house republicans previously led the charge in cutting $8 billion in nutritional assistance for hungry americans. apparently that cut was not harsh enough. this would turn snap into a block grant and cut an additional 125 ilion dollars from this important safety net program. there are 50 million americans who are food insecure and more than 15 million of them are children. these americans will be devastated. that's not rhetoric. that's reality. the proposed budget would cut higher education funding at 191 billion dollars putting college out of reach for millions of students. these cuts are competent by dramatically reducing pell grants and making undergraduate students with financial needs pay interest on their loans while still in school. we are robbing our students of a fair shot at the american dream before they even get on the playing field of life. that's not rhetoric.

that's reality. the republican plan turns medicare into a voucher program that would end medicare as we know it. . .

[inaudible] i think it is important for us to go back and talk to 30 seconds about what happened when we were here. we had a balanced economic plan in the clinton administration. we have all of these problems, catastrophes on the way, budgets are going out of balance, we have to fix them immediately. not one member from the majority party has the courage to ask the wealthiest in the country for any contribution at all. we have this huge catastrophe.

no one has the guts to ask them to pay a little bit more. the people making hundreds of millions of dollars a year. that does not make any sense we could take some of that money and soft in some of the blows -- soften some of the blows. we are going to roll back health care. we will ask college students to pay for their loans while they are in school? what if we ask these wealthy for a little bit more money. raising rates for average

families cap a driving people to the suburbs so we can build more roads and more sidewalks and more public investments. does that make any sense. -- does not make any sense. we have the opportunity to create jobs, but it is a balanced approach. investments in research, andfacturing, three-dimensional printing. we talk about natural gas exploration. we clearly have a different approach. i want to yield to my good friend 2.5 minutes. >> i appreciate the courtesy and permitting me to speak. weeard him talk about how did not want to dock these issues. i heard my friend being

concerned because the president budget.have cpi in his it seems to me this budget from my republican friends is sidestepping it. not only do they not have cpi in their budget, there is nothing about social security. we could come together and do something, but it does not raise any revenue. it takes away the mechanisms that could promote some adjustment and it gives senior citizens obama care with a public option. it kicks chairman camp in the teeth. there are three of us on the committee that works on ways and means, watching the effort to have tax reform.

it was a valiant effort, revenue neutral, it gave what the republicans said they wanted and it did not come close. we are not embracing tax reform. it punishes states to nursing home services that are paid directly to elderly and disabled who will get pounded at the end of the cycle. it ignores the infrastructure deficit where a bipartisan group of governors, were 31 state executives of statewide chambers of commerce provide resources for infrastructure investment.

in for a 30%us reduction. i am hopeful we might be able to make a little progress narrowing this opportunity. we know what it takes to grow our economy. the way to grow our economy is to make sure that people who go to work every day earn a living wage that allows them to not have to live below the poverty line.

is ane would propose economy that is based on the principle that if you work 40 hours a week, you ought not live in poverty. it dwarfs what we are willing to invest as a percentage of our economy on the essential infrastructure investment that will grow our economy and help grow the jobs that will ultimately not only balance the budget by delivering a more sustainable economy, but make the american people more prosperous and enjoy that prosperity.

we would not be doing what this budget would do and that is cut spending to support affordable college education. we want to grow the economy and reduce the deficit. make sure every young person in this country to aspires to do better, to aspires to be the best they can be, and attended college or university and get the kind of training that will grow the skills to allow them to contribute to the economy.

>> to lead a discussion about different approaches to making sure we keep our commitments to seniors and others. i am going to talk to the people who watch this on television because no one in this room is listening. half of decided which side they will be on. this ryan budget is an acceleration to build an america that only benefits the privileged few. today in new york, men are or threewo minimum-wage jobs. the budget fails to offer wage increase. the ryan budget is called the

path to prosperity. what it means is greater prosperity for the already prosperous. in my district of seattle, the housing authority ran a lottery. applied.igible people the ryan budget does not fund the department of housing and urban development. they offer up a healthy dose of disgraceful tea party propaganda about the free market system. corporate welfare and how building housing for the poor is a distortion of capital. the clock is ticking on opportunity in america. mr. ryan has written this year's budget to back up his fraudulent rhetoric. how are nations must vote herbal citizens are at fault for their own -- how our nation's vulnerable citizens are out fault.

