mr. rokita: the budget proposed -- mr. ellison: reclaiming my time. i'll yield to answer the question, not for a -- mr. rokita: to the drivers of our debt like medicare and medicaid -- mr. ellison: reclaiming my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. does the gentleman from arizona give more time to the gentleman from minnesota? mr. grijalva: 15 seconds. mr. ellison: i ask the gentleman when the ryan budget creates a surplus. he could have given me a year, he didn't. that's because he's probably embarrassed about when that is. let me tell you when the progressive caucus comes to a surplus, 2021. that is known as a responsible budget. we are making a surplus by 2021. and by the way, that's the heritage foundation mathematics. $3.9 trillion over 10 years. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. .

who seeks recognition? the gentleman from indiana. mr. rokita: i yield 10 seconds just to answer it. he claims responsible in this budget. the only way they can balance the budget is by drastically raising taxing on every -- taxes on every american. that's not responsibility because it doesn't force a choice. that's the definition of irresponsibility, mr. chairman. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from alabama, mo brooks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for three minutes. mr. brooks: thank you, mr. speaker. i have a chart before me and i

hope everyone will look at it. it's based on congressional budget office numbers. if you go to fiscal year 2001 you see that we enjoyed a $128 billion surplus. at that time we had a republican house, republican senate, and a democrat president. then if you notice, looking at the bottom, that we had a republican congress and a republican president and we had the beginning of a series of deficits, $158 billion in f.y. 2002 which is immediately after 9/11 and the ramp up as a result of our efforts to protect americans from terrorism. then we go to f.y. 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 you can see how the deficits have increased to a peak of $413 billion. then the republicans start getting things back under control.

$161 billion is the deficit that america suffered in f.y. 2007. that's not good. matter of fact one of the reasons i was dissatisfied with the george bush administration is because of these deficits. but let's look at what happened after the elections in november of 2006 in which nancy pelosi became house speaker and harry reid became majority leader of the united states senate. these deficits which we were getting under control in f.y. 2008, $459 billion, in f.y. 2009 we almost go off the chart, $1.4 trillion. then we lose the white house, the democrats are in total control, and f.y. 2010 a deficit of $1.3 trillion. in f.y. 2011, a projected deficit of $.1.6 trillion. folks we are here today forcing this issue because america is at risk. we are at risk of insolvency

and bankruptcy because the socialist members of this body choose to spend money that we do not have. they believe in wealth transfer programs. >> point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the chair: the gentleman from alabama mr. suspend the gentleman will say his point of order. mr. ellison: i would like the gentleman's words taken down for the reference to certain members of this body as socialists. we regard that -- the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman from alabama will please take a seat. the clerk will report the words.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. brooks: mr. speaker, as the record reflects i have not referred to any particular -- the chair: does the gentleman ask for unanimous consent? mr. brooks: i ask for unanimous consent to strike the particular use of one word that the folks from the other side of the aisle have objected to. mr. ellison: does the gentleman withdraw his word or not? the chair: is there objection to the request? mr. brooks: that one word. the chair: without objection, the words are withdrawn. the gentleman from alabama may proceed. mr. brooks: thank you, mr. speaker. ladies and gentlemen of america, we all know what we are talking about here. and we all know what the definitional terms are. and i'm more than happy to resume this discussion off the house floor, but for whatever reason i'm not permitted to use one word. having said that, you can look

at this chart and you can see the kind of deficit that is we have sustained over the last four years. and the threat that this poses to the united states of america . now, this progressive people's budget i submit to you is nothing more than a trojan horse. there is an old saying, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. why should anyone believe that the folks who have wracked up these massive deficit that is put america at risk are now going to change their stripes? the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. brooks: thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. let me thank the gentleman for withdrawing the word "socialist" from his meantary. at this point let me recognize ms. waters from california for one minute. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for

one minute. mr. grijalva: how much time does both sides have? the chair: the gentleman from arizona has 9 1/4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from indiana has 3 3/4 minutes remaining. mr. grijalva: thank you. the chair: the gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: thank you very much. the gentleman from alabama evidently has amnesia. the clinton administration eliminated the deficit and left a balanced budget. it was the bush administration that created the deficit. i rise in strong support for this the progressive caucus alternative balanced people's budget. during the last administration, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle maxed out our nation's credit card for wars and tax cuts for the rich. all the while saying deficits don't matter. now they are in an identity crisis as a rationale to undermine programs they have never supported and push a divisive social agenda that's a sideshow to our budget debate.

mr. speaker, this country is not broke. we have spent our money on wars and tax credits for the very rich and now it's time to general tain the people's budget, a balanced budget. the ryan budget breaks our promise to american families by expecting them to bear the entire burden of deficit reduction. negligenting the fact that just four months ago my insisted -- my colleagues insisted on the opposite side of the aisle on $80 billion in tax cuts for the richest 2% of individuals in this country. this is a balanced budget. i ask my colleagues to support this very responsible balanced budget. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from indiana. mr. rokita: we i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. let me relinquish one minute to mr. john lewis, congressman lewis, for his comments. one minute. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute.

mr. lewis: mr. speaker, i want to thank my colleague from arizona for yielding. mr. speaker, i have never been one to stand silent in the face of injustice. today i see before us one of the greatest betrayalials in american history. the betrayal of our seniors, disabled to rely on medicare for their health care. we have made a social compact with our seniors and the republican budget breaks that compact. it is a disgrace and a shame. where is our sense of fairness? where is our outrage? we can and we must do better. the republicans head down a very dangerous path. we cannot, we must not, and we will not balance our budget on the back of the people who can least afford it. our seniors, the disabled, the poor, the hungry they have done nothing wrong. they do not deserve to bear the

burden of these budget cuts. support and vote for the people's budget. it is the right budget. it is fair. and it is just. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana continues to reserve. mr. rokita: we reserve. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. let me yield one minute to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. the chair: the the gentlewoman from is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: my heart pains me for this day and this budget for america. some of us might feel as the president does, a question of whether or not we are saying to the american people that they are not understanding or that we who are fighting simply are

stupid. it's a time when you want to reflect on how great a country we live in. and it hurts my heart when i see individuals putting on the floor of the house a budget that unfairly targets low-income communities and senior citizens while protecting the wealthiest americans. americans who i care about. and simply eliminating any sense of responsibility for working and middle class americans. the people's budget, it saves medicare. those are working americans. those are americans that are middle class. and then of course what about our disabled persons? do you think that they are only classified as low-income? these are individuals who become seniors or disabled who need to have the kind of sacrifice. look what happens. the people's budget protects those who cannot protect themselves. finally, i ask these individuals is there any shared sacrifice? do you believe --

the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. the gentlewoman will suspend. the gentleman from indiana. mr. rokita: may i inquire to the time on both sides? the chair: the gentleman from indiana has 3 3/4 minutes. the gentleman from arizona has 6 1/4 remaining. mr. row keith qua: we reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. grijalva: let me recognize congressman blumenauer for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for one minute. mr. blumenauer: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. blumenauer: we have been greeted with the republican budget that is profoundly negative view of the future. you have heard some of the reasons. i want to focus on just one. it doesn't just ignore the infrastructure deficit of america falling apart over $2 trillion of unmet needs as

referenced by my friend from minnesota. it makes it worse. a 31% cut in already inadequate funding for national infrastructure. the progressive budget hears the needs of the american public and actually agrees with the truckers, the u.s. chamber, local governments, the triple-a of america, indeed the deficit commission all suggested that for the first time since 1993 we raised the gas tax. my republican friends have lost track of the republican roots. for republicans used to believe in infrastructure, lincoln, eisenhower, made the gas tax, reagan raised the gas tax. this budget is a profound investment in infrastructure. it will put millions to work. renewing and rebuilding america. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: let me yield 30

seconds to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. ellison: the people's budget contains a provision for infrastructure development and the national infrastructure bank. i want to agree wholeheartedly with congressman blumenauer. we cannot only put america back to work, but we can strengthen the infrastructure that will make it safe to go across a bridge. we cannot negligent the -- neglect the bridges and road, the high-speed optic fiber cables and all the things our country needs for a 21st century infrastructure. it's a jobs program, the people's budget is talking about jobs. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. . the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: let me yield one minute to the gentlelady from hawaii, ms. hirono. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. hirono: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of the

people's budget. our country was based on the goal of equal opportunity. yes. but what about and justice for all? that's in our pledge of allegiance, and we pledge that on the floor of this house every single day. this budget is not justice for all. i was visited by advocates from hawaii who support funding for the disabled, for the blind, for our seniors, eighth graders. they were astounded by the anti-people priorities in the ryan budget. budget has to be fair. that means the multimillionaires in our country has to pay their fair share. the oil industry have to pay their fair share. the companies that ship our jobs overseas have to pay their fair share and then we can invest in the future. that means education, energy self-efficiencyy,

