of Commerce (MT), 
     Kansas Chamber of Commerce, Kingsport Chamber (TN), Kyndle 
     (Henderson County KY Chamber of Commerce).
       Lake Havasu Area Chamber of Commerce (AZ), Lancaster 
     Chamber (PA), Las Vegas Metro Chamber of Commerce (NV), 
     Lemont Chamber of Commerce (IL), Lima Allen County Chamber of 
     Commerce (OH), Little Rock Regional Chamber (AR), Long Beach 
     Area Chamber of Commerce (CA), Louisiana Association of 
     Business and Industry, Manufactured Housing Institute, McLean 
     County Chamber of Commerce (IL), Metals Service Center 
     Institute, Metro South Chamber of Commerce (MA), Metropolitan 
     Milwaukee Association of Commerce (WI), Michigan Retailers 
     Association, Minnesota Retailers Association, Missouri 
     Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Monroe Chamber of Commerce 
     (LA), Montgomery Area Chamber of Commerce (AL), Motor & 
     Equipment Manufacturers Association, Myrtle Beach Area 
     Chamber of Commerce (SC), National Association of Chemical 
     Distributors, National Association of Manufacturers, National 
     Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, National 
     Association of Professional Employer Organizations.
       National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, 
     National Association of the Remodeling Industry, National 
     Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, National Beer 
     Wholesalers Association, National Black Chamber of Commerce, 
     National Club Association, National Council of Chain 
     Restaurants, National Electrical Contractors Association 
     (NECA), National Grocers Association, National Lumber and 
     Building Material Dealers Association, National Marine 
     Manufacturers Association, National Office Products Alliance, 
     National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, National 
     Restaurant Association, National Retail Federation, National 
     Roofing Contractors Association, National Stone, Sand and 
     Gravel Association, Nebraska Chamber of Commerce & Industry, 
     Nebraska Retail Federation, NFIB--National Federation of 
     Independent Business.
       North Carolina Chamber, North Country Chamber of Commerce 
     (NY), North Dakota Retail Association, North Kingstown 
     Chamber of Commerce (RI), North Myrtle Beach Chamber of 
     Commerce (SC), North Orange County Chamber (CA), North San 
     Antonio Chamber (TX), Office Furniture Dealers Alliance, Ohio 
     Chamber of Commerce, Ohio Council of Retail Merchants, 
     Oklahoma Retail Merchants Association, Oshkosh Chamber of 
     Commerce (WI), Oxnard Chamber of Commerce (CA), PA Chamber of 
     Business and Industry, Pennsylvania Retailers Association, 
     Plano Chamber of Commerce (TX), Portland Cement Association, 
     Prattville Area Chamber of Commerce (AL), Precious Metals 
     Association of North America, Professional Beauty 
     Association.
       Reforming America's Taxes Equitability (RATE) Coalition, 
     Reno+Sparks Chamber of Commerce (NV), Retail Association of 
     Nevada, Retail Association of New Mexico, Retail Council of 
     New York State, Retail Industry Leaders Association, 
     Retailers Association of Massachusetts, Richardson Chamber of 
     Commerce (TX), River Heights Chamber of Commerce (MN), S 
     Corporation Association, Sacramento Metro Chamber of Commerce 
     (CA), Salt Lake Chamber (UT), San Diego Regional Chamber of 
     Commerce (CA), San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership (CA), 
     Schuylkill Chamber of Commerce (PA), Securities Industry and 
     Financial Markets Association, Service Station Dealers of 
     America and Allied Trades (SSDA-AT), Silver City Grant County 
     Chamber of Commerce (NM), South Summit Chamber of Commerce 
     (OH), Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association.
       Southwest Indiana Chamber, St. Cloud Area Chamber of 
     Commerce (MN), St. Joseph Chamber of Commerce, St. Tammany 
     West Chamber of Commerce, State Chamber of Oklahoma, Steel 
     Manufacturers Association, Tampa Bay Beaches Chamber of 
     Commerce (FL), Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry, 
     Texas Retailers Association, The Chamber of Commerce of the 
     Santa Barbara Region (CA), The Chamber of Medford/Jackson 
     County (OR), The Chamber Grand Forks/East Grand Forks (ND), 
     The Fertilizer Institute, The Financial Services Roundtable, 
     The Kentucky Chamber, The Longview Chamber of Commerce (TX), 
     The Ohio Society of CPAs, The Real Estate Roundtable, Tile 
     Roofing Institute, Tioga County Chamber of Commerce (NY).
       Tire Industry Association (TIA), Truck Renting and Leasing 
     Association, Tucson Metro Chamber (AZ), Tulsa Regional 
     Chamber (OK), U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Union County Chamber 
     of Commerce, United Corpus Christi Chamber of Commerce (TX), 
     USTelecom--The Broadband Association,

[[Page 15572]]

     Utah Food Industry Association, Utah Retail Merchants 
     Association, Virginia Chamber of Commerce, Virginia Small 
     Business Partnership, West Baton Rouge Chamber of Commerce 
     (LA), Wholesalers Association of the Northeast (WANE), Window 
     and Door Manufacturers Association, Wisconsin Manufacturers 
     and Commerce, WMDA/CAR Service Station and Automotive Repair 
     Association.

  Mrs. BLACK. There are 242 different entities that signed this letter 
to say that passing a budget is what we should be doing and that would 
lead us to tax reforms.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Fudge), a distinguished member of the Agriculture Committee 
and a fellow rabid Cleveland Indians fan.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Republican 
budget.
  As Vice President Biden stated: ``Don't tell me what you value. Show 
me your budget and I will tell you what you value.''
  The Republican's so-called Building a Better America budget shows us 
they do not value education, infrastructure, research and development, 
veterans' benefits, and other programs which expand opportunities for 
America's families.

                              {time}  1730

  This budget is immoral. It provides trillions of dollars in tax money 
to millionaires and wealthy corporations while shifting the burden onto 
the middle class. It cuts $5.4 trillion from programs that American 
families rely on; programs like SNAP, Pell grants, Social Security, and 
healthcare.
  The budget ends the Medicare guarantee. It cuts Medicare alone by 
almost $500 billion over 10 years. A vote for this budget destroys 
American families in favor of a select few. This budget does not build 
a better America. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this budget.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had numerous letters submitted to us taking a 
position in opposition to this budget resolution, and I think they are 
pretty compelling, and I would like to read from some of them.
  Here is a letter from the Main Street Alliance:

       Main Street Alliance, a network of small business owners 
     throughout the country, strongly urges you to oppose H. Con. 
     Res. 71, the fiscal year 2018 budget resolution. This budget, 
     if enacted into law, would cut $3.4 trillion from Medicaid, 
     Medicare, Social Security, education, employment and 
     training, food and housing assistance, and infrastructure 
     spending over the next 10 years. This will significantly harm 
     small business owners and their employees, damage local 
     economies, and decimate State budgets.
       We urge you to protect Main Street small business owners, 
     working families, communities, and economies, and oppose the 
     House budget resolution. Reject any budget that enables tax 
     cuts for the very wealthy and large profitable corporations 
     to lose revenue, since it will force deep cuts in vital 
     programs that harm small business.

  This letter from the National Committee to Preserve Social Security 
and Medicare:

       On behalf of the millions of members and supporters of the 
     National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, 
     I urge you to oppose H. Con. Res. 71, the House fiscal year 
     2018 budget resolution, and the Republican Study Committee 
     budget. Instead, I ask you to support the Democratic Caucus, 
     Congressional Progressive Caucus, and Congressional Black 
     Caucus budgets.
       The committee-passed budget resolution would slash funding 
     to Medicare and Medicaid, repeal the Affordable Care Act, and 
     make it easier for Congress to cut Social Security, all to 
     pay for massive tax cuts for the very wealthy and profitable 
     corporations.

  This from the American Public Health Association:

       On behalf of the American Public Health Association, a 
     diverse community of public health professionals who champion 
     the health of all people and communities, I write in strong 
     opposition to the House FY 2018 budget resolution, H. Con. 
     Res. 71. This proposal does not eliminate sequestration and 
     would drastically cut nondefense discretionary spending. Such 
     cuts would devastate our Nation's public health and safety 
     net system and would have a disproportionate impact on our 
     Nation's most vulnerable citizens.
       The proposal also includes the House passed repeal of the 
     Affordable Care Act that would force millions to lose 
     coverage, end the Medicaid expansion, drastically reduce 
     Federal funding for the Medicaid program, and lead to 
     increased cost and fewer benefits for millions of Americans.

  This letter from the AFSCME, American Federation of State and County 
Municipal Employees:

       On behalf of the 1.6 million members of AFSCME, I urge you 
     to oppose H. Con. Res. 71, the fiscal year 2018 budget 
     resolution approved by the House Budget Committee and 
     scheduled to be considered in the full House.
       This budget would impose considerable hardship on many 
     Americans in order to slash taxes for the wealthy and 
     corporations to boost defense spending. Rather than 
     increasing revenues for investment that creates jobs and 
     spurs economic growth, the proposed budget creates a fast-
     track process for tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit 
     corporations and the wealthy.
       In fact, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, 
     the Trump GOP tax cut would largely benefit the richest 1 
     percent. The budget also relies on the gimmicks of dynamic 
     scoring and sham accounting, hiding the true cost of 
     unnecessary and harmful tax cuts.

  And this, from AARP:

       Proposals creating a defined contribution premium support 
     program, restricting access by raising the age of 
     eligibility, or allowing hospitals and providers to 
     arbitrarily charge customers higher prices than Medicare can 
     make healthcare unaffordable for older Americans. These 
     proposals do little to actually lower the cost of healthcare 
     but simply shifts cost from Medicare on to individuals, many 
     of whom cannot afford to pay for their care.
       Efforts to reduce or cap Medicaid funding could endanger 
     the health, safety, and care of millions of individuals who 
     depend on the essential services provided through this 
     program.
       Furthermore, caps could result in significant cost shifts 
     to State governments unable to shoulder the cost of care 
     without sufficient Federal support.
       Proposals to block grant the program or impose work 
     requirements will make SNAP less responsive and accessible in 
     times of need, and without clear work requirement exemptions 
     for the elderly and disabled, would bar these individuals 
     from receiving SNAP benefits.
       We ask you to reject the cuts proposed in H. Con. Res. 71. 
     We stand ready to work with you to develop proposals that 
     protect and improve Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and 
     SNAP.

  This from the Alliance for Retired Americans:

       On behalf of the more than 4.3 million members of the 
     Alliance for Retired Americans, I am writing to urge you to 
     vote against H. Con. Res. 71, the budget resolution for FY 
     2018. This budget blueprint cuts spending by $5.4 trillion 
     over 10 years, disseminating numerous domestic programs, 
     including those that benefit older Americans.
       It is shocking that the same budget that cuts services for 
     many low-income Americans and raises taxes on the middle 
     class will also carry instructions to provide $2.4 trillion 
     in tax cuts to corporations and wealthy Americans.
       These tax cuts, which will increase the deficit, sets up 
     the perfect scenario for Congress to slash Medicare and 
     Medicaid. We are not fooled by the House leadership's tax 
     giveaway to the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans 
     and urge you to oppose this draconian budget. We will be 
     watching how you vote on this important issue.

  This is a letter from the Coalition on Human Needs:

       On behalf of the Coalition on Human Needs, I strongly urge 
     you to vote ``no'' on H. Con. Res. 71, the proposed FY 2018 
     budget resolution, and to vote for the substitute budgets 
     advanced by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, 
     Congressional Black Caucus, and the Democratic alternative 
     budget resolution. Our members understand that the economic 
     security of millions of American families depends on building 
     on the progress we have made in health coverage, jobs, basic 
     living standards, and ensuring that our children are well 
     prepared for productive lives.
       But the majority's proposed budget does not build. It 
     breaks apart our engines of progress. It will make our Nation 
     weaker for decades to come.
       The budget advanced by the House Budget Committee would be 
     a dangerous backwards plunge, stripping trillions of dollars 
     from programs that work to reduce poverty and create security 
     and opportunity.
       Medicaid, Medicare, working family tax credits, nutrition 
     assistance, education, and housing assistance, these are just 
     some of the services the budget would massively cut.
       The budget takes trillions in funding that supports 
     economic security and progress and hands it to the wealthy 
     and corporations in the form of enormous tax cuts.


[[Page 15573]]


  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, Republicans have chosen to lavish huge tax 
breaks on large multinationals and the top wealthiest few in our 
country instead of growing our economy by investing in all Americans. 
Investing in our workforce, in our physical infrastructure, in 
entrepreneurship, that is the way to really grow the economy; not these 
retread Republican tax policies that offer all the benefits to the top 
and hope something will eventually trickle down to everyone else, that 
only grow the national debt, as has been shown time and time again.
  Our Republicans today call their budget a vision for our country, and 
what a grim vision it is for anyone who does not count themselves among 
the top 1 percent. Republicans would only widen income inequality with 
massive tax breaks for the few, while slashing trillions from 
initiatives that give more Americans the chance to get ahead, while, at 
the same time, strengthening our overall economic future.
  For seniors, this is a budget that breaks Trump's promise not to cut 
Medicare to the tune of about half a trillion dollars in cuts, and it 
would slash an additional $1 trillion for Medicaid, upon which so many 
seniors rely.
  For students and families that are struggling to get a college 
education, the ticket into the middle class, and into economic 
competitiveness, this budget will make it harder to climb the economic 
ladder with major cuts to Pell grants and other student assistance 
programs, and it will limit our investment in education and job 
training for American workers that are already out there trying to 
upgrade their skills.
  What does the Republican budget do with all the money they save from 
cutting the middle class and working people, seniors, and those who are 
trying to get ahead? Well, it stuffs the pockets of those at the top 
and the large multinationals.
  What President Trump and his Republican cohorts say their plan is, it 
isn't. You know, only last week, Trump said this about his tax plan: 
``I don't benefit. I don't benefit. In fact, very, very strongly, as 
you see, I think there is very little benefit for people of wealth.''
  Well, the analysis of the one tax return that leaked out suggests 
that President Trump will benefit to the tune of more than $1 billion. 
Eighty percent of the tax breaks in this proposal go to the top 1 
percent. That is people who are making more than $730,000 a year while 
one in four Americans could actually see a tax increase.
  That is why you can understand that they say they can't guarantee 
that taxes won't go up for many people in the middle class. And 
overall, this is a budget that is dripping in red ink.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, we begin to understand why Trump calls 
himself ``the king of debt,'' because there is plenty of debt that will 
be added onto this plan.
  For Trump and his cohorts, fiscal responsibility is just a political 
slogan that they use to undermine those education and social service 
programs they were never for in the first place.
  The Republican budget is not just numbers. It has a real human cost. 
By slashing investments in our economic future, it is a recipe for 
weakness, not strength. I urge my colleagues to side with the middle 
class, with working folks all over America, and reject this budget.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the 
Compact for a Balanced Budget Commission, and I will read a portion of 
this letter. They say: ``Dear Chairman Black: We have reviewed the text 
of the budget resolution reported by your committee, H. Con. Res. 71, 
and write to offer our support. That rarest of political outcomes--
sound policy that represents a win-win scenario for normally divergent 
factions--is possible as the budget process moves forward.
  ``Our Nation is facing a fiscal crisis. It is essential that the 
Federal budget returns to balance within the 10-year budget period 
because runaway Federal debt is not political or partisan--it is an 
economic, generational, and civil rights issue. We commend you and your 
committee for reporting a resolution that balances within the budget 
period; its adoption is very much in the national interest.''
  And again, this comes from The Compact Commission, Compact for a 
Balanced Budget.

         The Compact Commission, c/o Compact for America 
           Educational Foundation, Inc.,
                                      Houston, TX, August 8, 2017.
     Re 2018 House Budget Resolution and the Compact for a 
         Balanced Budget.

     Hon. Diane Black,
     Chairman, House Budget Committee, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Black: We have reviewed the text of the 
     budget resolution reported by your Committee (House 
     Concurrent Resolution 71) and write to offer our support. 
     That rarest of political outcomes--sound policy that 
     represents a win-win scenario for normally divergent 
     factions--is possible as the budget process moves forward.
       Our nation is facing a fiscal crisis. It is essential that 
     the federal budget returns to balance within the ten-year 
     budget period because runaway federal debt is not political 
     or partisan--it is an economic, generational and civil-rights 
     issue. We commend you and your Committee for reporting a 
     resolution that balances within the budget period; its 
     adoption is very much in the national interest.
       We also commend the Committee for including Section 501 in 
     the resolution, which endorses adding a balanced budget 
     requirement to the Constitution.
       Section 501 identifies the Compact for a Balanced Budget, 
     which we represent on behalf of current and future member 
     states. We believe the most practical, prudent enforcement 
     mechanism is the state-of-the-art balanced budget amendment 
     (BBA) being proposed by the Compact. This state-of-the-art 
     BBA has been specifically designed to overcome concerns 
     expressed in 40 years of congressional hearings that have 
     considered how a BBA should be drafted. Such concerns may 
     have prevented prior BBAs from being proposed.
       To advance the policy prescription in Section 501 of the 
     budget resolution in the House, we recommend: updating this 
     section to reflect that the concurrent resolution to 
     effectuate the Compact (House Concurrent Resolution 73) was 
     introduced on July 26, 2017; and incorporating the language 
     of House Concurrent Resolution 73 into Section 501. This 
     could be done as one of several amendments you are probably 
     already planning to bring up during floor consideration as 
     the manager's package, and requires only a majority vote as 
     opposed to the two-thirds required for balanced budget 
     amendment proposals made by members of Congress.
       Taking these steps establishes a strong enforcement 
     mechanism, sustaining the budget resolution following its 
     adoption. It would also strengthen the appeal of the budget 
     resolution to fiscal conservatives in the House and taking 
     these steps prior to the consideration of legislation to 
     raise the debt ceiling should expedite approval of that 
     legislation.
       Supermajorities of Americans have demanded a balanced 
     budget for decades. Our nation's debt threatens future 
     generations to default or austerity, but we believe there's a 
     chance here for a third option: principled leadership on the 
     matter of debt and spending.
       We hope you and your Committee members will agree that 
     there is a path here which acknowledges the need for long-
     term fiscal sanity while also meeting shorter-term political 
     and policy needs.
           Regards,
     Chair Mead Treadwell,
       Alaska Commissioner.
     Vice Chair Paulate Rakestraw,
       Georgia Commissioner.
     Greg Snowden,
       Mississippi Commissioner.

  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I want to just bounce off of that and take 
a look at the chart that we have here. When we take a look at 
interest--and somehow we don't always talk that much about interest 
here. We talk about borrowing money and raising our debt ceiling 
continually. I have been here now for 6\1/2\ years, and the 
conversation is about raising that debt ceiling so that we can pay for 
our debt, but there comes interest on that.
  Just as when we go to a bank and we borrow money, we have to pay 
interest on that. I remember years ago, when I bought my first house, 
we were at a period of time when President Carter was the President and 
the interest rates

[[Page 15574]]

were outrageous, and our interest rate on our house at that time, when 
we purchased it as a young married couple, was, I think, somewhere 
between 14 and 16 percent.
  Interest rates now are very much more reasonable for young couples 
purchasing. And so I want to turn our attention to this chart here to 
take a look at the outlays in 2027 under the CBO baseline.
  If we continue down this path that we are going in, without taking a 
look at our mandatory spending, the amount of money that we borrow, and 
the debt that we pile up with an interest to it, just what will that 
look like?

                              {time}  1745

  I think if we look at our own household and we would say that our 
interest that we are paying on the credit card or whatever, or the car 
interest or the House mortgage, if it were more than all of the other 
things like the food and maybe the education for our children and 
buying books and pencils and things that they need for school, we would 
be looking at the way in which we were managing our household income 
and saying, wow, that is not something we want to keep doing. We are 
going to have to get on some kind of a budget plan and reverse the 
trajectory of where we would be going.
  So here we are. At the end of the period of 2027, if we look at 17 
years down the road and we don't do anything about the kind of 
mandatory spending, which is two-thirds of our budget, currently, and 
continues to grow, here is what happens:
  We see $768 billion being spent on interest alone.
  We see the next one down, the defense, at $741 billion. We would 
actually be paying more in interest than we were in the security of our 
Nation and supporting our men and women who serve in the military, and 
all of the supplies and the necessary equipment that it takes to 
protect them as they protect us.
  Look at what happens with Medicaid. We will be spending less on 
Medicaid that is for people who are the blind, the disabled, the 
elderly, the children, the pregnant mothers.
  We talk about wanting to put our money and our values where we see 
the values really belong. Is this really where we want our values to be 
in the money that we spend, $768 billion in interest compared to what 
we are spending on our military, what we are spending on our Medicaid?
  Look at our veterans, our veterans that we talk about how much we 
honor them: $248 billion as opposed to $768 billion in interest.
  Again, we must question where we are going and if this is the right 
direction. Is this the direction that we can all just raise our hand up 
and say, yes, we are making good decisions for the future of our 
country? Because look at where the interest is compared to the other 
programs that we both, Republicans and Democrats, have said are so 
important to us.
  Over and over again, we have had colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle go and speak about the importance of what our values are. Our 
budget is a vision of what our values are.
  Transportation, and I have heard more and more times on both sides of 
the aisle talking about infrastructure, how important that is for our 
Nation. Look at what our transportation and our infrastructure will be. 
I don't know that we want to spend only $110 billion on that and $768 
billion on interest. Think of how many roads we could build, how many 
bridges we could repair if we reverse this trajectory.
  Then, finally, at the bottom here is science-based technology. We all 
want to be competitive with those around the world to make sure that we 
are spending the money where we need to spend the money to stay in 
front of these other nations with our science and our space and our 
technology.
  I want to recommend here that there are only two other programs, 
Social Security and Medicare, that exceed that net interest. So we will 
say Social Security, Medicare, and then our net interest; and from 
there, everything else that we say, both the Republicans and the 
Democrats, are so important, that we say are our values, are going to 
be underneath the interest. I don't think that is really where we want 
to go.
  I have to think, my oldest grandchild right now is 19 years old, soon 
to turn 20, when he is 30 years old, he might say to me: Mimi, what 
were you doing when you were in Congress? What were you doing to help 
us, because now we are paying more in interest than we are all of these 
other programs that we contend to be so important to us?
  So these are difficult decisions to make, I will acknowledge that. 
But I will also say to you, as someone who--I consider myself to be a 
policy wonk. As I look at these various programs, I say there is 
nothing that we are doing in my life that I did 40 years ago that I am 
doing exactly the same. So if a program has been around for 40 years, 
should we not want to say maybe we can reform it? Not necessarily cut, 
but, in the reforming, you may find a way to decrease the spending that 
you are doing in that program.
  Can't we all lock arms, Democrats and Republicans, and acknowledge 
that there are some decisions that have to be made with programs that 
have been there for a very long time?
  Can we not acknowledge that there are some programs that perhaps have 
fraud, waste, and abuse that we can take care of, take that money and 
use it in these places where we really say our values lie?
  So I would say that, as we talk about this budget, I am very proud of 
what we have done in this budget, in the cuts or, as I say, reforms in 
those programs that would result in $203 billion worth of savings over 
a 10-year period, that these are programs that we gave the committees 
of jurisdiction an opportunity to look within their jurisdiction and to 
make those decisions and do the homework. It is your jurisdiction; it 
is not mine. We gave them recommendations and suggestions, but it is 
their jurisdiction.
  Let them evaluate where it is that there are programs that can have 
new and creative ideas, things that can save us money, not necessarily 
using the word ``cut,'' but in savings. Yes, you may have some cuts 
that are done, but these are good cuts. These are things that you have 
spent a lot of time thinking about.
  That is really where we want to go. That is what this budget does is 
it says: Open up your minds. Think differently. Let's not do things the 
same old way and keep putting the same old programs out there that 
maybe aren't working.
  And you know what? Maybe they are not even working for the people 
that we give them to. Maybe they are not working for them, because work 
is dignity.
  When we say that someone who is able-bodied and without any 
dependents should be at work, that is not cruel. Do you know what that 
is? That is dignity. When people go to work, it is a dignified 
activity.
  I always say, after I ask you what your name is, and we all do it, we 
say: What do you do? And when someone cannot tell you what they do, 
they don't feel dignified.
  Look, I don't want to be cruel to people who are disabled, people who 
are having a really tough time and have other circumstances, but we 
should acknowledge that there is dignity in work; and when we can give 
people an opportunity to have that dignity, we should be willing to 
stand up and do that.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been a robust debate. We had a robust debate 
in the Rules Committee yesterday, and we have had robust debates in the 
committee markup and during hearings, as well, over the priorities of 
this country.
  As we close this debate tonight, recognizing there will be a few 
minutes tomorrow for comments, I just want to say that, since this 
could very well be the last time that I get to appear in Budget 
Committee business with Chairman Black, I have truly cherished the 9 
months that we have spent working together.

