you have a competing vision, send it to the rules committee, we'll make it in order on the floor so we can have the kind of open debate that's going to make america proud. this is the beginning of that, right here, mr. speaker. right now. and with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york, i was thinking california. from new york. . ms. slaughter: i thank the gentleman for his kindness in yielding me the customary 30 minutes and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, the rules committee did fine. it was open and allowed all the budgets, as you said, to be brought to the floor. it's what we have to work with that is concerning to me because the budget's a reflection of our values and through that prism the ryan budget we are considering today is morrallly bankrupt. the budget that the majority proposes today puts corporations and the wealthiest americans above the needs of working and

middle class families. it increases military spending while flashing the safety net -- slashing the safety net for the middle class and protects tax loopholes for corporation that is ship jobs overseas. in short, this extreme partisan proposal takes a hatchet to the notion of shared responsibility and places a financial burdens of a generation upon the shoulders of the poor and middle class and seniors. under this budget, they'll receive multiple tax cuts totaling at least $300,000 and not a single corporate tax loophole will be closed. under this budget, we will see the end of medicare as we know it. it its place seniors would be offered an option of fix-priced voucher with which they may go into the market to find their own insurance. with no guarantee that the voucher you receive will come even close to covering the cost of the health care.

meanwhile, the landmark affordable health care act, which is the first law to start addressing the soaring costs of health care would be repealed. repeal of the law would mean the children under 26 could no longer be insured by their parents. it would put millions of americans suffering from chronic diseases could once again be denied care. i don't think, certainly i didn't know it, understand allowing this to the clinton health care debate, that most policies have a yearly and lifetime limit. as a matter of fact at that time when we were debating the clinton health care plan that limit was $1 million. which means an emergency like head trauma, car accident, bike accident, or workplace error on a construction site, could lead you to reaching your limit and you would no longer be eligible for health insurance. let me say that in another way. once you reach that limit, with

your pre-existing condition, you will uninsurable in the united states for the rest of your life. the health care bill that everybody's talking about now does away with that. both lifetime limits and others. thanks to the affordable care act lifetime and annuity limits would be phase the out in 2014. that's a very important part of this bill. people want to repeal health care have said absolutely nothing about what they expect to replace it with. we would assume that people with pre-existing conditions could no longer get coverage. under the republican budget those protections will be taken away and the vulnerable americans will be left to figure out how to survive on their own. and we talk about the mandate to buy insurance. right now under present law we are all paying for people who are uninsured. those people who choose not to buy insurance, who have to go to

the hospital for emergencies or any other reason, are paying for -- are treated by the law but we pay the cost. it is estimated that some areas that we spend $1,000 a year more, those of us who are insured, simply to cover the uninsured. and will continue doing that and paying everybody else's health care costs or we can keep this health care bill which is so important to us. the republican budget not only takes from the poor and gives to the rich, it even fails to fulfill the promise of a balanced budget. just this morning political could he published an article entitled quote, ryan plan butts g.o.p. in long term budget decline. it is a bold, election year challenge. postponed for a generation the conservative promise of a balanced budget, end quote. even the majority will say this plan will add $3.1 trillion to

our deficit between 2013 and 2022. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the article from politico into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. slaughter: under the majority's plan, the nonpartisan congressional budget office summit all budget spending except social security and paying down the debt will have to be cut by 1/3 in order to balance the budget by 2040. this draconian approach means seniors and the poor will receive worse health care. our children will continue to learn in crumbling schools and we'll all travel as usual on failing transportation networks with bridges that are substandard and roads that are cracking, that is inefficient and totally out of date. this vision does not reflect the ideals of a better america nor the hopes for a brighter future. it is neither a reflection ever values i hold dear and the values of the people whom i represent. i join many of my colleagues in

supporting the democrat alternative being offered by mr. van hollen. the democrat alternative budget supports the creation of jobs in high-tech and construction fields. it invests in our future by prioritizing education as we must, also prioritizing health and the economy. and reduces the deficit through responsible spending cuts based with revenue raised by having everyone pay their fair share and by closing corporate tax loopholes. the democrat alternative is a thoughtful balanced approach, one that does not place the tire burden of sacrifice on the backs of seniors, poor, and middle class. i urge my colleagues to oppose the misguided and dangerous proposal before us and instead consider one of the numerous alternatives that protect the middle class while reducing our deficit in a responsible way. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. -- the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time.

the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. to say that i think -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from is recognized. mr. woodall: is right on target. these budgets are moral documents. they talk about our priorities as a people. as a people. i tell folks back home, mr. speaker, and we don't have any young people in the -- on the floor with us today, but for all those young folks who are entrepreneurs, mr. speaker, who want to go out they don't want to work for the man, want to hang their own shingle, if they lost at their small business but getting on the day jesus christ was born $1 million a day, and they lost $1 million a day of that small business every single day from the day jesus was born, seven days a week through today, mr. speaker, they would have to continue to lose $1 million a day every day, seven days a week, for another 700 years to lose their first $1 trillion.

their first $1 trillion. and the budgets that have been passed by this house and the united states senate and signed by presidents of both parties have saddled our young people today in america with more than $15 trillion. not $1 trillion, mr. speaker, $15 trillion. and climbing, soon-to-be $16 trillion. when we talk about the morality of our puggets, we have to talk about the morality of continuing to run budgets on balance. we have to talk about the morality of continuing to pay for our priorities today with i o.u.'s from our children in the future. we have to talk about the prosperity that we experience today that we are trading away the prosperity of the future to have. health care, mr. speaker, it's going on right across the street. the longest line in washington, d.c., today is right out there at the supreme court. folks who want to get in and find out what's going to happen. well, the budget that makes up the foundation of this debate

that we'll have, assumes the president's health care bill is going to go away. it assumes the supreme court justices will actually conclude that this mandate is unconstitutional, that the whole house of cards unfolds. beyond that and we'll start again. you know what's interesting? so proud to be a member of this budget committee that i do think is doing it better than we have done it in the past under both parties, you don't have the president's health care bill come to the floor of this house, five pages at a time, 10 pages at the time, 20 pages at the time. i would wager that this house would have passed the majority of it. in fact, i would wager that the american people would have approved, been enthusiastic about the majority of it. but what has happened in this house too often, mr. speaker, is that we take those policies that we can all agree on and for some reason unbeknownst to me we decide that it would be bad if we all agreed on good policy so we begin to stuff things in there we know will create

controversy. we just manufacture arguments that we don't have to have. that's what happened with the president's health care bill. there was this nugget of the individual mandate that theft of freedom, that new definition about what it means to be an american, and we knew the body wouldn't support that so we begin to add on sweetener, after sweetener, after sweetener. we could have voted on those sweeteners. this rule doesn't do that, mr. speaker. this rule says we are not going to try to buy anybody's vote on the floor, every single member of congress who has a vision of america, who has a vision of a morality that my colleague from new york discussed, who has a vision of what we could be as a people, if only we had the political will to implement it right here each and every member of congress was invited to put that vision forward. there are at least two visions we'll have today, mr. speaker, and tomorrow that i plan to support, visions that i think outline that correct vision of how we can retain america's economic prosperity, how we can continue to be a leader in the

free world. but i support bringing to the floor those budgets that i do not believe in. because just because those folks in north metro atlanta, mr. speaker, just because those folks in the seventh district of georgia i represent don't approve of every budget doesn't mean those budgets don't deserve a vote. that is a fundamental difference between the leadership that the speaker has brought to this institution and the leadership that we have had from both parties in years past. what we have said is every single idea is worthy of consideration. win or lose. win or lose bring those ideas to the floor for debate and let's see where the votes fall. mr. speaker, again, as a member of both the budget committee and the rules committee, i am strongly supportive of the underlying budget bill, but particularly proud of this rule that makes every other budget option in order as well. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york.

ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i am delighted to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, mrs. capps. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. miss caps: -- mrs. capps: i thank my colleague from new york for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today in strong opposition to the majority's misguided budget. you know, 47 years ago when seniors were the most uninsured group in our nation, we made a promise that the health -- their health care would be guaranteed. and because of that promise, millions of older americans today have quality, affordable health care and they and their families have peace of mind. but the majority's budget seems to break that promise by ending medicare as we know it. instead of a guarantee, seniors would get a hope and a prayer, otherwise known as a voucher. this voucher fixed in price would be worth less and less each year and health care costs incurred by individual seniors would increase by at least $6,000 a year. their plan would raise

medicare's eligibility age, delaying the promise of a sound retirement for millions of working americans. and the bill would whack away at medicaid which provides long-term care for low-income seniors and disabled. and pass the buck to cash strapped states where its future would be uncertain in tough budgetary times like today. mr. speaker, those promoting this plan to end medicare argue that we have no choice if we want to bring down our deficits, but their plan doesn't bring down health care costs. it just shifts those costs on to the backs of our nation's seniors. and today's seniors will lose benefits they currently enjoy like today. like access to prepreventive screenings and reduced prescription drug costs through the closing of the doughnut hole under obamacare, a term i'm proud to use. the plan would weaken medicare itself. as a voucher program dogs healthier, younger seniors, it leaves behind the oldest and

sickest, those the private insurance market won't cover. this will cause untold harm to today's -- our nation's seniors and their families who today rely upon medicare for the promise of quality, affordable health care. you know, 47 years ago we did make a promise. a promise that is working for millions of american seniors and their families. we cannot break that promise. i urge my colleagues to oppose the majority's budget, the ryan budget. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: i appreciate the comments of my colleague from california. i know her concern for america's seniors is heartfelt. it's one that i share as well. i hope that she will support this rule that allows for this -- for a series of votes on many different medicare solutions, some solutions are better than others, but even if she opposes the underlying budget i do hope

we'll have her support on the rule because we do lay out the opportunity for folks to choose among seven different visions for solving the medicare challenge. i don't have the charts with me down here on the floor, i know my colleagues on the budget committee will bring them during the main debate, i can tell you, mr. speaker, i can picture the charts in my mind, if you charted medicare spending, going out from 2020 to 2050, that two generation horizon heading out there and you charted the president's commitment to spend dollars on medicare and you charted the budget committee's commitment to spend dollars on medicare, you'd find that the dollar value commitment is about dollar for dollar going out over that 30-year window. the question, mr. speaker, is not about how much money is this congress committing, the question is, to what priorities is this congress committing that money? .

the president's budget, which we'll have an opportunity to debate and vote here on the floor of the house, turns the medicare financing decisions, those decisions about how to save money in the system, over to what we've all come to know as ipab, the independent payment advisory board, to make recommendations and suggestions about how to clamp down on costs. now generally, that means clamping down on reimbursements to doctors. what the budget committee budget does, mr. speaker, is gives those dollars to individuals so individuals can enter the marketplace, not a free-for-all marketplace but a regulated and guaranteed marketplace where policies are guaranteed to these seniors so individuals can then control those dollars and make their own choices about health care decisions. so just to be clear, we are not arguing about dollars and cents in medicare. the president's vision and the budget committee's vision, virtually identical. what we are talking about, though, is who controls those

dollars. are they controlled by one size fits all, 1965 blue cross blue shield plan, soon to be revised by the ipab board, or are they controlled by my mother and my mother, your mother, your father, our neighbors, aunts, uncles, individuals, americans who will make those health care decisions for themselvess? for me the choice is clear, individual freedom will always be my choice over government control. but getting back to the actual rule, mr. speaker, that's what is so wonderful about the way this rules committee has operated and this resolution we have before us today, you're not restricted to just voting on my vision of solutions for this country. we are offering six other visions as well. in fact, we're offering every single vision that has come out of this u.s. house of representatives so that we can have a free, open, an honest debate and let the american people know what their true choices for freedom are. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i'm pleased to

yield one minute to the gentlelady from connecticut, ms. delauro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes -- one minute. ms. delauro: thank you, i would say to the prior speaker, i have a 98-year-old mother, to hand her a voucher a -- and sago figure it out. unbelievable. 98, she could really figure it out, huh? chairman ryan has put together a lopsided budget, gouge deeply into our common sense national priority and end the medicare guarantee. according to estimates, more than four million americans would lose their jobs because of this budget. but they provide $150,000 tax cut to the richest 1% of people in this nation. the republican budget would slash the social safety net, cutting the food stamp program by over 107% or $135 billion. that's more than the amount of

food stamp funds going to 29 states and territories. over eight million men, women, and children would go hungry. if the plan to turn food stamp into an underfunded block grant gos through, even more damage is done. coming out of the deepest recession since the great depression, food stamps helped feed 46 million americans, 21 million children, 75% of the program participants are families with children. this is robin hood in reverse. it takes from the middle class, gives to the rich. i urge my colleagues to oppose the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: i thank the speaker and yield myself such time as i may on consume. i'd like to say to my fren from connecticut, i can see her passion, i know it comes from the heart. your mother will be in no way affected by the budget we're voting on today. i would like to make that clear. for folks age 55 or over, there's not one word in the

republican budget plan that changes the commitment we have made to folks over the past three or four decades that commitment since 1965 remains as solly today and tomorrow under the budget committee budget as it has ever been. the alternative, mr. speaker, is to take our 98-year-old mothers and turn them over to ipab. there are choices here. the republican budget, which has become the house budget committee budget, allows everyone in the current medicare system, and those 55 years of age or older, to experience no changes whatsoever to that program guarantee from 1965. the alternative, because the dollars still have to be regulated, we still have to protect this program that's important to so many of us from bankruptcy, the alternative is to turn it over to this government board an let them cut costs where they can. let me tell you a story, mr. speaker. if i can take a moment of personal privilege, i was

talking to a physician from back home in my hometown, he's a neurologist, mr. speaker, he's been practicing neurology for 17 years and he's the youngest neurologist in the county. this is one of the largest counties in the state of fwea which is one of the largest states in the nation and we don't have one new neurologist coming into our area in 17 years. and this doc says he's thinking about getting out. got an uncle who is a primary care physician in georgia, only one to accept medicaid, mr. speaker, in a five-county radius. folks say there's a guarantee of health care, let me tell you if you can't find a doctor who'll take you, your insurance card isn't worth much. what we have to do, mr. speaker, is restore the promise of america's health care system. what is it about the american health care system that's driving our doctors into