infrastructure. i ask my -- self-efficiency, infrastructure. i ask my colleagues to vote for this budget. aloha. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: i yield to the gentlelady from california, ms. chu, one minute. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. chu: i rise in support of the people's budget. it will give us a surplus in 10 year. the republican has unveiled their road to ruin budget. but instead of focusing on creating jobs, republicans are ripping the bannedage off our economy before the scar has even healed. the people's budget focuses on real solutions. instead of billion dollar handouts to big oil we're investing in job creation and loans for higher education. instead of ending medicare as we know it, we keep our promise to secure health care for seniors. instead of giving more breaks to millionaires and billionaires, we're committed to tax relief for the middle class. we must eliminate the deficit

but we must do it responsibly, and that means taking the republican target off the backs of working families. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from indiana. mr. rokita: thank you, mr. chair. at this time i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. i rise in opposition to the congressional progressive caucus substitute budget. one of the concerns i have, and as an american citizen and small business owner for 30 years is this document right here. mr. ribble: this is the internal revenue code. it is 9,959 pages long. this plan that is offered up today will add hundreds if not thousands of painls of additional complexity. recently we all heard about a large u.s. corporation that had billions of dollars in profits and paid zero taxes. mr. chairman, the reason they were able to do that is because

their attorneys knew what was in and buried within this document. do we really need to make it more complicated and more complex? i think not. i also oppose this because they talk about the benefits to lower income americans and yet by removing the 2001 and 2003 tax credits and tax rates and returning them to the previous levels, you'll increase taxes from 10% to 20%. and on top of it, small business owners will see their tax rates go to 45%. 45%. now, think of the small business owner in northeast wisconsin who will also pay an 8% state income tax, will pay a 5% or 6% sales tax, will pay 50 cents a gallon gasoline tax, will pay property tax, will pay fica tax, will pay social security tax. i'm beginning to wonder if all they will do in their life is

pay taxes. i urge my colleagues to reject this proposal and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the remainder of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: if i may i'd like to yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from wisconsin for a simple inquiry. as part of the fairness in our tax code i'd like to ask, is it fair, let's say, warren buffett, should pay a lower income tax rate than his receptionist? is that fairness in our tax code? mr. ribble: i'd concur that it's not fair. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you. let me yield one minute to the gentleman from new york, congressman rangel. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. rangel: thank you for giving me this opportunity. this substitute budget is listed as the progressive

budget. and for reasons that clearly that anyone could take a deep breath and take a look at this as opposed to what mr. ryan is presenting to us, it's really what our country is all about. build on the great things that we have done and make certain that the young people that follow us would be able to say that we have improved their opportunities. make no mistake about it. borrowing trillions of dollars and paying interest on that money puts us in a very bad economic position. not only in our country but throughout the world. and i assume that none of us here want to spend a lot of time and pointing the finger at each other about how we got to be where we are. but one thing that's abundantly clear, that if america is going to be progressive, it has to find a progressive solution in order to get out of that. and i have said consistently that when we start looking at how we're going to treat our

family in terms of priority with limited income -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. rangel: can i get 30 seconds more? mr. grijalva: i yield 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is yielded 30 seconds but if you'll suspend. the gentleman from arizona before yielding has a minute and a half remaining and the gentleman from indiana has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from arizona has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. grijalva: i'll retain the minute and 30 for closing. the chair: the gentleman reserves? mr. grijalva: yes. the chair: the gentleman from indiana. and the gentleman from arizona, if you'll suspend, the gentleman from indiana has the right to close. the gentleman from indiana. mr. rokita: and i'm reserving my right to close. are they not going to use more

time? the chair: the gentleman from arizona has a minute and a half remaining and you have two minutes remaining. mr. rokita: and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: i'd ask unanimous consent for congressman fattah for a unanimous consent. mr. fattah: i'd ask unanimous consent to rise in support of the progressive budget substitute. thank you. mr. grijalva: i'd request, mr. chairman, unanimous consent to extend and revise comments and to submit extraneous material for the record. the chair: the gentleman's request is actually covered by general debate. mr. grijalva: thank you. at this point for closing on our allotted time, let me ask the gentleman from california for his comments, mr. honda. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for the remainder -- mr. grijalva: for the balance of the time.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. honda: thank you, mr. speaker. in closing, budgets are a statement of our values. the congressional progressive caucus budget is the reflection of values and priorities of working families in this country. our budget charts a path that keeps america exceptional while addressing the most pressing problems facing our nation today. our budget eliminates the deficit and stabilizes the debt by 2021. it does this in a manner consistent with the aspirations of the american people. it does this by restoring our economic competitiveness so we can all experience the fullest definition of the american dream that each of our children will do better than we did. we did not set these goals arbitrarily. our budget was crafted by listening to the american people. in poll after poll they are telling us that they want us to

preserve social security, medicare, medicaid, to make higher education more affordable, to expand job training programs and to invest in roads, research and above all great schools for our children. we can do all these things and eliminate our deficit. we have a moral imperative to do so. the people's budget is fair. it is just. it is a step towards moving this debate back to true center. i urge a yes vote on the republican -- sorry -- on the progressive budget, and it is the people's budget. please vote for our amendment. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from indiana. mr. rokita: thank you, mr. chairman. in closing, i'd first like to -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. rokita: thank you, mr. chair. in closing, i'd like to recall the words of the gentleman from south carolina who spoke about

the honesty of this proposed amendment. and i think it was an appropriate thing to say. this is an honest proposal. i believe that the proponents of this amendment believe everything that's in the amendment as a possible solution. but honesty, mr. chairman, does not equal responsibility. this isn't the people's budget that's being proposed. it's the blank check budget. you see, it doesn't force any choices. it spends $13 trillion over 10 years. it taxes the american people. it has the federal government confiscate from the american people $16 trillion additional over 10 years. that's not forcing choices. every family in this nation understands that when they prepare a budget you have to make choices. there are different priorities.

this just opens up the right of the federal government to dip into the wallet of every american. i heard a lot about tax cuts for the rich, mr. chairman. i want to be clear. the budget that came out of the budget committee calls for revenue neutral tax reform. we are motivated by the same reform principles that's in the president's fiscal commission, to broaden the tax base and lower tax rates for everybody. you know, i was looking at some statistics. the bottom 50% of taxpayers pay less than 3% of income taxes. in fact, 47% of individuals pay no federal income tax whatsoever. our idea is tax neutral. it's revenue neutral. it lowers the tax rates for everybody, makes all of us pay something, and it doesn't give tax cuts for the rich. we're planning to take away the loopholes so that those who are better off than we are can't

take advantage of high -- i ask my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. the chair: all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. grijalva: mr. chairman, on that i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. the committee will rise informally to receive a message. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has agreed to h.con.res

43, providing for a conditional adjournment of the house of representatives and a conditional recess or adjournment of the senate. the speaker pro tempore: the committee will resume its sitting. the chair: the committee will be in order. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in part b of house report 112-62. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. garrett: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 in the nature of a substitute printed in part b of house report 112-62. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 223, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett, and a member opposed, each will control 15 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey.

mr. garrett: and i thank the chair. the chair: the committee will be in order. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: i yield myself one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. garrett: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the republican study committee substitute that's now on the floor. this substitute amends and builds upon the great work of chairman ryan and the entire house budget committee. and while i do come to the floor and support chairman ryan's proposal, the r.s.c. wanted to put a proposal that will go a step forward. what we are proposing will not be easy. why? because real solutions are not necessarily easy solutions. but given our nation's fiscal situation, we must recognize that tough choices must be made and must be made now. the r.s.c. believes we can do better than any of the budget on the floor today so we have a

budget that will ensure our nation spends responsibly by freezing total discretionary spending at 2008 levels. the r.s.c. budget ensures our nation's security will be met by meeting defense secretary gates' requests. the r.s.c. budget puts nondefense discretionary spending on a sustainable path. in addition, the r.s.c. budget sustains medicare's long-term finances and most importantly unlike any other budget on the floor today will balance within our lifetime. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. pascrell: to claim time and reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: i yield one minute to the chairman of the republican study committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. jordan: i want to thank all the members for their work on this budget and chairman ryan for his work on the budget and committee's work. in particular the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett,

mr. mulvaney from south carolina, mr. mcclintock for their work in putting this together. the r.s.c. budget as the gentleman from new jersey mentioned keeps tax rates low because we believe in economic growth, starts the process of saving medicare and social security, protects national defense which is that area we are supposed to actually spend taxpayer dollars, but most importantly what the republican study committee budget does is it balances. it does what every single family, every single small business owner, every single state government, local government has to do. it actually puts forth a budget that balances, livers within your means, doesn't spend more than you take in, gets to balance within a definable period of time, and that's why we think this is appropriate. particularly when you think about the financial situation, fiscal situation our nation is in. so i stand here in support of the budget and commend the gentleman from new jersey for the great work that he's done. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey.

