framing it this way. the budget he proposes would end medicare -- would end medicare's guarantee. cut taxes for the wealthiest and place our economic recovery at risk. robert green seen it, head of the budget and policy proirts -- priorities, described the republican budget this way and i quote, we likely -- it would likely produce the largest redistribution of income from the bottom to the top in modern u.s. history and likely increase poverty and inequality more than any other budget in recent times . now that is not a now that is not a budget that you have a senate that is chaired by the democratic party, majority leader and a democratic president. you are not going to get consensus on that kind of a budget. so this is essentially a statement of purpose and vision by one party. not a document that anybody

thinks is going to pass. however, that is a future we simply cannot afford. in fact rkt the republican proposal -- in fact, the republican proposal is not a realistic budget at all, i say to you. nobody believes in its premise that we are going to savage our domestic programs and leave the most vulnerable out in the cold. that's not america. that's not the values we share as a country. this disastrous budget ends the medicare guarantee, increasing costs for seniors. it cuts medicare -- medicaid by a third. that's the most vulnerable in america, the poor in america. my faith doesn't teach me that's the kind of policy i want to support. i don't think anybody faith teaches them that. we want to take care of those who need the most help. it will jeopardize access to affordable health and nursing home care for seniors, the

disabled and low-income families who depend upon it. furthermore, it repeals the critical patient protection and cost containment policies of the affordable care act. that will cost us dollars. budget slashes funding for programs that help the vulnerable, enable tower children to afford college and provide health coverage to those with long-term disabilities. and it puts millions at economic risk as a result of sdastic spending cuts. as a result -- drastic spending cuts. it has $1 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest among us and cuts an additional $4.6 trillion in taxes on top of that. in fact, you can get tax cuts up to $10 trillion with the bush extension and the reduction from 35 to 25 and oh, yes, we are going to eliminate preference items. we won't tell you what those preference items are. we won't tell you when we'll

eliminate them but we are going to eliminate them. i agree with mr. ryan on that proposition of looking at them. i'm just not very confident that given what happened in bowles-simpson that anybody has the courage to do so. it does all that without saying how it will be paid for. presumably eliminating deductions that middle class families rely on to send their kids to college and afford air homes. i have said again in the past, i say again today, we must have a big, bold, balanced deal that will affect entitlements. it will affect revenues and will affect expenditures. can i have two more minutes? the chair: can i yield the gentleman a minute and then maybe another minute. mr. hoyer: one more minute. i tell my friend -- the chairman of the budget committee certainly someone of the individuals in the country that can be part of the solution.

but not be part of the solution proposing something that is clearly unacceptable to this side of the aisle, to the president. we need to come together and come to agreement. a future where the medicare guarantee is preserved and seniors' health security is protected. a future where students who work hard take responsibility for themselves and get accepted to college won't have worry about whether they can afford to go. a future where we help businesses create millions of jobs here at home that won't be shipped overseas. a future, ladies and gentlemen, where the deficit is reduced in a balanced way. that's the key. we all know it's the key. with everyone pitching in. any of the democratic alternatives in my opinion will be better than this republican budget. and i don't agree with everything in each one of those budgets, clearly. we have a choice, tonight, today, tomorrow of two futures. and that choice -- i thank you. and that choice couldn't be clear. ladies and gentlemen of this house, i urge you to stand

together in defeating this budget and passing one that will bring our middle class and working families, not a grim future, but a bright future. and in conclusion, let me say this. whatever happens to these budgets, any of these budgets on the floor is not going to be the final word. it perhaps will not even be the beginning word. we need to solve this issue and we need to do it not by pointing fingers at one another, not pretending it's going to be simple, not pretending that we are going to make happy all of our supporters. we won't be. the hole we dug is way too deep. decisions we make is way too tough and the only way we will make them is to join hands and look the american public in the eye and say we have to have a balanced deal. we have to do all that is necessary to put this nation on a fiscally sustainable path. for the chairman's children, for the ranking member's

children, for my children, my grandchildren and, yes, my two great grandchildren, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i just yield myself two minutes to say the gentleman doesn't look like a day over a great great grandfather. first off, mr. chairman, i appreciate the sincerity of the minority whip's sentiment and he is a man who means that. i know that. i would say, though, this process of fixing our country's fiscal path would have been made much better had the president proposed a solution. the president just gave us his fourth budget and for the fourth time it doesn't do anything to get this debt under control. mr. hoyer: will my friend yield? mr. ryan: i apologize. i won't. i am under tight time

constraints. more important, mr. chairman, the united states senate, controlled by the gentleman's own party, they didn't pass a budget in 2010. they didn't pass a budget in 2011. and now they've announced courageously that they're not going to pass a budget in 2012 either. how do you preempt and prevent the most predictable economic crisis in the history of our country, a debt crisis, if the president doesn't propose to do anything about it and the senate won't even pass a budget? we're leading, we're passing, we're proposing a solution. we understand the other the speaker pro tempore: would love to just wait for us to offer our solutions to then attack. we don't care about that. we're going to offer solutions. and when we hear the word balance, watch your checkbook. hold your wallet. it means tax increases.

mr. chairman, it's math. you literally cannot tax your way out of this problem. the problem we have here is a spending problem. that is why we propose to cut spending, and with that i'd like to yield three minutes to a distinguished member of the budget committee, the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized for three minutes. mr. chaffetz: thank you. i want to commend chairman ryan and the budget committee for actually doing the job we were elected to do. as chairman ryan pointed out, it's been more than 1,050 since the united states senate actually decided to even address the budget. and yet i look at what they're doing, i can't figure out what they're doing. we're actually doing the job we're supposed to be doing and doing it ahead the schedule, per the statute, per what this country thinks we should be doing and i'm happy we're debating the budget.

i am terribly disappointed in the president's budget. routinely here, mr. chairman, the democrats talk about a balanced approach. the problem is the president has never ever introduced a balanced budget. a budget that even over the course of time at some point in time would actually balance. it never balances. and so for four years in a row we're going to have $1 trillion-plus deficit. understand what that means for you and your kids. this is a nation that was when i was first elected in 2008 was roughly in the $9 trillion deficit range or debt range. now we're going to be close to $16 trillion by the end of the year. now, keep in mind how much is $1 trillion? that number is so large, it's hard to get your arms around. if you spend $1 million every day it would take you nearly 3,000 years to get to $1 trillion. we deficit spend as a nation $4

billion a day. my state of utah, their entire budget, everything we do in our entire state is about $13 billion for the year. and this nation deficit spends roughly $4 billion a day. we pay more than $600 million a day in interest on our debt. and yet the president proposes a budget that over the course of time will get to $26 trillion in debt in the next 10 years. where we will see daily, daily debt payments to service our debt, those interest payments will be something in the range closing in on $2 billion a day. we can't do this, ladies and gentlemen. there's a proper role of government. we're taking a responsible approach. we have to cut spending. the reason i rise in support of the house budget is that over the course of the time we take that spending as a percentage of our gross domestic product and bring it down less than 20%

. you know, under the president's vision, he's fine with spending in excess of 24% of g.d.p. what does that mean? think of all the transactions, all the financial transactions in this country and he's comfortable spending 24 cents of every dollar that's spent in this nation. that's fundamentally and morally wrong. but there is a choice. we have put together a plan. we are doing the heavy lifting. we're putting together a budget that's responsible. i wish we could balance the budget overnight. you can't. you got to put ourselves on a glide path. there is a proper role of government. we have to achieve that. i believe that the house republican budget is bold and realistic. i yield back and thank the chairman for his great work. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i thank you, mr. chairman. the debate we're having here is not whether to reduce the deficit and the debt. we have to do that. the issue is the choices we make in the process. the president does have a budget. it does take a balanced approach. my colleagues say, watch out.

well, watch out for the bipartisan commissions all of whom have recommended taking approach that is balanced. yes, we have to deal with the spending part. we cut $1 trillion. there are additional cuts in these budgets, but we should also end the special interest tax breaks and we should ask folks at the very top to take a little bit more responsibility. here are the choices that are made in the republican budget. here's a very simple one. this is the continuation of the bush tax cuts for the top 2%. $261 billion. meanwhile, they cut $810 billion from medicaid. again, 2/3 of medicaid spending goes to seniors and individuals with disabilities. but that wasn't enough. they apparently are doubling down on tax breaks that benefit the folks at the very top. this is the amount of tax breaks millionaires will get

from continuing the bush tax cuts. they've added over $260,000 in additional average tax breaks for people making over $1 trillion. they say they're going to make that up somehow. they're going to make it up, i'll tell you how they're going to make it up, by increasing the tax burden on middle income americans. with that i want to recognize and yield two minutes to the distinguished assistant democratic leader who's been looking out for average working americans his entire career, mr. clyburn. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. clyburn: i thank my friend for yielding me this time. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this misguided republican budget because it fails the moral test. the federal budget should reflect the values of the american people, and this republican proposal does damage to those values because it is

fundamentally unfair to middle income, to the hardworking people of america and the most vulnerable among us. this republican budget would end the medicare guarantee that working people depend upon after a lifetime of hard work. the republican budget creates new tax breaks, up to $394,000 for the wealthiest few. this republican budget destroys 4.1 million jobs. the republican budget breaks faith with the agreement their leaders made in last year's budget control act, to maintain funding for essential services. and this republican budget protects all pentagon funds while putting schools, roads

and job creation on the chopping block. the american people have spoken loud and clear in opposition to these misguided priorities. i urge the house to pass fair and balanced legislation, to reduce our deficits in a responsible and surgical manner and invest in important priorities to build a strong middle class. growing up in south carolina, i learned to put faith into action, to firmly held values and high moral standards. . this republican budget fails the moral test and i urge my colleagues to join me in defeating it. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield five minutes to the gentleman from georgia,

mr. woodall. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. woodall: i thank my chairman for yielding and thank you, mr. chairman. as a freshman, i have the privilege of serving on the budget committee. and in years past, the budget committee has been all about producing a political document, a document that may make for great soundbites, may make for great television, but doesn't make for great governance. as my friend from arizona said earlier, the $15 trillion in debt that has been placed on the backs of every man, woman and child, every family in this country has been the path that both parties have chosen. the ranking member of the budget committee said there is no disagreement that we have to get the debt under control. and yet, the president, to his

credit, has submitted a budget, submitted a budget that raised taxes by $2 trillion on the american people, but so increased spending as well, that the debt continued climb even faster under the president's budget than it does under the broken system we have today. take a look at this. you can't see it, mr. chairman, but it's the drivers of our debt. at the blue line, it's social security and social security is a situation that we know is facing pearl but facing peril in a predictable way. the green line is health care and it's growing rapidly, but we know how to curb that spending. look at this red line. this is medicare spending, growing out of control. we know it. we know it's true. and that's the question folks asked me back home. why in the world in this budget

conversation why does it sound like it's the big medicare discussion? and the reason is because medicare is the driver, the spending that is done through a government mandate where individuals don't have control over their own health care is driving this debt train. going back to my pride of being a freshman member of the budget committee, mr. chairman, this is a headline from msnbc and it's not one of the biggest fans of this freshman class and not a big fan of the republican congress. this is what they said headline from march 15, in risky election-year move, republicans offer medicare alternatives. in risky election-year move, republicans offer medicare alternatives. that's right. that is why 100 new freshmen came to this body last year and didn't come to recycle new ideas but came to offer solutions. yes, i know it's an election

year, but dog gone it, but the election year ought to bring out the best in everybody to work harder to fulfill the dreams of the american people and that's what chairman ryan and the budget committee have done. could they have punted and said we know it's hard and threatens every senior in this country but let's punt until after the election. we have heard some folks who have adopted that attitude, but not this chairman, not paul ryan and the budget committee and not this u.s. house of representatives, and it may be risky but it's the right thing to do it. and republicans and democrats who were elected came to do the right thing for the right reasons, not to follow election-year politics and i thank this chairman for giving us that opportunity. so what is it? that this budget committee solution is. well, what it doesn't do, mr.

chairman, is change anything for seniors on medicare today, not one. no changes for today's seniors, whereas the president's proposal makes dramatic changes by empowering this 15-member ipab board. we preserve and protect medicare in this budget by providing for seniors. my parents, your parents, your grandparents providing an opportunity for them to have some say in their health care decisions. we tried that with medicare advantage and it has been dramatically successful and we expand that to give families more choices about their health care decisions. preserving and protecting the medicare mandate for future generations. this is the alternative, just to be clear. you can't read this, mr. chairman, it's all of the small print that creates the ipab board and takes a lot of small print to create it because folks were scared to death when this

thing was created. there is all sorts of language in this small print, mr. speaker, about how rationing will not happen. why? when you put a government board in charge of people's health care, you think of rationing. this board can do is what we pay providers. i want you to think about the doctors in your life, and i want you to think about those folks. i thank the chairman. in your church, your sunday school class, at the c.v.s., where do you see those practicing docs. do you think they are the problem in this country? do you think clamping down on more of your neighbors is the answer, because that's the only thing this ipab board can do, clamp down on those doctors denying care to every senior in this country. we offer an alternative. it may be a risky election-year

move but it's the right thing to do. i thank the chairman. all the naysayers who say you couldn't, you did. all the folks who said you couldn't, you did. this is a document that can govern our nation and one can be proud of and i'm proud to be proud of it. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the comments of the member of the budget committee, mr. woodall from georgia. but i don't think the choice of the republicans make in this budget is the right thing to do. i don't think the american people are going to think it's the right thing to do. i don't think the choice to provide another round of tax cuts for people making more than $1 million a year while ending the medicare guarantee for seniors who have median income under $23,000 a year. i don't think it's the right choice but the craziest choice.