it is your fault the government has no responsibility to deal with it. being sowed what is by these extremist republicans. we will all pay the price in the final accounting, mr. ryan ignores the fundamental truth about america. investing in the american people, that has what has made this country great. budget, nois 2015 longer thrives on opportunity for all. hoffman 2.5r. minutes. .> i thank the gentleman i appreciate the opportunity to comment on a budget that is catnip for the koch brothers. nowhere is that more apparent in the area of health care. we have heard all of the

arguments despite the gop's relentless pr machine an attempt to prevent health care reform from succeeding. we are expanding health-care coverage, protecting consumers and controlling costs to the affordable care act. the numbers are impressive. 7.1 million people have signed up for coverage. more than 3.1 million young adults able to continue on their parents plan. coverage to 2 million workers. health plans must include essential benefits like prescription drugs, maternity, mental health, and pediatric services. the united states is experiencing an historic slowdown in the growth of health care cost. the affordable care act is good for our budget. of $147 billion by

2020. we are making lots of progress. the number one driver of our projected that in the future, health-care costs, for the first time coming under control. the number one cause of bankruptcy, people getting sick without health coverage, is being addressed. this budget frames a very important choice for the people of america. do we build on this progress? do we improve on these reforms? or do we turn the clock back to the broken system and the broken finances that president obama inherited in 2009. >> [inaudible] >> thank you, mr. chairman. more than 49 million senior citizens and persons with

disabilities rely on medicare to guarantee their health security, including people like my mother. medicare has long been a leader in developing innovative ways to contain health-care costs while protecting access to high-quality care. we have not focused nearly enough on disease management, chronic disease prevention, and prescription drug management. all components in the current medicare system. under the ryan budget, they would seek -- they would cease to exist. it eliminates guarantees health care for seniors and people with disability. it increases seniors cost by 11%. seniors who want to choose additional medicare would see their premiums rise by as much as 56%. the average medicare recipient has a median income of $23,500.

how will they be able to afford these increases? it keeps 140 billion and sequester cuts to providers instead of building the health care infrastructure. in infrastructure, we can see up to a 30% increase in health care economy. the republican budget increases cost for seniors and persons with disabilities by establishing a voucher plan. weakens traditional medicare and causes it to wither away by diverting the healthiest enrollees into private plans and undermining traditional net acres ability to control costs medicare'snal ability to control costs. this is a bad deal for seniors. especially for seniors like my mother, who lives with me.

it is a bad deal for seniors and a bad deal for caregivers and it is a bad deal for families. it is a bad deal for america. >> i want to take my remaining time and say that the real irony of this budget, after all we have had in the last four years of attacks on obamacare, is buried in this budget, we are now saying to senior citizens, we are going to put you into obamacare. we will give you assistance to go out into the private sector and buyer on health care policy. good luck, folks, if you are over 65, because you will have to go through what everybody else has been going through, dealing with insurance companies . you have pre-existing conditions. to sayll not be able anything about your pre-existing

conditions, but that is what is buried. the very plan that has been attacked right, and center beher right, it is going to the plight of the senior citizens in this country. praise god the budget will not pass. >> [inaudible] >> i will yield four minutes to the gentleman from texas.

>> the country we be off cruise control and we would have no , thatovernment shut down there could be some certainty to the way that we budget. i think it was an accomplishment. it appears from this budget proposal that that was just a pause in the partisan warfare. on the of continuing

bipartisan approach, we are back, it it is as if we never left the committee because i have seen this will be before. i was here for your diehard budget. i was here for your diehard 2 budget. i missed a good day to diehard budget you had last year. now i am back for the diehard with a vengeance budget. this one has not improved, though there are many aspects of it that are quite similar to what we have considered year after year. i think the result will be pretty much the same. as a campaign document to rally the typical republican primary voter, i think this represents ideology. as an agenda for operating the government, it it bears no

similarity to the december bipartisan agreement and it would really be an economic disaster that smacks of inequity. it is, in fact, a pathway not to prosperity, but two more debt and to a steady decline in american economic leadership. as american economy will lag it fails to invest in the developing a highly skilled workforce. we have a significant shortage in our stem workforce. labor relying on imported to fill some of those critical positions. we have the basic research in

medical research and other types of research, it does not make the investment in ensuring a healthy workforce. investment make the to assure that we have the kind of transportation infrastructure that our competitors around the world are building. we feel there needs to be more balance in the approach and that in looking at balance, it is not just a matter of looking at the balance in dollar terms, but it is looking at the balance in terms of opportunity, in terms of the opportunity for a young person to achieve, in terms of the opportunity for our seniors to retire without all of the risk of retirement being shifted to them. amendmentsoffering today to minimize the harm and a more complete balanced budget proposal next week as an alternative to what you are advancing. >> thank you.