retirement. is it that we're not clamping down enough, mr. speaker, and if only we have the ipab board clamp down even more, that's going to increase access to care. i tell you it's not, mr. speaker. there are lots of different ways to prepare budgets and i didn't know what to expect when i got on the budget committee, mr. chairman, i'll be honest. it could easily degenerate into a political exercise. i've seen it happen. it could become about all the right talking points, and all the right focus group conversations, and have nothing to do with how we should actually lead this country forward, but not so on the chairman paul ryan budget committee. in meeting after meeting, and conversation after conversation, and argument after argument, this budget committee chairman said there's one way to do a budget and that is a budget with honest numbers and honest priorities that lay out in plain vision for all to

see our vision of america's future. and he did it. he did it he did it with the help of a very competent budget committee, as i look at my friend from wisconsin with whom i share the bottom dais in the budget committee, did it with lots of input and conversation but did it in a way so that no one would say, they're just gaming the numbers, so that no one would say, this is just all about politics so that everyone who comes to the floor of this house can vote for this house budget committee reported budget with the pride of knowing it was put together with integrity about a vision far better future. now again, we are going to have six other competing visions, mr. speaker. i can only hope that those numbers, those chart, as the graphs were put together with the same care and integrity that chairman ryan used in the budget committee. but for folks who are trying to make up their mind about where they're going to cast their

vote today, again, i urge strong support for this open rule that allows for complete debate over all of these alternatives, but i also encourage my colleagues to give a look at the work product that we created in the house budget committee. a work product that i believe, mr. speaker, is crafted in a way to make every member of this body proud. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. 13r0eu7 the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york. merchandise slaughter: mr. speaker, if we defeat the previous question, i'll offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the house adopts the rule, it will bring up h.r. 4271, a bill to re-authorize the violence against women act. s that vital law i co-authored with pat schroder in 1994 and have been an original co-sponsor of each time it's been re-authorized. since it was enacted, the cases

of domestic violence have fallen and over one million women have used the justice system to obtain protective orers against their batterers. to discuss this proposal, i'm pleased to yield five minutes to the gentlewoman from wisconsin, ms. moore. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. moore: thank you, representative slaughter and thank you, mr. speaker. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question to allow us to consider the violence against women act. you know, it is pathetic and it is disappointing that we, it's come to this, that we have to use a procedural shenanigans to talk about an initiative that has been a bipartisan initiative since 1994. the violence against women -- violence against women in this country is not levied against just democrats, but republicans as well. not blacks or whites or hispanics, but against native people as well, not just

christians or muslims but jews and nonreligious people, atheists. not just rich people or poor people, but middle class people. and not just against heterosexual -- heterosexual women but homosexual couples. it knows no gender new york ethnicity, it knows nothing. violence against women is as american as apple pie. and i know not only as a legislator who -- but from my own personal experience, violence -- domestic violence has been a thread throughout my personal life, up to and including being a child repeatedly sexually assaulted, up to and including being an adult who has been raped, i don't have enough time to share all these experiences with you but i can tell you that when this bill came out of the

senate judiciary committee with all the republican senators, all of the guys voting no, it brought up some terrible memories for me of having boys sit in a locker room and sort of bet that i, the egghead, couldn't be had and then the appointed boy, when he saw that i wasn't going to be so willing , completed a date rape and then took my underwear to display it to the rest of the boys, this is what american women are facing. and i'm so proud to be an author of this amendment because it has been in the past a bipartisan bill which this bill will strengthen the core program the support -- to support law enforcement, prosecutions, judicial staff training. it will include new initiatives aimed at protecting against

violence related homicides in this cupry and extend authority to protect native american victims on tribal land. it would ensure a strong response to insufficient reporting and services for victims of sexual assault. it would increase the number of new visas for undocumented women who, because they're in the chateaus, -- shadows, are particularly vulnerable to domestic violence. and this bill would expand services for underserved communities, those that due to their religion, gender, or sexual orientation have not been served. this is not a partisan issue and it would be very, very devastating to women of all colors, creeds, and sexual orientations for us not to address this. and i yield back to the gentlelady from new york. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady continues to reserve. the gentleman from georgia.

mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume to say to my colleague from wisconsin that her words are always among some of the most powerful that we have in the budget committee and i don't believe i've ever heard her speak from a place that was not of conviction and i want to say i appreciate those words and you have my support on the rule committees, if we can get that bill reported out of judiciary, i would love to see that in the rules committee and love to see us report that to the house floor for the same kind of free and open debate we're having today on the budget committee. i appreciate the words that you shared. i must say, though, mr. speaker, i have a tough time connecting the violence against women act with these budgets and i will disagree with my colleague from wisconsin, encourage folks to support the previous question so we can have this budget debate. should we have the debate my colleague is discussing? i believe we absolutely should

and again i know the committee is of -- the committees of jurisdiction are working on that and my hope is they'll report that and send it to the rule -- rules committee. but today, we have an opportunity. it's not an unprecedented opportunity but it's one of the rarest of opportunities that we have here in the house, which is to have a debate on the floor that includes every single idea that any of our 435 members have offered as a vision of how to govern this land, of how to set our fiscal priorities, of this morality that is deciding how to spend taxpayer dollars. . we received that opportunity today. it's one that comes but once a year, mr. speaker. an opportunity but once a year to set these priorities. again the rules committee has provided time not just today but tomorrow as well to make sure that we can thoroughly flesh out each and every one of these ideas and make sure that no one's voice on the floor of this

house is silenced. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: let me take my 30 seconds to say that i appreciate what my colleague from georgia is saying. however we are not given a choice whether we are going to do budget or violence against women. but we are going to attempt to do both on the rule. what we do is vote for the budget . when we vote for the rule we would like to have the previous question having been defeated so we can add vawa to it. that's all we are trying to do here today. it's about to expire. it would be a dreadful thing to think that women and children and other spouses would be growing up in violence because we failed to provide the resources to stop that that have been so successful since 1994. i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. norton: i thank the gentlelady from new york for the

consistent leadership she has given this important legislation since it was passed. it took us a number of years to get it passed in the first place. it's never been off our radar screen. and especially to my good friend from wisconsin who comes forward in very compelling ways to ask that we vote no on the previous question so that we can consider the violence against women act which may well expire, making it, i fear, a real target for the appropriation committee, because the bill shall not have been re-authorized. mr. speaker, i visited a safe house last week in my district because i wanted to hear why a woman would make a decision to stay at home with an abuser rather than leave? i'm not sure i understood in my heart why she would assume the risk rather than leave. i'm glad i went.

there were eight women there, different ages, some had children. for the first time i understood in the most poignant and practical way, i understood what a rape crisis center means. when i heard the stories of these women. and then the notion that this bill would expire, the appropriation committee would have before it an unauthorized bill, which becomes a target in and of itself, would seem just too much to bear. yet the bill has gone nowhere here. at least in the other body the bill has been introduced, it is a bipartisan bill with republican and several republicans as well as democrats on the bill. ms. moore's amendment essentially does no more than

incorporate the senate bill which is tailor-made for consideration because in cheeping with the way in which the reductions are taking place, it is a 20%, very painful, but 20% reduction in the new act, even though the -- any authorization you would expect to increase. and yet even with that reduction we cannot get that bill on this floor. so we must do what we are doing this afternoon. and you want to talk worth the money? there are very few bills we can show the kinds of cause effects we can show here. 50% drop annually in domestic violence, and the reason for that is it's been over a 50% increase in reporting. women are not afraid to come out because they know if they report it, go to my police station, the

police will tell you where there is a safe house. don't leave women out on the streets. don't leave their children with no place to go. let us, vote no in order to receive this act now which i think would receive bipartisan support if it were heard this afternoon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i was expecting one more speaker but i believe she's not there. so i will be prepared to close. let me say again -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. slaughter: pardon? the speaker pro tempore: recognized for as much time as you consume. ms. slaughter: mr. woodall is a generous and kind man. i know he understands what we are talking about today, but my speaker is here. let me yield to the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. delauro.

the speaker pro tempore: how much time? three minutes. the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. delauro: i thank the gentlelady. in the 21st century america three women die every day at the hands of their husbands, boyfriends, or former partners. domestic violence causes two million injuries a year. sadly it is something that one out of every four women will experience in their lifetime. this is particularly a difficult problem for young women today. women between the ages of 16 and 24 have the highest rates of relationship violence, and one in every five women will be sexually assaulted while they are in college. even more worrisome, we know that when couples are experiencing economic difficulties, domestic violence is three times as likely to occur. this service providers have seen an increase in demand since the

recession began, while also seeing their funding cut. more than 70% of shelters credited, quote financial issues, for the increase in abuse that they have seen in communities across the country. in 1994 our now vice president joe biden wrothe and championed the violence against women act. in 17 years it has cut the rate of domestic violence in our country by over half. it is past time to re-authorize the violence against women act again and my colleague's amendment would allow us to act now. the bill re-authorizes the programs that have protch to work to stem domestic violence, to help law enforcement and prosecutors do their job. this re-authorization enjoyed bipartisan support in the united states senate. 59 co-sponsors. in addition, over 200 national

organizations, 500 state and local organizations have urged us to pass this bill. that's the national association of attorneys general, national district attorneys association, national sheriff's association, and the federal law enforcement offices association. why? they want us to do it because it helps to make their job easier and it gives women the tools to be able to protect themselves. everyone, everyone in this chamber wants to see an america where no woman ever has to endure the scourge of domestic violence. the violence against women act is helping us to realize this vision. we must re-authorize the law so it can continue to help our constituents and i'm also proud to tell you that the affordable care act, the health care reform legislation, now says that if a woman is a victim of domestic violence, her insurance company can no longer say that that is a

pre-existing condition and she can get the kind of health care coverage she needs for doing it. that's the value, one of the authorizing -- one of re-authorizing this legislation and the value of the affordable care act. i urge you to support this amendment so we can act now. let's move forward. re-authorize the violence against women act once again. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia continue to reserve. mr. woodall: i do, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: thank you very much, mr. speaker. ms. delauro just reminded me when we began the debate on health care that eight states in the united states and the district of columbia considered violence against women to be a pre-existing condition. and a woman who had been beaten to a pulp could not be insured because she was apt to have that happen to her again. it would change that in this bill. i think all of us, too, are familiar with the phrase, the rule of the thumb. but i'm not sure a lot of us

understand what it means. the rule of thumb was the size of a man's thumb and the stick with which he could legally beat his wife. so every time you use that i want you to remember what that means. since the enactment we have all said domestic violence has fallen over half. policemen have been trained, the courts have been trained to understand it better. though at the time -- there was a time in the united states it was simply considered a private matter and police were not always take away the offending partner, leaving a person again to be beaten one more time. i don't think anybody in the house of representatives wants this to expire. i'm sure they don't. everybody has mothers and sisters and daughters. nieces that you want to protect. this is such a simple thing. it doesn't hurt the budget at all. but we have tried our best to

get this bill to be brought up in this house and we are terrified, frankly. those of us who spend a good bit of our time in congress trying to deal with this act. as i point out many times i have been at this since 1994. it's such a serious thing that shelters for battered women are never revealed as to their location. because the fear that the offending spouse will find them and make them come home or other things. we seem -- we have seen a number this past five, six years of spouses being killed. we always look at what goes on in those houses and nobody ever realized before what was happening there. more women, obviously, need to know there is someplace they can go and someplace they can get help. let me give you a figure because we are very much concerned here about deficit, budget, and

costs. the study recently released show just a two-minute screening ever domestic violence victims and yearly checkup, two minutes, can save nearly $6 billion in chronic health care costs every year. the screenings are provided for in the violence against women act which trains health care professionals to recognize and address the signs of domestic violence. because obviously most women who are trying to cover it up simply attempt to live with it, are not going to bring it up themselves. approximately two million women are physically or sexually assaulted or stalked by an intimate partner every single year. one out of every six women is experiencing an attempted or completed rape at some point in her lifetime. one in four women in u.s. will experience domestic violence in her lifetime. this is terrible. congress has responsibility to ensure that rape prevention programs are fully funded. that law enforcement has the resources that battered women

shelters are open, that victim advocates have training to stop the violence against women. le with this authorization expiring before this year's end, we are in danger of letting those responsibilities go unfilled. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the record along with the extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: hearing no objection, so ordered. ms. slaughter: i urge my colleagues please vote no. please vote no on the previous question for all those women who live in fear, for all those children who witness that violence that changes their life forever. for all those people who are killed, people whose lives are changed so much forever mentally, physically. they will never, ever be the same. for heaven's sakes, let's re-authorize this bill. it does so much for them. i urge everyone in the house to please vote no. defeat the previous question so

we can continue to provide that support to the millions of women who are victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. i urge a no vote on the rule and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has yielded back her time. the gentleman from georgia is now recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: i appreciate the comments of my friend from new york. we serve together on the rules committee, mr. speaker, and we grapple with tough issues on the rules committee every single time we meet. there is no easy day on the rules committee. every bill is a challenge because of the different ideas that folks have to make it better. but what i have learned in that time, mr. speaker, is that i'm not the smartest guy in that room. i'm not the smartest guy in this congress, not the smartest guy in my district. there is a reason we have regular order here in the u.s. house of representatives. that even a good idea we can make better. i know i had some folks come to

me in my district and they say, rob, why is it you put that hospital funding we need in the transportation bill? those things don't have anything to do with one another. why do you combine those two things? if it's a good idea to pass the transportation bill, let's pass the transportation bill. if it's a good idea to pass the hospital bill, let's pass the hospital bill, but why do you put these disconnected things together? why do you try to fund a new military procurement program in the environmental and national park funding? why do you stick those things together, rob? they don't have anything to do with one another. i campaigned on that issue, mr. speaker, because i think they're right. i think that the american people deserve an up or down vote on one issue at the time. i think my colleagues, my colleague from new york, my colleague from connecticut, my colleague from the district of columbia, my colleague from wisconsin make extremely compelling cases for why we should see the violence against women's act come through regular order, but my understanding is, i'll be happy to be corrected, my understanding is the bill was introduced yesterday. .