mr. woodall said it doesn't change one thing in medicare. that is not true. this immediately reopens the prescription drug doughnut hole. the republican plan takes some of the savings we achieved in the affordable health care for medicare, but instead of using it like we did to help strengthen the prescription drug plan, it reopens it immediately. that is an additional $10,000 over 10 years for seniors who have high prescription drug costs. you know what else it does immediately? it immediately ends the preventative care services we provided under medicare. we want to encourage seniors to get that early care so we eliminate the co-pays and now they have to pay that, too, immediately. i keep having to remind my colleagues that this chart was presented by the chairman of the budget committee, mr. ryan.

and the black line is the republican plan and the blue line is the president's plan. the red line is projected health care costs. and the difference between the two plans is that the republican plan puts all the risk of those rising health care costs on the seniors. and you can see that when you look at this chart. this is current medicare. it provides constant support for the health care services -- that's the blue line. here's the green line. this is what members of congress and the federal employees get, premium support. as health care prices going up, their premium support stays constant. this red line, that's what happens when you cap the support for seniors as the republican plan did. that red line going straight down is the same as that red line going straight up. the difference between the approaches is we say let's

modernize medicare to put greater focus and incentives on the value of care, not so much on the volume of care, which does drive up costs. the republican plan puts all those risks of rising health care costs on seniors. with that, i yield one minute to the distinguished democratic leader someone who has been fighting for jobs, fairness and for protecting the medicare guarantee, ms. pelosi. the chair: the minority leader is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: i thank the distinguished ranking member of the budget committee for yielding. i thank him for his important work in constructing a democratic alternative to the republican budget, that is mr. van hollen's budget proposal which is a statement of our american values which says that

is important to you the education, well-being and health of our children, the health security of our seniors, those are important values to us and those values are in the democratic alternative. the republican ryan bill, on the other hand, i do not believe is a statement of our national values as to what is important to the american people as reflected in their budget priority. but you be the judge. would it be a statement of your values if you had a budget that said to seniors, we're going to end the medicare guarantee and you're going to pay $6,000 or more and get less in terms of benefits? while at the same time, we are going to give over $300 billion

tax break to the wealthiest people in our country. would that be a statement of your values, $6,000 more for seniors with fewer benefits, $ 300,000 or more to the richest people in our country. would a statement of values for you, my colleagues and the american people you represent, if you had a budget that said to big oil, we are going to continue to subsidize you to the tune of tens of billions of dollars, but at the same time, we're going to freeze pell grants. we are going to eliminate them for 400,000 young people and make them more -- less available to over nine million young people? to eliminate it for them and use

the money to give tax subsidies to big oil, big oil, which is making tens of billions of dollars in record profits each year. would it be a statement of your values if you said in your budget that all of those young people who now are children, who have a pre-existing medical condition, asthma, diabetes, birth defect, any of those pre-existing medical conditions, under present law, under the affordable care act, they cannot be discriminated against in obtaining health insurance. but the republican budget says they should be, because we're going to eliminate that. to the 2.5 young people who are now on their parents' policies until they are 26 years old,

this budget says no to you, too. we're eliminating that. we are too busy giving tax breaks to the richest people in america. while we are at it, with young people just graduating from college, some of them may have student loans and in the house budget, thank you, mr. van hollen, in the house budget, we have a provision that says that come july 1, the interest on those loans will not double. we have taken care of that. under the circumstance, interest rates would go from 3.4% to 6.8%. the house democratic budget says no to that doubling of interest. the republican budget keeps it the same. that's just to name a few things that i think may not be a statement of the values of the

american people. rather it's interest paid on student loans, the availability of pell grants to young people, ending the medicare guarantee and as the distinguished ranking member said, right now today, overturning the money that was -- resources that were put in the affordable care act to reduce the doughnut hole. maybe five million seniors have benefited to the tune of $3.2 billion in the bill. their preventative care services , annual wellness visits without a co-pay. so we're talking about kitchen-table items for people where people are trying to make ends meet, where people wonder if their children will be able to go to college and if they do,

have health insurance and when they get a job, can reach their aspirations without having their choices only narrowed by whether they have health insurance or not until the bill comes into full effect. . there are a couple things i want people to know about the bill. they are to end the medicare guarantee, end the medicare guarantee, end the medicare guarantee while making seniors pay more for less, while giving over $300 billion in tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our country. and by the way, did i mention it, it's a job loser. i urge my colleagues to enthusiastically support the house democratic proposal which is a statement of our values and which our distinguished

colleague will present -- i don't know if it's tonight or tomorrow morning. i understand that it keeps changing. the house democratic alternative invests in america's priorities, creates jobs, protects our seniors and our students, strengthens the middle class. democrats protect medicare, republicans dismantle medicare. democratic plan asks the wealthiest to pay their fair share and put our fiscal house in order. the republican plan almost doubles their tax breaks. our democratic plan reflects most enduring thing in america, the american dream. democrats want to reignite the american dream, to build ladders of opportunity for all who want to work hard, play by the rules and take responsibility. it does this by investing in small small businesses and entrepreneurism of our country

by strengthening the middle class. in that regard, we believe that our budget is a statement of our values. we call upon our republican colleagues to work with us on the budget that reflects values. we must work together to protect and strengthen medicare. we must put people back to work and build a broadly shaped prosperity for all americans. we must make it in america to stop the erosion of our manufacturing base. we must put people back to work. we must do this with community involvement, and you awful these things, strengthen the middle class, which is what our democratic alternative will achieve. for the sake of our seniors, for our families, for our children, for our workers, i urge my colleagues to vote no on the republican plan which ends the medicare guarantee, make seniors pay $6,000 or more

with fewer benefits and gives tax breaks to the wealthiest people in the united states and it costs us jobs to do so. it doesn't reduce the deficit until nearly 2040. it's not a good deal for the american people. the democratic budget is. i urge yes on the van hollen budget and no on the ryan republican budget and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from california yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, i yield myself one minute. they said yesterday we're cutting taxes on millionaires by $150,000. today, it's $300,000. probably going to be $1 million tomorrow. what i simply say this line that we're ending the medicare guarantee, let me remind you, chairman, that this was rated the lie of the year by the nonpartisan political fact of 2011. we don't want a rationing board running medicare. we want seniors in charge of medicare. we don't want to take more from

successful small businesses that create our jobs and make them uncompetitive to the global economy. we want to take special interest loopholes out of the loophole, especially small businesses that creates our jobs. more importantly, we want to balance the budget, pay off the debt. ours is the only budget that does that. the so-called balanced approach by our friends on the other side of the aisle doesn't even pretend to get the debt paid off, let alone under control. with that i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, dr. roe. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. roe: i thank the chairman. mr. chairman, when president obama released his nearly $4 trillion budget proposal in february, he called for more spending, more borrowing and more taxes. despite a national debt that's grown to more than $15.5 trillion, the president elected to double down on the same old failed agenda. the senate's failed to pass a

budget more than 1,000. the ipad wasn't on the market the last time they passed a budget. while they're working to address the economic crisis facing our countries, americans deserve better than empty promises from a broken government. and the path to prosperity offers a way forward. this cuts spending in a meaningful way, lowers tax rates while simplifying the tax code and strengthens the social safety net. i asked the senate and house democrats, what's your plan? there is no greater contrast between the president's budget and our republican budget than on medicare, something i know something about having practiced medicine for 30 years. the president and congressional democrats cut $500 billion-plus from medicare to fund a new entitlement and they have a 15-member board, basically a denial of care board. doing nothing is not an option.

republicans proposed to strengthen medicare for current seniors by making no changes for those 55 and older and giving future retirees the ability to choose their own health plan. what a novel idea that is. including a traditional medicare choice. the same thing they have today. by complementing these commonsense reforms, -- by implementing these commonsense reforms, we can ensure that medicare will be available for current and future generations. i am very proud of my colleagues on the house budget committee who have worked tirelessly to draft a blueprint that sets our nation on a path to balancing the budget and paying off the debt. this proposal protects the country, saves medicare and puts america on a path to prosperity. with that 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. i would point out that the chairman of the budget committee has mentioned a number of times this political fact and i want to read from

what political fact said with respect to this. he said that it's true that the term terminate medicare, which some had used, was an overstatement. no doubt about it. just like apparently in a couple years ago they said what i heard from a lot of my colleagues that the affordable care act, quote, was government takeover of health care. i've heard that a lot from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. that was the big political fact, so-called lie of the year, a couple years ago. so let's be clear. but this is the important part. it says if democrats had just slightly tweaked their statements, they would be accurate. and they go out on to point out that for example when people said the plan would privatize medicare, that was true, and that when president obama was more precise with his words saying the medicare proposal would, quote, voucherize the

program and you potentially have senior citizens paying $6,000 more, unquote. they didn't say that was false. what we have said, what i have said very carefully all a long is that it ends the medicare guarantee and i firmly believe it ends the medicare guarantee for this reason. for this reason right here. this is the current medicare plan support for seniors in terms of the percent that they have to pay, that blue line. study support. green line demonstrates steady support that members of congress get from the federal employees health benefits program. red line is what happens when you put seniors in the private health care market but you don't allow their premium support to rise with the projected rise in health care costs. red line down. i think that does end the medicare guarantee. with that i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews.

the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection, so ordered. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. chairman. there's been an understanding in our country for a very long time that if you work as hard as you can your whole life and you follow the rules that one of the things that you'll get as part of this american dream is a secure retirement. that you ought to be able to spend the years after you work loving your grandchildren, pursuing your hobbies, doing the things in life that you love and enjoy. essential to that part of the american dream is the medicare guarantee, because here what it really says. if you get sick and you need help, you get the help that you need as determined by you and your doctor and your family and you pay your fair share in premiums and co-pays, but there's no insurance bureaucracy to run through,

there's no approval you've got to get. if your cardiologist says you need a certain procedure and you think that you want to do it, you do it and medicare pays the bill. this is a guarantee, and the reason it's needed is you can't make a whole lot of profit off of insuring older and sicker people. so since 1965 this medicare guarantee has been a part of the promise that we made to american seniors. this budget violates that promise. because what it says, a substantial number of people, beginning with those under 55, will not be in medicare. they'll be in a system run by the insurance companies of this country and the decision will shift from people and their doctors to insurance companies. now, the other side will say, well, it's going to be volunteer -- voluntary. here's what's going to happen, the wealthier, healthier people will sign up for the vowel

untear people and the poorer, older, sicker people will stay in regular medicare. the resources will diminish. the care will dwindle and medicare will wither and die on the vine. now, this is a legitimate -- i ask for 30 more seconds. mr. van hollen: i yield 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. andrews: i thank you, mr. chairman. this obviously is a good faith and legitimate philosophical difference, but when it comes to determination of the medicare guarantee, when it comes to jeopardizing and violating this covenant with the people that built this country, we think that's the wrong thing to do. and it's especially wrong when the so-called savings from this approach will finance yet another tax break for the wealthiest and most prosperous people in our country. these priorities we'll debut in good faith. we think they are the wrong

priorities. we urge a no vote. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, let me just yield myself two minutes to say, you know what ends the medicare guarantee? the medicare status quo. we have achieved actuary medicare -- $37 trillion in the hole. that's the unfunded liability for medicare. look at the driver of our debt. medicare is growing at such a rate that it goes into bankruptcy, it goes bankrupt in 2021, according to c.b.o. so what does the president law, the current law in law do? it says we need to slow the growth of medicare spending by putting a cap over medicare. that's in law today. and then it says in order to enforce this cap we're going to have 15 political appointees that the president will appoint for six-year terms, they make the decisions. they decide what health care

providers can do or cannot do, what they get paid. the medicare chief actuary came and told us the other day they'll start off by paying medicare providers 80 cents on the dollar to provide medicare benefits and then go down to 30 cents on the dollar. you think your doctors going to do what you need if he gets paid 30 cents on the dollar? he said that 40% of medicare providers are either going to go out of business or just stop taking medicare patients altogether. that's the current law. that ends the guarantee. here's what we say. get rid of the rationing board. stop the bureaucrats from getting between the doctor and her patient. and don't change medicare for people 55 and above so you can keep the promise the government's made to them. but for those younger generations, because the