[[Page 15575]]

  The chairman is a gracious, fair, thoughtful, and very, very 
collegial individual, and I wish her the best in her campaign, at least 
through the primary. I thank her and her very, very competent and 
professional staff for all of the courtesies they have shown us during 
this year and this process.
  I also want to pay tribute to the Democratic staff, people who work 
very, very hard every day and are brilliant in their fields and make me 
sound smarter than I probably am, but I would like to read their names: 
Jon Antista; Erika Appel; Ellen Balis, the staff director; Hayden 
Flanery; Jon Goldman; Elliott Grantz; Jocelyn Harris; Najy Kamal; Sam 
Lau; Sheila McDowell; Diana Meredith; Farouk Ophaso; Kimberly Overbeek; 
Scott Russell; and Ted Zegers.
  They do terrific work, and I want them to know how much I and all the 
members of the Budget Committee, the minority, appreciate their work.
  I would also like to thank my personal staff, led by my chief of 
staff, Julie Carr, for the work they contribute to this process as 
well.
  In closing, there are a few comments I want to make about this 
debate.
  We heard several times during the day that it is really not fair to 
talk about the consequences of the tax proposal that will be the end 
result of this process because the details haven't been ironed out yet. 
That is, you know, fair enough as it goes, but there were enough 
details in the outline that we saw last week to make a pretty good 
guess as to what the impact of these tax cuts would be.
  Now, we have read over and over, as Republican speakers spoke, the 
fact that they were willing to jeopardize the health and safety and 
nutrition of their citizens to give the wealthiest people in their 
State tax cuts. Most of these numbers that we read were in the billions 
of dollars: $38 billion, $16 billion. These are individuals with net 
worths of astounding amounts.
  The outline that was publicly released last week said that the 
Republicans intend, under this tax proposal, to eliminate the estate 
tax. If they eliminate the estate tax, much of that money is not going 
to be taxed. They will get to keep it. I don't think that they are 
going to be out there creating new companies. Maybe their children will 
do it if they inherit it. Maybe they have given some of it away so 
those estates aren't quite as big. I suspect many of them have.
  The point is, when you are talking about wealth, collectively, the 
wealthiest persons in the 50 States, collectively, have $750 billion in 
net worth, which means that, if they paid the estate tax, there would 
be over $300 billion in money that they would save if you eliminated 
the estate tax.
  So while, yes, we may be off plus or minus 3 percent or 5 percent or 
10 percent, the fact is that this is an enormous break for the people 
who have been the most fortunate in this country. I think it is more 
than fair to say, if you say you are going to eliminate the estate tax, 
if you say you are going to eliminate the AMT, the alternative minimum 
tax, and we can go look at President Trump's 2005 tax return, which 
said he paid $31 million in tax because of the alternative minimum tax, 
it doesn't take any details to know that he would have saved $31 
million in that year if you eliminate the alternative minimum tax.
  So, yes, the rates may vary. Ultimately, the tax bill that we have 
presented to us may not lower the highest rate from 39.6 to 35 percent, 
but if it does, we know the impact that that will have. We know who 
will benefit most from that. It is the wealthiest 1 percent of this 
country.
  As I will say tomorrow when we close this debate, I am in the top 1 
percent. Half of this body are millionaires. They are all going to 
benefit. We are all going to benefit. Meanwhile, the people who rely on 
many of the programs that will be slashed under this Republican budget 
will suffer. That is not fair.
  Now, Republicans will make the argument, as they always do because 
this is a matter of religious faith to them, that if you give people 
more money, they will magically create all this growth. Well, has that 
really happened?
  Out of the Fortune 500 companies, I think, in a recent study, 92 of 
them paid 20 percent or less in corporate tax. Collectively, they 
eliminated 300,000 jobs over a 5-year period. So they had more money 
than corporations paying 35 percent. Did they use it to create more 
jobs, more wealth among middle class and working families? No. They 
used it to pay dividends, to buy back stock, and to increase the wages 
of their CEOs.
  That is what has happened in modern history every time we lower 
corporate tax rates or we let them bring taxes in from overseas. They 
do not create more jobs with the money that they save.
  So I think it is very, very fair for us to look at this entire 
process, the budget proposal, which does anticipate a tax cut--which 
they claim is revenue neutral, but it is a tax cut--and the outline 
that we saw last week and say: Who, really, is this going to help?
  It is not going to help the people who need the help. It is going to 
give more money to the people who already occupy one of the strongest 
economic positions in a country with the greatest disparity of wealth 
in the world.
  So as we conclude this debate, I urge my colleagues to carefully 
consider the alternatives that will be proposed by the Democratic 
Caucus, by the Congressional Black Caucus, and by the Congressional 
Progressive Caucus, and compare the values and the priorities of those 
budgets to those that the Republican budget represents.
  I think, on balance, anybody in good faith will say that those 
budgets, not the Republican budgets, are the budgets that will create a 
stronger, fairer society in this country, and those are the ones that 
we should proceed to adopt.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1800

  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I likewise, would like to just say that the ranking member, Mr. 
Yarmuth, has just been wonderful to work with, and we may have 
differences of opinion, but we can do it in a very Southern hospitality 
way. I just so much appreciate his demeanor, his leadership on the 
committee, the way he honors the members of the committee, both 
Democrats and Republicans, and it has just been a joy to work with him. 
I am going to miss working with him and being able to have lively 
debate, which is good for this body and it is good for America.
  I want to also thank all the members who participated in the debate 
today, both the Democrats and the Republicans. This is what our 
democracy is about, being able to voice our opinions and at the end of 
the day being able to come to a conclusion after that debate. I look 
forward to continuing discussion and voting on the final passage 
tomorrow.
  As we finish up, I also want to thank our staff for their hard work, 
and there are many of them, so I am not going to read all of them to 
you. I do want to mention some of those who are the leaders of the 
House Budget Committee staff and have just been great to work with.
  Rick May, who is the staff director; Jenna Spealman; Andy Morton; Tim 
Flynn; Mary, who has been here with me at my side the entire time. What 
would I do without having somebody to pass papers to us? So Mary has 
been great. Jim Bates, and I am going to leave it at that because I am 
going to get in trouble if I don't announce all of them.
  The staff has just been tremendous to work with, many hours, 
weekends, and, indeed, even holidays that they have been here helping 
to gather the information both for the Budget Committee hearings and 
then, also, for this today.
  Mr. Chairman, I look forward to a more lively debate tomorrow. I 
include in the Record the names of the staff of the Budget Committee.

                 House Budget Committee Majority Staff

       Rick May
       Jenna Spealman
       Andy Morton
       Tim Flynn
       Patrick Louis Knudsen
       Benjamin Gardenhour
       Gary Haglund

[[Page 15576]]

       Chris Hartline
       Sarah Corley
       Sage Peterson
       Jim Bates
       Mary Popadiuk
       Jonathan Romito
       Elise Anderson
       Steve Gonzalez
       Robert Cogan
       Eric Davis
       Robert Yeakel
       Ellen Johnson
       Andy Morton
       Emily Goff
       Brad Watson
       Brittany Madni
       Steve Waskiewicz
       Alex Stoddard
       Jose Guillen

  Personal Staff (Representative Diane Black, Tennessee, 6th District)

       Teresa Koeberlein
       Dean Thompson
       Heather Douglass
       Jon Toomey
       Ace Burch
       Katie Mitchell
       Hillary Lassiter
       Zachary Royster
       Greg Dowel
       Nicholas Ayers
       Kenna Balch
       Emily Buck
       Michael Detwiler
       Josh Helton
       Bonny Warren

  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I rise to share my concern regarding 
potential budget reconciliation instructions to the House Oversight and 
Government Reform Committee. These instructions could potentially 
result in significant harm to federal employees and federal retirees, 
many of whom I represent.
  The national debt is a serious challenge that Congress must address, 
but I urge members of this body to maintain the promises made to 
federal employees at the time of their hiring. At a minimum, any 
changes to federal employee retirement or benefits should only be made 
on prospective employees, not current or former employees.
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record 
letters from: NAACP, National Committee to Preserve Social Security & 
Medicare, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, and the National 
Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education (NAFEO).

         Washington Bureau--National Association for the 
           Advancement of Colored People,
                                  Washington, DC, October 2, 2017.
     Re NAACP strong support for the Congressional Black Caucus 
         alternative budget proposal.

     Members,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the NAACP, our nation's 
     oldest, largest and most widely-recognized grassroots-based 
     civil rights organization, I strongly urge you to support the 
     alternative budget proposal as put forth by the Congressional 
     Black Caucus (CBC) later this week as you consider the budget 
     resolutions for FY 2018. The CBC Alternative Budget 
     responsibly reduces the deficit and at the same time 
     alleviates harm which has been inflicted by the recent 
     austerity measures in a responsible and fiscally sound 
     manner. Furthermore, it proposes significant investments to 
     accelerate our economic recovery and ensures that our 
     recovery is felt in every community, every state and every 
     Congressional District in America.
       A nation's budget is perhaps the best reflection of the 
     priorities, moral values and the beliefs of its citizens. Our 
     country, for all its assets and riches is facing some crucial 
     problems. No community is free from challenges, including 
     hunger, homeless ness, unemployment, substandard education, 
     crime, a crumbling infrastructure, and home foreclosures. 
     Furthermore, there can be little debate that racial and 
     ethnic minority Americans tend to be disparately affected by 
     these challenges more than any other group.
       The federal budget cannot cure every dilemma, but it can 
     provide the American people with the tools to begin to 
     address many of these ills. The CBC budget alternative 
     preserves crucial social safety nets, including Social 
     Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP and TANF and provides 
     money for job creating programs, health care, and veterans 
     programs to help our returning soldiers as they reintegrate 
     themselves and their families into American life. At the same 
     time, the CBC budget alternative closes tax loopholes and 
     generates new income from those who can most afford to pay, 
     thereby reducing the deficit by $2.72 trillion over the next 
     decade.
       Clearly, the CBC Budget alternative merits your serious 
     consideration and I hope that after a careful review you will 
     agree that it sets our nation on the proper course and 
     establishes our priorities as they should be. Thank you in 
     advance for your attention to the NAACP position. Should you 
     have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to 
     contact me.
           Sincerely,
     Hilary O. Shelton,
       Director, NAACP Washington Bureau & Senior Vice President 
     for Advocacy and Policy.
                                  ____

                                    National Committee to Preserve


                                   Social Security & Medicare,

                                                  October 4, 2017.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the millions of members 
     and supporters of the National Committee to Preserve Social 
     Security and Medicare, I urge you to oppose H. Con. Res. 71, 
     the House Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Resolution and the 
     Republican Study Committee budget. Instead, I ask you to 
     support the Democratic Caucus, Congressional Progressive 
     Caucus and Congressional Black Caucus budgets.


  Oppose H. Con. Res. 71, the House Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Resolution

       The committee-passed budget resolution would slash funding 
     to Medicare and Medicaid, repeal the Affordable Care Act and 
     make it easier for Congress to cut Social Security--all to 
     pay for massive tax cuts for the very wealthy and profitable 
     corporations.
       The House budget calls for fast track procedures designed 
     to ram Social Security benefit cuts through Congress without 
     public scrutiny. This is an undemocratic end run to enact 
     widely unpopular proposals.
       Equally unpopular are proposals in the budget resolution to 
     turn Medicare into a voucher or coupon program, raise the 
     Medicare eligibility age to 67 and make other modifications 
     to the program that would increase beneficiary out-of-pocket 
     costs. These harmful changes would cut Medicare by nearly 
     $500 billion over ten years.
       These vouchers/coupons might not be enough to keep up with 
     health care inflation and could force seniors to pay more for 
     less coverage. Less coverage will mean higher out-of-pocket 
     costs that most seniors cannot afford to pay--particularly 
     when half of them have incomes less than $26,200 a year. 
     Under coupon care, private insurers will design their health 
     plans to attract younger and healthier beneficiaries. This 
     will drive up the costs of traditional Medicare and force 
     seniors into private plans that make it hard for them to 
     choose their own doctors.
       The budget resolution's plan to raise the Medicare 
     eligibility age is a benefit cut. Although this proposal 
     would save money for the federal government, it would 
     increase system-wide health spending by boosting costs for 
     everyone else, including 65 and 66 years olds who would have 
     to buy private insurance, which--unlike Medicare--can be age 
     rated.
       H. Con. Res. 71 assumes savings from redesigning the 
     Medicare benefit by combining the Part A and Part B 
     deductibles and making changes to supplemental insurance 
     (Medigap) policies, changes that would likely increase costs 
     for people with Medigap policies. The measure would also 
     expand income-related premiums under Medicare Parts B and D 
     until 25 percent of beneficiaries are subject to these 
     premiums. A Kaiser Family Foundation study found that this 
     proposal would affect individuals with incomes equivalent to 
     $45,600 for an individual and $91,300 for a couple in 2013.
       The budget resolution ends the commitment Medicaid provides 
     by turning it into block grants subject to per capita caps 
     that will not grow with the needs of the population. You and 
     your colleagues need only look at what is happening in Puerto 
     Rico to see how their block granted Medicaid program has 
     compromised the delivery of health care in an emergency.
       Middle class Americans often rely on Medicaid for long-term 
     services and supports when they exhaust their savings. Nearly 
     two-thirds of all nursing home residents' care is financed in 
     part by Medicaid. In addition, Medicaid provides home and 
     community-based services that allow seniors to stay in their 
     homes. There is no way to cut Medicaid by a trillion dollars 
     without limiting seniors' access to long term care services.


  Support the Democratic Caucus, Congressional Progressive Caucus and 
                   Congressional Black Caucus Budgets

       In sharp contrast to the committee-passed budget resolution 
     are the alternative budgets to be offered as substitute 
     amendments by the Democratic Caucus, Congressional 
     Progressive Caucus (CPC) and Congressional Black Caucus 
     (CBC). The National Committee supports these budgets because 
     they address the country's economic concerns without asking 
     vulnerable Americans who depend on Social Security, Medicare 
     and Medicaid to contribute significantly more than the 
     wealthiest one percent.
       The Democratic Caucus budget includes provisions requiring 
     drug manufacturers to provide rebates for drugs used by those 
     dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid and builds on the 
     improved Medicare efficiencies included in the Affordable 
     Care Act (ACA). Similarly, the Progressive Caucus budget 
     would allow Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices 
     and would eliminate a loophole some use to avoid paying their 
     share of

[[Page 15577]]

     Medicare payroll taxes. The Democratic, Progressive and Black 
     Caucuses' budgets continue the investment made in the ACA to 
     expand Medicaid in the states, helping people with modest 
     incomes purchase health insurance.
       The National Committee commends the Progressive Caucus for 
     proposing to significantly strengthen Social Security's 
     financial condition by raising the payroll tax cap on wages. 
     We also support the CBC and CPC plan that helps protect 
     seniors against the disproportionate amount they spend on 
     health care by using a more accurate Consumer Price Index to 
     set Social Security cost-of-living adjustments (COLA). In 
     addition, we endorse the CPC proposal to offer Social 
     Security credits to caregivers of children and elderly family 
     members.


              Oppose the Republican Study Committee Budget

       Conversely, we oppose the Republican Study Committee (RSC) 
     budget's proposal to adopt the ``chained'' CPI to calculate 
     COLAs. The chained CPI would cut projected benefits for the 
     oldest and most vulnerable Americans who would be least able 
     to afford it. We also oppose plans in the RSC substitute to 
     increase the Medicare eligibility age and the Social Security 
     full retirement age to 69. Contrary to popular belief, not 
     everyone is living longer or is able to work into their 70s. 
     For example, a 2015 study by the National Academy of Sciences 
     found that for men born in 1960, those in the top income 
     quintile could expect to live 12.7 years longer than men in 
     the bottom income quintile. But even for Americans who can 
     work longer, raising the Medicare eligibility age and Social 
     Security retirement age are benefit cuts.
       Like H. Con. Res. 71, the RSC budget would repeal the ACA 
     and increase beneficiary out-of-pocket costs by privatizing 
     Medicare, restructuring the program and expanding income-
     related premiums.
       With so many major challenges facing our country, why do 
     the authors of the House budget resolution and the RSC budget 
     insist on fixing what is not broken? The answer is simple. 
     They need to cut working and middle-class programs to pay for 
     tax cuts for the wealthy and profitable corporations.
       That's why we urge all Representatives to oppose these 
     ``Robin Hood-in-Reverse'' budgets and instead protect the 
     retirement and health security commitments made to 
     generations of Americans by supporting the Democratic Caucus, 
     CPC and CBC budget alternatives.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Max Richtman,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____

                                                 NETWORK Lobby for


                                      Catholic Social Justice,

                                                   Washington, DC.

    Statement of Support for the Congressional Black Caucus FY2018 
                           Alternative Budget

       NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice strongly supports 
     the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) FY 2018 Alternative 
     Budget. This faithful budget prioritizes the needs of our 
     country's most vulnerable, protects vital safety net programs 
     and closes tax loopholes for the wealthy who intentionally 
     avoid ``paying unto Caesar what is Caesar's.'' (Matthew 
     22:21)
       The CBC Budget Alternative reflects its commitment to 
     investing in programs and policies that will support working 
     Americans and help our nation prosper. The CBC budget rightly 
     begins with revenue, ensuring support for programs necessary 
     for the long-term growth and development of our nation. 
     NETWORK continuously states that ALL, especially the 
     wealthiest and corporations must provide their fair share of 
     support for our nation. ``. . . from the one to whom much has 
     been entrusted, even more will be demanded.'' (Luke 12:48)
       Much of our national infrastructure is outdated and 
     dilapidated. Roads are crumbling; hundreds of bridges have 
     been designated as unsafe. This budget invests in these and 
     other public structures. It also invests in housing for all 
     levels of low-wage workers through investments in programs 
     such as Public Housing Recapitalization and the national 
     Housing Trust Fund. These would be decimated by the cuts 
     proposed in the Republican Budget. NETWORK sees housing as a 
     priority for mending the gaps in our society. Pope Francis, 
     when addressing Congress in September, 2015 said: ``We can 
     find no social or moral justification, no justification, no 
     justification whatsoever, for lack of housing.''
       Despite a lack of support from the public, Republicans in 
     Congress continue their attacks on the Affordable Care Act. 
     The Congressional Black Caucus's move to protect and 
     strengthen the Affordable Care Act and ensure universal 
     health care for all is in line with NETWORK's advocacy for 
     quality, affordable, accessible healthcare. We know it is 
     especially crucial to eliminate our nation's troubling racial 
     and economic disparities in healthcare, which is a problem 
     being addressed by the CBC Budget's healthcare proposals.
       The Congressional Black Caucus budget protects social 
     safety net programs, which NETWORK knows are essential to 
     supporting families and communities. For both the CBC and 
     NETWORK, ensuring the health of programs such as nutrition 
     assistance, school meals, affordable child care, and more are 
     critical. We strongly oppose putting the reduction or 
     eliminations of safety net programs, SNAP in particular, on 
     the chopping block as the Republican budget does.
       One expense pushing both young adults and elders into 
     poverty is the costs of college and repayment of college 
     loans. Education is so necessary for young people, and for 
     all who are retraining to meet the demands of our changing 
     workforce. We strongly support the CBC budget's investment in 
     education for the next generation, a stark contrast to the 
     Republican budget which guts the Pell Grant program and 
     eliminates many job-training programs. Changes to Pell Grants 
     and job-training programs make it difficult for people to 
     develop the skills to contribute to society to their full 
     potential.
       The tax credits most effective in helping low- and middle-
     wage households move out of poverty are the refundable Earned 
     Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credits (CTC). 
     Working families deserve to live in dignity! These tax 
     credits are minimal compared to the tax benefits for the 
     wealthiest households and corporations which would balloon in 
     the Republican budget. It is unacceptable to provide further 
     gains to those who are already receiving the greatest 
     ``welfare benefits'' through existing tax breaks.
       The CBC budget proposes beneficial improvements to 
     retirement security. Unfortunately, Republican leaders do not 
     agree and one of the mandatory programs at risk in the 
     Republican budget is Social Security. Social Security is a 
     program with obvious and just means of being strengthened. 
     Lifting the ceiling on income subject to the employment tax 
     by a few thousand dollars would keep Social Security viable 
     indefinitely. Using the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly 
     (CPI-E) would also create a more just cost-of-living for 
     seniors, as it takes into account the types of expenses the 
     elderly face.
       The Congressional Black Caucus Budget is a morally and 
     fiscally responsible alternative to the Republican Budget. 
     The CBC budget provides necessary expenditures and revenues, 
     while reducing the deficit by approximately $2.5 trillion 
     over 10 years. NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Teaching is 
     proud to support it.
                                  ____

                                    National Association For Equal


                              Opportunity in Higher Education,

                                  Washington, DC, October 4, 2017.
     Re Congressional Black Caucus Alternative Budget for Fiscal 
         Year 2018.

       Dear Representative: I am writing as the CEO of the 
     National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher 
     Education (NAFEO), the only 501(c)(3), tax exempt membership 
     association representing the nation's Historically Black 
     Universities (HBCUs) and emerging Predominantly Black 
     Institutions (PBIs) and the 700,000 student enrollees, 72,000 
     faculty, and roughly 7 million alumni associated with these 
     institutions. Today, NAFEO represents 106 public and private 
     HBCUs and 50 PBIs in 35 states, the District of Columbia and 
     U.S. Virgin Islands. I am writing in support of the 
     Congressional Black Caucus Alternative Budget for Fiscal Year 
     2018 (``CBC Budget''). The CBC Budget calls for fiscally 
     sound and morally conscientious revenue and savings, new 
     investments, and net deficit reduction. We urge you to 
     support the CBC Budget which recommends a fair tax code that 
     will allow Congress to reinvest in communities, such as 
     infrastructure and school modernization, energy 
     infrastructure and broadband access, adult and youth job 
     programs, neighborhood revitalization, and a package that 
     protects the safety net and helps to eradicate poverty. Also, 
     the CBC Budget includes aid for those areas ravaged by the 
     recent Hurricanes. NAFEO supports the entire budget, and we 
     highlight certain sections below:


                       ACCESS TO HIGHER EDUCATION

       NAFEO supports the CBC Budget recommendations to increase 
     access to high quality education and make college more 
     affordable. NAFEO, the only membership association of its 
     kind, was founded by the presidents and chancellors of HBCUs 
     and PBIs to represent the issues and interests of these 
     richly diverse public, private and land-grant, two- and four-
     year, graduate and professional, historically and 
     predominantly black colleges and universities. The 
     organization provides an international voice for the nation's 
     HBCUs and other equal educational opportunity institutions; 
     advocates for policies, programs and practices to preserve 
     and enhance HBCUs; and increases the active participation of 
     underrepresented minorities in higher education and in the 
     formulation and implementation of policies and programs in 
     American higher education. The CBC Budget would fully fund 
     the Every Student Succeeds Act, and the 2015 reauthorization 
     of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and invest in 
     increasing access to higher education and HBCUs. It would 
     further provide affordable pathways for students, by 
     providing grants, reducing interest rates, and increasing 
     Pell Grant awards.


                  INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNIVERSITIES

       NAFEO supports the CBC Budget recommendations to ensure 
     targeted investments for our most vulnerable communities.

[[Page 15578]]

     NAFEO endorses the CBC Budget recommendation to rebuild our 
     nation's infrastructure and reinvest in our communities. 
     NAFEO supports a $1 trillion infrastructure rebuilding 
     proposal, especially one that places HBCUs at its epicenter, 
     because of their unique strategic locations, mostly in the 
     areas in which the roads, bridges, waterways, airports and 
     other infrastructure serve as the gateways to American 
     commerce, and because HBCUs are graduating disproportionate 
     percentages of the growing populations in America who are 
     receiving degrees in the sciences, technology, engineering, 
     mathematics, architecture, urban and rural planning, and 
     other critical education and training required to improve our 
     infrastructure. HBCUs also possess faculty, staff, students, 
     goods, services, and promising practices, position them well 
     to drive the new infrastructure initiative, the revitalizing 
     of urban and rural America, the economic stimulus and STEAM 
     agendas. Indeed, some HBCUs are serving as 
     ``Communiversities''--the epicenters for the revitalization 
     of urban and rural America for shoring up infrastructures; 
     energizing communities; seeding intellectual, scientific, 
     technological, and economic capital; and ensuring healthy, 
     sustainable, communities.


                           HURRICANE SUPPORT

       NAFEO supports the CBC Budget recommendation to provide a 
     $200 billion down payment to aid victims of recent 
     hurricanes. As noted above, NAFEO represents 106 HBCUs 
     including the University of the Virgin Islands (``UVI''). The 
     UVI President, Dr. David Hall, has shared that the University 
     has endured tremendous challenges associated with the recent 
     hurricanes, and is in dire need of operating funds. Dr. Hall 
     writes ``Due to the problems the Territory is facing as a 
     result of the two [now three] hurricanes, and their financial 
     impact, the monthly allotments to the University ha[ve] not 
     been received. We receive approximately $2.6 million each 
     month from the local government and without those funds we 
     will cease to operate. We are resuming classes on October 9th 
     and the University will need to pay its employees and address 
     other critical needs. Federal funding specifically earmarked 
     to the University to operate would be extremely helpful and 
     valuable.''
       Representative, we need your leadership to ensure that our 
     nation's budget reflects our priorities and especially the 
     needs of our students. The CBC Budget focuses on meeting the 
     needs of our nation. We look forward to working with members 
     of Congress to advance a budget that reflective of what we 
     need and deserve.
           Sincerely,
                                                Lezli Baskerville,
                                                  President & CEO.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chair, as the Ranking Member of the Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform, I strongly oppose House Concurrent 
Resolution 71.
  This Budget Resolution would direct the Oversight Committee to 
identify a minimum of $32 billion in savings over ten years.
  Only two of the other 11 authorizing committees would be instructed 
to make more drastic cuts to federal programs--the Ways and Means 
Committee would have to identify at least $52 billion and the Judiciary 
Committee would have to identify at least $45 billion in cuts.
  Once again, House Republicans are targeting middle class civil 
service workers and their pensions for massive reductions.
  The Republican Budget would require federal workers to contribute 
significantly more to their pension plans than they do now.
  It would also end the retirement supplement for employees like law 
enforcement officers who are required by law to retire before reaching 
eligibility age for Social Security benefits.
  It would also eliminate pensions altogether for new hires.
  This Budget Resolution would slash the federal workforce by 10 
percent through attrition in certain agencies by limiting agencies to 
one new hire for every three employees who leave.
  I am utterly dismayed at the relentless Republican attacks on middle 
class federal workers without any real consideration of what they do 
every single day for the American people.
  Over the past several years, Republicans in Congress have cut federal 
employee compensation and retirement benefits for a total of nearly 
$200 billion in order to pay for deficit reduction and other government 
programs.
  The argument that federal workers must sacrifice for the good of the 
country might have made some sense when the country was struggling 
during the Great Recession, and they did sacrifice.
  But it makes much less sense now that our economy is recovering and 
the wage gains made by private sector workers are far outstripping 
those of workers who commit their lives to public service.
  The argument that federal workers must be continually forced to 
sacrifice for deficit reduction also loses its strength when House 
Republicans are trying to give tax cuts to the wealthy without paying 
for it.
  The Republican tax package would add $2.4 trillion to the deficit 
over 10 years, and 80 percent of tax cuts would benefit the top 1 
percent of Americans, who earn at least $900,000.
  While the wealthiest in our country would receive the vast majority 
of tax cuts, one third of middle class families making between $50,000 
and $150,000 would see their taxes increase.
  Many of these middle class families are federal workers who dedicate 
their lives to serving the American people.
  It is unfair and uncompassionate to treat our civil servants in this 
way.
  These are the men and women who aided in the rescue and recovery 
efforts as Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria tore through Texas, 
Louisiana, the Southeast, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
  More than 32,000 federal employees were involved in helping families 
trapped in the storms.
  They include: disaster response teams from the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers who provided temporary 
power and roofing, debris removal, and infrastructure assessment; 
National Guard soldiers and airmen who delivered food and water to 
survivors and cleared debris to open roads; Department of Energy 
personnel who ensured that fuel was available in impacted areas; Public 
Health Service officers who provided healthcare, including dialysis 
services to those in need; Members of the U.S. Coast Guard who helped 
ensure the delivery of relief supplies; and Agriculture Department 
employees who provided food to schools, shelters, and disaster 
organizations.
  Rather than targeting and penalizing these brave and selfless public 
servants, Congress must do a better job at showing how much we 
appreciate their efforts.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against House Concurrent Resolution 71.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Duncan of Tennessee). All time for general 
debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the concurrent resolution shall be considered 
for amendment under the 5-minute rule and is considered read.
  The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 71

       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring),

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2018.

       (a) Declaration.--The Congress determines and declares that 
     prior concurrent resolutions on the budget are replaced as of 
     fiscal year 2018 and that this concurrent resolution 
     establishes the budget for fiscal year 2018 and sets forth 
     the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2019 
     through 2027.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this 
     concurrent resolution is as follows:

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts.
Sec. 102. Major functional categories.

              TITLE II--RECONCILIATION AND RELATED MATTERS

Sec. 201. Reconciliation in the House of Representatives.

     TITLE III--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     Subtitle A--Budget Enforcement

Sec. 301. Point of order against increasing long-term direct spending.
Sec. 302. Allocation for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
              Terrorism.
Sec. 303. Limitation on changes in certain mandatory programs.
Sec. 304. Limitation on advance appropriations.
Sec. 305. Estimates of debt service costs.
Sec. 306. Fair-value credit estimates.
Sec. 307. Estimates of macroeconomic effects of major legislation.
Sec. 308. Adjustments for improved control of budgetary resources.
Sec. 309. Scoring rule for Energy Savings Performance Contracts.
Sec. 310. Limitation on transfers from the general fund of the Treasury 
              to the Highway Trust Fund.
Sec. 311. Prohibition on use of Federal Reserve surpluses as an offset.
Sec. 312. Prohibition on use of guarantee fees as an offset.