it hasn't had an opportunity to go through committees where folks know so much more about the issue than we do here in the rule committees that it has not had the opportunity to be amened and aproved, that it hasn't had the opportunity for those members for whom this is a heart felt issue to put in their two cents and make it better. i encourage folks to vote yes on the previous question so we can move forward and debate the budgets today and then i urge my colleagues, i know folks are watching us on the screens back in their rooms, do we know what the bill number of the violence against women act is? it's h.r. 4271. and there's no question that because this is a house where folks believe in regular order, the more co-sponsors a bill accumulates and the faster it accumulates them, the more likely it is to end up on this floor in haste, rapidly, to

have a hearing. i urge my colleagues to have a look at that bill, it just dropped yesterday, but something i know this house and others are going to want to consider. the opportunity we have today, though, mr. speaker, with this rule is to define our national vision and i don't mean our vision for just the nation, our land, mr. speaker, i mean a vision for us as a people. who are we as a people, mr. speaker? i heard one of the presidential candidates speak the other day and they said, you know, this year, we don't need politicians we can believe in, we need politicians who believe in us. i thought that was pretty profound. i don't need somebody i can believe in, i need somebody who believes in me. that's true, mr. speaker. we lay out these different competing budget vision the sull mares of which i healedhold in my hand and my question to my colleagues is, which of these visions do you believe believes in you?

which of these visions lays out that future of america that is best for you and your family, that is best for your constituents and their families, that is best for your state and our nation. the visions are starkly different, mr. speaker. again, the base bill is the bill that we reported out of the budget committee. that's the base tax. these are substitutes for that. for example, we have a bipartisan substitute, republican, democrat member of the house, that raises taxes by $2 trillion more, $1.8 trillion, to be perfectly accurate, $1.8 trillion more than the budget committee past budget does and spends $3.1 trillion more. folks -- focuses on different priorities. debt increases by about $.4 trillion, that's the cost of -- by about $1.4 trillion. that's the cost of those priorities. the ranking member on the

budget committee, mr. speaker, the gentleman from maryland, his budget substitute also raises taxes by $1.8 trillion over the next 10 years, more than the house budget committee budget does and spends $4.7 trillion more than the house budget committee budget does an thus adds $2.9 trillion more to the backs of our children. as i said, mr. speaker, about $15.5 trillion today, soon to be $16 trillion, that we have borrowed and spent, that we have impoverished our children with, so we can improve the standard of living we have, $15.5 trillion, the gentleman from maryland's substitute increases it by $3 trillion more than does the house budget committee report, due to priority he is spends on, merits that kind of increase. the priority he is fews -- focuses on -- to the priority s

he focuses on merit that increase? it's wonderful we can have that debate. the congressional black caucus substitute raises taxes by $1.6 trillion and spends $5.3 trillion more. which means it reduces the national debt more than the house budget committee does. it does so by raising taxes $6 trillion and only reduces the debt by under $1 trillion but that's one of those priorities that folks have had the courage to lay out here on the floor of the house that we're going to make in order my colleague from new york, the chairman from california, this budget committee of men and women, mr. speaker, has made every single option available. the congressional progressive caucus, mr. speaker, their proposal raises taxes by $6.8 trillion more than the republican budget committee budget, the budget -- the

budget that was passed out of the entire budget committee, increases spending by about $6.6 trillion, while the highest spend -- the highest spending of the bunch, focusing on priorities that all 435 members of the house deserve an opportunity to hear and consider. we have an opportunity in this house, prk, to co-great things, we have an opportunity to stand up for the priorities that are the priorities of our constituents back home. and we don't have to vote on 100 different ideas in one bill, mr. speaker. you know, in the 5 months i have been here, mr. speaker, only about five of the bills -- all but about five bills have been short enough for me to read. i don't have to staff it out. that's a great source of pride for me. i told folks back home, folks

believe it back home, that we ought to have time to carefully deliberate everything. folks are tired of 1,500 page bills, folks are tired of the defense bill being merged with the transportation bill, merged with the health care bill, merged with the national parks bill which also funds the white house. that's crazy and it doesn't have to be to that way. there's not one rule of the house that requires that nonsense to to go on. in fact, the opposite is true. the rules of the house were created to prevent that from going on and we have to work really hard to pervert the process in a way that makes that possible. this speaker has made an effort, unlike any i've ever seen, to try to have one eye be at the time here on the floor of the house, so the american folks can be heard. if we've got a bill on the floor that supports dog catchers on one hand and

hospitals on the other, and somebody votes no, what are they voting no on? do you ever wonder why in an appropriations process, the food stamp language and agriculture subsidy language is in the same appropriations bill. i always wondered. i started thinking about it as i watched the votes up on the board, what i figured out is, we don't have enough farmers in this country for everybody to vote to increase farm spending, and we don't have enough folks with high food stamp populations in their district to support having high food stamp spending, but when you combine those two groupsing to, you get 51% of the house and can make things happen. i guess i support the ingenuity of folks who find ways to cobble multitude of ideas together and find 51% but i ask my colleagues, is that what our colleagues sent us here to do? is cobbling together multiple

ideas just trying to game the system enough to find your 51%, mr. speaker, is that really what our framers intended? or alternatively, should we commit ourselves to not just having an open process, mr. speaker, but an open process on a single idea? what i found on the rule committees and it was a surprise to me and if you hadn't had a chance to serve on the rules committee, it might not be intuitive to you, but when you bring a small bill to the rules committee, when you focus on one single idea, when you find one priority that you want to make the law of the land and you send that to the rules committee, mr. speaker, then the amendment process is only open to amendments that are germane to that underlying idea. you bring a bill about hospital funding, to the rules committee, the onlier is jane -- germane amendments are amendments that have to do with hospital funding. and so the shorter we make the bill the more single minded we make the bills, the more open

we can have the process here on the house floor. 435 of us, this freshman class is filled with a bunch of c.e.o.'s from the private sector, folks who ran for congress because they were worried about the future of this country and they get here thinking they'll be able to do it all overnight. turns out there are 435 of us, we all have the same voting card, it's harder. it's one man, one woman, one vote, with 435 of us, you have to find that agreement. it turns out there really is a lot of agreement, not just agreement on the republican side of the aisle, not just agreement on the democratic side of the aisle but agreement across the whole house when we open up the process and allow the house to work its will. that is what we have here today. we have a raul that opens up the process, flings open the doors of democracy and lets every single idea be considered. mr. speaker, i encourage an

affirmative vote on the rule and i move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, since all time has expired or been yielded back, is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. ms. slaughter: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays have been requested from the gentlelady from new york. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered, members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on thed or -- on ordering the previous question will be followed by five-minute votes on adopting house resolution 597, if ordered, suspending the rules with regard to h.r. 1339,

and agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal, if ordered. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

can

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 235 and the nays are 183. the previous question is ordered. will members kindly clear the

well. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. members are asked to take their conversations off the floor. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the speaker of the house seek recognition? the speaker: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak to the house out of order for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the speaker: it's my privilege today to pay tribute to john sullivan who will retire this week after eight years of service as our parliamentarian and 25 years of service to this house. john leaves his post with much to be proud of, starting with a

first rate team of parliamentarians who will do a fine job carrying on his legacy. the parls are the people here who are here first every morning and they're also the last ones to leave at night. they review every piece of legislation. they keep us tethered to the rules and traditions that are the house's foundation. in this way the parliamentarians are really the glue that holds this house together. and the leader of that team is john sullivan, whose devotion to the house is -- as his commitment to indiana basketball. coach bobby knight once defined discipline as doing what you have to do, doing it as well as you possibly can and doing it that way all the time. john sullivan is the most disciplined to have served this

house. he's consistently shown grace under pressure. what may be well one of the biggest pressure cookers on earth. he's strengthened and modernized the office of the parliamentarian to meet a more open and transparent congress. john, who was here on 9/11, determined how the house should go forward and has spent every day preparing for the unexpected. in a body where everything can happen, he's always thinking two steps ahead, like any good coach. so, of course, john's a modest man. he would just say he was just him doing his job. like i said, disciplined. but make no mistake, for the house and the people that we serve, he's gone above and beyond the call of duty. john, we're sorry to see you go but we want to wish you and your family the best and on behalf of the whole house, we want to thank for your service.

the speaker: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield to the democratic leader, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized.

ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the speaker for yielding and i'm proud to join him in honoring the long and distinguished service of the house parliamentarian, john sullivan. for 25 years, as has been said, he's served the house with distinction and integrity and intellect. he's used his keen mind, excellent legal training and a commitment to public service to make nonpartisan objective decisions. always first in his mind was the constitution and, therefore, his undying respect for the institution of congress. indeed, through his service and his example, john sullivan has become an institution himself. a source of wise counsel and parliamentary leadership. although his name rarely makes headlines and his hard work is seldom noticed in the public eye, the american people have benefited greatly from his extraordinary career. proud son of northwest indiana,

john sullivan was a lawyer by training, a graduate of the air force academy and served our nation in the air force. he went on to advise the house armed services committee before joining the parliamentarian's office. he would ultimately hold the title of parliamentarian of the house of representatives, a post occupied by only three other in the past -- others in the past 75 years. wow. . he is a fair and independent voice, a professional of the highest caliber, a careful steward of the rules of the house, a true public servant. mr. speaker, as a point of personal pride, on june 2, 1987 i was sworn in as a result of a special election and i was the first member of congress to take the oath of office during john's tenure. he will always hold for -- for many reasons he will hold a long

place of honor in the history of the house and in my personal history as well. in a recent story on his career, john sullivan summed up the key characteristics of his success. in his own words he said, you have to be a very attentive to every syllable being uttered and able to think on your feet. as the speaker says. attention to detail, quick thinking, staying attuned to the letter of the law, these were the hallmarks of john sullivan's service. he has left a lasting legacy and i'm confident his deputy and replacement, tom wickham, will continue in the same fine tradition. we owe a debt of gratitude to all of our parliamentarians. we owe a special debt of gratitude and our heartfelt thanks on this day to our parliamentarian, john sullivan. he has earned the respect and admiration of members of congress and he will be missed. we wish him and his wife and his children our best wishes for their future endeavors.

congratulations and thank you, john sullivan. the speaker: mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the question is on adoption of house resolution 597. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. >> mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays have been

requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 241, the nays are 184. the resolution is adopted. without objection, a the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. platts, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1339 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1339, a bill to amend title 32 united states code, the body of laws of the united states dealing with the national guard, to recognize the city of salem, massachusetts, as the birthplace of the national guard of the united states. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended, members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the

united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 413. the nays are six with four recorded as present. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. without objection, the title is amended.

pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair -- the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i request the yeas and nays on the journal vote. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 300. the nays are 111. the journal stands approved. you four answering present on the vote. the journal stands approved.

for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? ryan raburn mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent -- mr. ryan mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.con.res 112. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 597 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of house concurrent resolution 112. the chair appoints the gentleman from minnesota, mr. kleine, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on

the state of the union for the consideration of house concurrent resolution 112 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: concurrent resolution establishing the budget for the united states government for fiscal year 2013 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2014 through 2022. the chair: general debate shall not exceed four hours with three hours confined to the congressional budget equally divided by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the budget and one hour on the subject of economic goals and policies equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from texas, mr. brady, and the gentleman from new york, mr. hinchey, or their designees. the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, each will control 90 minutes of debate on the congressional budget. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin.

mr. ryan: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, the house is slightly out of order. the chair: the gentleman is correct. the committee will come to order. members, take your conversations off the floor. members on both sides of the aisle, please remove your conversations from the floor. the committee will be in order. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, i look forward to working with my friend, the gentleman from maryland, the ranking member, on what's going to be a long day and a pretty debate. let me start this debate first off by saying this is what our constituents sent us here to do. to lead. to make decisions. to budget.

i want to start off by saying to the gentleman from maryland how much i appreciate to the adherence of the long-standing protocol on the budget committee on how we clearly to disagree on a lot of the big fundamental issues how we've been able to conduct this debate in a civil manner, and i'm pleased that that tradition from the budget committee is continuing to this day, and i want to simply say how grateful i am for that. last year, mr. chairman, we passed the boldest budget in recent history. a comprehensive plan to lift the debt and free the nation from the constraints of an ever-expanding federal government. we changed the debate in washington. suddenly, we're having a debate how much spending we should cut instead of how much more to spend. how to create jobs the right way by getting the federal government off our backs, by eliminating the debt and by reforming the tack code so that american families and small businesses can create a true economic recovery. this week we're prepared to be

right here on the floor to take it one step further. we're bringing a 2013 budget which we call the path to prosperity, which does this -- it cuts $5.3 trillion in spending from the president's budget. it clears the roadblock of the partisan health care law that is now being debated in the supreme court because we believe that this partisan health care law is the roadblock to bipartisan reform. it puts our budget on the path to balance and on a path to completely pay off our debt. by contrast, look at what other leaders are doing today. the president sent us a budget last month, the fourth budget in a row which proposes to do nothing to pay off the debt let alone ever get the budget in balance. the president gave us a budget with a fourth $1 trillion deficit in a row, ignoring the drivers of our debt doing what his budget says, quote,

advancing the detee yoration of our fiscal situation. the -- deterioration of our fiscal situation. the treasury secretary came to us and said, quote, we are not saying we have a solution to a long-term problem. we are just saying we don't like yours. well, i couldn't have said it better myself. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. members, take your conversations off the floor, please. the gentleman deserves to be heard. both sides of the aisle, please. mr. ryan: mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: by offering empty promises instead of real solutions, the president and his party leaders have made their choice clear. they are choosing the next election over the next generation. our government, both political parties, have made decades of empty promises to americans today. and soon, those empty promises are going to become broken promises unless we reform

government. we're borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend. it can't keep continuing. we're offering americans a better choice. we're offering americans solutions. and let me just quickly walk you through just the kind of situation america faces today. this is what the congressional budget office tells us we're looking at, a crushing burden of debt. that is not only going to affect our children's generation, by denying them a better standard of living, a prosperous future, but it's going to put our own economy into a tailspin. at experts came to the budget committee and told us, we don't have much time left to avert this tidal wave of debt. what's the rush? why do we need to move so quickly? because, mr. chairman, every year we don't do something to fix this debt crisis, we go that much deeper into the hole. that many more trillions of

dollars of empty promises are being made to the american people. back in 2009, we asked the general accountability office, how many empty promises is our government making to today's americans? in 2009, they said, 62.9 -- they said $62.9 trillion. then in 2010 we said, how many empty promises now? $76.4 trillion. today, just one year later, they're now saying last year's stack of empty promises to americans was $99.6 trillion. it's impossible to get your mind around these numbers. what does that mean? that means if we want our government to keep all of the promises it is now making to current americans, my mom's generation, my generation mitigating circumstance children's generation, we have to all of a sudden invent, create, come up with, about $100 trillion today, invest it at treasury rates, just to have the money to keep these promises government is making.

