child poverty rates fell by 1% per year in the five years following the passage of the 1996 personal responsibility and work opportunity act and they remain below 1995 levels even though the nation is still emerging from a severe recession. transforming welfare by among other things block granting the program and giving states more control over its implementation cut kate case loads in half against the back drop of falling poverty rates. in almost every particular the critics were wrong. . . government can play a positive role in this area with policies aimed at helping those who are down on their luck get back on their feet. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman yields an additional 30 seconds. ms. foxx: this strengthens the social safety net and help keep recover from poverty and lead

self-sufficient lives. and i yield back. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: we ask every american to read this republican budget and see whether or not it reflects their values and the choices that they would make. and we believe when they do that, they'll reach the same conclusion that the bipartisan fiscal commission did, which is that it is simply unbalanced. it is simply unfair. it puts all the burden on the sacrifice on working men and women. and it does provide those folks at the very top once again, we have seen it before, with a big tax break. and when it comes to medicare, it's a fact, seniors are no longer going to be able to choose to stay in medicare and forced into the private insurance market with ever increasing costs and ever declining support. that is rationing care.

that's what insurance companies do if you don't have enough money to buy the benefits that they are offering, you don't get them. if your doctor is not on that plan, tough luck. and so those are the choices that we're making this evening and i hope as we go forward, the american people will look very closely at this proposal. and i'm confident they will reach the same conclusion that the bipartisan fiscal commission did, which is it's just not balanced and doesn't reflect american values and priorities. with that -- the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: i yield myself two minutes, madam chair. let's look at what our drivers of the debt are. social security, medicaid, medicare. the health care entitlements are the biggest drivers. the black line here shows our revenues. these three programs alone, alone take up all federal

revenues. you throw interest on top, which you have to pay interest, by 2035, they consume every single penny of every federal tax everybody pays. now, why are we proposing what we're proposing on medicare? because we have experience that this kind of thing works. giving people more choices, giving people -- having more competition works, prescription drugs. that's a program, very successful, very popular. when that program was passed, it was projected to cost $634 billion over the budget window and ended up costing $733 billion. it came in 41% be local budget. premiums are lower than were anticipated. name me one other government program that actually came in

41% below cost projections? there isn't one. why did this one do that? choice, competition, the senior is in charge. we are not interested, madam chair, of giving control over medicare to 15 unelected people to decide where, when, how and when and under what circumstance they get their medicare. we protect medicare for current seniors. we deny the 15 people on the board the ability to ration their care. and we want 40 million seniors to have the choices. we want them to be in control of their medicare because what we've learned, giving myself 0 additional seconds to make my -- 30 additional seconds to make my point. giving them more control, the senior, the beneficiary, the patient, not the government,

competition works. we have tried so many different plans at rationing care, they don't work. one person does work to reduce prices. the consumer, that is why we are saving medicare. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam chairman. i have to say to say this plan saves medicare is in my view, or wellian and reminds me of the phrase many years ago, that you have to destroy the village in order to save it. i have to say that if you look at what we're doing here, you are saying to seniors, you have to go in the private insurance market. the chairman mentioned a couple of other examples of the private market, but in this case, we have already experimented through medicare advantage with

that kind of private plan within medicare, and you know what we discovered? that you have to subsidize them at 114% of the fee-for-service program. it cost us more for medicare advantage. in fact, one of the reforms we made as part of the affordable care act was to say we aren't going to ask the taxpayers and to subsidize those private plans that are running over costs. you know what? in this budget, our republican colleagues kept that reform. if it was so great to have the medicare advantage plan, how come they took part of the savings from that plan? they did not. so it is a big mistake to say to seniors, we are going to throw you into the private insurance market with an ever declining -- the reason it isn't a premium, it doesn't support the premium. what members of congress have is a premium support system through

a fair share formula. this is not a fair share for seniors. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: we put $10 billion back into medicare advantage to make sure the program stays alive. but i yield two minutes to a member of the budget committee, the gentleman from kansas, two minutes. mr. huelskamp: i'm a little confused here on the floor of the house listening to this debate about the budget and i'm a little confused about which party was in charge of this chamber for the last four years as we ran up trillions and trillions and trillions of deficits. if the concern wasn't about deficits, the concern was about spending and how much more could we do and how much more can we throw into the economy. and we look at the results today, unemployment levels that we haven't seen for a long time, madam chairman.

as we debate and discuss this budget, we might be a little rusty. it's been a couple of years since we allowed a budget on the floor. and i welcome that debate. i agree with my colleagues, please read the bill. please do. and here's what you will find. a path to prosperity, we believe, runs not through washington, not through this floor, certainly not through the other chamber, but the path to prosperity in this country runs through the hard work of entrepreneurs, a flatter, fairer tax system, closes tax loopholes, work rather than welfare. the result of this, madam chairman, we expect one million new jobs potentially might be created if we get washington out of the way as we see in the path to prosperity. we believe this plan, this plan believes in one thing in the

power of the american people, not washington elites. this plan, this budget is about liberty and freedom, madam chairman. i hope and pray that 2011 will be remembered for not what we do here but for whether or not the end result of our actions will help us restore the american dream in our country. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the former insurance commissioner of the state of california. mr. garamendi: thank you, madam chair. for eight years, i was the insurance commissioner in california and eight years i battled the health insurance industry. what we heard on the floor, 2011 will be remembered, what it will be remembered for is the death of medicare, the demise, the death of medicare, the most successful insurance program, the most successful health

insurance program in this nation. it works. it is efficient. it is effective. it is a nationwide standard policy available to every american 65 years of age and older and some of those who are younger. i heard the author of this bill say competition would make it better. in fact, it does not. in fact, it does not. the private health insurance industry is inefficient, ineffective, discriminatory and clearly, clearly harms customers . there is a profit motive that has to be paid for. there are compensations for the sale and compensations for those who sell the insurance. all of that adds up. it is also extremely inefficient in that there are multiple policies, multiple people that have to be paid. the insurance companies have to

be paid different deductions, different co-pays and when you add to it, my republican colleagues have done everything they have possibly can over the last two minutes -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. van hollen: i yield 15 seconds. mr. garamendi: my republican colleagues have done everything they can to repeal affordable care act. you are throwing senior citizens to the sharks, the health insurance sharks. i urge us not to do that. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield myself 30 seconds. we have new data from the center for medicare and medicaid services on national health care expenditures. medicare costs grew by 7.9%.

mr. garamendi: would the gentleman yield? mr. ryan: i do not yield. and competition does work. mr. garamendi: would the gentleman yield? mr. ryan: i do not. i yield two minutes to the the gentleman from wisconsin for two minutes. mr. duffy: as a pressure man in this house, it has been a unique to see one of the age-old tactics to take place, scaring seniors, but not to move the ball down the field but for political points. the gentleman was telling the american people that it's not broken and going to continue to work. these are c.b.o. charts. if you take a look at them, it's broken and we can't afford it. we have to reform this program to save it. and to deny that is trying to scare seniors for your own political gain. mr. garamendi: would the gentleman yield? mr. duffy: no, i won't. we have to be honest with the

american people and say you know what? this is a program that if we reform it, we can save it for our current retirees. but not only that, those who are about to retire, 55 and older, we can save the program for them as well and modify the program for those of us in later generations but let not scare our seniors tonight and tell them that this plan is going to take aware their care because it's not. this plan and it's proposal is that those who are 55 and older are going to continue to get the same plan that exists today. the reforms are for future generations and with those reforms, we are guaranteeing that current riryees get the benefits we -- retirees get the benefits we promised them. you should join us and work to resolve this issue and make sure our grand mothers and

grandfathers get the benefits we promised them. i yield back. the chair: the the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: may i inquire as to how much time is left. the chair: the gentleman from maryland has 2 1/4 minutes. the gentleman from wisconsin has 7 3/4 minutes. mr. ryan: you want me to catch up? mr. ryan: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodal. mr. woodall: i'm glad i had the opportunity to speak after my freshman colleague from wisconsin. i was down in my office and i asked what are you hearing about? are you hearing about the

continuing resolution? he said no. i said what are you hearing about? he said i'm hearing from seniors who are scared and hearing from folks on medicare who are scared. now who does that surprise? it doesn't surprise me and i don't know what the goal was when we went down this scare tactic path. and i will say to the ranking member, i know you know better. you have a persuasive case to make for why your vision is better than our vision, but you are scaring people. you are scaring people -- mr. van hollen: will the gentleman yield. mr. woodall: anyone 55 years of age or older -- mr. van hollen: is it true? mr. woodall: i will not yield. you should be ashamed, be ashamed. i reclaim my time. mr. van hollen: if you don't like the answer you are going to hear. the chair: order. the gentleman from georgia controls the time. mr. woodall: we have honest debates here and we have honest

disagreements here. but folks are scared because you are scaring them. and you know good and well -- i want to associate myself with mr. did you have if i's comments that we can get together to solve this problem or just scare people. i will yield to the gentleman if anyone 55 years of age or older will have their benefits. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the members will suspend. . >> point of order. point of order. mr. garamendi: madam chair, point of order. the speaker pro tempore: all member -- the chair: all members are roy reminded to address their comments -- are reminded to address their comments to the chair. mr. garamendi: thank you.

the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. ryan: i will. just, i think i still have extra time. so i'll yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. mulvaney: thank you. i want to speak briefly to a topic that was raised earlier tonight by my colleague, mr. ellison, from minnesota. and it's a comment that, a message that has been repeated several times tonight and was in fact repeated several times during the committee process, which dealt with the subsidies that we give to big oil. to oil and gas. i will tell my folks, especially my colleague from maryland, mr. van hollen, that i share the frustrations that you have with those types of subsidies. i also share the frustrations i have with other members of my conversation that alternative energies receive seven times as many subsidies in the tax code

as oil and gas. in fact, if you take the subsidies -- the excise tax credit for ethanol, that number rises to 10 times. so i do share your frustrations with the amount of tax credits that the code currently gives to oil and gas but i'm 10 times as frustrated, madam chairwoman, with the subsidies that we give to alternative energies. i would invite, madam chairwoman, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have that same frustration to join us and vote for the budget. it's the best chance they're going to get this year to get rid of these subsidies as part of this process of closing the loopholes, lowering the tax rates and broadening the base. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: i reserve. mr. ryan: i'll close up if you want to go ahead. mr. van hollen: madam chair. the chair: the gentleman from maryland -- mr. van hollen: how much time do

i have remaining? the chair: 2 1/4 minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you. we've had a spirited debate this evening about fundamental choices that we need to make as a country. we all agree that we have to reduce our deficits in a predictable, steady way. the question is, how do you do it? and we believe, as did the co-chairs of the bipartisan fiscal commission, that the republican plan is unbalanced. and it's unbalanced because it asks very little on the folks at the very top and reduces dramatically our investments in our kids' education and it does end the medicare guarantee, seniors will no longer be able to stay in the medicare program, they will be forced into the insurance program and it

immediately, it immediately does end the prescription drug benefit. something we worked hard to close, the doughnut hole. it ends the effort that was put in place under the affordable care act to end the doughnut hole. so i would say to the gentleman from georgia who speak earlier, those seniors who are calling his office, they will lose that benefit in closing the doughnut hole right away if this republican budget passes and for other seniors and people who have been paying in the medicare system through their payroll taxes, we want to make sure they have the benefit of the medicare guarantee. and throwing them into the private insurance market and giving them a deal that members of congress do not give ourselves is wrong. it is absolutely wrong. we have a fair share deal and we're asking seniors to take a raw deal. we have a true people are

upsupport system for members of congress. where the federal government shares the risk of increasing costs. under the republican plan they're asking seniors to do what they don't want members of congress to do, take all the risk of the rising costs. those are not choices that reflect american values and priorities. we should not be giving tax breaks to the folks at the top and ending the medicare guarantee. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: i yield myself the remainder of the time. first let me say, with respect to the medicare guarantee, we keep hearing that. as you know, because we said it over and over again in our budget, go to budget.house.gov if you want to read it. with the new medicare plan for the people 54 and below, it's a medicare guarantee. the plans you will be given to select from, just like a system

that works like the one we have, like the prescription drug benefit plan, they're guaranteed plans. you're guaranteed to get them if you want them. and your subsidy is guaranteed. now, we simply say wealthy people shouldn't get as much of a subsidy as everybody else. lower income people should get a bigger subsidy and as people get sicker they too should get a bigger subsidy to protect their premiums and i would simply say, the greatest danger, enemy, threat to medicare is the status quo. medicare goes insolvent in nine years. but let me look at this from a different perspective. we've had a lot of debt before in our country. you know, when you have, when you buy a house or get a car or get a business loan, you get debt. and what matters is how big is your debt relative to your ability to pay it? it also matters, who are you borrowing it from? are you borrowing it from your

local community bank, your brother-in-law? fine. where are we borrowing our money from? we used to lend it to ourselves, americans would buy bills and lend it to ourselves. in 1975 -- in 1970 5% of our debt was held by foreigners. 1990, 19% of our debt was held by foreigners. today, 47% of our debt is held by other countries. number one is china. we're borrowing 42 cents of every dollar today and half of that from other countries, number one being china. look at where we're headed. we're headed with a crushing burden of debt. the debt goes to double the size of the economy, then triple the size of the economy to eight times the size of the economy. the c.b.o. tells us the economy crashes in 2037. their computers can't figure out how the american economy can grow past the year 2037 because of the debt burdens.