                      Subtitle B--Other Provisions

Sec. 321. Budgetary treatment of administrative expenses.
Sec. 322. Application and effect of changes in allocations and 
              aggregates.
Sec. 323. Adjustments to reflect changes in concepts and definitions.
Sec. 324. Adjustment for changes in the baseline.
Sec. 325. Application of rule regarding limits on discretionary 
              spending.
Sec. 326. Exercise of rulemaking powers.

[[Page 15579]]

        TITLE IV--RESERVE FUNDS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Sec. 401. Reserve fund for commercialization of air traffic control.
Sec. 402. Reserve fund for investments in national infrastructure.
Sec. 403. Reserve fund for comprehensive tax reform.
Sec. 404. Reserve fund for the State Children's Health Insurance 
              Program.
Sec. 405. Reserve fund for the repeal or replacement of President 
              Obama's health care laws.

       TITLE V--POLICY STATEMENTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Sec. 501. Policy statement on a balanced budget amendment.
Sec. 502. Policy statement on budget process reform.
Sec. 503. Policy statement on Federal regulatory budgeting and reform.
Sec. 504. Policy statement on unauthorized appropriations.
Sec. 505. Policy statement on Federal accounting.
Sec. 506. Policy statement on Commission on Budget Concepts.
Sec. 507. Policy statement on budget enforcement.
Sec. 508. Policy statement on improper payments.
Sec. 509. Policy statement on expenditures from agency fees and 
              spending.
Sec. 510. Policy statement on promoting real health care reform.
Sec. 511. Policy statement on Medicare.
Sec. 512. Policy statement on combating the opioid epidemic.
Sec. 513. Policy statement on the State Children's Health Insurance 
              Program.
Sec. 514. Policy statement on medical discovery, development, delivery, 
              and innovation.
Sec. 515. Policy statement on public health preparedness.
Sec. 516. Policy statement on Social Security.
Sec. 517. Policy statement on Medicaid work requirements.
Sec. 518. Policy statement on welfare reform and Supplemental Nutrition 
              Assistance Program work requirements.
Sec. 519. Policy Statement on State flexibility in Supplemental 
              Nutrition Assistance Program.
Sec. 520. Policy statement on higher education and workforce 
              development opportunity.
Sec. 521. Policy statement on supplemental wildfire suppression 
              funding.
Sec. 522. Policy statement on the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Sec. 523. Policy statement on moving the United States Postal Service 
              on budget.
Sec. 524. Policy statement on the Judgment Fund.
Sec. 525. Policy statement on responsible stewardship of taxpayer 
              dollars.
Sec. 526. Policy statement on tax reform.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2018 through 2027:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this concurrent resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2018: $2,670,356,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $2,767,357,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $2,870,414,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $2,963,953,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $3,077,586,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $3,195,139,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $3,325,690,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $3,475,784,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026: $3,642,629,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027: $3,811,687,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2018: -$63,213,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: -$66,151,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: -$80,162,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: -$95,958,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: -$105,330,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: -$122,777,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: -$136,738,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: -$146,394,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026: -$146,749,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027: -$146,700,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this concurrent resolution, the appropriate levels of 
     total new budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,232,597,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,286,018,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,299,573,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,290,186,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $3,441,975,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $3,483,686,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $3,528,872,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $3,655,413,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026: $3,746,208,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027: $3,824,652,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this concurrent resolution, the appropriate levels of total 
     budget outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,164,885,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,265,306,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,283,026,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,323,464,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $3,441,603,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $3,467,047,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $3,497,308,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $3,620,210,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026: $3,727,971,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027: $3,806,792,000,000.
       (4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this concurrent resolution, the amounts of the deficits 
     (on-budget) are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2018: $494,529,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $497,949,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $412,612,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $359,511,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $364,017,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $271,908,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $171,618,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $144,426,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026: $85,342,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027: -$4,895,000,000.
       (5) Debt subject to limit.--The appropriate levels of debt 
     subject to limit are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2018: $21,059,756,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $21,720,619,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $22,263,387,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $22,717,657,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $23,120,068,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $23,414,924,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $23,577,205,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $23,665,687,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026: $23,701,446,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027: $23,484,672,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2018: $15,399,966,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $15,971,804,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $16,477,150,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $16,920,847,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $17,371,706,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $17,720,326,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $17,949,306,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $18,156,356,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026: $18,299,466,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027: $18,345,826,000,000.

     SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2018 through 2027 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $629,595,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $607,810,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $660,832,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $636,795,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $693,646,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $666,519,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $728,125,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $698,761,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $731,818,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $717,568,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $735,468,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $720,401,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $739,157,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $720,755,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $742,886,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $729,581,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $747,414,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $734,037,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $751,098,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $737,798,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,521,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,643,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,210,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,207,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,428,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,965,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,654,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,585,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,623,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,021,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,445,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,795,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,285,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,102,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,174,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,643,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,121,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,365,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,025,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,175,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,524,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,072,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,107,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,365,000,000.

[[Page 15580]]

       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,702,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,360,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,346,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,718,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,018,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,259,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,694,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,797,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,378,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,325,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,112,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,928,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,854,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,550,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,602,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,162,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$3,088,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,559,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,704,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,714,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$11,179,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$11,813,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,871,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $786,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,705,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $445,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $754,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$491,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $437,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$727,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, -$4,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,052,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,233,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,207,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,324,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,370,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,720,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,641,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,856,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,751,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,255,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,581,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,704,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,652,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,295,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,909,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,684,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,186,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,598,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,081,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,520,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,921,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,186,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,526,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,742,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,078,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,223,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,913,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,091,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,786,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,293,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,217,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,660,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,835,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,339,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,153,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,713,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,880,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,331,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,863,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,225,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,214,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,593,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,422,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,817,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$7,287,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$19,601,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$7,517,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$15,753,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$10,358,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$18,126,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$13,446,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$22,106,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$12,880,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$22,470,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, -$12,330,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$22,598,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, -$10,989,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$22,362,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, -$10,255,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$22,849,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, -$11,141,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$23,569,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, -$11,933,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$24,521,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $88,095,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $91,796,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $88,892,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $90,602,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $82,748,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $90,508,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,190,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $77,995,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,950,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $65,076,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,895,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,694,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,483,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,617,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,481,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,074,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,714,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,044,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $70,948,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,741,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,365,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,626,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,170,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,983,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,240,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,842,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,353,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,558,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,487,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,386,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,556,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,090,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,673,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,745,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,857,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,767,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,077,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,805,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,953,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,809,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,920,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $89,295,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $79,090,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $81,404,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $80,305,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $81,129,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $81,922,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $82,479,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $82,350,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $83,539,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $86,279,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $85,843,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $86,641,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $87,897,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $86,977,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $88,522,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $87,459,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $89,186,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $88,216,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $90,080,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $579,328,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $551,277,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $564,387,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $570,419,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:

[[Page 15581]]

       (A) New budget authority, $552,405,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $541,949,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $512,289,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $518,445,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $528,560,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $533,688,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $547,998,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $549,687,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $571,335,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $569,207,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $594,923,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $591,171,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $618,119,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $613,682,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $623,810,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $626,774,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $593,830,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $593,567,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $652,984,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $652,740,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $692,126,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $691,917,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $739,367,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $739,161,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $826,276,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $826,057,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $845,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $845,593,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $850,393,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $850,177,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $916,244,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $916,009,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $988,183,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $987,942,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,053,671,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,053,435,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $491,789,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $477,428,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $464,425,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $454,786,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $475,015,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $464,925,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $484,414,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $475,140,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $492,453,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $489,299,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $475,767,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $468,217,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $484,425,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $471,370,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $493,048,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $480,920,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $502,057,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $496,505,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $511,675,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $505,382,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,475,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,475,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,016,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,016,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,287,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,287,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,748,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,748,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,392,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,392,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,378,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,378,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,764,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,764,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,388,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,388,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $70,871,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $70,871,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $75,473,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $75,473,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $176,704,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $178,038,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $191,507,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $190,235,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $194,930,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $193,931,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $199,751,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $197,856,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $215,442,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $213,337,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $212,567,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $210,444,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $209,943,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $207,908,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $227,991,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $225,820,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $234,947,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $232,660,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $243,718,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $241,501,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $51,367,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,079,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,245,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,867,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,720,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,036,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,054,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,946,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,092,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,925,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,671,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $63,462,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,285,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $65,043,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,947,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,498,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,907,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $70,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $70,270,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,722,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,564,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,091,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,948,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,314,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,557,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,303,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,386,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,190,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,127,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,013,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,420,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,057,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,351,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,168,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,246,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,060,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,083,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,917,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,855,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,722,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $376,842,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $376,842,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $409,185,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $409,185,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $450,859,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $450,859,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $493,778,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $493,778,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $531,929,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $531,929,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $565,282,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $565,282,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $589,292,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $589,292,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $607,012,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $607,012,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $620,536,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $620,536,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $623,786,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $623,911,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$44,505,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$23,272,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$42,219,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$34,499,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$45,246,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$40,640,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$48,056,000,000.

[[Page 15582]]

       (B) Outlays, -$44,164,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$50,544,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$47,877,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, -$52,326,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$49,819,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, -$53,659,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$51,411,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, -$55,439,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$53,060,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, -$51,908,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$52,127,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, -$55,254,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$53,919,000,000.
       (20) Government-wide savings and adjustments (930):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,145,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,778,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$1,555,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,528,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$67,381,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$47,665,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$120,155,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$97,069,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$153,376,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$137,459,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, -$174,438,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$159,489,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, -$194,373,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$179,541,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, -$193,336,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$187,355,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, -$246,573,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$223,016,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, -$258,801,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$240,977,000,000.
       (21) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$83,212,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$83,212,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$86,409,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$86,409,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$86,316,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$86,316,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$90,347,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$90,347,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$93,573,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$93,573,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, -$100,001,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$100,001,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, -$105,371,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$105,371,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, -$115,139,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$115,139,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, -$117,033,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$117,033,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, -$127,808,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$127,808,000,000.
       (22) Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
     Terrorism (970):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $86,591,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,781,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,748,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,076,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,635,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,768,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,799,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,957,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $4,171,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $1,160,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $165,000,000.
       (23) Across-the-Board Adjustment (990):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$909,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$740,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$931,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$837,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$956,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$895,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$979,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$944,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$1,004,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$968,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, -$1,030,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$993,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, -$1,056,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,018,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, -$1,083,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,045,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, -$1,112,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,070,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, -$1,140,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,099,000,000.

              TITLE II--RECONCILIATION AND RELATED MATTERS

     SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

       (a) Submissions Providing for Reconciliation.--Not later 
     than October 6, 2017, the committees named in subsection (b) 
     shall submit their recommendations on changes in laws within 
     their jurisdictions to the Committee on the Budget that would 
     achieve the specified reduction in the deficit for the period 
     of fiscal years 2018 through 2027.
       (b) Instructions.--
       (1) Committee on agriculture.--The Committee on Agriculture 
     shall submit changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
     sufficient to reduce the deficit by $10,000,000,000 for the 
     period of fiscal years 2018 through 2027.
       (2) Committee on armed services.--The Committee on Armed 
     Services shall submit changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
     sufficient to reduce the deficit by $1,000,000,000 for the 
     period of fiscal years 2018 through 2027.
       (3) Committee on education and the workforce.--The 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce shall submit changes 
     in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the 
     deficit by $20,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
     2018 through 2027.
       (4) Committee on energy and commerce.--The Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce shall submit changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by 
     $20,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2018 through 
     2027.
       (5) Committee on financial services.--The Committee on 
     Financial Services shall submit changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by 
     $14,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2018 through 
     2027.
       (6) Committee on homeland security.--The Committee on 
     Homeland Security shall submit changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by 
     $3,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2018 through 
     2027.
       (7) Committee on the judiciary.--The Committee on the 
     Judiciary shall submit changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by 
     $45,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2018 through 
     2027.
       (8) Committee on natural resources.--The Committee on 
     Natural Resources shall submit changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by 
     $5,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2018 through 
     2027.
       (9) Committee on oversight and government reform.--The 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform shall submit 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce 
     the deficit by $32,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
     2018 through 2027.
       (10) Committee on veterans' affairs.--The Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs shall submit changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by 
     $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2018 through 
     2027.
       (11) Committee on ways and means.--The Committee on Ways 
     and Means shall submit changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by 
     $52,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2018 through 
     2027.

     TITLE III--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     Subtitle A--Budget Enforcement

     SEC. 301. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST INCREASING LONG-TERM DIRECT 
                   SPENDING.

       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the House 
     of Representatives to consider any bill or joint resolution, 
     or amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that would 
     cause a net increase in direct spending in excess of 
     $2,500,000,000 in any of the 4 consecutive 10-fiscal year 
     periods described in subsection (b).
       (b) Congressional Budget Office Analysis of Proposals.--The 
     Director of the Congressional Budget Office shall, to the 
     extent practicable, prepare an estimate of whether a bill or 
     joint resolution reported by a committee (other than the 
     Committee on Appropriations), or amendment thereto or 
     conference report thereon, would cause, relative to current 
     law, a net increase in direct spending in the House of 
     Representatives, in excess of $2,500,000,000 in any of the 4 
     consecutive 10-fiscal year periods beginning after the last 
     fiscal year of this concurrent resolution.

[[Page 15583]]

       (c) Limitation.--In the House of Representatives, the 
     provisions of this section shall not apply to any bills or 
     joint resolutions, or amendments thereto or conference 
     reports thereon, for which the chair of the Committee on the 
     Budget has made adjustments to the allocations, aggregates, 
     or other budgetary levels in this concurrent resolution.
       (d) Determinations of Budget Levels.--For purposes of this 
     section, the levels of net increases in direct spending shall 
     be determined on the basis of estimates provided by the chair 
     of the Committee on the Budget of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (e) Sunset.--This section shall have no force or effect 
     after September 30, 2018.

     SEC. 302. ALLOCATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS/
                   GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM.

       (a) Separate Allocation for Overseas Contingency 
     Operations/Global War on Terrorism.--In the House of 
     Representatives, there shall be a separate allocation of new 
     budget authority and outlays provided to the Committee on 
     Appropriations for the purposes of Overseas Contingency 
     Operations/Global War on Terrorism, which shall be deemed to 
     be an allocation under section 302(a) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974. Section 302(a)(3) of such Act shall not 
     apply to such separate allocation.
       (b) Section 302 Allocations.--The separate allocation 
     referred to in subsection (a) shall be the exclusive 
     allocation for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
     Terrorism under section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives may provide suballocations of such separate 
     allocation under such section 302(b).
       (c) Application.--For purposes of enforcing the separate 
     allocation referred to in subsection (a) under section 302(f) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the ``first fiscal 
     year'' and the ``total of fiscal years'' shall be deemed to 
     refer to fiscal year 2018. Section 302(c) of such Act shall 
     not apply to such separate allocation.
       (d) Designations.--New budget authority or outlays shall 
     only be counted toward the allocation referred to in 
     subsection (a) if designated pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985.
       (e) Adjustments.--For purposes of subsection (a) for fiscal 
     year 2018, no adjustment shall be made under section 314(a) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 if any adjustment 
     would be made under section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

     SEC. 303. LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN CERTAIN MANDATORY 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``change in 
     mandatory programs'' means a provision that--
       (1) would have been estimated as affecting direct spending 
     or receipts under section 252 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (as in effect prior to 
     September 30, 2002) if the provision were included in 
     legislation other than appropriation Acts; and
       (2) results in a net decrease in budget authority in the 
     budget year, but does not result in a net decrease in outlays 
     over the total of the current year, the budget year, and all 
     fiscal years covered under the most recently agreed to 
     concurrent resolution on the budget.
       (b) Point of Order in the House of Representatives.--
       (1) In general.--A provision in a bill or joint resolution 
     making appropriations for a full fiscal year that proposes a 
     change in mandatory programs that, if enacted, would cause 
     the absolute value of the total budget authority of all such 
     changes in mandatory programs enacted in relation to a full 
     fiscal year to be more than the amount specified in paragraph 
     (3), shall not be in order in the House of Representatives.
       (2) Amendments and conference reports.--It shall not be in 
     order in the House of Representatives to consider an 
     amendment to, or a conference report on, a bill or joint 
     resolution making appropriations for a full fiscal year if 
     such amendment thereto or conference report thereon proposes 
     a change in mandatory programs that, if enacted, would cause 
     the absolute value of the total budget authority of all such 
     changes in mandatory programs enacted in relation to a full 
     fiscal year to be more than the amount specified in paragraph 
     (3).
       (3) Amount.--The amount specified in this paragraph is--
       (A) for fiscal year 2018, $19,100,000,000;
       (B) for fiscal year 2019, $17,000,000,000; and
       (C) for fiscal year 2020, $15,000,000,000.
       (c) Determination.--For purposes of this section, budgetary 
     levels shall be determined on the basis of estimates provided 
     by the chair of the Committee on the Budget of the House of 
     Representatives.

     SEC. 304. LIMITATION ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--In the House of Representatives, except as 
     provided for in subsection (b), any general appropriation 
     bill or bill or joint resolution continuing appropriations, 
     or amendment thereto or conference report thereon, may not 
     provide advance appropriations.
       (b) Exceptions.--An advance appropriation may be provided 
     for programs, projects, activities, or accounts identified in 
     the report or the joint explanatory statement of managers, as 
     applicable, accompanying this concurrent resolution under the 
     heading--
       (1) General.--``Accounts Identified for Advance 
     Appropriations''.
       (2) Veterans.--``Veterans Accounts Identified for Advance 
     Appropriations''.
       (c) Limitations.--The aggregate level of advance 
     appropriations shall not exceed--
       (1) General.--$28,852,000,000 in new budget authority for 
     all programs identified pursuant to subsection (b)(1).
       (2) Veterans.--$70,699,313,000 in new budget authority for 
     programs in the Department of Veterans Affairs identified 
     pursuant to subsection (b)(2).
       (d) Definition.--The term ``advance appropriation'' means 
     any new discretionary budget authority provided in a general 
     appropriation bill or joint resolution continuing 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2018, or any amendment thereto 
     or conference report thereon, that first becomes available 
     for the first fiscal year following fiscal year 2018.

     SEC. 305. ESTIMATES OF DEBT SERVICE COSTS.

       In the House of Representatives, the chair of the Committee 
     on the Budget may direct the Congressional Budget Office to 
     include, in any estimate prepared under section 402 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 with respect to any bill or 
     joint resolution, an estimate of any change in debt service 
     costs resulting from carrying out such bill or resolution. 
     Any estimate of debt service costs provided under this 
     section shall be advisory and shall not be used for purposes 
     of enforcement of such Act, the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives, or this concurrent resolution. This section 
     shall not apply to authorizations of programs funded by 
     discretionary spending or to appropriation bills or joint 
     resolutions, but shall apply to changes in the authorization 
     level of appropriated entitlements.

     SEC. 306. FAIR-VALUE CREDIT ESTIMATES.

       (a) All Credit Programs.--Whenever the Director of the 
     Congressional Budget Office provides an estimate of any 
     measure that establishes or modifies any program providing 
     loans or loan guarantees, the Director shall also, to the 
     extent practicable, provide a fair-value estimate of such 
     loan or loan guarantee program if requested by the chair of 
     the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives.
       (b) Student Financial Assistance and Housing Programs.--The 
     Director of the Congressional Budget Office shall provide, to 
     the extent practicable, a fair-value estimate as part of any 
     estimate for any measure that establishes or modifies a loan 
     or loan guarantee program for student financial assistance or 
     housing (including residential mortgage).
       (c) Baseline Estimates.--The Congressional Budget Office 
     shall include estimates, on a fair-value and credit reform 
     basis, of loan and loan guarantee programs for student 
     financial assistance, housing (including residential 
     mortgage), and such other major loan and loan guarantee 
     programs, as practicable, in its The Budget and Economic 
     Outlook: 2018 to 2027.
       (d) Enforcement in the House of Representatives.--If the 
     Director of the Congressional Budget Office provides an 
     estimate pursuant to subsection (a) or (b), the chair of the 
     Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives may 
     use such estimate to determine compliance with the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and other budget enforcement 
     requirements.

     SEC. 307. ESTIMATES OF MACROECONOMIC EFFECTS OF MAJOR 
                   LEGISLATION.

       (a) CBO and JCT Estimates.--During the 115th Congress, any 
     estimate of major legislation considered in the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate provided by the Congressional 
     Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 or by the Joint Committee on Taxation to the 
     Congressional Budget Office under section 201(f) of such Act 
     shall, to the extent practicable, incorporate the budgetary 
     effects of changes in economic output, employment, capital 
     stock, and other macroeconomic variables resulting from such 
     major legislation.
       (b) Contents.--Any estimate referred to in subsection (a) 
     shall, to the extent practicable, include--
       (1) a qualitative assessment of the budgetary effects 
     (including macroeconomic variables described in subsection 
     (a)) of major legislation in the 20-fiscal year period 
     beginning after the last fiscal year of the most recently 
     agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget that sets forth 
     budgetary levels required under section 301 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974; and
       (2) an identification of the critical assumptions and the 
     source of data underlying that estimate.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Major legislation.--The term ``major legislation'' 
     means--
       (A) in the Senate, a bill, joint resolution, conference 
     report, amendment, amendment between the Houses, or treaty--
       (i) for which an estimate is required to be prepared 
     pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 (2 U.S.C. 653) and that causes a gross budgetary effect 
     (before incorporating macroeconomic effects and not including 
     timing shifts) in a fiscal

[[Page 15584]]

     year in the period of years of the most recently agreed to 
     concurrent resolution on the budget equal to or greater 
     than--

       (I) 0.25 percent of the current projected gross domestic 
     product of the United States for that fiscal year; or
       (II) for a treaty, equal to or greater than $15,000,000,000 
     for that fiscal year; or

       (ii) designated as such by--

       (I) the chair of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     for all direct spending legislation; or
       (II) the Senator who is Chairman or Vice Chairman of the 
     Joint Committee on Taxation for revenue legislation; and

       (B) in the House of Representatives, a bill or joint 
     resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon--
       (i) for which an estimate is required to be prepared 
     pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 (2 U.S.C. 653) and that causes a gross budgetary effect 
     (before incorporating macroeconomic effects and not including 
     timing shifts) in a fiscal year in the period of years of the 
     most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget 
     equal to or greater than 0.25 percent of the current 
     projected gross domestic product of the United States for 
     that fiscal year; or
       (ii) designated as such by--

       (I) the chair of the Committee on the Budget of the House 
     of Representatives for all direct spending legislation; or
       (II) the Member who is Chairman or Vice Chairman of the 
     Joint Committee on Taxation for revenue legislation.

       (2) Budgetary effects.--The term ``budgetary effects'' 
     means changes in revenues, direct spending outlays, and 
     deficits.
       (3) Timing shifts.--The term ``timing shifts'' means--
       (A) provisions that cause a delay of the date on which 
     outlays flowing from direct spending would otherwise occur 
     from one fiscal year to the next fiscal year; or
       (B) provisions that cause an acceleration of the date on 
     which revenues would otherwise occur from one fiscal year to 
     the prior fiscal year.

     SEC. 308. ADJUSTMENTS FOR IMPROVED CONTROL OF BUDGETARY 
                   RESOURCES.

       (a) Adjustments of Discretionary and Direct Spending 
     Levels.--In the House of Representatives, if a committee 
     (other than the Committee on Appropriations) reports a bill 
     or joint resolution, or an amendment thereto is offered or 
     conference report thereon is submitted, providing for a 
     decrease in direct spending (budget authority and outlays 
     flowing therefrom) for any fiscal year and also provides for 
     an authorization of appropriations for the same purpose, upon 
     the enactment of such measure, the chair of the Committee on 
     the Budget may decrease the allocation to the applicable 
     authorizing committee that reports such measure and increase 
     the allocation of discretionary spending (budget authority 
     and outlays flowing therefrom) to the Committee on 
     Appropriations for fiscal year 2018 by an amount equal to the 
     new budget authority (and outlays flowing therefrom) provided 
     for in a bill or joint resolution making appropriations for 
     the same purpose.
       (b) Determinations.--In the House of Representatives, for 
     purposes of enforcing this concurrent resolution, the 
     allocations and aggregate levels of new budget authority, 
     outlays, direct spending, revenues, deficits, and surpluses 
     for fiscal year 2018 and the total of fiscal years 2018 
     through 2027 shall be determined on the basis of estimates 
     made by the chair of the Committee on the Budget and such 
     chair may adjust the applicable levels in this concurrent 
     resolution.

     SEC. 309. SCORING RULE FOR ENERGY SAVINGS PERFORMANCE 
                   CONTRACTS.

       (a) In General.--The Director of the Congressional Budget 
     Office shall estimate provisions of any bill or joint 
     resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, that provides the authority to enter into or modify 
     any covered energy savings contract on a net present value 
     basis (NPV).
       (b) NPV Calculations.--The net present value of any covered 
     energy savings contract shall be calculated as follows:
       (1) The discount rate shall reflect market risk.
       (2) The cash flows shall include, whether classified as 
     mandatory or discretionary, payments to contractors under the 
     terms of their contracts, payments to contractors for other 
     services, and direct savings in energy and energy-related 
     costs.
       (3) The stream of payments shall cover the period covered 
     by the contracts but not to exceed 25 years.
       (c) Definition.--As used in this section, the term 
     ``covered energy savings contract'' means--
       (1) an energy savings performance contract authorized under 
     section 801 of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act; 
     or
       (2) a utility energy service contract, as described in the 
     Office of Management and Budget Memorandum on Federal Use of 
     Energy Savings Performance Contracting, dated July 25, 1998 
     (M-98-13), and the Office of Management and Budget Memorandum 
     on the Federal Use of Energy Saving Performance Contracts and 
     Utility Energy Service Contracts, dated September 28, 2015 
     (M-12-21), or any successor to either memorandum.
       (d) Enforcement in the House of Representatives.--In the 
     House of Representatives, if any net present value of any 
     covered energy savings contract calculated under subsection 
     (b) results in a net savings, then the budgetary effects of 
     such contract shall not be counted for purposes of titles III 
     and IV of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this 
     concurrent resolution, or clause 10 of rule XXI of the Rules 
     of the House of Representatives.
       (e) Classification of Spending.--For purposes of budget 
     enforcement, the estimated net present value of the budget 
     authority provided by the measure, and outlays flowing 
     therefrom, shall be classified as direct spending.
       (f) Sense of the House of Representatives.--It is the sense 
     of the House of Representatives that--
       (1) the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in 
     consultation with the Director of the Congressional Budget 
     Office, should separately identify the cash flows under 
     subsection (b)(2) and include such information in the 
     President's annual budget submission under section 1105(a) of 
     title 31, United States Code; and
       (2) the scoring method used in this section should not be 
     used to score any contracts other than covered energy savings 
     contracts.

     SEC. 310. LIMITATION ON TRANSFERS FROM THE GENERAL FUND OF 
                   THE TREASURY TO THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND.

       In the House of Representatives, for purposes of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, and the rules or 
     orders of the House of Representatives, a bill or joint 
     resolution, or an amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, that transfers funds from the general fund of the 
     Treasury to the Highway Trust Fund shall be counted as new 
     budget authority and outlays equal to the amount of the 
     transfer in the fiscal year the transfer occurs.

     SEC. 311. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FEDERAL RESERVE SURPLUSES AS 
                   AN OFFSET.

       In the House of Representatives, any provision of a bill or 
     joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, that transfers any portion of the net surplus of the 
     Federal Reserve System to the general fund of the Treasury 
     shall not be counted for purposes of enforcing the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this concurrent resolution, 
     or clause 10 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives.