that's impossible. it can't be done. we know that. and so it's time to stop lying to the american people, it's time to be honest about the situation we are in and start fixing the problem. every year we go over $10 trillion deeper in the hole. every year we go that much deeper toward a debt crisis where government reneges on its promise to americans. the people who need government to the most, the poor, the sick, the elderly, they're the ones who get hurt the worst and the first in a debt crisis. what's the primary cause of this debt crisis? spending. spending is going to double by the time my kids are my age and double again over the course of a century. revenues are going back to where they historically have been but spening is on an unsustainable trajectory. when you have to borrow that much money, when you have to borrow 40 cents on the dollar, look at where it's coming from. this is not the 1970's where

our debt was relatively shawl and we borrowed about five cents on the dollar from foreign countries. it's not the 1990's where our tet was getting big and we borrowed 19 cents from foreign governments. today, in 2011, 46% of our borrowing in this country, borrowing that's bigger than our economy now, comes from other nations, china number one. we can't keep relying on other governments to cash flow our government. we are seating our sovereignty and -- ceding our sovereignty and our ability to control our own destiny when we depend on other countries to len us money. lastly, mr. chairman, here's what this budget does in a nutshell. it says, let's get ahead of this problem. let's preempt the debt crisis. let's do it in a way so we can do it in a gradual way so we

can preempt and prevent the debt crisis on our own terms as americans. let's not wait until we have a crisis, let's not wait until we're in european meltdown mode. let's do it right and do it now. because then we can keep the promises that government has made to people who need it the most. people who already retired. people who are about to retire. people who rely on government. you have to reform government to do that. instead of this mountain of debt, the path to prosperity budget puts our deficit and debt on a downward slope and pays off the debt entirely over time. that takes time. that takes will. and it begins now. in short, mr. chairman, if we don't tackle these fiscal problems soon, they're going to tackle us as a country. and the best way to do it is put the kinds of ideas and reforms in place that grow the economy, create jobs, and get us back on a path to prosperity.

we believe in the founders' vision of the american idea. your rights come from god and nature, not from government. and we believe in the freedom to pursue happiness. and that means we want prosperity, we want upward mobility, we want free tom and opportunity. and freedom and opportunity are gone if we have a debt crisis. and so what we're saying is, let's d everything we can to get this economy grow, to get people back to work and back on their feet and let's get our spending under control. let's get our borrowing under control, let's reform the government programs that are the primary drivers of our debt so we can fulfill that great legacy that all of our parents told us about when we were growing up in this country. and that is this. each generation in america makes the next generation better off. we know without a shred of doubt, it's irrefutable, that we are in the midst of giving the next generation a worse off

country. a lower standard of living. a diminished future. we have a moral and legal obligation to stop that from happening, to pass a budget to prevent that, to get us back on prosperity and get our debt paid off and that's precisely what this budget does. with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me start by thanking the chairman of the budget committee for the way he's conducted the proceedings and look forward to a debate on the floor. mr. van hollen: as the chairman said, we have deep differences. we do not have a difference on whether or not we should reduce the deficits or debt, of course we do. we have a difference over how to do that. in that regard, mr. chairman, i rise in strong opposition to this republican plan and in support of the democratic

alternative. the republican budget on the floor of the house today is simply the sequel to last year's plan, more of the same. it abandons the economic recovery and ends the medicare guarantee to individuals whose median income is under $21,000 while providing a whopping average tax break of almost $400,000 for people making over $1 million a year. these tax breaks for the very wealthy and the tax breaks for special interests come at the expense of middle income taxpayers, at the expense of seniors and at the expense of essential investments to keep america strong. this republican plan will weaken economic growth and according to independent analysts, result in over two million jobs lost over the next two years. it rewards corporations that ship american jobs overseas, while slashing investments in education, in science and

research, and infrastructure that help america grow our economy right here at home. in short, it is a path to greater prosperity, if you're already wealthy. while leaving seniors, working americans and future generations behind. mr. chairman, we gather here at a very important time for our country. as a result of the extraordinary actions taken over the last four years and the tenacity of the american people and small businesses, america avoidsed a second great depression. and the economy is slowly recover -- avoided a second great depression and the economy is slowly recovering. still millions of americans remain out of work through no fault of their own. we must push forward with the recovery, not back, and we certainly shouldn't return to the failed economic policies that got america into this economic mess to begin with. yet that is exactly what this republican budget does. it is a recipe for national stagnation and decline.

it retreats from our national goal of outeducating, outbuilding, and outcompeting the rest of the world and it will weaken the economic recovery by slashing investments to important economic growth and expanding the tax breaks that ship american jobs overseas. even when we have 17% unpliment in the construction industry, it cuts critical critical amounts in our transportation budget. nonpartisan analysts looked at this and said it would lose two million jobs over two years system of rather than putting the economy in reverse, we need to move forward and adopt the remainder of the president's jobs plan, a plan that's been sitting here in the house since september. it's also clear that putting america back to work is the fastest an most effective way to reduce deficits in the short-term. in fact, the congressional budget office estimates that our weak economy and

underemployment is the single major contributing factor to the deficit this year, accounting for over a third of they have projected 2012 deficit. so we need to come up with a credible plan and the issue, as i said, is not whether, but how. and every bipartisan group, every bipartisan group that has looked at ways to reduce the deficit in a credible way has recommended a balanced approach, meaning the combination of cuts and cuts to tax breaks for the wealthy and the elimination of special interest corporate tax loopholes and the democratic alternative provides that balanced approach while the republican plan unfortunately fails that test. instead, their plan would again rig the rules in favor of the very wealthy and special interests. that may not be a surprise since virtually every house member has signed a pledge a pledge to grover norquist,

saying that they will not close a single special interest tax loophole, not eliminate a single oil subsidy for the purpose of deficit reduction. not one penny. i agree with the gentleman from wisconsin that we face a real deficit and debt problem. apparently the problem is not big enough to ask folks at the very high end of the income scale to contribute one penny toward deficit reduction. and in addition to locking in those parts of the bush tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the very wealthy, they now have a new round of tax cuts that will provide on average a $400,000 tax cut for people making over $1 million a year. according to the nonpartisan tax policy center. so here's the key. because our republican colleagues refuse to ask millionaires to contribute one cent to deficit reduction, they hit everyone and everything

else. let's take a look at medicare recipients. they immediately increase cost to seniors for medicare preventive services and terminate the new service, the wellness programs that were part of the affordable care act. they immediately reduce support to seniors in the scription drug plan by reopening the doughnut hole. that decision will cost seniors with high drug costs an average of $10,000 over the next 10 years. and once again, this republican budget does not reform medicare, it deforms it. it proposes to end the medicare guarantee, shifting rising costs onto seniors and disables individuals. it gives you the equivalent of a voucher but if your voucher amount is not sufficient to pay for the rising costs of health care, too bad. too bad. simply rations your health care and choice of doctor by income. and leaves seniors to the whim of the insurance industry. and despite claims that market

competition is going to bring down those rising costs, the plan creates that artificial cap on the coucher support. our republican colleagues say they're using the part d scription drug plan as a model but that has no artificial cap. they say it's the same kind of plan offered to members of congress under the federal employee health benefit plan but that has no cap and support if their plans. so unlike members of congress, seniors and medicare will get vouchers with declining purchasing power relative to rising health care costs. in fact, if you look at this chart, mr. chairman, you will see what the current medicare plan would provide in terms of the amount of support provided by the plan to the individual on health care, that's the blue line. this is the green line. federal employee health benefit plan, plan that members of congress are on. as you can see the amount of support the premium support keeps pace with rising health

care costs. this red line is the republican voucher plan that caps the amount an individual can receive and goes steadily downward, giving seniors on medicare a worse deal than members of congress would give to themselves. now mr. chairman, this budget also rips apart the safety net for seniors in tursing -- in nursing homes and assisted living facilities as well as low income kids and individuals with disabilities who rely on medicaid. remember, two-thirds of medicaid funding goes to seniors in nursing homes and disabled individuals, yet that is one of the biggest areas of the republican budget cuts. it takes a hatchet to medicare, slashing over $800 billion and cutting medicare by 1/3 by the year 2022. this is done under the orwellian title in their plan of, quote, repairing, repairing

the social safety net. that's like throwing an anchor to a drowning person. mr. chairman, to govern is to choose and that's what this debate is all about. and the choices in this republican budget are simply wrong for america. it is not bold. not bold to provide tax breaks to millionaires while ending the medicare guarantee for seniors and sticking them with the bill for rising health care costs. it's not courageous to protect tax giveaways to big oil companies and other special interests while slashing investments in our kids' education, scientific research and critical infrastructure and it is not visionary to reward corporations that ship american jobs overseas while terminating affordable health care for tens of millions of americans. and it is certainly not brave to cut support for seniors in nursing homes, individuals with disabilities and poor kids and it is not fair to raise taxes on middle income americans,

financed by another round of tax breaks for the very wealthy. yet those are the choices made in this republican budget. where is the shared responsibility? mr. chairman, we can, we must do better, let's reject this budget and adopt the democratic alternative which provides a balanced approach to accomplishing the goal of reducing our deficits at the same time strengthening our economy and doing it in a way that calls for shared responsibility. thank you, mr. chairman. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield two minutes, a member of the budget committee, mr. mcclintock. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i thank him for his vision and courage. it's been truly an honor to serve in the committee under his leadership. mr. chairman, the house passed a budget that would have put our nation back on the path to

fiscal solvency and ultimately paid off the entire national debt. it would have saved medicare and medicaid from collapse and put them back on a solid and secure foundation. according to standard & poor's, it would have preserved the a.a.a. credit rating of the united states government. that plan was killed in the senate which has not passed a budget in three years. the senate majority leader complained that it threatened the cowboy poetry festival in nevada. an ally group depicting congressman ryan as a monster, willing to throw his grandmother off a cliff. sadly, that's what passes for reason to discourse from today's left. the result is that today our country is another-year-older and more than $1 trillion deeper in debt -- another year older and more than $1 trillion deeper in debt. we saw our debt putting us in the same league as the worst

run european government. mr. chairman, this is not a perfect budget. no budget ever is, but it will save our country from the calamity that is now destroying greece. that should be reason enough for adopting it with the resounding and dare i hope a bipartisan vote. a year ago a panel of experts from left to right warned us that we were at best five years from a sovereign debt crisis. i wonder how many more years we got. how many more chances will we have to set things right before events overtake us and we enter the downward spiral of bankrupt nations? let's not find out the answer to that question. let us act now to redeem our nation's finances and restore our nation's freedom while there's still time. that is our generation's responsibility. that is our generation's destiny, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland.

mr. van hollen: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from ohio, ms. kaptur. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. kaptur: i thank ranking member van hollen for yielding the time and stand to say that jobs need to be america's number one priority. the republican budget shows once again that the republicans don't have a jobs agenda. you balance family and national budgets by creating jobs and putting people back to work. we still have over 12 million americans looking for work, and that doesn't include those who've fallen off benefits or looking for work but can't find full-time employment. i said when we marked up this bill in committee, and i will say it again, this republican budget completely ignores the president's jobs agenda. instead, republicans incredibly criticize democrats for taking the step that helped save the u.s. auto industry and millions of related high-paying manufacturing jobs. republicans opposed the payroll tax cut extension for

middle-class americans which will help keep demand up so that businesses can hire more workers. republicans are pushing for irresponsible cuts that economists have warned will hurt the economy and job creation, and republicans proposed a partisan transportation bill that will disrupt the highway trust fund and hurt thousands of jobs. in committee we couldn't get the republicans support a modest veterans jobs corps to help those returning from iraq and afghanistan. i raised the situation with president obama during one of his ohio visits and shared with him h.r. 494, a bill i've drafted, and the president saw a need to create jobs. and his administration asked congress to do this for our returning vets. the republican majority has said no to our veterans as thousands and thousands of them return and remain unemployed. i ask my colleagues to reject the republican budget, support

the democratic alternative and put our economy first and job creation for all americans as top priority as the first step in beginning to balance our deficit. thank you so very much. i yield back my remaining time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield two minutes to mr. mica for purposes of a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. mica: i thank the chair of the budget committee and, first, let me commend chairman ryan and the budget committee for bringing this resolution to the floor today. i'm pleased with a cooperative working relationship between our two committees, particularly as we seek to move a multiyear surface transportation re-authorization to the floor in the near future. as you know, h.r. 7 is the most significant transportation reform bill since the interstate highway system was created some 50 years ago. the bill will reduce the federal bureaucracy by

consolidating or eliminating more than 70 programs and allow states to set their own transportation priorities, not by bureaucrats here in washington. h.r. 7 provides the stable and predictable funding stream that is necessary for states and construction companies to take on major construction projects that spans several years. the bill accomplishes more with less through significant reforms, including cutting in half the time it takes to complete major transportation and infrastructure projects. h.r. 7 also establishes a blueprint for job creation. it's responsibly paid for and includes no earmarks, no tax increases or deficit spending. as everyone here knows, our surface transportation programs expire on saturday, and we need to pass an extension in the next few days in order to ensure that these programs will not disrupt the folks who may be furloughed and construction workers who would be sent home.

i hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will act responsibly and put politics aside and join us in passing a short-term extension so we can work on a longer term solution. mr. chairman, h.r. 7 meets two criteria of the deficit neutral reserve fund in this budget. first, it will maintainle solvency of the highway trust fund and, second, it won't increase the deficit from fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 2022. it assumes a new potential funding stream for the trust fund in the form of oil and gas revenues and ensures that any future funding transfers will be fully offset -- mr. ryan: i yield 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. mica: both of which are included in h.r. 7. i'd like to confirm by the gentleman from wisconsin that h.r. 7 is in compliance with the budget resolution. mr. ryan: the gentleman from florida is correct in his

observations that h.r. 7, as considered by the house, is in compliance with the fiscal year 2013 budget resolution before us today. and we look forward to the final long-term re-authorization bill. mr. mica: i thank the chairman for his diligence and ongoing efforts to bring much-needed fiscal discipline to federal spending, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. that was an interesting colloquy, especially given the fact that the senate has passed a bipartisan transportation bill. again, a bill that has very broad support that if we took it up today in the house we could get it passed right now and it would be good for the economy and good for the fact that we have 17% unemployment in the construction industry. as i remarked earlier, the republican budget that we're considering would actually cut transportation funding, spending, outlays by 46% next

year. es that not good for the economy, and i hope this body will overturn that. with that i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from florida, ms. wasserman schultz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for -- the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. wasserman schultz: in the past several months in hearing after hearing in the budget committee we heard one recurring theme. chairman bernanke said it, secretary geithner reaffirmed that the draconian reckless cuts made evidence in their brightful that we are considering on the -- budget proposal that we are considering on the house floor today will be a head wind. yet, here we are considering the same republican budget plan from h.s.a. year. hearing the same arguments from chairman ryan and the republican leadership. as i said last week in committee, i feel like it's groundhog's day all over again but bill murray is nowhere in sight and this is no comedy.