mr. pascrell: to provide as much time as i need, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pascrell: if the republican budget is a doubling down of the policies that brought us to the brink, which is contained in this budget, my brother from new jersey presents a budget which i think quadruples down on the economic policies and lack of optimism in the american people. the budget believes we cannot as president kennedy said, a little over 50 years ago, bear any burden and meet any hardship in order to better our nation. that's what america is all about. regardless of your party persuasion. this budget gives trillions in income tax breaks to the wealthiest americans. we both agree on that. you think it's a good policy. we think it's a horrible policy. at the same time cuts $18 billion, let me just take one

example, the schip program, $18 billion cut to our children. our own children. our grandchildren. you must be kidding me. this budget gives trillions in estate breaks to the wealthiest americans. many people having estates pay no taxes. yet this slashes funding for pell grants. for our kids, our grandchildren to go to college. this budget gives trillions in tax breaks to corporations that have been shipping jobs overseas. but ask our constituents in your district and my district, everybody's district, to take a 20% cut in the scheduled benefits to social security, it's easy to sit here as a congressman waiting until you turn 70, why are you smiling? to retire with benefits you have earned. but you are asking this of our

asphalt layers, our secretaries, and teachers. it comes down to a clear set of priorities. mr. chairman, if your priorities are to cut taxes for the wealthy on the backs of the retirees, then i think that this second budget is the budget for you. but if you believe in an america that protects our seniors, our children, the disabled, our veterans levels the playing field, invests in future generations, then i urge you to stand with us. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. pascrell: reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: at this time, mr. speaker, i would like to yield one minute to the gentleman from south carolina who recognizes the fact that we must live within our means now and unlike the gentleman from new jersey does not want to put additional burdens on future generations, mr. mulvaney. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mulvaney: thank you, mr. chairman. to the gentleman from new

jersey, mr. chairman, i would say it's not easy to do. why are we here? we are here for a single purpose. we take what the republican committee has done and simply laid out for the american people how hard it is to balance the budget within 10 years. it is not easy to do. but to sit and hear these onslauts about how we are giving tax breaks from a group of people that promised they would not raise taxes on folks who make less than $250,000 and repeatedly violated that promise over the course of the last two years is simply hard to take. this is the only budget, the only budget we will get a chance to vote on this week that both balances the budget within 10 years and does not raise taxes. we take what the republican committee has done. we build on it to show exactly how deep the hole is that we have dug for ourselves and how hard it is to get out. but to suggest that we do it on the backs of the poor is simply disingenuous. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey.

mr. pascrell: how much time do we have? the chair: the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett, has 12 minutes. the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pascrell, has 12 1/2 minutes. mr. pascrell: with that i will provide two minutes to the gentleman from oregon who is absolutely on target and most of these issues dealing with the budget as we move forward. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you. i appreciate my colleague's courtesy. the words ringing in my ears for a moment about the democrats having increased taxes. there is this collective amnesia on the side of our republican friends who forget that a critical part of president obama's recovery act that was passed by the last congress, 42% of which was tax cuts or relief, included a tax cut for every working american. kind of forgot about that.

the practical matter, mr. chairman, what we have done is to move forward under our initiative with something that will enable us to rebuild and renew america. what we have been given from our friends here with this alternative budget, from my good friend from new jersey, i do appreciate because this is where the republican party wants to go. the ryan budget is bad enough, will be dead on arrival in the senate, and will be resoundingly rejected as americans see what is happening, taking away the retirement, health care security of americans, 230 million americans will be returned to the tender mercies of the private insurance market . remember the private insurance market didn't want to insure senior citizens at affordable fashion with comprehensive coverage, that's why we had to have medicare in the first

place. now the trick is to provide a voucher to insurance companies hoping that they will step up and fill the gap. when you look at how private insurance premiums have more than doubled in the last 10 years, you see what a hollow promise this is. and what a serious problem it's going to be for american families trying to plan for their future. this is the vision that we have from our republican friends. not only take the republican budget committee, go beyond it. in terms of more benefits for those who need it the least. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. does the gentleman from new jersey yield more time? without objection, the gentleman from maryland will control the time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: at this time i would like to yield one minute

to the gentleman from california who has no amnesia but recognizes the fact that we do no favorite for this generation by putting the burden for future constraints on our children and grandchildren, the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mcclintock: i thank the gentleman. this nation is on a collision course with a sovereign debt crisis the magnitude of which has never been known to this country. this is not some moonless night on the atlantic. we are barreling full speed toward that iceberg of debt in the full light of day. we can all see it dead ahead. the ryan budget turns the ship around just enough to avoid hitting that iceberg, the r.s.c. budget does it with an added safety margin by incorporating more of the debt commission's recommendations and implementing them faster. mr. chairman, we know the challenge. we see the american dream at risk and we know that we have but a fleeting moment in history to avoid the hardest times our nation has ever known. we can act now.

place our retirement systems on sound financial footings, arrest the debilitating spiral of debt that threatens the very survival of our nation and return our economy to the prosperity that it has known when it enjoyed what jefferson called a wise and frugal government. or we can continue on our present course until we crash into the ice cold and hard reality that we can all see dead ahead. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield two minutes to the vice chairman of the democratic caucus, mr. becerra of california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. van hollen: three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. becerra: i thank the gentleman. i probably onet wean use the three minutes. mr. speaker, budgets are a reflection of our values and our priorities. jobs, economic growth, fiscal discipline, fairness, shared

sacrifice. most americans talk about this all the time when they are at their kitchen table. it's not that difficult. so quite honestly the question before us is not whether to reduce the deficit, but how. budgets involve tradeoffs. the republican budget that is presented to us today along with this republican study committee alternative would say that we must, we must continue the tax cuts for the wealthiest americans in this country. we must continue to give a millionaire about $130,000 in tax cuts in this budget even though we are facing the largest deficits our country has experienced. at the same time the choice that this republican budget makes is to say to seniors, we must end medicare as we know it. we must eliminate the guarantee that you and seniors have had

more than 35 years under medicare to choose your doctor and hospital. and we must impose upon you an additional $6,000 in health care costs because these deficits are so big. so as the president said a couple days ago, under the republican budget you would need to take 22 seniors paying $6,000 additional dollars to cover the cost of giving one millionaire in this country the $130,000 tax cut. we must do that under the republican budget. democrats have said, we must not do that. we must do this differently. and we must invest again in our people. on health care, we don't believe that americans who are seniors should be given a coupon instead of a guarantee, but that's what the republican budget does. it says you are going to get a voucher. a coupon, essentially. once you have used the extent of the value of that coupon, the rest of the money to pay

for your health care comes out of your pocket. that's why the president said $6,000 additional dollars per each senior under the republican plan. coupon care instead of medicare. that's what you must have under the republican budget. democrats say, we must invest in medicare and find the cuts to get rid of the waste in medicare we know exist. the duplication of services that seniors don't need. we can do this without denying seniors guaranteed benefits. finally, if i go to the next chart, we must create jobs but the republican budget most of the leading economists tell us will cost us $1.7 million jobs. not create. cost us 1.7 million jobs. under the bush recession eight million americans lost their jobs. the month that george bush handed the keys to barack obama, we hemorrhaged nearly 800,000 jobs. we must do this right. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

mr. becerra: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: at this time, mr. speaker, i would like to yield pun minute to the gentleman from georgia who just like the gentleman from california understands we must not sink the ship as the other side of the aisle would do by excessive tax burdens and debt. the gentleman from georgia. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. what's great about being here today and talking about the ryan plan is it's a blueprint. you can add to, take away from. what we have heard from the progressives a minute ago is plunder the people's plan, rips the pages out of the history -- future of this nation and our children and grandchildren. . the r.s.c. r.s.c. saves -- the republican study committee saves the taxpayers money. going to 2008 levels. but we have to recognize is the debt and deficit problems we

have here today is not because we are taxed too little. it's because we have spent too much. and it is the result of two failed years of more government, more taxes and more spending that we've seen. it's time to put that in history. let's put it in the drawer. let's move on and let's pass the republican study committee plan because i can assure you this, it doesn't go where the president and liberals of this house goes and that's into the wall etc. of the taxpayers of this -- wallets of the taxpayers of this nation. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: the bipartisan republican commission says it doesn't ask for shared sacrifice. it's a lopsided approach. i will yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. andrews: i thank the

speaker. there is no question that the country has to reduce the deficit by restraining spending. that's why we favor having medicare get the same deal on prescription drugs the v.a. does which would save $24 billion a year, but there is a question about the future of medicare, and today we're going to take a vote. will medicare prosper or perish? will medicare survive or die? that's the issue before the house today. the fact is the republican plan puts an insurance company between our seniors and their doctors and that is wrong. the fact is that the republican plan does not reduce health care costs. hospitals will not charge less. doctors will not charge less. the government will pay less and seniors will pay more.