program is going bankrupt, you must reform it in order to keep the promise to current seniors. and the way we keep the medicare guarantee -- and i yield myself another minute to say this is to say this. you get a list of guaranteed coverage option it's from medicare -- options from medicare and among those choices are comprehensive private plans and the traditional medicare option. medicare will subsidize your premiums. those subsidies go up every year. if you're low income, all of your out-of-pocket costs will be covered. if you get sick, more and more coverage to prevent you from getting sicker. that saves medicare. that makes it solvent. . and the competitive bidding that is done to make them compete for our business using choice and competition is what

the medicare ack tower tells us is the best way to save the medicare guarantee. premium support, ensures affordability. this is an idea that has had bipartisan support going back to the 1990's. yet our friends on the other side of the aisle would rather have politics than really work to save the medicare guarantee and with that, i yield three minutes to the doctor from georgia, dr. gingrey. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. gingrey: i thank the chairman of the budget committee for yielding to me. we heard our democratic friends discuss ipab. these bureaucrats is nothing but a backstop to cut lower medicare spending. in baseball parlance, that is synonomous with a catcher, a

catcher who will throw every senior out at second base. i like my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, mr. van hole cren, my classmate, mr. andrews who just spoke, but we are a country of laws and not of men. and i don't like anything of their budget. our budget includes the ryan plan to save medicare from bankruptcy and rationing. and deep concern for seniors that i listened to my democratic colleagues suggest that the bipartisan ryan-plan will end medicare as we know it. medicare will be bankrupt as early as 2016 because obamacare already ended medicare as we know it. it stole $575 billion from medicare in order to pay for obamacare. i offered a simple amendment

during obamacare that said any medicare savings must go back into medicare to save medicare. who could disagree with that? the democrats in the house did, twice they defeated my amendment. republican efforts to save medicare from bankruptcy were thwarted by house democrats because president obama needed a piggy bank to pay for obamacare. and today, we have a bipartisan plan to save medicare created by house republicans and senate democrats, who put partisanship aside because our seniors need us to save medicare from bankruptcy and save them from obamacare. if the democrats vote against this plan to save medicare, will they put forward their own plan to save medicare? they will have an opportunity indeed to vote for the obama budget recommendation as well as their own. mr. chairman, we heard a great deal of rhetoric from my colleagues on the other side of

the aisle but the silence on my question today has been deafening because they don't have a plan and i hope they will stand up today and prove me wrong by telling me what is their plan. mr. chairman, not only does this budget not only save medicare, this budget charts the path to fiscal discipline that is long overdue in this city. h. con. res. 112 lowers spending by $1.1 trillion dollars below even what the house passed last year. this budget proposes $5.3 trillion below what president obama proposed in his own budget. mr. chairman, if i could have an additional 30 seconds. furthermore, mr. chairman, this budget makes broad tax reforms that will prevent a $2 trillion tax increase from taking effect january 1, 2013. will spur economic growth by lowering taxes to individuals

and job creators and proposes a 25%, 25% corporate tax rate to promote domestic economic growth. mr. chairman, it's time we think of the next generation and not the next election. this path to prosperity charts a responsible course for the fiscal health of our country. and i urge all of my colleagues to support h. con. res. 112. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i keep hearing my republican colleagues say that their plan will provide seniors with affordable premium for their health care service. i keep asking myself why it is that their plan gives seniors on medicare a much worse deal and lot less support than the plan members of congress have under the federal employees' health benefit plan?

that is a real premium support plan. that is a plan where the premiums support keeps up with rising health care costs. if you are talking about medicare, we should take the approach that we have taken, the president has taken, where you modernize the system, you change the incentives to put focus on the value of care, on the quality of care, rather than the quantity of care. we are starting up accountable care organizations, we are starting up different methods of payment approaches than putting the risk on seniors. with that, i yield two minutes to the gentlelady who represents the nation's capital so well, eleanor norton homes. -- holmes.

ms. norton: shakespeare says let me count the ways. i'm finding it difficult the reasons to oppose the republican's unbalanced, no-growth budget that threatens us to send us back into a recession, but when the tightest fit in the federal government says that the republican budget would, and here i'm quoting, make it extraordinarily difficult for the federal government to do its basic business, i listen. the federal government, mr. chairman, is labor-intensive. when the o.m.b. says there will be 4,500 fewer federal agents on the border working the criminal cases and performing national security, i listen. when the o.m.b. says we won't

meet basic standards for food safety, i am listening. we simply cannot keep freezing pay for federal employees which amount to deep cuts and replacing every three with only one and expect to continue protecting the american people at the same time. this budget federal employees while they are down and kicks their vital work right with them. it guarantees the growth of the unaccountable contractor sector, which remains untouched in the republican budget. so much for the phantom savings at the expense of federal employees. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back.

the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from maryland. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. harris: thank you for letting me talk about an important subject. the other side of the aisle wants to play pretend. let's pretend that we have a program sustainable for all future generations. let's pretend that all our seniors right now have access to all the medical care and physicians that they want. let's pretend that the medicare program that the president's health care reform bill establishes for our seniors allow seniors and their doctors to choose what care is best for them. but, mr. chairman, we would have to be playing pretend, because, in fact, we know that the program is not sustainable for all generations.

this graph here is not from the republican conference. this is from the congressional budget office. this is what happens. the red, it's no accident that it's in red. this is what happens to medicare spending under the president's proposals. we are right here in the middle. this is when my children reach their middle age. this is when they retire. and this is when my grandchildren reach their retirement. it's not sustainable. anyone looking at that graph knows it's not sustainable. we can't play pretend. we would have to play pretend that all seniors have access to physicians. go into my district in rural areas where seniors tell you they don't have access to primary care already because the medicare program currently squeezes the payments to providers where priors no longer choose to take on as many

medicare patients as they can. and the president's plan makes it even worse. and finally, we would be pretending that patients get to choose and a physicians get to choose their care, because under the president's plan, there are 15 unelected bureaucrats who decide that -- the president's rationing board that decide what care my mother will now get, what care i will get in 10 years and what my son gets in 39 years when he reaches retirement age. 15 unelected bureaucrats, mr. chairman, by law, only the minority have ever practiced health care. the majority are bureaucrats, never having taken care of a patient. that's the plan that we have now. mr. chairman, it will break if we don't take care of it.

i applaud the chairman of the budget committee for the bravery, and mr. chairman, you know what the ads are going to be. you can see it now and hear all the talking points, america knows that health care in america needs repair. they know the medicare program needs repair if we are going to preserve it for future generations and urge my colleagues to choose this as the repair for future generations. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: my colleague put up a chart with the red showing the rising cost of medicare and said the president has no plan, well, i wish the gentleman had looked to the chart of the chairman of the budget committee -- we have seen it a couple of times today -- that shows the black line being the house republican's trajectory and the blue line being the president's plan to contain costs, the difference being that the

republican proposal puts all the risk of rising health care costs on to seniors whereas the president's plan talks about changing the delivery system in a way to encourage the value of care, focused on the value of care, rather than the volume of care. we keep hearing about the ipab. the reality is that anything they would propose, number one, by law, cannot ration care. but number two, is subject to review and a vote by members of congress, the people in this body. with that, i would yield two minutes to the ranking member of the ways and means committee, mr. levin. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. without objection mr. levin: i have been listening to this debate and you know republicans claim that they're

saving medicare is political mythology. essentially what they're doing is shifting coverage to the private sector. they have a cap more stringent than that in the affordable care act. so over time, more and more there is the erosion and the end to medicare. i want to say a few words about the tax provisions in the republican budget. you know on sunday, this is what was said, i quote, i don't know, end of quote. that's what the republican budget chairman said on sunday when asked whether the middle class would suffer under his tax proposal. it's important for the american public to know the facts. the republican budget would cut taxes for the very wealthy.

the top tax rate would be reduced by such a significant extent that the average millionaire would receive $265,000 in tax cuts, according to the nonpartisan tax policy center. and to pay for this tax cut, republicans would have to put on the chopping block provisions in the tax code relating to health, education, home mortgage interest and pensions. mr. ryan, you call these loopholes. no, these are policies. and, for example, 4/5 of the health care benefit exclusion goes to households earning less than $200,000, half goes to those earning less than $100,000. 70% of the benefit provided through the mortgage interest deduction goes to families who earn less than $200,000.

and yet the provisions that affect diss proportionately the wealthy -- i ask for an additional 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. levin: that those provisions, including the reduction in capital gains and dividends, the republicans would not have any changes and those are the ones that disproportionately benefit the wealthy. the republican priorities could not be clearer when it comes to medicare. end it and tax provisions help the very wealthy. i yield back. . the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: i'd like to yield five minutes to a senior member of the budget committee, also a member of the ways and means , dr. price from georgia. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: thank you, mr.

chairman. i want to commend mr. ryan for standing up for the future of our country and for his dedication to fundamental american principles. mr. chairman, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, michael mullen, said last year that the greatest threat to our national security, the greatest threat to our national security was our debt. there are clear differences, you've heard them here today, there are clear differences about how we should address that debt and americans have a choice to make. and it's a choice that will determine the future of our great country. by ignoring the drivers of our debt, by ignoring medicare and medicaid and social security, the president's most recent budget proposal ensures a future of ever-increasing debt and doubt and decline. in fact, before the budget committee, mr. chairman, we had earlier this spring the treasury secretary, timothy geithner, who admitted that -- of the administration that they, quote, don't have a definitive solution

to our long-term problem. what we do know is that we don't like yours, unquote. now there's real leadership. the president's health care law, the president's health care law, the current law of the land, cuts medicare by more than $500 billion for more government programs. the president's health care law ends medicare guarantee, ends the medicare guarantee, puts us on this red path over here, mr. chairman, increasing the amount of debt that gives the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff the pause to say that the greatest threat is our debt. the president's health care law empowers the independent payment advisory board to effectively deny care to seniors, you've heard about it. 15 unelected bureaucrats. none of them, none of them can be actively practicing physicians. as a physician i can tell you that gives me great pause.

you heard the gentleman from new jersey down here saying that their program, if a doctor says that you need cardiac surgery, you get it. well, on the contrary, mr. chairman, in fact, if the doctor says you need cardiac surgery, and the board of unelected bureaucrats says you don't get it, guess what? you don't get it. then my friend from maryland says, oh, no, you can bring it to the floor of the house. you can bring it to congress. you can have a review and vote on the floor of the house for your cardiac surgery. hardly, mr. chairman. it just isn't going to happen. the fact of the matter is, this unelected board is charged with finding $500 billion in reductions in payments to medicare physicians and consequently what will happen is essentially denying care to seniors. as a physician i believe that the president's health care law threatens all of the principles that we hold dear, accessibility, affordability, quality, responsiveness, innovation, choices.

every single principle of health care is violated by the health care law, the president's health care law. destroys the doctor-patient relationship. but it's not just devastating to the future of our health, it's also devastating to the future of our economy. which is again what drives the chart. where's the middle class, mr. chairman, on this chart? in the red. where are the american dreams of our kids and grandkids? the -- in the red. so we are committed to a full repeal of the president's health care law and today we advance bipartisan solutions to improve and to strengthen medicare. where the president and democrats failed to act here in washington, we will lead. our plan has no changes for those in or near retirement, allows choices, including the medicare option. so that patients control their health decisions, not bureaucrats. when bureaucrats choose, patients lose. in the future americans through a guaranteed system, read the bill, mr. chairman, a guaranteed system will be able to select

the health coverage that's right for them. not that washington says they must have. our solution is guaranteed, it's voluntary and it's bipartisan. something our friends on the other side of the aisle simply cannot say. our plan also includes commonsense tax reform, closing loopholes, lowering rates, broadening the base, helping job creators, a system that's more fair and more simple and allows us to compete in the world. because a vibrant and robust growing economy is necessary to get us back on the right track and the right track is the green path here, mr. chairman, that gets us to a balanced budget in paying off our debt. now, we know that the senate won't adopt our budget. remember they haven't done one in over three years. so the solution to the senate and the presidential gridlock is with the american people. it's the people of this great country who will decide the direction that we take. not washington. it's the people who will decide. we offer a positive budget, a positive plan for both our

health care and our economy. it's a path to prosperity and i urge my colleagues to support it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i would just urge my friend, mr. price, again to look at the chart presented by the chairman of the budget committee, mr. ryan, that again makes it clear that we have different paths with respect -- different approaches with respect to containing costs. but at the end of the day, the trajectories are the same and i say again that if the republicans think the notion of the premium support plan, the voucher plan, whatever you want to call it, that doesn't rise with health care costs is such a good deal for seniors, why are they giving themselves a different deal in the health care plan for members of congress? i now yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. langevin: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the chair: without objection. mr. langevin: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, we all recognize that we are facing difficult fiscal challenges and we have to get our fiscal house in order. and obviously that means that we have to make smart budgetary decisions and invest our dollars wisely in those things that will yield the greatest benefit. however it doesn't mean that we just cut for the sake of cutting. i rise today in opposition to the republican budget which eliminates medicare guarantee as we know it, particularly it eliminates medicare guarantee for my constituents in rhode island, our seniors, and it cuts programs that keep my constituents' homes heated, assures process access to health care. i rise to infrastructure spending that prevents our bridges from falling down as well as gutting investments in

education, medical research and emerging technologies that provide key areas for job creation. finally i rise for the strongest opposition to cutting these vital programs in economic investments while at the same time maintaining tax breaks for millionaires, big oil and wall street. mr. speaker, our budget reflects our values and our priorities and the republican budget prioritizes the wealthiest americans at the expense of everyone else. i urge my colleagues to reject this measure and support the democratic alternative that keeps our promises to our seniors, preserves our social safety net, invests in education for our children, invests in creating a 21st century infrastructure for a 21st century economy and asks all americans to pay their fair share toward reducing our deficit. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: we just have one more

speaker, then we reserve the right to close. i understand the gentleman has a number of other speakers. would you like to continue with your speakers? the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, thank you, mr. chairman. now i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms. lee. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. lee: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman for yielding and for your tremendous leadership. i rise in very strong opposition to the republican budget which really is a path to more prosperity for the 1%. once again the republicans are proposing a budget that pays for tax cuts for the very wealthy at the expense of senior citizens and the most vulnerable americans. at a time when america faces the greatest, mind you, the greatest income inequality since the great depression, this republican budget would continue the largest wealth transfer in history to the top 1%.