in all seriousness, the harmful cuts in this budget proposal go further than damaging a fragile recovery. it pulls the rug out from under of our most vulnerable -- our seniors, our children and those with serious illness. democrats reject the idea that the way to deal with rising health care costs is to give seniors a voucher to purchase private insurance and then tell them to figure out how to keep their own costs down. democrats believe that we could not solve our budget challenges simply by shifting health costs and risks onto people who are least able to bear them -- seniors, disabled individuals and poor families. last week, i offered an amendment in the budget committee that no one in this body ever have to offer. my amendment would have prevented reckless and shameful medicaid cuts to seniors in nursing homes. like all of the other amendments offered by my democratic colleagues, this amendment was rejected on a party line vote. this is simply unconscionable. as a member of congress, representing a large number of seniors in south florida, i can tell you that the house republican budget would be devastating for seniors and

older americans. this republican path to poverty would pass like a tornado through america's nursing homes where millions of america's seniors receive long term and end of life care. 60% of seniors are on medicaid, so cuts to medicaid would have a democrat matically negative impact on our seniors. the federal government made a commitment that when we got older we wouldn't need to live in poverty or force our children into poverty in order to care for us. for decades -- if i could have an additional 30 seconds. mr. van hollen, if i could have an additional 30 seconds. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. wasserman schultz: or for our children into poverty for taking care of us. we look for protection that the federal government would honor its commitment. now under this budget plan republicans are trying to back out of our commitment to seniors. we cannot go back on our promise to the greatest generation. there is beater way forward. i ask my colleagues to think of our seniors and most vulnerable and reject the republican

budget plan. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, i yield myself two minutes just to respond to a few of the things that have been said. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: first off, it's not the budget that lowers the highway funding next year by 46%. it's the current law that governs the highway trust fund that does that anyway. let's remember, mr. chairman, the highway trust fund is going insolvent. that's under current law. so our budget simply reflects that current law, but we say, let's go get new source of revenues from oil and gas exploration to go to the highway trust fund, and let's have a reserve fund so that we can go out and find savings to fix this highway trust fund but sends those bipartisan negotiations -- since those bipartisan negotiations are beginning to take place, since that conference is beginning to take place, therefore we have a reserve fund to be held in order to accommodate that

compromise when it rises. medicare, this is the same one the president proposes in his budget. so the chart my friend from maryland used saying this is what the republican budget does growing medicare out in the future, it's the same one president obama proposes. here's the difference. president obama in his law, the one being debated over at the supreme court, sends 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats will be in charge of putting price controls and cuts to medicare to accommodate that growth rate strersuss our plan to put 50 million seniors in charge of choosing what health care plan is best for them. more for the poor. more for the sick. less for the wealthy, and it makes medicare solvent. and here's the catch. we don't change the benefit for current seniors. this applies to younger people. unlike the current law that the president passed that my friend voted for, 15 bureaucrats are in charge of putting price controls on current seniors' medical care which leads to denied care for them. if we're talking about who's

saving and shrinking the medicare, it's this budget as opposed to the status quo which raids it, rations it and still allows the program to go bankrupt. with that i'd like to yield two minutes to a gentleman from new hampshire, a member of the budget committee, mr. gunta. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. guenta: i -- mr. guinta: we have a spending crisis in this nation. this congress was sent here just a year ago to fix and solve these problems, and we have for the second year in a row offered solutions. we have offered ideas, and we will continue to work with the other side of the aisle to try to find what we all believe is a more prosperous nation. for too long, job creators in my home state of new hampshire have paced on the sidelines. they tell me over and over they

want to ex-pan their payrolls but we want stabble from washington first but that hasn't happened. it's not asking too much for our nation to see what good, sound fiscal policy looks like. we ought to provide that opportunity and pass this piece of legislation. the path to prosperity gives job creators the chance to resume what they do best, innovate, operation and expand their businesses and job opportunitiers in rest of us. it does so by reducing spending $5.3 trillion over the next decade, we slowly bring the deficit of 3% of g.d.p. as quickly as 2015, and we have a path to balance this nation's budget. we also do this by reforming our tax code. on the side of six tax brackets down to two, 25% and 10%, and on the corporate side, redeucing the rate from 35% to 25%.

going to a territorial system, allowing the opportunity for our economy to once again be thriving. the best way to sustain a lasting economic recovery is to remove the hurdles an barriers that are holding back job create -- job creators and this budget does just that i urge my colleagues to pass the path to prosperity and call on the senate to approve it as well. i yield back. spo the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. a couple of point the bipartisan bill that came from the senate would provide funding, fully paid for, offset, for 18 months so you could avoid the big 46% cut next year that's in the republican budget an make sure folks out there looking for jobs in the construction industry could get to work. secondly, with respect to medicare, you have two fundamentally different approaches. the approach in the affordable care act was to say we need to modernize the medicare system

by changing incentives so we reward and incentive size the quality of care, not the volume of care that drove up costs. what we do not do is offload the risk of those roys -- rising health care costs onto seniors. the board, the ipab, the gentleman referred to is specifically prohibited and i have the language right here, from including any recommendations to ration health care, raise revenue or medicare beneficiary premiums. whereas the republican plan expressly works by offloading those risks and those costs onto seniors. a very different approach. with that, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. ryan. the chair: the gentleman is recognize. mr. ryan: i thank the gentleman. in akron, ohio, suma health care is already implementing some of these changes and saving millions and millions of dollars because of the health

care reform bill. with this -- i love this idea of if we can't have a board rationing care, what are the insurance companies doing today, mr. chairman? we ask -- we act like we're living in a society where the insurance industry is ok'ing every procedure that needs to get done. they're rationing care right now and we have 40 million or 50 million americans who can't afford health care. so we're going to throw our seniors now into the insurance market and give them a premium support or a voucher and our friend says, it's not a voucher, it's premium support to help them go out and buy insurance in the free market but that voucher is only going to go up 3% or 4% a year. while health care costs are going to go up 5%, 10%, who knows, 15% a year. so that voucher, every single year goes down and becomes worthless. -- worth less. that's the concern we have on our side. that's why we think the reform we put into place was a

positive thing. then the medicaid cuts, people in ohio use to make sure they can get into a nursing home when they're seniors, gets a cut by 1/3. so we're cutting medicaid by a third, basically privatizing the medicaid system into a -- medicare system into a voucher system, sending the seniors to send with the sharks in the insurance market, hoping insurance companies grant them what they need. you can't make money off insuring senior citizens. that's why this debate about the intummingt a positive one. i think it articulates the two different sides. lastly, let me say. this is about balance. the deep, deep cuts in the republican budget are because they can't ask warren buffett to pay a little more in taxes. all during the committee process this year and last year, we have our friends on the other side of the aisle who honor ronald reagan, light candles, burn incense -- i ask

for an additional 30 seconds. mr. van hollen: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. the chair: the swrelt is recognized. mr. ryan: ronald reagan raised taxes 11 times, highway revenue act of 1982, social security amendments of 1983, railroad retirement revenue act tax increase of 1983, deaf sit reduction act of 1984, consolidated budget reconciliation act of 1985, omnibus reconciliation act of 1958, superfund amendments and authorization act of 1986, continuing resolution in 1987 and a continuing resolution in 1988. the responsible thing to do is ask warren buffett an his friends make sure these cuts aren't that deep and medicare and medicaid and pell grants and the other investments we make in our country. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield two minutes

to the gentleman from indiana, mr. rokita. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. row key a ta -- mr. rokita: i thank the chairman. as a member of the budget committee, i'm pleased to not only have helped authored this budget but to stand here in strong support of it. it's a fair budget. it's an honest budget. as the gentleman from new hampshire said, this is the second year in a row that we are telling the truth to the american people. you know the old adage was, never touch that third rail of politics. never touch medicare, never touch medicaid. never talk about social security. touch it and you will die. we are debunking that myth. because that's exactly what it is. we give credit to the american people by telling them the truth. we have that respect for them. 65% of our spending, year over year, comes out of this house, our programs that don't work

well, and that are bankrupt. they won't be around for our children. and that's these programs right here. this is what drives our debt. 65% of our current spending. you know what's unfair? it's unfair that in a few decades, these programs, as this chart shows, will take 100%, will take up all the revenue that we bring in, the taxes, that we bring in, as a federal government. now some will say, hey, wait a minute, i paid into those programs. i deserve to take out. well, that's kind of true as well. kind of. on average, let's take medicare, for example. on average, we pay in 30% of what we're going to take out. that 70% difference comes from the children of tomorrow. who don't exist yet. who have no voice in this debate. it's unfair that no one speaks for them.

we do. we speak for the people in the here and now and we speak for the people of tomorrow. immigrants didn't come to this country for wealth redistribution. they didn't come to this country to practice intergenerational theft. they want their kids they want their grandchildren, to have a better life than they did. our budget does that and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back, the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. the gentleman is absolutely right about the immediate to look out for future generations and the issue of the deficit. what i always find staggering is the refusal to close one single loophole, just one penny, for the purposes of reducing the deficit so that we can address that issue of the deficits in future generations. with that, i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from pennsylvania, ms. is wards, who has been a great member of the budget committee.

the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. schwartz: the federal intudget a statement of our priorities and values as a nation. the budget needs to be fiscally responsible and reduce the deficit, meet our obligation tures seniors, our families, and our future. the republican budget fails to meet all three challenges. it fail ours nation's seniors and our middle class, it fails to ensure we can compete from a position of strength in a global economy and fails to offer a balanced approach to deficit reduction. the republican budget relies solely on spending cuts. it chooses tax reductions for millionaires at the expense of the middle class and chooses tax breakers in biggest corporations over small business and new jobs. the most direct acault -- assault on our values as americans is the republicans' plan to dismantle medicare as we know it. rather than protecting the promise of me care for seniors now and into the future, the republicans break that promise.

rather than reducing costs through payment and delivery system reforms, the republicans do nothing to contain costs and simply shift the cost burden on our seniors. and rather than guaranteed benefit, the republicans leave seniors on our own to buy what benefits they can afford with a limited voucher. this means seniors are summitted to the insurance industry based on age and income and hell. it cus benefits for the sickest and frailest seniors, threatening their access to nursing home care. for decades, medicare has provided both financial and health security for american seniors with access to quality, affordable, guaranteed health benefits. medicare is a promise to our seniors an it is a promise that this republican budget breaks. america's senior december serve better. instead, we need a balanced approach to reduce the deficit,

to meet our commitments in our nation, and create an environment that grows our economy now and into the future. reject this republican budget and choose a democratic budget alternative that meets our nations challenges in a way that is balanced, fair, and responsible. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time is expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield myself one minute simply to say, i keep hearing the word voucher. i'm told it polls well if your goal is to scare senior citizens. what we're talking about in here is to build upon the bipartisan reforms that have been advocated in the 1990's and early part of this tech cade on how best to save and strengthen the medicare guarantee. first, no changes for anybody in or near retirement from medicare. second, when a person 54 or below becomes medicare eligible, they'll get a list of guaranteed coverage options from medicare from which to choose, just like we do as

members of congress, including in this case a traditional medicare program. medical will subs died their medicare premiums from the plan they choose. if you're low income or sick, you'll get much more. you'll get total coverage out of pocket for a low-income person. if you're a wealthy person, you can probably afford out of pocket and won't get as much of a subsidy. we competitivelied by, the plans must offer the -- competitively bid, the plans must offer basic protection and it grows no faster than what the president proposes in his. here's the difference. yielding myself 30 additional seconds, mr. president. the president's is different, he allows me care to goback rupt but even that he takes a half trillion dollars from medicare to spend on his new health care program for other people and puts a board of 15 unelected unaccountable bureaucrats in charge of denying care by denying prices.

it says you can go and cut reimbursement rates to providers, do whatever your value-based benefit design, which is what they propose, whatever that means, to affect current seniors. we reject the idea that medicare should be run by 15 unelected bureaucrats and want to preserve it for the current generation. with that, i yield five minutes to the chairman of the house republican conference, a former member of the budget committee, mr. hensarling of texas. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hensarling: i thank the chairman for yielding and i thank him for his national leadership on this pressing issue of the national debt. mr. chairman, last week secretary geithner came up to capitol hill to warn of the threat to the american economy of the european debt crisis. mr. chairman, the american people know that the greater threat to the american economy

is the american debt crisis. we face the absolute worst debt crisis in america's history, and yet it has been almost three years since both house and senate democrats have submitted a budget. almost three full years. now, to his credit, the president has submitted a budget. to his shame, it adds $11 trillion to our national debt on top of the $5 trillion that he's already imposed of additional national debt. now, mr. chairman, everyone knows that the spending trajectory of the federal government is unsustainable. and what does our president do in his budget? he takes an unsustainable spending trajectory and doubles down. he makes it more unsustainable, which makes it unconscionable, and perhaps worst of all, mr.