conclusion, -- and conclusion, let me end where we started. these budget decisions are about choices we make. one choice is to try to empower so more people can participate in a growing economy. long-termy reduce our deficits in a balanced way. participate.ody to unfortunately, once again, this republican budget does not ask for any kind of shared sacrifice. it does not ask for one dime for closing special interest tax loopholes. when you take that off the table, it means you have to hit everybody else harder. esther chairman, we keep hearing this word reform, -- mr. chairman, we keep hearing this word reform.

when it comes to medicaid, you cut it. we would welcome the idea of some plan that reformed some of these programs. the assumption you make is reform always means you are spending less resources on an issue. maybe we can make these things more efficient. we would love to do it. every time you say reform, you do not show a better way to do it. you just show a way to cut resources. your kids are getting the kind of classroom education they need. .ewer teachers in the classroom when you cut pell grants, it means colleges less affordable. is hard toe -- it square those deep cuts to education with this notion that you want to help more people expand opportunity.

proposal calls for a growing economy, partly by borrowing from the things that worked in the past in terms of investments, and at the same time, making sure brief reduce our long-term -- making sure we reduce our long-term deficits in a way that calls for shared responsibility. towant everybody out there nooks of most of their individual talents. we want entrepreneurs, we want to make sure we reward success. there are some things we can do better as americans together. you mentioned defense spending, that is a common public investment. it is important to make investments in education for the common good. cut. are investments you

that is a reflection of what people consider to be important and not important. that is why this debate is important. we will learn a little bit more about her budget. we will have some amendments that will reflect choices. >> time has expired on opening presentations. the staff is available to answer questions that members may have. i would urge members to please keep your questions to factual and technical questions. the staff is not here for debate. we will have plenty of time to debate. are there members who have questions for the walk-through? >> i want to encourage my -- did you have a question out-of-the-box?

>> i had a question about food stamps. the cuts in the food stamp program. is there an assumption in the these cuts -- i am sorry, i will pass until i find -- >> some members are new. these guys are new. smythe.le is austin on the right is the policy director. >> i have gathered my thoughts. i would like to know what policy .hanges are assumed grante assuming a block

and what other changes to the snap program and the savings over 10 years? wethe budget assumes that move to an allotment and give states greater flexibility on food stamps. we would start that in 2019. the total savings is $125 billion. we have two other reforms in addition to moving to an allotment. one is -- three reforms. eliminating categoric eligibility. the other is to eliminate a -- the third is to provide for those able-bodied adults to require work requirements for able-bodied .dults

>> what savings are assumed by the work requirement? >> i do not have a breakdown. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have a question about the republican budget cuts to the pell grants. the chronicle of higher education reported that the institute for college access and success has reviewed the republican budget and according to its analysis says the budget would force students to borrow even more, drop out, or forgo college altogether. when you look at the budget, it

appears to say that republicans are cutting mandatory pell and other hiring funding to the tune of $150 billion. what is your analysis say on how i think it is important to look at the pell grant program. the president himself has indicated in the state of the union we will run out of money if we don't find a way of reforming our programs on education. >> and that was true during the great recession. but was in the bipartisan agreement increased mandatory spending. this proposal is different from back, isn't it? >> yes ma'am, the proposal -- >> let me go back, because you say you don't know how many will forgo college. do you know how many more will have to borrow money because of the republican budget cuts? grants for student

loans, on pell grants and student loans, we have two reforms. >> basically there was an expansion of the program a couple years back. we rolled that back to the pre-expansion criteria. saidthe fiscal commission to eliminate subsidies for undergraduates, so it also carries that. 1.i want to clarify about pell grants, what the budget carries is a reform program that eliminates the mandatory component, but adds back on the discretionary side of the budget. eliminate the mandatory, you say we will leave it up to the appropriate parties, but there is no guarantee with the mandatory -- but there is no guarantee. with the mandatory, at least in its and parents have some assurance the pell will be there for them. >> let the staff answer the question. funded it wasy discretionary. in recent years, congress added

a mandatory requirement. our assumption is we maintain the maximum award. we do not increase it. you freeze did for 10 years while the cost of college increases, with a republican does, am i correct? >> i think it is important to note there is not enough funding in the president's budget to fund the max award that he proposes. he has a shortfall, i believe in 2016 -- >> we are not talking about that, we are talking about the republican budget cuts. >> you have a problem in respect to pell. there is not enough money in the current law to fund health. >> we will offer some amendments on the democratic side to stand up for parents and students. right now, two thirds of college graduates in 2012 have an $29,000,ebt of over and the general consensus is we should be doing more to make college more affordable, not cutting pell grants. i yield back. >> can i just do a follow-up? >> mr. ryan. --i used to be up