it would recklessly deny support services to the poor and the hungry, end the medicare guarantee and destroy american jobs while preserving tax breaks for millionaires, special interests and big oil. that's not all. while the republican budget crushes, mind you, it does crush the american dream for those striving to become part of the middle class, of course that's the poor and the working poor, it would increase spending for an already bloated pentagon budget and continue the war in afghanistan at a time when seven out of 10 americans believe the war should come to an end. we tnt do this to america's struggling families and our seniors or low income individuals. i urge all members to -- to reject this republican budget and instead accept the proposals put forth by the democrats, the congressional progressive cause and the congressional black caucus. a budget is a moral document that shows our nation's priorities and our values. how can we allow this medicare

guarantee that our seniors have contributed to -- may i have 30 seconds? mr. van hollen: i yield 30 seconds. ms. lee: thank you again for yielding. how can we allow this medicare guarantee that our seniors have contributed to throughout their life to be turned into a privatized voucher plan? where is our sense of morality, allowing our seniors to really begin to fall through the cracks? that is just wrong. we need a budget that puts americans back to work, invests in our future, protects the safety net, including medicare and works to reignite the american dream for all and not crush it for the wealthiest but for the wealthiest 1%. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. van hollen: i'm happy to yield at this point in time.

mr. ryan: ok. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves his time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the ranking member of the education committee, mr. miller. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. miller: i thank the gentleman for yielding. just like last year, some members of congress in the beltway talking heads are declaring that the republican budget is bold and courageous. but just like last year, republican budget, this budget proposes neither bold nor is it courageous. it's not bold to back your budget on low income families and children of this nation. this budget in fact, the republican budget, mortgages an entire generation of children's education and young people's education. it mortgages their etcational opportunity by making cuts at the very earlier of early childhood education, at the elementary level of education, the secondary level of education and it's going to allow the doubling of interest rates on student loans that families have taken out to provide for the higher education that these

young people need to get jobs in this economy, to get the skills that they need to be able to go to work in this economy and yet that's going to be slashed with their cuts, with their increased costs to those individuals. it also sacrifices the health care benefits of a generation of these same people because under their proposal, they envision the affordable health care act somehow going away. that they can repeal it, they can get rid of it. and that means that young people will not be able to stay on their family's policy as they finish their education or seek out their first job, their first beginning of a career. and it also ends the medicare guarantee. it follows the path that george bush followed when he wanted to privatize it and then in last year's budget when they sought to end the guarantee, they're back again to end that guarantee to our senior citizens. it's not bold, it's just plain wrong. the affordable care act in fact strengthens medicare, it made it more sustainable for seniors and

sustainable for the taxpayers. it extended the medicare trust fund. but that's not what the republican budget's about. it's about extending deficits out to some time in 2014 but at the same time not looking at the impact of military spending or continuation of the war as they expect in their budget in afghanistan and it says, therefore, we will shift the entire cuts to the young, to the old, to middle class families and that cannot be allowed. this -- the republican budget must be rejected by this house. . the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: i yield to the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. mr. goodlatte: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. thomas jefferson once wrote to preserve the independence of the people, we must not let our rulers load us with perpt tall

debt and make our election between economy and liberty. in this choice of two futures, unfortunately, congress has all too often chosen the latter path of out-of-control spending and expansion of power. this is an did he particular shon that congress has not controlled. the nation has gone from a federal deficit of billions of dollars to a deficit of trillions of dollars. the government is printing money at an unprecedented pace, which presents significant risk of inflation. our debt is at $15 trillion and mounting rapidly. as associated with paying interest on that debt, congress has done little. families across our nation understands what it means to make tough decisions each day about what they can and cannot afford, yet far too often this

has been lost. if americans must exercise restraint with their own funds, then government officials must be required to exercise a higher standard when spending other people's hard-earned money. the house budget we are considering today is a good budget and i support it and it is dependent on congresses being elected for the next 28 years to uphold this budget as well as a president who will sign appropriations measures into law. i'm a supporter of the republican study committee budget. while this budget is bold and some say drastic, these measures are needed to solve our nation's fiscal crisis. mr. chairman, unless each congress, regardless of party affiliation, is forced to make the decisions necessary to actually set a budget, unlike the u.s. senate and create a budget, the temptation will always be there for congress to

spend more than it receives in revenues and that is for a congresses stutional budget amendment. i support this budget and i support fiscal responsibility and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: i yield one minute to the the gentleman from vermont. the chair: the gentleman from vermont is recognized. well well the -- mr. welch: it requires the confidence to invest in the future and rebuild the middle class. second, it requires the discipline to bring down our debt with a plan that recognizes what is obvious to all americans that any plan with any prospect of success must include spending cuts and revenues. this budget, instead, makes things worse and delivers a

body-blow to the middle class and doubles down on tax cuts, adding $150,000 in cuts to the wealthiest americans. increases pentagon spending, fencing it off from it requiring it to reduce the debt. and the body-blow is taking kids off of work study and taking a way things that the middle class needs, a functional food and drug administration, f.a.a., cuts to national science. it is really bad for the middle class. americans know that a budget is more than line items on a spreadsheet. and the question is this, this budget believes in ausetert and leads to prosperity. no evidence of that. this budget believes tax cuts to the wealthy will create jobs. no evidence. our budget, we believe something very simple. we are all better off when we are all better off and that

requires a budget that reflects what has always made america great, investment in the middle class that is strong and enduring. our hope in passing any budget has to be that the middle class will be strengthened and parents will have confidence that their kids will be better off than they were. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: i have the right to close. the speaker pro tempore: the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves his time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: i yield two minutes to mr. becerra. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. becerra: mr. speaker, i stand in opposition to the republican budget we are considering here today. how easy it is for some that when president bush took office, we had surpluses as far as the

eye could see and when he left the office, we were left with a deep pool of red ink. they talk about the urgency of reducing deficits, but where were they when they passed tax cuts for the westiest. where were they when president bush took us into two wars. adding trillions to the deficit, that the only solution they offer to create economic growth in this country is to end medicare and to hand out more tax cuts on the westiest among us. the republican vision in this budget doesn't reflect the america that i grew up in. and their vision of an america, an america that can't, is not the country that i want my children to inherit. budgets are about choices and this republican budget chooses billionaires over seniors and oil subsidies over college dreams for our middle class. the same republican budget that

replaces the medicare guarantee and gives us coupon care that increases seniors' health care costs and cuts college aid for students and slashes investments in our k-12 schools and gives tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires. you can't make this stuff up. what is most astonishing is the absence of any talk of real americans, those fighting to hold on to their jobs and their homes. america has always been the land of opportunity, where those who work hard and play by the rules have a chance to succeed and achieve the american dream. instead of turning america into a can't-do country where you are dismantling medicare and medicaid and programs to help our kids go to college and all the institutes of health and those that do research for us,

we should recognize this is a great country. we need to come together with the conviction that america's best days are yet to come. i urge my colleagues to vote against this can't-do republican budget and for the democratic alternative. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: i yield one minute to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. nadler: i rise in strong opposition to the republican budget. once again, the republicans move a slash and burn budget that would turn medicare into a private voucher system and force seniors to spend more than $6,000 occupy every additional year and gut medicaid, education programs, medical research and transportation among other thanks. you name it, they devastate it. first the republican budget calls for staggering $10

trillion in tax cuts for the wealthy and large corporations over 10 years. it would pay for it by closing unspecified tax loopholes, but this is a fraud. loophole closing of this magnitude, they would have to get rid of all the tax breaks that middle class depends on, like tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance and charitable donations and this won't happen. the republican budget then proposes $5.3 trillion in nondefense discretionary spending cuts beyond what was agreed to last year. it would slash $860 billion for medicare and all to pay for tax cuts because it wouldn't balance the budget to 2040 because these cuts are to pay for the tax cuts for the wealthy. for shame. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves his time. the gentleman from maryland is

recognized. mr. van hollen: may i inkirequire as to how much time is remaining? the chair: two minutes. mr. van hollen: the debate we had this afternoon is not whether we should reduce the deficit or the debt, but how we do it. the choices that we make in reaching that goal. we support what has been described as a balanced approach, the same approach taken by every bipartisan group that has looked at this challenge. that approach says yes, we need to make cuts, but we should also cut special interest tax loopholes for the purpose of reducing the deficit and ask folks at the high income ladder to go back to the same tax rates they were paying during the clinton administration. our colleagues reject that balanced approach. i have not heard one of our republican colleagues say they are prepared to take one penny from closing a tax loophole, one

penny from getting rid of an oil subsidy for the purpose of deficit reduction. and when you do that and say we aren't going to ask the wealthiest to share, you have to take your budget cuts on everyone and everything else. that's why they slashed the transportation funding next year by 46% and kicking the economy when it's down and that's why they end the medicare guarantee for seniors and that's why we reopen the prescription drug doughnut hole and cut medicaid by a third by the year 2022 in the name of repairing the social safety net. that is putting a hole in protections for the most vulnerable americans. that is not a choice the american people want to make. they would choose a balanced approach and not choose another round of tax breaks for the

wealthiest americans at the expense of seniors, at the expense of middle-income americans and at the expense of important investments. they would reject that approach. i urge my colleagues to he reject that approach and adopt the democratic alternative. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: i yield myself the reminder of my time. when we confronted the 2008 economic crisis, which launched us into the worst recession since the great depression, which threw millions of people out of work, which lost trillions of dollars in wealth and retirement savings for millions of americans, that crisis caught us by surprise. we didn't see it coming and out of that came ugly legislation which a lot of us supported. this is one of the most predictable economic crisis we

ever had and we have a senate that has chosen for three years in a row to just do nothing. we have a president who for the fourth budget in a row proposes to do nothing to fix it. in fact, he makes it worse. here's what we're trying to do. we are trying to go to the country and offer them a solution. we don't think the country is headed in the right direction right now because the debt crisis is coming. so we find ourselves legally bound because we are required to pass the budget abblingt. fundamental tax reform to get job creators creating jobs, take away the special interest loopholes and treat everybody fairly. stop raising the tax rate on successful small businesses to 45% like it's going to happen in january. instead keep their tax rates low

so they can create jobs. control spending. reform our welfare system. we believe the american idea is essentially an opportunity to side with the safety net and we believe in a safety net to help people who cannot help themselves and help people who are down on their luck and get back on their feet. but we do not want to convert the safety net into a hammock that locals themselves which drains them to make most of their lives. we believe in upward mobility and opportunity. we believe when we see medicare and medicaid going bankrupt, we should fix that. let's let the states innovate and create and have good solutions that meet the needs of their populations by giving them more control over medicaid. they run it already right now, but just have all these government rules and regulations

from washington. stop the rationing board from denying care to current seniors. get rid of that, and replace it with a guarantee that current seniors get the promise made to them and future seniors actually have a program that's solvent. instead of having 15 buyer chiropractic elites and allow seniors in the future to choose which one they want the best. a quarter of seniors pick amongst the private plans to meet their needs. we want to keep giving them the choices. at the end of the day, it's about a choice of two futures. do we want this path of debt, doubt and decline where we have a debt crisis or people that get hurt the first and the worst are those who need government the most, the poor, the elderly who depend on medicare or going to get this debt under control and pay it off? at the end of the day, it's a

philosophy. what the other side is doing, what the president is proposing is that elites in the bureaucracy who are unelected, they make the decisions. in my judgment, mr. speaker, mr. chairman, that's paternal, it's condescending. so the question is, who do you want to be in charge of your life, you or these cronies in government? do we want to keep taking money from job creators and families and sending it to washington so they can distribute it to their cronies and distribute it to whoever has the clout and make all these decisions in our lives on health care and financial services and education and the environment and energy? if we keep surrendering our liberties and our freedom and our dollars, we won't have the right to pursue happiness as we

see it happening in our own lives. . . the idea in this country is our rights come to us from god, not from government. our rights don't come from government. but the idea that's being perpetrated, the path the president's putting us on is one where he and his elites in washington, they know better. they define our rights for us. they regulate ration and redistribute them for us. whatever you call that, mr. chairman, that is not the american idea. we have a profound responsibility to look our children in the eye, like our parents did to us, and fix this country's problems so they can have a more prosperous future. we know without a shadow of a doubt it's irrefutable the next generation's going to be worse off.

