the chair: on this vote the yeas are 136. the noes are 285 with three members voting present. the amendment is not adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin rise? mr. ryan: mr. chairman, i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.con.res 112 directs me to report it has come to no resolution thereon.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has been under consideration of house concurrent resolution 112 and has come to no resolution thereon. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. mica: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the ordering of the yeas and nays on the motion that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4239, as amended, be vacated to that end and the question put the question de novo. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the ordering of the yeas and nays from the motion that the house suspend the rules -- the gentleman from maryland is recognized on his reservation. mr. hoyer: i have no intention of objecting, mr. speaker. but simply say we continue to believe on this side of the

aisle that we could resolve this issue as we've had this debate over a longer term, give confidence to the markets, give confidence to the states and localities by simply bringing the senate bill to the floor and passing that bill. and with that, mr. speaker, i withdrawal my reservation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman withdraws his objection. is there objection? without objection, the ordering of the yeas and nays on the motion that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4239 is vacated and the chair will put the question de novo. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4239, a bill to provide an extension of federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit and other programs funded out of the highway trust fund pending enactment of a multiyear law re-authorizing such programs. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r.

4239, as amended. those in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those not responding in the affirmative, the rules are not suspended and the bill is not passed. does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.con.res 112. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 597 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h. concurrent resolution 112. will the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry, kindly resume the chair.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.con.res 112 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: concurrent resolution establishing the budget for the united states government for the fiscal year 2013 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2014 through 2022. the chair: when the committee of the whole rows earlier today, amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-423, offered by the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett, had been disposed of. . it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-423. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? mr. van hollen: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 in the nature of a substitute printed in house report number 112-423, offered by mr. ven of maryland. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 423, the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, and a member opposed each will

control 15 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. we're here at a very important time for our country. as a result of extraordinary actions that have been taken over the last four years and thanks to the tenacity of the american people and small businesses, we have begun to climb out of a big economic hole. if you look at this chart right here you'll see where we were back in january, 2009. the first month of president obama took office. he was sworn in. at that time the economy was in total free fall. as a result of actions that were taken, we have begun to climb out of that hole and now we have had 24 months, consecutive months of positive private sector job growth, created about four million jobs in the

economy. we need to keep that job growth going. and that's what the democratic alternative does. it builds on the president's proposals. in here we have the president's jobs plan, a plan which has been sitting in front of this body since he introduced it back in september. we took some action on the payroll tax cut. that was good. but the president's also called for a major infrastructure investment. to modernize our roads and bridges. we fund that plan as opposed to the republican budget which as we have heard slashes transportation. in fact next year by 46% in spending, and which independent analysts have said will cost the economy 1.3 million jobs in 2013, and 2.8 million jobs in 2014. that is not the direction we should be going. we need to nurture the fragile economy.

we need to deal with our budget deficits in a credible way, which this does. it takes us from deficits, over 8.5% of g.d.p. down to under 3% of g.d.p. by 2015 and sustains them. we do it in a balanced way by asking for shared responsibility. i now yield two minutes to the the gentlewoman from new york, mr. israel. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. israel: i thank the distinguished gentleman, my friend from maryland. i rise in support of the democratic substitute because the house republican budget harms the middle class. harms middle class families throughout our country. mr. speaker, under the house republican budget medicare is turned from a guaranteed benefit program into a bathe and -- bait and switch scheme where millionaires get more and seniors have to pay more. under the house republican budget, if you are a millionaire, you get an

additional $394,000 tax cut. if you are an oil company, you get a bigger tax break. if you are a company that outsources jobs, you get a deeper tax break. but if you are a senior you get as much as a $6,000 increase in your medical costs. you get a bill from the federal government for your additional medicare costs. if you are a child of a middle class family trying to go to college, you get an additional $2,800 doll tuition increase. the middle class has always been the backbone of the american economy, mr. speaker, and the house republican budget kicks the middle class in the stomach. the democratic budget invests in education. the house republican budget die vests from education. the democratic budget invests in our children. the republican budget divests from our children. the democratic budget invests in america's future. the house republican budget divests from america's future. that is why we should pass this democratic substitute which

invests and grows and strengthens the middle class and quit investing in and growing and strengthening tax cuts for big oil companies and corporations that offshore our jobs. i thank the gentleman. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin seek to claim the time in opposition to the amendment? mr. ryan: i do claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman virginia tech. mr. ryan: i'd like to yield one minute to the distinguished speaker of the house, the gentleman from ohio, mr. boehner. the chair: the speaker is recognized. the speaker: let me thank my colleague for yielding. let me say thanks to chairman ryan and members of the budget committee for a job well done. this is a tough process. making real decisions about our path for the future. and the interesting thing i found about this debate that's gone on the last two days is that our team actually went and made the tough choices. made the tough choices to preserve freedom in america and

to deal with our fiscal nightmare. you look at all the proposals we have seen in this debate, it's all more of the same. two things that are troubling. let's raise taxes on the american people once again. and secondly, let's kick the can down the road as if no one noes that social security, medicare, and medicaid are going broke. oh, yeah. all these proposals we have seen continue to kick the can down the road. and i think that the path to prosperity, that chairman rye-and-and his committee has put together, is a blueprint for america's future. we all know that we've got some $16 trillion worth of debt already. $13st trillion in a budget deficit this year alone. the american people know this they have to live within their means. they have to do a budget. they also know that you can't

continue to spend money that you don't have. so i applaud my colleagues for the tough decisions they have made. to try to do the right thing for their country. to lay out a real vision of what we were to do if we give more control here in this town. this is still a democrat-run town. and the saddest thing i have seen, though, when it comes to our budget, is while we did a budget last year, we'll do another budget this year, we are making tough decisions to help preserve social security and preserve medicare, the united states senate has spent 1,065 days since they passed a budget. 1,065 days. almost three years since they have had the courage to show the american people what their solutions are. i think it's high time that if we are serious about solving america's fiscal problems, the first step is actually doing a

budget. so on behalf of my republican colleagues i would suggest let's support the ryan budget. it's a real pathway to prosperity. it makes the tough decisions. and puts us on a course that's sustainable not just for our generation but for our kids and grandkids. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i have great respect for the speaker. i would just suggest that he may call it a tough choice to provide and lock in another round of tax cuts for the wealthiest americans while cutting medicaid by $800 billion. by a full 1/3 by the year 2022. 2/3 of that money goes to seniors in nursing homes,

disabled individuals. i don't know if it's a tough choice, it's certainly the wrong choice. and that's what this debate is all about. not whether we reduce our deficits but how. with that i yield two minutes to the distinguished chairman of the democratic caucus, mr. larsen. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. speaker. -- mr. larson: thank you, mr. speaker. let me rise and thank mr. van hollen and the budget committee and rise in full support of their balanced and fair document that emphasizes shared sacrifice. let me say to my republican colleagues that this appears to us much like that great philosopher, said, deja vu all over again. franklin delano roosevelt in another difficult period of our history said that we need to prevail upon this country to

come together and find the warm courage of national unity that comes from shared sacrifice. that would again demonstrate to the american people, especially the most frail amongst us, and those in the middle class and are impacted the most, that we have national unity because we have garne -- guaranteed that no longer will they be in a position where they have to suffer while others who would use government in a way to prosper and grow at the expense of the middle class. there isn't a member of this chamber who doesn't have friends or family who aren't affected by the authoring of medicare, social security, or medicaid. these are the tough decisions that are made every single day

across the dinner table. this fragile recovery impacts the most fragile amongst us and also is tearing asunder the very middle class that we seek to provide with a guarantee. the guarantee of a social security safety net that provides them with social security, medicare, and, yes, health care as well. that's why the democrats have offered an alternative plan that underscores our convictions and our belief in social security, medicare, and affordable health care. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. graves. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. graves: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the chairman of the budget committee, he's done a fantastic job. and to the gentleman from maryland, i know it's been

difficult this week. you stood in a difficult position and now you're presenting your position. you have been in opposition to many of the budgets put forward, including the president's last night. i know it's tough. what we -- what we are addressing here right now, mr. chairman, i think are a lot of numbers, charts, rhetoric. we hear that. but what we know is that washington has not been forthright with the american people. for far too long the top has been getting the bailout. the bottom the handout. now who will get stuck with the bill? our kids. that's who is going to get stuck with the bill. why can't we for once instead of looking at charts, numbers, just look through the lens of how will this budget impact our children? and their future, opportunity and prosperity? is this a budget that presents equal outcomes? or is it going to be one that presents equal opportunities? can we not look there that lens for united states, mr. chairman, i would say the budget the gentleman has put forward is one about equal outcomes. it's more taxes, it's more

government, it's more government solutions. you know what? why don't we provide more opportunities and more prosperity for the children of the next generation? that's the lens i believe we should be looking for. looking through. this is why, because whether we believe it or not, whether we are willing to recognize it, we are describes -- scribes of time right now. history is being written based on the discussions, outcome, debate we have. we are the ones who are determining what history will reflect on and say we did at this time and what the future exists like later. what will we choose? what will we write? will this be the chapter that concludes with the words, the end? or will we write a chapter that we can turn the page and hand the pen off to the next generation? mr. chairman, it is my hope that we take our pen and we pass it to the next generation that we can turn the page, we can move forward, and we can provide a new chapter, a new beginning, one that is a beginning that leads to another future of

opportunity and prosperity. i believe that only happens if we pass the republican budget that we have before us today. mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i do think the focus should be on our children and on the future. that's why our budget does not do some of the things the republican budget does do. which is, for example, say that kids who have pre-existing conditions, whether it's diabetes or asthma, get insurance. we make sure that those kids can't be excluded because of pre-existing conditions. they don't. we make sure that the interest rates on student loans don't double this july. as their budget would allow, because we think it's important that those students have an opportunity to get the education, to get ahead, and succeed. i hope we will continue to focus

on that question as we debate the choices being made in this budget. i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from kentucky, a member of the budget committee, mr. yarmuth. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for two minutes. mr. yarmuth: i thank my friend from maryland. recently analysis of american tax returns showed that in 2010 the top 1% of earners in the united states earned $288 billion more than they had in 2009. $288 billion, the top 1%. in fact, that was 93% of all the additional income earned in the entire united states from year to year, 2009 to 2010. . apparently my friends on the republican side were outraged that 7% of the additional income could slip away to the other 99% of american families because they came up with a budget that tried to rectify that immediately. i call it the republican 1% budget.