chairman, even though he knows, he knows what the drivers of our national insolvency are, he refuses to deal with them. but don't take my word for it. listen to the editorial pages of major u.s. newspapers, many of which are pretty liberal in their orientation. "the boston herald" writes, quote, president barack obama has apparently decided that he's not going to be part of the solution to the nation's enormous deficit, which would make him, yes, part of the problem. the "l.a. times," it's past time for the administration to lay out a credible plan for bringing the deficit and debt under control. sadly, obama's budget proposal shows that he'd rather wait until after the election to have that reckoning. "usa today," the best test of a

budget proposal these days is whether it reins in the national debt. the election year budget president obama sent to congress on monday fails that test. you know, mr. chairman, pretty clear the president's policies have failed. they have been hampering our economic recovery, and because they have failed, regrettably our president has resorted to the politics of division and envy which is fairly evident in his budget. he's not appealed to the better angels of our disposition, not our fellow citizens but instead appeals to their basic instincts. mr. speaker, our nation is truly, truly at a crossroads between two very different paths. the president's path, one of crushing unsustainable debt, a massive tax increase on struggling families and small

businesses. and most troubling, a diminished future for our children and grandchildren. in short, it is the road to becoming a european-style social democracy of the 21st century. mr. speaker, it is past time to quit spending money we don't have. it's past time to quit borrowing almost 40 cents on the dollar, much of it from the chinese so we can just turn around and send the bill to our children and our grandchildren. where the president and democrats have failed to lead, house republicans, under the leadership of our budget chairman, paul ryan, have acted . we have a vastly different path for america's future. it is a path of opportunity. it is a path for economic growth. it is the path to prosperity. and it is the path of fiscal sustainability that over time, not just reduces the national

debt, will pay it off. number one, let's look at the differences. our budget would absolutely prevent the president's single largest tax increase in american history, $1.9 trillion of new taxes, to be imposed upon our job creators and other hardworking americans. and you know what's ironic, mr. chairman, even if you gave the president every single job-hampering tax increase he's asked for, it's about 16%, maybe 17% of the $11 trillion he wants to add to the national debt. you can't tax your way out of this problem, mr. chairman. mr. ryan: three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. hensarling: you know, part of the problem here, mr.

chairman, part of the problem is you run out of rich people so we know it's the middle income who will end up paying this. second point, we repeal the president's failed health care program. the one that we now understand is going to cost almost $2 trillion, one that now the congressional budget office tells us will cost us almost two million jobs, and the one that creates the independent payment advisory board, as the chairman has said, 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats who begin making health care decisions for our seniors like my 79-year-old mother, my 83-year-old father. you know, if one of them needs a hip replacement, if one of them needs a heart bypass, i want that to be made by them and their doctor, not the 15

unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats, and that is to ration quality and access to health care for our seniors. you know, i hear the buzz line but that seems to me that ends medicare as we know it. ridding half a trillion dollars out of medicare to pay for the president's health care, that seems to end medicare as we know it. putting a global price cap, that seems to end medicare as we know it. and most of all, since we've heard from the trustees of the medicare and social security trust fund, it's going broke, allowing it to go broke, which our friends on the other side of the aisle does. seems to me to be ending medicare as we know it. our budget will control spending. under the president's budget, spending has gone from its traditional 20% of our economy to 24% and it's on its way to 40% over the course of the next

generation. our budget will control spending, limit government so we can have unlimited opportunity. what is this debate truly about, mr. chairman? here's what i think it's about, and i've shared this correspondence to my colleagues before. i heard from the calhoun family in winsboro, texas, about this debt. congressman, i've never felt embarrassed and ashamed about anything in my own life as i do about leaving this mess in the lapse of my precious grandkids. i've written both of them a heart felt apology for them to read when they get old enough to understand what i allowed our country's governing authority to do to them. mr. chairman, we have no greater moral responsibility than to preserve the blessings of liberty and opportunity for this gentleman's grandchildren and the next generation. it's what we do. we are americans. we're not just operating on borrowed money. we're operating on borrowed

time. to -- two paths, two choices, one duty. let history record. i hope history will record that we acted worthy of ourselves, that we acted worthy of our forefathers, that we acted worthy of this great republic that so many have sacrificed for over the years. no more borrowed time. no more borrowed money. let's seize the moment in history. let's adopt the republican path to prosperity budget, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. the difference between the president's plan and the republican budget, the difference between the democratic alternative and the

republican budget is that we take a balanced approach. i think everybody understands that spending cuts have to be part of the solution. this congress acted last summer. cut $1 trillion out of the budget. but the president and the democratic alternative also understands what bipartisan groups all understand which is the only credible way to reduce our deficit is through a combination of spending cuts and cutting some of the tax breaks to special interests and asking millionaires to pay more. i keep hearing our republican colleagues come to the floor lamenting the large deficits and debt which we all agree we need to get under control and then refusing to cut one special interest loophole for the purpose of reducing the deficit, asking a millionaire to contribute one more penny for the purpose of reducing the deficit. now, with respect to the issue of medicare, the reason it's not premium support is it

doesn't provide constant support to the senior on medicare. over time seniors purchasing power of this voucher will get less and less while the costs go up and up. i would point again, members of congress have for them a plan, this green line where the purchasing power of their health plans stays constant even as health prices increase. but this red line here is what they would do to seniors on medicare. i've heard it said a couple times now that the president allows medicare to go bankrupt. mr. chairman, here's a chart that the chairman of the budget committee, mr. ryan, presented in the budget committee. the black line here is the trajectory that they claim for their plan in terms of cost containment. the blue line is what they

acknowledge is what the president calls for. as you can say the tracks are very different. this red line is from the congressional budget office. the different between the approaches is that the republican plan puts the risk at being wrong here on the senior whereas the plan we put forward says we need to change the incentive structures to change the incentives in a way that providers provide more cost efficient care rather than putting that risk on the senior. that is the fundamental difference and aarp, the largest organization of seniors in this country, agrees with what i just said and they say in their letter the premium support method described in the proposal, unlike private plan options that currently exits in medicare would likely, quote, price out traditional medicare as a viable option, thus rendering the traditional choice of medicare as a false

promise. they go on to say that the purchasing power of this voucher will not keep pace with health care costs. let's not put that risk on seniors. and with that i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from florida who has been just tenacious in making sure that we deal with these issues in a fair and balanced way, ms. castor. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. castor: i thank the gentleman very much. the republican budget makes something very clear, republicans and democrats have very different visions for our great country. the republican vision is harsh and independent commentators have said a few things about their proposed budget. they called it reversed robin hood. they called it disturbing and they called it extreme. i think one of the primary reasons is that the republican budget breaks the promise that

this country has made to generations of americans that is medicare. the fundamental thing is if you pay into medicare every year as you're working that it will be there for you in retirement. you can live your retirement years in dignity. even in the safe of a diagnosis of alzheimer's or cancer, you will not go bankrupt, and your children will not go bankrupt. medicare makes america great. but unfortunately through this budget the republicans say they don't share that view. specifically, the republican budget ends guaranteed coverage that our parents and grandparents have paid for. cuts medicare benefits. it increases premiums and co-pays. it scraps all of those important democratic cost saving reforms that strengthen medicare. i offered an amendment in the budget committee that would retain closing of the doughnut hole, the annual wellness benefit and other benefits and unfortunately it was voted

down. it ends medicare as we know it and forces the average senior to pay twice as much for half the benefits. and americans need to ask why. why do they want to cut medicare while at the same time protecting corporate tax subsidies and loopholes like the ones for big oil? why do they want to cut medicare while at the same time increasing tax breaks for millionaires? the republican budget proposes a harsh vision indeed, a vision that is contrary to our values for american families. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: did the gentleman from maryland want to yield to another person to catch up on time? mr. van hollen: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pascual, who -- mr. pascrell who has been fighting for jobs as part of this budget.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. pascrell: the chairman of the budget committee stated, when it was introduced, this budget, that his reason for turning robin hood on its head was to stop a quote-unquote insidious moral tipping point. well, madam speaker, i can only assume april fools came early, that this budget resolution is a joke. we're going to steal from the middle class and working poor because we need to stiffen their upper lips and improve their moral fiber. let's talk about moral fiber. where were the morals of the bankers on wall street who drove this economy off the cliff in they're doing just fine today. they're not doing time. but the middle class is still

struggling and millions of americans are unemployed. you don't have to look far to see what the real intentions of this budget is. a 30-year pathway to poverty, shrink the middle class even further. don't take my word for it. when asked if his tax plan would hurt the middle class, the chairman of the budget committee responded with, quote-unquote, i don't know. there's no way to know that. are you playing russian roulette with a shrinking middle class in let's try to help the chairman figure this out. the $4.6 trillion tax giveaway to every -- to the very wealthy in this budget means that the middle class homeowners lose their mortgage interest deduction and property tax deduction. students lose the deduction for interest on student loans. small businesses lose tax

credits for buying insurance. future seniors will have medicare turn into a voucher program that will make them pay $6,000 more out of pocket by 2022. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. van hollen: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pascrell: it cuts $800 billion from medicare. preemyull -- premium support doesn't cut costs, it simply shifts them to seniors with no guarantee of benefits. seniors like medicare. they like the security it provides them. and it controls costs better than any private sector plan. it costs less than any private sector plan. this is not a plan to strengthen medicare, it's a plan to slowly drown it. leaving no working family's stone unturned --

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. van hollen: i yield the gentleman 10 seconds. mr. pascrell: thank you. this budget takes 62% of its $5.3 trillion in nondefense budget cuts from programs that protect the most vulnerable in the society. food stamps, head start, women infants -- women, infants, and children knew vision. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: madam chair, hyperbole knows no bounds these days. i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lankford. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lankford: just about two months ago, i went with my daughter, parked in a church parking lot and let her take the wheel. she's 15 years old, we're in that process of her learning how to drive. i do that because i'm her dad. and i know the dangers she's about to face. i, quite frankly, know the dangers to my neighbors around us and their trash cans and

their garage if i don't spen time teaching her to drive. that's my responsibility because i'm the adult and i'm to step up and take lead when it's there to avoid the danger that's coming. that's where we are right now as a nation. we can continue to pretend that this is not serious and we can continue to spen more money and if we only spent a little more, just tax a little more, we'll take our awatt of this, we'll spend our way out of it, it will get better. i know we're at $15.6 trillion in debt, but if we only got it to $18 trillion, then the economy would stabilize. the -- what the people in my district say, the same thing i the ferc problem is bigger than that. a few years ago if we said, we can tweak the tax code and get a simple fix. it's not like that today. just this year, $1.3 trillion in deficit spending. this president has racked up in

three year, three months, more debt than the previous administration did in eight years. it is time to make some hard choices but they are the right choices and that's what i hear from people back home. they say balance the budget. it's not right to take away money from the next generation, so we can continue to try to just stir up more programs for us. it is not right to just create a never-ending list of new options and to say, we'll just give more money to this group and this group an this group, it'll fix it. it's not right that we don't protect it. people are frustrated that we're talking about tweaking the tax code. they want us to fix the tax code, not just tweak it. year after year, i hear people saying to me, fix medicare. they look at me and they get it. there's a problem. they want us to fix it. they want us to stabilize it. i am amazed that last year, politifact, in all the things

that were said last year, they said ending medicare as we know it was the biggest lie of the year in politics. it looks like it's in a race to win in 2010 again. we are not ending medicare as we know it. we are protecting it for the futures because it is unstable. it is going insolvent. it is time for us to repair it and protect it and put it on the path that can be sustained for the days to come. all the people in my district want is a reasonable, right plan that actually deals with the drivers of our debt, that actually deals with the tough issues and says, stop playing with us. we're adults. let's fix this and let's get on with it. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. ryan: -- mr. van hollen: thank you, madam chair. somebody who said let's fix this, in an adult way, the way other bipartisan groups have done is ms. mccollum from minnesota. i yield her two minutes. the chair: the gentlewoman is

recognized for two minutes. ms. mccollum: madam chair, this republican budget is a political document. it's the house republican platform for november. the g.o.p. platform put ours economy and millions of jobs at risk. they've not protections for seniors an families in need. they abandon local communities at a time when washington should be a partner for opportunity and economic growth. the republican platform cuts student loans and grants for higher education by $166 billion. the republican budget forces seniors to pay out of pocket an average of $600 additional every year for med cases they need because the -- for medications they need because the g.o.p. reopens an throws seniors back into the medicare part d doughnut hole and this budget drives americans into an enormous g.o.p. pothole, gutting federal transportation investments by 25%, abandoning communities and businesses that need improved infrastructure to remain competitive.

this republican budget cuts regular folks and then protects and showers benefits on the wealthiest and most privileged millionaires and billionaires. the republican platform should be called millionaires' manifesto because it will borrow millions from communist china to guarantee every millionaire a tax cut worth nearly $400,000 according to the center for budget and policy priorities an all that is added to our national debt. the republican budget gives oil companies $21 billion in taxpayer subsidies while they are gouging americans who are working hard when they fill up their tank at the gas pump and the oil companies continue to make record profits. the g.o.p. budget sounds extreme but only because it reflects the core values of the tea party house republicans, protect the rich, cut off the poor and walk away from the middle class. democrats have a budget that prioritizes deficit reduction

and invests in the middle class. democrats strengthen our american competitiveness by investing in education, basically -- basic research and modern infrastructure. investments that will create squobs, i urge support for the democratic proposal. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: madam chair, i yield myself one minute to make a statement. i am pleased my friend from maryland brought our chart to the floor with his yellow being. the medicare -- >> let me record show that in a moment of genuine bipartisanship i gave the chairman's chart back to him for his own use. mr. ryan: the cap on medicare that is in law under the president's budget applies to current seniors that doesn't occur for current seniors in our budget. we don't put this cap because we don't want the 15

bureaucrats putting price controls on care to current seniors. for future seniors, 54 and below, medicare grows at the same rate that the president's budget proposes it grows at. the difference is we don't want the bureaucrats rationing care. and the purposes of taxes, i love this issue about tax fairness. the president is proposing higher tax rates and more loopholes. here's the point i'm trying to make. yielding myself an additional 30 seconds, i say this, if you look at the current code, the top 1% of taxpayers get almost all the tax shelters, all the loopholes. so here's the novel idea that we have come up with. it's a bipartisan one. get rid of the tax shelter so he can lower everybody's tax rates. so a person who is parking their money through an average of about $300,000 in tax shelters, for every dollar in that tax shelter, it's taxed at zero, we're saying get rid of the tax shelter, so we can lower everybody's tax rates.

when eight out of 10 businesses in america -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expire. mr. ryan: yielding myself 30 seconds to simply say, when eight out of 10 businesses in america file their taxes as individuals, raising these tax rates gets job creators. 65% of new jobs come from small businesses. half of americans work in these kinds of small businesses an my friends on the other side of the aisle are saying, it's not enough that they pay more taxes than their foreign competitors, we need to make them pay a 45% tax rate in january. i've got news for you, countries arn the world are lowering their taxes on their job creators an the president is proposing to raise it. that's a job killer. with that, i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from wyoming, the first congressional district of wyoming, mrs. lummis. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. lummis: thank you, madam chairman. i want to applaud house republicans for putting this budget forward here's why we're trying to save medicare.