to see that far, just a few years ago. mentioned in school subsidies. can you explain? you are current law, if borrowing from the federal government to a student loan, the government subsidizes the interest payment while you are still in school. basically that is withheld. the proposal from the fiscal commission would require the student pay the interest costs while they are in school as well. >> so whoever takes out the loan will have to pay the interest while in school? >> yeah, this is already the case on graduate student loans. the us was a policy adopted recently on the undergraduate student side i believe two years ago. >> i think it is a important point for mr. van hollen, for students to beep. while going to school, they will have to pick up the loan

payment. >> this was a reform on the undergraduate side, bipartisan basis, a couple years ago. >> thank you. >> i would like to ask a couple questions about this claim the republican budget is balanced. and at the same time, the claim repeals the affordable care act. this is not a statement that came from me. this was made by the heritage year'sion about last republican budget. this aspect has not changed. it's as perhaps the bigger shortcoming of the budget is a keeps the tax increases associated with obamacare. savingsalso keeps the from the medicare savings, the elimination of the overpayments to some of the managed care providers under the affordable care act. is, if wetion to you were to repeal the affordable cbo act today, what would

say with respect to the revenue baseline? would it go up or would it go down? a recent't have estimate from cbo on repealing the affordable care act. the last estimate was done in 2012. in 2012, we estimated if you were to repeal the affordable care act, revenue impact would be a trillion dollars over 10 years. thatat's right, and trillion dollars is reflected, that trillion dollars worth of revenue is in this republican budget, is it not? >> i don't think that's accurate. the budget assumes that the various tax increases in the affordable care act are repealed . what it does is it takes the current law all revenue it assumes the tax code is reformed in a revenue neutral fashion, no reduction in taxes or increase. we hold it at the current revenue line and assume that tax

reform is done in a revenue neutral way. ok, when the tea party finds out what kind of shell game is going on here, i mean the tea party out there in the country, air going to be shocked. they're going to be shocked. ok? because if you get rid of the trillion dollars in the , inrdable care act revenue order to be deficit neutral, the congress will have to raise a trillion dollars somewhere else, right, to be consistent with the budget? to be consistent with the budget? >> there is a trillion dollars per year in various tax expenditures, $10 trillion over 10 years. not supposed be argumentative, mr. chairman. i'm not going to be, but i'm asking about the revenue in the baseline from the affordable care act, not all the other revenue, talking about as a result of the passage of the affordable care act, there is more revenue coming into the u.s. government. is that correct? the cbou look back at cost estimate from 2012, that's

correct. >> in fact, it is in the range of a trillion dollars. now, if you say you are not going to get the revenue from the affordable care act, you have to come up with that trillion dollars somewhere else. correct? >> we just follow the current revenue line. the chairman's mark keeps revenues at the current revenue line. it proposes that tax reform lower rates. we have a reserve fund -- pardon me, we have a policy statement in the resolution that specifies what rs options are, what our goals are with respect to lowering rates, and that states it. itbut it is simple math, is not, that if you don't use the trillion dollars embedded in the baseline from the affordable care act, you have to come up with another trillion dollar, isn't that right? >> that assayed to challenge with tax reform that you deal with with all of the challenges. >> but you have to come up with the trillion dollars on the

american public that is going to substitute for the revenue of the affordable care act. correct? >> i don't think you can look at these individual slices. i think you have to look at the overall proposal. chairman, i, mr. think it is very clear that the baseline includes the revenue from the affordable care act. you have all assume that. chairman can't came up with a tax reform proposal and last year you all said in this committee, you know what, you are the tax reform process. we will make up that trillion dollars in the affordable care act revenue somewhere else. i think you know as well as i do it is not ensure men cap -- it is not in chairman camp's proposal. if you were to repeal it 50 times, your budget would not balanced, not even close, because it assumes all this. doesn't it include the medicare savings from the affordable care act? >> with respect to what we do on

medicare, there are three aspects to it. the affordable care act reduced toicare and use the savings fund exchange subsidies. the first thing we did was stop that from occurring. any saving stay in medicare to make medicare more solvent and deficit reduction. the second thing -- >> deficit reduction? >> we are going to mature does not go towards -- the other thing coming out to be careful because it is a series of proposals. we also have a couple of reserve funds to deal with the issues that arise. it's a series of proposals. willsume the congress devote the savings to deficit reduction if there is anything done with respect to the provider side. there are issues with medicare advantage. i think the actuaries have raised concern about providers being able to provide services at the level if reductions occur. we have a reserve fund in the budget resolution that provides for those issues to be addressed