we can't keep borrowing money from other countries to cash flow our government. we are giving them our sovereignty. we are losing control of our own destiny. we are giving our children a debt prison. why is this happening? because politicians from both political parties have been making promises and promises that are empty. we need to get government it live within its means. -- to live within its means. we can't keep spending money we don't have. and by the way you don't fix this by raising taxes and raising taxes and raising taxes. you fix this by cutting spending . novel idea, i know it is in washington, so we're going to start, we're going to start by cutting $6.2 trillion in spending. we're going to start by putting

the right policies to grow the economy. we're going to start by keeping the promise to people who have retired so that their medicare and social security goes there for them. we're going to start by saving these programs for future generations so they're not empty promises. we're going to start by preserving our social safety net and making it more adaptive, resilient and sustainable for the 21st century. we want to repair the social safety net so it works. and we want to gear it not toward keeping people on welfare, but getting them back on their feet, into lives of self-sufficiency so they too can reach the american dream. we're going to start by passing this budget so that we can give our children a debt-free nation. so that we can maintain the legacy of america, which every generation prior to ours upheld which is give the next generation a more prosperous america, a bet wither chance, a

better chance -- a better chance, a better chance at securing the american dream. if we don't do this, if we don't fix this, if we don't make the tough choices now to get this under control, we will be a first generation to sever that legacy. madam chair, that's a disgrace, it's within our control, we see this coming, we know what's happening, we know why it's happening. and if we don't fix this before it gets out of control, shame on us. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas, mr. brady, and the gentleman from new york, mr. hinchey, each will control 30 minutes on the subject of economic goals and policies. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas.

the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: madam speaker, on behalf of the committee, i yield myself as much time as i may consume and will give my remarks in the well. the chair: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. brady: thank you, madam chairman. this country is a star for two tellers. people in congress will tell them what the problems this country faces, give them options and help them make the right choice. people who are strong enough to lead and bold enough to lead at a time where our country needs leadership. when it comes to the budget when it comes to the economy where the president has failed, house republicans will lead. the paul ryan budget helps spur job creation in america today, stop spending money the government doesn't have, it lifts the crushing burden of debt and this plan puts the budget on the path to balance and paying down the debt over the long-term and it puts the economy on the path to prosperity. let's talk about the economy. it is the number one concern of most people and the debt and deficit have a lot to do with it. we are undergoing one of the worst recoveries we've seen in a

long time. it is two to three times slower than the reagan recovery and there is reason for that. we were told that -- by the president and congressional democrats -- if we just spent money, spend the stimulus, spend increased deficits, that the economy would recover and they were wrong. after spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the stimulus we have two million fewer jobs in america today than when the stimulus began. we have fewer jobs today than when all that spending took off. we were told if congress passed all this stimulus that our unemployment rate today would be 6.8%. it's 8.8%. and only that low because so many people have given up simply looking for work anymore. they've lost hope. and then finally for those who say we just spend more to create

this economy, they were off their predictions by seven million american jobs. it's time to stop listening to the economists who got it wrong and start listening to economists who got it right. let's take a look at what spending has done to our economy in america. here's the chart. it looks back on the last 40 years in america and it tracks federal government spending against job creation along main street. not government jobs, but jobs in the private sector, small, medium, large businesses that our economy depends upon. the blue line is government spending. the red line are jobs along main street. as you can tell, look at blue line, look at how different job creation is. in fact, over each of these four decades not only is there no correlation between federal spending and jobs along main street, it's a negative correlation in each of the four years. as government spending goes up,

jobs along main street go down. . look at this next chart. we also went back four decades in america and asked about private business investment and what happens when companies large and small buy new equipment, new software, new buildings. here's the chart. blue is the private fixed development from business, the red is job creation along main street and you can tell it's a very close correlation. there is no substitute in america for private investment in the economy. no substitute, no rebates, no stimulus, not shovel-ready projects, nothing is a substitute for creating jobs by getting businesses to invest back in their work force, workplace and the economy. recently, we had -- i had the

joint economic committee look at the last 40 years. economic studies of our competitors around the world, countries that got themselves in debt trouble and how they worked their way out of it and you would be interested in the results of this study. what it shows is that three key points to it. one is that the countries that were most successful in getting their debt down and getting hold of their financial path, they didn't do it by raising taxes. that didn't succeed. they did it by reducing spending. they got hold of their debt. 21 times in 10 different of our global competitors, countries got a handle on their debt by reducing spending. and the second thing to go take

away from this spending, countries that got hold of their debt also grew the economy as well. economists agree that get their financial house in order grow their economy in the long-term. without competitors, if you get a handle on your spending the right way, you grow in the short-term as well. here is canada, neighboring canada got themselves in financial trouble. their economy is growing less than 1% a year. they lowered their debt as a nation about 12 percentage points, and their economy took off. and for almost 14 years, 16 years, the average economic growth of almost 3.5%. sweden, another developed country with a developed economy like ours, they had an economy that was shrinking and

contracting. they got a hold of their financial house and put that order and their economy took off growing 3.5% a year on average for almost a decade. new zealand did the same thing. and you may ask, we aren't those countries, but 26 times in nine of our competitors, countries that lowered their debt by reducing their spending and grew their economy strongly, not just long-term but in the short-term. they didn't grow it a little. those countries rocketed to the top quarter of economic growth in the world. countries that reduce their spending do it the right way, grow their economy. here is another third telling point about this is that not all spending cuts are the same when it comes time to grow the economy. not all spending cuts are the

same. what the economists showed the countries that grew their economies most successfully took cuts that were large and credible and difficult to reverse. they took cuts in savings and cuts in savings that grew the economy makes sense. they slumping their federal work force and eliminated obsolete programs as a business would, programs that waste money. they reduced subsidies to corporations and interfering in the free marketplace and tackled their entitlement reforms and what is interesting that even if the reforms they made in their entitlements didn't affect their beneficiaries and phased in those reforms over time, it sent the right signal to the marketplace and what happened in each of these countries is that businesses no longer facing higher taxes because of all that

spending began to be comfortable to re-invest into their work force and country and economy. households, like ours, no longer facing higher taxes to pay for all the spending sprees felt more comfortable buying cars and houses. as we know when businesses invest, jobs on main street grow. it's clear time and time and time again, like businesses, countries that can a -- get a hold of their debt put themselves on a financial path grow. the budget resolution presented tonight by chairman ryan meets the test that spending reductions must be large, credible and difficult to reverse once made to boost our economy. the ryan budget tackles the entitlement, tax corporate welfare by phasing government

handsouts and subsidies for green energy and reduces agriculture subsidies by $30 billion over the next decade. it rolls back nonsecurity discretionary spending and freezes it for five years and adopts a number of the recommendations from the president's own fiscal commission to eliminate waste and achieve real savings. it eliminates agencies as wasteful and that saves over $100 billion and reduces the federal work force by 10% in the next five years by attrition, simply by hiring only one federal employee for every three employees who leave or retire and that saves almost $400 billion. the ryan budget envisions a lower income tax rate for individuals and companies to 25% and makes us competitive again

in this world. the ryan budget is a fiscally responsible plan that accelerates economic growth and job creation. it is a game changer for this nation and tells the truth about our challenges and addresses it with ideas and proven solutions that move us forward. with that, madam speaker, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. >> i think it's very clear for us to understand and remember how the economy here grew and became much more positive and progressive during the clinton administration, during those eight years. mr. hinchey: the deficit that clinton inherited when he went into office was dramatically reduced and brought back a surplus when he left office. and when he left office, the national debt was in the

neighborhood of about a little over $5 trillion. by the time the next president, george w. bush left, the deficit was about $10.7 trillion. so it's important for us not to have the same kind of experience now that we are trying to get pushed to us by the opposition here on the other side of the aisle. the most critical challenge that we face as a country of course is the need to create new jobs. if congress hopes to get the economy moving at the right pace, we're going to have to take this challenge for job creation very seriously. the question is, what should we do and what should we not do to reform government so we can better compete in the world economy and yield strong, sustainable, long-term growth and prosperity.

after 100 days, republicans have failed to put forward a single plan to create jobs. instead, they have laid out a budget plan that shows us exactly what not to do. we must remember how we got into this budget mess in the first place. while my friends on the other side would like to pretend that our economic woes began the very second that president obama took his hand off the bible and was sworn into office, we know that that's not the truth at all. in fact, it was quite the opposite, the things that he did as president were positive for the economy and we're seeing that today. we're seeing the economy growing. we're seeing unemployment declining. we're seeing employment going up, all of that has a positive effect of the actions of this president. my friends on the other side

pushing this budget are the same people who carried president bush's budget through congress and in doing so, nearly doubled our national debt, as i said from $5.7 trillion to $10.7 trillion over the bush presidency. we have to make sure they aren't able to do that again. they did so by recklessly lowering taxes on the wealthy with the promise that doing so would create jobs and strengthen our economy. well, we know that neither of those happened. in fact, just the opposite occurred. they did so by passing a prescription drug plan, that is a major giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry without finding a way to pay for it and they did so by taking us into iraq under false pretenses and committing us to what will

ultimately be several trillions of dollars. now we are seeing economic inequality at record levels. the wealthiest 10% of the population here in the united states of america receives nearly half of all income in our country. and the richest 1% has seen its share of the national income increase by nearly 10% and they are now at about 35% of all income. all of that increasing for the richest and declining for working people across this country. this trend has consequences and it is no coincidence that we saw inquality at this level was during the great depression in the 1930's. but instead of working to correct this problem this is a

huge wealth transfer program from working-class americans to the rich. overall, 2/3 of the cuts the republicans propose take dead aim at working-class americans to lower their economy and lower their economic conditions. the republicans' budget plan eliminates medicare, forcing seniors to buy insurance in the private marketplace, using a coupon that barely covers a fraction of the cost of care. it cuts food stamps, pell grants and low-income housing and at the same time our friends across the aisle here, their plan would give away $2.9 trillion in tax cuts to the hugest, biggest corporations and to the wealthiest americans. this is the exact wrong approach and it will severely damage our

economy, hurt the middle class and i am poffer issue senior citizens. let's look at how this plan hurts seniors. their budget eliminates medicare. it eliminates medicare and creates a new voucher program that would saddle seniors with a large portion of their health care costs. they would then be more responsible for it. and the whole health care system would decline. the republican budget also makes prescription drugs more expensive for seniors. the health care law we passed last year is gradually eliminating the gaps in prescription drug coverage. the republican plan undoes this essential reform, forcing seniors to pay out of pocket. republican budget also threatens to make nursing home care

unaffordable by cutting $771 billion from medicaid, over a 10-year period. medicaid currently covers nearly half of all long-term care costs and we know what would happen if their plan was to be successful. all of that would be essentially eliminated. the republican budget also cuts $10 billion from social security's administrative budget which would impact service to seniors. . what this plan does to america's seniors is absolutely unacceptable. but the worst part of it is that while they cut medicare and medicaid and they cut prescription drug coverage and the social security administration, they also cut taxes on the very wealthy, reducing substantially the amount of taxes that the wealthiest people in this country pay.