$6,000 per senior per year. the fact is that this is all being done not to reduce the deficit but to reduce taxes of the wealthiest people in america. the fact is we should not have this, and the fact is this, we can have an american that doesn't have -- but have medicare. let's senseably reduce spending as we did yesterday on -- let's sinciblely reduce spending as we did yesterday. we will fight this effort and we will prevail. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: and at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from kansas. the chair: the gentleman from kansas is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of the r.s.c.

budget because we cannot wait to get our fiscal house in order and the r.s.c. budget will get us on that path faster. the american people are tired of tax dollars going to washington, d.c. with empty promises and federal strings. they are tired of adding to the national debt. people across kansas and across country want their power back from washington. our founding fathers got this concept of federalism right and it's time we return government power from bureaucrats and politicses back to the american people. mr. huelskamp: it will allow states and people closest to the people to use their ingenuity and creativity to make medicaid dollars work more effectively if you really care about the poor, mr. chairman. there are currently 455

medicaid waivers and we need to make certain -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. huelskamp: we need to have a black grant system that requires the power of federalism back to the states and the r.s.c. budget will do just that, mr. chairman. it's the right thing to do. it's the right time now to balance our budget in this way. thank you and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield one minute to the gentleman from new york, mr. rangel. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for. without objection. mr. rangel: thank you for this opportunity. like so many of my colleagues, i don't -- unlike so many of my colleagues, i don't have a chart to show how our country should become. many of my colleagues come from harlem and in these minds are the dreams and aspirations of

young people that want to be part of the progress this nation has made. most of them, their parents have never had an opportunity to go to college but have been the recipients of pell grants and other kind of educational benefits. most of their parents and grandparents have depended on medicaid, medicare. most of these kids have dreams that most of your kids have today. it just seems to me that when they go home they should not be able to say that they witnessed a protection of the wealthiest people in the united states but they should go home and to say that their dreams can be acquired, our nation can be stronger and they want to be partners in making certain that america can be all that she can be. so as we welcome them, they're only symbolic of the great young people of our country. we need to support them. thank you for the opportunity. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: i thank you, mr. speaker.

at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from arizona who realizes that the young people would do best if we would not put additional burdens of tax burdens of over $40,000 on their birth by not living fiscally responsible. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. flank flank i rise in support of the r.s.c. budget. with a deficit of $1.6 trillion and debt of $14 trillion, it's no surprise that we got to do something and we have to do something dramatic. mr. flake: this budget balances over a nine-year period and reforms the programs that are important to americans, to make them solvent and sustainable over time. the proposals from the other side of the aisle simply don't do that. they ignore the time bomb that we have in these programs. so i commend the r.s.c. staff and members for putting this together. this is a good budget. we ought to support it to put our nation on a path of financial stability and security. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields

back. the chair would remind the gentleman from maryland that the time remaining is 4 1/2 minutes, and the gentleman from new jersey has eight minutes. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from new jersey. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. the time bomb that's ticking is the time bomb on the medicare guarantee. with that i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, the ranking member of the energy and commerce committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. waxman: mr. speaker, i can't express my concern with greater alarm about this budget. it is a budget that's going to inflict terrible harm on americans from all walks of life while protecting the wealthiest taxpayers in america, both individuals and corporations. now, if i give the benefit of the doubt to our republican sponsors of their budget proposal that they're sincere, they are speaking from an

ideological point of view. they want to try a social experiment in this country, but if they fail to live up to what they say they're going to accomplish, there's going to be tremendous harm. we have a social contract with seniors to provide affordable, accessible, comprehensive health care under medicare, and they want to take medicare and end it and tell those people to go to private insurance companies. we have estimates that the average senior will face cost increases of $6,000 when the program begins. and it could be over $11,000 per beneficiary in later years. but right away, to add insult to injury, they would reopen the doughnut hole on the part d prescription drug benefit, meaning people still have to pay all of the costs of their drugs, reversing what the affordable care act provided. but most of their cuts are

coming from the medicaid program. they want to take medicaid and turn it into a block grant. medicaid accounts for 43% of total long-term care spending in the u.s. most of it goes to seniors and disabled people who are in nursing homes. if the states don't have enough money in their block grant, are they going to dump these people? these are human beings. and you're playing with their lives. this means real harm will be inflicted when medicaid spending is the greatest. by cutting reimbursement rates, medicaid will lose providers, nursing home quality and staffing levels will decline. reject this budget. don't experiment on the most vulnerable of our population. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from south carolina who doesn't believe it's a social experiment to say to do what all families have to do to live within their means, the

gentleman from south carolina. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina. >> folks, no prepared remarks or financial speeches. i brought me a financial calculator. america is spending too much money. you know, for three years in a row we spent over $1 trillion than we're bringing in as a nation. we're over $13 trillion in debt. this budget puts on a clear path to paying back the national debt, to reducing and ending deficits in a very timely manner, to protect the future for our children and grandchildren, our most precious resource as americans. i urge my colleagues to get behind this budget, vote for it and let's put the american spending in priority. let's stop the spending insanity here in washington, d.c., and let's do what we tell the folks back home are going to do and let's get our fiscal house in order and i yield back, mr. chairman. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland.

mr. van hollen: we can get our fiscal house in order and do this in a balanced way without ending the medicare guarantee. with that i recognize the gentleman from new york, mr. israel. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. israel: i thank my friend. mr. speaker, every budget is about the bottom line, and here's the ryan budget bottom line. the chair: the chair stands corrected. the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. israel: if you are making over $1 million, you get a $100,000 tax cut. if you are a senior on medicare, you get an extra $12,000 medical bill. if you make over $1 million, you win the lottery. if you're a senior citizen, you lose your medicare. mr. speaker, they say this is about balancing the budget, but they are trying to balance the budget by giving tax cuts to people earning over $1 million and taking medicare away from our seniors. that is not the way to balance the budget and i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: first, may i ask the chair how much time? the chair: the gentleman from new jersey has seven minutes remaining, and the gentleman from maryland has two minutes remaining. mr. garrett: so at this time, then, i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, who recognizes the fact that the solutions to all the problems in the world that the other side may think is not raising taxes on anyone and certainly not raising the taxes on those who produced the jobs in this country, the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i rise in support of the republican study committee alternative. the fact of the matter is we're broke. the federal budget deficit is projected to be $14 trillion in the next two years and $2 billion annually for the next decade. we sustain this path without bankrupting our country. congressman ryan's budget proposal is a great start and sets us on a path to bringing the budget into balance. however, that proposal takes 28

years to do so. i support and will vote for his budget, but i'm concerned what will happen to it if future congresses are not as willing to make the tough choices that are necessary to see this budget path to completion. that's why i strongly support the r.s.c. budget which balances the federal budget within nine years. ultimately, we need a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget to force all future congresses to make these tough decisions. the r.s.c. does the best job of getting our fiscal house in order as quickly as possible. and now i urge all members to support it and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. garrett: i thank the gentleman. the gentleman from indiana. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for how many minutes? mr. garrett: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for one minute. the chair: for one minute. mr. pence: thank you, mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.

the chair: without objection. mr. pence: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in strong support of the republican study committee budget alternative today. i want to commend the gentleman from new jersey for his courageous leadership on this issue. you know, they say the first step in dealing with addiction is recognize that you got a problem. after 10 years of fighting runaway federal spending by both political parties here in washington, d.c., i'm convinced washington, d.c., is addicted to spending. . it's time we got serious. i'm a strong supporter of the republican budget offered by paul ryan and i'm a strong supporter of the rubble study committee alternative offered by mr. garrett. the legislation before us today would actually put us on a pathway to achieve a balanced federal budget by the year 2020. there are hard choices in this budget, but it's time the american people broke this addiction. it's time that the people in both political parties came together and played it straight

with the american people and said there are tough choices ahead. we can do them in a way that's humane and represents fiscal discipline and reform, but we have to act and we have to act now. i urge my colleagues to support this important alternative. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: i thank the speaker. at this time i would like to yield one minute to the gentleman from new mexico -- no, from indiana, sorry. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for one minute. mr. rokita: thank you, mr. chair. i do like new mexico as well. i rise in strong support of this budget amendment. as a member of the budget committee i also support the ryan budget. both these budget proposals are steps in the right direction. they make reforms that are needed. they are honest proposals. they are not trying to demagogue. they are not trying to fear monger.