in a deficit neutral fashion. >> right, but in order to do that you have come up with an equivalent amount of savings if you do it in a deficit neutral fashion. i think we can do the math. the reality is -- let me show you what happens to the budget when you actually take out those provisions. zero would be the balanced budget. you all claim to be $5 billion years fromced 10 now. that includes this gimmick of dynamic scoring, but that gimmick is dwarfed by the savings in revenues to the affordable care act. and we are seeing this on the floor today. you have a bill where you are waiving your rule, cutting the rule, getting rid of part of the affordable care act. it will increase the deficit today by $70 billion. so what you are doing on the floor today, it already violates your budget. look, let me go to the issue of -- >> but we have a reserve fund

for obama care repeal. it is not violate the budget. the shellis going for game. you get rid of the affordable care act, it is $2 billion out of your budget. the chairman talked about the sequester levels. agreement,ched an the bipartisan agreement, it was not just a question of what sequester levels were, it was a question of the distribution of funds between defense and nondefense. and just to make sure i got my facts straight on this, you take defense spending back up to what we would call pre-sequester levels, correct? >> it is actually phased in. in 2015, we adhere to the bipartisan budget agreement. in 2016, we start adding back to defense, reducing nondefense. by 2017, we are back to the pre-sequester levels for defense. would point out, mr. chairman, the president's budget also goes above pre-sequester

levels for defense. in fact it proposes additional defense spending the share over the fund. hollen, he has a proposal to go above post sequester levels. that.pologize for so above post sequester levels, not quite pre-sequester levels. i apologize. so the issue is what your budget does for the nondiscretionary defense. you actually take that category of spending below the sequester levels, is that right? have aassumption, we table in the chairman's remarks that shows the levels of discretionary spending. the assumptions are discretionary spending grows by one point seven percent, but that his totals fresheners spending. we have nondefense reductions to offset the defense increases. but defense, after coming down a couple years, which is all displayed in the budget summary tables come against to grow again in the out years, not dispense -- nondefense spending.

>> relative to the cbo baseline and sequester, you significantly cut nondefense discretionary below sequester levels. and the sequester caps out here, yes, sir. that is clearly shown in the summary tables in the chairman's marks. >> and by my calculations, you $791 billion over 10 years, below sequester levels for nondefense discretionary. i just want to go to way s .2tion on ms. moore' income security function, function 600, which includes come as you would a kid, through attrition programs, also other programs like tax credit and the like., we are just trying to understand the components of the cuts in that function. $521 billion.

now come as i understand, the block grant for the nutritional programs is $125 billion, and then you indicated some other changes. what is the total cut if you include the block grant over 10 years? >> it is about $135 billion. that includes the reforms on eligibility with respect to able-bodied adults without ts, moving category loopholes, and stay possibility. ok.ot it, by mike actually should you save 125 billion dollars by effectively cutting federal employee pay by requiring they put more into their retirement accounts without getting any additional retirement, is that right? >> we adopted the proposal to require them to contribute have to the pension. >> this was a heavily negotiated part of the bipartisan agreement. interestingly, this congress made the decision we would not force even the colas

current military retirees in the out years. but just to be clear, this proposal would hit current federal civilian employees, would it not? >> it would require all federal civilian employees to pay half the cost of their pension. that's $125 billion. one hundred $35 billion. i'm trying to figure out where the almost $260 billion of additional savings comes from. that is a big chunk of money. >> sure, i can walk you through it. the two largest proposals are the ones we discussed, the reforms to the sub some lentil -- supplemental nutrition assistance program and civilian retirement. and you really have a variety of smaller changes to federal programs, including reforms to the income program, to create a sliding scale for digital children.

we have a reform to eliminate disabilityent insurance benefits, similar to what the president has proposed in his budget. then we would also terminate the home affordable modification program, which was added as part of the response to the financial crisis. so that in total we have 70%ified approximately 68%, of the proposed reductions in spending in this function. 32% youo the other don't have any idea where it is coming from, is that right? >> the budget resolution is proposed under a variety of assumptions that would achieve those levels. we specify through the budget well over i think 85%, 90% of the policies. but not every dollar is specified. but are theird, policies to account for that 30%, it is a big chunk of money? >> not every dollar is

specified. >> that me ask about the itc in child tax credit in the budget. you assume the continuation of the ei tc and child tax credit beyond the current law expiration date of 2017? >> with respect to the point that austin made earlier, the revenue line that is assumed in our budget is the current law revenue line, which includes the expiration of various tax provisions. ok, so i am taking that your policy proposals do not assume the presidents of her postal -- presidents proposal of assuming the eitc. >> it reforms the tax code extensively to achieve the revenue specified in the baseline. >> are there any other policy assumptions? >> no, sir. >> and the tax proposal, the fund, does it have any impact or assume any impact on refundable credits? >> we propose copperheads of tax reform. >> said a specific assumptions?