while at the same time raising taxes on everyone else. now, 10 years ago the conservative heritage foundation projected that in 2011 1.6 million more americans would be working as a result of the bush tax cuts. they were wrong. they were wrong then and they are wrong now. we know what happened then. just the opposite of what they predicted. the republican debate isn't about good policy or the facts. it's about a dagmatic approach to governing and doing what's best for the very rich, doing what's best for the very rich, regardless of how it affects everyone else. who are the main promoters of the economy. working class people, middle income people are the people who drive the economic growth here

in america. if they are forced to decline their economic conditions then the whole economy of this country declines. all of that is needed to be understood. and the actions that they are proposing must be avoided. even president range's budget director -- reagan's budget director recently said that he finds it, and i quote what he said, he finds it unconscionable that the republican leadership faced with a $1.5 trillion deficit could possibly believe that good public policy is to maintain tax cuts for the top 2% of the population. we know that that isn't the case. we know that is going to be just the opposite. we know that tax cuts for the wealthiest making the wealthiest people in this country even wealthier and driving down the economy of the working people is

going to have a deadly effect on the economic circumstances across this country. tax rates are now lower than they were, even under president reagan. and yet the republicans are actually proposing to cut taxes again for the very rich. lower the corporate rate and keep special tax earmarks for big oil, tax earmarks for big oil, which is now growing to be one of the highest growing economic aspect of this country that we have to deal with. tax earmarks for big oil and for the biggest companies. and the biggest companies particularly that export american jobs overseas. continuing to give tax cuts to those economic companies that take jobs out of the united states and exports them to other countries. what a big mistake that is. in the context of rescinding

this economy. overall the republican budget plan for 2012 will not balance the budget and while it does not balance the budget, it eliminates medicare by replacing it with a private voucher program that will make it impossible for seniors to get health care. it also provides huge new tax breaks for the wealthy while cutting key investments in our economy. all of these proposals that we are facing here are clearly deadly. if they were to be successful, the economic circumstances that is now just getting better in this economy as a result of the actions by the obama administration would be reversed and it would be reversed dramatically and we would see a downslide in the economic circumstances here in our country. we need to oppose this effectively and we need to have

a policy that is going to focus its attention on working class people, on the needs to create more jobs and to create more jobs more effectively. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: i yield myself 30 seconds. i would remind the listeners that it was democrats who fought the prescription drug program for our seniors. last year slashed $100 trillion from our seniors' programs which will hurt our local hospitals, our nursing homes, our hospice programs. they're going to drive seven million american seniors out of their medicare advantage plan and yet they failed to lead, to preserve medicare for every generation once and for all. they failed, we're going to lead it. at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to new member of the joint economic committee and one of the leaders -- not at this time.

at this time i would like to yield three minutes to one of our new leaders on the joint economic committee, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for three minutes. mr. mulvaney: thank you, madam chair. you know, when i traveled my district, i've tried to figure out a way to explain to people and to myself how to make sense out of these trillions of dollars and i do it this way. i put it in numbers that i can understand. i tell folks to assume you have family who brings home $46,000 a year. and you sit down at the beginning of the year to do your budget and when you add up all of the things that you spend money on, you're spending $78,000. and then i ask them, when you're doing that, you're making $46,000, you're spending $78,000, i want to you realize the visa bill in the drawer is $281,000. and that's where we are as a nation. and i tell them, as we try and figure out a way to save money, i remind them that the fast thing we did in this congress was cut $35 million from our own budgets to lead by example. we cut our own budgets in this

house by $35 million. in that world where you're spending $46,000 and you're spending $78,000, ucks keys me, you're making $46,000 and spending $78,000, that $35 million represents $70 cents. that's how big the numbers are. and i think folks back home have started to grasp it. i certainly have started to grasp it. but i do give good questions when i give that presentation. some folks will ask me, they say, if i was in that position, not only would i try to cut expenditures but i'd get another job. i said, that's a really good point and that's what most families would do. with government it's different. with government the only chance they have to get that additional job, to get more money to come in is to raise taxes. and when i tell them, when they ask and say, why don't we raise taxes? i say, it simply doesn't work. it simply does not work. it has never worked. this graph shows the top marginal tax rates going back to the 1950's, for those of who you were around or studied the area,

the top marginal rates in the 1950's were above 90%. the top marginal income tax in the 1950's was above 90%. and the government was still only able to take from the economy about 20% of the economy. 18.5% is the average over the course of the last 50 years. so even when tax rates were as high as 90%, the government took only about 18%, 19% of the economy out in taxes. that number has stayed bizarrely stable over the course of the last 50 years. we've lowered marginal tax rates, we've raised marginal tax rates yet the government only takes out 18%, 19%, at the most, 20%. raising taxes does not bring in more money to the government over the long haul. it may for a short period of time, it may for a year or two, but the rule doesn't work on a static model. the world works on a dynamic model. when you raise taxes the economy grows slower and eventually we get back to this 18.5%, 19% average.

by the way, i made this presentation in a debate to a former member of the clinton administration and the moderator after i had mentioned that we've never been able to get more than 18%, 19% of the economy turned to the member of thed a strace and said, is that true? and the member of the clinton administration said, he's absolutely right, week not been able to figure out way to do it in the united states of america, even with high top marginal tax rates but they do it in europe. they do it in europe and in europe the governments can get 30%, 40%, even 50% of the economy away from the private sector, away from people and put it in the pockets of the government. mr. brady: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mulvaney: and i put it to you, that's what this debate is really about. that's when what this debate is really about. are we going to maintain the american system or are we trying to move towards a european system? and i tell you that that's really what this fight is all about. and the budget that we're here defending tonight as members of the joint economic committee is a budget that defends the american system. that defends a system that says,

the government really should only take 18% or 19% away from the private sector. that that's enough. that we don't want to be europe. where people pay additional, much higher rates of taxation. the government takes 30%, 40% or 50% and what the opposition is offering a european-style model. so i simply ask my friends on both sides to consider what kind of country we want to be. do we want to continue on as the america that we've known for years or do we want to become europe and i suggest, madam chair, that the former is the better course of action. thank you very much, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. hinchey: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield five minutes of our time to the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. garamendi: thank you, madam chair. we've heard a lot of discussion here this evening about what

economic policy works where, where do the deficits come from. let's just figure it out. beginning with this man over here, i think we'd all recognize him, that would be ronald reagan. after every year, at the end of the year the congressional budget office, nonpartisan, makes a projection of what's going to happen in the next 10 years. at the end of ronald reagan's period, they did their projection and they said, a $1.4 trillion deficit in the years ahead. followed by george bush the senior at the end of his four years they did another estimate. what's going to happen in the next 10 years? let's see, that says $3.3 trillion deficit. how about that? we were just talking about some economic policy here a minute ago. well, let's talk about the clinton period. at the end of the clinton period, eight years, another projection was made by the congressional budget office, what's going to happen in the next 10 years? a $5.6 trillion surplus, enough

to pay off all of the american debt. how did it happen? how did it happen? it happened this way. early in his administration they set about to deal with the deficit. there was a tax increase, it cost my democratic colleagues the house. but they did it. they put it in place. and they also put in place pay-go and the balance budget amendment. what happened was that in those eight years was the largest job growth in america's history except in the 1950-1960 period. it was an enormous job growth, more than 20 million jobs were created and extraordinary revenue growth. so much for the argument we just heard. in fact, a combination of holding title on the budget -- tight on the budget together with a tax increase worked. now, i was part of that administration and we were told to reinvent government, we did, at the department of interior we

reduced the number of employees from 90 to 75,000 and we maintained and increased the efficiency and the effectiveness of that department. it can and it was done. however, let's take a look at george w. bush. most recent bush presidency at the end of his presidency, congressional budget did their estimate and they came up with an $11.5 trillion deficit in the years ahead. how did it happen? it happened this way. he cut taxes year one. 2001. cut taxes. year two, 2002, cut taxes. two wars unpaid for, borrowed money from china and then backed away from all regulation of wall street and the great crash. the result in the $11.5 trillion deficit. the day barack obama came into office he was handed an $11 -- a $1.3 trillion bill due. that's what the republican president gave to this nation

and to this congress. so we've set about solving it. i want to move to another issue here which happens to be this debate about medicare. you're not going to solve the medicare problem which is one of ever-increasing cost in the underlying health sector of america. when i first became -- got into this in 1991 as insurance commissioner, 9% of the american economy was in medical services. this year it's approaching 18%. you cannot solve this problem by throwing senior citizens off medicare. it does not solve it. do not throw the seniors to the wolves. the wolves are the insurance companies, i know, i was the insurance commissioner for eight years and i thought those -- fought those characters every year i was in office. i know what they will do to seniors. they will rip them off, they will deny benefits, they will deny coverage and they will not

control cost. in california this year the insurance companies are raising costs by 20% to 40%. medicare went up 6%. medicare is efficient. medicare is efficient. it is a nationwide policy. you can get it anywhere in this nation. there is no administrative cost that even comes close to what the insurance companies' administrative costs are. perhaps 30% of the premium. profit, sales expenses, all of those things added up and that includes the chaos at the delivery, the medical delivery. we need to change that. you want to deal with something more? take a look at this. this is medicaid. in medicaid the republican budget intends to cut medicaid by 3/4 of $1 trillion in the next decade. who gets medicaid?

senior citizens, the disabled. this is immediate. can i have another 30 seconds? >> i yield the gentleman another minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for another minute. mr. garamendi: who gets medicaid? the aged, the blind, and the disabled gets medicaid. the republican budget cuts medicaid three quarters of a trillion dollars. seniors will be, not 10 years from now, but immediately as the budget reductions take place, will be thrown out of nursing homes. i just finished a conversation not more than two hours ago with the owner of nursing homes in california, he says, don't let them do it. we're just hanging on. any further reductions, any reductions in the republican bill, will force us to send out of our nursing homes thised me

-- the people covered by medicaid. who are these children in the children in poverty. the children in poverty get medical services from medicaid. medical in california. 20% are those the people you want to throw out in the street in you will do it. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: i remind our colleagues that are democrats in congress slashed half a trillion from our seniors' care, including nursing homes, just last year and i remind our colleagues that medicare is insolvent. the biggest threat to seniors today is to do nothing. democrats and the president failed to lead and republicans want to preserve medicare not only for today but for the younger generation, give them the option to preserve that program for them for the entire

lives. >> will the gentleman yield in mr. brady: not at this time. i want to yield phi minutes to the member of the economic committee who understands that the government doesn't create jobs, the private sector creates jobs, mr. duffy of wisconsin. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. duffy: in reference to one of the charts we saw from the gentleman in california. i found it interesting that he laid out many different debts and deficits from prior presidents but the one he failed to present to the house was the one from president obama. on the day the president took office, we were projected over the course of 10 years to borrow $1.8 trillion. from the c.b.o. and today we are projected to borrow $9.4 trillion. we have inherited now a fiscal mess. let's review where we're at. this country owes $14 trillion

this year we are going to borrow $1.6 trillion. last year, we borrowed over $1 trillion. the year before that, we borrowed over $1 trillion. let's look out 10 years. for the next 0 years on average we'll borrow $1 trillion every single year. this is unsustainable. we cannot continue on this course. listen, i wasn't a big fan of president bush's spending but his biggest year of deficit spending was $460 billion. that pales in comparison to the $1.6 trillion we're going to borrow today. i know we've all seen these charts so often but this is our debt chart the c.b.o. we have a sea of red a sea of debt, we are going to leave to the next generation. this is unconscionable. what does this mean for future generations? this means higher interest rates. this means tax -- massive tax increases.