it's a gift basket for billionaires and millionaires. it contains a permanent extension of the bush tax cuts which have created an income gap in this country on par with it's a budget that's all for the 1%. by contrast, the democratic budget, the resolution we're offering now, is really the one

for all budget -- the one-for-all budget, one budget that provides benefits for all americans, yet it make -- an it makes the critical investments we need to make to make sure all americans have the equal opportunity an equal tools to realize the american dream and make shures that all contribute to the deficit reduction that we all are committed to. everybody plays a part, everybody does their share. i support the democratic budget and urge my colleagues to do likewise. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expire. the gentleman from wisconsin. >> i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman, mr. guinta, of new hampshire. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. guinta: thank you, mr. chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this substitute amendment. i find what's going on in this country with the level of spending in america outrageous. people in this country have sent us here to do a job, to be leaders, to solve problems. we have current deficit of

roughly $1.3 trillion, something that's so high that so many people can't even comprehend that number. we have a long-term deficit approaching $16 trillion. this substitute today continues that path. of spending money that we simply don't have. i do thank the gentleman for at least offering a proposal, something that has not been done in the senate. so we can debate in i think a reasonable way what the path is that his budget would propose, versus the path to prosperity. this proposal, the substitute proposal, does three things. number one, it spends $3.7 trillion. roughly $1 trillion ongoing deficit. secondly, over the 10-year window, it spends $44.7 trillion. continuing the long-term debt that we have found ourselves in currently. and finally, it doesn't solve

the significant drivers of our debt and it doesn't allow for an opportunity to preserve and protect medicare, medicaid, and social security. the country wants us to be honest. the country wants leadership. we continue to provide that in the house budget committee with the path to prosperity. i remind people that budget proposes stability and predixability by cutting $5.3 trillion in spending. by reducing the tax on both individual and corporate. to give us a fair, level playing field and predixability for the long-term. and it reduce our short-term deficit to about $700 billion next year and continues to ensure we get on a path to balance. a balanced budget is the dream of every american and we offer that opportunity in the path to prosperity. so with that, i urge a no vote on this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from maryland.

mr. van hollen: at this point, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. black, a member of the budget committee. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. black: thank you, mr. speaker. in light of this week's supreme court arguments on the health care law i'd like to take a moment to talk about the contrast between our path to prosperity budget and the broken promises of that law. as we've heard from so many of my colleagues in the last couple of days, we are on the verge of a debt crisis, i don't think any of us can argument that, and this health care law with a total price tag of $1.76 trillion would surely drive us over that cliff faster. that is why in the path to prosperity budget we repeal the entire health care law, including the very dangerous u.a.b. which would slash -- ipab which would slash

physician payments. of the 15 member unelected board that makes senior care even harder to access puts bureaucrats between their patients and their doctors. our plan for medicare offers a choice for seniors and they deserve a choice. we increase the competition between a guaranteed coverage option, and i want to repeat this, that it's a guaranteed coverage option and a traditional medicare and it allows seniors to choose and all of this would lower costs to the program while increasing the quality of care. this is the choice of two futures, both for our health care system and also the prosperity of our nation. now, we can continue to go down the path of obamacare where we see 1.76 trillion dollars in spending over the next 10 years and see billions of dollars in new taxes, fees, penalties on families and small businesses. or we can repeal this law and put in place policies that increase competition, decrease

costs and assure that our health care system is patient focused. we can continue to explode the size and scope of the federal government as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like. and if democrats have it right, their budget would tax more, borrow more, spend more and waste more of the hardworking americans tax dollars. mr. ryan: 30 seconds. mrs. black: i find it interesting that this chamber unanimously rejected the president's 2013 budget that would be an absolute fiscal disaster. and yet this budget before us today again doubles down on those failed policies of the past. the american people are sick and tired of washington's culture of spend, spend, spend because they know there are consequences of living out of budget and spending more than we take in. what we're doing here today is being honest with the american people.

we are here to cut spending, reform programs in order to save them and we make government smaller and less intrusive. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the chair: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin has 7 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from maryland has six minutes remaining. mr. van hollen: thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. i'm glad the gentlelady brought up the issue of health care and how these budgets impact health care. she described their proposals giving seniors a choice. it's interesting that they would give seniors on medicare a choice that they don't want themselves to have, that they give members of congress a much better deal in health care than they would give to seniors on medicare. and here's what their budget would do in ending the medicare guarantee. this blue line shows the current level of support medicare beneficiaries get from

the medicare program. up around 90%. that green line right there, that's the level of support members of congress get from the federal employee health benefit plan. you can see it's steady. as costs go up, support goes up proportionately. the republican plan, that red line is the one for seniors. that takes support steadily down relative to rising health care costs. so that seniors would have to eat those rising health care costs. they bear the risk. that is a bad plan for american seniors. it's a bad plan for america, and i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts who has focused a lot on these issues as a member of the ways and means committee, mr. neal. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. neal: what's striking about the debate we're having today and this discussion is essentially our republican friends and colleagues are asking us to go back to the

policies that got us here in the first place. the six years when they controlled the presidency, when they controlled the senate and when they controlled the house of representatives. so let me reacquaint all with their number forecast. they offered $1.3 trillion worth of tax cuts in 2001. and then came back in 2003 and said that wasn't enough. let's cut taxes by another $1 trillion. the underlying argument that they offered at the time was that this would jump-start growth despite the fact as we came off the clinton years with the greatest spurt of economic growth in the history of the world, a budget that was balanced for four successive years and 22 million jobs, their argument was we can outdo that growth if we simply cut

taxes by $2.3 trillion. incidentally not for the middle class. these tax cuts overwhelmingly went to people in the one percentile. remember the theory that tax cuts pay for themselves. so let's contrast january 19 of 2001 with the end of the bush years. $15 trillion worth of debt. deficits as far as the eye can see all under the guise of economic growth. so let me give you a number, not an opinion but a fact. those eight years offered the most anemic economic growth at any time since herbert hoover was president of the united states. and what they ask for today in this budget is to have bigger tax cuts for wealthy people and eviscerate the guarantee of medicare.

to eviscerate the guarantee of medicare. mr. van hollen: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. mr. neal: this is the party on the republican side that tried to privatize social security during those years and all they want to do is shoehorn these legislative proposals into tax cuts for wealthy people. and their argument today, despite these record deficits, is with revenue at 14.7% of g.d.p. headed by hoover, by the way, rather in the eisenhower years, when the town argued for years of revenue being between 19% and 21%. they are going to cut medicare to give tax cuts to wealthy people. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, i'd like to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from south carolina, a member of the budget committee, mr. mulvaney. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes.

mr. mulvaney: before we got a chance to vote on the president's budget, i received a copy of a press release from the white house and it encouraged that the house democratic leadership to vote for this amendment. it encouraged the democrats in the house to vote for the van hollen amendment which i thought was worthy getting up and talking about very briefly. it makes me wonder why the president didn't send a press release asking the democrats to vote for his budget. it makes me wonder what the president is thinking. does he like the van hollen budget better than his own budget? i mean, i guess there's some things to likes. the president raises taxes by $1.9 trillion. the van hollen only raises taxes by $1.7 trillion. the president's budget increases spending by $1.3 trillion. it makes me wonder where the president is. does the president think that his budget that he offered us a month ago raises taxes too much? raises spending too much? is it too big of a tax and spend document and now he wants less of a tax and spend

document? i guess the reason he likes the van hollen budget is it raises taxes, it raises spending and it never balances. i guess those are the consistencies between the van hollen budget and the president budget we unanimously defeated last night 414-0. i guess the president likes budgets that raises taxes, raises spending and never balances. i suggest to you, mr. chairman, as i have throughout this entire debate that any balanced approach that does not end up in a balanced budget is no balance and is no budget. and for that reason i encourage us to defeat this amendment. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i thank you, mr. chairman. i thought we were back to reality today instead of in the land of make believe. mr. mulvaney offered an amendment yesterday that was not the president's budget. we debated that last night. don't know why we're continuing that charade.

i yield a minute to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. keating. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. keating: there is talk about kick the can down the road. kick the can down the road. i want to know what road that is. the american dream is a road to an education that is being undercut. it's a road to security that our -- my grandparents worked to give to me. that's the road we are talking about. the question i have, what can are we talking about? the budget offered by the republicans kicks the can down the road all right, but that can is the middle class ameri-can. . the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield a minute to the gentleman from florida. mr. southerland. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized. mr. southerland: we have a lot -- mr. speaker, we have a lot of folks in the gallery today that have worked hard and saved money that they have earned to make their trip and to come here and listen to this debate. they understand that santa claus and fairy tale is not going to pay for their transportation back. they get that. they know when they get back home they are going to have to earn and work and find earned success if they want to bring their family back again. they get it. they get it. the american people get it. at no point in time has the american people had to do more with less and the federal government has done less with more. you know, we hear a lot about fairness. true fairness does not come from wealth distribution. true fairness means rewarding merit, creating opportunity, and letting people rise. that has been a bedrock of the american system. the free enterprise system. it is that free enterprise system that is given opportunity and rewarded people and america

has been benevolent with the gifts of being rewarded by hard work and honest dealings much the democratic budget does not support that. yet the ryan budget or the path to prosperity, the republican budget does. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair also reminds all members not to refer to occupants of the gallery in their comments. the gentleman from maryland has 1 3/4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from wisconsin has five minutes remaining. mr. van hollen: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from idaho. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. labrador: thank you, mr. speaker. if i listen to the other side

speak about their budget, it takes me back to growing up in puerto rico as a young man. and i'm very privileged to represent the people of idaho right now, but i grew up in a very poor neighborhood. i grew up in a very poor environment in puerto rico. and i remember my mother taking me to the wealthier neighborhoods. i remember her taking me to different places to the nicer stores, the nicer places in puerto rico and telling me that i had a choice. that i could work hard, i could play by the rules, i could do all the things i needed to do and one day i could live in one of those homes. one day i could actually have those opportunities. but if my mother would have had the same mentality that the other side has, i would have never been able to amount to anything in my life because what they believe is that the only way you can actually amount to something is if you take from the ones who have. if you are a have not.

and my mother never believed in that. she never said someday she will own a beautiful home, you will own a beautiful car, you will own a beautiful house if you take away from the rich. she always said that it was up to you to become somebody in your life. that's the mentality the other side has. i have this chart here to show what really happened under the democrats and the republicans. if you see this, when the democrats took control of congress, we were at just under 5% unemployment. as soon as they took over congress and barack obama was elected, the unemployment rate went higher. and as soon as the republicans were elected the unemployment rate started going down. that's the path that we can have between the two parties. thank you very much. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: at this time i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from kansas, a member of the budget committee, mr. huelskamp.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. huelskamp: i rise in opposition to the budget offered by my colleague mr. van hollen. then senator obama, when campaigning for president, called president bush unpatriotic for raising our national debt by $4 trillion in eight years. a big he had surpassed in less than four years. when then senator obama voted against a debt limit increase he said, leadership means the buck stops here. instead washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today on to the backs of our children and grandchildren. america has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. americans deserve better. i agree. with senator obama. if he believes this type of leadership was a failure and unpatriotic, then certainly so, too, should he think that about his budget and this budget here. for this budget would leave the u.s. with nearly $25 trillion of debt by the end of 2022 despite a massive tax increase of $1.7 trillion. despite the increase, this

budget does not balance within the next 10 years, next 20 years, not even in 75 years. we can't wait. we can't wait, mr. speaker. we can't wait to balance the budget for 75 years. now more than ever america needs leadership. as senator obama said, we cannot put the failures of today on the backs of the next generation. i agree, senator obama. so i reject this budget for the sake of our children and grandchildren. i thank you. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i would just remind my colleagues that at the end of the eight years of the bush administration, after the tax cuts which helped create the deficits, we ended up losing over 600,000 private sector jobs. that's the result of trickle-down economics. the last thing we want to do is go back to those policies. the republican budget takes us back to our policies. we invest in jobs. with that i'd like to yield a

minute to the distinguished democratic leader who has been focused on jobs, ms. pelosi. the chair: the minority leader is recognized. ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to rise to sing the raises of our democratic members on the house budget committee led by the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. thank you for bringing us a balanced budget to the fore, a balanced option on how we go forward to the floor. yes, we know we have to make cuts. that we have to increase revenue, but most of all we have to increase jobs. growth is what is important. and the difference between these two budgets, the budget that mr. van hollen is proposing and the ryan republican budget is that the ryan republican budget loses jobs, the van hollen budget, the democratic budget, is a job creator. it's a job creator, it also invests in education.