     SEC. 312. PROHIBITION ON USE OF GUARANTEE FEES AS AN OFFSET.

       In the House of Representatives, any provision of a bill or 
     joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, that increases, or extends the increase of, any 
     guarantee fees of the Federal National Mortgage Association 
     (Fannie Mae) or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 
     (Freddie Mac) shall not be counted for purposes of enforcing 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this concurrent 
     resolution, or clause 10 of rule XXI of the Rules of the 
     House of Representatives.

                      Subtitle B--Other Provisions

     SEC. 321. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

       (a) In General.--In the House of Representatives, 
     notwithstanding section 302(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974, section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 
     1990, and section 2009a of title 39, United States Code, the 
     report or the joint explanatory statement, as applicable, 
     accompanying this concurrent resolution shall include in its 
     allocation to the Committee on Appropriations under section 
     302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 amounts for 
     the discretionary administrative expenses of the Social 
     Security Administration and the United States Postal Service.
       (b) Special Rule.--In the House of Representatives, for 
     purposes of enforcing section 302(f) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974, estimates of the levels of total new 
     budget authority and total outlays provided by a measure 
     shall include any discretionary amounts described in 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 322. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS 
                   AND AGGREGATES.

       (a) Application.--In the House of Representatives, any 
     adjustments of the allocations, aggregates, and other 
     budgetary levels made pursuant to this concurrent resolution 
     shall--
       (1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
       (2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
       (3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as 
     practicable.
       (b) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised 
     allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments 
     shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 as the allocations and aggregates 
     contained in this concurrent resolution.
       (c) Budget Committee Determinations.--For purposes of this 
     concurrent resolution, the budgetary levels for a fiscal year 
     or period of fiscal years shall be determined on the basis of 
     estimates made by the chair of the Committee on the Budget of 
     the House of Representatives.
       (d) Aggregates, Allocations and Application.--In the House 
     of Representatives, for purposes of this concurrent 
     resolution and

[[Page 15585]]

     budget enforcement, the consideration of any bill or joint 
     resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, for which the chair of the Committee on the Budget 
     makes adjustments or revisions in the allocations, 
     aggregates, and other budgetary levels of this concurrent 
     resolution shall not be subject to the points of order set 
     forth in clause 10 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives or section 301 of this concurrent resolution.
       (e) Other Adjustments.--The chair of the Committee on the 
     Budget of the House of Representatives may adjust other 
     appropriate levels in this concurrent resolution depending on 
     congressional action on pending reconciliation legislation.

     SEC. 323. ADJUSTMENTS TO REFLECT CHANGES IN CONCEPTS AND 
                   DEFINITIONS.

       In the House of Representatives, the chair of the Committee 
     on the Budget may adjust the appropriate aggregates, 
     allocations, and other budgetary levels in this concurrent 
     resolution for any change in budgetary concepts and 
     definitions consistent with section 251(b)(1) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

     SEC. 324. ADJUSTMENT FOR CHANGES IN THE BASELINE.

       In the House of Representatives, the chair of the Committee 
     on the Budget may adjust the allocations, aggregates, 
     reconciliation targets, and other appropriate budgetary 
     levels in this concurrent resolution to reflect changes 
     resulting from the Congressional Budget Office's update to 
     its baseline for fiscal years 2018 through 2027.

     SEC. 325. APPLICATION OF RULE REGARDING LIMITS ON 
                   DISCRETIONARY SPENDING.

       Section 314(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     shall not apply in the House of Representatives to any bill, 
     joint resolution, or amendment that provides new budget 
     authority for a fiscal year or to any conference report on 
     any such bill or resolution if--
       (1) the enactment of that bill or resolution;
       (2) the adoption and enactment of that amendment; or
       (3) the enactment of that bill or resolution in the form 
     recommended in that conference report,

     would not cause the 302(a) allocation to the Committee on 
     Appropriations for fiscal year 2018 to be exceeded.

     SEC. 326. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

       The House of Representatives adopts the provisions of this 
     title and title II--
       (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of 
     Representatives, and as such they shall be considered as part 
     of the rules of the House of Representatives, and such rules 
     shall supersede other rules only to the extent that they are 
     inconsistent with such other rules; and
       (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     the House of Representatives to change those rules at any 
     time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as is the 
     case of any other rule of the House of Representatives.

        TITLE IV--RESERVE FUNDS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

     SEC. 401. RESERVE FUND FOR COMMERCIALIZATION OF AIR TRAFFIC 
                   CONTROL.

       (a) In General.--In the House of Representatives, the chair 
     of the Committee on the Budget may adjust, at a time the 
     chair deems appropriate, the section 302(a) allocation to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and other 
     applicable committees of the House of Representatives, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels established in this 
     concurrent resolution for a bill or joint resolution, or 
     amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that 
     commercializes the operations of the air traffic control 
     system if such measure reduces the discretionary spending 
     limits in section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 by the amount that would 
     otherwise be appropriated to the Federal Aviation 
     Administration for air traffic control. Adjustments to the 
     section 302(a) allocation to the Committee on Appropriations, 
     consistent with the adjustments to the discretionary spending 
     limits under such section 251(c), shall only be made upon 
     enactment of such measure.
       (b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, a measure 
     that commercializes the operations of the air traffic control 
     system shall be a measure that establishes a Federally-
     chartered, not-for-profit corporation that--
       (1) is authorized to provide air traffic control services 
     within the United States airspace;
       (2) sets user fees to finance its operations;
       (3) may borrow from private capital markets to finance 
     improvements;
       (4) is governed by a board of directors composed of a CEO 
     and directors whose fiduciary duty is to the entity; and
       (5) becomes the employer of those employees directly 
     connected to providing air traffic control services and who 
     the Secretary transfers from the Federal Government.

     SEC. 402. RESERVE FUND FOR INVESTMENTS IN NATIONAL 
                   INFRASTRUCTURE.

       In the House of Representatives, the chair of the Committee 
     on the Budget may adjust the allocations, aggregates, and 
     other appropriate levels in this concurrent resolution for 
     any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or 
     conference report thereon, that invests in national 
     infrastructure to the extent that such measure is deficit 
     neutral for the total of fiscal years 2018 through 2027.

     SEC. 403. RESERVE FUND FOR COMPREHENSIVE TAX REFORM.

       In the House of Representatives, if the Committee on Ways 
     and Means reports a bill or joint resolution that provides 
     for comprehensive tax reform, the chair of the Committee on 
     the Budget may adjust the allocations, aggregates, and other 
     appropriate budgetary levels in this concurrent resolution 
     for the budgetary effects of any such bill or joint 
     resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, if such measure would not increase the deficit for 
     the total of fiscal years 2018 through 2027.

     SEC. 404. RESERVE FUND FOR THE STATE CHILDREN'S HEALTH 
                   INSURANCE PROGRAM.

       In the House of Representatives, the chair of the Committee 
     on the Budget may adjust the allocations, budget aggregates 
     and other appropriate levels in this concurrent resolution 
     for the budgetary effects of any bill or joint resolution, or 
     amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that extends 
     the State Children's Health Insurance Program allotments, if 
     such measure would not increase the deficit for the total of 
     fiscal years 2018 through 2027.

     SEC. 405. RESERVE FUND FOR THE REPEAL OR REPLACEMENT OF 
                   PRESIDENT OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE LAWS.

       In the House of Representatives, the chair of the Committee 
     on the Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and 
     other appropriate budgetary levels in this concurrent 
     resolution for the budgetary effects of any bill or joint 
     resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, that repeals or replaces any provision of the 
     Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or title I or 
     subtitle B of title II of the Health Care and Education 
     Reconciliation Act of 2010 by the amount of budget authority 
     and outlays flowing therefrom provided by such measure for 
     such purpose.

       TITLE V--POLICY STATEMENTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

     SEC. 501. POLICY STATEMENT ON A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) In fiscal year 2017, the Federal Government will 
     collect approximately $3.3 trillion in taxes, but spend more 
     than $4.0 trillion to maintain its operations, borrowing 15 
     cents of every Federal dollar spent.
       (2) At the end of fiscal year 2016, the national debt of 
     the United States was more than $19.5 trillion.
       (3) A majority of States have petitioned the Federal 
     Government to hold a constitutional convention to adopt a 
     balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
       (4) As of the spring of 2016, 46 States have requirements 
     to annually balance their respective budgets.
       (5) Numerous balanced budget amendment proposals have been 
     introduced on a bipartisan basis in the House. Currently in 
     the 115th Congress, 8 joint resolutions proposing a balanced 
     budget amendment have been introduced.
       (6) In the 111th Congress, the House considered H.J. Res. 
     2, sponsored by Representative Robert W. Goodlatte of 
     Virginia. Although it received 262 aye votes, it did not 
     receive the two-thirds required for passage.
       (7) In 1995, a balanced budget amendment to the 
     Constitution passed the House with bipartisan support, but 
     failed to pass by one vote in the United States Senate.
       (8) Five States, Georgia, Alaska, Mississippi, North 
     Dakota, and Arizona, have agreed to the Compact for a 
     Balanced Budget, which seeks to amend the Constitution to 
     require a balanced budget through an Article V convention by 
     April 12, 2021.
       (b) Policy on a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment.--
     It is the policy of this concurrent resolution that the House 
     should propose a balanced budget constitutional amendment for 
     ratification by the States.

     SEC. 502. POLICY STATEMENT ON BUDGET PROCESS REFORM.

       It is the policy of this concurrent resolution that the 
     House should enact legislation that reforms the congressional 
     budget process to--
       (1) reassert congressional control over the budget process 
     by reorienting the Views and Estimates that committees submit 
     to the Committee on the Budget, as required under 301(d) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, to emphasize 
     congressional rather than executive branch priorities;
       (2) strengthen enforcement of budgetary rules and 
     requirements by--
       (A) enabling Members of the House of Representatives to 
     enforce budget requirements in a manner that does not 
     jeopardize the ability of the majority to work its will on 
     legislation; and
       (B) permitting members of Congress to determine whether 
     emergency-designated appropriations are for unanticipated 
     situations that pose a threat to life, property, or national 
     security;
       (3) increase control over the costs of Federal activities 
     by--
       (A) incorporating debt service costs into cost estimates 
     prepared by the Congressional Budget Office;

[[Page 15586]]

       (B) establishing a process for setting limits on the amount 
     of debt incurred by the Federal Government from the private 
     sector as a share of the economy that requires congressional 
     action if such limits deviate from those previously 
     determined by Congress and the President;
       (C) transitioning to fair-value accounting;
       (D) budgeting for Federal insurance programs on an accrual 
     basis; and
       (E) developing and implementing a regulatory budget as 
     provided in section 503;
       (4) achieve greater control over mandatory spending by 
     reforming reconciliation procedures and requirements to 
     ensure they are transparent, objectively applied, and 
     maximize opportunities for deficit reduction;
       (5) increase the efficiency of the congressional budget 
     process by--
       (A) realigning the budget cycle with the calendar year and 
     the congressional calendar;
       (B) simplifying the procedures by which the Committee on 
     Appropriations adjusts its section 302(b) suballocations to 
     ensure they are consistent with the Committee's overall 
     section 302(a) allocation; and
       (C) increasing congressional accountability for budget 
     decisions;
       (6) improve the transparency of the Federal Government's 
     obligations by--
       (A) modifying the content of the budget resolution to 
     reflect the budgetary decisions that Congress actually makes 
     and enforces;
       (B) requiring the Comptroller General to periodically 
     report to Congress on the consolidated financial report of 
     the Federal Government; and
       (C) restructuring the baseline, as set forth in section 257 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, to treat mandatory spending and revenue on a comparable 
     basis; and
       (7) achieve control over long-term budget obligations by--
       (A) establishing declining limits on the amount of debt 
     incurred by the Federal Government from the private sector as 
     a share of the economy that requires congressional action if 
     such limits deviate from those previously determined by 
     Congress and the President; and
       (B) codifying limits on the amount legislation can increase 
     the deficit beyond the ten fiscal-year period of the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget.

     SEC. 503. POLICY STATEMENT ON FEDERAL REGULATORY BUDGETING 
                   AND REFORM.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Federal regulations are estimated to cost $1.9 trillion 
     per year or approximately $15,000 per household. Such costs 
     exceed 10 percent of the Gross Domestic Product of the United 
     States.
       (2) Excessive Federal regulation--
       (A) retards job creation, investment, wages, competition, 
     and economic growth, slowing the Nation's recovery from 
     economic recession and harming American households;
       (B) operates as a regressive tax on poor and lower-income 
     households;
       (C) displaces workers into long-term unemployment or lower-
     paying jobs;
       (D) adversely affects small businesses, the primary source 
     of new jobs; and
       (E) impedes the economic growth necessary to provide 
     sufficient funds to meet vital commitments and reduce the 
     Federal debt.
       (3) Federal agencies do not systematically analyze both the 
     costs and benefits of new regulations or identify and 
     eliminate, minimize, or mitigate excess regulatory costs 
     through post-implementation assessments of their regulations.
       (4) Agencies too often impose costly regulations without 
     relying on sound science, through the use of agency guidance, 
     judicial consent decrees, and settlement agreements, and 
     through the abuse of high interim compliance costs imposed on 
     regulated entities that bring legal challenges against newly 
     promulgated regulations.
       (5) Congress lacks an effective mechanism to manage the 
     level of new Federal regulatory costs imposed each year. 
     Other nations, meanwhile, have successfully implemented the 
     use of regulatory budgeting to control excess regulation and 
     regulatory costs.
       (6) Significant steps have been taken already by President 
     Trump and the 115th Congress, including the imposition of a 
     regulatory pay-as-you-go regimen for new and revised 
     regulations by the Trump Administration and the enactment of 
     14 measures under the Congressional Review Act that repealed 
     regulations promulgated in the final 60 legislative days of 
     the 114th Congress.
       (b) Policy on Federal Regulatory Budgeting and Reform.--It 
     is the policy of this concurrent resolution that the House 
     should, in consultation with the public, consider legislation 
     that--
       (1) requires the President's budget submission to include 
     an analysis of the costs of complying with current and 
     proposed regulations;
       (2) builds the institutional capacity of the Congressional 
     Budget Office to develop a regulatory baseline and estimate 
     regulatory costs;
       (3) codifies the Trump Administration's regulatory pay-as-
     you-go requirements, which require agencies to offset the 
     costs of new or revised regulations with the repeal or 
     modification of existing regulations; and
       (4) requires Federal agencies to give notice and allow for 
     comments on proposed guidance documents.

     SEC. 504. POLICY STATEMENT ON UNAUTHORIZED APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Article I of the Constitution vests all legislative 
     power in Congress.
       (2) Central to the legislative powers of Congress is the 
     authorization of appropriations necessary to execute the laws 
     that establish agencies and programs and impose obligations.
       (3) Clause 2 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives prohibits the consideration of appropriations 
     measures that provide appropriations for unauthorized 
     programs.
       (4) In fiscal year 2016, more than $310 billion was 
     appropriated for unauthorized programs, spanning 256 separate 
     laws.
       (5) Agencies such as the Department of State have not been 
     authorized for 15 years.
       (6) The House adopted a requirement for the 115th Congress, 
     as part of H. Res. 5, that requires each standing committee 
     of the House to adopt an authorization and oversight plan 
     that enumerates all unauthorized programs and agencies within 
     its jurisdiction that received funding in the prior year, 
     among other oversight requirements.
       (b) Policy on Unauthorized Appropriations.--In the House, 
     it is the policy of this concurrent resolution that 
     legislation should be enacted that--
       (1) establishes a schedule for reauthorizing all Federal 
     programs on a staggered five-year basis together with 
     declining spending targets for each year a program is not 
     reauthorized according to such schedule;
       (2) prohibits the consideration of appropriations measures 
     in the House that provide appropriations in excess of 
     spending targets specified for such measures and ensures that 
     such rule should be strictly enforced; and
       (3) limits funding for non-defense or non-security-related 
     Federal programs that are not reauthorized according the 
     schedule described in paragraph (1).

     SEC. 505. POLICY STATEMENT ON FEDERAL ACCOUNTING.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Current accounting methods fail to capture and present 
     in a compelling manner the full scope of the Federal 
     Government and its fiscal condition.
       (2) Most fiscal analyses produced by the Congressional 
     Budget Office (CBO) are conducted over a 10-fiscal year 
     period. The use of generational accounting or a longer time 
     horizon would provide a more complete picture of the Federal 
     Government's fiscal condition.
       (3) The Federal budget currently accounts for most programs 
     on a cash accounting basis, which records revenue and 
     expenses when cash is actually paid or received. However, it 
     accounts for loan and loan guarantee programs on an accrual 
     basis, which records revenue when earned and expenses when 
     incurred.
       (4) The Government Accountability Office has advised that 
     accrual accounting may be more accurate than cash accounting 
     in estimating the Federal Government's liabilities for 
     insurance and other programs.
       (5) Accrual accounting under the Federal Credit Reform Act 
     of 1990 (FCRA) understates the risk and thus the true cost of 
     some Federal programs, including loans and loan guarantees.
       (6) Fair-value accounting better reflects the risk 
     associated with Federal loan and loan guarantee programs by 
     using a market based discount rate. CBO, for example, uses 
     fair-value accounting to measure the cost of the Federal 
     National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal 
     Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac).
       (7) In comparing fair-value accounting to FCRA, CBO has 
     concluded that ``adopting a fair-value approach would provide 
     a more comprehensive way to measure the costs of Federal 
     credit programs and would permit more level comparisons 
     between those costs and the costs of other forms of Federal 
     assistance''.
       (8) The Department of the Treasury, when reporting the 
     principal financial statements of the United States entitled 
     Balance Sheet and Statement of Operations and Changes in Net 
     Position, may omit some of the largest projected Federal 
     Government expenses, including social insurance programs. The 
     projected expenses of these programs are reported by the 
     Department in its Statements of Social Insurance and Changes 
     in Social Insurance Amounts.
       (9) This concurrent resolution directs CBO to estimate the 
     costs of Federal credit programs on a fair-value basis to 
     fully capture the risk associated with these programs.
       (b) Policy on Federal Accounting Methodologies.--It is the 
     policy of this concurrent resolution that the House should, 
     in consultation with CBO and other appropriate stakeholders, 
     reform government-wide budget and accounting practices so 
     Members and the public can better understand the fiscal 
     condition of the United States and the best options to 
     improve it. Such reforms may include the following:
       (1) Providing additional metrics to enhance analysis by 
     considering the Nation's

[[Page 15587]]

     fiscal condition comprehensively, over an extended time 
     period, and how it affects Americans of various age cohorts.
       (2) Expanding the use of accrual accounting where 
     appropriate.
       (3) Accounting for certain Federal credit programs using 
     fair-value accounting to better capture market risk.

     SEC. 506. POLICY STATEMENT ON COMMISSION ON BUDGET CONCEPTS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) In 1965, the President's Commission on Budget Concepts 
     made a series of recommendations that were adopted and 
     continue to provide the foundation for the Federal budget 
     process.
       (2) Over the ensuing 52 years, the Federal budget process 
     has undergone major transformations, including the following:
       (A) Congress asserted its Article I ``power of the purse'' 
     through the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 in the form of a 
     congressional budget process predicated on the adoption of an 
     annual budget resolution setting forth its priorities 
     independent of the executive branch.
       (B) Congress and the President have periodically augmented 
     the President's budget submission and the budget resolution 
     by establishing statutory budget rules and limits enforced 
     through sequestration.
       (C) The share of Federal spending that is not controlled 
     through the annual appropriations process has ballooned from 
     32 percent of total Federal spending in 1967 to 69 percent in 
     2016.
       (D) Activities previously considered the exclusive domain 
     of the Federal Government have been fully commercialized, 
     contracted out to the private sector, financed through third 
     party arrangements, or devolved to State and local 
     governments.
       (E) Key functions of the Federal Government are now funded 
     through user fees rather than general revenue, often 
     shielding them from congressional control and oversight.
       (F) The Credit Reform Act of 1990 placed Federal loans and 
     loan guarantees on an accrual basis.
       (G) Increasing shares of the economy are directed towards 
     compliance with Federal regulations, which are not subject to 
     the limitations applicable to Federal spending.
       (b) Policy on Commission on Budget Concepts.--It is the 
     policy of this concurrent resolution on the budget that 
     legislation should be enacted that establishes a Commission 
     on Budget Concepts to review and revise budget concepts and 
     make recommendations to create a more transparent Federal 
     budget process.

     SEC. 507. POLICY STATEMENT ON BUDGET ENFORCEMENT.

       It is the policy of this concurrent resolution that the 
     House should--
       (1) adopt an annual budget resolution before spending and 
     tax legislation is considered in either House of Congress;
       (2) assess measures for timely compliance with budget rules 
     in the House;
       (3) pass legislation to strengthen enforcement of the 
     budget resolution;
       (4) comply with the discretionary spending limits set forth 
     in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985;
       (5) prevent the use of accounting gimmicks to offset higher 
     spending;
       (6) modify scoring conventions to encourage the 
     commercialization of Federal Government activities that can 
     best be provided by the private sector; and
       (7) discourage the use of savings identified in the budget 
     resolution as offsets for spending or tax legislation.

     SEC. 508. POLICY STATEMENT ON IMPROPER PAYMENTS.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) The Government Accountability Office defines improper 
     payments as any reported payment that should not have been 
     made or was made in an incorrect amount.
       (2) Improper payments totaled $1.2 trillion between fiscal 
     years 2003 and 2016 with a reported Federal Government-wide 
     error rate of 5.1 percent in fiscal year 2016.
       (3) Improper payments increased from $107 billion in 2012 
     to $144 billion in 2016.
       (4) The Earned Income Tax Credit, Medicare, and Medicaid 
     account for 78 percent of total improper payments, with error 
     rates of 24 percent, 11 percent, and 10.5 percent, 
     respectively.
       (5) Eight agencies did not report payment estimates for 18 
     programs that the Comptroller General deems susceptible to 
     significant improper payments.
       (b) Policy on Improper Payments.--It is the policy of this 
     concurrent resolution that an independent commission should 
     be established with the goal of finding tangible solutions to 
     reduce total improper payments by 50 percent within the next 
     5 years. The commission should also develop a more-stringent 
     system of agency oversight to achieve this goal.

     SEC. 509. POLICY STATEMENT ON EXPENDITURES FROM AGENCY FEES 
                   AND SPENDING.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Many Federal agencies and organizations have permanent 
     authority to collect and spend fees and other offsetting 
     collections.
       (2) The Office of Management and Budget estimates the total 
     amount of offsetting fees and collections to be $513 billion 
     in fiscal year 2017.
       (3) Agency budget justifications are, in some cases, not 
     fully transparent about the amount of program activity funded 
     through offsetting collections or fees. This lack of 
     transparency prevents effective and accountable Government.
       (b) Policy on Expenditures From Agency Fees and Spending.--
     It is the policy of this concurrent resolution that the House 
     should reassert its constitutional prerogative to control 
     Federal spending and exercise rigorous oversight over Federal 
     agencies. Congress should subject all fees paid by the public 
     to Federal agencies to annual appropriations or authorizing 
     legislation and a share of these proceeds should be reserved 
     for taxpayers in the form of deficit reduction.

     SEC. 510. POLICY STATEMENT ON PROMOTING REAL HEALTH CARE 
                   REFORM.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Patient-centered health care increases access to 
     quality care for all Americans, regardless of age, income, or 
     health status.
       (2) States are best equipped to respond to the needs of 
     their unique communities.
       (3) The current legal framework encourages frivolous 
     medical malpractice lawsuits that increase health care costs.
       (b) Policy on Health Care Regulation.--It is the policy of 
     this concurrent resolution that--
       (1) the American health care system should encourage 
     research, development, and innovation in the medical sector, 
     rather than stymie growth through over-regulation;
       (2) States should determine the parameters of acceptable 
     private insurance plans based on the needs of their 
     populations and retain control over other health care 
     coverage standards;
       (3) reforms should protect patients with pre-existing 
     conditions, reward those who maintain continuous health 
     coverage, and create greater parity between benefits offered 
     through employers and those offered independently;
       (4) States should have greater flexibility in designing 
     their Medicaid program and State Children's Health Insurance 
     Program;
       (5) medical malpractice reform should emphasize compliance 
     with best practice guidelines, while continuing to protect 
     patients' interests; and
       (6) States should have the flexibility to implement medical 
     liability policies to best suit their needs.

     SEC. 511. POLICY STATEMENT ON MEDICARE.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) More than 57 million Americans depend on Medicare for 
     their health security.
       (2) The Medicare Trustees Report has repeatedly recommended 
     that Congress address Medicare's long-term financial 
     challenges. Each year without reform, the financial condition 
     of Medicare becomes more precarious and the threat to those 
     in or near retirement more pronounced. The current challenges 
     that Congress will need to address include--
       (A) the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be exhausted in 
     2029 and unable to pay the scheduled benefits;
       (B) Medicare enrollment is expected to increase more than 
     50 percent in the next two decades, as 10,000 baby boomers 
     reach retirement age each day;
       (C) due to extended life spans, enrollees remain in 
     Medicare three times longer than at the outset of the program 
     five decades ago;
       (D) notwithstanding the program's trust fund arrangement, 
     current workers' payroll tax contributions pay for current 
     Medicare beneficiaries instead of being set aside for their 
     own future use;
       (E) the number of workers supporting each beneficiary 
     continues to fall; in 1965, the ratio was 4.5 workers per 
     beneficiary, and by 2030, the ratio will be only 2.4 workers 
     per beneficiary;
       (F) the average Medicare beneficiary receives about three 
     dollars in Medicare benefits for every dollar paid into the 
     program;
       (G) Medicare is growing faster than the economy, with a 
     projected growth rate of 7.2 percent per year on average 
     through 2026, peaking in 2026 at 9.2 percent; and
       (H) by 2027, Medicare spending will reach more than $1.4 
     trillion, more than double the 2016 spending level of $692 
     billion.
       (3) Failing to address the impending insolvency of Medicare 
     will leave millions of American seniors without adequate 
     health security and younger generations burdened with having 
     to pay for these unsustainable spending levels.
       (b) Policy on Medicare Reform.--It is the policy of this 
     concurrent resolution to save Medicare for those in or near 
     retirement and to strengthen the program's solvency for 
     future beneficiaries.
       (c) Assumptions.--This concurrent resolution assumes 
     transition to an improved Medicare program that ensures--
       (1) Medicare is preserved for current and future 
     beneficiaries;
       (2) future Medicare beneficiaries may select from competing 
     guaranteed health coverage options a plan that best suits 
     their needs;
       (3) traditional fee-for-service Medicare remains a plan 
     option;

[[Page 15588]]

       (4) Medicare provides additional assistance for lower-
     income beneficiaries and those with greater health risks; and
       (5) Medicare spending is put on a sustainable path and 
     becomes solvent over the long term.