they are not trying to fib to the american people. we have got a dress, mr. chairman, the drivers of our debt. we could have no defense department, i could work for free, our staffs could work for free, we can get rid of 167 agencies and we still wouldn't get rid of this debt. our debt is being driven by these programs of social security, medicare, and medicaid. the reason that is is because reckless politicians who came before this new member made promises that can't possibly be kept. we are here to tell the truth, mr. chairman. these budgets do this job gradually. they do it humanely. and they allow people to prepare so that these programs could be saved for my kids and our grandkids. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from maryland has

two minutes remaining. the gentleman from new jersey has 3 3/4. mr. van hollen: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. garrett: at this time i would like to yield one minute to the gentleman from florida, who recognizes we must keep our promises especially to the youth of tomorrow. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. without objection. >> i'd like to thank the gentleman from new jersey for my time this morning. i rise today in support of the r.s.c. budget as well as the ryan budget. you know, my friends on the other side of the aisle make quick talk about the very most wealthy. unfortunately, most of those file as individuals because they own l.l.c.'s and s corporations as my family does. so you file those as individual on your individual tax returns. i think the mesh -- american people deserve the truth

regarding that number. as a new freshman to this body, it's amazing we want to talk about how the republicans want to harm medicare on the heels of a health care bill that cut $500 billion out of medicare. i have little patience, little patience with such talk. i will tell you the american people deserve the truth. they need this body rather than to propose and push forth debt, doubt, and despair, they must, they require us to give them certainty, safety, and security. i rise in support of the ryan budget as well as the r.s.c. budget. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i would remind the body that the $500 billion in medicare reform savings which we got from ending some of the big breaks to the insurance industry are kept in the republican budget. you keep those savings. what you do not do is what we did was use some of those savings to close the prescription drug doughnut

hole. you took the savings but you left the seniors with the doughnut hole. with that i yield a minute and a half to the gentlelady from connecticut, ms. delauro. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for a minute and a half. ms. delauro: i strongly oppose this budget proposal. the choices the majority is making are ill considered and wrong. instead of working to reduce the deficit in a commonsense way, this budget ends medicare. it ends medicare. throws seniors to the wolves. instead of working to control health care costs, this budget shifts them on to seniors and families. the proposal repeals health care reform. dismantles medicaid, throwing seniors out of nursing homes while providing give aways to the insurance industry. gives tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas. cuts critical investment in education, research, job training, and infrastructure. it provides subsidies to big oil companies while cutting services to the most vulnerable

americans. including $350 billion in food stamps. programs such as medicaid, pell grants, w.i.c. would be gutted. it cuts taxes for the wealthiest while raising taxes on the middle class. millionaires, billionaires get a lower tax rate and extend estate tax give away. everyone else sees deductions and crid its. like the child tax credit, eliminated. this budget is robin hood in reverse. it takes from seniors, the middle class, working families, and gives all that money to the rich and to corporate special interests. i urge my colleagues, stand up for the middle class today and for america's seniors and oppose this budget. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from alabama who read this bill and understands it makes no changes whatsoever for seniors 60 years of age and over and

strengthents health care for seniors in generations to come. the chair: the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. brooks: thank you, mr. speaker. by way of background for the listeners and people in this house, i graduated from duke university with highest honors with distinction in economics and i say that to give you an idea have a little bit of insight to what i'm talking about when i talk about the two principle economic theories of our day. one is free enterprise and the other is socialism. let's talk about socialism for a moment. it's greater and greater government micromanaging of our lives. higher taxes to pay for it. let's talk about free enterprise. free enterprise is belief in the individual, in freedom, in opportunity. it's what has helped make america one of the greatest nations the world has ever seen. this republican budget, the two of them, you can go the r.s.c. or ryan one, they are premised on free enterprise solutions. they will create real jobs and wealth for all americans. i urge this body to go with what our founding fathers went with. free enterprise.

that's the ticket to success. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: i have no other speakers except to close. mr. van hollen: the same. the chair: the gentleman from maryland has the right to close and has 15 seconds remaining. the gentleman from new jersey have any more speakers? mr. garrett: for myself. the chair: the gentleman from maryland has the right to close. mr. van hollen: i yield to the gentleman from new jersey. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: the time remaining is? the chair: the gentleman has 1 3/4 minutes. mr. garrett: we stand before you as we said before with clear distinctions on the course that this country will lead in the future. shall we continue to make the same bad policy we have made in the past, what sets us on a fiscal crisis, which not only this side of the aisle but the

president of the united states most recently stated as well? or should we change the direction of the ship of state? should we direct ourselves in a path towards fiscal sanity? should we go in the direction that every single family in this country has to go in? that is to say we will live within our means. that we will not put an additional burden on our children or our grandchildren. should we go in a direction that we can say to the seniors, 60 years of age or older, that we will not change your entitlements, we will not change your health care but rather we will put in place today programs that will make sure that they are here for you and for your children and future generations as well. should we go on a path that says to our children of today and tomorrow that we will not put additional burdens on you today or in the future by putting programs we cannot afford? the republican study commission chooses the latter. the republican study committee decides we should live within our means. the republican study committee ensures our nation spends responsibly by freezing total discretionary spending at 2008

levels. it ensures our national security by meeting secretary gates' defense request. our budget puts nondefense discretionary spending on sustainable path for the future. we redust unnecessary mandatory spending other than medicare, medicaid, and social security as opposed to what the other side of the aisle say. we strengthen medicare's long-term finances. this budget would slowly phase in increases to medicare eligibility and make it stronger for future. and most of all, unlike any other budget that will come 209 floor 25eud -- to the floor today, this budget will actually balance. we'll come with a balanced budget within the lifetimes of all the members here sitting today. mr. speaker, we believe that the solutions outlined in the budget proposal will put our nation on surer footing. address the fiscal crisis. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. we do need to make tough choices. the question is what choices do we make? you choose to give another round of tax cuts to millionaires at the same time you are cutting investments in

our kids' education. you choose not to get rid of the subsidies, taxpayer subsidies for oil companies while you end the medicare garnetee, while you immediately eliminate the effort to close the doughnut hole, and while you cut funding for seniors in nursing homes by slashing medicaid. those are the choices. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. garrett: mr. speaker -- the chair: the amendment is not agreed to. mr. garrett: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 , proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the following

order. amendment number 3 by mr. grijalva of arizona. amendment number 4 by mr. garrett of new jersey. the chair will reduce to five minutes the time for any recognizes the

gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. if we kohl have order, please. the chair: the committee will please come to order. please take all conversations off the floor. the gentleman may proceed. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr.

chairman. our top priority in this congress should be to support a robust economic recovery and put america back to work. that is what the democratic plan does. it reduces the deficit in a steady, predictable way without slashing important investments in our kids' education and strategic national investments. without ending the medicare guarantee. and without putting seniors, disabled individuals, and kids at risk who rely on medicare. and it reduces the deficit in a balanced way by $1.2 trillion more than the president's budget, and achieves primary balance in the year 2018. the republican plan we are discussing is a narrow vision of america. a place with no shared sacrifice. a place where those who have

benefited the most from what our country has to offer give little in return. the democrats have a different vision for our country. we believe our strength springs not only from the undisputed benefits of a free people pursuing their ambitions and their dreams, but also from sometimes, sometimes using those talents for important national purposes. we believe america's greatness is rooted not only in a collection of individuals acting alone but from our capacity to work together for the common good. we believe that is a patriotic vision of america. we do not see the government as an enemy but as the imperfect instrument by which we can accomplish together as a people what no individual or single corporation can do alone. small business owners recognize

that they must make certain investments to build a successful enterprise. similarly our nation must make the strategic national investments necessary to keep our country strong in an increasingly global economic marketplace. and our plan does that. we also believe we can do that while making cuts and we make sensible targeted cuts. but we do it in a smart way not with a meat axe that threatens the fragile recovery. we also agree with the fiscal commission that security spending should be part of this debate. admiral mullins, the chairman of the joint chief of staff stated, and i quote, the most significant threat to our national security is our national debt. there is growing bipartisan consensus that those security agencies must themselves be part of our effort to reduce our debt and strengthen our country. our approach is a balanced one.