think of it. if you are a student and have a student loan, on july 1 your interest rate will double from 3.4% to 6.8%. ryan republican budget says that's just fine. the house democratic budget prevents that from happening. if you are a senior, the ryan budget takes you down a path where the medicare guarantee is cut, you may have to spend $6,000 or more for less in terms of benefits, all the while while not protecting our students, while not creating jobs, while not protecting our seniors and their medicare, the ryan budget gives over $300,000 tax breaks to people making over $1 million a year. how can that be? how can that be? the more people know about that budget, the more they know that it hurts them and their lives.

the budget put forth by the house democrats is a positive one for economic growth, for investment in our small businesses, for honoring the entrepreneurial shirt of america, for strengthening the middle class, for building ladders of opportunity, for people who want to work hard, play by the rules, take responsibility for them to succeed as we reignite the american dream. so i thank you, mr. van hollen, for your leadership in putting a budget forth that is responsible, that honors our commitment to future generations, that reduces the deficit in a positive way, as opposed to mr. ryan's republican budget doesn't even get to -- doesn't get to reduction until close to 2040. i mean the contrast could not be greater. the impact on america's families could not be greater. just think, seniors pay $6,000 more for fewer benefits in medicare while it gives $300,000

tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our country. you be the judge. is that a budget that is a statement of your values? vote yes on the van hollen budget. vote no on the ryan republican budget. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from maryland has 15 seconds remaining. the gentleman from wisconsin has two minutes remaining. the gentleman from maryland wish to use his remaining 15 seconds? mr. van hollen: i reserve. i'm sorry. yes, i would. thank you, mr. chairman. again, our democratic alternative invests in the president's job proposal, a proposal that's been sitting here in the house of representatives since september. we reduce the deficit in a balanced, fair way. we make choices not to provide mother tax break to the wealthiest, but to say we need a

combination of cuts and revenue just like bipartisan commissions have done. i urge adoption of the amendment. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes remaining. mr. ryan: i yield myself the balance of the time. mr. chairman, let me just try to give in a nutshell the economic vision the minority leader just gave us. it kind of works like this. take more money from communities, from families, from small businesses and send it to washington, switch it around to bureaucracy, make the decisions here, and through trickle-down government try to create jobs from government. borrow more money if that's not enough, and then print more money if that's not enough over at the federal reserve. and we can make jobs in government. it doesn't work. we have been trying this. look at where we are today. our debt is bigger than our economy. look at the common theme we have

seen before us. this budget, the house democratic budget, $1.7 trillion tax increase. the president's budget, $2 trillion tax increase. the c.b.c. budget, a $6 trillion tax increase. and least but not last, the progressive budget a $6.7 trillion tax increase. is that for deficit reduction? no. it's for more spending. the house democratic budget, $4.6 trillion spending increase. the c.b.c. budget, $5.2 trillion spending increase. the president's budget, $5.2 trillion spending increase. and the progressive caucus budget, $6.6 trillion spending increase. it is clear they want to tax more so they can spend more and they never, ever balance their budget. they sent us off -- send us off a debt cliff. this debt crisis is the most predictable crisis we have ever

had in the history of this country. and we've got to stop this notion that we can just keep taking more and more and more from families and businesses to spend us deeper into debt. it doesn't work and i urge a no vote on the house democratic substitute. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate on this amendment has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maryland. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. those in favor of taking this vote by a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 162. the noes are --

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 163. the nos are 262. the amendment is not adopted. the committee will be in order. the chair requests that members remove audible conversations so the committee may conclude its work. pursuant to the rule, the it is now in order to consider a final period of general debate which shall not exseed 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking

minority member of the committee on budget. the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, each will control 2010 minutes. the chair wreck niesings the -- recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, let me start by thanking all the staff and the minority and their staff for the hard work--i want to congratulate mr. van hollen for bringing a subs tute to the floor. the minority does not need to do that. it's good for the process that they do that. in particular i want to thank our budget committee staff. connor, david, dennis, eric, garrett, jean, dennis, jim, john, hoe day, justin, march sha, nicole, self any, steve, ted, tim flynn. i also want to thank our

personal office staff and the people who are over there at the ford building that not everybody sees but that work work for the c.b.o. i had the privilege to meet with them last december while they were putting the payroll tax numbers together. this year the president's budget came late. easter came early. everyone was crunched. we worked on overtime. very hard. now we don't always like the estimates they give us, but i want to thank them for their dedication and their pro fegsalism in making this process work. and i'd like to include in the record with unanimous consent the names of those who we wish to thank at c.b.o. in additional personal office staff. the chair: the gentleman's request is covered under general leave. mr. ryeian: with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the chair wreck again requests that members cease audible conversation. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman.

i want to start by thanking all the members of the budget committee. our republicans and democrats a like. we had a very good debate in the budget committee. we had a good debate here on the floor. i want to thank all our colleagues. we obviously have deep denches differences, but i think everybody's conducted this -- difference -- deep differences, but i think everybody's con ducted this debate in a civil manner. i want to thank the chairman for the way he conducted the committee and all the staff, republican and democratic staff, i want to thank our team headed by tom, many of them here on the floor as i think everybody knows they spent many, many, late nights working on this budget. so i salute all of them as well as the folks over at the c.b.o. c.b.o. -- congressional budget office. we obviously think that this budget proposed by our republican colleagues is the wrong choice for america. and i now yield three minutes to the distinguished democratic

whip, my friend, our colleague from the state of maryland, mr. hoyer. the chair: minority whip is recognized for three minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. ryan, who is an outstanding member of this body, and my friend, an and who is one of the most able among us, mr. van hollen, who has been my close friend for many years and one of the most able among us. i have just spent time thanking -- they have just spent time thanking our staffs for the work they have done. and i share their view that our staffs have worked mightily and indeed there has been much debate. tradgeically the product we will produce today is far less -- tragically the product we will produce today is far less than the sum of the parts of this body. it is, i suggest to you, a product unworthy of the intel lect that has been aplied to it. it is--intel lenth that has been

aplied to it. it is a product that will hurt america not help america. it is a product that is too much politics and too little policy. it is a product of which i think this house cannot be proud. it is a product that relys on subsanctionly undermining the security of seniors. and i say that as one who has said repeatedly that in reaching a physical cali sustainable path we must deal with entitlements. we need to do so together. and we need to do so in a balanced way. but there is no balance in this proposal. seniors, middle class, vulnerable, working americans are asked to pay the price of this agreement. and indeed not only are they asked to pay the price, but the

best off among us is asked to do the least. that's not the america of which we are all proud that has worked together, sacrificed together at times, to come together to make a joint contribution to the welfare of this country. this product is less than the sum of its parts. this product would undermine the garne tea of medicare. dare i say we need to deal with entitlements but not in a way, i tell my friends, in this house, that undermines the guarantee of senior security. and i would say to you, family security. so their children will know their parents are secure. ladies and gentlemen of this house, we had an agreement. i think that the gentleman from wisconsin is an honorable man.

he is my friend. i like paul ryan. but i am sorely disappointed, i tell my friend. we came to having a difference of opinion on what the number ought to be on this year's budget. you are a lower number. we had a lie higher number. we almost took the nation to the brink, matter of fact we took it to the brink of default before we agreed -- may i have an additional minute? mr. van hollen: i yield another minute. mr. hoyer: we came to the brink of default in this great nation, the most considered as ready worthy nation on the face of this earth that was downgradeed of a result to get to an a agreement. we got to an agreement. it was an agreement. and if we are able to rely on one another's word, we ought to keep our agreements. and simply said the 02-a which simpli means for the public that dollars we already spent on discretionary spending this

fiscal year coming would be $1.4 trillion. that's a lot of money. no doubt about it. your side didn't like it. my side didn't like it. but we agreed upon it. this, that agreement is not carried out in this budget. how can we rely on the future on such an agreement? seniors pay the bill, vullnerble to pay the bill, but not the wealthiest in america. puts medicare at risk and does not get us to where we want. in fact, it adds $10 trillion and some magical formula--30 additional seconds. mr. van hollen: another 30 seconds. mr. hoyer: some magical formula somewhere out there like waste, fraud, and abuse we are going to find the money to pay for the $10 trillion in tax cuts. that's by the extension of the bush tax cuts and the 35 to 25. some magical way we are going to

eliminate, doesn't say which ones, doesn't say who is going to pay the bill. ladies and gentlemen, we can do better. the parts in this body are very good on both sides of the aisle. could good intel lect, good instincts, and a love for this contry. we can do better. let's reject this budget. let's do some real work. let's come together and put this country on a face cali sustainable path without harming our people. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. . the chair: i two minutes to mr. mccarthy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. mccarthy: we watched a lot of debate. this floor is supposed to be able to have the ideal to win. mr. chairman, we watched the president's budget come here and unfortunately unite us and

nobody thought that was the direction to go. we watched history be made on this floor for many years. it's always said that history repeats itself. in my short life span, if i'm really looking at where america stands, it stands much where we stood in 1980. the choice between two futures. have you ever thought for a moment the similarities to 1980 to today? in 1980, america was afraid that japan was going to surpass us in our economy. today we have fear of china and india being larger. in 1980, iran was holding americans hostage. today they want to close the strait. they want to develop missiles that hold the world hostage. we had an energy crisis. today the price of gasoline is the highest it's ever been. every generation in america has been able to improve on the generation before it, but do you realize in 1980, it was the first time that a majority of americans believe the best days were behind them?