we know that if we allow this debt crisis to continue, if we allow it to kick in and the experts tell us it could be as little as two years away, everybody's going to get hurt. the economy's going to go down. we have a moral obligation to do something about that. and what we're saying is, do it now, do it in our own terms, do it in a way when people can see the reforms that are necessary so, they're gradual, and do it in way so that we can keep the pro-- the promise the government has made to those who are already retired. who count on government the most. at the end of the day, mr. speaker, this is about choices and we are going to give the country a choice of two futures so they can decide whether or not we want to maintain the american idea in this country. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time for general debate has expired. the gentleman from texas, mr. brady, and the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney, each will control 30 minutes on the subject of economic goals and

policies. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. brady: at the end of the day, the republican budget developed by our budget chairman, paul ryan, is a jobs bill. we know america faces an unemployment crisis today greater than any time during the depression. we know roughly 23 million americans can't even find a full time job. we know that while government spending has rebounded and how other factors have rebounded in economy, what we know is that -- in this economy, we know that jobs haven't rebounded. there's fewer jobs in america today than when this president took his oath of office. so we're going to talk about this budget and its impact on america's economy. and the truth of the matter is, if you like the way our economy's going, if you think this is the best we can do, stick with the president's budget, stick with the democrats' budget. it says the course. if you think we can do better for american, hardworking taxpayers and job seekers, there is a choice of two futures.

mr. speaker, it's a privilege to serve as the vice chairman of the joint economic committee, the lead republican for the house and the senate. i'd like to acknowledge the contributions of my fellow house republicans such as dr. burgess, mr. campbell and mr. duffy, mr. amash, mr. mulvaney make as members of the joint economic committee. we are here as a matter of law. established in 1946 as the congressional counterpart to the president's council of economic advisors, the joint economic committee has provided timely insight on economic issues to the congress for more than half a century. we helped lay the intellectual groundwork for the tax cut in 1964 and in 1980, plugging in the supply side established the credibility of supply side economics and paved the way for the reagan tax cut in 1981. the joint economic committee examines economic development and evaluates the economic ramifications of policies being considered by the congress such as this budget. in work by the g.e.c.

republicans received national attention during the debate over president obama's plan to nationalize health care in the 111th congress. since then the full employment and balanced growth act of 1978, the joint economic committee has performed an important function in this, the annual budget process. advising members of congress on the potential economic impact the policys set forth in the president's budget and the budget resolution we consider today is for this purpose we come to the house floor this evening. let's begin our assessment of the house budget by discussing some very key economic principles. real growth in the economy, the foundation for creating jobs along main street for hardworking americans, it comes from the private sector. and not from government. the joint economic committee examined for the last 40 years the relationship between changes in government spending and jobs along main street.

private payroll employment. what's clear is that there is not a tight relationship, there is an inverse relationship. as federal government spending grows, jobs along main street shrink. likewise when the federal government takes a smaller share of resources from main street, more hardworking taxpayers find jobs as payroll employment increase and this chart shows the blue being federal government spending, the red being jobs along main street. every time washington grows, main street shrinks. my colleagues across the aisle argue the federal spending should increase when private job growth plummets but even during periods of sustained increases in federal spending and investment, jobs along main street have remained low or negative. and put simply, federal spending doesn't create jobs. only when federal spending subsides do jobs grow.

next, there's a very close economic relationship, though, between what we call private nonresidential fixed investment growth. what that means is when businesses invest in buildings and software equipment technology, jobs along main street grow, this chart shows, again, since 1971, in blue, the private investment, business software, equipment building, in red, job growth along main street. and it shows almost a nearly identical correlation. so in the end, growing jobs in america depends upon more investment in america. not federal government spending, more investment to create those jobs. in spite of that evidence, 40 years of proven evidence, the white house, president obama and congressional democrats have only pushed us deeper and deeper into debt. we have to remind ourselves if both the debt we hold to the

public and our gross federal debt are reaching new post-war levels. they've never been this high since world war ii. publicly held federal debt roughly doubled to nearly 70% of the size of our economy in just the four years leading up to 2011. the same can be said of the gross federal debt. again, reaching 100% of our economy, dangerous levels, dangerous levels to the economy, dangerous levels to our credit rating, dangerous levels to our investment. and according to the president's latest budget estimate, this gross debt isn't expected to go under 100% for years and years. in fact, he proposes a budget that never balances. the president proposes a budget that takes it deeper and deeper and deeper into debt and hangs an anchor around america's economy. there is a better solution and the model's right in front of

us. all you have to do is compare president obama's spending-driven approach to the economy and look at the last serious recession, that which president reagan had to tackle. despite bailouts and cash for clunkers and auto bailouts and stimulus and deficit spending in the trillions of dollars, you can tell this recovery continues to struggle. good comparison is the reagan recovery. because that recovery was fueled by main street. by private investment and free enterprise. just the opposite of president obama and congressional democrats. the white house's current focus, on massive increases in federal spending, expanding government beyond imaginable levels, concurs -- growth has been a failure. meanwhile the smaller government, free market approach

utilized by the reagan administration proved to be much more successful. looking at the comparisons between the two, at this same point in the recession, president reagan's increase in jobs was up almost 10%. president obama is less than 1/3 of that. the unemployment rate had dropped 3.5% at this point in the recovery under president reagan. it's less than half of that -- it's less than 1/2 of that under president obama. in average growth, how did the economy grow? under the free market approach of reagan it grew by 6%. president obama's record is about 1/3 of that. these policies by this president and this democrat congress of the past two years, prior to republican control, has failed. point of the matter is, government needs to get out of the way, need to cut government spending, need to hold the line and reform our terrible tax system. we need to free our small businesses from the oppressive level of regulation coming out of washington. mr. speaker, in a moment i'm

going to talk about the tax reality. we're going to talk about how the current budget that we're living in today inflates our prices and damages real business. but at this time i have a number of key speakers from the joint economic committee in our conference i want to get to so at this point i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. maloney: thank you, mr. speaker. i am afraid that our colleagues have made a slight mistake in naming their plan. this budget should be called the

road to austerity because it is a plan that is most noteworthy for the rather harsh austerity it demands of the many and a lavish -- and the lavish benefits it extends to the few. it clearly envisions a rising tide of selective tax cuts that would lift all@s but leave most -- all yachts but leave most dingies. our republican friends like to talk about making the hard choices and what they propose here would indeed make things much harder for millions of americans. but it will also make things much easier for a fortunate few millionaires and billionaires. that's their plan. but before we get to the specifics of the plan, tonight it's important to examine where we are before we decide where we want to go. because of president obama's

economic policies, there are continuing signs of economic progress and recovery. for example, in the fourth quarter of 2011 and through the beginning of this year, there is fresh new data showing that the recovery is gaining strength. the economy has added more than 200,000 jobs for three straight months and as you can see from this chart, private sector employment has increased for 24 consecutive months. . and during the past 24 months, the economy has added jobs. on this chart, the red bar are the bush administration and it shows that in the closing days, the closing months, this country was losing over 700,000 jobs per

month. the blue bars are the obama administration, and you can see the steady, slow gain and the 24 months of gains of jobs in the private sector. this chart is similar to one that was presented by chairman bernanke in his testimony before the financial services committee in the humry -- humphrey-hawkins report. it shows the area where president obama took office losing so many jobs and because of the policies, the steady gain and continuing gain we hope to see. actions taken by the president and congress, including passage of the recovery act and recent legislation to continue federal unemployment insurance and

extend the payroll tax cut through 2012 have played an important role in driving this economic recovery and private job gain. few would disagree, however, that to reach this point has taken longer than we would have liked. it has required fiscal interventions to sustain and strengthen the economy and to support those harmed by the great recession. and it has required a variety of creative and effective approaches from the federal reserve to ease monetary policy and boost growth. i would also like to show the chart on unemployment, and it shows that the unemployment rate has fallen significantly from 9.1% last august to 8.3% in february, which is well below the peak of 10% reached in october, 2009.

so, again, this is a positive sign under the obama administration. still, there are far too many americans hurting. the reality is we have a long way to go to regain what we lost during the great recession. 12.8 million americans remain unemployed and more than four out of 10 unemployed have been jobless for more than six months. the share of those unemployed and out of work more than six months has been greater than 40% since december of 2009, a period of time that has been unprecedented. clearly, cutting further into the unemployment rate and bringing down the rate of long-term unemployed must be continuing priorities of this congress. and i can say that democrats will not be satisfied until

every american who wants a job can get a job. so while we have made some economic progress, there are many challenges ahead. while g.d.p. has grown for 10 straight quarters, g.d.p. growth for the first quarter of 2012 is projected to slow to an annual rate of just 1.9%. this is far from robust economic growth. the european communities' economic weakness may present new headwinds in the months ahead. and the recent spike in u.s. oil and gas prices leaves consumers with fewer dollars in their waltz, putting new pressure on the recovery. clearly, we need congress to say vigilant on the fiscal side. part of this fiscal vigilance is rejecting austerity plans and

short-sided budget cuts that will jeopardize the recovery while harming the most vulnerable among us like the low-income and senior citizens. the ryan budget harms those who need help and dolls out benefits do those who don't need it. the ryan budget passed by this house -- if it was passed by this house would risk our recovery. the majority's budget resolution for 2013, the ryan budget, abandons the economic recovery, contains policies that ship american jobs overseas and harms our nation's economic competitiveness. and by slashing programs that low-income and elderly americans count on by cutting taxes for

corporations and wealthiest individuals, the ryan budget provides the latest, clearest example of republican economic priority. just like last year, the ryan budget ends the medicare guarantee, shifts the burden of rising health care costs on to seniors and shreds our nation's social safety net. these are bad choices for america. the ryan budget extends the bush tax cuts and lowers the current top tax rate from 35% to 25% giving millionaires and billionaires a 10% point tax cut. instead of asking the wealthiest americans to do what they can to help restore fiscal responsibility and provide vital services, republicans would choose to slash support for

tuition assistance and other services in order to pay for tax cuts that provide a huge benefit to millionaires and hurt america's working middle class. the ryan budget includes the latest attempt to end medicare as we know it. instead of strengthening medicare, ryan's plan would replace medicare's guaranteed benefit with a voucher for medicare or private insurance, creating higher costs for seniors and unraveling the traditional medicare program. initial analysis show that the plan would cut future spending by $5,000 900 per senior, shifting costs to seniors and diminishing their access to quality care. republicans continue to propose ideas to end medicare even though 70% of americans support

keeping the program as it is. the ryan budget would strip away health care benefits from millions of american families by repealing the affordable care act. chairman ryan's plan would eliminate benefits that are providing stable and secure care for millions of americans and go back to the days when insurance companies would deny coverage or jack up prices or just refuse coverage because of pre-existing conditions. whenever and however they pleased. the republican budget would get rid of benefits americans are already receiving, such as the following. free preventative health services for 32 million seniors. $3.2 billion in prescription drug savings for 5.1 million seniors by reopening the

doughnut hole. preventative services like cervical cancer screening and contraception for 20 million american, coverage for young americans who have gained coverage on their parents' insurance plan. protection from insurance companies cancelling coverage when people get sick and from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. and the budget eliminates benefits slated to help americans in the coming two years, such as stable and secure care for 32 million americans. protections against being discriminated against due to gender or pre-existing conditions or facing limits on coverage for over 105 million americans. chairman ryan's budget does

nothing -- does something else. it breaks the agreement made last year to reduce the deficit backing out of the bipartisan deal republicans and democrats made on government spending. many will recall last year in order to avert an unprecedented national default, democrats and republicans passed the budget control act. the ryan budget breaks that agreement, that bipartisan agreement, by slashing government services by $19 billion more than was agreed to in the budget control act. republicans would break their word on spending and reduced services and investments all while slashing tax rates for millionaires and billionaires. the ryan budget block grant medicaid, slashing $810 billion from the program, jeopardizing

nursing home care for seniors and shifting costs to states. ryan's plan reaffirms the republican call to end medicaid as a safety net, jeopardizing vital services that seniors depend on like nursing home care and home health care aid and shifts the burden of rising health care costs to cash-strapped states. according to nonpartisan congressional budget office, these dramatic reductions in spending, and i quote, might involve reduced eligibility coverage, fewer services, lower payments to providers or increased cost-sharing by beneficiaries, all of which would reduce access to care, end quote. the ryan budget increases the burden on low-income americans. the republican budget block

grant and slashes funding for the supplemental knew trational assistance program by almost $123 billion over 10 years, jeopardizing economic security for millions of americans. the ryan budget would just pull the plug on america's clean energy industries. instead of moving towards a clean economy and reducing dependence on foreign fossil fuel, chairman ryan's plan pulls the plug on support for clean energy technology and simply calls for opening more land to drilling even though american oil production is at its highest level since 2003. and the oil and gas industry is using less than 1/3 of the 75 million areas of land offered for development.