     SEC. 512. POLICY STATEMENT ON COMBATING THE OPIOID EPIDEMIC.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) According to the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention (CDC), 91 Americans die each day from an opioid 
     overdose.
       (2) Nearly half of all opioid overdose deaths involve a 
     prescription opioid.
       (3) Since 1999, the number of prescription opioids sold in 
     the U.S. has nearly quadrupled.
       (4) Since 1999, the number of deaths from prescription 
     opioids has more than quadrupled.
       (5) The CDC asserts that improving opioid prescribing 
     practices will reduce exposure to opioids, prevent abuse, and 
     stop addiction.
       (6) The CDC has found that individuals in rural counties 
     are almost twice as likely to overdose on prescription 
     painkillers as those in urban areas.
       (7) According to the CDC, nearly 7,000 people are treated 
     in emergency rooms every day for using opioids in a non-
     approved manner.
       (8) The 21st Century Cures Act and the Comprehensive 
     Addiction and Recovery Act were signed into law in the 114th 
     Congress in an overwhelming display of congressional and 
     executive branch support in the fight against the opioid 
     epidemic.
       (9) Bipartisan efforts to eliminate opioid abuse and 
     provide relief from addiction for all Americans should 
     continue.
       (b) Policy on Opioid Abuse.--It is the policy of this 
     concurrent resolution that--
       (1) combating opioid abuse using available budgetary 
     resources remains a high priority;
       (2) the House, in a bipartisan manner, should continue to 
     examine the Federal response to the opioid abuse epidemic and 
     support essential activities to reduce and prevent substance 
     abuse;
       (3) the House should continue to support initiatives 
     included in the 21st Century Cures Act and the Comprehensive 
     Addiction and Recovery Act;
       (4) the House should continue its oversight efforts, 
     particularly ongoing investigations conducted by the House 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce, to ensure that taxpayer 
     dollars intended to combat opioid abuse are spent 
     appropriately and efficiently; and
       (5) the House should collaborate with State, local, and 
     tribal entities to develop a comprehensive strategy for 
     addressing the opioid addiction crisis.

     SEC. 513. POLICY STATEMENT ON THE STATE CHILDREN'S HEALTH 
                   INSURANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) 
     is a means-tested program that provides health insurance 
     coverage to low-income children and pregnant women who do not 
     qualify for Medicaid based on income.
       (2) SCHIP eligibility varies by State, as States decide the 
     income upper limit for beneficiaries; the current upper limit 
     varies from 175 percent of the Federal poverty level to 405 
     percent of the Federal poverty level.
       (3) SCHIP covered on average 6.3 million people monthly in 
     fiscal year 2017.
       (4) The average cost of a child enrolled in SCHIP to the 
     Federal Government was approximately $2,300 in fiscal year 
     2017, compared to approximately $1,910 for a child enrolled 
     in Medicaid.
       (5) The Federal spending allotment for SCHIP will expire at 
     the end of fiscal year 2017.
       (6) The Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission 
     recommends an extension of Federal SCHIP funding, and warns 
     that all States are projected to exhaust their Federal SCHIP 
     funds during fiscal year 2018.
       (7) SCHIP should be preserved to assist the Nation's 
     vulnerable children.
       (b) Policy on the State Children's Health Insurance 
     Program.--It is the policy of this concurrent resolution 
     that--
       (1) the House should work in a bipartisan manner to 
     reauthorize SCHIP funding;
       (2) the authorizing committees should consider establishing 
     a Federal upper limit for SCHIP eligibility, rather than 
     providing open-ended access to the program for those at 
     higher income levels;
       (3) the House should target resources designated for SCHIP 
     toward those most in need of Federal assistance; and
       (4) the House should require greater reporting by States of 
     SCHIP data in order to better structure the program to meet 
     beneficiaries' needs.

     SEC. 514. POLICY STATEMENT ON MEDICAL DISCOVERY, DEVELOPMENT, 
                   DELIVERY, AND INNOVATION.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) The Nation's commitment to the discovery, development, 
     and delivery of new treatments and cures has made the United 
     States the biomedical innovation capital of the world for 
     decades.
       (2) The history of scientific discovery and medical 
     breakthroughs in the United States is extensive, including 
     the creation of the polio vaccine, the first genetic mapping, 
     and the invention of the implantable cardiac pacemaker.
       (3) Reuters ranks the United States Health and Human 
     Services Laboratories as first in the world for innovation on 
     its 2017 list of the Top 25 Global Innovators.
       (4) The United States leads the world in the production of 
     medical devices, and the United States medical device market 
     accounts for approximately 45 percent of the global market.
       (5) The United States remains a global leader in 
     pharmaceutical research and development investment, has 
     produced more than half of the world's new molecules in the 
     past decade, and represents the world's largest 
     pharmaceutical market, which is triple the size of the 
     nearest rival, China.
       (b) Policy on Medical Innovation.--It is the policy of this 
     concurrent resolution that--
       (1) the Federal Government should foster investment in 
     health care innovation and maintain the Nation's world 
     leadership status in medical science by encouraging 
     competition;
       (2) the House should continue to support the critical work 
     of medical innovators throughout the country through 
     continued funding for agencies, including the National 
     Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention, to conduct life-saving research and development; 
     and
       (3) the Federal Government should unleash the power of 
     private-sector medical innovation by removing regulatory 
     obstacles that impede the adoption of new medical technology 
     and pharmaceuticals.

     SEC. 515. POLICY STATEMENT ON PUBLIC HEALTH PREPAREDNESS.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) The Constitution requires the Federal Government to 
     provide for the common defense. As such, the Nation must 
     prioritize its ability to respond rapidly and effectively to 
     a public health crisis or bioterrorism threat.
       (2) There is a persistent threat of bioterrorism against 
     American lives.
       (3) Naturally-occurring public health threats can spread 
     through the transmission of communicable diseases during 
     international trade and travel.
       (4) As of April 3, 2016, the World Health Organization 
     reported nearly 29,000 cases of the Ebola virus worldwide, 
     including 4 instances in the U.S.
       (5) As of July 12, 2017, the Centers for Disease Control 
     and Prevention (CDC) reports that the current Zika epidemic 
     resulted in over 5,000 cases of the Zika virus within the 
     United States, with nearly 37,000 more cases reported in U.S. 
     territories.
       (6) Preventing the spread of disease to Americans requires 
     halting threats before they breach the U.S. border.
       (7) The United States is a leader in global public health 
     assistance and orchestrates international responses to health 
     crises.
       (b) Policy on Public Health Preparedness.--It is the policy 
     of this concurrent resolution that--
       (1) the House should continue to fund activities of the 
     CDC, the National Institutes of Health, and the Biomedical 
     Advanced Research and Development Authority to develop and 
     stockpile medical countermeasures to infectious diseases and 
     chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear agents;
       (2) the House should, within available budgetary resources, 
     provide continued support for research, prevention, and 
     public health preparedness programs;
       (3) the Federal Government should encourage private-sector 
     development of critical vaccines and other medical 
     countermeasures to emerging public health threats; and
       (4) the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the 
     Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of State should 
     collaborate on global health preparedness initiatives to 
     prevent overlap and promote responsible stewardship of 
     taxpayer resources.

     SEC. 516. POLICY STATEMENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) More than 60 million retirees, individuals with 
     disabilities, and survivors depend on Social Security. Since 
     enactment, Social Security has served as a vital leg of the 
     ``three-legged stool'' of retirement security, which includes 
     employer provided pensions as well as personal savings.
       (2) Lower-income Americans rely on Social Security for a 
     larger proportion of their retirement income. Therefore, 
     reforms should take into consideration the need to protect 
     lower income Americans' retirement security.
       (3) The Social Security Trustees Report has repeatedly 
     recommended that Social Security's long-term financial 
     challenges be addressed soon. The financial condition of 
     Social Security and the threat to seniors and those receiving 
     Social Security disability benefits becomes more pronounced 
     each year without reform. For example--
       (A) in 2028, the Disability Insurance Trust Fund will be 
     exhausted and program revenues will be unable to pay 
     scheduled benefits; and

[[Page 15589]]

       (B) with the exhaustion of both the Disability Insurance 
     Trust Fund and the Old-Age and Survivors and Disability Trust 
     Fund in 2035, benefits will be cut by as much as 25 percent 
     across the board, devastating those currently in or near 
     retirement and those who rely on Social Security the most.
       (4) The recession and continued low economic growth have 
     exacerbated the looming fiscal crisis facing Social Security. 
     The most recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections 
     find that Social Security will run cash deficits of more than 
     $1.3 trillion over the next 10 years.
       (5) The Disability Insurance program provides an essential 
     income safety net for those with disabilities and their 
     families. According to CBO, between 1970 and 2015 the number 
     of disabled workers and their dependent family members 
     receiving disability benefits has increased by more than 300 
     percent from 2.7 million to over 10.9 million. This increase 
     is not due strictly to population growth or decreases in 
     health. CBO also attributes program growth to changes in 
     demographics and the composition of the labor force as well 
     as Federal policies.
       (6) In the past, Social Security has been reformed on a 
     bipartisan basis, most notably by the ``Greenspan 
     Commission'', which helped address Social Security shortfalls 
     for more than a generation.
       (7) Americans deserve action by the President and Congress 
     to preserve and strengthen Social Security to ensure that 
     Social Security remains a critical part of the safety net.
       (b) Policy on Social Security.--It is the policy of this 
     concurrent resolution that the House should work in a 
     bipartisan manner to make Social Security solvent on a 
     sustainable basis. This concurrent resolution assumes, under 
     a reform trigger, that--
       (1) if in any year the Board of Trustees of the Federal 
     Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal 
     Disability Insurance Trust Fund annual Trustees Report 
     determines that the 75-year actuarial balance of the Social 
     Security Trust Funds is in deficit, and the annual balance of 
     the Social Security Trust Funds in the 75th year is in 
     deficit, the Board of Trustees should, no later than 
     September 30 of the same calendar year, submit to the 
     President recommendations for statutory reforms necessary to 
     achieve a positive 75-year actuarial balance and a positive 
     annual balance in the 75th year, and any recommendations 
     provided to the President must be agreed upon by both Public 
     Trustees of the Board of Trustees;
       (2) not later than December 1 of the same calendar year in 
     which the Board of Trustees submit its recommendations, the 
     President should promptly submit implementing legislation to 
     both Houses of Congress including recommendations necessary 
     to achieve a positive 75-year actuarial balance and a 
     positive annual balance in the 75th year, and the majority 
     leader of the Senate and the majority leader of the House 
     should introduce the President's legislation upon receipt;
       (3) within 60 days of the President submitting legislation, 
     the committees of jurisdiction should report a bill, which 
     the House or Senate should consider under expedited 
     procedures; and
       (4) legislation submitted by the President should--
       (A) protect those in or near retirement;
       (B) preserve the safety net for those who count on Social 
     Security the most, including those with disabilities and 
     survivors;
       (C) improve fairness for participants;
       (D) reduce the burden on and provide certainty for future 
     generations; and
       (E) secure the future of the Disability Insurance program 
     while addressing the needs of those with disabilities today 
     and improving the determination process.
       (c) Policy on Disability Insurance.--It is the policy of 
     this concurrent resolution that the House should consider 
     legislation on a bipartisan basis to reform the Disability 
     Insurance program prior to its insolvency in 2028 and should 
     not raid the Social Security retirement system without 
     reforms to the Disability Insurance system. This concurrent 
     resolution assumes reform that--
       (1) promotes opportunity for those trying to return to 
     work;
       (2) ensures benefits continue to be paid to individuals 
     with disabilities and their family members who rely on them;
       (3) prevents a 7 percent across-the-board benefit cut; and
       (4) improves the Disability Insurance program.
       (d) Policy on Social Security Solvency.--It is the policy 
     of this concurrent resolution that any legislation the House 
     considers to improve the solvency of the Disability Insurance 
     Trust Fund must also improve the long-term solvency of the 
     combined Old Age and Survivors Disability Insurance Trust 
     Fund.

     SEC. 517. POLICY STATEMENT ON MEDICAID WORK REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Medicaid is a Federal-State program that provides 
     health care coverage for impoverished Americans.
       (2) Medicaid serves four major population categories: the 
     elderly, the blind and disabled, children, and adults.
       (3) The Congressional Budget Office projects the average 
     monthly enrollment in Medicaid for fiscal year 2018 to be 78 
     million people.
       (4) Of this 78 million people, 27 million--more than one 
     third of the enrollees--are non-elderly, non-disabled adults.
       (5) Medicaid continues to grow at an unsustainable rate, 
     and will cost approximately one trillion dollars per year 
     within the decade, between Federal and State spending.
       (6) Congress has a responsibility to preserve limited 
     Medicaid resources for America's most vulnerable--those who 
     cannot provide for themselves.
       (7) Forbes reported last year on a first-of-its-kind study 
     conducted by the Foundation for Government Accountability. It 
     analyzed data from the State of Kansas, which demonstrates 
     that work requirements have led to greater employment, higher 
     incomes, and less poverty.
       (8) The State of Maine implemented work requirements in 
     2014, and saw incomes rise for able-bodied welfare recipients 
     by an average of 114 percent within a year.
       (9) Work is a valuable source of human dignity, and work 
     requirements help lift Americans out of poverty by 
     incentivizing self-reliance.
       (b) Policy on Medicaid Work Requirements.--It is the policy 
     of this concurrent resolution that--
       (1) Congress should enact legislation that encourages able-
     bodied, non-elderly, non-pregnant adults without dependents 
     to work, actively seek work, participate in a job-training 
     program, or do community service, in order to receive 
     Medicaid;
       (2) Medicaid work requirements legislation could include 30 
     hours per week of work, of which 20 of those hours should be 
     spent in the core activities of: public or private sector 
     employment, work experience, on-the-job training, job-search 
     or job-readiness assistance program participation, community 
     service, or vocational training and education;
       (3) States should be given flexibility to determine the 
     parameters of qualifying program participation and work-
     equivalent experience;
       (4) States should perform regular case checks to ensure 
     taxpayer dollars are appropriately spent; and
       (5) the Government Accountability Office or the Department 
     of Health and Human Services Inspector General should conduct 
     annual audits of State Medicaid programs to ensure proper 
     reporting and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse.

     SEC. 518. POLICY STATEMENT ON WELFARE REFORM AND SUPPLEMENTAL 
                   NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM WORK REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
     Program (SNAP) has grown from 17 million Americans in 2001 to 
     44 million in 2016.
       (2) The work support role of SNAP has declined, and the 
     program increasingly serves as a replacement to work.
       (3) Work requirements were key to the success of the 
     Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (Public Law 
     104-193), which led to a two-thirds reduction in welfare 
     caseloads, a reduction in child poverty, and an increase in 
     work participation. The successful 1996 welfare reform law 
     provides a model for improving work requirements in other 
     anti-poverty programs.
       (b) Policy on Welfare Reform and SNAP Work Requirements.--
     It is the policy of this concurrent resolution that--
       (1) the welfare system should reward work, provide tools to 
     escape poverty, and expect work-capable adults to work or 
     prepare for work in exchange for welfare benefits; and
       (2) SNAP should be reformed to improve work requirements to 
     help more people escape poverty and move up the economic 
     ladder.

     SEC. 519. POLICY STATEMENT ON STATE FLEXIBILITY IN 
                   SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Spending on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 
     (SNAP) has almost quadrupled since 2001.
       (2) Various factors are driving this growth, but one major 
     reason is that while States have the responsibility of 
     administering the program, they have little incentive to 
     ensure it is well run.
       (3) In 1996, a Republican Congress and a Democratic 
     President reformed welfare by limiting the duration of 
     benefits, giving States more control over the program, and 
     helping recipients find work. In the 5 years following 
     passage, child-poverty rates fell, welfare caseloads fell, 
     and workers' wages increased. This bipartisan success offers 
     a model for improving other anti-poverty programs.
       (b) Policy on State Flexibility in SNAP.--It is the policy 
     of this concurrent resolution that SNAP should be reformed to 
     reduce poverty and increase opportunity and upward mobility 
     for struggling Americans on the road to personal and 
     financial independence. Based on the successful welfare 
     reforms of the 1990s, these proposals would improve work 
     requirements and provide flexible funding for States to help 
     those most in need find gainful employment, escape poverty, 
     and move up the economic ladder.

[[Page 15590]]



     SEC. 520. POLICY STATEMENT ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE 
                   DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY.

       (a) Findings on Higher Education.--The House finds the 
     following:
       (1) A well-educated, high-skilled workforce is critical to 
     economic, job, and wage growth.
       (2) Average published tuition and fees have increased 
     consistently above the rate of inflation across all types of 
     colleges and universities.
       (3) With an outstanding student loan portfolio of $1.3 
     trillion, the Federal Government is the largest education 
     lender to undergraduate and graduate students, parents, and 
     other guarantors.
       (4) Students who do not complete their college degree are 
     at a greater risk of defaulting on their loans than those who 
     complete their degree.
       (5) Participation in Federal income-driven repayment plans 
     is rising, in terms of the percent of both borrowers and loan 
     dollars, according to the Government Accountability Office. 
     Because these plans offer loan balance forgiveness after a 
     repayment period, this increased use portends higher 
     projected costs to taxpayers.
       (b) Policy on Higher Education.--It is the policy of this 
     concurrent resolution to promote college affordability, 
     access, and success by--
       (1) reserving Federal financial aid for those most in need 
     and streamlining grant and loan aid programs to help students 
     and families more easily assess their options for financing 
     postsecondary education; and
       (2) removing regulatory barriers to reduce costs, increase 
     access, and allow for innovative teaching models.
       (c) Findings on Workforce Development.--The House finds the 
     following:
       (1) 7.5 million Americans are currently unemployed.
       (2) Despite billions of dollars in spending, those looking 
     for work are stymied by a broken workforce development system 
     that fails to connect workers with assistance and employers 
     with skilled personnel.
       (3) The House Committee on Education and the Workforce 
     successfully consolidated 15 workforce development programs 
     when Congress enacted the Workforce Innovation and 
     Opportunity Act in 2014.
       (d) Policy on Workforce Development.--It is the policy of 
     this concurrent resolution to build on the success of the 
     Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act by--
       (1) further streamlining and consolidating Federal 
     workforce development programs; and
       (2) empowering States with the flexibility to tailor 
     funding and programs to the specific needs of their 
     workforce.

     SEC. 521. POLICY STATEMENT ON SUPPLEMENTAL WILDFIRE 
                   SUPPRESSION FUNDING.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) In 1995, fire activities made up 16 percent of the 
     United States Forest Service's (USFS) annual appropriated 
     budget. Since 2015, more than 50 percent has now been 
     dedicated to wildfire.
       (2) Wildland fire suppression activities are currently 
     funded entirely within the USFS budget, based on a 10-year 
     rolling average. Using this model, the agency must average 
     firefighting costs from the past 10 years to predict and 
     request costs for the next year. When the average was stable, 
     the agency was able to use this model to budget consistently 
     for the annual costs associated with wildland fire 
     suppression.
       (3) Over the last few decades, wildland fire suppression 
     costs have increased as fire seasons have grown longer and 
     the frequency, size, and severity of wildland fires has 
     increased.
       (4) The six worst fire seasons since 1960 have all occurred 
     since 2000. Since 2000, many western states have experienced 
     the largest wildfires in their State's history. In 2016 
     alone, there were a recorded 67,595 fires and a total of over 
     5.5 million acres burned. The suppression costs to USFS and 
     other Federal agencies for 2016 totaled over $1.9 billion 
     dollars.
       (5) As wildfire costs continue to increase, funding levels 
     for USFS wildfire suppression activities will also continue 
     to constrict funding levels for other necessary USFS forest 
     management activities focused on land management and wildfire 
     prevention.
       (b) Policy on Supplemental Wildfire Suppression Funding.--
     It is the policy of this concurrent resolution that Congress, 
     in coordination with the Administration, should develop both 
     a long-term funding mechanism that would allow supplemental 
     wildfire suppression funding and reforms on reducing 
     hazardous fuel loads on Federal forests and lands that could 
     decrease wildfires.

     SEC. 522. POLICY STATEMENT ON THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
                   AFFAIRS.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) For years there have been serious concerns regarding 
     the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) bureaucratic 
     mismanagement and continuous failure to provide veterans 
     timely access to health care.
       (2) Since 2003, VA disability compensation and health care 
     have been added to the Government Accountability Office's 
     (GAO) ``high-risk'' list, due to mismanagement and oversight 
     failures, lack of a ``unified vision, strategy, or set of 
     goals to guide their outcomes,'' and the inability to ensure 
     allocated resources are used in a cost-effective and 
     efficient way to improve veterans' health care access.
       (3) The VA's failure to provide timely and accessible 
     health care to America's veterans is unacceptable. While 
     Congress has done its part for more than a decade by 
     providing sufficient funding for the VA, the agency has 
     mismanaged these resources, resulting in proven adverse 
     effects on veterans and their families.
       (b) Policy on the Department of Veterans Affairs.--It is 
     the policy of this concurrent resolution that the House 
     should require the VA to conduct an audit of its programs 
     named on GAO's ``high-risk'' list and report its findings to 
     the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on the Budget, 
     and the Committee on Veterans Affairs of the House of 
     Representatives.

     SEC. 523. POLICY STATEMENT ON MOVING THE UNITED STATES POSTAL 
                   SERVICE ON BUDGET.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) The President's Commission on Budget Concepts 
     recommends that the budget should, as a general rule, be 
     comprehensive of the full range of Federal activity.
       (2) The Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1989 (Public Law 101-
     239) moved the United States Postal Service (USPS) off budget 
     and exempted it from sequestration.
       (3) The USPS has a direct effect on the fiscal posture of 
     the Federal Government, through--
       (A) the receipt of direct appropriations of $35 million in 
     fiscal year 2017;
       (B) congressional mandates such as requirements for mail 
     delivery service schedules;
       (C) incurring $15 billion in debt from the Treasury, the 
     maximum permitted by law;
       (D) continued operating deficits since 2007;
       (E) defaulting on its statutory obligation to prefund 
     health care benefits for future retirees; and
       (F) carrying $119 billion in total unfunded liabilities 
     with no foreseeable pathway of funding these liabilities 
     under current law.
       (b) Policy on Moving the USPS on Budget.--It is the policy 
     of this concurrent resolution that all receipts and 
     disbursements of the USPS should be included in the 
     congressional budget and the budget of the Federal 
     Government.

     SEC. 524. POLICY STATEMENT ON THE JUDGMENT FUND.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) The Judgment Fund (Fund), established in 1956, was 
     created to pay judgments and settlements of lawsuits against 
     the Federal Government.
       (2) As a result of the Fund's design, it is ripe for 
     executive branch exploitation. The Obama Administration used 
     the Fund to make billions of dollars in payments to Federal 
     agencies and foreign entities. For example--
       (A) on January 17, 2016, the State Department announced the 
     Federal Government agreed to pay the Iranian government $1.7 
     billion to settle a case related to the sale of military 
     equipment prior to the Iranian revolution, of which $1.3 
     billion was sourced through the Fund, without prior 
     congressional notification; the Obama Administration's use of 
     the Fund to make this and other payments raises serious 
     concerns by sidestepping Congress; and
       (B) in 2016, the Department of Health and Human Services 
     announced its intentions to use the Fund for settlements with 
     health insurers who sued the Federal Government over the loss 
     of funds for risk corridors under the Patient Protection and 
     Affordable Care Act.
       (3) Failing to address the lack of oversight over the Fund 
     annually costs taxpayers billions of dollars, as payments 
     exceeded $4.6 billion in 2016 and more than $26 billion in 
     the preceding 10 year period.
       (b) Policy on Judgment Fund.--It is the policy of this 
     concurrent resolution that the House should consider 
     legislation that reclaims Congress's power of the purse over 
     the Fund. Such legislation should--
       (1) prohibit interest payments paid from the Fund for 
     accounts or assets frozen by the Federal Government and 
     listed on--
       (A) the Sanctions Programs list of the Office of Foreign 
     Asset Control of the Department of Treasury; or
       (B) Sponsors of Terrorism list of the Department of State;
       (2) amend sections 2414 and 1304 of titles 28 and 31, 
     United States Code, respectively, to--
       (A) provide a clear definition and explanation of a 
     ``foreign court or tribunal''; and
       (B) require congressional notification whenever the Fund 
     makes a settlement or court ordered lump sum or aggregated 
     payment exceeding $500 million; and
       (3) require legislative action to approve payments from the 
     Fund in excess of a specified threshold, increase 
     transparency, and require Federal agencies to reimburse the 
     Fund over a fixed time period.

[[Page 15591]]



     SEC. 525. POLICY STATEMENT ON RESPONSIBLE STEWARDSHIP OF 
                   TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that significant savings 
     were achieved by the House by consolidating operations and 
     renegotiating contracts.
       (b) Policy on Responsible Stewardship of Taxpayer 
     Dollars.--It is the policy of this concurrent resolution 
     that--
       (1) the House should be a model for the responsible 
     stewardship of taxpayer resources, and identify any savings 
     that can be achieved through greater productivity and 
     efficiency gains in the operation and maintenance of House 
     services and resources, including printing, conferences, 
     utilities, telecommunications, furniture, grounds 
     maintenance, postage, and rent;
       (2) the House should review policies and procedures for the 
     acquisition of goods and services to eliminate unnecessary 
     spending;
       (3) the Committee on House Administration should review the 
     policies pertaining to services provided to Members and 
     committees of the House, and identify ways to reduce any 
     subsidies paid for the operation of the House gym, barber 
     shop, salon, and the House dining room;
       (4) no taxpayer funds should be used to purchase first 
     class airfare or to lease corporate jets for Members of 
     Congress; and
       (5) retirement benefits for Members of Congress should not 
     include free, taxpayer-funded health care for life.

     SEC. 526. POLICY STATEMENT ON TAX REFORM.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) A world-class tax system should be simple, fair, and 
     promote (rather than impede) economic growth. The United 
     States tax code fails on all 3 counts: it is complex, unfair, 
     and inefficient. The tax code's complexity distorts decisions 
     to work, save, and invest, which leads to slower economic 
     growth, lower wages, and less job creation.
       (2) Standard economic theory holds that high marginal tax 
     rates lessen the incentives to work, save, and invest, which 
     reduces economic output and job creation. Lower economic 
     output, in turn, mutes the intended revenue gain from higher 
     marginal tax rates.
       (3) Roughly half of United States active business income 
     and half of private sector employment are derived from 
     business entities (such as partnerships, S corporations, and 
     sole proprietorships) that are taxed on a ``pass-through'' 
     basis, meaning the income is taxed at individual rates rather 
     than corporate rates. Small businesses, in particular, tend 
     to choose this form for Federal tax purposes, and the highest 
     Federal rate on such small business income can reach nearly 
     45 percent. For these reasons, sound economic policy requires 
     lowering marginal rates on these pass-through entities.
       (4) The top United States corporate income tax rate 
     (including Federal, State, and local taxes) is slightly more 
     than 39 percent, the highest rate in the industrialized 
     world. Tax rates this high suppress wages, discourage 
     investment and job creation, distort business activity, and 
     put American businesses at a competitive disadvantage with 
     foreign competitors.
       (5) By deterring potential investment, the United States 
     corporate tax restrains economic growth and job creation. The 
     United States tax rate differential fosters a variety of 
     complicated multinational corporate practices intended to 
     avoid the tax, which have the effect of moving the tax base 
     offshore, destroying American jobs, and decreasing corporate 
     revenue.
       (6) The ``world-wide'' structure of United States 
     international taxation essentially taxes earnings of United 
     States firms twice, putting them at a significant competitive 
     disadvantage with competitors that have more competitive 
     international tax systems.
       (7) Reforming the tax code would boost the competitiveness 
     of United States companies operating abroad and significantly 
     reduce tax avoidance.
       (8) The tax code imposes costs on American workers through 
     lower wages, consumers in higher prices, and investors in 
     diminished returns.
       (9) Increasing taxes to raise revenue and meet out-of-
     control spending would sink the economy and Americans' 
     ability to save for their children's education and 
     retirement.
       (10) Closing special preference carve outs in our tax code 
     to finance higher spending does not constitute fundamental 
     tax reform.
       (11) Tax reform should curb or eliminate tax breaks and use 
     those savings to lower tax rates across the board, not to 
     fund more wasteful Federal Government spending. Washington 
     has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
       (12) Many economists believe that fundamental tax reform, 
     including a broader tax base and lower tax rates, would lead 
     to greater labor supply and increased investment, which would 
     have a positive impact on total national output.
       (b) Policy on Tax Reform.--It is the policy of this 
     concurrent resolution that the House should consider 
     comprehensive tax reform legislation that promotes economic 
     growth, creates American jobs, increases wages, and benefits 
     American consumers, investors, and workers by--
       (1) simplifying the tax code to make it fairer to American 
     families and businesses and reducing the amount of time and 
     resources necessary to comply with tax laws;
       (2) substantially lowering tax rates for individuals and 
     consolidating the current seven individual income tax 
     brackets into fewer brackets;
       (3) repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax;
       (4) reducing the corporate tax rate; and
       (5) transitioning the tax code to a more competitive system 
     of international taxation.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment shall be in order except those printed 
in House Report 115-339.
  Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall 
be considered as read, and shall be debatable for the time specified in 
the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent.
  After conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for 
amendment, there shall be a final period of general debate which shall 
not exceed 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.