50.4%. today it's at 76%. we had a challenge in our foreign policy. we had a president to put a sweater on and tell us to turn the heater on. the challenge is the debt that faces us. today we have a choice, a choice of two futures. just as we did in 1980. so the choice today is, do you want that european model or do you want something that faces our challenge, honest to the american people and rises to the occasion? when ronald reagan was sworn in, in his inaugural he said, a willingness to believe in ourselves and capacity to perform great deeds, to believe that together with god's help we can and will resolve the problems that now confront us. after all, why shouldn't we believe that? we are americans. you know, winston churchill said of america, you can always count on them to do what's right after they exhausted

every other option. we've exhausted every other option. this is an opportunity for a new path, for a new future. i yield back. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin. ryan raburn mr. chairman, at this time i'd like to yield one -- mr. ryan: mr. chairman, at this time i'd like to yield to a majority leader of the house, mr. cantor. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. cantor: mr. chairman, i rise today in support of the house republican budget resolution offered by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from wisconsin, chairman paul ryan. mr. chairman, people in this country are looking. they are desperate to see a strong signal from washington that we are prepared to make the tough decisions necessary to address our nation's fiscal crisis. today we will pass our budget

that proposes real honest solutions to create a stronger economy and a more certain future for our country. our budget takes bold steps that will get the fiscal house in order and will manage down the debt and deficit. it also strengthens the entitlement programs which are the biggest drivers of our debt. it reforms the tax code and prevents devastating defense cuts from taking place, all without raising taxes. mr. chairman, we are seizing the opportunity to address what even the minority has admitted is the most predictable economic crisis in our nation's history. unfortunately, mr. chairman, those on the other side of the aisle seem to refuse to be able to deal with this crisis and actually propose a solution.

the democratic controlled senate has failed to pass a budget in over 1,000 days. and the president has refused to put forth any serious solution to pay down the historic debt and deficit that he helped create. in fact, the president's budget will actually aggravate the nation's problems. president obama's budget saddles the american people with massive tax increases, puts more burden on job creators, weakens our military and fails to provide a plan to save our entitlement programs. i believe these policies will fundamentally change our nation for the worse. in contrast, mr. chairman, our budget restores a system of free enterprise that has made

america the greatest nation in the world. we propose a simpler, fairer and more competitive tax code that will actually foster economic growth and job creation. instead of picking winners and losers, our plan levels the playing field. our budget lowers tax rates for all taxpayers, broadens the base and gets rid of loopholes and preferences so we can grow the economy and see more jobs created. mr. chairman, our budget seeks to save our entitlement programs because we actually produce a plan to solve the disproportionate cause of our deficits, the health care sbimets. this commitment to lead -- health care entitlements. this commitment to lead, this commitment to find solutions and to actually put a plan in place is what has been missing from the debate in this town and we ask our colleagues on

the other side of the aisle to join us in that commitment to actually adopt a plan so that we can begin to make progress and send a signal to the american people that we get it, that we are here to help solve the problem. mr. chairman, house republicans are offering the american people a choice in terms of the direction this country will take. and i thank chairman ryan and the members of his budget committee for their hard work to produce this pro-growth, solutions-oriented budget. this document does begin to address the serious fiscal challenges we face and grow the economy so that our children have the same hope, opportunity and ability to achieve success that our parents gave to us and their parents to them. with that i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. if i could ask how much time remains. the chair: the gentleman from maryland has 4 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from wisconsin has 5 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. van hollen: all right, thank you. is the gentleman going to close? i thank you, mr. chairman. again, i thank our colleagues for a vigorous debate, and i would remind everybody that just a few years ago when the president was sworn in, our economy was in a total free fall. the bottom was falling out. we had negative 8% g.d.p. over 800,000 jobs being lost every month. and as a result of extraordinary actions that were taken, along with the tenacity of the american people, we have climbed out of that hole that we inherited. we have now had 24 months of consecutive private sector job growth. let's keep that growth going.

the budget that the president proposed, the budget the democrats proposed did that. it expanded investments in jobs. the republican budget, the republican budget will cut our investment in transportation next year by 46% when we have 17% unemployment in the construction industry. independent analysts have said that their budget will cost us a million jobs this year and cost us two million jobs next year. that's not what we need. the congressional budget office have said that over 1/3 of our current deficit is because of underemployment. why do we want to add to underemployment as the republican does? now, in the long long term we have to get our -- now, in the long term we have to get our deficits under control. the question is the choice. our republican colleagues overwhelmingly have signed this pledge saying they are not willing to close one tax

loophole. not one penny for the purpose of reducing the deficit. and when you say to folks making over $1 million a year, you don't have to share any more responsibility in reducing the deficit, when you say to big oil companies, we're going to keep going with the taxpayer subsidies, you know what, you got to take out the budget on everybody else at the expense of seniors, at the expense of middle income taxpayers and the expense of important investments in our economy. that's what their budget does. that's why it ends the medicare guarantee. they're proposing to give seniors a deal that's a lot worse than we have for members of congress. worse than the one for members of congress. seniors on medicare. they cut medicaid by $800 billion. more than a third of the program by 022, putting seniors and -- 2022, putting seniors

and disabled americans at risk. they cut education investments and would allow interest rates on student loans to double this july. those are not decisions that we make if we want a strong economy and a robust future for our children and grandchildren. so this is all about choices, and we don't think that it's bold to provide tax breaks to millionaires while you're ending the medicare guarantee for seniors. we don't think it's courageous to protect big taxpayer giveaways to companies that ship american jobs overseas while we're cutting education in research and infrastructure right here at home. we don't think it's fair to provide another round of tax cuts to folks at the very top. tax policy center says it's going to be close to $400,000 on average for people making over $1 million. we don't think it's fair to do that. financing those tax cuts by

increasing taxes on middle-income americans, and i would challenge our colleagues, show us, show us how you make up for $4.3 trillion in loss revenue from dropping that tax rate without socking it to middle-income taxpayers. so far our republican colleagues have been incapable to show us that they are not shifting the burden to middle-income taxpayers. so mr. chairman, it is all about choices. unfortunately we didn't pass the alternative democratic budget. let's not make the mistake of passing this republican budget plan. we can do better. we can do what bipartisan groups have done. take a balanced approach, cut spending, also cut the loopholes for special interests. let's do it in a way that the american people would say, that brings us together rather than apart, and so i would urge adoption of -- i would urge

rejection of this budget. it makes the wrong choice for america, and i thank the chairman and i thank my colleagues. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, i will yield myself the remainder of the time and address myself from the well. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, we are bearing witness to history this week. across the street we are witnessing what could be the end of bureaucrat-controlled health care. what we are on the verge of witnessing is a powerful reaffirmation of the america idea, and we are finally having the debate we need to have. our rights come to us naturally. they come from god and nature, not from government. this health care law is the

latest and perfect example of the notion that government is now needed to grant us new rights. and if that is the case, then government has authority to ration, to regulate and to redistribute exactly how we exercise these new rights like health care. and if these new government-granted rights conflict with our constitutional rights and liberties, well, then such is the sacrifice needed in the name of progress or so the thinking goes. across the street we are witnessing what could be a rejection of this line of thinking. the new health care law, which asserts unlimited power to the federal government to decide for americans how they should go about getting their health care simply is not compatible with the constitution. but the justices who are considering this case, they've

raised a very good point. if this isn't the end of bureaucratic controlled health care, what comes next? and if you listen to them, you may hear a pretty dim view of congress' ability to solve this problem. with respect i would suggest that they take a look at what we are accomplishing here in this body today. here in this chamber, we are witnessing the growing momentum of a new approach, one that maintains a critical role for government but ultimately puts the american people in charge where they belong. for the second year in a row we are passing a budget that outlines a new approach to medicare. we keep the protections that made medicare a guaranteed promise for seniors throughout the years. but this is what we say to the bureaucrats who have mismanaged this program into bankruptcy. enough. your approach doesn't work. government has never come up

with the magic formula to micromanage america, let alone lower costs and improve quality. it's time to put 50 million seniors, not 15 bureaucrats, in charge of their own health care decisions. forcing insurance companies to compete, that's the only way to guarantee quality, affordable health care for seniors that lasts for generations. that's the answer to what comes next. let's keep building on the growing bipartisan consensus on how to improve patient-centered health care reform. but putting our trust in americans, it goes beyond health care. it is it is what this entire budget is all about. we get government bureaucrats out of the business of picking winners and losers in the economy. because americans should make their own decisions about what kind of car they drive or what kind of light bulb they use and we give power over the safety

net programs to the states because we believe that governments that are closest to the people are in the best position to design programs for their unique communities, to get people on to lives of self-sufficiency and upward mobility. when we lower tax rates by closing special interest loopholes, we're saying we in washington don't need to micromanage people's decisions through the tax code. let people keep more of their own harr-earned dollars, let them decide how to spend it. economic growth, jobs, upward mobility, opportunity, these are what we're striving for, just like our parents did the same for us. mr. chairman, it is so rare in american politics to arrive at a moment in which the debate revolves around the fundamental nature of american democracy and the social contract. but that is exactly where we are today. one approach gives more power

to unelected bureaucrats, takes more from hardworking tax payers to fuel the expansion of government and commit ours nation to a future of debt and decline. this approach is proving unworkable, in congress and in our communities. this contrast with our budget could not become clearer. we put our trust in citizens, not in the government. our budget returns powers to individuals, to families, to communities. as these choices become clear, today's budget is a vote of confidence for the american experiment. we think that putting our trust in the american people will renew their trust in us. we think americans should control their destinies and we trust them to make the right choices about the future of our country. mr. chairman, we think america is on the wrong track. we believe the president is bringing us toward a debt

crisis and a welfare state in decline. we are offering the nation a choice. we are offering the nation a better way forward and we are offering the nation a plan to renew america and the american idea. mr. chairman, let's have that vote. i yield back my time. the chair: all time for debate has expired. under the rule, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman.

the chair: mechanic -- mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration house concurrent resolution 12. without objection, i report the concurrent resolution back to the house. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration house concurrent resolution 112 and reports the concurrent resolution back to the house. under the rule, the previous question is orered. the question is on agreeing to the concurrent resolution. under clause 10 of rule 20, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 228 and the nays are 191. the concurrent resolution is agreed to.

the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed without amendment h.r. 4281, cited as the surface transportation extension act of 2012. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow and when the house adjourns on that day it adjourn to meet at 11:00 a.m. on tuesday, april 3, 2012. and when the house adjourns on that day it adjourn to meet at 11:00 a.m. on friday, april 6, 2012. and when the house adjourns on that day it adjourn to meet again at 10:00 a.m. on tuesday,

april 10, 2012. and when the house adjourns on that day it adjourn to meet again at 2:00 p.m. on friday, april 13, 2012. and when the house adjourns on that day it adjourn to meet at 2:00 p.m. on monday, april 16, 2012. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to section 703-c of the public interest declassification act of 2000, i hereby reappoint mr. david e. skaggs of colorado, to the public interest

classification board. thank you for the consideration of this reappointment. signed, sincerely, nancy pelosi, house democratic leader. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. olson: mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize a distinguished company. camden property trust. camden was recently recognized by fortune magazine as one of the 100 best companies to work for. this is not the first time they have been named as such, as camden consistently ranks among the most desirable places to

work in america. camden is the only multifamily real estate company to be named to this prestigious list. they employ nearly 1,800 people in 13 states. camden provides financial policies and a positive work environment. camden is also committed to helping employees improve their personal and professional lives, through outstanding training programs, mentoring, and community service. this commitment has helped camden become a leader in their industry and a valued asset to the houston area. mr. speaker, i applaud their high standards and wish them continued success. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? ms. brown: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today because i made a promise to visa von, i made a promise to his mother, i promised to stand up for trayvon. i promised that i would rise every day and let the world know how long it has been since he was murdered. mrs. wilson: today marks 33 days since trayvon's death, 33 days without justice. i want to let trayvon know that i'm going home this evening, i'm going home because votes have finished for the week. but i will be back. the vigil will not stop. it will continue every day, every day the house is in recess i will tweet to the world an update on how many days have passed without justice. and this sunday i will

personally host a rally back home, trayvon's home in miami, florida. mr. speaker, i want trayvon to know that he is not forgotten, he is missed and he is loved and we will continue to stand up for justice for trayvon. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. as co-chairman of the house explosive ordinance disposal caucus, i address you today with a heavy heart. on tuesday of this week, staff sergeant joseph devine was -- d augustine was killed. he had four tours of duty in afghanistan and iraq to his credit.