and it continues the subsidies to the oil industry. this plan would pull americans out of the race to create well high -- well-paying new jobs and clean energy technology. the alternative of course is the democratic plan which takes a totally different approach, a balanced approach of shared sacrifice that meets the nation's need to invest in the future, keeps our country strong and preserves medicare and our social safety net while continuing tax relief for working families. for me, the choice is easy, not hard. i urge you to join me in supporting the democratic plan, supporting medicare, supporting working families and supporting

the middle class and supporting the firm belief that the american dream is alive and well. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: i'm pleased to yield four minutes to one of the new members of the joint economic committee. mr. did you have if i -- mr. if you havey. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. duffy: to be clear, we owe over $15 trillion in national debt. this year, we are going to borrow, $1.3 trillion. every year we board a -- we borrowed a trillion dollars and they talk about a balanced approach. i believe the american people

need a balanced budget. we need to be clear on what the proposals are. look at what my friends across the aisle have proposed, the budget never balances. there are deficits and debt as far as the eye can see. the president's budget, there are debts and deficits as far as the eye can see. democratic-controlled senate, for three years, they haven't passed a budget. i think the american people want honesty. they want to make sure that the democrats are honest with regard to how much debt we're going to pass off to our next generation. they want us to be honest with regard to how much debt the democrats want the chinese to buy from america. i think they want us to be honest in regard to tax rates that as of april 1, america is going to have the highest tax rate in the industrialized world, the highest tax rate. and my democrat friends across

the aisle, they want to raise taxes even further. and so when a business is looking at where it's going to invest, is it going to be in america or somewhere else or if you are looking at investing in america or somewhere else, then look at tax rates. and when we talk about shipping jobs overseas, if these tax policies for my friends across the aisle that shipped my jobs from wisconsin overseas. they talk about fairness and wanting to balance the budget on a fair playing field, let's look at this chart today, the two top tax rates, 33% and 35%. if you want to get the deficit down to 3% of the economy, you have to raise those tax rates to 72% and 77%. if you want to get it down to 2% of debt to the size of our economy, you have to raise the top tax rate to 86% and 91%.

the bottom line is, if you wanted to pay off the debt with the current spending agenda of the democrats, you could never do it by taxing. you could take all of the wealth, all of the income of those top tax earners and you would never balance the budget. americans want you to be honest in regard to the fallacy that you can tax your way out of these debts and deficits. . you want to take a half a trillion dollars out of medicare and use it for some other group, taking seniors' money that they have invested in that plan for their lifetime, take a half a trillion out and use it for another group of people. that's unconscionable. but moreover, you want to set up a board of 15 unelected bureaucrats that are going to ration our seniors' care, a

board that's going to systemically reduce reimbursements to doctors, hospitals and clinics and in essence will impact the access in quality of care not of some future generation of seniors but of today's seniors. so when we talk about taking care of our seniors, let's have a plan that truly takes care of our seniors. which is the house plan. i mean, i hear about a guaranteed benefit that the democrats talk about for our seniors, there's no guaranteed benefit for our seniors. they're rationing it down to nothing. i think it's important we talk about a bold plan, bold leadership that's going to resolve the problems that we face in this country, a plan that is going to put us on a path to sustainability, that will balance our budget, that will pay off our debt, a plan that implements pro-growth policies so our economy can expand -- will the gentleman yield 30 more seconds --

seconds? mr. brady: yeah. i yield an additional 30 seconds. mr. duffy: a plan that will put us on a pro-growth path. but also a plan that will preserve and protect medicare and save it for future generations. i would ask my friend as i cross the aisle to stop -- across the aisle to stop hampering but to join us in bold leadership and i would submit that their children and grandchildren, some not yet born, would applaud their bold leadership to save our country from this massive debt that will be their future if we don't act. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. maloney: i yield four minutes to the gentlelady from pennsylvania, a member of the budget committee, allison schwartz. the chair: the gentlelady from pennsylvania is recognized for four minutes. ms. schwartz: thank you, mr. speaker. i just wanted to add a few words, some of which -- some of these kind of issues have been talked about all day or all afternoon. but i did want -- feel compelled

to rise again to talk about what really is at stake here and what is truly a sharp contrast between the republican budget and the democratic budget alternatives. our budgets, as a federal budget, should reflect our priorities and values as a nation. our democratic budget moves america forward by building for the future, by investing in innovation, in education, in energy, with confidence and expectation about the opportunities that are available to us in this country. i also ensures that we keep our promises to america's seniors but protecting and strengthening medicare. the republican plan for america moves our nation backward and harms our economic competitiveness now and into the future. by choosing sustained tax cuts for the -- for millionaires over small businesses and jobs for the middle class. by choosing tax breaks for our biggest companies rather than investments in our future

economic growth. our vision -- their vision, excuse me, is one in which college becomes more expensive for millions of americans, where investments in innovation and research are slashed and we stop being the leaders in the world on bioscience and energy. and abandoned seniors in their most vulnerable years. rather than balancing the budget by shifting costs to medicare beneficiaries, the democratic budget reduces the rate of growth in health care spending through initiatives that will increase our value and efficiency in our health care system, it will contain costs for medicare and for all americans. millions of seniors rely on medicare every day for their life-saving medications, treatments and doctor visits. we cannot abandon our obligation to our seniors and the democratic budget does not. the democratic budget takes a

balanced approach to meeting our nation's fiscal challenges and makes targeted investments needed to spur economic growth and, yes, it preserves the medicare guarantee. and protects tax relief for middle class families. a high priority for us, one that is much less if a priority at all for the republican budget. our budget tackles the federal deficit by reducing the federal deficit as a share of g.d.p., by more than 8%, so it is 2.7% of g.d.p. within 10 years. we make some hard choices about how we cut spending, but our budget as a commitment to cut spending by over $2 trillion. so it reduces the deficit responsibly and fairly. it protects our seniors and our middle class and it does not ask either our seniors or the middle class to shoulder our fiscal challenges alone. we have a choice to make.

and we will be making it this evening and tomorrow as we decide which budget is better for the america that we dream about, that we expect and that we work for. i urge my colleagues to stand up for responsible budget that makes spending cuts and also makes smart investments. that grows our economy but also meets our obligations, that respects our values and who we are as americans. it creates opportunities and it is fair to america. i suggest that we vote yes to the democratic budget and protect america and our values and grows our economy. and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentlelady from north carolina who serves on the important small business committee and who is a nurse and understands our health care challenges in america. the chair: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized for three minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank the chairman for

allowing me to be here tonight to help in this effort. mr. speaker, the president's economic agenda has failed the american people. the president's economic agenda has failed our job creators, our seniors and future generations. the president's policies have failed and are making the economy worse. the president's budget calls to -- calls for more failed attempts to tax, spend, borrow and bail out our way to job creation. mrs. ellmers: i'd like to read a quote from a third party that addresses this issue. bernie marcus, c.e.o. of home depot. if we don't lower spending and if we don't deal with paying down the debt, we are going to have to raise taxes, even brain dead economists understand that when you raise taxes you cost jobs. because the president cannot

stand on his record, he is regrettably -- he has regrettably turned to the politics of envy and division. there is nothing fair about making our children and our grandchildren pay the bills for what the president's own fiscal commission co-chairs called the most predictable economic crisis in our history. i have a couple more quotes and these aren't from conservative publications, mind you. the "usa today," obama's budget plan leaves debt bomb ticking. "the boston herald," president obama has apparently decided that he is not going to be part of the solution to the nation's enormous debt -- or excuse me, deficit, which would make him, yes, part of the problem.

mr. speaker, our friends across the aisle continuously discuss the issue of medicare which we know is one of the growing problems when we're dealing with the debt. our democrat friends continue to say that republicans are cutting medicare and changing it as we know it. and yet in obamacare they cut a half a trillion dollars out of medicare. i have a quote from the congressional budget office as well and my friend across the aisle had one a few moments ago. this quote is from 12/19/09. the government takeover of health care could, quote, reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care. i also have a quote from the government accountability office , medicare remains on a path that is fiscally unsustainable over the long-term.

mr. speaker, the house republicans passed -- that we are going to pass a jobs bill, we are going to pass a budget. may i have 30 more seconds? mr. brady: i yield an additional 30 seconds. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mrs. ellmers: this budget includes fundamental pro-growth tax reform, eliminating corporate loopholes and subsidies to help create jobs. it addresses the real drivers of our debt, saving our social safety net programs from going bankrupt. and it calls for repeal of the government takeover of health care and other job spending. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for the house budget bill. thank you very much and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from new york. mrs. maloney: may i inquire how much time remains? the chair: the gentlelady from new york has 10 1/2 minutes remaining. mrs. maloney: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, congressman cooper. the chair: the gentleman from

tennessee is recognized for three minutes. mr. cooper: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. this unfortunately is one of the most partisan weeks in washington. as each side presents their own budget. i urge members to weigh these budgets very carefully. unfortunately we have very little time to do so. the entire debate for the republican and democrat budgets is some four hours. there will be many alternative budgets presented. the one that i'm most interested in, the simpson-bowles-endorsed budget will come up later tonight, which is a big schedule change, it had been expected tomorrow. but we will only have a total of 10 minutes to explain the only bipartisan budget that will be offered. there's six or seven budgets being offered but there's only one that's bipartisan. there are many excellent features in the democratic budget and in the republican budget but there's only one that has the support of folks on both sides of the aisle.

i hope that members choose carefully, even in this, the most partisan of weeks. because it's almost a david versus goliath situation when you have 10 minutes versus four hours. i hope that members will look at the details of these budgets and realize that hidden in the details are lots of massive changes to lots of massive programs. but if we don't let ideology control, if we look at the basics and realize that america does have a deficit and debt problem, as the white house acknowledges, and as our republican friends acknowledge, if we respect each other and understand that we have to have real revenues and entitlement reform, there's still really only one plan that offers both and i do not originate it but i'm thankful that simpson and bowles with their report of a year and a half ago introduced such a plan and tonight, later in the debate, in an hour or two, members will have the first opportunity in either the house or the senate to consider that. so these are very important issues that we're facing.

i wish it were not a david and goliath sort of situation. it's almost like david versus two goliaths because of the institutional infrastructure in washington of supporting either the republican budget or the democratic budget are massive. i think that once you look at fundamentals you see that there's got to be a way where americans it work -- americans can work together. the folks i hear from back home want to us stop the partisan bickering, want us to work together. and i'm thankful that our republican friends allowed the simpson-bowles bipartisan budget to be considered. but for members to only have 10 minutes of debate to consider it is going to be very difficult. so i'm hopeful that members, as they're sitting in their offices tonight, as they're interrupting their dinners, will focus not only on the important joint economic committee issues have thank have been raised, but will also focus on the details of the budget they're about to vote on. we had anticipated that the vote

on the simpson-bowles alternative would be tomorrow morning. that's what we had been told. but an hour or so ago they suddenly had a change of plans. we feel that we're gaining momentum and i think that's evidenced by the fact that most folks of the interest groups in washington are gearing up to either support us or oppose us but i think that members should weigh their decision tonight very carefully. i thank the gentlelady for yielding. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: i'm pleased to yield two mines to one of the most knowledgeable representatives on health care, a physician who has delivered more than 3,000 baby the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. burgess: a lot of people have asked why if you're going to do a republican budget, why even involve yourself in the president's new health care law and why is it necessary for the republican budget to repeal the president's health care law and advance bipartisan solutions that take power away from the government and give it back to the people? the joint economic committee

prepared a chart dealing with the affordable care act system system -- some two years ago. it's an involved chart you look at it, it needs to be right side up, of course, but you know what, it doesn't really matter, it makes just as much sense upside down. but the reason i wanted you to turn it over you look at this thing, instead of the patient being at the center of all of this the patient is down here at the bottom. this chart was prepared two years ago by the committee staff of the joint economic committee and this is precisely why the affordable care act has to be pulled odd o-- pulled out by the roots in order for us to get any semblance of sanity in the country. ignore the fact that it busts the bank and is a drain on the federal treasury unlike anything we've ever seen before, the bottom line is, this just does not work. i spent yesterday at the supreme court, got to hear the oral arguments before the supreme court and it was

astonishing to hear the arguments put forth why we had to take over 1/6 of the economy, why we had to expand government power in a way that's going to redefine the government's power of the -- over the american people, it was because the uninsured cost us so much money. they -- that's nonsense. what's the real cost drive over health care in this country? what's the real reason health insurance is going inexorably up and up and up? it's because the government doesn't pay for medicare, medicaid and s-chip and it's the need to fill that hole that causes insurance to go up so much. i was astonished that this argument was not made from the -- before the supreme court but regardless, what is the solution to fix this problem? we're going to put a subsidy out there for the middle class in the exchanges. that'll help.