we take cuts in the discretionary area and bring down that part of the budget to the lowest point as a percentage of the economy since the eisenhower administration. we take cuts in mandatory programs, including agriculture subsidies. but we make different choices in the republican budget. we end the subsidies to big oil rather than keeping those as we cut education for our kids. we ask the folks at the very top to pay the same tax rate they paid during the clinton administration rather than end the medicare guarantee and slash funding for seniors in nursing homes and others who rely on that support. so, we make very different choices in this budget, but we accomplish the goal in a fiscally responsible way. and with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 15 minutes. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, i will yield myself two minutes. first of all, i want to start by commending mr. van hollen. it's not always that the minority offers an alternative budget. in fact i know there are a lot of pressures not to do that. so i think mr. van hollen is to be commended and is very capable staff for actually proposing an alternative. that's important. it's important that we bring ideas to the table so we can have a real debate about ideas. so i want to start with saying that. number two, we just have a different definition of fiscal responsibility, i suppose. this budget relative to the base budget we are talking about, increases spending by $4.5 trillion. raises taxes by $2 trillion. and it adds $2.4 trillion to the deficit compared to the base bill we are talking about here. it does exceed the president's budget in deficit reduction, in

deficit reduction. the gentleman is to be commended by that but i personally think the president's budget is a pretty low water mark. it exceeds it by raising taxes another $210 billion. and also cutting defense by $614 billion above the cut that is are in the base, our budget, and the president's budget. secretary gates has warned us that such cuts would leave the military unable to meet its current missions. using his words, setting indiscriminate targets to scrimp on defense is math not strategy, end quote. i think it's important we recognize our priorities. number one, national defense is the primary responsibility of the federal government. when our war fighters tell us this doesn't allow them to have the tools to keep them safe, the equipment they need to prosecute their jobs, i think that's not responsible. when our economy is struggling to get out of very deep recession over $2 trillion in tax increases, i just don't think is responsible. on the alternative i think what

we are offering is responsible. our budget is four basic things. they get the economy growing. it keeps taxes where they are and prevents massive tax increases. it saves our medicare and medicaid programs. it fulfills the mission of healthy retirement security for all americans by guaranteeing that people who have retired or about to retire keep what they have, and then reforms these programs so that they are solvent and sustainable for the next generation. number three, it repairs our social safety net so that it works and number four, pays off our debt. that's what we do. i yield back the balance of my time. not the balance of our time, excuse me. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. ryan: reserve. the chair: the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. the fiscal commission said of the republican plan it was an unbalanced approach. our approach is a balanced approach. secretary gates' comments were

directed to the fiscal commission's recommendations. our proposals are in line with what the president outlined just the other day and i would point out that governor haley barbour said if we republicans don't propose some savings of money on defense, we will have no credibility on anything else. of course the pentagon has never passed a g.a.o. budget and i think everybody who does budgets recognizes there are savings to be down -- found there. with that i yield three minutes to the distinguished assistant leader, mr. clyburn. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for three minutes. mr. clyburn: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank my friend for yielding me this time. we have heard from our republican friends that they are transforming medicare. they call it a move to premium support. they also say they are just

fixing the flaws in medicaid. they say they are being brave and finally tackling entitlement reform. but earlier today on one of the morning shows i heard my friend from texas, jeb hensarling, being finally candid about the republicans' view of medicare, medicaid, and social security. he called them cruel ponzi schemes. so there we have it. this isn't about being brave or transformative or making a few changes to save the economy. republicans are pushing the same agenda they have always had. ending the safety net programs they view as fraud lebt. -- fraudulent. and the republican budget does exactly that. it ends medicare and results in a huge cost shift from--and

forces seniors to pay $6,000 per year out of pocket. it block grants medicaid, slash ing aid, and will lead to 50 different benefit programs across the country. that takes us back to my childhood when benefits in our country were determined by what state you may have been fortunate or unfortunate to have been born in. but the greatest fraud being committed is that these drastic and unfair changes don't even bring the republican budget to balance. in fact, the republican budget adds $8 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. where's all that money going, one might ask? while republicans are gutting medicare and medicaid with one hand, they are giving tax breaks to big oil companies and

making tax cuts for the wealthy with the other hand. that's what i call a ponzi scheme. now, if you're wealthy or a special interest group, this is surely a pathway to prosperity. but if you are in your golden years, it's the road to ruin. democrats have a plan to reduce the deficit in a steady, responsible way as we build a foundation for shared prosperity and long-term economic growth. in fact, the democratic budget achieves primary balance by fiscal year 2018 and cuts the deficit by $1.2 trillion more than the president's budget. i proudly support the democratic alternative budget. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield 15 seconds to

the gentleman from michigan, mr. mccotter. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 15 seconds. mr. mccotter: i thank the gentleman. we have heard from the minority party that their budget seeks to harness the american people. why? they have already saddled the american people with record spending deficits and debt. just say neigh. i yield back. mr. ryan: the gentleman from arkansas, mr. griffin. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for two minutes. mr. griffin: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to just say a few words about medicare, if i can, mr. speaker. . i want to make it clear that if you're 55 and over, there are no changes to you whatsoever. and we hear a lot about medicare as we know it. well, unfortunately medicare as we know it is going bankrupt. if you are for the status quo with regard to medicare, you are on the side of the elimination of medicare as we know it.

another point i want to make is we hear lot about cuts. this is washington cut speak. where i'm from if you get $5 on a monday and the next day you get $10, that's an increase, not a cut. most americans would be appalled to know, mr. speaker, that the increases we're seeing are being called cuts and i'm going to explain it to my folks when i get back to arkansas. medicare has not one penny of cuts in this budget. it continues to grow. with regard to the language about vouchers, there's no voucher here. we're trying to give the folks that are 55 and under health care like members of congress have. have you ever, mr. speaker, heard anyone in congress describe their own health care

plan as a voucher? no, of course you haven't. because it's not. that word has been rolled out with the other tested words, privatization, all this other nonsense, for the purposes of politics. you don't want the american people, mr. speaker, to have the same health care that you have. i support this budget because it will keep our promise to seniors, it will save social security, medicare and medicaid and it will preserve this country for my kids. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i urge republican members to read their own budget. it does not give seniors the same deal as members of congress. members of congress have a fair share formula. seniors do not under their bill. seniors get an immediate cut to the prescription drug benefits

to the extent that we close the doughnut hole and they don't. let's get our facts straight. with that i yield three minutes to the chairman of the democratic caucus, mr. larson. the chair: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for how long? for three minutes. mr. larson: i want to thank chairman van hollen and i want to thank mr. ryan for the conduct of this debate that's taking place. they are two exemplary examples of how debate and discussion should move forward and emanate here in the house of representatives. harry truman said, every segment of our population and every individual has the right to expect from his government a fair deal. i rise in strong support of the

fair deal that's being proposed by the democratic side in this debate. i rise because it helps us out with jobs and the economy and recognizes that we must deal with the deficit. but deal with it in a manner that makes sense. in my hometown we go to a place called oggi and ray's. they want to know whose side are you on in this? and when you take medicare and end the program as we know it and shift the burden of the deficit at a time when with we need shared sacrifice -- at a time when we need shared sacrifice to the elderly is just flatly unfair.

the social contract that the governed, that the people have with their government is about shared sacrifice. but it's also about the guarantee. this is not about charts and statistics and flow charts. it's about people at the end of the day who are impacted by the decisions that we make. not by some economist theory, but about a guarantee from their government, a guarantee that if they pay in at the end of the day, they are going to receive the benefits they have worked so hard for all of their life. that guarantee shouldn't be two-teared. that guarantee shouldn't cut off benefits immediately to some and postpone it for others. that's a guarantee we should be working to fix, not to end. and that is the fundamental

difference in what's going on here today. my distinguished colleague, the leader, mr. clyburn with, said, let's recognize what's going on here, the extreme differences that have existed in this party for -- since roosevelt became president. an end of social security, an end of medicare, an end to medicaid. that has been the goal of the other side. i stand in strong support of the democratic alternative. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: at this time, mr. chairman, i would like to yield two minutes to our distinguished chief deputy whip, mr. roskam from illinois. the chair: the gentleman is recognize -- recognized for two minutes. mr. roskam: thank you, mr. chairman, and i thank the gentleman for yielding. my colleague from connecticut talks about a guarantee. well, there's one guarantee that is for sure, mr. chairman. and that is the guarantee that medicare as we know it is a pipe

dream into pert fought to. it's going broke -- perpetuity. it's going broke. the guarantee that the democratic house has brought us in the past is a guarantee that says 47% of our foreign debt obligation -- or our debt obligations are to foreigners. we are guaranteed right now to borrow 40 cents on every dollar unless we do something about it. so what do we do about it? there's famous themes in literature that fast forward into the future, you get a glimpse of the reality of the future and then we always love it when the hero comes back and says, oh, here's what's going on , there's a choice, let's make a good choice and let's move forward. well, we don't need fiction today. what we need is the clear-eyed reality of what these numbers present to us. and they present to us a choice. we can either choose to do nothing, and i would say that is choosing, or we can choose to do something. we can choose to do a historic plan that brings a brightness to

the economy, that creates jobs and opportunity, that doesn't mortgage our children's future to china and ultimately puts the u.s. on a global competitive basis the likes of which the world will have never seen. this is a time of choosing, let's move forward and choose the house republican plan which makes guarantees and makes promises that we can keep with. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. this is a time of choosing and our budget chooses to make investments in our kids, rather than choosing to provide even bigger tax breaks to the very wealthy and we choose to get rid of subsidies for oil companies instead of cutting nursing home funding through medicare for seniors and disabled individuals. with that i yield one minute to the distinguished ranking member of the international affairs committee, mr. berman. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. berman: thank you very much, mr. chairman.