he enlisted in the marine corps after he graduated high school in 2001. mr. crawford: he cleared explosive threats, and defended the lives of his fellow marines, soldiers and airmen. too often, their heroic deeds go unreported. he is survived by his parents and three sisters. i'm grateful for his service to our country and all the brave men and women who defend our country at home and abroad. on behalf of the e.o.d. caucus and the e.o.d. community, i extend my sympathy to his family. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today on a matter of great urgency for america's students and families.

on july 1, the interest rates on need-based student loans will double from 3.4% to 6.8% this interest rate hike will hit seven million americans who are already in financial need. mr. miller: with rates at historic lows, for congress to let these interest rates double, is highway robbery. congress should not require students and fay will -- families who can least afford it to pay twice as much on interest on the same loans they got the year before at lower rates. congress should help make college more affordable, not more expensive. tens of thousands of students have asked congress to act but their pleas to help have been met with silence from the republicans in congress. silence, simes is not what they need. action is what they need. only congress can set the rates for student loans. the clock is ticking, applications are being made to college and the time to act is now.

congress should not let the interest rates go up, the not let the interest rates double on these families and students. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to speak to the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today to recognize an indiana-born and bred entrepreneur. charlotte lucas, along with her husband, forrest, funned lieu cat oil products in 1989. under her leadership, lucasoil est tab rushed itself as a top-rated addtive line. mr. rokita: charlotte is still the good-natured hoosier who loves to neat new people -- meet new people.

there's a slogan at lucasoil, that says, quote, it works, unquote. i think the same can be said of charlotte. working on behalf of children, the elderly, race car drivers and their family, she has provided so many with a better place to live, work and raise a family. whatever charlotte does, it works. as a man of faith, i believe we were put on the earth to love one another and make the best of the gifts the lord provided. i look at charlotte, her husband forrest, and how she shared her good fortune with the world, all i can say is amen. she exemplifies the american dream in every way and i am proud to honor her on her birthday for her devotion to her family, friends, employees and the whole hoosier community. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: last week, i had the privilege of coordinating and working with

other mens -- members of congress to hold a briefing with judiciary committee members to discuss the jurisdiction of the hate crimes. we were privileged at that time, in the midst of their morning, to have the parents of tray -- of their mourning, to have the parents of tre'von martin. -- of travon martin. many have raised the question of race and let me be very clear. the race question comes into factor only because of jurisdictional federal laws of which they are now investigating this case. but this is a case for every american an every parent. it is a case that everyone can ask a simple question, as our speaker did, the state and federal jurisdictions are looking at this an they should review it. for those of us who beeve that the perpetrator should be arrested, we maintain that he should have been arrested and should be arrested. but this is a question for every parent that when you send

your child out to get skittles and a tea, whether they should compaq alive or whether you should have to find them in a morgue. i remain persist ebt on finding justice for trayvon and for all the other young people who have been victims of crimes like this with guns where people have used their language of suspiciousness and all they were doing is walking on the streets of america. i yield back. the chair: the -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. as this will be the last session before we go into easter district work period, i thought it was appropriate to look back at something historically and i have a prayer that was given in the united states senate in the 1940's by senate chaplain peter

marshall. he said, we pray to thee, o christ, keep us urn the spell of immortality. may we never again think and act as if thou were dead. let us more an more come to know thee as a living lord that promed to them that believe, because i live, you shall live also. help us to remember that we are praying to the conquer ror of death that we may -- conqueror of death that we may no longer be afraid or dismayed by the world's promises and threats, since thou has overcome the world. we ask for thi living presence. that was senate chaplain peter marshall a good prayer, mr. speaker, to pray as we head for the easter recess. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition?

>> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, today i will introduce the detroit growth and stability act which will provide up to $500 million in loans to the city of detroit. mr. clarke: i am asking them to give them a second chance to build the best product, a chance to give the best product that could be sold worldwide, jobs for southeastern michigan because our city and our suburbs are linked together but also jobs throughout this country. you see, the best way we can renew america's economy, the

most effective way is to help rebuild detroit. i urge your support of this important legislation and yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. >> without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today to commemorate an important medical breakthrough that happened hundreds of years ago in georgia. mr. broun: that's the invention of general anesthesia. tomorrow is doctor's day, and i'm pleased to honor dr. long who gave the first general anesthetic in 1842. if it weren't for his discovery of ethey are as a general anesthetic, the world of medicine would not be as profound or innovative as it is today. this is a proud claim for the

city of justin, georgia, and for the state of georgia as a whole. it's a little known fact that his statue is in the u.s. capitol as part of the national statutory hall collection. this privilege is well ke served giving his contributions to medicine. i hope all georgians passing through washington will take the time to pass by his statue to reflect upon this great georgian's wonnerful achievements in science and humanity. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. jones: mr. speaker, thank you very much. i again come to the floor to talk about a 10-year journey that i have been own -- been on

with two wives whose husbands were tragically killed on april 8, 2000. the pilot was john brown, lieutenant colonel, and the co-pilot was brooks gruber. they were flying what is known ases a osprey. -- as an osprey. i will hold this up, mr. speaker. the osprey has been one of the planes that the marine corps for so long has needed to replace the aged helicopters from the vietnam era. the sadness and the problem was that the v-22 at the time it was being flown by colonel brow and major gruber was not ready for the mission it had been assigned to.

mr. speaker, sadly, that night, there were 17 young marines in the back of that v-22 that crashed on april 8 in arizona. so a total of 19 marines were killed. the v-22 flipped and crashed and burned. december of 2002, the wife of major brooks gruber, connie gruber, who lives in my district, jacksonville, north carolina, the home of camp lejeune marine base she sent me an email and i want to read one paragraph. i contact you in hopes that leaders of integrity, free of bias, would have the intelligence and courage it takes to decide the facts for him or herself. if you do that, you'll agree

the human factor, slash pilot error finding should not stand and -- in military history. again, i respectfully ask for your support. please do not simply pass this matter along to general jones without offering the support my husband and his comrades deserve. please remember these 19 marines can no longer speak for themselves. i am not afraid to speak for them and i believe somebody has to. even though it is easier put to rest and forgotten. please join me in doing the right thing by taking the time to address this important issue. mr. speaker, along the way, there have been so many people to join me in asking the marine corps to correct the press rereese -- release that came out in july of 2000, and i read from the press release,

heading, marine corps officials say combination of factors caused osprey accident. confirms that a combination of human factors caused the april 8 crash of a v-22 osprey tilt rotor aircraft that killed 19 marines. it further stated, mr. speaker, although the report stops short of specifying pilot error as a cause, it notes that the pilots of the ill-fated aircraft significantly exceeded the rate of descent established by regulations for safe flight. the tragedy, this is commandant jones at the time, who is now retired. the tragedy is these were all good marines joined in a challenging mission, unfortunately, the pilot's drive to accomplish the mission appears to have been the fatal factor. that is so erroneous it is a pain for me to even repeat it

on the floor of the house. i have spent 10 years trying to clear the names of pilot colonel john brau and his co-pilot, major brooks gruber. if you look at the jagman report, this is the report that was completed by three marine officers who were sent the day after the accident to arizona to investigate and they published what was called a jagman report. i'd like to read the major section that i think says clearly that john brow and brooks gruber were not at fault. during this investigation we found nothing that we would characterize as negligence, deliberate pilot error or

maintenance material failure. during this investigation we found nothing that we would characterize as negligence, deliberate pilot error. mr. speaker, i want to further read because this plane was not ready for the mission that was signed -- it was assigned to by general fred mccorkal. it was the general that oversaw aviation for the marine corps at the time. in fact, i read from an excerpt -- expert, who understands the issue involved with this plane. he wrote me a page and a half in his support of clearing the names of john brow and brooks gruber. and i read one paragraph. considering that it was ignorance on the part of the marine corps that caused the april, 2000, accident, the marine corps should make it clear to major gruber's family,

with no ifs or buts, that major gruber was not responsible for the accident. he further states, i do not suppose the marine corps ever apologizes, but considering that the accident was their fault and not major gruber's fault, an apology to the family would be in order also. another one of those individuals who has joined us in this effort to clear the names is rex, well known in the aerospace industry as an expert. and i read, mr. speaker, the failure of the manufacturing, boeing, and the navy to characterize the slow speed, high rate of dissent, handling qualities of the -- descent, handling qualities of the v-22 through flight testing, the failure to describe them for the

air crew and the failure to provide an adequate warning system in the aircraft were the causes of the mishap, not the air crew. mr. speaker, i reached out to the two attorneys who prosecuted , who filed suit against boeing on behalf of the families. jim thurman himself a vietnam helicopter pilot was the attorney for the wives of john brow and brooks gruber. brian alexander in new york and his society, frances young, -- francis young, they represented the 17 families whose sons were burnt to death. i'm not an attorney, mr. speaker, but i must say, knowing that bill boeing settled no one

knows how much money because it is closed, but they settle with the families -- settled with the families, the 19 marines that were burnt to death. and jim thurman has joined me in saying that these two pilots had not been trained, there was no warning system and, mr. speaker, the manual is what the pilots have between them that explains if you get into this kind of situation, you can read and see how to react. the manual they had was written by a army helicopter pilot and nothing in there about vortex which is a phenomenon that can cause the plane, particularly a v-22, to flip and major gruber and colonel brow had no idea. mr. speaker, i would like to read comments from the attorney

general -- from the attorney. if there was no human error, it was error for the program manager to certify the aircraft as air worthy when clearly it was not. brow and gruber found themselves in a position of having to do what they were not trained or qualified to do. he further stated, it was not the mission of the operation's evaluation crew to discover the new boundaries and limitations associated with the v-22. engineering test pilots under appropriate test conditions should have done this. it is simply wrong and improper to place this burden upon gruber and brow. they did the best job they could have done under the circumstances. mr. speaker, all the wives are

asking, connie gruber and trish brow, is asking that the united states marine corps on the letter head of the commandant of the marine corps write one paragraph that says, colonel john brow and major brooks gruber, pilot and co-pilot, were not responsible for the accident on april 8, 2000. i am very disappointed in the marine corps, quite frankly. i have camp he will jume in my -- camp lejeune in my district. i'm not disappointed in the marines, they're magnificent -- a magnificent fighting force for this country. but i never thought i would be fighting for one paragraph with the united states marine corps. these two pilots deserve better

than having this blemish against their names. and, mr. speaker, there are so many people that have joined in this, the three investigators, colonel mike morgan, colonel ron radish, major phil stackhouse have given me letters independent of the jagman report that have clearly stated that nothing in their investigation should indicate that this was pilot error. i have given this to the attorneys for the commandant. in addition jim schafer at the time a lieutenant colonel was in the air in the third v-22. and john brow and brooks gruber were his friends. he's joined in this effort to