this means a lower standard of living for our next yen ration. i present to this house if you were to ask your grandma and grandpa what they thought about leaving this all to our next generation, they would be outraged. they would be furious that this is their legacy that this is what their grandchildren are going to inherit. we need to fix the problem. so let's talk about the budget proposal that's been made. congressman paul ryan and the budget committee proposed reducing spending by $6.2 trillion over the course of 10 years. yes, they also talk about tax reform. a fairer, flatter tax code. you know what? we have to realize, this isn't 1980. we are in a global marketplace. we compete against china and india and mexico an vietnam. and you know what? this isn't just against kansas and kentucky. we have to engage, we have to have an environment where our businesses can compete,

succeed, and win, and when they do, who benefits? the people that benefit are our families because they have jobs. they have opportunities. but if we build walls around this country with more mandates and regulation and more taxes, we'll see more businesses go overseas and less jobs for our families and as we've been talking about tonight, we'll have less revenue in the federal reserve. i've heard a lot this evening, madam chairwoman, about medicare, and a lot of demagoguery across the aisle about what it's going to do. let's be clear with the american people. let's be honest with the american people. if we don't reform medicare the c.b.o. says it's going broke in nine years. we have to fix it. we have to fix it to make sure we can preserve it for our current seniors. let's not sit here and scare people and tell our seniors we're taking away their medicare. we are not. we are working on solutions that are going to preserve it. so when we talk about reform,

to be clear, we're not talking about reform for our current seniors or even those who are about to retire. the reforms we are talking about are from our yen ration. what's beautiful about this is if we reform social security, we can guarantee the benefits for our current senior bus then you allow me to plan for the benefits i'm going to have when i retire. if we do it, we can succeed in this reform. you know, we've heard a lot about taxes as well. and so, we all know here that the top tax rate, 35%, and a family of -- that makes $350,000 a year falls into that tax category. so i would, madam chairwoman, suggest to my friends on the left, why don't we do this. bump that tax rate up, not to 35%, maybe 50%, no let's go 100%, let's take every dollar of a family that makes $350,000 a year or more, let's take

every single dollar from them. if we do that, we still can't balance the budget. let's go to the next level. let's go to the next highest rung of income earners. those that make $200,000 or more as a family. mom makes $100,000 or dads makes $100,000, we would all agree they're wealthy. let's take 100% of every dollar they make as well. >> i yield the gentleman an additional minute. mr. duffy: and you still can't balance the budget. you cannot tax your way out of this. you have to reduce the spending. if you reduce spending and reform the tax code, we can bring prosperity pack to the country but to sit here in the house and say you can tax -- we can tax our way out, the truth is, you can tax every penny of property of the wealthiest americans and not balance the budget.

i think we have to take a serious look at representative ryan's budget, i'm willing to look at other common sense proposals, but proposals to just tax and not reform is not a real solution. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized. >> how much time do we have? the chair: the gentleman from new york has 2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from texas has nine minutes remaining. mr. hinchey: i yield five minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five mins. mr. van hollen: i thank you, my colleague, i thank you, ma tam chairwoman. mr. brady mentioned we made some reforms in medicare last year. yes, we did. we got rid of overpayments to

the private plan, the medicare advantage plans. why did we do that? because they were costing the taxpayer 114% of the fee for service, which is why this notion, frankly, that by saying to seniors, you can't stay in medicare, you've got to go in the private insurance market, has been disproven by our most recent experience. we said we're not going to overpay them and we use some of those savings to close the prescription drug doughnut hole that seniors fall. in we used some of those savings. now it's important to understand that the republican budget, even though there's a lot of demagoguery about that you kept those savings but what you didn't do is continue to close the doughnut hole. immediately upon passage of the republican budget that doe net -- doughnut hole will stop closing for seniors. now i want to pick up on a

point mr. garamendi made about medicaid. because as this chart indicates, the great majority of funds for medicaid go to seniors and individuals with disabilities. and this, ma make -- and this, make no mistake, this happens immediately, not 10 years from now, eight years from now, this happens right away. medicaid is a program where actually the costs of care have grown much slower than the rest of the health care market including the private market. and yet it is a program that is stretched very thin. you take $700 billion plus out of that system, you are going to be putting people at serious risk. already overstretched programs. what choice did you make? this is what choice you made with respect to medicaid. you cut about $771 billion. guess what? you returned to the tax rates

that were in effect on the top 2% income earners during the clinton administration. over 10 years, $800 billion. those are the choices you're making. put all these individuals at risk, seniors in nursing homes, assisted living facilities, poor kids, so you can provide that tax break. now i've heard it said on the floor that oh, boy, we do that, we go back to the clinton era tax rates that's going to hurt the economy. that's going to hurt jobs. look at this. look at this. here's the clinton era tax rate. 20 million jobs created in that period of time. here's the current tax rate. end of the bush administration, 653,000 jobs lost. the history tells the story. the reason is because there are lots of factors that go into decisions by businesses to invest.

while obviously tax rates are part of it, they are not the major driver in the economy. now, i've heard it said that this is going to hurt small businesses. now, i hope one thing we can agree on is that small businesses are the engine of our economy. they're what make this economy go. and so we always hear from our cleags, you go back to the clinton era rates for the top, you'll hurt small businesses. well, i hope everybody will look at the joint committee on taxation. and what they say is that there are only 3% of small businesses who fall into that higher income category. we're talking about taxable income. only 3% of small businesses fall into those rates. we hear from our republican

colleagues, oh, it's true it's only 3% but it's 50%, well here, 50% of the income comes from those 3%. why do you think that is? well, look at the same joint committee on taxation report. many such businesses are hardly small. small in quotations. in 2005, over 12,000 s corporations and over 6,000 partnerships grossed more than $50 million. there's your mom and pop store. there's your mom and pop store working hard as a small business. trying to make ends meet. those are what republicans are calling small businesses. now, i'm going to give you some examples of those small businesses. and there are lots of them but just to give people an idea of the republican definition of small businesses.

major wall street investment house k.k.r. one of the big four accounting firm, pricewaterhousecoopers. these are s corporations. fortune 100 pineline company enterprise g.p. holdings. if i could have 30 seconds, please? mr. hinchey: i yield the gentleman one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. van hollen: there's nothing wrong with what these firms are doing but don't they will the -- tell the american people that these are small businesses. over $50 million a year. they can help do their share to get our deficit under control. go back to the clinton administration rates. let's have a balanced approach. yes, we need to do cuts. we understand that. but as the bipartisan fiscal commission said, you've got to do revenues too and if you don't, here's what happens. .

and where did it go? when president obama was sworn in, the day he put his hand on the bible, he faced a deficit in that year of over $1.3 trillion and 10-year deficit of over $h $8 trillion. let's be serious about getting our deficits under control and i yield back. the chair: jarkse the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from text as -- texas is recognized. mr. brady: what about government? yp can't government sacrifice, wasteful programs, the money they spent on stimulus programs and bail out anyone who needs it. maybe it is time for shared sacrifice and start with a big, fat, bloated government.

i yield five minutes to a physician who has had -- who has delivered more than 3,000 babies in his life, is a valued member of the joint economic committee and expert on health care and many of our health care entitlements, the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. burgess: i thank the gentleman for the recognition and it is an important debate we are having tonight and madam speaker, mad chairwoman and i hope people are watching, because this set the tone, -- madam chairwoman and i hope people are watching. and this should not be partisan, although we have heard partisan references and i may even make one or two myself. right now, intergenerational expectations are down. and in that, in that murky

environment, we now have paul ryan come forward and bringing us a fact-based budget that provides a pathway for america's future. everyone knows the rising costs of health care is a serious threat, not only to our federal government but to our prosperity in general. unfortunately, the president last year and the democratic majority last year that was present in congress last year made the problem worse. here's the simple truth. instead of reforming medicare and medicaid and using the savings for deficit reduction, the democrats spent every single penny of savings and then a lot more on a new entitlement program. incredibly, they accelerated the crisis and medicare and medicaid are more in peril than before this all started in 2009. they found a fire and put it out with gasoline and it is a

surprise that it is worst. in contrast, the ryan budget, saves medicare and medicaid for future generations and uses programs to make it sustainable. according to the congressional budget office, the democratic plan would increase spending by almost $1.5 trillion by expanding medicaid and creating new subsidies to buy health insurance. the cow called affordable care act would increase coverage for the uninsured, but that is going to create greater demands for health care, but at the same time, we put in constraints, we limit physician training and restrict the very supply of health care and consequently, much of the increased demand will deliver us higher prices, not more services.

congressional budget office and the chief ackture -- actuary who scored the legislation admit they did not demude the effects for increased services. in fact, the chief actuary, his report wasn't released until after you passed the bill a little over a year ago and signed it into law. that's the initial budget estimates understates the true cost of the amount of spending that was contained within this health care law. the available budget estimates ignore the impact of higher taxes on economic growth. almost 4% surtax on interest, dividends and capital gains for those earning over $250,000 will reduce business investment and employment. thus, the new tax will reduce economic growth and generate less revenue than expected. this problem cannot be fixed by raising taxes on the american

people. and thirdly, the budget estimates that a 929% across the board payment to physicians and continuing reductions in other provider payments, but both the c.b.o. and actuary have called the reductions inaccurate. he said if you believe this, i have good news for you but we know the reality does not match the expectations and the independent payment advisory board and i have a great deal of sympathy with my colleagues on the democratic side of the aisle when you passed the affordable care act the first time, you did not include the independent payment advisory board because you saw through that and saw that as a trick, a trap and yet when you got the bill from the senate that you felt you had to pass, it contained the independent payment advisory board. what is the independent advisory board do? it gets 15 people, goodness who they are or who selects them and

they are going to deliver to congress a menu of congress? we get to vote up or down? we participate in that, but if we vote them down, we have to come forward with an identical dollar figure on cuts and if we are unable to do that and when has that happened, if we are unable to do that, the secretary of health and human services the following april 15, that is tomorrow, gets to implement those cuts any way. mr. brady: i yield an additional minute. the chair: the gentleman has an additional minute. mr. burgess: and what happened yesterday? the president in talking about his vision for the budget, by the way his second vision for the budget this year, doubled down on the independent advisory board and said we are going to do even more. the former head of the national institutes of health talked about the day medicine will become personalized and more preventative and requiring more

participation by patients. wouldn't it be great following congressman ryan's vision that we personalize medicare to match that personalized medicine that our children and grandchildren will enjoy in the future. instead, we will end up with more of the same with a central planner, moving the data points around on a spreadsheet. why not put the power back into the hands of the american people. that's what the ryan's budget does and we ought to be supportive and grateful for its presence. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. hinchey: how much time is left on both sides? the chair: the gentleman from new york has six minutes remaining. the gentleman from texas has 2 1/2 minutes. mr. hinchey: i yield three minutes to congressman from

vermont, mr. welch. mr. welch: i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, one of the great companies in this nation and a big company in vermont is international business machines. this year, they are about to celebrate their 100th anniversary. i was speaking to some folks from that company in my office and they told me the story of what happened to them in 1992. the world was turning upside down. companies that wanted to survive had to make decisions and had 400,000 employees and there was some question as to whether they were going to make payroll. they had to make changes and did two things. they looked at every single element of their operation. they looked at every single line item in their spending and every single place they could make a cut, tough as it was, they did. they made cuts. but they also said, where do we have to be in 10 years and what do we have to do to get there? and as nerve wracking as it was,

they made decisions to invest money in acquisitions in research and development to meet a plan that required investment, that required spending at a time when they were doing every single thing they could to save every single nick will. i.b.m. is stronger than ever and going to celebrate its 100th anniversary. we have to cut. there is not an argument here and i listened to paul ryan when he said we have to leave this country better off for our kids and grandids can. he is right and companies that look at a balance sheet, we have to save money. and the criticism of many governmental programs is right. wherever we can find that waste, fraud and abuse, let's get rid of it. that serves nobody. but on the other hand, we have to make investments. there are places we have to spend money and we have seen

that in the history of our country. so judgments have to be made. and my question about the republican budget is basically the premise in the budget. it's not the goal. mr. ryan stated that, well, he speaks for me when he says about that obligation to leave our kids better off, but there are two premises in the budget, taxes will lead to growth. sometimes that's true, but not always. we have to have revenues to pay for infrastructure and pay for things like deployment, national institutes for health and we need revenues to do things and make investments. in the second premise is that less spending is always better than more investment. those, as i see it, are the two premises that are in the ryan budget. and those are debatable. now, the other aspect of the

budget that in my view, madam chair, is lacking is what's off the table. it's not what's on the table. i don't agree with the medicare proposal in the ryan budget but fair to put medicare on the table. what is -- 30 seconds -- what is a problem is that the pentagon is off the table, the wars in iraq and afghanistan are off the table and whatever our positions are on these matters including the military, we have to pay our way. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: madam chairman, at this time, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. hinchey: we provide two minutes to mr. garamendi, the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two

minutes. mr. garamendi: i want to spell directly to the senior citizens of america and to those who want to become senior citizens. the republican budget destroys, terminates medicare as we know it today. under the republican budget, in 10 years, medicare will no longer exist as it is today, a guaranteed benefit available to every american who turns 65. it will be over. you will be given a voucher, a voucher that is insufficient to pay for your health insurance and no guarantee what that health insurance will be. let me speak to those who are medicare today. the republican budget over the next 10 years removes three-quarters of $1 trillion, 771 billion from medicaid. medicaid provides services to the aged, blind and disabled,