>> there are no specific assumptions. >> all right, let me turn briefly to the section in the budget that talks about trying withal with folks pre-existing conditions and the suggestion that as you repeal all the benefits of the affordable care act -- the guys you do repeal all the benefits, right, revenue savings, but you have some language in here suggesting somehow you are going to help those folks. you have any costs associated with that? are there any costs to helping those folks who are discounted for this budget? >> it includes a deficit neutral budget reserve to provide for the repeal and replacement of the affordable care act. understand,o i because a lot of people made a big point about how republicans are going to have an alternative

to the affordable care act, we are not going back to the status quo, and i'm looking for that in your budget. and as i see it, you don't have any funds associated with that, right? you are assuming you're going to be able to address those problems in the deficit neutral manner question mark propose deficit neutral reform and the replacement of the president's health care law. we lay out the parameters in the policy statement, section 603 of the resolution. order math tells you in to do that you need to raise taxes or cut somewhere else in addition to the cuts in this budget. it's just interesting because after three years of repeal and replace, we still don't have anything on the replace front. so the assumption has to be a return to the status quo. >> mr. van hollen, we also included policy statement on the replacement, the resolution for the first time the sure. >> i understand from your declaring you're going to find a way to solve the problem. but there is nothing in this

come there are no policies in this budget that reflect that. i got it. but you've got policies and other areas also. right question mark i mean, you proposed cuts in the ag. you say the budget assumes $23 billion to the agriculture function. does that include the approximately $8 billion in savings already enacted in the farm bill? >> no, while we have taken that into account, the savings, we are not assuming -- >> we build from the baseline. a sickly the baseline they sure would have incorporated the farm bill that was enacted a week or two before the baseline was released. we have concluded those savings in the bill, and then the budget calls for the savings you mentioned. >> ok. transportation, right? i think we all know this september, we are in real trouble with the transportation trust fund. as i look at this budget, it's

going to cut over $50 billion in what should authority in fiscal year 2015, from transportation. is that correct? >> there are two aspects with respect to the budget. there is the current law requirement, or the department of transportation as you mentioned has to live within whatever the balance is our in the trust fund. the budget follows that and then provides a reserve fund. this would allow the congress committee who requested this reserve fund that we put into the resolution at their request to give them the flexibility to figure out how they want to address the shortfall. they would need to do it at a deficit neutral way. the other thing you do in the budget resolution is prior to two years ago, congress was sometimes relying on general fund transfers which has the effect of the tax code bailing out from borrowed funds the highway fund.

we in this budget resolution require that shows a cost. neutralthe deficit reserve fund, we provide a transportation infrastructure committee the flexibility to find a solution on this issue. >> all right. injust so i'm clear on this, order to address that issue -- there is no policy guidance provided on how congress would address will be a $50 billion cut from b.a., is that right? >> that is what is required under current law. what we tried to establish is the highway program has a long history of being user-financed, having it's own source of revenues. mismatch, but the assumptions on the budget resolution are to give the transportation infrastructure committee the folks ability to figure out how to a dress that in the line spending and revenues. that will be up to them in this resolution provides the flexibility for them to resolve that. >> if they want to deal with that issue, your budget doesn't

show, for example, the additional revenue or cuts that would be necessary to finance that come is that right? >> that would be up to them, right. took, if we could just turn the tax issue, right. we now have had a real world example of trying to do with tax reform in the ways and means committee. whether people like or don't like what chairman camp put forward, i think most people agree it was a good-faith effort to try to tackle a lot of issues. the end result, as you know, was a top tax rate of 35%. one of the things he tried to do, and people are going through the numbers to try to determine whether he was successful, but he tried not to shift the tax burden onto middle income and lower income individuals. he tried to maintain the progress of the current tax code. is that one of the goals of this budget as part of the tax reform? you state other goals come you

shay -- you say that it should be done at it deficit neutral play. is one of the goals not to shift the tax burden onto middle or lower income people? >> one of the goals stated in the policy statement is for a simpler and more fair tax system. i think that would be part of the issue in terms of making the tax code, maintaining a fair tax code. it would be one of the issues congress who wanted to address. wethat's great news because will have an amendment later today just to confirm that point. hopefully our republican colleagues will support it and make sure we don't shift the burden, so you will have a chance to clarify that definition of fairness a little later on. let me ask you about on the medicare front. iu know, the proposal -- think the chairman would acknowledge -- the proposal when it comes to vouchers, premiums, whatever you want to call it, i have been shifted understandably. in trying to get a handle on what it is now and what assumptions you make with the

specifications of the premium support proposal now. if you could flush that out a little. >> yes, the budget presumes in 2024,pport resumes which is exactly what last year's budget does. it has the same policy with respect to the implementation date. the director of the cbo testified before this committee, but they lack the tools in their toolkit to figure out and determine how premium support would work. they have made a lot of progress since september of last year on premium support. supportve that premium is going to bring competition, move to a patient-centered system, competition to the system and bring down costs. we think it will bring down costs with seven -- within what the president proposed. >> let me just make sure i understand.