 Amendment No. 1 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Grijalva

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in House Report 115-339.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan) to offer the Congressional Progressive Caucus 
budget amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2018.

       (a) Declaration.--Congress declares that this concurrent 
     resolution is the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     fiscal year 2018 and sets forth the appropriate budgetary 
     levels for fiscal years 2017 and 2019 through 2027.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this 
     concurrent resolution is as follows:
       Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
           2018.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

       Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts.
       Sec. 102. Major functional categories.

                 TITLE II--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING

       Sec. 1. Direct spending.

              TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

       Sec. 301. Point of order against advance Appropriations.
       Sec. 302. Point of order against funding for certain 
           immigration enforcement efforts.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2017 through 2027:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this concurrent resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2017: $2,566,010,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,231,053,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,754,112,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,852,015,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $4,011,871,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $4,197,338,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $4,295,865,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $4,405,818,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $4,617,110,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026: $4,840,032,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027: $5,069,484,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2017: $0.
       Fiscal year 2018: $497,484,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $920,604,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $901,439,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $951,960,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $1,014,422,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $977,949,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $943,390,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $994,932,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026: $1,050,654,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027: $1,111,097,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this concurrent resolution, the appropriate levels of 
     total new budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,558,164,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,809,501,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,889,380,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $4,085,946,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $4,242,299,000,000.

[[Page 15592]]

       Fiscal year 2022: $4,524,849,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $4,667,232,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $4,840,870,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $5,123,649,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026: $5,359,292,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027: $5,604,559,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this concurrent resolution, the appropriate levels of total 
     budget outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,411,968,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,801,027,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,859,325,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $4,031,449,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $4,190,238,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $4,474,256,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $4,610,999,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $4,770,214,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $5,057,717,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026: $5,301,376,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027: $5,545,750,000,000.
       (4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this concurrent resolution, the amounts of the deficits 
     (on-budget) are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2017: -$845,569,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: -$569,974,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: -$569,974,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: -$179,434,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: -$178,367,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: -$276,918,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: -$315,134,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: -$364,396,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: -$440,607,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026: -$461,344,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027: -$476,266,000,000.
       (5) Debt subject to limit.--The appropriate levels of debt 
     subject to limit are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2017: $20,611,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $21,412,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $21,584,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $21,734,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $22,490,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $22,950,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $23,489,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $24,111,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $24,809,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026: $25,597,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027: $26,305,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2017: $15,093,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $15,752,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $15,985,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $16,322,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $16,693,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $17,202,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $17,794,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $18,483,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $19,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026: $20,195,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027: $21,166,000,000.

     SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2017 through 2027 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $620,810,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $597,390,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $570,786,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $573,048,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $581,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $575,522,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $594,087,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $582,924,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $609,309,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $594,652,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $623,521,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $611,949,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $637,690,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $620,850,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $655,897,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $632,247,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $670,145,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $651,864,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $680,394,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $663,759,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $690,786,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $674,679,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,918,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,533,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,508,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,831,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,425,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,384,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,369,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,870,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, 69,575,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,106,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $73,547,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,255,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $76,986,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $73,094,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $80,697,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $76,618,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $84,476,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $80,127,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $88,702,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $83,952,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $92,835,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $87,887,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,562,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,853,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,239,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,151,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,743,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,678,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,747,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,880,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,204,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,117,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,567,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,522,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,123,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,442,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,766,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,120,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,490,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,818,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $51,349,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,597,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,198,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,390,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,003,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,017,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,581,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,382,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,610,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,645,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,813,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,511,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $$60,658,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,073,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,314,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,918,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,631,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,290,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $63,142,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,119,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,437,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $67,375,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $70,575,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,547,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,851,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,010,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $122,495,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $122,147,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $125,237,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $124,382,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $128,313,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $127,136,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,915,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,294,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $72,613,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $70,715,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $74,531,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $72,930,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $76,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $74,852,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $78,455,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $76,818,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $80,604,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $78,839,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $82,820,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $81,015,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,930,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,001,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,023,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,713,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,735,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,240,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:

[[Page 15593]]

       (A) New budget authority, $18,298,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,479,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,431,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,832,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,437,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,941,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,610,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,178,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,068,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,514,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,832,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,180,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,105,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,475,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,938,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,328,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,759,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$19,274,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,131,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,689,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,724,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,883,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,714,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,516,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,953,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,786,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,781,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,622,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,145,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,679,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,608,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,099,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,576,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,836,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,416,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,772,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,478,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,628,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $92,730,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $94,107,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $199,383,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $199,409,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $201,464,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $200,565,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $196,098,000,000.
       (B) Outlays,$202,143,000,000 .
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $197,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $203,522,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $197,935,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $205,038,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $171,562,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $179,442,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $172,521,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $181,132,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $173,548,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $183,231,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $174,584,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $185,116,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $175,633,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $187,060,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $169,950,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $100,381,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,864,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $79,569,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,802,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,477,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,464,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,662,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,469,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,830,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,390,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,016,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,481,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,242,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,662,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,177,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,888,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,250,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,244,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,353,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,235,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,428,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $266,792,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $264,242,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $298,769,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $295,251,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $166,530,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $168,879,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $176,656,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $172,182,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $188,094,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $182,789,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $197,237,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $192,067,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $204,174,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $200,177,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $210,915,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $207,028,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $216,669,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $212,774,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $222,127,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $218,112,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $228,312,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $224,320,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $548,466,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $548,998,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $578,564,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $585,289,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $613,743,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $612,402,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $659,060,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $646,374,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $687,535,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $683,765,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $726,450,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $721,843,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $765,397,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $761,755,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $807,017,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $802,573,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $852,005,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $846,941,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $897,043,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $891,673,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $943,870,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $938,235,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $598,691,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $598,289,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $599,471,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $599,092,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $650,772,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $650,464,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $676,942,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $676,705,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $723,379,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $723,163,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $817,925,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, .$817,695,000,000
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $840,589,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $840,371,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $861,276,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $861,049,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $963,021,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $962,774,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,016,987,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,016,734,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,091,254,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,091,006,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $522,238,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, 512,949,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $574,926,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $554,174,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $641,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $624,323,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $691,701,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $675,708,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $737,828,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $721,824,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $785,273,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $775,704,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $819,551,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $807,162,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:

[[Page 15594]]

       (A) New budget authority, $855,396,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $837,727,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $904,334,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $887,787,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $947,417,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $937,276,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $995,029,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $984,004,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,132,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,155,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,621,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,621,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,402,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,402,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,861,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,861,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,722,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,722,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,082,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,082,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,228,000,000.
       (B) Outlays,$64,228,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,774,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,774,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $75,499,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $75,499,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $81,931,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $81,931,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $175,596,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $178,660,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $185,736,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $183,609,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $204,230,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $199,677,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $213,730,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $209,577,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $223,712,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $219,141,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $243,263,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $238,540,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $242,677,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $238,676,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $241,394,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $237,627,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $261,285,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $257,403,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $271,033,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $266,912,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $281,497,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $277,377,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,048,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,167,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $72,673,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,686,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,260,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,774,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,134,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $70,886,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $72,276,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $75,047,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $74,994,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $76,549,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $77,448,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $77,463,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $80,013,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $78,824,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $82,656,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $81,269,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $91,519,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $90,803,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $95,033,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $93,445,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,587,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,332,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,239,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,023,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,092,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,670,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,024,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,373,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,752,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,095,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,512,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,804,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,231,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,369,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,813,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,195,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,559,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,041,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,384,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,873,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,207,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $358,153,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $358,153,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $379,086,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $379,086,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $408,318,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $408,318,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $444,136,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $444,136,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $482,207,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $482,207,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $518,277,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $518,277,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $554,698,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $554,698,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $588,258,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $588,258,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $621,248,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $621,248,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $654,736,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $654,736,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $682,812, 000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $682,937,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$886,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $515,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,852,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,580,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,233,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,714,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,552,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,804,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$156,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$223,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, -$1,215,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,084,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $291,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, -$200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$168,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,018,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $971,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,690,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,565,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$83,167,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$83,167,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$82,782,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$82,782,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$85,754,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$85,754,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$85,454,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$85,454,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$87,183,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$87,183,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$88,846,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$88,846,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, -$89,285,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$89,285,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, -$92,809,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$92,809,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, -$101,023,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$101,023,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, -$98,551,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$98,551,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, -$101,256,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$101,256,000,000.

[[Page 15595]]



                 TITLE II--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING

     SEC. 1. DIRECT SPENDING.

       (a) Means-tested Direct Spending.--
       (1) For means-tested direct spending, the average rate of 
     growth in the total level of outlays during the 10-year 
     period preceding fiscal year 2018 is 6.8 percent.
       (2) For means-tested direct spending, the estimated average 
     rate of growth in the total level of outlays during the 11-
     year period beginning with fiscal year 2017 is 4.3 percent 
     under current law.
       (3) The following reforms are proposed in this concurrent 
     resolution for means-tested direct spending:
       (A) The People's Budget adopts former President Obama's 
     Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) to expand eligibility, 
     including for childless workers. Continues enhanced credits 
     originally implemented under the American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Act to target those most in need. This includes 
     extending the Child and Dependent Care Credit and the 
     American Opportunity Tax Credit through 2027.
       (B) The People's Budget includes former President Obama's 
     proposal to boost the Child Tax Credit maximum deduction to 
     $3,000. It makes key expansions permanent to protect 50 
     million Americans who would otherwise be at jeopardy for 
     losing part or all of their EITC and CTC.
       (C) The People's Budget creates a debt free college that 
     provides Federal matching program to support state efforts to 
     expand investment in higher education, bring down costs for 
     students, and increase aid to students to help them cover the 
     total cost of college attendance without taking on debt. The 
     program would encourage innovation by states and colleges to 
     improve efficiency and enable speedy and less-costly degree 
     completion. By treating higher education as a public good 
     worth investing in, we can once again make higher education 
     accessible to all.
       (D) The People's Budget allows students to refinance their 
     student loans at low rates and allows private borrowers to 
     shift to more affordable government loans. Allowing student 
     borrowers to reduce the value of their debt will free up 
     income for purchases and will create a job-creating ripple 
     effect throughout the entire economy.
       (E) The People's Budget restores cuts made to the 
     Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and 
     permanently adopts the enhanced levels established in the 
     American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The vast majority of 
     SNAP recipients are households with children, seniors and 
     individuals with disabilities, but recent cuts lowered 
     average benefits by $216 in 2014. Providing families with 
     basic food security through SNAP is one of the most effective 
     ways the Federal Government can stimulate the economy.
       (F) The People's Budget provides an additional $10.8 
     billion for child nutrition programs including program 
     expansion and improvements for summer meals; essential 
     improvements and expansion funding for preschool nutrition 
     including increases in meal reimbursements to fulfill the new 
     meal pattern, an additional meal or snack for children in 
     long-term care, and expanded program eligibility; and 
     investments in school meals and school kitchens.
       (G) The People's Budget replaces the 40 percent excise tax 
     with a public option to allow the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services to offer a public insurance option within the 
     health insurance marketplaces. This ensures choice, 
     competition, and stability in coverage. The Congressional 
     Budget Office (CBO) estimates the premium costs for Americans 
     under the public option will be 7 to 8 percent lower than 
     costs in private exchange plans. The repeal of the excise tax 
     costs $132 billion while savings from the public option are 
     $176 billion.
       (H) The People's Budget continues funding for the entire 
     CHIP program until 2020.
       (I) The People's Budget protects States programs by fully 
     retaining maintenance of effort requirements and eliminating 
     any States ability to arbitrarily implement enrollment caps. 
     Without action, Federal funding for CHIP will expire 
     jeopardizing the health care coverage of more than 10 million 
     children and pregnant women.
       (J) The People's Budget permits the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services (HHS) to negotiate prescription drug prices 
     with pharmaceutical manufacturers. Giving HHS the ability to 
     negotiate prices, as the Department of Veterans Affairs 
     currently does, will save Medicare $429 billion and will 
     reduce costs for seniors.
       (b) Nonmeans-tested Direct Spending.--
       (1) For nonmeans-tested direct spending, the average rate 
     of growth in the total level of outlays during the 10-year 
     period preceding fiscal year 2018 is 4.8 percent.
       (2) For nonmeans-tested direct spending, the estimated 
     average rate of growth in the total level of outlays during 
     the 11-year period beginning with fiscal year 2017 is 5.6 
     percent under current law.
       (3) The following reforms are proposed in this concurrent 
     resolution for nonmeans-tested direct spending:
       (A) The People's Budget allows those who have lost a job 
     through no fault of their own to claim up to 99 weeks of 
     unemployment benefits in high-unemployment states for up to 
     two years.
       (B) The People's Budget also adopts former President 
     Obama's reforms to improve solvencies and incentivize job 
     training.
       (C) The People's Budget improves the Affordable Care Act by 
     repealing the excise tax on high-priced health plans. 
     Proponents of the provision hoped that this tax would slow 
     the rate of growth of health costs, while raising revenue. 
     However, in an effort to avoid the tax, employers who 
     traditionally offer excellent benefits have started offering 
     less generous plans. This is an ineffective tool to bend the 
     cost curve. Since the tax is attached to premiums instead of 
     coverage it has the potential to hit plans it wasn't intended 
     to impact.
       (D) The People's Budget establishes a representative 
     democracy that truly reflects the diversity and values of our 
     nation by providing funding for the public financing of 
     campaigns. This gives a voice to small donors that have been 
     drowned out by dark money. Public financing keeps politicians 
     accountable to the voters that elect them instead of to 
     special interest money. In the era of the devastating 
     Citizens United decision, big money has taken the reins of 
     our election process. It is now more important than ever to 
     provide candidates with effective alternatives to finance 
     their campaigns.
       (E) The People's Budget uses the Experimental Price Index 
     for the Elderly (CPI-E) to calculate Cost of Living 
     Adjustments (COLA) for Federal retirement programs other than 
     Social Security. Affected programs include civil service 
     retirement, military retirement, Supplemental Security 
     Income, veteran's pensions and compensations. CPI-E is the 
     most sensible and accurate measure of the real costs that 
     seniors face in retirement, current underpricing of costs 
     amount to cutting benefits for those on fixed incomes.
       (G) The People's Budget makes a down payment of $1.9 
     trillion to help close the nation's infrastructure deficit 
     while protecting against climate change and creating millions 
     of living wage jobs. The budget also helps boost private 
     financing for critical state and local projects by creating a 
     public-private infrastructure bank. The American Society of 
     Civil Engineers (ASCE) estimates that the United States will 
     need to invest upwards of $2 trillion above current levels 
     over the next decade just to make required repairs to roads, 
     bridges, water, and energy systems.

              TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 301. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--In the House, except as provided in 
     subsection (b), any bill, joint resolution, amendment or 
     conference report making a general appropriations or 
     continuing appropriation may not provide for advance 
     appropriations.
       (b) Exceptions.--Advance appropriations may be provided for 
     all programs administered by the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs.
       (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance 
     appropriation'' means any new discretionary budget authority 
     provided in a bill or joint resolution making general 
     appropriations or any new discretionary budget authority 
     provided in a bill or joint resolution making continuing 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2018 that first becomes 
     available for any fiscal year after 2018.

     SEC. 302. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST FUNDING FOR CERTAIN 
                   IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS.

       It shall not be in order in the House of Representatives or 
     the Senate to consider any bill or joint resolution, or 
     amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that 
     appropriates funds to implement Executive Order 13767, 
     entitled ``Border Security and Immigration Enforcement 
     Improvements''.

     Amend the title so as to read: ``Concurrent resolution 
     setting forth the congressional budget for the United States 
     Government for fiscal year 2018 and including the appropriate 
     budgetary levels for fiscal year 2017 and fiscal years 2018-
     2027''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 553, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and a Member opposed each will control 15 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I rise to offer this amendment to replace the reckless 
Republican budget that is being considered before this House.
  Instead of a doomsday budget that presents a future where everything 
is bleak and opportunity is nonexistent, the Progressive Caucus is 
offering a budget that can prove that the future can be bright and 
prosperous.
  The Republican budget sacrifices everything from public education to 
Social Security to Medicare and Medicaid. It does this for one reason 
and one reason only: to give the wealthiest few and the corporations 
more tax breaks and increase their standing and concentration of power 
and wealth in this country more than it is already.

[[Page 15596]]

  It has been said over and over that the budget that we are presenting 
we feel does deal with the values of this country. It deals very 
directly with something that is important to this Nation, and that is 
the American people, the greatest resource that we have as a nation, 
and we see it day in and day out.
  This budget invests in the American people. It invests in jobs, it 
invests in solid education, and it invests in the greater good.
  This budget is not narrow, tilted to a few: the wealthiest and the 
corporations in this country. It deals with the totality of who the 
American people are: those who are struggling and need opportunity, 
those who are elderly and need the continued support of this Nation 
through Medicare and Social Security, those who are poor who need 
Medicaid and a good education system so their opportunity will be 
better in the future.
  Our budget speaks to the values of the American people. Our budget 
speaks to the needs of the American people. Our budget speaks to a 
future that returns the values, to the American people, of opportunity, 
of hope, and of chance.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 15 
minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, even though I disagree heartily with the budgets 
advanced by the Progressive Caucus, they do us an invaluable service in 
the budget debate by bringing into sharp relief the two very different 
visions of governance advanced by the two parties.
  The Progressive budget is a sincere and bold document. Unfortunately, 
it is also wrong. It would hike taxes by $10.1 trillion over the next 
10 years relative to the Republican budget.
  Now, think of every trillion dollars that we throw around here as 
$8,000 from an average family, because that is what it comes to. So 
$10.1 trillion in new taxes ultimately translates as $81,000 from an 
average family over the next decade taken either as direct taxes or as 
tax-driven price increases or as lower wages or as lower earnings as 
businesses pass on their burdens to consumers or employers or 
investors. Remember, investors are largely your 401(k) or your pension 
plan.
  It also runs up $2.6 trillion more in debt than the Republican budget 
over the next 10 years. That means another $21,000 of debt added to 
that family's obligations that they will have to pay as future taxes 
just as surely as if it appeared on their credit card statement this 
month. And they have got to pay that back before they pay back their 
credit card statement. The IRS can get very insistent that they do.
  And don't believe for a moment that only the rich will pay these 
taxes. It turns out that the so-called rich people aren't rich and they 
aren't even people. Many are struggling small businesses filing under 
subchapter S, small businesses that create two-thirds of the jobs in 
our economy.
  We are told: ``Don't worry. We are using that money to create wealth 
and jobs.'' Well, the problem is government does not create jobs 
because it cannot create wealth. Government cannot inject a dollar into 
the economy until it has first taken that dollar out of the same 
economy.
  As Bastiat warned, we see the job that government creates when it 
puts the dollar back in the economy. What we don't see as clearly is 
the job that is lost when government first takes that dollar out of the 
economy. We see those lost jobs as stagnating wages and workers giving 
up and leaving the job market, or as it is also known, the Obama 
economy.
  Here is what government can do and what the Progressive and 
Democratic budgets propose. It can transfer jobs from the private 
sector to the public sector by taxing one and expanding the other. It 
can transfer jobs from one sector of the private market to another by 
taxing one and subsidizing the other. That is precisely the difference 
between Apple Computer and Solyndra. It is the difference between FedEx 
and the post office. It is the difference between the Reagan recovery 
and the Obama recovery.
  Reagan, like Coolidge and Kennedy before him, reduced the tax and 
regulatory burdens on the economy and produced one of the longest 
economic expansions in our country's history. It truly felt like 
morning again in America. That is the Republican approach, and it 
works.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan), the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive 
Caucus, and I thank Mr. Pocan and his office staff for the fine work 
and time that they put into working on this budget that we are 
proposing today.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Arizona, also, for his leadership within the caucus.
  I am proud to rise in support of the Congressional Progressive 
Caucus' budget alternative. This is a practical, progressive vision for 
our country by providing solutions to counter the Republican cuts to 
vital programs and tax breaks for the wealthy.
  Let me contrast the House GOP budget with the Progressive Caucus 
budget.
  First, in healthcare, the Republican budget embraces TrumpCare by 
incorporating the House-passed American Health Care Act, which cuts at 
least 20 million people from their care. This includes up to $1 
trillion in cuts to Medicaid, threatening care for seniors in nursing 
homes, children, and struggling families. It makes $500 billion in cuts 
to Medicare, ending the Medicare guarantee and shifting cost risk on to 
seniors.
  The Congressional Progressive Caucus budget defends and strengthens 
the Affordable Care Act. It lowers prescription drug costs and expands 
access to mental healthcare and addiction treatment.
  We invest in workers. The GOP plan slashes investments in workers and 
programs to help more Americans get back to work, programs like 
apprenticeships and job training. And yet the people's budget would 
create 2.4 million jobs over its first 3 years and raise wages for 
American workers.
  The Republican budget, their $5.4 trillion in spending cuts means 
less funding for roads and bridges and schools. Our budget puts a $2 
trillion investment into strengthening our Nation's infrastructure.
  The Republican budget drastically cuts Federal funding, which could 
undermine our ability to respond to disasters. The people's budget 
provides $200 billion in emergency disaster funds to rebuild 
communities devastated by hurricanes.
  The Republican budget guts our public education system with cuts that 
could devastate schools and further disinvest in public universities. 
The Progressive Caucus budget makes debt-free college a reality and 
provides for the refinancing of student loans. It expands access to 
pre-K education and provides childcare for all families.
  Let's get real. The reason we are debating the budget this week: 
Republicans can't wait to get started on their tax breaks for the 
wealthy. The Republican tax plan should be called the Trump Family Tax 
Plan because it enriches the wealthy on the backs of the middle class.
  The Progressive Caucus gets it right. Not one more penny in tax 
breaks for corporations and the wealthiest Americans. The Progressive 
Caucus budget ensures that the top 1 percent pay their fair share in 
taxes, we close corporate loopholes, and we expand the earned income 
tax credit and the child tax credit for working families.
  We must reject the Trump Family tax cut and invest in our roads and 
bridges, our schools, our healthcare, and our workers. Progressives are 
proposing bold policy solutions as clear alternatives to the cruel 
budget cuts Republicans are proposing.
  The people's budget is an investment in the American people, and I 
urge you to support the Progressive Caucus people's budget.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, my friend reminds me of a story when

[[Page 15597]]

Ronald Reagan was pushing his tax reductions a generation ago that 
produced the biggest expansion in our Nation's history. He was 
approached one day by a working class fellow on a stop that the 
President was making, and the man looks at him and says: Mr. President, 
the Democrats say that you Republicans want to cut taxes on the rich. 
Is that right?
  Reagan says: Well, that is what they say.
  And the man says: Well, you go ahead and do that, Mr. President, 
because a poor person never gave me a job.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Woodall).