clear their names. it does not make any sense, mr. speaker, that the marine corps cannot do what has been asked by the wives. the wives have just asked for one paragraph that clearly states -- and mr. speaker, quite frankly, the marine corps owes this to the families because they came out with this press release that i just read a moment ago in 2000 and indicated that this was pilot error. they have seen all the information that i have accumulated in 10 years and all the families are asking for their children, connie has a little girl named brooks, trish has two boys named michael and matthew. all they're asking is an official letter from the united states marine corps that the

children can have, for years to come, and whenever it comes about, the crash on april 8, 2000, in arizona was pilot error . and, mr. speaker, they can say, no, that's not true. i have a letter from the united states marine corps commandant that clearly states that my father was not at fault. and, mr. speaker, i want to thank the -- "the hill" magazine today. i'm sorry that i had to be featured in it, because the most important thing about the article, and i want to thank jeremy herb who spent so much time on this article, he interviewed the commandant, he interviewed the general who's the aviation chief at the time of this crash, and he interviewed the wives. and again they clearly

understand that if you want to bring rest to two outstanding marines who have been blamed for this crash, mr. commandant, all you have to do is write a letter with one paragraph in it. the wives have given you what they request. and i am calling on the united states marine corps today, the commandant of the marine corps, to please do what is right. you have the evidence. the attorneys that sued bill boeing over this accident know more than anyone, including the commandant, about what happened and who was at fault and again jim thurman and brian alexander have joined in this effort. i hope that the marine corps will give the wives what they're asking for. and, mr. speaker, if we could

ever bring this journey to an end, i suspend to go to the cemetery -- intend to go to the cemetery in jacksonville, north carolina, with connie gruber and her daughter brooks and i want to walk to the grave of the husband and the father and say, major brooks gruber, rest in peace. the blame game is over. you're not to blame for the accident. and then, mr. speaker, i would like to go with trish brow and her sons, matthew and michael, to arlington and say the same thing to colonel brow. colonel, you have earned the rest, you did nothing wrong to cause that accident. mr. speaker, it makes no sense that these wives and the

children have -- had to carry this burden because, mr. speaker, too many times articles are written, books are written that say one accident in the history of the osprey was caused by pilot error and they're talking about john brow and brooks gruber and they're talking about the accident in arizona and i give you one quick example, mr. speaker. the book called "leathernecks," it was published about four years ago, and the father of colonel brooks gruber is living, his name is bill gruber, he lives in napeless, florida, he fought for thisy -- napele -- naplles, florida, he fought for this country -- naples, florida, he fought for this country. he called me a couple of years ago, he knew what i was trying to do for the families.

and he called me here in washington, d.c., about two years ago and said, congressman, they've done it again. i said, what's that, mr. gruber? on page 113 of the new edition of "leathernecks" they've got a section on the osprey and they say one accident was due to pilot error. mr. speaker, i'm a strong man of faith. and i prayed every night that god would touch the hearts of those who can make the decision to clear the names of colonel john brow and major brooks gruber. and as long as i serve in the congress, as long as i have the energy to fight for these two men, i will continue the fight, until the marine corps does what is right. and what is right is to give

connie gruber, trish brow an official letter with one paragraph on it and we will ask that the marine corps issue a national press release that the commandant has done this so that the press in years to come will always be able to look at that press release by the marine corps and see that colonel john brow and major brooks gruber, young men who died too early in their life through no fault of their own with 17 young marines, the oldest being 23 in the back of the v-22 that crashed, that they are not at fault for this accident. . mr. speaker, as i do before i close, i ask god to bless our men and women in uniform and their families and the families who have given a

child dying for freedom in afghanistan and iraq and bless the families of john brow and rex gruber and the marine corps to bring these two men image to respect and not an image that is blemished by the accident. i ask god to bless the house and senate. and my good friends sitting here, his family. i ask god to bless everyone in america. i ask god to bless the house and senate to do what is right in the eyes of god for god's people and please bless the president and do what is right. and three times i will ask, god please, god please, god please continue to bless america. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the

gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. ellison: my name is keith ellison and co-chair of the progressive caucus. and i say god please bless walter jones.

mr. speaker, we are here today with the progressive caucus message today. our web site is listed on the bottom. we come every week with a progressive message. the progressive caucus is a caucus in the congress. there are several. there is the big caucus, the democratic caucus and republican caucus, but within both, there are different groups that have points of agreement that they come together around. on the republican side, there is the republican study groupon the democratic side, black caucus, hispanic caucus, the progressive caucus is a caucus within the democratic caucus, but all of our members are democrats and we believe that america should be a place where there is liberty and justice for all.

that means whether you are hispanic, latino, african american, we believe you should get a decent wage and the people who are most privileged in our society, god bless them, but they should pay adequate taxes so we can afford the basic necessities of our society, schools, roads, you know, take care of our environment, things like that. we believe we should stay out of these wars unless they are necessary to defend the american people. so we are promoting diplomacy and we are very proud to say that we are the liberal caucus. we are the progressive caucus and we are the ones who believe fairness, inclusion and that, yes, the government has a responsibility because it is our -- the way we all come together as americans to the poor and we should stand by that and stick by that. that's what the progressive caucus is.

now, mr. speaker, we have been dealing with the budget this week. and we started out the week and we were talking about the republican budget drafted by mr. paul ryan. we wept from there and talked about the democratic budget drafted by mr. chris van hollen and the progressive caucus budget came up, and i think mr. mulvaney came up with a budget proposal and they had a water- downed budget and we have been talking budget. when we talk about the budget, what we are talking about is the values and priorities of america. it's important to keep this in mind. what shows up in your budget is what you care about. what does not show up in your budget is what you don't care about. mr. speaker, i always caution people not just to take their family budget and the united states budget and assume that they are basically the same

thing, one bigger than the other. that is not accurate. there are important differences and we shouldn't mix up the two. but in this way, they are similar in that they reflect what it is that people value. if you have a family and their budget -- you can look at their budget and spend a lot of money on entertainment, you can pretty much they value that. if they put a lot of money into food, you can definitely think that is a priority for them. you can go through the budget and see what people spend their money on and see what people don't have in their budget and figure maybe that's not a priority for them and maybe they aren't able to afford it at this time, but if you are talking about middle-class people and their budget reflects what they care about and what matters and what doesn't. and for our nation that is

certainly true. if our nation puts more money into warfare than social economy , that says something about who we are. if our national budget puts more money into infrastructure and jobs and putting people back to work, then that says something about who we are. the various budgets reflect what the various caucuses is important and project a vision for our country. and i want to talk about that today. i want to start by talking about paul ryan's budget. paul ryan, republican budget committee chair, nice guy. i don't have anything bad to say about him personally, because he is actually a nice person because we disagree on what the priorities of america should be. for example, the republican budget, 20 children will lose access to head start to pay for

one millionaire's tax cut. if you want to understand what their tax cuts represent, it means 20 kids don't get to go to head start so a million yare -- millionaire gets his tax cut. if you look at this tax cut which amounts to about $150,000, these little guys, they don't get to go to head start. it's a low-income program for kids to make sure they have a chance in getting a quality education and don't fall behind in school. and so this is a great program. has great results. these head start kids, 20 of them going to head start versus what a millionaire's tax cut would be, which is $150,000. this is the choice we're making. mr. speaker, we should not act like we are making choices, we are making choices.

my friends on the republican side of the aisle are saying, we shouldn't pick winners and losers. we are always doing it. they just pick the rich people. and i pick the kids in head start. also, mr. speaker, if you want to get a sense of what the republican budget, what it does, what the tax cuts that it's calling for means, 150 college students will have their pell grants cut to pay for one millionaire's tax cut. $150,000, but 150 times 1,000, all these college kids trying to make something of themselves, their pell grant is going to get whacked by a thousand bucks. these are choices. do we want to make sure the country club set is doing even better or do we want to make sure that these aspiring

engineers, these aspiring doctors and teachers, these aspiring police officers, these aspiring workers of tomorrow will have a shot at an affordable college education? this is what we're talking about. these are the choices that we're making, mr. speaker. and i think it's very important that americans know it and critical that we know it. now, let's just not stop there. let's talk about other critical choices being made, mr. speaker, because i think it is so critical that as we're talking budget week and all the budget decisions that we're making that we make it real clear to the american people what it is we are choosing. republican budget, 216 pregnant women, infants and winter, women, infants and children program and it provides food for poor women and their kids to pay for one millionaire's tax cut.

$150,000 tax cut for a millionaire, again, this is the country club set equals about 216 pregnant women and the amount of money that americans give them so they can have good nutrition for their kids. these are poor women, these are women who are struggling economically, but because they are struggling economically, we don't want their kids to go without food. the w.i.c. program is going to get slashed because a millionaire needs his tax cut. those are the choices we are making. i want to talk about that choice. but i want to give one more example, 25 seniors play zhrrs 6,000 or more to pay for a millionaire's tax cut. if you are a millionaire, you are already doing good but they want you to do better and that will mean that you got about 25

seniors who have to pay $6,000 a piece more for their medicare. so mom, dad, if you're my age, you have parents who are seniors. but if you have parents or grandparents trying to make it, they are not going to need extra help because we have to make sure that millionaire gets his $150,000 tax cut. these are the choices that we're making. now, my friends in the republican caucus, god bless them, it's not like they don't like poor people. many of them are charitable and give in their different walks of life but don't think government should do it. this is what they say. they think that government needs to get out of that and let churches, mosques, synagogues and other folks do it.

of course that would mean it wouldn't get done. even though they do great work, they can never possibly come up to meet the needs that's out there. but what they are believing, they believe in something called trickle down economics. they believe that if you give this millionaire $150,000 more dollars than he already has, he will maybe hopefully perhaps invest in plant and equipment and maybe somebody will get a job because of it. or maybe not. or maybe not. but or maybe he will invest in china, and will improve jobs but just not in america. nobody knows what he'll do with this tax cut, but this is what the republicans believe. they think if you give rich people more money, they will

invest in plant and equipment and create more economic activity and it will trickle down to the rest of us. the only problem is that it has never worked. it doesn't stop them from saying it, but it has never worked. in fact the g.o.p. budget will destroy more than 4 million american jobs in the next two years according to the economic policy institute. quote, the shock to aggregate gland to near-term spending cuts would result -- excuse me, would result in 1.3 million jobs lost in 2013 and almost 3 million jobs through 2014 or 4.1 million jobs through 2014. a little bit more than four million jobs over the next two years. people might think, well, keith, thart? it's right and i kell -- is that

right? it's right and i will tell you why it's right and when republicans say we need to cut government waste, cut government, cut government, they act as if there is some just big government thing over there, like it is a big piece of styrofoam and can cut it and it doesn't change anything. they are talking about cutting our federal workers. they are talking about laying off federal workers. and they are very derisive about government jobs. they think people who work for the federal government don't do anything at all and that's not true. it says, i earn less than $45,000 and explain to me g.o.p. how cutting my pay creates jobs. and this particular person is named paul and he is an army

depot worker. i need army depot worker. teresa is a nurse and 12% of my salary goes to my retirement. explain to me g.o.p. how cutting my retirement puts people to work. one of the things they do in the ryan budget is cut into federal workers' retirement, and so they act like, the government. the government is people, the government is nurses and army depot workers and what about federal prisons that keep dangerous criminals behind bars. i pay more than 9,000 a year for my family's health insurance and explain to me how cutting my take-home pay lowers unemployment. .