because, as you know, the savings achieved depend very much on the policy specifications of the plan. and in previous budgets, we have senior policy specifications more clearly. for example, last year you indicated it was going to be tied to the second lowest. this year it is less clear. but you have embedded in the budget in 2024, and i assume you are making assumptions about savings in the out years, those have to be based on some policy. some asking what the policy is that is embedded in this budget on this issue. >> in the report cbo issued last fall, they looked at and scored two systems. neither of which had a cap. the report also found these premium support systems -- >> i'm familiar with that. >> came in below the out years. even without the cap, the

competitive bidding system produce savings. the cbo hason is -- done a lot of reports on premium support. i'm asking, you start this in fiscal year 2024 in the 10 year window. all the charts that you showed in the past show all of these savings. i'm asking you would policy up some since -- what policy assumptions are embedded in this? >> this year we moved to the average year model, which has no cap on the competitive aspect. it produces savings relative to the baseline over the long term. >> if i recall from the cbo analysis of that plan, if you are a senior, right now 75% of seniors are in fee-for-service. if you are a senior who stays in fee-for-service under the cbo analysis, you would face fairly significant premium hikes come is that correct? >> it depends on the choice the senior makes. to stay inhoose fee-for-service, what is the cbo analysis show?

the policyds on assumptions from the model that you use over the long term, both of which the cbs that are entirely uncertain because they have not designed a model for that. --the one that cbo looked at this is a factual question, you mentioned the assumptions. one was based on the average, the second was based on the average. even in the average one, for people who chose to stay in fee-for-service, didn't their premiums go up? >> in some regions, some areas, people will cede to friend out of pocket costs. >> well, it is a public document. i guess anybody can read it. they showed on average they went out? >> again, depending on which system. >> on average, did they go up under the cbo report? >> in some instances, yes. ok, so this is built on the medicare exchange, i believe the chairman recalls. right? the medicare exchange program.

the idea is that seniors will get the premium support voucher, something of certain value. will color premium support. certain value, is that right? >> again, it is based on the benchmark that the lands would compete against. it's a floating average on where the bids come in. >> the senior gets to take that and go into the exchange whether -- where there is competition and decide which plan to choose. >> sure. >> sounds kind of like the affordable care act model, right? so right now you get to go into a cup titian on the exchanges, in some cases depending on the income you get a tax credit. get to shop around. but it's the same idea, it's a tax credit instead of premium support. the point is this, look, seniors have medicare, right? i think most of them like it.

a lot of people propose we move to a medicare we hit 7 million in the exchanges just the other day. that is great for people who did not have access to affordable care before. after all of the bad mouthing of the affordable care act, you are proposing a model for medicare that is very much like obamacare. seniors would be interested in discovering that, too. they already have guaranteed coverage. the affordable care act was designed for young people who could not it affordable coverage. it is worth all of the members of the committee thinking about that as we move forward. in the program that we envision, it is the patient that

selects the coverage they have. if you had done that with the aca, that would have garnered some support on our side. that is not what you did if you have a mandate. >> under medicare, we all pay our premiums. there was a big debate about that in the 1960's and a lot of republicans were opposed to that idea. they were saying the government was mandating. i heard the chairman say earlier, we accepted the idea of retirement security. >> the affordable care act is much less of a government run programs and medicare, which you say you support. you are taking medicare closer to a single-payer system and your moving that towards the dreaded obamacare model.

>> we are moving to more medicare choice and competition. this is not -- important are the specifications. policies embedded in this budget. >> let's have this debate -- you are not in a plan where you have more restricted access to the doctors. any of her colleagues have any questions? -- any of our colleagues have any questions? chairman, here is the one last thing. if you could give us the general

mandatory [inaudible] so we can see how the mandatory savings. >> the assumptions. we will give that to you before the floor. under committee rule 9, the committee will consider. amendments may be offered to this document. half of this -- after this document has been approved, a final vote on whether to report the measure to the house. the committee will proceed to the consideration of the functional categories and other matters. we have agreed to limit time for consideration of each amendment so there will be ample opportunity for all members to