you see this little green line? that's our medicare revenue. see this huge medicare green line? this is how much we're spending on medicare. that's just in the last year system of if you extend that forward, you can see why medicare as it exists is going broke. that's why i'm so proud of the house budget committee, what they chose to do is come up with a plan that will save medicare in this way. if you want to keep medicare, you can keep it. but if you want something like we members of congress have, you can elect to have that too. now here's what i have as a member of congress. when i came in as a member of congress, i had a pre-existing condition. but the federal government couldn't turn me down because of that pre-existing condition to acquire insurance. that's the way it would be under medicare. further, i had a choice between about 10 plans.

i chose a standard blue cross blue shield plan. i knew i could get it filled anywhere in the country, including my rural state of wyoming. i pay 28% of my premium. the federal government, the taxpayers, pay 72% of my premium. that's basically what they're proposing. you'd have a choice among plans. and you would pay part of the premium and the government would pay part of the premium. if you're healthy or wealthy, you'd pay more of your premium. if you're unhealthy or unwealthy, you'd pay less of your premium. you could either choose that, if that was something you'd become accustomed to, or if you wanted to choose to be on medicare as you know it today, that would also be a choice. seems to me, madam chairman, that's the great choice. i support the republican budget. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you,

madam chairwoman. the gentlelady is correct that under the federal employee health benefit plan that members of congress are on, there's a 72% for the premium. that's exactly what that steady green line is. an as health care costs go up, the gentlelady will continue through the congressional plan to get a steady amount of support under the federal health plan that members of congress have. urn the republican budget plan, in fact, that support drops steadily and deeply which is why it is not premium support. with that, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon, the distinguished member of the budget committee, mr. blumenauer. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate the opportunity to speak but i am sad that we are speaking here today on what is an artful dodge on the part of my republican friends to provide a political document instead of a meaningful

budget approach. first as my good friend from maryland just pointed out they will slowly, surely steadily shift the burden to senior citizens by freezing the amount that the federal government will give. and it's interesting that they save, they keep, they spend the money from reforming medicare that is already ensconsed in federal law now. it sets back an important opportunity to reform our tax program. their $10 billion of tax cuts over the next 10 years will be somehow offset by closing loopholes. and they have steadily refused to identify what loopholes they can possibly close without hammering average americans. you cannot do it.

and every independent analyst agrees that this is going to be a massive shift in tax unfairness, it's going to put a greater burden on most americans , while it gives more assistance to those who need it the least. and as far as closing loopholes, i just spent four hours in the ways and means committee where they provided another big tax benefit that they're going to work to try and make permanent in the future. they're trying to have it both ways without being specific. but i will tell you the area that is greatest of disappointment to me is not just the assault on the most vulnerable, have anybody talk to the providers in your district about the cuts to medicare, the frail, the elderly, the poor, the most vulnerable -- may i ask the gentleman for an additional minute? mr. van hollen: yes, the gentleman may have an additional minute.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. blumenauer: thank you. but look what's happening with transportation. this is an area, until this crew came to town, that used to be bipartisan. we used to be able to bring transportation bills to the floor and pass them in a cooperative basis. we just had a republican bill blow up because they didn't even have a hearing. it was absolutely a partisan effort, the worst transportation bill in history. and now we are on the verge of losing the construction cycle for this summer because they will not allow the bipartisan -- the bipartisan senate bill to come to the floor that would provide stability not just for this construction cycle but for next construction cycle. and what does this transportation -- what does the transportation elements of this budget? look at them carefully. they would not even provide enough money to meet the contractual obligations that

states, transit districts, cities are already involved with. contractors are at work on projects -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. van hollen: i yield the gentleman 15 seconds. mr. blumenauer: contractors are already at work and their budget would not provide enough money to meet the obligations that we have right now. let alone build for the future. it's unfortunate, it isn't worthy of your support. i hope you'll vote no. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ribble. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ribble: mr. chairman, i rise today to express my support for the fiscal 2013 budget resolution. there's been some fiery rhetoric that the house budget will end medicare but this is simply not the case. both republicans and democrats have worked on plans that will strengthen seniors' health care accessibility and security. if our country remains on its current path, in 10 short years medicare will go bankrupt.

the congressional budget office warns that in 2022 the medicare trust fund will run out of money and default on its obligations to current seniors. as representatives of the american people, we here in congress have the responsibility to address this growing crisis so that millions of seniors now and in the future will not be left without the vital care that they've earned and deserve. if the father and grandfather, -- as a father and grandfather, i cannot pass that burden onto my children and grandchildren or for that matter anyone else's. the house budget will not only protect medicare benefits for seniors today but will also ensure its solvency for future generations. it guarantees coverage for current and future beneficiaries, regardless of pre-existing conditions. premium support programs have had a proud history of bipartisan support and would also give more assistance to lower income and ailing individuals while reducing assistance to millionaires and billionaires. under our proposed fixes to preserve the medicare program,

beneficiaries will also be able to choose from medicare health plans competing for their business, just like seniors currently enjoy with the very popular medicare part d prescription drug coverage. this will drive down costs, improve value and increase choice. and speaking of choice, instead of 15 unelected bureaucrats choosing, we will see 50 million seniors with the freedom to choose for themselves. with this proposal, those who are at or near retirement, meaning any individual 55 years or older, will see no change whatsoever to their current benefits. because there's been a lot of misinformation out there, i want to stress that point. no one 55 and older will see any change to their medicare under this plan. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. ryan: 0 seconds. mr. ribble: simply put, the house budget will improve medicare, inject life to this program. the path to prosperity budget does exactly what the name suggests. it will decrease costs while improving health care and coverage for millions of seniors today and millions more

tomorrow. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam chairman. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett, who has been fighting for education among other things. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. doggett: this budget is based on the false belief that if we ask those who have the least in america to take a little less and we ask those who have the most to thicken their cushion just a little bit, that everybody will be a winner and america will grow. and no matter how many times that mythology fails, most recently with the bush-cheney tax cuts, that didn't grow the economy effectively, but did grow the deficit to roy record levels, no matter -- to record levels, no matter how many times it fails, they insist on having a little more of it. our contrasting view on tax policy was demonstrated in the committee consideration of this bill. i suggested that we extend the

higher education tax credit that i authored so that a mechanic and a nurse, a young person who has gotten their high school diploma in san antonio, texas, can walk over to san antonio college and have their tuition up to $2,500 which will cover tuition and textbooks there, that they get that right off -- a tax cut. they rejected that tax cut because they said it would be better if we gave a tax break to billionaires and those at the top of the economic latter -- ladder and eventually that mechanic and that nurse and that young person would see the benefit. i don't think they do. i think they'd like to be able to choose for themselves with the higher education tax credit, opportunity for the future. and the little brother and the little sister there or in lockhart or san marcus that want an opportunity to be prepared

for school with headstart and early education, our budget provides for them. it provides opportunity and hope for them and they propose that they ought to sacrifice a little bit more. as for our seniors and our veterans, we suggested for veterans that we wanted to provide more job opportunities. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. van hollen: i yield the gentleman another 15 seconds. mr. doggett: as for our seniors, we suggested that getting a certificate to go fish for insurance is not enough. this is about values, about dignity for those in retirement, and opportunity for our young people. this republican budget is not a path to prosperity, it's an expressed way of retread ideas, an express way to mediocrity. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from the budget committee, the gentleman from indiana, mr. stutzman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized, two minutes. mr. stutzman: i rise today to

participate in a debate that the americans -- that americans deserve, but unfortunately democrats want to avoid. the senate has refused to pass a budget in over 1,000 days. but as washington races down the road of debt and decline, hardworking taxpayers deserve an honest debate and a real choice. that's why we have come to the floor today. this budget, the path to prosperity gives the american people a choice between two futures. a few tier of deficit spending and -- a future of deficit spending and taxes or they can choose to set priorities, cut government spending and keep medicare solvent for future generations. as i sit here and listen to the to the debate, i hear -- listen to the debate, i hear a lot of talk about shared sacrifice. i believe what americans are looking for is leadership. they're looking for people who they can trust. and i want to say thank you to the chairman of the budget committee, mr. paul ryan, for bringing and leading the budget committee in a team effort to

bring forward a pathway that shows real solutions to the problems that we face. americans are asking themselves, who can they trust in washington? well, the solution is always -- we hear from the other side of the aisle is, let's just raise taxes. raise taxes on the rich, let's eliminate loopholes. you know what? i agree. we should eliminate the loopholes and the -- get rid of the credits, the incentives, and make a fair, flatter tax code. but until washington is truly determined to fix the spending problems that we have, to save medicare, to make sure that social security is around for future generations, i don't think we should seriously look at any tax increases, we can talk about tax reform, but americans want us to address what we can control and that is spending. we can talk about raising taxes or we can talk about tax restructuring. i believe tax restructuring

would be a solution where we can find bipartisan -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. ryan: i yield the gentleman another 15 seconds. mr. stutzman: thank you. i believe that we can deal with the problem that we face in spending without raising taxes and that we can truly address tax reform in a bipartisan fashion and i ask that this body seriously consider the path to prosperity and support it. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam chairman. i think we should engage in tax reform. but i don't think we need to wait for tax reform to get rid of some of the subsidies to the big oil companies, or get rid of the subsidies for corporate jets. we can do that now as part of a balanced approach. and with that i yield two minutes to the newest member of the budget committee, we're pleased to have her on the committee, the gentlelady from oregon, ms. bonamici. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. bonamici: thank you.

i thank my colleague for yielding. we have a real choice to make here. a choice between a republican budget that hurts the middle class and those who are struggling to get out of poverty and the democratic alternative that presents a balanced approach to reinvest in our economy. it's critical for the communities and in the employers in my district and around this great country that we continue to support, not cut, research and work force development. that we renew our commitment to, not cut, public education. these are key areas in which we must invest in order to maintain and accelerate our much-needed economic recovery. we've seen the private sector dividends that are paid by the research, facilitated by the n.i.h., the n.f.f. and the department of energy. it's undeniable that emerging solar, wind and even wave energy technologies will all have critical roles in playing in our road to energy independence and

as these technologies continue to develop, we must improve upon, not cut, work force development initiatives. and community colleges will play an important role in achieving this goal. in oregon we've seen exciting partnerships develop between green energy technology, manufacturers and community colleges. of course access to a quality education must start well before our children reach college age. our public schools are the cornerstones of our communities. we have an obligation to ensure that we provide the funding necessary, not cut, these important quality education. that will enhance all of our children's future. when our children do reach college age, it's important that the option of higher education is available and affordable. instead of cutting pell grants and raising student loan interest rates, in order to provide tax breaks for millionaires, let's work to protect our financial aid

investments. continued access to these programs will help prepare our future workers -- may i ask for an additional -- mr. van hollen: another 15 seconds. bonbon thank you. these programs will -- ms. bonamici: thank you. these programs will help. there's a strark contrast between the republicans' budget and what the democrat colleagues and i are proposing. we're at a fork in the road and i urge my colleagues to avoid the path to poverty by rejecting the republican budget. and coming to get to support the balanced approach. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. ryan: i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. kingston. the chair: the gentleman is recognized, two minutes. >> america is on the economic road to greece. mr. kingston: our debt is 100% of our gross domestic product. did you ever think you would

hear that, that our national tet is 100 pk of our gross domestic product? it's mind-boggling if you take a step back an think, for every dollar we spend, 42 cents is borrow. what would a business do, what would a family do, what would you do with your own individual finances? obviously you would chame your ways. today we have that opportunity. that's what the ryan republican budget is all about. number one, it reduces spen, redeuces spening by over $5 trillion more than the president. number two, it eliminates loopholes in the tax some so the tax code would be fair, competitive and balanced. number three, it reduces the deficit an the debt by over $3 trillion. number four it reduces the size of government from being 24% of the economy down to 20%. hopefully we could even reduce it more than that. it reduces the size of government without endangering

us from a national security point of view or without pulling out the safety net that is so important to our seniors and most vulnerable members of society. it does this through common sense reforms, through elimination of waste, through duplication. there are 44 different federal job training programs. if one of them works, why would you need the other 4 . the g.a.o. says there's 19 duplications of effort in procurement at the pentagon. let's get rid of them. over at the usda, i happen to know i'm on this committee, the federal programs are unbelievable. if you're bob and you're 3 years old, bob is eligible for 12 federal feeding programs. at 10 years old, he's eligible for nine. at 35 years old, bob is eligible for seven. at 65 -- could i have 15 seconds? mr. run: i yield the -- mr. ryan: i yield the gentleman 15 seconds. mr. kingston: at 65 he's

eligible for five programs. these are duplications that democrats an republicans alike should agree, let's eliminate. that's what the republican budget does, elimination of waste an getting rid of duplications and putting america on a road to prosperity so my children and betsy, doip, and jim -- ann, betsy, john and jim can live in an economy where there's opportunities for them. i urge my colleagues to support the ryan budget. the chair: the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam chairman. i yield two minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the financial services committee, mr. frank. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frank: i was interested to hear the gentleman complain about the duplication. apparently in the six years when the republicans controlled the house, the white house and the senate, they didn't find them. they're late to see them, but better late than never he talks about the due di-- duplication

at the defense department and procurement. this budget protects the pentagon and increases spening. we have been told that we should not be cutting medicare because that's not what happened. let me cite "the wall street journal," they are defending the chairman of the budget committee against the right wing. here's what "the wall street journal" says, talking about not cutting spen bug shifting it. the "wall street journal" editorial yesterday, mr. ryan spees -- mr. ryan's budget could cancel additional defense cuts of $55 billion under the sequester and replace them with savings in the entitlements. his me care and medicaid reforls would generate future savings many times gater than we gave from cutting the defense budget. some of us don't think that pulling out of afghanistan with the corruption there quicker than is now planned would be