this is a correction officer. thank god for correction officers. the bottom line is, when republicans say, oh, we're going to shrink the size of government, what they mean is they're going to lay off and cut the pay and cut the employment benefits of federal workers. people who work in prisons and at risk to them sefts, nurses who care for -- themselves, nurses who care for our veterans and people who are army depot workers and people who work in our parks and people who fix our roads and a whole lot of other people. here's a chart for you, mr. speaker. if you look at the federal -- if you look at the ryan budget, if you look at the g.o.p. proposal, if you look at it and they can do what they wanted to do, it could cause a loss of up to seven million jobs by 2016. because it would cut federal workers and then they wouldn't be able to have the money to spend in the neighborhoods they live in anymore.

that would have a ripple effect in their neighborhood because they're buying less. for example, if that young nurse at the v.a. in minnesota, if she doesn't have the same pay as she had before, then she can't buy as much as she bought before, then the company she shops at doesn't sell her as much as they had before, you do that enough, multiply it times enough people, then that company needs to start laying off people. it's a ripple effect what the republicans are asking for but if you look at what they wanted, and i'm talking about going all the way back to h.r. 1, which is their proposal, you would see repealing health care reform, that would cut about two million , the g.o.p. budget, that would cut about three million, cuts to federal work -- work force, that would cut about 285,000. the so-called jobs act, that would cut a lot. the fair tax, that would cut. and it would just cut on down the line. what they're basically proposing is by shrinking government and by doing all that stuff, they're getting rid of people. i just want to be on the record

because your word dozen get twisted. if there is a federal program that is not justifiable, so poorly run that it's of no value to anyone, i'm ok with cutting it. i just want to say that on the record, on the house floor, mr. speaker. i'm all right with cutting programs that don't work. but when you're talking about v.a. nurses and when you talk about corrections workers in federal prisons, we need these people. they do good stuff. and i believe that we should stand by them as they stand by us. the g.o.p. budget, now going back to the budget we addressed today, will shift costs to seniors, end medicare guarantee, according to the aarp, and what's aarp? that's the leading organization representing retired persons. and the c.b.o., what's the c.b.o.? that's the congressional budget office. and for folks who like to watch c-span, i just say, mr. speaker, that you need to know what c.b.o. is because it's very important. congressional budget office. they're the nonpartisan group that says what's really going on with the numbers.

at the same time, it is raising seniors' costs, this g.o.p. budget gives those making more than $1 million a year an average tax cut of about $394,000. so i put $150,000 up there a minute ago. the actual number is $394,000 for the average millionaire per year, the average tax cut. and also, also the tax breaks for big oil companies, you know, they get about a $-- get about $4 billion a year, if you look at exxonmobil and all the big oil companies, they get about $4 billion a year. how much did you pay for gasoline? i'm not saying that they're not good people, i'm not saying that they don't run a good business and supply an important product. i'm just asking you this, does exxonmobil really need your money? through a tax subsidy? do they? i think that they don't need

your money. i think that they are -- their $4 a gal been -- gallon is taking care of them just fine. i think it's outrageous that the republican budget that we dealt with does not eliminate that tax break. in short, the big oil companies who are gouging americans at the pump and the wealthiest americans win while middle class and working class families get the short end of the stick. last year oil profits, this is an exact number or close to it, last year oil, big oil profits totaled about $137 billion. but you don't need to remember $137 billion. all you need to remember is big oil profits were the biggest ever that the oil industry ever had. and yet we're forking it over to them through our tax money. not through the pump. some people might think, of course we're paying them through the pump, they give us gas, we got to get to work so we need to buy the gas. i'm not talking about that. i'm saying they get -- they can apply for grants and subsidies

and it all adds up to about $4 billion a year. with soaring gasoline prices, big oil's 2012 profits will even be bigger. you got republican -- yet republicans want to give big oil more money and our tax dollars and it just doesn't make any sense. now of course you shouldn't expect the big oil companies like exxonmobil to say, we don't want the money. of course they want the money. who doesn't want money? everybody does. including them. but the people who have a public responsibility to look out for the american people should be willing to say no to public subsidies for the exxonmobils of this world. and again, if you work for exxonmobil, i'm not running you down. i'm just saying that you're doing well enough and you don't need the help of the american people. you can do fine on your own. now, those kids on head start need help. they need help. those college kids need help. but not exxonmobil executives.

the major consequence for medicare and medicaid, the ryan budget, the republican budget, it has big consequences for medicaid and medicare. many seniors will be forced to pay sharply higher premiums to stay in traditional medicare and keep their current choice of doctors. new medicare beneficiaries would pay more than $1,200 more than -- by 2030 and more than $6,000 by 2050. before more seniors would gradually shift to private health insurance plans over time, increasing privatization of medicare. more than 47 million americans would lose health care insurance over 10 years because they would get rid of obamacare. now, my friends on the republican aisle, when they say obamacare, they don't mean it in a nice way. it's an insult. but you know what? obama does care. so i don't mind them saying obamacare. i hope they keep saying it. because they're just reminding americans that obama cares about

them and that the people the republicans want to look out for apparently do not. states under the republican plan would be forced to slash medicaid eligibility benefits and payments to health care providers, their budget shreds medicaid safety net and shifts health care costs to states and beneficiaries, blocking medicaid. this shifts all risk, including future recessions, health care cost increases and disasters to states and beneficiaries. so, here's the thing. this ryan budget, this republican-ryan budget, it helps and takes care of the rich, it ignores everyone else. and it hurts the middle class. the republican budget would weaken the middle class in important ways. first and foremost, it -- their plan ends the medicare guarantee of decent health insurance in retirement. it also slashes critical middle class investments such as

education and infrastructure by 45% and 24% respectively. education by 45%, infrastructure by 24%. now, look, the american society of civil engineers, mr. speaker, have told us that we have crumbling infrastructure in this country to the tune of about $2.2 trillion to $3 trillion. a lot of money. and if you are living in any city across this country, you can drive over a 75-year-old bridge, you can drive over potholes, our sewage system need upgrades. i am from minneapolis, minnesota, a city i love so much. but back a few years ago when he a bridge fall into the mississippi river -- we had a bridge fall into the mississippi river because the plates that hold up the bridge gave way because the adequate maintenance just wasn't maintained over time. now, it happened to us but it can happen anywhere. there are many structurally deficient bridges across this

nation, literally thousands. we can put people back to work if we put the money into taking care of them and not only would we have people working, we'd have safe bridges to go over. but the republican majority, to use their phrase, kicks the can down the road and doesn't deal with this looming infrastructure crisis. so, let me just say this. i talked a little bit about the so-called ryan-republican budget itch don't want to spend all my time talking about it but i do think it's important for americans to know that this is a budget for the 1%. this is a budget for people who have got it well, who are doing fine. now let me just tell you, i swear i am a big fan of well to do people. i have many -- i wish i were one of them. but my point is that you don't need to help people who already have a lot of help on their only. but you do need to help school kids, head start kids, pregnant moms, pregnant low income moms,

seniors. these people we should help. people who are doing fine, they don't need our help. they should do the helping in my opinion and yet the ryan budget says, we're just going to help the country club set. and i think that's not any way to have a budget. i'm going to talk about the progressive caucus budget. but i just want you to know first that the ryan-republican budget is no good budget for america. in fact, it's premised on the theory that rich people don't have enough money and poor people have too much. really? that's the fundamental -- that's the animating, organizing feature of their budget. that if we gave rich people more money, then they might invest it in playing equipment and then it will trickle down to the rest of us and poor people have too much stuff, we can't afford head start, can't afford w.i.c., can't afford home hee heating

oil for seen -- home heating oil for seniors. poor folks, they're getting treated too well. and that's the the theory of the republican budget. so that's fine. and i respect them for being real honest about what they believe in. because a budget is a reflection of our values. so not only have we talked about what they're talking about, let's talk about a real budget, not for the 1%, but a budget for all. the progressive caucus budget has a name. the name of the progressive caucus budget is the budget for all. that's the name of the progressive caucus budget. because unlike the republican budget, which is the budget for the 1%, this is a budget for all. and let me tell what you it does, mr. speaker. it creates 3.3 million jobs in the first two years. it cuts the deficit by nearly $7

trillion, $6.8 trillion. no benefit cuts to medicare, medicaid and social security. the budget for all makes the american dream a reality again for the vast majority of americans. by putting americans back to work, the budget for all enhances our economic competitiveness, by rebuilding the middle class and investing in innovation and education, our budget protects medicare and medicaid, social security, invests in america's future and asks those who have benefited the most from our economy to pay their fair share. now, as i said, you can't have a budget, you could have a budget that cuts taxes for rich people if you then cut services for poor people. and you can have a budget that pays for infrastructure and education but the money has to come from somewhere. we ask people who already have lots of it to do more for their fellow americans.

we're not hiding that fact. yes, we would raise taxes on the wealthiest americans. not because -- not to punish them, because we don't think taxes are a punishment. but because it's necessary to meet the needs of the nation in any self-respecting patriot woosh and any self-respecting patriot would do so if they -- and in fact any self-respecting patriot would do so if they could. patriotic millionaires understand that they may need to pay higher taxes but if you already are making $1 million a year, would you pay a little extra to make sure that low income pregnant women got some food for their kids? if you already are making $1 million or more a year, would you pay a little extra to make sure that little kids got head start to go to? if you're already making $1 million a year, mr. speaker, would you pay a little extra to just make sure that the federal workers don't have their

pensions cut to pay for your tax cut? that's just my thinking. and i don't want anybody to think the republicans are mean. they do charitable work in their individual lives. and that's a fact and i think people ought to know that. but they don't think government has any role in helping people. i disadepree with that. . i call america to look at the choices that they offer. the budget4all, not a budget for the 1% or a budget for 99%. we want the 1% to live in a good nation, fairness, economic opportunity, economic opportunity, good roads, clean water, clean air, we want this for everyone. the budget four all, more than

$2.4 trillion in job creating investment. this utilizes everything to get our improvement again, a park improvement corps, student job corps and others, target tax incentives that spur clean energy, technological investment in the private sector, widespread domestic investment including infrastructure bank, $566 billion surface transportation bill, unlike what they tried to pass today, which is a three-month extension. mr. speaker, can you believe it, the republican caucus is going on and on with uncertainty and what did they do? created uncertainty by passing a three-month transportation bill. it boggles the mind, actually. and back to the budget for all,

$1.7 trillion in the widespread budget. it does so in a way that does not devastate what americans value. we achieve these notable benchmarks by focusing on the true drivers of our deficit, unsustainable tax policy, wars overseas and policies that caused recent recession rather than putting the middle class and social safety net on the chopping block. the budget creates a fairer america, ends tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of americans on schedule at the year's end, extend tax relief for middle-class households, and eliminates tax code prenchshal treatment, abolishes corporate welfare for oil companies and eliminates loopholes, creates

publicly funded election system that gets corporate money out of politics for good. responsibly and expeditiously ends our presence in iraq and afghanistan leaving america more secure at home and abroad and adapts the military to address 21st century threats through modernization and the department of defense will spend less and keep contributing to the deficit but keep america strong. provides making work pay tax credit for families struggling with high food and gas costs, extends earned income tax credit and child dependent care credit, invests in programs to stave off further foreclosure and invests in children's education by increasing education, training and social services. the budget for all is a budget for all. i know that sounds repetitive, but it's important to note that

the name of our budget reflects the reality of our budget and the reality of our budget is that we want to see rich, poor and everybody in the middle do well in america and that means a budget for all. so, as i begin to wind down, mr. speaker, i just want to say that it is an honor to come before you to talk about the budget for all, but it's an honor to talk about the ryan republican budget, because the ryan republican budget offers a very different vision of america than the budget for all. the ryan vision says that you know what? if we could give rich people more money, they might create plant and equipment that will hire the rest of us and we say no, we are in this together and ask the wealthiest to pay more to invest in health, education, transportation and in infrastructure so we can have a stronger and better, greater

america. two visions of a nation, one says austerity for the working and middle class and work and one says investment. one says you are out of luck, you're on your own, one says we are in all of this together. ladies and gentlemen, i want to thank you, mr. speaker, for allowing me to be here and offer these contrasts, these choices for americans as we close out what i call out budget week. thank you very much. i yield back. mr. ellison: mr. speaker, i move to adjourn.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. ellison: mr. speaker, i move to adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands adjourned until 11:00 a.m. tomorrow.