those in nursing homes, stand the risk of being thrown out of the nursing homes. i want to speak to those who want to become 65 and want to live long enough to get into medicare. when -- if you are 55 years of age and younger, you will not have medicare if the republican budget becomes law. it is over. it is terminated. it is gone. instead, you will be given a voucher to go talk to the insurance companies. and what will you talk about? you will talk about paying, paying, paying. they say that there is no tax shift in this. in fact, there is a $6,000 tax equivalent to every person 55 and younger. you are going to wind up paying an additional $6,000. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. garamendi: i yield back my

time. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: yielding myself 30 seconds. i remind my listeners that it was our democrats who fought the prescription drug program that has been so critical for seniors to buy their medicine. they slashed half a trillion dollars from medicare to pay for the new obamacare plan. and they did nothing to preserve medicaid for our seniors. the exaggerations today that are flying through this chamber are shameful. what republicans are intent on doing is preserving medicare. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. brady: i yield myself an additional 15 seconds. democrats have failed to lead on these important entitlement programs. they had their chance. they failed. republicans will lead and we will preserve those programs. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. hinchey: how much time to we have? the chair: the gentleman has one half minute remaining. mr. hinchey: one half minute? the chair: correct. mr. hinchey: the circumstance we are dealing with is continuing the progress we've made. we have provided health care for people through medicare and medicaid. the opposition here in this district wants to eliminate that. they want to cut back on medicare and medicaid and make it more difficult an more expense i. we have expanded the opportunity for people to get jobs. they want to eliminate that. we have tried to make this whole system more equitable, more fair and more genuine. they are trying to provide more funding for the wealthiest people and less for the working people and less opportunities for the working people. for all of those reasons, we oppose this legislation and

hope that most of the population of this district will oppose it as well. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. the gentleman is recognized for one and three quarters minutes. mr. brady: i yield myself such time as i may consume. how many americans really think this country is heading the right direction? how many americans, middle class americans, believe that these debts, the trillion dollar deficits, can go on and on as far as the eye can see? how many americans believe that although they have a better life and opportunity than their parents, how many of them question whether their children will have the same opportunities in america today? we can't continue to go down this path. that's what the ryan republican budget is all about. a new direction for america where we no longer hide our heads in the sand and ignore the problems facing america.

with -- what paul rhine and the republican budget does is tell the truth to the american people about how serious a problem we face as a nation. it offers real, common sense solutions to address them, gives them ideas that work, solutions that work. it creates economic growth and job creation by fostering the right business climate for growth in america. it tackles our spending, dangerous spending deficits by reducing those over time, implying and imposing discipline on our federal government so they have to live within the same means our families and small businesses have to do. it provides real security for our seniors an medicare and medicaid and social security, an more importantly offers hope for young people who don't think those programs will ever be around again. paul ryan's republican budget offers them hope that they don't have today and it repeal this is terrible opaw macare and gives america hope again.

i strongly support this budget and yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part a of house report 112-62 is considered as an original concurrent resolution for the purpose of amendment and is considered read. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part b of the report. 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, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent and shall not be subject to amendment. after conclusion of consideration, the concurrent resolution for amendment, there

shall be a final period of general debate which shall not exceed 20 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on the budget. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 112-62. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? mr. cleaver: i have an emmitt at the desk in order under the rule. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 in the nature of a substitute printed in house report 112-62, offered by mr. cleaver of missouri. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 223, the gentleman from missouri, mr. cleaver, and a member opposed, each will control 15 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri. mr. cleaver: thank you, madam

chair. the congressional black caucus has offered an alternative resolution to the budget proposal every year since 1981. this year marks the 40thth anniversary of the congressional black caucus and we have over those years serve as the conscience of this body. i stand in front of you today to say that this is perhaps the most important of all of the alternative budgets offered by the congressional black caucus and the reason is that, madam chair, we believe that someone must stand up for the vulnerable population and the vulnerable population is not what we generally like to think, it's not the stereotypical view of a person who doesn't work and is shiftless and is a parasite. the vulnerable population today consists of firefighters, police officers, municipal workers, state workers, factory

workers, who have been laid off through no fault of their own because of this weak economy. and those men and women have been struggling, trying to make it. and somebody must stand up for them. they're black, white, brown, they're elderly, some of them are at an age where it will be difficult for them to get another job. so somebody must stand up for them and we have decided that it will be us. now, let me just say that these are some weird times. we do have a budget deficit and we would not at all suggest that we don't need to deal with the budget deficit. what we need to do, however, is deal with it in a way that will protect the vulnerable populations. madam speaker, i have a left nina is artificial. it is a prosthetic, the result of a football injury. and once i recovered and left the hospital, after the

surgery, my brain automatically forced the rest of my body to pay attention to the sick side of my body so i automatically, even though i tried not to, did everything i could do to protect my left knee. i even put most of my weight thoin right knee. and what i am saying is that our bodies provide us with a message that when some part of our body is vulnerable, is weak, the other part, the strong part, needs to do everything it can to protect the weak part. the congressional black caucus is saying that our alternative budget does exactly that. when you consider the fact that the gaps in after-tax income between the richest 1% of americans and the middle and poorest fifth of our country, more than doubled between 1979 and 2009, so we can see that the rich are getting richer,

the poor are getting poorer. when i hear people say we must have shared sacrifice, i disagree. the poorest people don't need to sacrifice. i'm not sure you can find a single poor person who is responsible for the economic collapse of the last two years. mark zandi, an economist with unimpeachable republican credentials said that 1.7 million people will lose their jobs in the first two years if this budget is enacted. and so, madam speaker, we intend to present our budget now to demonstrate how this body can protect its weak side and still maintain the best of this republic for the protection of its people. i now, madam speaker, reserve two minutes for the gentleman from virginia. i reserve the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from utah is recognized. >> i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 15 minutes. mr. chaffetz: i'd like to yield myself three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. chaffetz: i'm glad we're going through this process this year. i think this is a healthy part of what we do. it separates us from a lot of other countries. i'm glad we're doing this. this is my second term in congress. last year, we last congress, we didn't doe go through this process. i think this is healthy. i think we all care deeply and are patriotic about this country. but i happen to have a vision that says that the proper role of fovet is somewhat limited. and that we -- there is a proper role for government and that we need to adhere to that proper role. it's funny, sometimes i hear opposition to the republican

proposal, the republican budget, and i hear that we're going to sacrifice this and cut that. let's understand, we're still going to spend $3.5 trillion, with a capital t. that's a lot of money. people often ask me, they say, how much is $1 trillion. it's a hard number to get your arms around. but if you were to spend $1 million a day, every day, it would take you almost 3,000 years to get to $1 trillion. to $1 trillion. we're $14 trillion in debt, we're paying more than $600 million a day in interest on that it's on its way to $1 billion. just the interest on that debt. we're going to have to deal with the fact that we got to pay that debt. we've got to cut up the government credit cards. we have spent far too much money. what i like about what we have proposed in the republican budget is that we start to rein in the out of control spending, yet we still fulfill a lot of

obligations we have to this country, particularly for seniors and others. we will still spend an exorbitant amount of money but over the course of time, we'll be on the proper trajectory to live within our means. i think that's one of the foundations of the country is the idea of personal responsibility. the idea that we have to live within our means. that we are self-sufficient. we're going to have to deal with the fact that in congresses previous, generations previous, they have racked up this debt. we can blame each other for that but the reality moving forward is we have to put ourselves on a trajectory to balance the budget and pay off the debt. and that, i think, is one of the great moral responsibilities that we have in the united states congress. the adult conversation that we have. there are a lot of these in this country. but we're broke, ladies and gentlemen. we're broke. and we have got to rein in the spending. and we have got to make the united states as competitive as

we can possibly be. because when we're competitive on the world stage, this is still, the united states of america is still the greatest country on the face of the planet, but if we're going to be the military and economic superpower, we have a responsibility to live within our means and to become self-sufficient. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. cleaver: i yield myself 10 seconds to just say, when progress is made, someone is always left behind. and my concern is that it's always the vulnerable. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. bobby scott. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. scott: thank you, madam chair. the congressional black caucus has a long history of submitting fiscally responsible budget alternatives regardless of who may be sitting in the white house or which party holds the majority in congress this year's budget alternative continue this is tradition by

putting forth a plan that reduce ours deficit over the next to decade while increasing economic opportunities and promoting job creation in every corner of our society. unlike the republican budget, the c.b.c. budget brings the deficit to $1 -- to 137b9% of g.d.p. in 2015, better than so-called primary balance, the goal of the president's fiscal commission, and achieves primary balance even earlier than the commission itself. i commend the republican chairman of the budget committee for proposing a budget that reduces long-term debt, he only achiefs this by shifting medical costs and low -- to lower income americans and seniors. the c.b.c. budget is much more responsible. our budget makes tough choices but unlike the republican budget, it doesn't jeopardize social security, undermine medicaid by turning it into a block grant, or shift medicare costs to seniors by creating a voucher program that doesn't keep pace with medical inflation. our budget reflects these vital

-- protects these vital programs and compared to the republican budget has $1.3 trillion more in deficit reduction over the next decade. the c.b.c. budget proposes responsible revenue increases by closing corporate loopholes and prempses, detering aagressive stock speculation which helps contribute to the 2008 financial crisis and ensuring that the wealthiest americans who benefited most from the tax cuts and bailouts of the last decade pay their fair share. now with the additional revenues and assuming some of the cuts proposed in the president's budget, the c.b.c. budget uses 80% of the additional revenue for deficit reduction and then invests the rest to protect from making the cuts in our safety net program like w.i.c. or community health center, avoiding cuts in investments in our future like

head start, pell grants, high speed rail, and nasa, protects cuts, reduces cuts in critical functions like clean water, f.b.i. agents and food inspection, and has more for national defense, homeland security, and our veterans. . our budget funds unemployment benefits often referred to as the 99ers. it invests in our future and mapets essential services and national security and does all of this and has more deficit reduction than the underlying republican budget. so we have a choice. we can have lower deficits and a better future or tax cuts for millionaires and oil companies. i urge my colleagues to make the choice and support the cleaver amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. chaffetz: i yield three

minutes to the freshman the gentleman from oak -- oklahoma, mr. lanching ford. mr. lankford: the house budget we are proposing is a budget that will take discretionary spending and deal with our spending issue. we have increased our discretionary spending 25 percent and trying to move it back to where we were a few years ago and allow it to grow. we are focusing on freezing the federal work force. and taking that issue on as the president and the debt commission said how do we need to handle our federal work force and has increased by 140,000 and walks through the process of what do we do to our social safety net to make sure it is still there in the years to come. we believe there needs to be a social safety net but as our chairman said that should be a safety net and not a hammock and

allow people to find a safe haven until they are able to get back on their feet. that is a good thing and we need to find ways to protect that in the days to come. part of the struggle is finding ways that people aren't trapped. we would like to reform. with temporary assistance for needy families and has become a great success on helping families to transition into work, the best way we can take care of families in poverty is not a program from the government, is a great job and great self-esteem and be part of our growing economy. the nation is broke. and what we need to do is focus on reducing spending and dealing with how we handle what we do as a nation and what we are trying to accomplish. as far as medicare, we have been

clear through this process we are dealing with those that are 54 years and younger. those facing poverty, those individuals would have full coverage and as they are wealthy, we would means test that. wealth year senior citizens would cover their own medicare but those in poverty or near the poverty range they would be supplemented and make sure we take care of them and don't wear about not being on medicare. and we have one more major thing we have discussed, we all want taxes to be more simple. tomorrow is april 15, all of our favorite day in america dealing with the taxes and the process. and it's not a matter of being a great citizen but going through the tax forms. we need to simplify this process and make it more flat, more level, more fair for people across the board.