the republican budget cuts the president's 2012 request for international affairs by $20 billion. that's 39% of the amount for diplomacy and development outside of iraq, afghanistan and pakistan. while diplomacy and development account for only about 1% of the overall budget, under the republican plan this tiny portion of the budget would absorb a wildly disproportionate share of the cuts. that's -- here's what it means on the ground. takeing patients off life-saving medications, with holding nets from children in malaria zones and standing by during a humanitarian emergency. i'm sure i know the chairman of the committee, i know he doesn't want to see those things happen, but the affect of his plan would make them happen. the democratic alternative takes

a wise and responsible approach to reducing the deficit. i urge my colleagues to support it and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, at this time i'd like to yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, let's talk about medicare for a moment. it's not as if we don't have a problem. we with know medicare's going broke in nine years. we want to make sure that the people who have retired and who are 10 years away from retiring can bank on the promises that have been made for them. but to keep that promise we have to reform it and save it for the next generation. so that's why we have a plan that says, for people 54 and below, you too will have a plan of guaranteed medicare coverage, from guaranteed medicare plans, that you get to choose from. choice and competition works. prescription drug benefit, a bunch of plans that compete against each other for the seniors' business came in 41%

below cost projections. why? because it's not a government-run program. it's not a bunch of bureaucrats. what is the president proposing? what are the democrats proposing? here's what they propose for current seniors. the president just gave us a glimpse of it two days ago. he wants to take this board of 15 people he appoints on this rationing board and they make the decisions. they price control medicare, they ration medicare. almost $10,000 per senior on current seniors. we are saying, don't do this to current seniors, get rid of the rationing board and don't delegate medicare decision making to 15 people appointed by the president with no congressional oversight. let the 40 million seniors in medicare be in charge of their medicare program. and more importantly, we save medicare, prevent its bankruptcy and what does the other side do? they sit by and watch the program go bankrupt. with that i reserve the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i would remind my colleagues that the reason medicare was created in the first place was because the private insurance industry wouldn't cover seniors, that's what they want to go back to. i yield underwin -- one minute to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. neal. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for one minute. mr. neal: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of the democratic resolution. last week on the floor of the house the republican leader, eric cantor, asked a very important question. he asked, how did we get here? so i took the challenge. i went back and have carefully chronicled a series of votes, steps and quotes from newt gingrich and dick army and john kay sick and others who argued against the clinton plan for balancing the budget. remember when clinton left office, the clock in times square had been turned off. alan greenspan said, you're paying down the debt too quickly.

so we've had five balanced budgets since 1969, four of them came with bill clinton. the prescription that was offered on january 20 of the bush inauguration was massive tax cuts and the invasion of iraq and afghanistan. and our republican friends ask, how did we get here? i am very optimistic about engaging this conversation now and as we get to the debt ceiling. clinton walks out on january 19, 2001, 22 million jobs had been created. economic growth -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. neal: it was the greatest period of economic prosperity in the history of america. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. neal: our friends want to turn the clock back on that reality. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: at this time, mr. chairman, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma, a member of the budget committee, mr. lankford. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for two minutes. mr. lankford: thank you. do i appreciate the conversation about the balanced budgets in

the past. yes, bill clinton was the president there. but as this house knows, this house is very aware that budgets originate in the house of representatives. so republicans were leading the house of representatives, pulling that budget together. we are proposing a similar thing again. that a republican house can propose a budget, send it to a democrat president, we work together to start balancing the budget again. so that formula that we just discussed i believe is a very good formula and we should initiate that again and say once again a republican house do a great budget, send it over to a democrat president and work your way through it. i would disagree with the cuts in defense. i think it is a very common statement that we can say there are issues with defense systems. there are issues with the acquisition process and defense. we should then take our defense and where we find savings, then move it over to deficit reductions. our dish represent an area around an air force -- i represent an area around an air force base. those planes that fly out of there are 50-plus years old.

there are some airmen that are flying with these same tail number that their grand father flew 50 years ago. this is a moment when we should not be robbing from defense and saying we're going to use that for deficit reduction. we need to be reinvesting. robert gates, our secretary of defense, has said there's $178 billion that he can find, $78 billion of that savings is applied to deficit reduction and the republican plan and $100 billion of is reinvested back in the defense department. there are good ways to do this that leave america safe, that make strategic sense. we think we should do those things -- things. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. . mr. van hollen: may i inquire how much time remains? the chair: the gentleman from maryland has 1 3/4 reason maining. the gentleman from wisconsin 6 1/2 minutes. mr. van hollen: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves his time.

the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, a member of the budget committee, mr. mulvaney. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. mulvaney: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to start by thanking my own chairman, mr. ryan, and the ranking member, mr. van hollen, for the entire process. it has been my first year. i have enjoyed it. we have had some spirited debates. and i know we agree more than we agree but i appreciated the opportunity to do this. i'll close with this. this will be the last opportunity i have to speak on this year's budget. we heard a lot about the benefits that accrue to this nation during the clinton administration. i for one am willing to give partial credit to the president at that time. it was a democrat president. it was a house of representatives controlled by my party. i think it was a formula that worked for the nation. we have heard a lot of things, though, about the importance of raising the tax rates back to the clinton era to solve our

problems. i would suggest to you it was not the tax rates during the clinton era that drove our prosperity at the time. show you what president clinton did to the size of the government work force. president clinton elected right about here. a dramatic reduction in the size of the federal work force. a dramatic reduction in the size of federal spending on people who work for the federal government. in fact, unprecedented in the last 30 years, done again under a democrat president and republican house, what happened as a result? as spending as a percentage of our economy went down, the unemployment rate went down. as the government spent less, more people went back to work. as we sit here, we all agree the discussion is really about jobs. there is nothing more telling than what happened during the clinton administration as a formula for how to create jobs. the government needs to spend less. my question to my esteemed

colleagues on this side of the aisle is, where's this type of leadership out of the white house these days? where is this generation's bill clinton saying let's spend less on government spending so people go back to work. if we put president obama's proposals, his current budget up here, it would be almost the exact opposite of what your party proposed only 20 years ago. where is that type of leadership out of the white house? mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. i thank you for the opportunity. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks time? the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield two minutes to a distinguished member of the budget committee, mr. garrett, from new jersey. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. garrett: i thank the gentleman, i thank the speaker. i rise in opposition to the democrat substitute amendment. let me just quickly here sum up the democrats' prescription if you will for our nation's fiscal troubles. basically includes what? more spending. more debt. more taxes. more taxes on hardworking families and small businesses.

so while the democrat budget has lower deficits than the president's budget, you really need to take a closer look how they achieve this and how they achieve the deficit reduction compared to the white house budget. let's look at it. first, they raise taxes again. how much? $208 billion more than the president's taxes on all americans. then what do they do next? they cut the defense budget. by how much $614 billion. again, relative to the president's budget, over the 10-year window. at the same time we already had secretary gates who has already said we need to cut defense budget by $78 billion. they want to cut defense by $614 billion on top of that. what about addition to that? in their budget if you go into it and look, this' about $400 billion in unspecified savings. unspecified? here at the 12th hour they still can't decide how they want to rein in spending? of course not because we honestly don't want to do so. i believe budgets must be credible. the democrats' budget doesn't

pass that test at all. the only specific savings in the budget come from how? raising taxes again on americans and cutting the defense budget. the democrat budget does not tackle even the drivers behind our deficits. what are they? it does not address the pending bankruptcy, yes bankruptcy of medicare and medicaid. the democrat budget is nothing more than punting which is exactly what the administration and white house have been doing as well. look, the american people want congress to do the right thing. the american people want us to get spending, want us to get deficits, they want us to get our debt here in washington under control just as american families have to get their spending, deficit, and debt under control. just as small businesses across this country have to get it under control. the democrats' budget is frankly an embarrassment and shows the other side is not serious about taking our fiscal challenges seriously. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland.