gutting the defense budget. i know my republican colleagues like to be critical of welfare in some cases, but they continue to support the greatest welfare program in the history of the world, the american taxpayer subsidy of the wealthy nations of western europe. let me again read what "the wall street journal" says, here's how they characterize the ryan budget. mr. ryan's budget would cancel the additional defense cuts of $55 billion a year and replace them with savings in the entitlements, social security and medicare system of in this respect, at least, we're not talking about cutting spening but shifting it from the military into the defense department. this is why the aarp has written so persuasively that his plan would destroy medicare. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: madam chair, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, a member of the budget committee, mr. calvert. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized. mr. calvert: thank you, madam chairman, -- thank you mr. chairman, madam speaker. i rise in support of the ryan budget, it's a responsible budget that recognizes we cannot continue on our current fiscal trajectory and act knowledges the importance of a strong defense. we're still a nation at war. we have 90,000 combat forces deployed in afghanistan as we're sitting here. while we have no intention of staying there indefinitely, we must ensure that our troops have the equipment and support they need to accomplish the mission. we must also ensure that promises made to our veterans are kept. we have emerging threats and turmoil across the globe, joint chiefs of staff chairman general dempsey told uses the most dangerous time he's experienced in his long, decorated career, which is 38 years. this is not a time for further cuts which fundamentally

destabilize our forces. the president's budget provides the bare minimum for our forces for 2013 and would devastate them in latter years with a planned $487 billion in cuts over 10 years. the g.o.p. budget ensures the congress fulfills the constitutional requirement for a strong national defense. ital recognizes the fiscal reality that faces by incorporating this efficiencies reck mened by former secretary gates and current secretary panetta. it also addresses the devastating impacts of sequestration, both the meth and amounts, would have on our ability to protect our vital national interests arn the globe. make no mistake. sequestration would decimate our military an signal to the world that we are ceding american military superiority. this is an unacceptable choice and we reject sequestration as a means of addressing our

fiscal challenge. we tackle it head on, thoughtfully, an responsibly dealing with ethe real drivers of our national debt, mandatory spending. would the gentleman yield 20 seconds? mr. ryan: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. calvert: as i mentioned, the real problem with the national debt. we can continue to bury our collective heads in the sand as the president's budget does or be honest with the american people an make the hard choices now that ill ensure america continues to be the beacon of opportunity and success. i urge my colleagues to vote for f.y. 2013 republican budget and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam chairman. the president's budget and the democratic alternative also get rid of the sequester but we replace that with $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction through a balanced way because we think it's more important to protect

that defense spending than it is to protect a lot of the special interest loopholes. here's the statement from general martin dempsey, the chairman, the current chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. he says with respect to what this budget will do, it's a force that's prepared to secure global access and respond to global contingencies. it's a military that can win any conflict, anywhere. chairman of the joint chiefs of staff not talking about the republican budget, talking about the president's budget. with that, i yield the two minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the small business committee, ms. va laz quezz of new york. -- ms. ve laz quezz of new york. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. velazquez: i rise in strong opposition to the ryan budget. seniors an working families in new york struggle with rising

rent, food and health care costs, now is not the time to squeeze working families in order to provide tax giveaways to the most fortunate among us. this budget will mean deep cuts to the supplemental nutritional assistance program which provides food assistance to 1.8 million new yorkers for students looking to secure an education -- new yorkers. for students looking to secure an education, this budget will mean drastic cuts to higher education, meaning higher costs for students, new york's small businesses and to that effect, small businesses across the country, will see federal programs they rely on for access to credit and technical assistance reduced by $80 million, exactly the wrong direction to go as we seek to hasten our economic recovery. nowhere does this budget fail our nation more than in the area of health care. medicaid will be slashed by

$810 billion, meaning the disabled people, working poor and low-income children will miss out. for our seniors who have worked hard their entire life, this budget will mean turning our back on the medicare guarantee for the first time pushing the federally -- the medicare recipients in new york's fourth district into an untested, unreliable voucher system. let's be clear, if you vote for this budget, you're voting to end medicare as we know it. madam speaker, madam chair, the ryan budget repeatedly chooses millionaires and billionaires over working families. those are not american values. they are not new york values. and we should reject them. vote no. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expire. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: in 2011, politifact

called the lie, detcheds medicare as we know it, the lie of the decade. with that, i yield to mr. cole. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. coal: -- mr. cole: i thank the speaker, i'm delighted you're confused. i rise to support the ryan budget, i do so with a great deal of pride. it's the only serious plan either party has put forward that deals with the looming debt crisis we face. it cuts $5.3 trillion dollars over the next decade. it reforms medicare an medicaid, something everybody in this house knows needs to happen. it lays out the blueprint for tax reform. it deals with the sequester in a responsible way. it forces the authorizing committees to finally begin to deal with the entitlement crisis we face an it adds $200 billion back to defense spening over the next decade, something

my colleague, mr. calvert, pointed out is very much in our national interest. this budget is politically viable. it passed the house last year, it will pass the house this year. frankly it got more votes in the united states senate last year than any budget presented by anybody. let's contrast that with our friends on the other side. the president's budget got zero votes in the united states senate, a body his party controls. our friends in the senate haven't produced a budget in three consecutive years. our friends on the other side didn't do so when they were in the majority, didn't do so last year. i'm delighted they'll do so this year. i think that's a step in the right direction but that budget is largely silent on entitlement reform my main criticism of all the democratic budgets is not that they can't pass, it's that they're simply not serious. they don't deal with the problems that the country is facing. in my experience, madam speaker, a plan beats no plan.

our friends on the other side have no plan. we do. it's a plan we should embrace enthusiastically to avert the crisis that faces our country. with that, i urge its passage and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam chairman. i yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. connolly: as the house votes on the budget this week, i remind my colleagues that a budget represents our values. sadly, tragically, this plunl budget seems to value only cruel darwin -- darwinism, debasing the american society as we know it to survival of the fittest. if you value relieving traffic congestion, this budget throws you to the wolves. if you value job creation efforts hike make it in america, this leaves you out in

the cold unemployee. if you value education, the republican attack on education leaves nothing but scraps. if you value retire yeses, republicans enthe medicare commitment to you and picks seniors' pockets. madam chair, the republican budget disinvests in america. the only thing republicans claim to value, fiscal responsibility, rings hollow in the face of $5 trillion transfer of wealth to the wealthiest in america by cutting the highest tax bracket from 35% to 25%. this budget attacks america. i thank the chair. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: madam chair, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. olson. the chair: the gentleman is recognized, two minutes.

mr. olson: i thank the chairman of the budget committee. for the opportunity to speak here tonight. madam speaker, this is a photo of my daughter and my son. on behalf of my two children and all the children and grandchildren in america who will be left to pay our debt for the reckless spending that we've done here in washington, that threatens their path to prosperity, i rise in strong support of the house republican budget for 2013, h.con.res. 112. this budget cuts spending to protect hardworking american taxpayers and tackles our debt by reducing government size and reforming our tax system.

the democrat-controlled senate has not passed a budget in over 1,000 days. the entire time i've been a member of this body. and the president still refuses to offer credible solutions to the most predictable economic crisis in our history. empty promises for our president and the senate won't pay our bills. strengthen our health and retirement programs, fix our economy or create jobs. madam speaker, today we have a choice. a choice of two paths. a path of mediocrity or a path of prosperity. i urge my colleagues to support the path to prosperity, vote for h.con.res. 112, the house republican budget for 2013. i thank the chairman and yield

back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam chairman. there's no doubt that we have to reduce the deficit and debt for the good of all our children and grandchildren. the debate today is about how we do it and whether we do it in a balanced way. i would point out the congressional budget office has told us that $2 trillion of the debt over the last 10 years is attributed to the tax cuts in 2001, 2003. and we keep hearing today about the need, which we all agree to, to reduce the deficit, but we still have not heard a single one of our republican colleagues say that we should reduce one tax loophole for the purpose of reducing the deficit so we can deal with this in a balanced manner. and with that i yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, the distinguished ranking member of the natural resources committee, mr. markey. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes.

mr. markey: thank you, mr. chairman, very much. millions of americans around the country are focused on march madness and the basketball final four showdown this weekend. but for our nation's seniors and the middle class, the real march madness is happening right here on the house floor with the republican budget. this is the g.o.p.'s version of march madness, with its own final four. first, end medicare guarantee for millions of seniors. so that their out -- they're out of luck now in medicare. then you move on and you force grandma and grandpa to pay more for all of their coverage or forego it in its entirety. next what you do is you put billionaires first. you protect their tax breaks. you put them right up there on the top of the list of the most important people that need help in america today and then, fourth, you subsidize big oil by keeping the $4 billion for tax

subsidies in the budget while cutting by 85% in the ryan budget the subsidies, the funding for wind and solar and renewable energy. tax breaks for big oil, cut the programs for clean energy. so here's the completed bracket for the republicans. and the medicare guarantee. abandon grandma and grandpa. subsidize big oil. and put billionaires first. that's the republican final four and it's also the final answer for america. but unlike the ncaa tournament, the republican budget doesn't pit these priorities against each other. they're all winners in the eyes of the g.o.p. because g.o.p., it used to stand for grand old party, but now it stands for the gas and oil party. it stands for grandma's out of prescriptions, it now stands for greed over principal. this is the real march madness. the republican budget that makes winners out of big oil and billionaires or running out the

clock for seniors and hardworking families who are left to fend for themselves. vote no on this republican budget. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: with that i'm very amused, madam chairman, and with that i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from mississippi, mr. plattow. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. platt platt thank you -- mr. palazzo: thank you. the american people have been looking for real solutions to the real problems we face as a nation. for the second years in a row, the house republicans are doing just that. i come before you today to echo what many of my colleagues have said time and again, the budgets that have been presented before congress and before the american people represent a tale of two futures. i'm referring to the president's budget which leads us down a path to despair and the house budget committee's own path to prosperity. one keeps us on an out-of-control spending spree, ignores the real challenges facing medicare and actually takes money away from seniors.

and allows sequestration to strip away vital defense spending. the other makes responsible choices and addresses the drivers of our disastrous debt and deficits. enables us to make good on our promises to seniors and lives up to the greatest obligation under the u.s. constitution, providing for the common defense. i stand before you today as a marine veteran, the only n.c.o. in congress, also actively serving in the national guard and as a member of the house armed services committee. to borrow from a recent article in "the weekly standard" i say to you today that the ryan plan is more than just a path to prosperity, it is truly a path to security. it is the only plan to come before this body that even begins to address the very real and scary cuts looming over our nation's military. i also agreed with former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, mike mullen, when he said that our national debt is our biggest national security threat. that's why i'm standing before you today in support of a plan,

the only plan that makes both responsible cuts to our debt and takes a necessary step to protect our economic and national security. i urge my colleagues to support the ryan budget. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the judiciary committee, mr. conyers. the chair: the gentleman is recognized, two minutes. mr. conyers: i thank my friend from maryland and, ladies and gentlemen, -- ladies and gentlemen of the house, perhaps my colleagues on the other side, my conservative friends either don't realize what they're doing in this budget or they're trying to make sure that nobody else knows what they're doing in this budget. because this budget ends the

medicare guarantees and shifts the cost to seniors. now this is a simple statement of fact that it either does or it doesn't. number two, those making over $1 million a year in this country will reap an average tax cut of $394,000 while preserving tax breaks for big oil. true or false? it either does or it doesn't. three, it destroys over four million american jobs in the next couple years. true or false? well, the economic policy institute tells us that it's true. and so the last point i would

like to get a true or false response from, it raises medicare eligibility from ages 65 to 67. true or false? well, i would yield to anybody on the other side that would like to clarify any of the statements that i have made. and hearing no response, i return the balance of my time. i thank the gentleman from maryland. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: skwlat refers to as simple facts was rated as the lie of the year by politifact in 2011. i yield to mr. flake. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman for yielding. you hear in this discussion, you think, when are we actually going to tackle this problem? when are all of us going to concede that not one party is responsible for this debt? we all are. we were headed toward this

fiscal cliff long before the current president took the wheel. let's face that. i think we have on this side. but leadership requires fessing up to it and actually doing something to change it. this plan doesn't end the medicare guarantee. arithmetic does. unless we change something, unless we print -- put it on solvent footing, the guarantee is gone. medicare will be bankrupt under the current trajectory. so what this plan does is recognize that and say, if you're currently in the plan, if you're currently drawing benefits, the plan shouldn't change for you, but those who are younger than 55 will need a plan that is solvent. that does work over time. so we're not ending that guarantee, the current system ends that guarantee. we're trying to fix it here. so i commend the gentleman for putting so much time into this, i commend house republicans for actually coming up and fessing

to the truth that not one party got us into this but we're in this situation and this is the only budget being presented along with one other later, the r.s.c. budget, that actually treats this problem seriously. that treats it with the seriousness it deserves, that actually has a plan to get out of it. so i commend the house republicans for putting it forward and i plan to support it and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam chairman. i would point out again, just in response to my friend, mr. flake, this is the chart that was used by the chairman of the budget committee, mr. ryan, showing the president's plan on medicare and the republican plan on medicare. both which have cost containment over the next coming decades. the difference is how you achieve that cost difference and the difference is that the republican plan offloads all the risks of what they probably to be increasing health care costs -- project to be increasing health care costs onto seniors

because unlike the plan that members of congress have which is -- providing a constant 42% premium support share, the republican plan has the contribution from medicare rapidly declining relative to the costs of health care which puts all that risk on seniors. with that i yield five minutes to the distinguished democratic whip, my friend from maryland, mr. hoyer. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. hoyer highway -- mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. before i start my formal presentation, let me say, the gentleman from arizona is correct. and we do need to take responsibility on both sides of the aisle. and very frankly i will tell my friend, we had an opportunity to take care of the responsibility when the simpson-bowles commission voted. there was a vote in the senate divided somewhat but mostly they voted for it in the senate. we had one of our people from the house vote for it, democrat,

none of your representatives voted for simpson-bowles. i guess because it wasn't perfect. that was a missed opportunity. it was a dog gone shame. because that would have made 14 votes and we would have that on the floor in the senate and in the house. i think this is a missed opportunity. because i don't think this is a real document. now, frankly i also think that we had a deal. we had a deal at what the discretionary number was going to be. as we call it in the jargon of inside the house, the 3028 allocation. we what higher number, you had a lower number, we made a deal in between. we haven't kept that deal. we haven't kept that deal because you couldn't get the votes in your committee, in the budget committee, for that deal. so here we are. mr. speaker, madam speaker, excuse me, the chairman of the budget committee has spoken of a choice between two futures. he is correct.