we aren't talking about raising taxes $6 trillion. we are talking about keeping tax rates where they are and honor people, families and honor our rates. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. jeasm missouri is recognized. mr. cleaver: how much time re remains? the chair: 8 and-a-half minutes. mr. cleaver: i would yield to ms. moore. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. moore: we reject cuts that wages war on the poor and working class. there are 43 from us from 21 states and we represent 30 million and we agroved that 2/3 of the republican budget cuts

are on the working class people. it is our job to be a voice in the wilderness and point out it is i am moral to choose tax cuts for the wealthiest americans and tax breaks and tax subsidies rather than preserving the dignity in allowing housing and access to health care for all americans. the previous speaker just pointed out that they are cutting welfare because they believe that people need self- esteem. well you cannot eat self-esteem and cannot live in a house built on self-esteem. half of the americans in this country are barely making it without governmental support and they need medicaid. they don't need you to block grant it. it means a cut, privatizing

medicare is a cut. inflicting deep cuts to low-income energy assistance program and denying benefits to to the unemployed and they are controlling the debt and deficit and we cut it by $4 trillion. we the c.b.c. admit that conservative fiscal policy is compassionate that needs their government to respond and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. mr. chaffetz: i yield three minutes to the the gentleman from indiana, mr. young. mr. young: there mab much discussion about shared sacrifice. let's disaggregate that for a

moment. we are con temperature plailting that right now if we fail to act and fail to address our nation's debt crisis. shared sacrifice for the unemployed and underemployed, that is what we are contemplating if our nation's solution is to increase taxes. decrease in job creation in this country and see us going in the other direction in terms of employment in this country if we implement as is proposed in this substitute, a tax increase of almost $6 trillion as compared to the budget that we are embracing on the republican side. we are imposing all manner of unnecessary sacrifice under this substitute on americans that are currently working, middle-class americans and contemplates a tax increase on capital gains at ordinary income rates. we are thinking of taxing

pension and mutual funds at a rate as high as 49% and would adversely impact our seniors and not the responsible thing to do. we are contemplating in this proposal allowing all tax provisions of the 2001 and 2003 deals to expire for all taxpayers, in other words, this is a tax increase, proposed tax increase on middle-class americans. i don't think that's the right thing to do right now. we cannot tax our way out of this spending problem. washington, once again, does not have a tax problem. we aren't in this mess because we aren't taxing the american people enough but because we are spending far too much. this will become a familiar chart for americans around the country but let's look at this, this is the ski slope for future spending projections if we do

nothing. those on the other side are proposing we continue along this course or try and remedy this situation through job-constraining tax increases. that's not the way to go. one statistic that was cited earlier tonight, if we were to tax everyone in this country that makes $250,000 or more, two income earners at the $125,000 level at 100% of their income, we still could not improve our financial situation enough to restore job creation and put ourselves back on the path of prosperity. we need to embrace this ryan budget. thank you so much. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. cleaver: i reserve one minute to the gentleman from texas al green.

mr. green: the american people are confronting a dilemma. and the dilemma is simply this, to privatize or not to privatize. when all is said and done, that's the dilemma that we face based upon what the opposing party proposes. the simple solution to education is to simply privatize and give them vouchers. the simple solution to social security is to privatize and place it in the stock market. the simple solution to health care is to privatize and give them vouchers. for every complicated problem, there is a simple solution that's usually wrong. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields

back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. chaffetz: madam chair, i would just say we don't offer a proposal to privatize social security. we do not do the things that were just said on this floor. it -- nevertheless, i would like to recognize jeasm indiana from indiana mr. rokita. mr. rokita: i rise tonight to talk a little bit about the size, the scope and the amount of employees that this federal government has. earlier tonight i talked about the state from which i come from, indiana, a.a.a. bond rating, not raising taxes on anybody and a budget that year after year has been in the black. as secretary of state for

indiana the last eight years, i operated a bureaucracy. i know a little bit about them. and what we have in indiana, at least in the secretary of state's office was a pretty darn good one. we had no more employees in the indiana secretary of state's office than we did in the early 1980's. we were running on an 1987 budget unadjusted for inflation and i can tell by the reaction by some of the members here in the house tonight is one of scoffing. it can be done. the states know how to do it. let's look to them. in contrast, indiana, what do we see at the federal level, 155,000 more bureaucrats than just a few years ago.

an 80-plus percent increase in the size and scope of this federal government, madam chairman, and that's just the personnel. we can have cuts in each of these departments. every bureaucrat that we don't hire after one retires, will cause a 10% decrease in the federal work force over just a few years. that's responsible governing, especially when you are talking about a $14 trillion debt, $1 trillion year after year difts. and as the previous republican speaker pointed out, it's just getting worse. the red menace is upon us and

the red ink produced in this federal government produced right here in the well of this house to begin with. the ryan proposal that came out of the budget committee addresses this in a responsible manner. the smaller we make this federal government, the more the private sector goes. it is correelingsal, it's deficiental. i urge my colleagues to pass this ryan proposal. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. cleaver: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from new york, ms. clarke. the chair: the the gentlewoman from from new york is recognized for one minute. ms. clarke: i rise in strong support of the congressional

black caucus budget proposal, which i believe to be a more responsible way forward in stark contrast to the budget proposed by representative ryan, the c.b.c. budget proposal recognizes that not only can we not slash our way to prosperity on the backs of the most vulnerable, it creates jobs, invests in our future by supporting programs that make education from the cradle to college more affordable and protects the most vulnerable americans. madam speaker, it's time we have an honest conversation with the american people about where we are. the greatest wealth transfer from the poor and the middle class to the rich and the wealthy in our lifetime. how we got here. bush tax cuts. subprime scamming and financial sector greed.

and how we get to solvency, by supporting the c.b.c. budget alternative. we are the conscience of the congress. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. chaffetz: i'd like to inquire as to how much time each side has and how many speakers might be left. we have no additional speakers except myself. mr. cleaver: we'll be happy to take the rest of his time. the chair: the gentleman from utah has three minutes remaining. the gentleman from missouri has four and a half minutes remaining. mr. chaffetz: i would like to reserve the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. cleaver: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from the virgin islands a certified physician, dr. donna christensen. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. christensen: thank you, mr. chairman.

madam speaker, i rise in strong support of the congressional black caucus' budget which is responsible and responsive to the needs of all americans, especially those who have been underserved and ignored in these hard economic times. the republican budget would send seniors and those with disabilities out into the private insurance market with vouchers that will not cover them and reopen the doughnut hole. the c.b.c. budget ends the doughnut hole. the republicans have cut medicaid, denying health care to those who need it most, continuing the spiral of excess disabilities and premature deaths. we fully fund medicaid, ensuring health care and the chance for wellness which many would not have without them. we robustly fund h.i.v., aids, w.i.c. and other programs and bring better help to minority the poor, those in rural areas and the territories. unlike the republican budget

work ecreate millions of jobs, bring down costs and further reduce the deficit. vote for the c.b.c.'s budget and reject the republican plan. the chair: the gentlewoman from -- the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. chaffetz: we have no further peekers. but i reserve the right to close system of i reserve the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman from missouri. mr. cleaver: i yield one minute to the gentleman from maryland, the ranking member of the oversight and government reform committee, congressman elijah cummings. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cummings: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i rise in strong support of the congressional black caucus budget. as a senior member of the committee on transportation and infrastructure and former chairman of a subcommittee on the coast guard and maritime transportation, i know that budget cuts do not build bridges. they also do not repair roads and they do not expand our transit systems. unlike the majority's proposed budget, which threatens to

bring our transportation networks to a standstill, the c.b.c. alternative budget invests $20 billion above the president's budget in highways, transit, high speed rail and bridges. such an investigation. in our nation's infrastructure will move our recovering economy forward while creating at least one million jobs. such investments will also ensure the mobility of our constituents so they can keep moving forward tosme c.b.c. alternative budget makes the investments in economic growth our nation's needs and i urge all members to vote in favor of the congressional black caucus budget and with that, madam chair, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from utah cons to reserve. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. cleaver: madam speaker, i yield now one minute to the gentleman from illinois, mr. danny davis. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. mr. davis: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in strong on sillings to

the ryan plan and in favor of the c.b.c. budget. the c.b.c. budget invests heavily in the education of our youngest citizens from preschool to graduate school. this investment is necessary to ensure that all children receive the world class education they so greatly need and rightly reserve. this investment is necessary to build the early childhood education system we need to improve school readiness and reduce achievement gaps among students from different backgrounds. this investment is necessary to teach critical math and science skills, to improve graduation rates and to provide for crucial college preparation programs such as trio and gear up, all of which are essential for success in our technological world. madam speaker, education is a civil rights eissue and unless we educate all our children this country will never be what

it ought to be. i support the c.b.c. budget and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's tame has expired. the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: it's my understanding that i have three additional minutes, i'll yield an additional minute, i know you've got additional speakers, i yield you one minute of our time. the chair: the gentleman yields one minute to the gentleman from missouri. mr. cleaver: i thank the gentleman from utah. the chair: the gentleman now has two and a half minutes. mr. cleaver: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from texas, ms. sheila jackson lee. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chair. i thank the gentleman from utah for yielding to the c.b.c. the c.b.c. budget saves $235 billion in interest over 10 years, which the republican budget does not.

i am glad to stand here and talk about ports and public transit but i'm even more glad to talk about the $5 billion that goes into general sciences, space, and technology and the $5 billion for community development. the reason why i want to say that is, for all the tax cuts to the wealthy, $800 billion, the c.b.c. budget understands that they can invest in health, income security, education, and transportation. in addition, may i say to you that this is the face of what we're trying to fight for, a hardworking nurse and a beautiful child. this is what america is all about. and i would just say to my good friend that c.b.c. budget does not engage in slash ono, ma'amics. -- in slashonomics. we create jobs in community block grants, to space, science, and technology and all the bill the republicans will do to america is slash jobs. slashonomics. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired.

the gentleman from utah continues to reserve. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. cleaver: madam speaker, in closing, i am not accusing anybody of being mean-spirited or wanting to hurt people. i am absolutely convinced that those who support the republican budget are good and decent americans and twheant best thing for this country. i will never stand on this floor and do that. what i am saying is that i believe, and our caucus believes that their program, their budget is one that does damage to the vulnerable population of this country. and we believe that somebody must stand up and speak for those who are hurting and cannot speak for themselves. a budget is a moral document. it is a photograph of what we believe. it is a look into the somebodyness of the united states of america and when we look at this budget that this congress will ultimately

approve, some budget, it is who we are, it is the biography of who we are. and i am absolutely convinced that the wrong budget and i think the budget that is before us is the wrong budget, could create a gash on the soul of america. and leave a scar for a long, long time. madam speaker, this is a time that we must be careful because if we are not, great damage will be done to the people who can afford the damage the least. i'm talking about children, i'm talking about the elderly and i'm talking about americans who live next door to us, people who sit on the pew with us in church. these are people who are going to be hurt by this budget. i think that the american public, when they come to understand this budget, will come to the conclusion that we're right and with that, madam chair -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. cleaver: thank you, madam chair. the chair: the gentleman from

utah is recognized for two minutes. mr. chaffetz: the united states of america is the greatest country on the face of the planet. we have overcome challenge after challenge for hundreds of years. what makes america great is that entrepreneurial spirit, that can-do attitude. that idea was inspired in the constitution. i believe that the constitution is an inspired, sacred document. but if our -- if we're going to continue to maintain our being as the world's economic and military superpower, we're going to have to change the trajectory on which we're doing business. taxing, spending, borrowing money that is not the pathway to prosperity. the american dream is built upon the ideal that people need to take care of themselves. there is a proper role of government. what we truly need in this country is fiscal discipline, limited government, accountability, and a strong national defense. and the republican budget that has been put forward puts us on that trajectory to retain and

regain that fiscal sanity we so desperately need in this country. not only does our budget balance over the course of time, but it actually pays off the debt. and that, i think, and i believe, is what we should be doing. and what this budget that is put forth by the budget committee here on the republican side of the aisle truly does. we have a moral obligation to lead this country -- leave this country better than how we found it. if we're going to truly drive jobs and the economy forward, we're going to have to recognize that we need to empower the individual. we need to empower the entrepreneur so they can be the very best we can in a very competitive global climate system of, madam chair, i urge the passage of the republican budget and i urge my colleagues to vote no on this alternative that's been put forth in this last half-hour. i've enjoyed the debate, it's what make this is country great. with that, i yield back the balance of my time the chair: the gentleman yields

back. the question is on the amendment. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. cleaver: madam speaker, i request a recorded vote. the chair: does the gentleman from missouri request the yeas and nays? mr. cleaver: yes. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri will be postponed. the chair is advised that amendment number two -- amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 112-62 will not be offered. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? mr. chaffetz: i move that the committee do now rise.