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend from California for 
yielding to me. As you know, Mr. Chairman, he is not just down here as 
the ranking member on the House Budget Committee. He is also the leader 
of the Republican Study Committee's Budget and Spending Task Force. The 
leadership he has provided in all those areas means a lot to the entire 
institution. I am grateful to him for it.
  I also want to say I am grateful to my friends in the Progressive 
Caucus. I disagree with their budget, and I plan to vote against it.
  Mr. Chairman, how often do we come down here and folks want to 
complain about what is not going right, but they don't want to do 
anything about it?
  To my friends' credit in the Progressive Caucus, they laid out a 
vision, and that is exactly what I came here to Congress to be a part 
of. Let's lay out our visions. Let's have some votes. Let's count those 
votes and see where we go from there.
  As you know, Mr. Chairman, absolutely any group could offer a budget 
today, yet we only have four alternatives being considered. That tells 
you something about how hard it is to put your ideas forward. So I want 
to thank my friends on the Progressive Caucus for doing that.
  I want to run through a couple of things that their budget includes, 
Mr. Chairman. It includes a 4 percent pay increase for Federal workers 
across the board. It includes $500 billion in green energy incentives. 
It imposes a carbon tax to deal with greenhouse gases. It cuts $70 
billion from the Defense Department and, in fact, eliminates altogether 
the spending on the global war on terror.
  Mr. Chairman, these are all legitimate policy disagreements.
  Their budget also increases revenues, taxes, by $10 trillion, but 
spends so much more on American priorities that we continue to end up 
with almost a $1 trillion annual deficit in year 10.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of debate that we have to have. I want 
to understand the priorities of my friends. I want to understand where 
they want to see more investments. And then I want to understand how it 
is we are going to balance this budget together. Because what is 
lacking in this plan, Mr. Chairman, what frustrates me the most about 
the Progressive Caucus plan is not the investment in green energy, it 
is not the investment in the Federal workforce, it is not the 
investment in healthcare; it is the fact that they don't believe we can 
do these things while raising taxes by $10 trillion on the American 
people and balance the budget at all.
  Mr. Chairman, if folks want to raise taxes in this institution--I 
think our problem is a spending problem. I don't think it is a taxing 
problem, but I am willing to have that discussion with them to 
understand their point of view.
  But the reason I will ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this budget 
is not because it raises taxes $10 trillion; it is because it raises 
taxes $10 trillion, yet continues to borrow from our children and our 
grandchildren in the form of annual debt and deficits.
  I think we can do better. But we cannot do better without an honest 
discussion of the issues, Mr. Chairman. Say what you want to about the 
budgets you are going to see on the floor here, these alternatives that 
we are going to discuss.
  There are a lot of talking heads on TV who just want to talk about it 
and don't want to do anything about it. If you are looking for a ray of 
hope today, look at the Progressive Caucus, which I disagree with about 
almost everything as it comes to how to peg the numbers, but they put 
their vision forward tonight. They said: Let's take a stand tonight.
  If we can work together across that aisle, Mr. Chairman, there is 
absolutely nothing that we cannot do on behalf of the American people.
  Vote ``no'' on this budget, but applaud the effort that has gone into 
it such that we can try to find common ground going forward.
  If we have but one thing to agree on in this institution, let it be 
to agree to pay for those things that we think are important. Whether 
it is wars or whether it is green energy, whether it is troops or 
whether it is Federal employees, let us agree that we should pay for 
those things today with our dollars, and the borrowing from our 
children and grandchildren should be ended forever.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, what the Progressive Caucus budget does, 
and does very clearly, is that we end the special treatment for Wall 
Street buddies of the majority of this Congress.
  Meanwhile, their budget has no problem hitting low- and middle-income 
families with their tax plan. Under their plan, corporations get a $2 
trillion cut, $2.4 trillion, and the richest 1 percent will get a tax 
cut worth $130,000 next year; and many middle class families will have 
to pay more.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington 
(Ms. Jayapal), a valued member of the Progressive Caucus.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. I thank the gentleman from Arizona for his tremendous 
leadership as co-chair of the Progressive Caucus; and our other co-
chair, Mark Pocan, for his tremendous leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Congressional 
Progressive Caucus budget, the People's Budget. I agree with the 
gentleman from Georgia that there are two different visions being 
presented here. Let's be very clear about what those two different 
visions are.
  The Republican budget says we should invest millions of dollars into 
tax cuts for millionaires, billionaires, and the largest corporations.
  Our budget, the Progressive Caucus budget, says we want to invest in 
people. We believe in working families across this country who are 
working hard, want to have a decent life, and want to build a better 
future. I choose investing in the people. That is what this budget 
does. It invests in education, in jobs, infrastructure, research, and 
science, and diplomacy.
  Let me just focus for a minute on education as the gateway to 
opportunity. The People's Budget commits $1 trillion to help families 
afford childcare, provides universal access to pre-K, and upholds our 
Nation's commitment to our public schools, which are the bedrocks of 
our communities nationwide, through adequate funding and supporting 
educators with resources that they need to reach every student.
  It makes debt-free college a reality by investing in college as a 
public good. It creates apprenticeship opportunities for all of our 
districts across the country--red and blue, urban and rural.
  Our country's success, Mr. Chairman, lies in that of our children and 
young people, not in the Republican plan to give tax cuts to the 
wealthiest. That is unacceptable.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this vision, this budget, 
and to invest in the people.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Palmer), a former director of the State Policy 
Network.
  Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Progressive 
Caucus' budget.
  In his farewell address, President Eisenhower said: ``We cannot 
mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the 
loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy 
to survive for all

[[Page 15598]]

generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.''
  Instead of trying to put America on a sustainable financial path, the 
progressive budget seeks to mortgage even more of our grandchildren's 
and great grandchildren's future, frankly, by spending over $57 
trillion over the next 10 years. With the national debt surpassing $20 
trillion just last month, now is the time to rein in reckless 
government spending, not explode it.
  In addition to these spending increases, the Progressive Caucus is 
proposing nearly $9 trillion in tax increases over the next decade. 
These enormous tax increases do not come close to covering the cost of 
the irresponsible policies proposed. I want to repeat that. Enormous 
tax increases that don't come close to covering the cost of what they 
have proposed.
  As a result, the Progressive Caucus' budget raises the debt to over 
$27 trillion by 2027. In fact, by fiscal year 2027, our deficits would 
be near $1 trillion.
  Higher taxes and higher spending would stifle the American economy 
and put our debt on an expedited upward trajectory. It is time for us 
to make tough decisions when it comes to this country's budget. The 
decision to oppose the Progressive Caucus budget is not one of those 
tough decisions.
  This budget also makes no effort to curb waste, fraud, and abuse. 
Instead, it would expand bureaucratic programs by trillions of dollars 
without proposing any oversight measures. For example, it would spend 
$41 billion on ``free college'' promises, and $1 trillion on childcare 
and universal pre-K.
  Mr. Chairman, it reminds me of the shovel-ready programs that were 
part of the Obama package just a few years ago. We all had this 
expectation that this money would go to rebuild our infrastructure, and 
it turns out just a little over 3 percent of that money actually made 
it to infrastructure projects; somewhere in the range of $30 billion 
out of over $800 billion.
  That is what I see in the progressive budget. It continues the failed 
ObamaCare experiment, and even goes so far as to allow States to 
experiment with socialized medicine.
  It continues to encourage able-bodied adults without children not to 
seek work by providing them a government paycheck.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. PALMER. It increases the pressure on Americans' pocketbooks by 
increasing the price at the pump and, really, at every level.
  It proposes Washington-centric solutions to problems that the States 
are better equipped to determine, such as the whole college issue. And 
it spends $500 billion on green energy and imposes a carbon tax.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a moral responsibility to spend taxpayer 
dollars wisely, and the Progressive Caucus fails to do this in its 
budget. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, the Progressive Caucus budget invests in 
the American people, invests in America, and still reduces the deficit 
by $4 trillion over 10 years.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Ted Lieu), my friend and a member of the Progressive Caucus.
  Mr. TED LIEU of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank Representative 
Grijalva for his leadership.
  Our Nation's infrastructure is crumbling. The American Society of 
Civil Engineers estimates we have a $4.6 trillion infrastructure 
deficit. That is why the People's Budget wisely invests $2 trillion to 
fix our infrastructure.
  Not only will this budget help repair roads, highways, and bridges, 
but it will also put broadband all over America, including rural areas, 
and create millions of good-paying jobs, over 2.5 million in its first 
year.
  We are presenting this plan. We are asking for support. Donald Trump 
talks a big game on infrastructure, but he has yet to put out a plan. 
So we urge the President to support our plan. If he doesn't want to, 
then put out his plan so we can have a discussion on how to move 
forward on fixing our infrastructure and creating high-paying jobs for 
Americans.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman), my friend and colleague.
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for giving me an 
opportunity to address the Progressive Caucus, their budget. I think 
the budget is unacceptable. It is something the American people ought 
to pay attention to because the day may come in which a budget similar 
to the Progressive Budget passes this floor.
  The first thing to look at is we are increasing maybe by an average 
of about a little under--well, around $1 trillion increase in taxes 
over the next 10 years. So you are taking a lot more money away from 
Americans. And despite this huge increase in taxes, you are looking at 
about a $70 billion cut in defense.
  I suggest that the public and the people who are supporting the 
Progressive Caucus take some time talking to their people in the 
current military, talk about the planes that can't fly, talk about the 
shortage of parts, and ask: How is it possible you could take this much 
more money from the American people and still feel we have to have 
significant cuts in our military budget?
  But then you look at what we have to spend more on: a 4 percent raise 
for Federal workers. Look, we wish everybody had a raise, but, really, 
at a time when we are approaching $20 trillion in debt, is it a 
priority to give Federal workers a raise?
  We put more and more people dependent on government; a large 
expansion of the program providing free college to people. At a time 
when, quite frankly, many people who already have college degrees can't 
get jobs, we are expanding that program. And, of course, by making it 
free, people will respect it less. And not only will they respect it 
less, but by making it free, many people will go to college who perhaps 
otherwise don't feel it is for them.
  They won't make adjustments to the food stamp program, which is a 
problem.
  We greatly extend the time that you are on unemployment, and this is 
kind of bizarre because it is a time when our employment is near 
historic lows. But despite the fact that until now we haven't had such 
unemployment for a long period of time, we want to extend unemployment, 
thereby encouraging more people to stay on unemployment.

                              {time}  1830

  I would like to thank my friends from the Congressional Progressive 
Caucus for allowing students to refinance their student loans, which 
shows something or another that there is a heart there, a little bit 
anyway. I wish I could get my own Conference to put that in. But in any 
event, I urge rejection of the Progressive budget.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, Americans in this Congress do have a 
choice. Our budget is a contrast to what the Republicans are proposing. 
We can either cut Medicare to pay for more tax breaks for millionaires 
and billionaires as our Republican budget does, or we can close tax 
loopholes to protect essential programs that invest in jobs. We chose 
investment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Espaillat).
  Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Chairman, a budget is a moral contract between 
elected officials--the government--and the people we were elected to 
represent. That is why I am proud to rise in support of the people's 
budget, presented by the Congressional Progressive Caucus. This budget 
serves as a Progressive alternative to the GPO's cruel budget plan, a 
plan that prioritizes tax breaks for billionaires over the need to fund 
care for seniors in nursing homes and children and struggling families 
in places like Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
  I was proud to help draft the people's budget, which invests $200 
billion to ensure that families in Texas, Louisiana, Puerto Rico, 
Florida, and the U.S. territories have the immediate assistance they 
need right now.
  The people's budget would also reduce the deficit by $700 billion 
over the

[[Page 15599]]

next 20 years by investing in human capital. We would do this while 
enacting comprehensive immigration reform, protecting DREAMers, and 
ending funding for family detention centers.
  Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to support the people's budget 
and reject H. Con. Res. 71. Let's stands with the working class, the 
middle class, and the immigrants in our country. This is the right 
thing to do for our people and for our economy.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close when the gentleman 
from Arizona is finished, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the remaining time 
each side has.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 4\3/4\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from California has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee), a leader in our caucus and a leader here in 
Congress.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I just 
want to thank the gentleman and Congressman Pocan for their really 
great leadership of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and for 
crafting a budget which creates economic growth, a decent standard of 
living for everyone, and a strong yet rational national security 
budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Congressional 
Progressive Caucus' people's budget. Today, millions of Americans are 
struggling to make ends meet and millions more are working hard trying 
to find a job. Paychecks for everyday Americans are shrinking, while 
corporations are reaping record profits. Yet, instead of developing a 
budget to create jobs and to help American families, the House 
Republicans ``balance'' their budget once again on the backs of 
struggling families. And for what? To protect tax cuts for billionaires 
and millionaires and corporations. Again, this is totally disgraceful.
  The CPC's people's budget stands in stark contrast to the House 
Republican budget. It creates 2 million good-paying jobs and invests $2 
trillion in infrastructure. It includes a plan to lift more Americans 
out of poverty, and it invests in communities of color, like expanding 
computer science education.
  It ends the Pentagon's slush fund, known as the overseas contingency 
account, that for far too long has padded the pockets and the wallets 
of defense contractors at the taxpayers' expense. It also tackles 
waste, fraud, and abuse at the Pentagon by demanding audit readiness. 
It is hard to believe that the Republican budget goes $10 billion over 
what the Pentagon even requested.
  Make no mistake, the people's budget does what the House Republican 
budget does not. It works for the American people, not special 
interests, nor defense contractors, or the 1 percent.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to do what is best for all American 
families, and that is support the Congressional Progressive Caucus' 
people's budget.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman for his 
leadership. It has been more than a pleasure to serve as the vice chair 
of the Congressional Progressive Caucus for the number of years that we 
have had to put forward the people's budget.
  I simply want to say what a budget is, Mr. Chairman. A budget is a 
roadmap for the American people. It is a question of whether America 
cares about the most vulnerable and whether or not, in our caring, we 
are prepared to do deeds to insist upon their success.
  The Republican budget takes $2 trillion and provides a big, wealthy 
tax cut for the rich, and it creates, in essence, a deep hole in 
affordable care for healthcare. It does not provide justice and fair 
elections. It takes away educational opportunity from students, and, of 
course, it does not bring the most vulnerable out of poverty and 
enhance the lives of the middle class.
  The people's budget provides for supporting the Affordable Care Act. 
It provides for giving fair working tax cuts for others, and it 
provides fairness and justice.
  I rise to support the people's budget. It invests in the American 
people. I ask my colleagues to vote for the Congressional Progressive 
Caucus' budget.
  Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the top ten reasons to support the 
Congressional Progressive Caucus' budget.

             Top Ten Reasons To Support The People's Budget

   (Supported by over 60 organizations including: AFT, NEA, Planned 
  Parenthood, Communications Workers of America, Sierra Club, AFSCME, 
             AFGE, Vote Vets, Social Security Works, NARAL)

       (1) The People's Budget invests $2 trillion in America's 
     crumbling infrastructure while promoting job growth and 
     strengthening our commitment to sustainability. This is an 
     investment in America which will transform our fossil-fuel 
     energy system, overburdened mass transit, deteriorating 
     schools, lead-contaminated water systems, and crumbling roads 
     and bridges through local hiring and livable wages.
       (2) The People's Budget enacts comprehensive immigration 
     reform which permanently protects Dreamers and their families 
     and opposes immigration bans on Muslims and refugees. Our 
     country needs an immigration system that honors our values of 
     inclusion, diversity, and equality. Our Budget prohibits 
     funding to Customs and Border Protection to implement 
     President Trump's discriminatory Muslim and refugee bans.
       (3) Our budget takes bold action to fight climate change 
     and rebuild our local communities recently devastated by 
     hurricanes. The People's Budget requires polluters to pay for 
     their reckless behavior while eliminating tax breaks that 
     incentivize fossil fuel energy over cleaner energy. It 
     invests $200 billion to ensure families in Texas, Louisiana, 
     Puerto Rico, Florida and U.S. territories have the immediate 
     assistance they need to begin the stable road to recovery. It 
     also provides funding for climate change research, mitigation 
     and adaptation to protect those most at risk from future 
     environmental disasters.
       (4) The CPC budget delivers on the promise of child care 
     for all and Pre-K for all. It ensures that families will not 
     have to pay more than 10 percent of their income for child 
     care, whether that care is at home or at a child care center. 
     Our budget also expands pre-k for children across the 
     country.
       (5) We make debt free college a reality for all students by 
     overhauling the student loan system which currently leaves 
     college students saddled with unmanageable levels of debt. 
     The People's Budget creates a federal matching program that 
     supports state efforts to expand investments in higher 
     education, bring down costs for students, and increase aid to 
     students to help them cover the total cost of college 
     attendance without taking on debt.
       (6) The People's Budget strengthens the Affordable Care 
     Act, while pushing towards a single payer system. It 
     prioritizes reforms to increase access, equity, and 
     affordability. Maintaining the positive reforms from the ACA 
     are critical as Republicans attempt to gut the health care 
     system and leave millions of Americans stranded without 
     access to critical insurance coverage. The People's Budget 
     protects Medicare's integrity and improves its long-term 
     solvency. It protects children and low-income Americans and 
     gives states the freedom to transition to a single payer 
     system. It also makes two significant policy changes to 
     reduce the costs of prescription drugs: allows Medicare Part 
     D to negotiate drug prices and ends ``Pay for Delay'' 
     practice which keeps generics out of the market.
       (7) The CPC Budget creates a fair tax system for working 
     Americans. In order to make these bold, necessary investments 
     in working families, we must rewrite the rules of a rigged 
     economy that favors billionaires and big corporations. The 
     People's Budget closes tax loopholes that corporations use to 
     ship jobs overseas, and stops CEOs from receiving millions in 
     tax-free bonuses. Our budget tackles inequality through fair 
     tax rates for all Americans, leveling the playing field for 
     working people.
       (8) Our budget protects the right to vote and supports 
     criminal justice reforms which strengthen public safety and 
     avoid over-criminalization. Our budget calls for rebuilding 
     trust in the justice system by funding community oriented 
     policing reforms. It also strengthens Department of Justice 
     voter protection programs, protects voting rights by 
     increasing funding to voter protection agencies, and funds 
     public financing of campaigns to curb the influence of 
     special interests in politics. Additionally, the budget makes 
     key investments in America's electoral integrity by upgrading 
     our voting systems.
       (9) The People's Budget creates pathways out of poverty by 
     expanding proven anti-poverty programs and initiatives and 
     restoring vital programs to our nation to provide prosperity 
     for all. These include a national strategy to reduce poverty 
     in half in ten years and $12.8 billion investment to end 
     family homelessness. The People's Budget restores cuts made 
     to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and 
     permanently

[[Page 15600]]

     adopts the enhanced levels established in the American 
     Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It also provides an additional 
     $10 billion for child nutrition programs and allows those who 
     have lost a job through no fault of their own to claim up to 
     99 weeks of unemployment benefits for up to two years.
       (10) We make veterans a priority by increasing funding for 
     veterans supportive housing to eliminate veterans 
     homelessness and expanding access to mental health care for 
     all veteran and service members. Our budget also invests in 
     job training opportunities for transitioning service members 
     and veterans.

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  In the debate on the Republican budget and how it contrasts with the 
Congressional Progressive Caucus budget, we heard a lot about needing 
to control mandatory spending, that that was the real issue here, 
runaway mandatory spending.
  Make no mistake, when my Republican colleagues talk about cutting 
mandatory spending, they mean they want to cut Medicare and Social 
Security to pay for the trillion-dollar tax scam and creative numbers 
that are part of their budget for the wealthy and for the corporations 
in America.
  The other issue that we heard a lot about is that, by making these 
major cuts for the wealthiest and the rich, that somehow their net gain 
and their profit and their break on taxes is going to trickle down to 
the rest of us. Well, we have seen that movie before in this country. 
That trickle-down theory doesn't work. The money doesn't trickle down, 
and the American people won't be fooled about that again.
  Our budget invests $2 trillion in infrastructure and jobs 
immediately. Our budget takes bold action to fight climate change, and 
our budget delivers on the promise for our children, their inheritance 
of this country, the inheritance of the children that everybody is 
worried about a deficit. We are worried about their future as well.
  Our budget delivers on the promise of childcare for all, pre-K for 
all, and a robust public education system to provide all kids with an 
opportunity to succeed in this Nation.
  Our budget is about the future, our budget is about emphasizing the 
values that make this country special and great, and our budget is a 
contrast. It offers a contrast about what this country can be if it 
invests in its people.
  The road that we have been on for far too long in which we have 
disinvested in people, shifted wealth and burden onto the middle class 
and the working class in this country, that time has ended. Our budget 
represents that end.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the people's budget, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chair, have my friends on the left learned absolutely nothing 
over these past 8 years? If massive government spending, higher and 
higher taxes, and deeper and deeper debt produced economic growth, the 
Obama years should have been the golden age of our economy. Instead, we 
suffered prolonged stagnation. We averaged 1.5 percent annual growth, 
only half the average economic growth that our Nation has enjoyed in 
the postwar era. The Progressive and Democratic budgets promise more of 
the same.
  We choose a different path, the Reagan path that produced an average 
of 3.5 percent growth year after year, higher wages, better jobs. Not 
just a Republican policy, John F. Kennedy did the same thing. He 
reminded us that a rising tide lifts all boats. These are the policies 
that create prosperity.
  The government cannot create jobs because it cannot create wealth, 
but what it can do is create the conditions where jobs multiply and 
prosper or where they stagnate and disappear. That it can do very well. 
We have very consistent experience with the policies that create these 
conditions.
  If you increase the burdens on the economy as the Democrats again 
propose, the economy contracts. If you lighten the burdens on the 
economy, it grows and prospers. No nation has ever taxed and spent its 
way to prosperity, but many nations have taxed and spent their way to 
economic ruin and bankruptcy.
  We know what works and we know what doesn't work because we have 
tried both paths many times before. The House Budget Committee's budget 
follows principles that have, time and again, consistently and rapidly 
produced economic expansion and prosperity.
  The House Democrats' budget and the Progressive budget before us now 
double down on policies that have impoverished and bankrupted nations 
wherever they have been employed down through history.
  That is the choice before us today. Let us choose wisely. Our future 
depends on it.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.


 Amendment No. 2 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Scott of 
                                Virginia

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 115-339.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2018.

       The Congress determines and declares that this concurrent 
     resolution establishes the budget for fiscal year 2018 and 
     sets forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2018 
     through 2027.

     SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2018 through 2027:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this concurrent resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2018: $2,944,569,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,089,508,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,274,576,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,420,911,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $3,596,916,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $3,749,916,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $3,965,428,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $4,166,178,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026: $4,361,378,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027: $4,619,387,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2018: $211,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $256,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $324,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $361,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $414,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $432,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $503,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $544,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026: $572,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027: $661,000,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this concurrent resolution, the appropriate levels of 
     total new budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,875,166,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,829,543,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,845,871,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,920,549,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $4,149,670,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $4,282,139,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $4,411,746,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $4,653,359,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026: $4,865,876,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027: $5,058,527,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this concurrent resolution, the appropriate levels of total 
     budget outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,538,175,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,808,907,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,890,015,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,963, 843,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $4,167,060,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $4,267,110,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $4,373,622,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $4,615,778,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026: $4,833,878,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027: $5,032,183,000,000.
       (4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this concurrent resolution, the amounts of the deficits 
     (on-budget) are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2018: -$593,606,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: -$719,399,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: -$615,439,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: -$542,932,000,000.

[[Page 15601]]

       Fiscal year 2022: -$570,144,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: -$517,194,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: -$408,194,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: -$449,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026: -$472,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027: -$412,796,000,000.
       (5) Debt subject to limit.--The appropriate levels of the 
     public debt are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2018: $21,175,683,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $22,085,529,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $22,866,575,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $23,578,811,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $24,291,408,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $24,985,937,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $25,599,925,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $26,248,973,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026: $26,981,444,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027: $27,552,527,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2018: $15,515,893,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $16,336,714,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $17,080,338,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $17,782,001,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $18,543,046,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $19,291,339,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $19,972,026,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $20,739,642,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026: $21,579,464,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027: $22,413,681,000,000.

     SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2018 through 2027 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $611,786,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $583,502,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $624,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $605,816,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $638,087,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $620,966,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $651,309,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $634,689,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $664,521,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $652,811,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $678,690,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $661,612,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $692,897,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $670,504,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $707,145,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $689,091,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $722,394,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $703,660,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $737,634,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $718,554,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,264,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,815,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,630,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,945,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,563,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,812,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,563,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,970,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,705,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,635,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,744,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,271,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,817,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,175,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,897,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,039,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,539,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,725,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,634,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,596,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,234,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,128,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,889,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,653,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,557,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,013,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,281,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,539,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,036,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,337,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,793,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,033,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,059,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,498,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,885,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,138,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,717,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,555,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,703,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,864,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,468,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,614,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,876,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,684,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,507,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,334,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,459,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,169,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,504,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,195,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,997,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,712,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,926,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,746,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,216,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,054,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,341,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,248,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,791,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,939,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,710,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,911,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,980,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,966,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,986,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,068,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,107,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,647,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,257,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,620,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,280,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,582,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $51,469,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,643,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,625,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,731,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,866,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,965,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,223,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,691,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,035,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,664,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,998,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,211,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,231,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,614,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,737,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,490,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,910,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,549,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,468,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,933,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,232,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,586,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,505,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,867,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,373,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,755,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,050,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,075,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,792,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,377,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,445,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,435,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,949,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,120,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,167,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,317,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,731,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,204,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,315,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,672,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,383,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,499,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,195,000,000.

[[Page 15602]]

       (B) Outlays, $6,468,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,244,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,346,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $412,246,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $260,375,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $309,646,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $302,342,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $191,199,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $246,432,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $97,422,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $162,071,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $98,379,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $129,557,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $99,348,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $115,488,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $100,330,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $111,477,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $101,381,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $110,947,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $102,441,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $112,855,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $103,514,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $114,823,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,581,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,517,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,840,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,726,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,338,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,834,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,297,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,883,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,806,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,354,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,296,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,249,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,298,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,080,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,839,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,489,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,384,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,071,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,080,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,400,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $176,935,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $142,001,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $165,585,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $165,987,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $158,570,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $159,597,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $162,088,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $160,233,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $164,843,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $163,705,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $156,826,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $160,066,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $156,277,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $157,407,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $156,679,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $156,729,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $158,996,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $157,914,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $146,273,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $151,875,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $573,434,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $580,091,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $602,568,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $604,320,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $646,496,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $637,447,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $669,270,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $666,179,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $702,953,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $696,993,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $735,459,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $728,890,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $772,591,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $763,909,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $810,799,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $801,662,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $849,471,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $839,223,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $890,688,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $879,028,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $601,682,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $601,303,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $672,626,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $672,318,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $720,653,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $720,416,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $775,853,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $775,637,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $871,247,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $871,017,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $896,829,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $896,611,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $920,920,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $920,693,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,028,532,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,028,285,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,093,424,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,093,171,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,176,028,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,175,780,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $528,718,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $508,933,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $541,318,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $538,787,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $554,195,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $554,966,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $567,182,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $569,833,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $583,720,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $594,084,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $592,625,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $598,840,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $601,577,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $602,988,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $621,241,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $625,226,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $636,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $648,216,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $653,208,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $664,923,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,475,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,475,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,016,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,016,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,287,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,287,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,748,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,748,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,392,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,392,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,378,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,378,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,764,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,764,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,388,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,388,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $70,871,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $70,871,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $75,473,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $75,473,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $183,573,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $181,049,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $198,367,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $195,432,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $203,192,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $201,863,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $209,704,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $207,846,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $225,035,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $223,431,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $222,849,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $220,873,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $217,808,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $216,712,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $235,899,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $234,040,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $243,591,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $241,380,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:

[[Page 15603]]

       (A) New budget authority, $252,030,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $249,835,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $70,592,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $63,596,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,328,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,092,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,865,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,733,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,272,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,336,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,880,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,965,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,534,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,559,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,220,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,916,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $70,963,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $70,438,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $78,798,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $78,991,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $81,299,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $80,655,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,065,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,734,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,477,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,458,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,418,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,777,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,134,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,473,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,882,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,156,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,575,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,693,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,129,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,492,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,848,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,309,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,644,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,111,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,437,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $377,635,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $377,635,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $413,674,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $413,674,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $461,176,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $461,176,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $512,434,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $512,434,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $560,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $560,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $605,893,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $605,893,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $644,696,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $644,696,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $679,742,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $679,742,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $714,720,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $714,720,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $743,060,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $743,185,000,000.
       (19) Non-Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $134,164,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $70,964,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,428,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,529,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,748,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,212,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,859,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,359,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,656,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,721,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,602,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,491,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,548,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,587,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,490,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,268,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,431,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,971,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,372,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,860,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$82,782,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$82,782,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$85,754,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$85,754,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$85,454,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$85,454,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$87,183,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$87,183,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$88,846,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$88,846,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, -$89,285,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$89,285,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, -$92,809,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$92,809,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, -$101,023,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$101,023,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, -$98,551,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$98,551,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, -$101,256,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$101,256,000,000.
       (21) Overseas Contingency Operations (970):
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2026:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2027:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 553, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and a Member opposed each will control 15 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Congressional Black Caucus 
budget, which is a more credible and responsible alternative than the 
underlying Republican budget.
  The Nation's budget reflects its priorities, but the Republican 
budget continues to highlight the wrong priorities. It fast-tracks tax 
cuts for the wealthiest Americans and claims that unrealistic economic 
growth will pay for these cuts when, in reality, those tax cuts will 
ultimately be paid for by children, seniors, and those in need.
  It cuts $1.5 trillion from Medicaid and Medicare and also cuts 
programs that support basic living standards, including nutritional 
assistance, and undermines national security by cutting diplomatic 
programs and foreign aid.
  The Republican budget also cuts education, job training, research and 
development, and infrastructure. Their budget leaves hardworking 
American families out in the cold and would devastate our economic 
recovery after years of consistent job growth.
  The Congressional Black Caucus budget is in stark contrast to the 
Republican budget. It is compassionate. The numbers add up. It 
addresses the needs of the most vulnerable and improves our economy. 
Unlike the Republican budget, the CBC budget uses real numbers, not 
overly optimistic growth projections and assumptions of things that 
won't happen.
  The CBC budget proposes $3.9 trillion in revenue enhancements, and 
unlike the Republican budget, we show exactly how Congress can 
realistically reach this revenue target by outlining almost $11 
trillion in revenue options from which Congress could pick and choose 
$3.9 trillion.