then the worst part, we'll double medicaid. medicaid is the problem. medicaid is the reason this cost is going up inexorably year after year after year and what was the president's solution? what was speaker pelosi's solution? let's elbow up medicaid in this country and see if that fixes the problem. how could the law be so convoluted as shown on this graph? the reason is, if you look at the language that wrote that graph, this is not two copies of the law, this is one copy of the law in two volumes. how was it so badly done? you need do nothing more than look at the title page of h.r. 3590 from december 24, 2009, in the senate of the united states -- may i have an additional 30 seconds. mr. brady: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. burgess: christmas eve, december 24, 2009, that the bill from the u.s. house of

representatives, entitled an act to amend the internal revenue code to modify first time home buyers credit in the case of members of the armed forces and certain other federal employees. wait a minute, that doesn't sound like a health care law. how did it become a health care law? it's called an amendment. an amendment to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the remaining 2,700 pages. i submit that this thing was flawed from start to finish, it needs to be struck out by the roots, otherwise fiscal sanity cannot exist in this country. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from new york. mrs. maloney: i yield three minutes to the gentleman, mr. fattah. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. fattah: i come this evening to suggest it would, indeed, be cheaper for our country if we want to subordinate this great nation to other nations in this world. if we want to educate less of

our children, if we want to invest less in innovation, if we want to do less in terms of providing for the well being of our country, we could try to operate on the cheap. i don't think it's worthy of our house to consider a budget that would cut off america's global leadership position. as we see china, india, other countries, the european union, rising to become more and more economic competitors to the united states, this debate between democrats and republicans is much too small for this body. we need to be thinking about our country, thinking about the future of our country and its position in the world, and no one can intellectually argue that somehow it would be better for our nation to educate less of our children and have less scientists or engineers, or to invest less in manufacturing

and innovation. so i would ask the majority this evening that after we get finished with this part of this process, that we try to come together to think about not our party but positioning our country for future greatness. we have a grand legacy as a nation and for us to come here and to say, well, they we're going to solve this problem is we're going to cut and cut and cut. this is a budget that cuts trillions but doesn't get the budget in balance for the next 30 years. they're using the fiscal circumstances of the country to go after programs they never supported anyway. this is not a worthy proposition for our house. i'm prepared to support the democratic budget. i'm prepared to support simpson-bowles, i'm prepared to support raising additional revenue. the majority of our country beliefs we should have a balanced approach. that is, we should cut programs

we don't need and we should raise the revenues we do need. we're at a 60-year low in tax rates and the young lady who spoke on the other side said earlier that any economist will tell you that raising taxes, you'll lose jobs. let me tell you what the facts are. under the clinton administration, we raised taxes, we invested in education, we invested in clean energy, we traded close to -- we created close to 23 million new jobs in this country and every sector of our society improved. yes, the rich got richer but every group of american also did better. those are the facts. facts are stubborn things. i hope that as a congress, we can rise to the needs of this great nation. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: i am pleased to yield three minutes to another key freshman member of the joint economic committee, also a member of the budget committee, who also understands again what it takes to get this

terribly sluggish economy back on track. the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney. three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognize for three minutes. mr. mulvaney: thank you, mr. chairman, and thank my colleague from texas, mr. brady. there's so much we could talk about here tonight, it's unfortunate we only have a few minutes to talk about each budget. one of the things i heard the gentlelady from new york mention is that the budget we offered as a republican party is note worthy mostly for its austerity. i think it's note worthy mostly for the fact that it planses. it balances. does something the president's budget does not do. something i would suspect the democrat's offering later this evening would not do. it balances. our colleagues across the aisle talk about balance. i thought that would mean the

budget would balance. but they mean they would sort of cut spending and raise taxes. but every budget they've offered has only increased taxes and increased spending. it's true of the president's budget, i imagine it's true of mr. van hollen's budget and i think it's important to look at what would actually work. we're not the first country to go through this situation. in fact if you look at the other country that was had debt crises like we are facing now, what you can see is, some of them have managed to get out of it. they've managed to get out of it mostly by cutting spening. in fact a ratio of roughly seven to one on spending cuts versus tax increases is what works. you can do better than this. you have -- you can point oother countries that have saved thems without raising taxes. you cannot point to a single country that has done it by raising taxes on even a one-to-one basis as we'll take up tonight with simpson bowles. the president's budget doesn't

do this. it both increases taxes and increases spending, not coming close to what has worked in every other developed nation that's tried to do exactly what we are trying to doo with our budget tonight. you know, i spent a lot of time back home, i know what folks back home might be willing, under certain circumstances, to pay more taxes. they might do that if they could trust us not to waist the -- waste the money. they might do it if they could trust us to put the money toward the debt and deficit. but we don't do that. what have we always given them, mostly from my colleagues across the aisle but also my party in past years? what have we always given them? we've always giving them -- given them new taxes now, deficit spending now and new waste now, in exchange for a promise of spending reductions down the road that never come. i think it's time for us to acknowledge that our colleagues are trying to sell us a definition of the word balance that doesn't make sense. it's time for us to reclaim the definition of that word an say, look, we are the ones offering

a balanced budget. we are the ones offering a balanced approach. we are offering a way to pay off the debt. i think it's a fair question to ask, the money we borrowed yesterday, do we ever intend to pay it back? the ryan budget allows us to way to do that. the g.o.p. budget allows us to way to do that. the president budget never does that. may i have 30 seconds? mr. brady: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. >> there's -- >> mr. mulvaney: the republican budget that actually balances. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from -- the gentlelady from new york. mrs. maloney: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlelady veck niced. mrs. maloney: i would like to

talk to the gentleman who said i was calling it the -- who would like to object to my saying it should be called the road to austerity instead of the road to prosperity. on the negative side of the republican plan, the economic policy institute estimates that the republican austerity plan will destroy 4.1 million jobs through 2014. but at the same time, the republican budget makes tax cuts for the most fortunate few permanent. while those making over $1 million per year will get an average tax cut of at least $150,000 and tax breaks for big oil will be preserved. that's their plan. the alternative, of, is the democratic budget plan, which takes a totally different approach. a balanced approach. that meets the nation's need to

invest in the future. while preserving medicare and our social safety net and supporting the firm belief that the american dream is alive and well by investing in the future of our children and our nation. here to close is the ranking member of the budget committee from maryland, congressman van hollen. the chair: this -- the gentleman is recognized. mr. van hollen: i thank the gentlelady for her leaership. may i inquire how much time is remaining in the chair: the gentleman has three minutes. mr. van hollen: i want to close where the gentlelady began, on the economy and on jobs. as this chart shows, when the president was sworn in, when president obama was sworn in, we were losing over 00,000 jobs a month. a month. because of actions taken by the president and the congress and because of the tenacity of the

american people and small businesses we were able to stop the free fall, begin to climb out of that hole, we've now had 24 consecutive months of positive private sector job growth, close to four million jobs created in that period. we need to sustain that recovery, not put the brakes on it. the republican proposal, unfortunately, puts the brakes on it. i'll give you one example. next year, they would cut our investment in transportation in their budget by 46% when we have about 17% unemployment in the construction industry. that's putting the brakes on. now, we hear from our colleagues that the only way to deal with a budget deficit is to cut, cut, cut. we propose a balanced approach. we do ask that we close some of those tax loopholes. we do ask that folks making $1 million a year go back to

paying the rates in the clinton administration. let's see what happened in the economy back then. what this shows is during the clinton years, 20.8 million jobs were created. after president bush took office, they did lower the tax rates, net 653,000 jobs lost. by the way, 2001, just before the tax cuts, that disproportionately benefited the wealthy, that was the last time we balanced the budget. we balanced the budget and had great job growth. that's why we propose a balanced approach. the issue is not whether we reduce the deficit, not whether we reduce the debt, it's how. yes, we have to make spending cuts, i hear cloges on the republican side coming down here saying you can't do this all on the revenue side, we get that. but you know what, if you do it without asking the folks at the very top to pay a penny by closing loopholes and getting rid of tax breabs, what does it mean? it means everybody else pays

the consequences. those decisions to support the wealthy, not ask for shared responsibility, comes at the expense of our seniors, you end the medicare guarantee, you slash medicaid by $800 billion, it comes at the expense of middle income taxpayers because not only are you locking in the bush tax cuts for the folks at the top, you're dropping the top rate from 35% to 25%, that's another over $200,000 tax break to people making over $1 million a year. you're saying you're going to pay for it. you know how it's going to happen? it's going to happen by increasing taxes on middle income americans. that is how you're going to finance it. i have not seen a proposal, show me a piece of paper that says it won't be taken out on middle income taxpayers. mr. chairman, there's a better approach than the republican approach. it's the balanced approach, it's the approach supported by bipartisan groups and it's the approach that we will propose in our amendment. and i again thank the gentlelady and thank the chairman. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas.

mr. brady: mr. speaker, i yield myself the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. brady: president obama made two key promises to the american public. the first was that he would reduce the deficit by half in his first term of office. the second is that he would fix this broken economy in three years. let's take a close look at those promises. looking first at the economy. to date, this is hard to believe, and i hope those at home are sitting down, but after all the bailouts, after all the stimulus, after all the cash for clunkers, the deficit spending, the housing bailout, everything the president wished for and got in increased spending, we have fewer americans working today than when this president took office. think about that. there's fewer americans working

after all the president's economic policies have gone full bore and has failed the american public in such a way there's fewer people working today than when this president took the oath of office. look at the stimulus. this chart shows he promised the american public if you'll just borrow and spend nearly $1 trillion with interest, our economy recovers. in fact, he promised right now our unemployment rate would be around 6%. it's far above that. nearly 8.5%. but that doesn't tell the whole picture. because so many americans have given up hope, so many americans don't even look for a job anymore. they've just dropped out. we have the fewest people in the work force than in almost three decades. they've just given up that much. our unemployment rate is really nearly 16%, a little above it as a matter of fact.

this is an unemployment crisis. the president's policies, no question, he inherited a poor economy to say the least. his policies have failed. he's made it worse for about 23 million americans who can't even find a full time job these days. if you want more of the same, stick with the president's budget. stick with the democrats' budget. they deliver more of the same, an economy that struggles like it hasn't since the depression and millions of americans who just can't find work no matter how hard they try. the president promised he would reduce the deficit, cut it in half, in his first term. should have been able to do that. instead he's increased it by almost half. this is the fourth trillion-dollar deficit in a row . he proposes to spend so that we're at the largest government in american history, largest --

larger even than world war ii when we dropped everything to win the war. he wants a government bigger than that. and deficits that go as far as the eye can see see -- can see. republicans believe we ought to have a choice of futures. you look at the debt that's being piled on america in the future, let me put that in real terms. we have two young boys. one's in third grade and one's in seventh. they make our family a joy. and i think about what all this means to them and you may be thinking about it for your kids, your grandkids. all that red ink that this president's piled up and the future of america with this debt , today a baby born today in america, their fair share of the debt is about $47,000. a baby born today owes uncle sam a new lexus. if we don't change our ways, by the time they're 13 they'll owe uncle sam a second lexus and by the time they're 22 and they've

finished cleng, they're getting ready -- college, they're getting ready to start their life, they'll owe uncle sam a third lexus. now the good news is young people don't actually buy luxury sedans for the federal government, but they pay the price another way. for all that debt, they pay the price in a sluggish economy, in higher taxes, in higher interest rates. so that young person starting their life after all that schooling, pursuing their dreams in america, they'll have a harder time finding a job, there will be fewer them. and they'll keep less in their paycheck as a result of this. that's the future if we stay the course with this president and democrats in congress. republicans believe there's a better future for america and the republican budget does just that. it restores a healthy economy for america in a commonsense way. it gets our financial house and future. it starts limiting this

out-of-control spending, it starts taking away all the waste and abuse, sunsetting obsolete agency, stopping this wasteful spending from stem to stern in the federal budget. it starts to tighten the federal government's belt and budget. it also, in addition to putting our financial house in order, it shrinks the size of government. it makes it affordable again for america. so not only that that we balance the budget, the goal of the republican budget is to pay off our debt. think about it. our goal's not to just break even again. it's to start to widdle down and pay off those huge amounts of debt that we owe to so many in this world. it tackles important issues like social security and medicare and medicaid, preserves them for other purposes every generation once and for all. social security, for example, last year america had to borrow $142 billion from china and other foreign investors just to