the chair: the question is on the motion to rides. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: madam chair. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.con.res. 34, directs me to to report it has come to no

resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.con.res. 34 and has come to no resolution thereon. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. reichert of washington for today and the balance of the week. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> i move to adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the ques

>> in a few moments, house debate the fund the government for the rest of this fiscal year. in less than an hour and a half, congressional leaders meet with reporters. after that, secretary geithner your says he is confident congress will raise the debt ceiling. >> to be a parent means you are training the people who cannot

live without you. >> weekly standard editor. >> nothing like that has happened to me when i was thinking about college in the mid 1970's, so it dawned on me that this is a different process from what it was. >> sunday night. you can also download a podcast. >> throughout april we will feature the top winners of this competition.tcam watch the winning videos every morning on c-span at 6:50 a.m. eastern, 4 "washington journal."

stream the winning videos online at studentcam.org. >> the house and senate have passed a bill funding the government for the rest of this year. the agreement was worked out between obama, boehner, and harry reid. the debate in the house was less than an hour and a half. mr. rogers: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. rogers: i'm please to bring to the floor today h.r. 1473, the full year spending agreement for fiscal year 2011. this final c.r. makes nearly $40 billion of real spending cuts compared to fiscal 2010 levels while funding the

government critical services and programs and supporting our nation's troops for the rest of this fiscal year. after weeks of hard-fought negotiations, all sides were able to come together in this final agreement to find common ground and take steps to help balance our budget. this legislation is a bold move for congress, one that points us in the right direction on federal spending. never before has any congress made dramatic cut such as these that are in this final bill. the near $40 billion reduction in nondefense spending is tens of billions of dollars larger than any other cut in history and as a result of this new republican majority's commitment to bring about real change in the way washington spends the people's money. my committee went line by line

through agency budgets to execute the agreement reached by our speaker crafting deep but responsible reductions in virtually all areas of government. our bill targets wasteful and duplicative spending, makes strides to rein in out-of-control federal bureaucracies and will help bring our nation one step closer to eliminating our job-crushing level of debt. this led to the following cuts from the president's budget request -- agriculture accounts were reduced by 14%, commerce, justice and science reduced by 12%. energy and water reduced by 12%. financial services general government 13%. interior and environment by 9%. labor, health and human services and education, 8%.

legislative branch, 11% cut. state and foreign operations, 15% cut. and transportation and h.u.d., 19% cut. the department of defense is funded at $513 billion, which is a $5 billion increase over fiscal 2010 to provide the necessary resources for our troops and the success of our nation's military actions. in this bill, madam speaker, we defunded obama administration czars. we said niet. ending unsuccessful education programs, advanced efforts to repeal obamacare and reduced congress' own budget. we've also put into place mandatory audits for the

consumer financial protection bureau, banned taxpayer funding of abortion in washington, d.c., and continued the global fight against terrorism. in addition, with this legislation we have ended the stimulus spending spree and have taken the next step to cutting trillions of dollars in the years to come. we stood by our commitment to eliminate earmarks, terminated unnecessary and ineffective programs and made real spending cuts that will help right our fiscal ship. and we will continue to hold the government to a standard of responsible, sustainable spending in the future. our goal is and has been to keep precious taxpayer dollars where they are needed most, in the hands of our small businesses and individuals so they can create jobs and grow

our economy. i hope, madam speaker, that my colleagues will take the opportunity to support this historic bill and finally close the book on the fiscal year 2011 budget. for those who have been saying in their career here in this body, i came here to cut spending and to bring down the size of the government, i say to them, here's your chance. if you believe in cutting spending you can vote for $40 billion of it today, the largest any member of congress has ever been able to vote for. this is historic. a historic reduction in federal spending after a two-year spending spree that increased discretionary spending by 82%. this bill will reverse that

rise and will start us back down toward responsible spending in the government. now, madam speaker, before i close, i'd like to take a moment and thank these hardworking individuals who've been toiling behind the scenes now on this bill for the last several months. little fanfare. they get no credit in public that made this legislation possible. our legislative counsels deserve our appreciation, and i want to say thanks to tom cassidy, ryan greenlaw and their group of appropriations coordinators. i'd like also to thank janet ayers and the staff at the c.b.o. and i also want to thank the floor staff, the parliamentarians, capitol police and all those support staff who put in the extra hours to keep this institution

running. and finally, i want to offer a special thanks to the appropriations committee's find staff on both sides of this aisle. those in our full committee, the subcommittee clerks, the subcommittee staffs in both majority and minority. they've been given impossible task after impossible task, facing untenable deadlines, gone for days and weeks, working around the clock and yet have miraculously produced all we have asked of them and more. and i want to especially say a real thanks to the clerk of the committee, bill england, the deputy clerk, will smith, and all of the other staff that's worked on the majority side and mr. dicks and his wonderful staff have been just mag in an

muss of their support -- mag in an muss of their support. dicksdicks i want to -- mr. dicks: i want to say thanks to bill and david. they have all done a phenomenal job under very difficult circumstances. we applaud all of them. i appreciate the chairman mentioning this. mr. rogers: well, they've hardly slept in three months and they worked around the clock, on weekend, at 4:00 in the morning you'd find them still there. it's an amazing performance they contributed to this great body. i reserve the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield to the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran, the ranking minority member of the subcommittee on appropriations. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes.

mr. moran: thank you, madam chair. i want to share the comments of those who worked 24/7, around the clock. madam speaker, politics is the art of compromise, and this continuing resolution is the epitomy of compromise. members on the other side of the aisle, just like many aspects of this bill, as many members on this side of the aisle dislike other aspects of this deal. the compromise reached by the negotiators produced a bill that was imperfect at best. however, it's the responsible thing to do with the government shutdown looming. it does fund the department of defense for the remainder of the fiscal year which is absolutely necessary for our troops currently in combat around the world. in the interior and environment

portion where i serve as ranking member, the details of the deal do show constructive compromise at work. i am pleased that all of e.p.a.'s environmental writers were dropped, but the agency was cut by $1.6 billion. mostly on the back of states with cuts to the safe drinking water and wastewater infrastructure programs. i guess when many republican governors have claimed that the stimulus money was wasteful spending, then they will not object too much to a reduction in these important infrastructure programs even though it's coming out of the pockets of their states. in a compromised agreement we have asked delisting of the gray wolves from the endangered species list. but we have secured increase funding for indian health, which is certainly the right thing to do. as mo udall once said, if you can find something everyone agrees on, you can count on it being wrong.

well, everyone in this body, as i said, can find something. in fact, many things, even, that they disagree with in this resolution. but in my judgment it does contain more good than bad. it may represent the only kind of legislation that can be enacted in this time of heightened partisanship and fundamental differences and political philosophy. the deal reached is a vast improvement from what this house voted on on h.r. 1 just a few weeks ago. the w.i.c. nutrition programs is nearly $ 50 million above h.r. 1. legal services corporation at $405 million. that's $55 million above h.r. 1. head start is funded at $7.6 billion, $340 million above the enacted level. and $1.4 million above h.r. 1.

this is in stark contrast to h.r. 1 which zeroed out title 10. may i have another 15 seconds? mr. dicks: 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. moran: because h.r. 1 was set at such a low bar, this was looked at. we can provide agencies with some certainty and stability so they can go about conducting the people's business. members will have to decide for themselves if elements disappoint them outweigh the good. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: madam speaker, i yield one minute to the distinguished speaker of the house, the gentleman who toiled long and hard to bring us the largest spending cut in the history of the country, speaker john boehner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. boehner: let me thank the chairman of the appropriations committee, mr. rogers, and his staff and all the staff for the

sacrifices and hard work that they put forward over the last several months in order to get us to this point. you know, for years now, our economy's been stalled and stumbling. in the private sector jobs are not being created. something's clogging the engine of our economy. that something is uncertainty. uncertainty being caused by the actions that are being taken in this town. and one of the prime causes of uncertainty is spending. our failure to do -- deal with a spending binge has been chipping away with the economic confidence that the americans want to have in their country. and washington's spending addiction is a bipartisan problem. it didn't start under the current administration but the current administration clearly made it worse. this problem is not going to be fixed overnight and this bill does not fix it. the budget proposed by chairman

of the budget committee, mr. ryan, the path to prosperity, does deal with the long-term problem. what this bill does, it stops the bleeding. it also starts us moving back in the right direction. does it cut enough? no. do i wish it cut more? absolutely. do we need to cut more? absolutely. but there are some who claim that the spending cuts in this bill aren't real. that they're gimmicks. well, i just think it's total nonsense. a cut is a cut and this bill will cut an estimated $315 billion over the next 10 years. the largest nondefense discretionary cut in the history of our country. you want discretionary cuts? this bill has billions of them. you want mandatory cuts?

they're in here too. clearing out some of the underbrush in the federal budget while we get ready to debate the path to prosperity. every dime in this bill that is cut is a dime that washington will spend if we leave it on the table and if you vote no on this bill you're voting to do exactly that. leaving this money on the table to be spent by unelected bureaucrats. there are some who say that the spending cuts in this bill aren't real. that they're already scheduled. well, let me show you what was already scheduled. this chart is based on a chart produced last week by an economist at stanford university, john taylor. what it shows is the difference between what the president wanted to spend this year and what we will actually spend this year when this bill passes. the difference, $78.5 billion less than what the president requested.

nower there are some who want to say that this bill is just more of the same. well, if you believe that it's more of the same, this chart will show you the direction of federal spending over the last couple of years. on that 1/3 of the budget that we call discretionary spending that we fight over all year. it couldn't be more stark. it's like driving down the highway and throwing your car into reverse and instead of spending more and more and more, guess what? we're actually going to spend less in the discretionary budget this year. now there are some press articles who have picked up on some spin from our colleagues across the aisle suggesting that the bill will result in smaller savings than advertised between now and september. and it's just not the case. it comes down to the fact that there's a difference between

budget authority and budget outlays. a budget authority is how much an agency is allowed to spend on a given program, it's the license to spend taxpayer dollars. outlays show how much an agency will spend over time based on current and prior budget authority. and these are the results of how quickly taxpayer dollars are spent. the final agreement cuts nearly $40 billion in budget authority, taking away the license to spend the money which will result in deficit savings of an estimated $315 billion over the next decade. and when we pass this bill, washington will spend $315 billion less than it's currently on track to spend over the next 10 years. and it is just that simple. the path to prosperity is the plan that will take us where we truly need to go. this bill doesn't do that. but this bill starts us moving

in the right direction. it eliminates one program from the president's health care law, cuts another program in his health care law in half. it eliminates funding for some of the administration's czars, bureaucrats that were charged with implementing the bailouts and takeovers, and guarantees that they won't be coming back. it bans taxpayer funding of abortion in the district of columbia, ensuring that taxpayer funds won't be used to fund the destruction of human life. it saves the d.c. opportunity scholarship program, giving thousands of children here in this city a chance at a decent education. is it perfect? no. i'd be the first one to admit that it's flawed. well with, welcome to divided government -- well, welcome to divided government. i can tell that you the negotiations that went on over the last four or five weeks, they weren't easy. especially when you've got another body on the other side of this capitol that doesn't want to cut spending and clearly

an administration that doesn't want to cut spending. but i'll tell you that this is the best we could get out of divided government. the gentleman referred to it earlier as a compromise. well, i'd say it was a hard fight to get to kind of spending cuts that we got, these are real spending cuts. i think this bill sets up the stage for us to begin making the fundamental changes that need to be made to put our nation back on a path to prosperity. and i would urge all of you to join me in supporting this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will remind all persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the house and that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceed sgs in violation of the rules of the house -- proceedings is in violation of the rules of the house. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from connecticut, builds delauro, ranking member -- ms. delauro.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized for three minutes. ms. delauro: madam speaker, governing is about choices. everyone in this body agrees that we need to get our fiscal house in order, bring down the deficit and cut programs that do not work. the question before us is, how we choose to get there. unfortunately at almost every turn in this continuing resolution the majority has chosen to keep special interests giveaways to big corporate lobbyists while making middle class and working families bear the brunt of the spending consults. instead of ending $40 billion in oil company subsidies that this country gives out every year, they're giving them out right now, this resolution cuts $1.6 billion from our attempts to protect the environment, prevent climate change and it slashes education and infrastructure