>> the president is expected to sign the bill. house and senate negotiators are working on a longer solution. the house is now out for a two week break. >> challo c-span's local content via post as american history tv explore the history and culture of little rock, arkansas -- follow c-span's local content vehicle as american history t the explores the history and culture of little rock, arkansas.

-- tv explores the history and culture of little rock, arkansas. >> white men poured into the county to begin shooting down blacks. >> on american history television on c-span 3, bruce lindsey on integration and in north little rock high school. >> they do not realize what is going to happen. the crowd is with us now. the momentum is behind us and they are pushing us up the steps. >> these stories and others this weekend on c-span 3 and 2. >> starting sunday, see the

winners in this year's c-span video documentary contest as students show which part of the constitution is important to them and why. we will air the top of videos each morning and you will meet the students. for a preview of the winning videos, check c-span.org. >> house republicans passed a budget plan offered by committee chairman paul ryan. republicans -- democrats voted against the bill. >> thank you for joining us. we are coming off of the floor. what a difference three years of having democrats control. you saw a difference on the

floor. they had the opportunity to voted for a different direction. 414 people said no to that direction. a new path. i talked about the similarities of where we sit. it is much like 1980 period in 1980, we had a clear that japan would surpass us in our economy. in 1980, americans were being held hostage in iran. today, they are holding the world hostage. in 1980, we had an energy crisis. the price of gasoline is at an all-time high. every generation has improved from the generation before it. americans believed the best days were behind them. in 1980, we had a president who said the best days were behind

us. we all know what happened. we had a renewal to america. we reform our tax code and unshackled the regulations. we had a choice to make again. we have a choice to make today. unemployment above 8% when the president said passing a stimulus we would never go there. the budget talks about the possibility for a new tax reform. we were able to pass it one more time. it would be lovely to sit here and debate the difference between us and the senate. there is no senate budget. we continue to move forward. >> last week, secretary geithner came to capitol hill to warn us of the threat of the european debt crisis to the american economy. the greater threat to the

american economy is the american debt crisis. debt is the seminal issue of our time. we have reached a crossroads in half. -- path. $11 trillion in debt from a man who promised us he would cut the deficit in half. a man who takes an unsustainable spending trajectory and makes it even more unsustainable. the drivers of iowa debt crisis refuses -- the drivers of our debt crisis refuses to deal with them. the single largest debt -- tax increase in american history, most of it falling on working families and small businesses. that is the path to national bankruptcy. perhaps that is why his budget

receives zero votes on the floor of the united states house of representatives. we offered a different path, one that changes the spending trajectory of our nation. $5 trillion less than the president. issuers that our government -- it ensures that our government does not grow past 20% of its gdp so that the government does not grow beyond the ability to pay for it. one that preserves and strengthen our health-care program for future seniors and builds with the problem. that is the path for opportunity and the path for prosperity. that is the path the republicans just passed. i am proud to turn the podium

over to the author of that budget, chairman paul ryan. >> i will be candid. like anybody else who looks at our fiscal and economic situation knows that a debt crisis is in our future. we have to do something about that. that is what we are elected to do. we are passing a budget to fix this country's problems. the president gave us a budget that ignored our country's fiscal problems. the senate did not bother to try. what we have done again is to show americans explicitly how we plan to save this country from a future of debt, doubt, and decline, how we are going to clean up our economic policy and get back to work, how we will preach -- repair our sake jeanette and how we will keep our -- repairer our safety net

and how we will keep our promises -- repair our safety net and keep our promises. people sent us here to make choices. we have made a choice and we have shown how we will fix this problem. now we are giving the country the choice. we are letting americans choose what future they want for their kids and their grandkids and for their economy. we are honoring the people of this country with the ability to make the choice of what kind of country they want to have. they have two crystal clear paths from which to choose. >> i represent the sixth district of georgia. the chairman and joint chiefs of staff said when asked what the greatest threat to america was, they did not say anything about military superiority or national security from a military standpoint.

they said the that -- the debt was the greatest threat to our nation. the men and women behind me and americans across this country understand that. the problem is that the other side of the aisle does not. they continue to put forward a budget that increases the debt. the voted on it today. as a physician, what they do to health care is reckless. they pulled $500 billion out of medicare and put in place a board of bureaucrats to decrease the accessibility of health care for american seniors. that is why i am is so proud of the alternative we put forward, the better solution. what that means is a guarantee program for seniors, a program that is voluntary for them to select the program that is best for them and their families. we do nothing at all for those in and near retirement.

the program is guaranteed for the next generation and the generation after that. ours is a choice that allows individuals to be in charge. theirs is a choice that allows the government to be in charge. we believe the american people is on our side. it also pleased to introduce chairman of the -- the chairwoman of the budget committee. >> i would like to thank all of the members of the committee to have worked so hard. i am proud to say that i am part of this document, the path to prosperity. as a mother and grandmother and a nurse, i believe this document has things in here that are going to benefit my grandchildren and the seniors and all of the members of my district. most especially for my children and my grandchildren. i came to congress to change the course, the way we were driving

this country awful the cliff with debt. this gets to the point where we can say, these are tough issues, but there are bold decisions that have to be made to save our country for future generations. as a nurse, i am proud to say to my seniors that i have provided health care for and been beside them, we in this document are going to preserve and protect medicare for the future. we are going to give a choice to those who are going to come in the future. we will protect them so everyone will have that opportunity. bill slate proud to be here today with all the members of this committee -- i am proud to be here today with all of the members of this committee. i hope we can discuss it so people can voice their opinion on the choice of the two futures. the next will be my colleague. >> thank you. it is good to be here.

it is a good day for the country. i am excited about the message we sent to americans across the country today about the seriousness we have taken in washington about the debt and the fiscal disaster we have currently space here in washington. i want to thank chairman ryan and our leadership for them and their ability to lead courageously. he took on heart difficult issues head on and decided -- he took on hard and difficult issues head on. that is what we as republicans have done. we have laid out the challenges we have in the past when we are on with debt and the pathway with social security and medicare and government spending. we are serious about taking on each and every one of those challenges.

the american people will be grateful that we have this dialogue and will respond in the election and look for those who are willing to stand up and lead and take on difficult challenges before it -- before us. the recession is still hurting me people back home in indiana. they are looking for leadership here in washington. i think our leadership and congressman ryan. i call on the u.s. senate to take up this particular budget to debate it and discuss it and have the dialogue so that americans can be part of the discussion in fixing the future of america. i will turn to congressman little. >> thank you. i am having a tough time taking the smile off my face. these are so boring topics we are talking about.

18 months ago, i knew about the debt. i knew about the doubt and the decline. what i did not know is whether or not folks would have the guts to do anything about it. the answer to that question turns out to be yes. folks did not back away from it. folks endorsed it and ran on it and talked about it. they came back this year, an election year, an election year that will be the most important election of my lifetime. they did not back away from it. for the first time in all the time i have been watching this body, we will have a reconciliation process come out of this body. the first serious one since 1997 because this budget committee and the leadership of chairman ryan said it is not enough to talk about it. it is not enough to share it

with the american people. you have to begin the steps of implementing it. that is what the reconciliation process will start this spring. fox said do not rock the boat. we have sent -- oakes said do not rock the boat. -- folks said, do not rock the boat. but we set the boat addressed. -- adrift. >> thank you for joining us today. today's passage proves the house is serious when we talk about restoring american promise, prosperity, and security for future generations. that is diametrically opposed to the path of debt, doubt, and declined the president has put us on. for the past three years, president obama has laid out budgets that have trillions of dollars of debt and increase

spending. not one democrat and not one republican voted for the president's pathway. we do not want that pat to debt, doubt, and decline. our approach is -- that had -- path to debt, doubt and decline. our approach is balance. it has mola -- more americans working. it puts out the spending on a more sustainable path. it balances our budget and set us on a path to pay off our debt. let's talk about energy. the price of gasoline has doubled since the president took office. this budget includes the framework to be able to implement a better energy approach so we can get off on stable middle eastern oil. let's talk about security.

primaryrnment's responsibility is to provide for the common defense of its citizens. our budget fixes the president's proposals to gut our military. it restores spending to levels that are appropriate for today's challenges. with the past to prosperity budget, we avoid letting this generation be the generation that leaves america worse off than how we got it. it put us on a path to prosperity. >> it is good to be from wisconsin to share this stage with chairman ryan.

it is not about numbers at all except in the way numbers affect us. every penny spent is a statement about our value. it talks to our children and those yet to be born. we try to watch out for each other. it tells us as the adults in the room at the choice between more debt and spending today or a brighter tomorrow is indeed a false choice.

americans intrinsically understand that we cannot spend our way to prosperity, nor can we borrow our way there. every bill and every invoice will and must be eventually paid. i came to congress a little over 14 months ago. i was sent to do what we started in the budget committee last year and again today. the path to prosperity is aptly named. it is a passport from fiscal dysfunction to fiscal health. it will -- path from fiscal dysfunction to fiscal health. it will protect my grandchildren. isn't that what we want them all for our children to inherit and america as great as the one we received from our parent, what as exceptional as the greatest generation gave to us. that is what i want for my family. this budget sets us straight

toward that goal and i am proud to be part of it. >> but this lay out a choice. both sides are predicating an idea that congress and the presidency will go to one party in november. if there is still divided government in november -- >> the president has been in control. he has had four budgets and he is choosing not to do anything about it. he has not given us a budget that proposed fixing these problems.

he created a commission and this about their findings. this kind of divided government does not work. we need a different one. that is what we are proposing. i was familiar with what led up to the contract with america budget. discretionary spending was more the focus of those budgets. this is a different time. let me claim kasich just as much as jim did. there is an evolving bipartisan consensus on how to do tax reform. it is evolving from the 90s on. it is evolving from the 90s on.