mr. van hollen: i would ask the chairman do you have any more speakers? may i inquire of the chair how much time is left? the chair: 1 /4 minutes remaining for the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i yield myself 3/4 of a minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 45 seconds. mr. van hollen: what we heard just doesn't fit the facts. in fact, our budget does make cuts to domestic programs, but we do not do it in a meat axe way. we make cuts to agriculture subsidies. we do tax reform as the commission recommended getting rid of a lot of clutter in the tax code for special interests. that is what we do. with respect to defense, our numbers track with the -- what the president was saying the other day, but we do get rid of a so-called overseas contingency fund which we think republican friends would like to join us on which gives the executive branch a blank check to undertake any military

operations whatsoever for the next 10 years. don't have to ask congress. that's what we do. what we don't do, we don't end the medicare guarantee. what we don't do, we don't keep giving subsidies to oil companies while we cut education for kids. that's what we don't do. mr. chairman i yield one minute to our very distinguished democratic leader, ms. pelosi. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i commend him and the members of the budget committee for their hard work to bring legislation to the floor to enable us to have this debate yesterday and today. i think for a long time to come. we have said it over and over again, a budget should be a statement of our national values. a federal budget should. it should reflect what is important to us as we allocate the resources, investments for the future.

much has been said about this deficit and i want to join the distinguished ranking member before i go any further in correcting the record, i listened with great interest as members on the other side taking credit for the clinton administration balanced budgets and surplus. i remind them, or tell them because many of them may not know, that that -- those budgets were a result of the 1993 budget vote that we took on this floor of the house with not one republican vote, which was the source of fiscal discipline, job creation, again as mr. -- other speakers have said, over 20 million jobs created. so when i hear the republicans say it's the clinton presidency and republican congress, no, it was the democratic congress. because we know that deficit reduction is essential. we had to stop the budget

deficits that president clinton inherited and now we have to stop the budget deficits that president obama inherited. and budget deficits, i have heard our colleagues say, are immoral. i quite agree. we have a responsibility and obligation to our children and our grandchildren not to send them any bills. personal or official. and we do not intend to do so. but there were times during the bush years, too, when they were getting tax cuts to the rich. two unpaid for wars, a prescription drug benefit that gave away the store to the private sector and sent the bill to the taxpayer. so here we are with a choice on the floor. some of it was spoken, a vision of it was shared with the nation by president obama the other day. he talked about an america that was an america of greatness, that cared about its people. he talked about the essential need for us to reduce the

deficit. he talked about growth and investments in job creation. he talked about being fair to our seniors and keeping our promise to them. and in the budgets that we had before us today, one presented by mr. van hollen, one by -- one presented by the republicans, we see a sharp contrast. one that supports a vision that the president puts forth, one that does definitely does not. mr. speaker, we are talking about the budget deficit, but we also in doing so, if we are going to do right by the american people, have to recognize that there are other deficits. we have a deficit in education. we have a deficit in innovation because innovation begins in the classroom. we have a deficit in investments in our infrastructure. all of these investments have a payoff back to us. they create growth. they bring back to the treasury

and they help reduce the deficit. it is a false economy to think that we can right a budget -- write a budget that cuts serious investments in education, infrastructure, innovation, and the rest and think that we are going to end the deficit. you cannot cut your way out of it. you cut, you grow, and you increase revenue. that's a subject i'll hold when we talk about the republican budget more specifically. what is important to note if you had one thing to know about the difference between the democrats and republicans in terms of these budgets, if you had just one thing, it would be on the subject of medicare. the republican budget breaks the promise that this country has made to seniors that after a lifetime of work they will be able to depend on medicare to protect them in retirement. but in this -- the plan here ends medicare as we know it and

dramatically reduces benefits for seniors. it forces seniors to pay -- to buy their insurance from the health insurance companies where the average senior would be forced to pay twice as much for half the benefit. as much as -- for some $20,000 a year. i want to call the attention of my colleagues to this chart. senior citizens health costs skyrocket under republican budget. blue is the government's share, red is the beneficiary share. health care spending for a typical 65-year-old in 2022 in dollars. republican budget would have $8,000 from the federal government, $12,500 from the individual. which is more than twice what the medicare cost should be to a senior. $6,150.

twice as much for less in benefits. now, this chart is not our chart. this information was conveyed to the republican chairman of the budget committee, mr. ryan, by the director of the congressional budget office, a nonpartisan congressional budget office in a letter to him describing what the cost would be to seniors under his plan. i just don't think that is fair to our seniors. this plan has the wrong priorities. it's focused on helping corporate special interests and wall street not reducing the deficit or helping the country. it raises taxes for the middle class who are cutting them for the wealthiest in our country. it repeals wall street reforms for the big banks. it abolishes medicare as we know it. cuts funding for education, health care, alternative energy, and job training programs. and uses the money not for

reducing the deficit, to help the most privileged. help the most privileged and negate what we did in our health care bill which was to start to close the doughnut hole. if you were a senior and you see that your prescription drug costs will come down under the health care bill and the doughnut hole will close, this budget reverses. there are so many reasons for seniors and people with disabilities and people who care about medicare to be concerned. medicare is a bedrock of stability for our seniors for our health, for their economic security, for those with disabilities to depend on. we must take sure it is solvent, but we must not charge seniors more while giving bigger tax cuts to the wealthy. just remember these three points. first of all, it abolishes medicare as we know it.

increasing costs to seniors while it gives tax breaks of tens of billions of dollars to big oil. changes in medicaid will send seniors out of nursing homes while we give tax breaks to companies that send jobs overseas. this ryan budget, the republican budget, will hurt education, cut the education of our children, increase the cost of higher education for young adults by nearly -- by 10 million young adults while we give tax cuts to the wealthiest. that's just not the american way. . a sense of community in our country. so as we want to reduce the deficit, the fiscal deficit and we must, and we have proven,

democrats have proven that we can, this proposal does not. but what mr. van hollen is proposing in the positive sense is one that recognizes the need to reduce the deficit, growth is a part of that, so we have investments in education and the innovation that springs from that and other initiatives that grow our economy, that strengthen the middle class, that creates jobs as it reduces the deficit. i urge our colleagues to vote yes on mr. van hollen's budget and no on the republican budget to strengthen the middle class. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, may i inquire as to how much time i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. ryan: i yield myself the balance of my time. let me start off by saying that the only way in which the word oil is mentioned in this budget is not in the tax code, it is that we want to drill for more of it in this country so we

lower gas prices and get ourselves off foreign oil. let me address medicare briefly. i have here the federal employee benefit handbook that everybody in congress, every full employee has. nowhere in this book says voucher. look at all these plans we get to tchuse from. kaiser, etna, blue cross blue shield, pages and pages of choices and options. this is what we're talking about for people 54 and below. guess what? biggest threat to medicare, the status quo. medicare goes bankrupt in nine years. and so is this exactly like the federal employee health care plan? no. in the future people who are wealthy won't need as much of a subsidy. people who are sick need more. people who are low income need more and they get complete out-of-pocket coverage. more for their sick, for more the poor, less for the wealthy in a solvent medicare system.

but more importantly, the people choose. medicare beneficiaries choose, what's the president's plan, what's the democrats' plan? appoint 15 people to do the choosing. it is a different philosophy. should we have 15 unelected bureaucrats run medicare, ration medicare? or should we allow 40 million to 50 million seniors make the decision? let's talk about taxes. look at all these budgets we've been looking at today. by the way, our budget doesn't even cut taxes. i would i could say it was. revenues still rise. about $12 trillion under this budget. we just don't want to go up and up and up. the budget we have here is a $2 trillion tax increase. the plan we had before, the progressive plan, $16 trillion tax increase, the congressional black caucus budget, $6 trillion tax increase. this budget cuts defense $619 billion, the progressive budget, $1.2 trillion, the c.b.c. budget cuts $469 billion.

mr. van hollen: will the gentleman yield? mr. ryan: i don't have time. the c.b.c. budget increases domestic spending, $4.1 trillion. the domestic caucus increase creasts it $11.4 trillion. so we've got it. we know where they are. more spending, more spending, on everything but cut and gut defense and raise taxes a lot. i won't but -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. ryan: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time for debate has expired. the chair will announce that on the last recorded vote the number of members recording as present was 172. the question now is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maryland. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. van hollen: mr. chairman, on

that i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? mr. van hollen: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is