funding, biomedical research and food safety. the chairman of the full committee said a moment ago that we are going to cut this deficit by $40 billion, by cutting those programs. we could have made up that difference with the $40 billion in the subsidies that we give to the oil companies today. instead of ending billions in subsidies to big agra business it cuts funding for food safety inspections, women's health care under title 10 and virtually eliminates the national health service. instead of ending billions in tax loopholes for corporations who ship our jobs overseas it slashes funding for vital job training services by $1 billion. it ends education programs that our children rely on like even start and teach for america. it ends literacy programs for children in the united states and at the same time we are providing dollars in afghanistan to train their youngsters in

literacy by cutting it out in the united states of america. instead of ending the billions in tax breaks for the wealthiest americans it cuts -- guts community health centers by $600 million. it cuts funding for women with infant and children by $500 million, it shortchanges public safety, it cuts biomedical research and cuts the centers for disease control by 11%. the american people expect better from us, they want our budget to reflect common sense, mainstream priorities that are good for our country, good for the middle class. instead this resolution offers the status quo on special interest waste and that hurts people who are trying to do the right thing. this budget will hurt our economy, cost us jobs, put the health and the safety of middle class and working families at risk. it may be an improvement on the tea party budget that this house passed several weeks ago, but that was not the standard we should apply here. this resolution still gives oil

companies, special interests, a pass, while hurting american families. these are not the right choices for the american people. i urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided resolution. that would be the right thing to do. we can and must do better. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield three minutes to the chairman of the defense subcommittee of appropriations, the gentleman from florida, mr. young. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for three minutes. mr. young: madam speaker, today i will limit my comments to the division a of this bill which is basically the defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2011. this is a bill that should have been passed last year but for some strange reason it didn't get passed. as chairman of the defense committee this year, i'm happy that it's going to become under my watch. but it wouldn't be fair if i

didn't point out that the bill basically is a remnant that was crafted together with chairman dicks last year. and should have been passed. we have been functioning, our defense department, and our national defense, on a continuing resolution since last year. that is not good. the c.r. is not good period. but a c.r. for national defense could become extremely serious. we were getting very close to the point of affecting readiness, of affecting our troops, of affecting our family. and so passing this law, this bill today, is certain that we will do that is right and hopefully it will go through the process and go to the president, everybody will keep their deal and sign off on the bill. i compliment speaker boehner,

his leadership team, i compliment chairman rogers and his team, because we looked at this bill very closely and they asked me if the subcommittee could reduce some of the defense spending in this bill. the answer was yes. we were diligent, we spent days and hours, weeks making sure that we found sources of money that we could eliminate without having a negative effect. and i will say to my colleagues, i would never support an appropriations bill or any other bill that will affect our readiness or that will affect our troops. just won't do it. i can't do it to the defense of our nation and our soldiers who provide that defense is too important. but when chairman rogers asked if we could go to this number, we were very careful. there is a reduction in the defense bill in this bill.

for those of who you are concerned that it might have had an adverse effect on our nation's defense, it will not. we don't want to make very many more cuts in the defense bill because today we all know what the requirement is. there's discussion at the white house and with the secretary of defense who almost seem to disagree now that there should be more cuts, mo draconian cuts. you can't do that. you can't just pick out a number for defense out of the air. you can't roll the dice. you can't spin the wheel. you've got to make your funding and your investment in national defense based on what is the threat to this country. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. young: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. dicks: i yield three minutes to congressman mike walz, distinguished leader here in the house, from arkansas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for three minutes. mr. ross: thank you, madam

speaker, and, you know, i've heard several reasons -- references this afternoon to this two-year spending spree. and i would take issue thank with that, madam speaker -- issue with that, madam speaker. it took george washington through jimmy carter to put this country $3 trillion in debt. we've added the other $13 trillion not in the last two years but we have added it since 1981. so i think if we're going to be honest with the american people we've got to say, we've been on a 30-year spending spree with the exception of four years during the clinton administration where we had back to back balanced budgets. but i rise today to discuss the importance of education funding to our children and our nation's future success and prosperity. while i commend all sides for coming together to make spending cuts, i also believe that these are important investments in education that must be protected , prioritized and maintained. proven programs like title 1,

idea, trio and education technology should be maintained and prioritized because they provide essential services t the students with the greatest needs throughout our nation. i'm concerned that we are moving away from basic education aid to all states and increasingly relying on competitive grants which often disadvantage rural school districts and rural students in many states like my home state of arkansas. ultimately i believe that how we choose to invest our nation's resources, reflect -- resources reflect our priorities as a people and as a nation and if we truly want to grow our economy and create jobs in an ever-increasing global economy, our priority must be on our nation's education system and ensuring that all students receive a world class education. as we continue working together to reduce our debt and reduce spending, i hope that we can put an emphasis on the educational needs of our children and continue to invest in their

futures. our children did not get us in this fiscal mess. let's not punish them, rather let's make the difficult choices and the tough decisions that the people sent us here to make, to ensure that we can put this nation on a path toward a balanced budget. and with that, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, frank wolf, who is chair of the commerce, justice, science, appropriations subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia voiced for two minutes. mr. wolf: i think john boehner has done an incredible job and also mr. rogers and the appropriations staff on both sides of the aisle for their god work. this has really not been done before. i rise in strong support of the bill, provides the appropriations for the department of defense and other agencies. the bill before the house is a long overdue conclusion to the

fiscal year 2011 appropriations process which previous congresses have failed to really address. the new congress has crafted a package of thoughtful and necessary reductions to discretionary spending which will put the country back on a path of fiscal responsibility. the bill includes a total of $53.4 billion on the jurisdiction of commerce, justice, science. reduction of $11 billion or 17% from fiscal year 2010 and reduction of $7 billion or 12% from the president's imp. at the same time the bill -- president's request. at the same time the bill has the f.b.i. national security programs and the basic scientific research supportive of the national science foundation and nist and others. also, the bill includes a funding language needed to allow nasa to move forward with the new space exploration program that we'll outline in the re-authorization bill. this takes care of nasa and

there is language prohibiting nasa and the office of science and technology in the white house from participating in bilateral cooperation with china. the chinese regime is engaged in aggressive espionage program to steal from companies. almost all of the agencies but also the defense department and congress included is being hacked. it's easy to condemn and complain but this is a good bill and i urge all members to support it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized.

mr. dicks: i yield two minutes to the distinguished the gentlelady from ohio, congresswoman kaptur, who is the senior member of the appropriations committee and the senior woman of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for two minutes. ms. kaptur: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, here is the silly appropriations process. it ends on a day when unemployment claims are going up, not down, when gas prices are rising, and when food prices are dramatically on the rise. i say to my colleagues that it is math matcally impossible to balance a $1.5 trillion deficit by only cutting from the 12% of total federal discretionary spending and with no tax breaks spending on the table. for the largest account, defense and homeland security, they're not even included in the reduction. yet, job creating accounts like transportation and housing are cut by 18%, 1/5. how does this make sense when

40% of american building trade workers are out of work and housing is in the doll drum. agriculture programs for the unemployed, seniors and children are cut by 13% when wall street is walking away with billions. if we are going to be serious in this congress about balancing the federal deficit, then we need to put everything on the table, all programs, all revenue accounts, entitlement programs, mandatory programs, farm subsidies, outdated direct federal subsidies to the west. we must address tax expenditure, spending and nonpayment of tax by the most well-endowed corporations and individuals in this country. corporate profits are at an all-time high yet they're not hiring. shareholders benefits but not the workers. mr. rorges and mr. dicks have tried to do everything they can to get to this point. they are to be highly commended by having an open pro he sess and working with the other side

of the aisle. it's time that the other chairmen look at tax spending under their jurisdiction and make necessary cuts to bring our account into balance. i've been part of the congress that have balanced budgets year after year but back in the 1990's what we did is focused on job and job creation and used budgets to aid the creation of job and revenue they generate. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. kaptur: could the gentleman yield 30 seconds? mr. dicks: i don't have the time. 15 seconds. ms. kaptur: all right. i thank you. for the sake of this institution and our republic, i hope a final vote on this c.r. can end the slow, sad and silly process we've endured. i won't be able to support the bill because it really is a bill that will cost jobs, not create jobs, but at least will end the budget whiplash we've been through and subjected the country to in the last few months. i yield back the remainder of my time. mr. rogers: i yield two minutes, madam speaker, to the

distinguished chairman of the energy and water subcommittee on appropriations, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. frelinghuysen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: madam speaker, i share the desire to have additional spending cuts to this continuing resolution. even though this measure cuts more federal spending than any other bill in the history of our nation, i recognize that the president and the senate will not support additional reductions. this is unfortunate because like many of us in this house recognize that our nation is compiled a public debt of $14 trillion and an annual budget deficit -- our annual budget deficit will total $1.5 trillion into the foreseeable future, an unsustainable amount. simply put, we are broke and this bill is but a first step towards putting us on a much more sound fiscal staff. the 2012 fiscal year package lies ahead and we need to take additional steps to cut

spending and do it in a rational way to promote jobs and economic growth. the energy totals $31.75 billion, a 10% cut from the president's budget request. our approach was simple. every program in our jurisdiction was scrutinized for savings while protecting national security and providing appropriate support for job growth and a balanced energy supply. overall funding for the national nuclear security administration, $696 million, a 7% increase from fiscal year 2010. the only significant increase in this section. this funding will assure that our nuclear weapons remain reliable and our programs to stop the spread of fissile materiels overseas stays strong. there's no important mandate for the department of energy. funding for the army corps of engineers is $4.9 billion,

below the request. program dollars was concentrated in the operations and maintenance accounts to ensure that the corps has sufficient funding for its key missions. madam speaker, these cuts are only the beginning. we need to do more and i support the measure and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. dicks: i yield three minutes to the distinguish gentleman from virginia, mr. fattah, the ranking member on the subcommittee of energy and science. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. fattah: let me thank the ranking member, the gentleman from washington, and thank the chairman. i've had the opportunity to work with chairman wolf on the commerce, science, justice activities contained in this c.r., and i think that notwithstanding the very challenging fiscal circumstances that chairman wolf has worked towards a set

of priorities that will help move our country forward. i want to point out our highest priority within that section of the commerce department, the mferings extension partnerships which -- manufacturing extension partnerships which will see a rise and there are major increases for the f.b.i. and its important role related to national security. there's a lot of discussions about the cuts here. we passed an omnibus on the floor of the house on december 10 when the democratic party was in the majority. we cut some $45 billion from the president's request in appropriate ways that we felt were necessary. the new majority has reduced some accounts, some we would agree with, some we would disagree with. what's critically important is to focus on the fact that even

though the c.r. makes cuts actually authorizes appropriations over $1 trillion. these are needed appropriations that is important for our country. things related to nasa and our international space station, relative to noaa and its severe weather warnings and tsunami protections, focus on the commerce department and nist and a whole range of agencies, it's very, very important that we get out of the temporary c.r. business. we can't run the greatest country on the face of the earth on a week-by-week basis, and this had bring a final conclusion to this, and i want to say finally as we approach f.y. 2012, even though there's been a lot of talk about cutting, i would hasten to add that we are not shadow boxing as a nation. we are in an international global competition with countries that are investing a great deal of money in research

and innovation and technology, and we cannot sell future generations of our country short by being unwilling to make decisions to appropriate money where we need to appropriate it, to educate future generations, to invest in technology and innovation and research so that we can both provide for our national security and for our national prosperity. i yield back the remainder of my time. i thank the gentleman from washington for granting me this time. and i thank chairman wolf for working with me in a bipartisan basis. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the distinguished chairman of the homeland security subcommittee on appropriations, the gentleman from alabama, mr. aderholt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for two minutes. mr. aderholt: thank you, mr. chairman, for yielding. madam speaker, as many have said here today, our government has a spending problem and the american people are -- we are

finding a solution. this bill is a step in finding that solution. the bill we are voting on this afternoon is truly historic. it contains discretionary spending cuts that are nearly five times larger than any cut in history. the homeland security title of this c.r. strikes the right balance between funding party programs that are essential to our nation's security and at the same time keeping our discretionary spending in check. in fact, this bill marks the first time that the annual discretionary budget for homeland security has been reduced from the previous fiscal year. this c.r. provides the total of $41.75 billion in discretionary funding for the homeland security, department of homeland security. this funding level is $784 million below the f.y. 2010 and $189 billion below the president's f.y. 2011 request. in contrast to previous annual in contrast to previous annual spending bills, this c.r.