pay social security for our seniors. we know medicare goes bankrupt in 12 years unless we act. if we don't act today, medicare ends itself as we know it. it ends itself. republicans have a commonsense proposal to preserve those important programs, to make them sustainable for every generation. and we do it without raising taxes. we know you can't take more from people and hope to grow the economy. we know that washington ought to tighten its belt before we ask hardworking taxpayers to tighten theirs. we know that taxing professionals and small businesses, taxing our local energy companies who manufacture here in the united states, we know that taxing companies that are creating jobs in america is the wrong way to go. we're going to offer -- we're offering not just a choice of two futures, we're offering some

hope to a country that despairs that it will ever see a balance budget again. we're offering hope to a country that right now has a second-rate economy, that some parts of the world make fun of, frankly. we're going to offer hope to businesses who want to compete again, both in their community and around the world. because today what they tell us is they're not adding jobs. with this debt hanging over with us, with all the talk of -- hanging over us, with all the talk of new taxes, they're not making those jobs. why would they? the republican budget makes sure that we don't balance our budget on the backs of america's small businesses, we know the problem isn't that government doesn't take more of your -- of what you earn. the problem is that the federal government spends too much. we offer a path to prosperity to america. it's the only responsible budget that will be offered to this debate. i wish i could say the senate

will take it up but for three years they've refused to give a budget to the american people. we're going to change the trajectory of america, we're going to change the future of america and we're going to give hope back by passing the republican budget. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. pursuant to the rule, the concurrent resolution is considered read. no amendment shall be in order except those printed in house report 112-423. each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, and shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. the adoption of an amendment in the nature of a substitute shall constitute the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment. after conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment, there

shall be a final period of general debate which shall not exceed 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the budget. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-423. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> claim time in support of the amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-423 offered by mr. mulvaney of south carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 597, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney, and a member opposed each will control 10 minutes. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. mulvaney: thank you, mr. chairman. i'll yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mulvaney: mr. chairman, it occurred to me during the budget debate that something was missing from the debate. as my colleagues across the aisle offered their various amendments through the course of the day and into the evening, it occurred to me that the president's buppingt had not been offered as an amendment --

budget had not been offered as an amendment by the democratic members of the house budget committee. and that as we were getting information about which amendments were being offered here today on the floor, as amendments to the overall g.o.p. -- budget, it occurred to me that again that same oversight had taken place. clearly it must be oversight. clearly my colleagues meant to offer the president's budget as an amendment and simply failed to do so. so in a peek of bipartisanship, i thought it -- i'd help my colleagues across the aisle out a little bit and offer the president's budget which is exactly what this amendment is. this amendment is the president's budget as analyzed, not scored, but analyzed by the c.b.o., nothing more, and nothing less. it has a lot in here that i imagine my colleagues would like. it has, for example, $1.9 trillion in new taxes. it has new taxes on income, new taxes on the giving of gifts, new taxes on gasoline and even new taxes on dying. it has $1.5 trillion in new spending, spending on welfare, spending on unemployment,

spending on green energy, the term solyndra comes to mind, i would imagine. it has so many new taxes and so much new spending it seems to be bringing the phrase tax and spend liberal back into fashion here in washington, d.c. so clearly it must simply be an oversight that it's not been offered by my colleagues. but that's not all. the budget that the president offered and that is contained in this amendment never balances. never balances. it is a balanced approach to reach a never-balancing budget. it also fails to deal completely with our entitlement problems. so again i say, mr. chairman, i think there's a lot here for my colleagues to like. i look forward to their defense of the president's budget. and in many ways i would suppose this is a landmark document for the democrats as we go into this election year. so with that i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i seek recognition to speak on this important issue.

the chair: is the gentleman opposed? mr. van hollen: i am opposed. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes. mr. van hollen: and i'm opposed for a simple reason. this document filed by mr. mulvaney is not the president's budget. and it's being portrayed as a very misleading -- it was a very misleading presentation of the president's budget. this, this is the president's budget. if you look at all the other budgets presented today, you'll find numbers and you'll find policy statements that describe the policies behind the budget. the thing mr. mulvaney file, no policy. in fact, he said the president's policy raises gas taxes, i believe, that's just a false statement. the other issue is why you have a number for revenue in the president's budget, you mentioned there's a revenue

number, the president never pretended otherwise. the president's approach is a balanced approach to deficit reduction, it makes cuts and raises revenue he raises revenue in part by getting rid of subsidies on big oil companies. we think at a time of record profits, we don't need to have taxpayer subsidies for big oil companies. our republican colleagues, almost every one of them have signed this pledge to grover norquist saying they won't get rid of one oil subsidy or one tax loophole for the purpose of deficit reduction. the president thinks we need a balanced approach to deficit reduction. now you wouldn't know from raing mr. mulvaney's document what he puts in place as the president's budget that that's how the president raises revenue. you wouldn't know from mr. mulvaney's document that the president also asks the very top 2% of taxpayers to go back

to paying the same top rate they were during the clinton administration, a time when the economy was booming. because the president thinks we need to take a balanced approach. again, a combination of revenues and spening cuts because the president believes, and i agree, that if you do it the way the republicans do it, without asking the folks at the very top to share some responsibility, it means you deal with the budget at the expense of everybody else. the expense of seniors, the expense of middle income americans, at the expense of important investments in our economy, like investments in transportation. their budget cuts transportation next year by 46%. at a time we have 17% unemployment in the construction industry. their budget puts the brakes on the budding economic growth. so mr. chairman, let's end this charade. the gentleman said he wanted to get beyond politics. this is politics at its

absolute worst. presenting something as the president's budget without the policy detail. without the explanation to the american people about what's in the president's budget. as a result, he presents a very misleading version of what the president has asked us to do. in fact, the democratic alternative we will propose later adopts the general framework of the president's budget. we don't adopt every single proposal he makes in here. we take the yen framework. the difference is we have those policy statements, we make it clear we want to get rid of subsidies for clearle -- for oil companies at a time when they're making record profits. we make it clear that people making $1 million, we want them to pay what they were in the clinton administration. we make that clear in our alternative. so let's not play this political charade. we're going to have the democratic alternative that as i said takes the framework of

the president's proposal, our republican colleagues will have an opportunity to vote against that, but this is not the president's budget, let's not pretend it is, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. mulvaney: i yield three minutes to my good friend from georgia. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. >> the gentleman finds himself in opposition to the president's budget. he says this is not the president's budget. let's assume it's not. if it was such a good document, why didn't they present it. i was in a committee meeting, the secretary of the treasury was going on about how the president's budget was, it had a balanced approach, a glide path to reducing the deficit, i said, who is going to present it? he said, i don't know.

you would think such an awesome document that puts us on a great path for the future of our nation, the democrats would present their own budget. in fact, their side is empty now, you'd think it would be full with them lining up to speak in favor of the president's budget but they have yet to do that. in fact, there's much of an exodus here. let's talk about what the budget really is. it's more than the framework or the document, it's a vision. it's a vision for where we think we're going to take our nation. what the president's budget is is a vision of debt and dependency. maybe that's why they didn't present it. but yet, we're presenting a much different approach. it's one of opportunity and prosperity. as we conclude these debates, and they may call it a gimmick, if they want to call it a gimmick, let them call it a gimmick, as they conclude the debate, they're going to give us a voting card, we have a decision to to make, we have to

choose between a balanced approach that raises taxes, increases the size of goth, increases our debt, it's debt and dependency. or we can choose the balanced budget approach. the republican budget lowers taxes and energy plan, puts us on that path to a perhapsed budget. that's the choice that will be before us. so i hope that my colleagues as they debate the president's budget, maybe they will reject that debt and dependency and choose the path of the balanced budget. the chair: the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i guess we'll spend the next however many minutes talking about something that's not the president's budget, it's an attempt to be misleading about what the president's budget does because it leaves out all the content. leaves out the substance. you look at the republican budget, they got a lot of sections on policy. you look at the other alternatives being parened, they have alternatives and policy statements. this is a bunch of numbers

without the explanation. now, do the democrats, for example, think that the president invested enough in his budget in liheap? low income energy program for low income individuals. we have a majority in our caucus that thinks the president should have put a little more into that. but that's only the kind of detail you would know if you went through the president's budget, not this thing that mr. mulvaney claims is the president's budget. which it's just not. so just to be clear, this is not the president's budget and therefore it obviously is a political gimmick. i reserve the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina. mr. mulvaney: at this time, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. chairman, and i appreciate the gentleman from south carolina

for bringing up this debate and this is the president's budget we're discussing. when you look at this resolution, this con tapes the same kind of language that any resolution brought to the floor contains but let's talk about what it seems like some members of the democratic party on the other side are so afraid to talk about. that is what the president's budget really does. the president's budget never comes close to balancing. first of all. so this president who campaigned four years ago on reducing the deficit, on trying to bring fiscal responsibility to washington, goes the opposite way. adding trillions more dollars of debt, mountains of debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren. what's worse if you look at the policies, $1.9 trillion of job-killing tax increases. what does that mean to families? hard working families are looking at this, knowing just what this is going to do to jobs in this country when another $1.9 trillion and look at one par they love p bragging about all the taxes they're raising on american oil.

in fact, their budget, president obama's budget, that we're talking about right now, it adds $40 billion a year in new taxes on american energy. and the irony is, the president's tax increase on american energy doesn't apply to opec nations. so opec countries are incentivized to send more oil here but if you make it in america, it's in the president's budget. go look at it. $40 billion in new tax increases if you make it in america. what is that going to do to gas prices that are skyrocketing under president obama's policy. american families know what that means. if you had $40 billion a year in new taxes on american made energy, that will only increase the price that's already too high and what's worse, what's worse is that it kills american jobs because it says and president obama said this in his budget, president obama said if you're opec and you're sending us oil, we're not going to raise your taxes in the president's budget but if you

make energy in america, he'll raise taxes $40 billion a year. this is the most warped policy i have ever seen. i hope we reject it and take up the budget that we're going to present that puts us in balance. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: may i inquire how much time -- the chair: the gentleman has five minutes. the other side has four minutes. mr. van hollen: i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. van hollen: let's talk about energy policy. one of the things you wouldn't know from the document mr. mulvaney put forward, claiming it's the president's budget is that the president actually provides the resources to the commodities future trading commission to help police speculators in the oil market. because what we're seeing today is that because of conditions around the world, a lot of those are being taken advantage

of by people who are engaged in excessive speculation on the oil market, driving it up. but the republican budget, the republican budget doesn't want the cop on the beat. the republican budget doesn't want to police the speculators. because you know what, they're just doing fine. but again, mr. mulvaney's budget, what he pretends is the president's budget you wouldn't know that. if few -- but if you looked in the president's real budget, you would know that kind of thing. that's why this exercise is such a farce. mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. mulvaney: i yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from arizona. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one and a half minutes. >> thank you to my good friend. we actually did this on the floor last night, part of it was an attempt to help folks through some of the absurdity of the rhetoric compared to the reality of math and one of the

fun slides we brought on is using the current budget numbers and the fact that we're borrowing about $3.5 billion a day, we have one board, we're putting it up on our website that shows a clock and on that clock, it has some of the president's budget policies and one in there is one we've heard talked about or alluded to and people call it the buffett rule. do you realize that all the rhetoric around something like the buffett rule and those new taxes and those -- the need for those folks to pay more would pay for, i think we came out with three minutes and 30 seconds, it would cover three minutes and 30 seconds of borrowing a day. we did slides earlier that talked about not just taxing pig oil but if you tacked all fossil fuels and we talked about getting rid of their depletion allowance and going after depreciation tables. that came out to about two minutes and 30 seconds of

covering borrowing a day. what -- the reason i stand behind this microphone right now is the political theater of, it's great rit rick, i'm sure pest poll tested but it doesn't solve any of the problems. that's why this is a joyous moment to see the other side stand up and embrace the president's budget in such enthusiasm. mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: does the gentleman have additional speakers? i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. mulvaney: i yield myself the balance of my time. i hear the gentleman, he calls it a gimmick, the white house called it a charade, i've got the same stack my colleague from maryland has, he president's budget, but we also have what we used to formulate the amendment, which is the analysis of the president's 2013 budget from the con

tpwhregsal budget office. and in there, if you take the time to review it, you'll find the summary of the way the president treats the 2001 to 2003 tax reductions, modifying estate and gift taxes, other revenue proposals, the automatic procedures in the budget control act, the president's cap on deductions and exclusions. teals with initiatives that will wide then deficit. transportation, medicare, medicaid, the build america bonds program. the president's budget does not include reductions and increases mandatory outlays. it goes on to talk about overseas contingency, disaster relief, $2 million for program integrity initiative. the details are here. let's make no mistake about what we're voting on. i got the white house memo, it says, we encourage dels to vote against our own budget