[[Page 15604]]

  With the additional revenue, the CBC budget protects and strengthens 
the social safety net and commits the Federal Government to eradicating 
poverty in America.
  Our budget includes a comprehensive infrastructure and jobs program, 
totaling over $1 trillion over 5 years, and according to the Economic 
Policy Institute, it will create 2 million jobs next year.
  In addition, the CBC budget eliminates any further threat of 
sequestration, eliminating the arbitrary budget caps and across-the-
board budget cuts that are scheduled for next year.
  It allocates $200 billion for hurricane relief, $100 billion to 
address the looming pension crisis, and additional funding for our 
veterans.
  Even with the elimination of the sequestration and strong investment 
in programs that we know will create jobs and economic opportunity, the 
CBC budget is still estimated to reduce the deficit, when compared to 
the baseline, by approximately $2.5 trillion over the next 10 years.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 15 
minutes.
  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to start by saying that I appreciate the 
opportunity to have this discussion today because it is an important 
one. I know that the gentleman from Virginia and I both want to address 
the challenges facing our Nation and our fellow Americans.
  We agree that the status quo is insufficient to meet the needs of the 
future, and we share a passion for protecting the vulnerable, breaking 
the cycles of poverty, and lifting Americans up.
  But I must oppose this budget because it will not accomplish those 
things. This budget raises taxes by $4 trillion, increases spending by 
$1.4 trillion, and it never balances.
  It proposes more Washington-mandated answers to problems that States 
and communities are better equipped to solve. It makes no effort to 
control Federal deficits and debt, and it will leave our country 
bankrupt.
  I want to be clear what this means. This budget will double down on 
generational theft--spending more and more money that we don't have 
today and leaving our children and grandchildren to foot the bill 
tomorrow.
  In contrast, the Republican budget confronts our Nation's fiscal 
challenges head on by requiring mandatory spending reductions of at 
least $203 billion and balancing within 10 years.
  While this budget measures success on how much the Federal Government 
spends, the Republican House budget proposes to measure success by 
outcomes. If we have learned nothing from decades of spending on 
Federal welfare programs, it is that more money cannot resolve the 
complex issues underlying systemic poverty.
  We must change our approach, and this starts with changing how we 
measure results.
  This budget also fails to address a critical piece of the upward 
mobility agenda: reforming our broken Tax Code. Instead, it calls for 
tax increases that would stifle economic growth that the country so 
desperately needs.
  America should be the most competitive place in the world to do 
business, but everything in our Tax Code today tells companies to take 
their jobs and their investments overseas and to leave them there.
  Higher taxes on job creators and small businesses is the exact 
opposite of what we need to bring workers back into the labor force and 
get our economy growing again. Now is the time for comprehensive tax 
reform that unleashes the entrepreneurial spirit of America, increases 
business and personal investment, and promotes job creation. By failing 
to move the ball forward on tax reform, this budget leaves the American 
workers and families behind.
  Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I want to note what this proposal does make 
cuts in, and that is in our national defense. In a time when we face 
increasingly complex and evolving international threats from places 
like North Korea, Russia, and Iran, this budget would cut overall 
defense spending and compromise the readiness and safety of our 
servicemembers and our national freedoms.
  The first job of the Federal Government is to provide for our 
national security. We need to reinvest in our military to deter global 
threats and protect our homeland. That is why the Republican budget 
fulfills Congress' commitment to ensure robust funding for our 
country's national defense.
  Mr. Chairman, we will have a lot of conversations today about 
priorities, because that is what budgets are: clear illustrations of 
our priorities.
  We want to leave our Nation better for our children and 
grandchildren. We all want every person, regardless of their 
socioeconomic status or ZIP Code, to have the opportunity to realize 
the American Dream.
  I oppose this budget proposal because it will not help us achieve 
these goals. It avoids the tough questions and substitutes more 
spending for better results.
  It does nothing to promote vibrant economic growth, and it doubles 
down on bad ideas that stifle ingenuity and the spirit of 
entrepreneurism that we need. We have a responsibility to secure our 
Nation's fiscal future and improve the lives of our citizens, but this 
budget is not the way forward.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond), who is the chairman of the 
Congressional Black Caucus.
  Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the ranking member of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce, Bobby Scott, for his hard 
work, and the rest of the CBC in putting this budget together.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that what I am having a hard time doing is 
wrapping my mind around the same failed arguments that we hear over and 
over again that we are going to cut trillions of dollars in taxes so 
that we can help the upper middle class and the top 1 percent really, 
and that is somehow going to benefit the poorest people in the country; 
we are going to exacerbate the deficit saying that we are going to 
create jobs.
  We know it never happens, and then all of a sudden we find ourselves 
with an increasing debt and deficit, and then we go to the poorest 
people in this country and we ask them to pay for it. We cut the 
programs that are vital to lifting them out of poverty.
  I agree with my colleague on the other side of the aisle. My mother 
is a perfect example that a great education will lift you out of 
poverty and that having a Historically Black College and University 
that you can go to will prepare you for your future. But the problem is 
we don't talk about the fact that the Republican budget cuts education.
  So how can we say with a straight face that we propose to lift people 
out of poverty, help people achieve the American Dream, help our 
children dream the impossible dream, and then give them the power so 
that they can go achieve it while we are cutting their education and we 
are cutting all the programs that help them to achieve it?
  Look, we always hide behind protecting our country and the national 
defense. The biggest threat to our national defense resides on 1600 
Pennsylvania Avenue. It is a shame when most people in this country and 
my colleagues wake up in the morning and say: Are we going to war with 
North Korea? That is not good for the economy, and that is not good for 
the mental health of the country. But I think that the Secretary of 
State has a great disposition and strategy when it comes to the 
national defense and diplomacy.
  I think the key with what we have to do with budgets is understand 
that they are moral documents and they express our values, and cutting 
the disabled and others is not a true statement of American values.
  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Lewis).

[[Page 15605]]


  Mr. LEWIS of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Georgia for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Congressional Black 
Caucus substitute budget if for no other reason that there is a price 
on work, savings, and investment. When you raise that price too high, 
guess what you get? You get less work, savings, and investment, and you 
get less economic growth.
  Look at the growth rates we have had over the last 10 years under 
astronomical debt and deficits. If spending could create an economic 
juggernaut, we would have one now. But instead, we have got 1.5 percent 
growth, 1.9 percent growth, and 2 percent growth--nowhere near what the 
prospending lobby would suggest.
  Yet, if you look at the 1920s, if you look at the 1960s, and if you 
look at the 1980s--remember JFK in that famous Economic Club of New 
York speech said that the surest way to raise revenues is to cut tax 
rates now.
  It worked then, it worked in the 1920s, and it will work right now as 
it did in the 1980s as well.
  The reason is simple. The reason is very simple. Once you lower the 
price of work, savings, and investment, you not only get more of that, 
but you leave more capital in the private sector where it is put to 
use.
  When you have capital put to use in the private sector, workers 
become more productive, and they earn more. I have always said the 
truck driver is much more productive with the truck, and the people who 
have the capital that can buy the truck is what makes the economy go.
  We don't have a revenue problem in this country. Last year, we had 
record tax revenues: $3.26 trillion, yet a deficit of $587 billion. We 
have a spending problem, and the CBC budget increases spending above 
the CBO baseline over 10 years, while our budget is underneath the CBO 
baseline for 10 years. Our budget cuts taxes across the board including 
eliminating the bottom rate that we suggest in our tax reform plan.
  This is a question of American vision and the American Dream. Our 
vision is for more capital in the private sector, more incentives to 
work, savings, and investment, and more people with rising incomes. 
Their vision is to protect the government budget.
  Mr. Chairman, so I stand in opposition to this particular substitute 
budget.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who is a member of the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding. 
Also I want to thank him for his tremendous leadership in continuing to 
craft the Congressional Black Caucus' budget which really does reflect 
our Nation's priorities and our values, so I rise in strong support of 
this budget.
  As a member of the Budget and the Appropriations Committees and as 
chair of our Task Force on Poverty, Income Inequality, and Opportunity, 
I am really proud that the Congressional Black Caucus budget includes 
$300 billion in investments into initiatives that have proven to lift 
millions out of poverty.
  For example, it restores the cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program, it extends emergency unemployment insurance, it 
expands access to affordable housing, and it also increases funding for 
job training and trade assistance programs.
  The CBC budget creates a fair Tax Code that provides investments in 
communities. It boosts GDP by $329 billion and helps create 2 million 
jobs. This budget addresses poverty head on by investing $120 billion 
in creating jobs, $25 billion to restore our Nation's public housing, 
and $80 billion to modernize our schools.
  Also, our budget employs the 10-20-30 formula championed by our 
assistant leader, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), by 
directing at least 10 percent of Federal spending into areas with 
poverty rates of more than 20 percent over the last 30 years. We will 
make progress toward ending entrenched and generational poverty that 
hurts families and communities.
  With regard to the Pentagon, yes, we require that we audit the 
Pentagon and encourage DOD to implement remaining GAO recommendations 
that would likely lead to tens of billions in costs savings.
  This is a budget that stands with the American people. It is a 
message to the American people that we stand with those who are working 
hard to find a job, and we stand with those working hard at a job with 
low wages. It is a message to the country that balancing the budget on 
the backs of struggling families to provide giveaways to billionaires 
and corporations is unacceptable. That is not the American way.
  The CBC budget provides for the national security and the economic 
security of our Nation.
  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Gaetz).
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Chairman, as one of the youngest Members of Congress, 
I feel an obligation not only to my district but to my generation. 
Right now in America, we are midway through the greatest wave of 
generational theft in all of human history.
  The budget offered by the Congressional Black Caucus takes the 
problems of Washington and makes all of them worse by doubling down on 
deficit spending and irresponsible financial decisions.
  Mr. Chairman, I tell my constituents I am on two of the scariest 
committees in Congress--Armed Services and Budget--because on the Armed 
Services Committee, I see every day that our adversaries are closing 
the capability gap. They are able to do more while, after 8 years of 
the Obama administration, our military has been left in shambles. This 
budget does nothing to rebuild the military. It leaves our troops on 
the battlefield without the tools they need to win, and it is 
absolutely shameful.
  Mr. Chairman, when we look at the budget today, we absolutely have to 
get back on a path of fiscal discipline. This budget, however, doesn't 
do that. It punishes American workers and American businesses with new 
taxes and more taxes.
  It pours billions into the failed experiment of ObamaCare. To take 
things a step further, it would promote a healthcare system that is a 
single-payer system. Not only will this bankrupt our Nation, it will 
bankrupt hardworking Americans.
  How much would premiums go up under a State-run single-payer system? 
$1,000 a month? $2,000? Of course, taxes would increase, too. The same 
families in this system would see enormous challenges meeting their 
needs because they would be funding irresponsible spending in 
Washington.
  So beyond making our citizens sick and poor, this budget would gut 
our defense, weaken our military, and put more Americans in danger. 
Everyone here knows that the threats we face are serious: ISIS, 
Hezbollah, North Korea, and regional instability and volatility across 
the Middle East. Yet, bizarrely, this budget cuts funding for the 
global war on terror.
  Under President Obama, readiness fell to the lowest levels in a 
century, GDP growth sputtered, the quality of healthcare for the middle 
class got worse, and our debt skyrocketed. These are not policies we 
should repeat, and certainly not policies we should expand.
  Instead, let's vote for the Republican budget that has the greatest 
reduction in entitlement spending since Newt Gingrich was Speaker of 
the House and can actually restore the great promise of the American 
Dream.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), the co-chair of the 
Congressional Black Caucus' Budget Task Force.
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong 
support of the CBC alternative budget, and I commend Representative 
Scott and his staff for the tremendous work that they have done.
  The CBC budget provides for all of the essentials, including defense 
and infrastructure, but what I like most about it is that it is focused 
on job creation, rebuilding our veterans' hospitals, rebuilding 
infrastructure in our

[[Page 15606]]

communities, and putting people to work.
  Mr. Chairman, my constituents need jobs and opportunities to work. 
The CBC budget focuses on jobs. I strongly support it, and I urge all 
of my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Norman).
  Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this proposed 
amendment to the budget resolution.
  I think it is very important, when discussing spending such as 
suggested before us, to remember that we do not live in a fantasy 
world. We live in a world where resources are limited. We have to make 
difficult choices. These are the same choices every family makes with 
their budget every day of the year.
  Currently, our national debt rests at over $20 trillion. The entire 
U.S. GDP in 2016 was only $18.57 trillion.
  Should we continue to spend money that we don't have without 
restraint?
  This proposal never balances. It does raise taxes, though. With the 
tax increases in this proposal totaling $3.9 trillion, one would expect 
this budget to balance.
  What this does do is add over $1 trillion in new spending. What is 
another trillion when you are only $20 trillion in debt?
  I challenge the supporters of this proposed budget to research the 
potentially catastrophic impacts of defaulting on our national debt. We 
are saddling future generations with an unsurmountable burden.
  When our grandchildren and children look back on what we have done 
here, do we want this work to be that we left our country broke?
  I don't think so.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to not kick the can down the road 
and to not pass this proposed amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, can you advise how much time is 
remaining on both sides?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 7\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Georgia has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds just 
to point out that the healthcare plan in the budget is a public option, 
which CBO scores as a savings of over $100 billion. We have $1 trillion 
in spending for infrastructure, the same as the President has promised, 
but at least we pay for it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Budget Committee, I 
find the CBC budget to be a principled and thoughtful budget.
  It ends the threat of sequestration, it will accelerate our economic 
recovery, it will help eradicate poverty in America, and it will reduce 
the deficit by approximately $2.72 trillion over 10 years.
  On the other hand, the tax cut that our Republican friends are 
proposing will cause a deficit by giving a whopping $2.4-plus trillion 
in tax cuts, most to the top 1 percent of the American people.
  It will not help the young child as he grows to seek opportunities 
and jobs. This will be a bill that is at a price that is not right. If 
you work hard, you get less.
  Our budget, on the other hand, gives $665 billion in immediate 
investments to rebuild our Nation's crumbling infrastructure. It is 
crumbling even more so after the devastating hurricanes. It gives $120 
billion to fund a national direct job creation program and full 
employment trust fund program.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute 
to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. It provides $80 billion to fund the modernization of 
schools, $45 billion to fund an energy infrastructure modernization 
program, $20 billion to expand access to broadband services, $25 
billion for recapitalization, $15 billion for improving and rebuilding 
VA hospitals, $25 billion for HUD's Choice Neighborhoods program, and 
$5 billion for summer jobs for young people.
  I can attest to the fact that, in discussions with the Federal 
Communications Commission, the connectivity in vulnerable neighborhoods 
and communities is at an all-time low. Expanding broadband services is 
a vital need.
  It is a vital need to expand the educational services for this young 
man in order for him to be capable of taking a job in the 21st century. 
There are hundreds of thousands of jobs that go unapplied for because 
the skill set of our young people have been deprived because of 
inadequate education.
  This budget of the Congressional Black Caucus is a people investor. 
It invests in people. For that reason, I believe it is the right way to 
go. It balances our needs for the military and it provides for the 
American people.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has again expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds 
to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. It, in fact, provides that roadmap to ensure that 
the American people are taken care.
  I want to make mention that it provides for $300 billion for programs 
that are proven instrumental in lifting millions of Americans out of 
poverty.
  Shouldn't this be what we are doing?
  Right now, in my district, thousands are online for the disaster Food 
Stamp program. That program needs to be extended.
  This is what we do. We do not make people dependent. We give them a 
hand up, not a handout. That is what the budget is supposed to be: a 
roadmap for opportunity.
  I support the Congressional Black Caucus budget, for that is what it 
is: a roadmap for opportunity.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the Amendment in the Nature of 
a Substitute (ANS) offered by the Congressional Black Caucus to H. Con. 
Res. 71, the House Republicans' ``Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 
2018.''
  I support the CBC Budget for four principal reasons:
  1. It ends the threat of sequestration;
  2. It will accelerate our economic recovery;
  3. It will help eradicate poverty in America; and
  4. It will reduce the deficit by approximately $2.72 trillion over 10 
years.
  Mr. Chair, if we reject the House Republicans' ``Price Is Not Right'' 
and ``Work Harder to Get Less'' Budget with its discredited economic 
gimmicks and unrealistic projections and adopt the CBC Budget, we will 
get instead a comprehensive jobs program that would rebuild our 
nation's infrastructure and reinvest in our communities totaling $1 
trillion over the next decade.
  The jobs created will accelerate our economic recovery and ensure 
that it reaches every community in America, while also making the 
necessary investments to ensure America's long-term economic 
competitiveness.
  Specifically, the CBC Budget will create jobs by providing:
  1. $665 billion in immediate investment to rebuild our nation's 
crumbling infrastructure;
  2. $120 billion to fund a National Direct Job Creation Program and 
Full Employment Trust Fund Program;
  3. $80 billion to fund the modernization of schools;
  4. $45 billion to fund an energy infrastructure modernization 
program;
  5. $20 billion to expand access to broadband services;
  6. $25 billion for public housing recapitalization;
  7. $15 billion for improving and rebuilding V.A. hospitals and 
extended care facilities;
  8. $25 billion for HUD's Choice Neighborhoods Program and for 
communities that desperately need revitalization; and
  9. $5 billion for summer jobs so young persons can save money to 
attend college and plan for their futures.
  Mr. Chair, when it comes to addressing the poverty that is still too 
prevalent in our country, the CBC Budget is clearly superior to the 
Republican's ``Work Harder, Get Less'' Budget.
  The CBC Budget provides for $300 billion for programs that have 
proven instrumental in lifting millions of Americans out of poverty.
  The funding provided will be used to restore cuts to the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program, extend emergency unemployment insurance, 
expand access to affordable housing, increase access to quality and 
affordable education, and increase funding for job training and trade 
adjustment assistance programs.

[[Page 15607]]

  Additionally, Mr. Chair, to ensure that federal resources are 
targeted more efficiently towards eradicating poverty and are actually 
reaching communities most in need, the CBC budget proposes the 
codification of the ``10-20-30'' policy for federal spending.
  Under the ``10-20-30'' policy at least 10 percent of the federal 
funds in certain accounts are to be directed to areas that have had a 
poverty rate of 20 percent for the last 30 years.
  Finally, I support the CBC Budget because it puts an end to the 
draconian sequester burdening the economy and our people for the last 
several years.
  In addition, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget 
Office, it will reduce the deficit by approximately $2.72 trillion over 
10 years.
  Mr. Chair, it is said often, but is no less true, that the federal 
budget is more than a financial document; it is an expression of the 
nation's most cherished values.
  As the late and great former senator and Vice-President Hubert 
Humphrey said:

       ``The moral test of government is how that government 
     treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those 
     who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who 
     are in shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the 
     handicapped.''

  The Republican budget resolution fails this moral test; the CBC 
Budget does not.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting the 
House Republicans' budget and voting for a better alternative, the CBC 
Budget.
  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I certainly understand our colleagues' desire to fight poverty. I 
would like to share a little bit of my experience and what we have done 
to fight poverty at the local level.
  For generations now, we have continued to throw more and more money 
towards eliminating poverty, with fewer and fewer results.
  Yes, we have succeeded in alleviating the effects of poverty, but we 
have made very little progress in actually lifting people out of 
poverty. Instead of giving people a hand up, we are giving them a 
handout and essentially telling them life can't get any better than 
where they are. That is morally wrong, and I think that we can do 
better.
  The key to solving poverty isn't just simply throwing more money at 
the problem. It is to try something different and find innovative ways 
to fix our welfare entitlement system, improve our education system, 
and return the dignity of work to our fellow citizens.
  The proposed amendment does none of these things. It simply 
perpetuates the cycle of generational poverty that has been passed down 
from parent to child.
  I saw the same situation in my hometown of West Point, Georgia. In 
fact, it is what motivated me to enter public service and run for 
mayor.
  We had a community that was dying. Folks were trapped in generational 
poverty and had been stripped of the dignity of work.
  Instead of continuing the current system, we made changes. We worked 
to get the government out of the way and allow the job creators to 
innovate and grow their businesses to hire more workers. We invested in 
our infrastructure and we were able to create over 15,000 advanced 
manufacturing jobs.
  For the first time in a generation, we saw more people moving into 
the middle class than moving into poverty.
  We made changes to our education system, working to break through the 
generational cycle of poverty and prepare today's students to work in a 
21st century workforce.
  With all of these changes, we saw our community come back to life. 
People had jobs and opportunity. They took advantage of it. They had 
the advanced manufacturing sector spring back to life, and we saw a 
revitalization of not only our community, but of our people.
  These lessons are from the folks in the Third District. They sent me 
here to push those same type of ideas here in Congress.
  The Republican budget puts us on a path to this type of reform, and I 
believe my colleagues and I share the desire to fight poverty in this 
country. However, I do not believe that the CBC budget proposal does us 
that justice.
  I look forward to passing the House budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Virginia 
for yielding.
  I rise in strong support of the Congressional Black Caucus budget, 
which is a more responsible alternative than the GOP budget.
  A nation's budget reflects its priorities, but the GOP budget 
continues to push the wrong ones, catering to the wealthy and the 
special interests.
  The GOP likes to say that a rising tide lifts every boat, but that is 
only if every vessel is seaworthy. The GOP budget leaves too many 
Americans in dinghies, rubber rafts, and rowboats, subject to being 
capsized.
  It includes trillions of dollars in irresponsible cuts, such as $5.4 
trillion slashed from job-creating programs; $2 trillion cut from 
Medicaid and Medicare; $5 billion eliminated from investments in 
education, research, and infrastructure that will prevent us from 
competing globally.
  The GOP budget would devastate our economy by balancing the budget on 
the backs of students, workers, seniors, the disabled, and vulnerable 
communities in Maryland and across our country.
  And for what?
  To provide tax cuts to the top 1 percent--people who make at least 
$900,000 every year.
  In stark contrast, the CBC would create a fairer Tax Code and provide 
for much-needed investments in our communities. Our budget would boost 
our GDP by $329 billion.
  I, too, Mr. Chairman, served on the House Armed Services Committee, 
and I stand here to say that the CBC's budget would end sequestration 
for our military so that we can improve military readiness and, at the 
same time, restore critical domestic programs that support working 
families and revitalize our neighborhoods.
  Rather than giving the top 1 percent a $6 trillion tax cut, our 
budget would call for major investments here at home. We invest $665 
billion to modernize highways and infrastructure, $120 billion in job-
creating programs, $80 billion so that every child learns in a modern 
classroom, and $15 billion to rebuild our VA.
  Perhaps, most importantly, Mr. Chairman, we invest $300 billion over 
the next decade to eradicate poverty and provide basic standard of 
living to all Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, our budget responsibly pays for all of our investments. 
Our budget is a credible alternative and a real plan for America, and I 
urge my colleagues to support the CBC budget.
  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I stand here to 
talk a little bit about the Republican budget first. It is a poor 
reflection of the values and priorities that we hold dear in America.
  Once again, Americans insist on dooming the American people to the 
failed trickle-down economics of the Reagan era. The Republican budget 
shifts the tax burden away from the wealthiest Americans and larger 
corporations and places it squarely on the backs of hardworking middle- 
and low-income Americans. This has never helped, and it won't help now.
  Not only would the Republican budget increase the national deficit by 
$2.4 trillion over 10 years, but it also foots the bill over to the 
most vulnerable segments of our community while cutting other important 
social safety network programs.
  For example, the budget proposes to slash Medicaid by $1.1 trillion 
and Medicare for seniors by $487 billion. Nondefense discretionary 
spending across the government would also be cut by $1.3 trillion at 
the expense of education, infrastructure, clean energy programs, 
medical research, and job training.

[[Page 15608]]

  These are only some of the reasons why I stand tonight with my 
colleagues to support the Congressional Black Caucus budget to propose 
an alternative to this budget we are facing.
  The CBC's alternative budget asks those who have done well in our 
country to finally pay their fair share.
  Our budget seeks to invest $665 billion to modernize our crumbling 
infrastructure.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 15 seconds 
to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, our budget looks to 
invest $80 billion in our children by modernizing our schools and 
better preparing our future generations to compete in a global economy.
  Mr. Chair, the Republican budget is a poor reflection of the values 
and priorities that we hold dear as Americans.
  Once again, Republicans insist on dooming the American people to the 
failed trickle-down economics of the Reagan era.
  The Republican budget shifts the tax burden away from the wealthiest 
Americans and largest corporations and places it squarely on the backs 
of hardworking middle and lower income Americans.
  Not only would the Republican budget increase the national deficit by 
$2.4 trillion over 10 years, but it also foots the bill over to the 
most vulnerable segments of our population while cutting other 
important social safety programs.
  For example, the budget proposes to slash Medicaid by $1.1 trillion 
and Medicare for seniors by $487 billion.
  Non-defense discretionary spending across the government would also 
be cut by $1.3 trillion at the expense of education, infrastructure, 
clean energy programs, medical research, and job training.
  These are only some of the reasons why I stand with my colleagues of 
the Congressional Black Caucus to propose an alternative budget 
amendment that serves the interests of the greater good, and not just a 
select few.
  The CBC's alternative budget asks those who have done well in our 
country to finally pay their fair share.
  Our budget seeks to invest $665 billion to modernize our crumbling 
infrastructure.
  Our budget looks to invest $80 billion in our children by modernizing 
our schools and better preparing our future generations to compete in a 
global economy.
  Our budget looks to bring $20 billion in new investment to extend 
broadband internet to rural areas, so that everyone--not just the 
wealthy few--can have access to high-speed internet and access to 
information.
  Our budget delivers $300 billion over the next decade for social 
programs that help provide millions of Americans a basic standard of 
living.
  This is a reflection of the values and priorities of the American 
people, not what is embodied in the Republican budget.
  I, for one, do not believe that our nation does well by cutting taxes 
for the wealthiest Americans while increasing taxes for the poor.
  I do not believe that our nation does well by making massive cuts to 
social programs while allowing corporations to hide trillions of 
dollars overseas.
  I do not believe that our nation does well by destroying Medicare and 
Medicaid for our elderly and poor while pushing tax cuts for the top 
one percent.
  This is not the future that I envision for our country and neither do 
the American people--at least not 99 percent of them.
  Mr. Chair, the Republican Budget is not a true; reflection of the 
priorities of the American people.
  This budget serves the interest of a select few at the heavy cost of 
exploiting millions of others.
  We need to oppose the Republican budget in favor of a viable 
alternative such as the CBC Budget Alternative, which is more 
reflective of the values that we treasure in our society.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Black Caucus 
is a more compassionate, fiscally responsible alternative to the 
underlying Republican budget and does not rely on unrealistic growth 
projections or bizarre suggestions that massive tax cuts can pay for 
themselves. It makes our Tax Code fairer, protects and strengthens the 
Affordable Care Act, makes college more affordable, and ensures more 
Americans are lifted out of poverty. It also improves retirement 
security for our seniors.
  With these targeted investments, our budget creates 2 million jobs 
next year and reduces our Nation's deficit by $2.5 trillion over the 
next decade and puts us on a more sustainable path compared to the CBO 
projections of our budget. I urge my colleagues to support the CBC 
budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to urge my colleagues to 
join me in opposing the budget presented by the gentleman from 
Virginia. This budget does nothing to address our mandatory spending 
challenges. It never balanced. It raises taxes, it increases spending, 
it cuts funding to our military. We can do better, we must do better, 
and the House budget is the way forward.
  The American people sent us here to get our fiscal house in order. 
This budget does not accomplish that goal. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against it.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.
  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Norman) having assumed the chair, Mr. Duncan of Tennessee, Acting Chair 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the concurrent 
resolution (H. Con. Res. 71) establishing the congressional budget for 
the United States Government for fiscal year 2018 and setting forth the 
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2019 through 2027, had 
come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________