offer amendments. the ranking member and i will work together to ensure that amendments are considered. the debate time for each tier a will be limited to 18 minutes cabinets. the proponent of the imminent will have one minute reserve to close. the document will be considered at any point. already a movement -- are there any amendments? >> [inaudible] hard to identify a amendments we think the committee should deliberate and choose and we're not talking

about a flood of amendments into the night. i would like to offer an amendment right now. this is amendment number one. offering this with a number of my colleagues in the democratic side. >> the clerk will designate the amendment. >> relating to an increase in nondefense discretionary spending. mr. van hollen is recognized for eight minutes. >> what this amendment would do is restore a number of the very deep cuts made to important investments that have helped power our economy in the past. i do not think anyone can challenge the fact that one of the reasons the united states has become an economic powerhouse is because we over together to try to make basic investments. we invest in basic science and research.

one of the reasons why we have such a strong pharmaceutical industry is because of the spinoffs of those investments. under this budget, nih funding will be cut by over $50 billion. a lot of republican colleagues have been saying we need to increase funding for that basic science. under the republican budget, you will cut investment in education from early education through k-12 by hundreds of billions of dollars. higher education, there are deep cuts to pell grants and changes that make student loans more expensive. that is not a way to try to open more opportunity to more americans. if you come from a family that can pay full price for tuition, great. for everybody else, sorry. we will make it harder for you. i want to put up the chart howuse we heard a lot about

we have to tackle these long-term structural deficits. they said the -- we look at this budget and you do not have chained cpi. you get the savings, a huge wayk of your savings in a that most republicans in this house think is counterproductive . i have for the chairman say numerous times that we have already got enough from discretionary spending -- cut enough from discretionary spending. we have to go for the longer-term entitlements like social security. cut budget since a dramatic in the level of investment in these important areas dating back to the 1950's. reagan, and democratic presidents.

the reason why they thought it was important was because we want to be able to compete with the rest of the world. we want to be at the cutting edge. this budget takes to 40% below the lowest level since the 1950's. important.tments are german rogers said he could not -- chairman roger said he could not deal with sequester levels. let's talk about those other issues. deficit, we have a disagreement on the balance between reforms in revenue. there was some developing not cuts that we should basic investment.

with this proposal does this say, instead of putting all of -- money in the slush fund we do not need all of that money in the budget for overseas contingencies. we do not think the united states should be creating that kind of slush fund. in's send some of that money fiscal year 2016, let's take the nondefense category of discretionary spending back to the sequester level. the bipartisan budget agreement takes them both back. let's not make this cuts, let's use of -- let's use the war savings to make sure we make those investments. >> one of the things so critical about the reductions in research and innovation is that we are

trying to encourage young people to go into some science technology engineering and math. everybody agrees with that. now we are saying, we want you to major in stem, but we will cut the money that will provide the jobs and the opportunities at the other end after you get this wonderful education. we will cut off the research pipeline. the more i talk to researchers say, wemmunity, they are having to cut graduate students participation in our research projects. this was as a result of sequestration. we will ramp down in a trick on the way the amount we are investing in these critical research areas.

this seems to me to be very counterproductive. we are encouraging people to become scientists. you were going to have this great education with nowhere to use it. ?> chairman we had the first of the 15 manufacturing innovation institutes, public-private partnerships. we see corporations coming into investmentsaking because of the strategy of public investment thomas strategic public investment -- public investment, strategic public investment. these are the kind of strategic

things that will lead to making it in america and leading to the next generation of economic growth. these are not included in this budget at all. i think your approach and this amendment is a good opportunity for us to rectify that. >> mr. ranking member, mr. chairman, this is not a prosperity budget. is an austerity budget. --emember us discussing disgusting -- discussing what countries in europe were doing after 2000 and eight. -- 2008. >> a minute remaining for the rebuttal. jeremy from new jersey. -- gentleman from new jersey.

>> i think the chairman. i want to make thanks to the staff because they answer the question that the ranking member made at the very outset -- it was a statement. the cuts on funding, but there are no reforms in it. there are no reforms in it. he was able to ask each member of the panel staff and he got an answer. there is reform and it. t. and it -- in i contrary to the ranking members opening statement that there is no reform, i am glad to hear that he has been better educated from the members of the committee staff that there is reform.

going to the first amendment, where have i heard this before? john campbell said a moment ago that he has been here for nine years. i have been here for 12 years and it is the same old song. to solve a problem, all we need to do is spend more. when the question comes up, how do we pay for it? we pay for it with some pretend money. the term they are using is taking money out of slush funds out of future years. these are not real slush funds. there is no real money that we can take from. let's look to the first half of the equation. the way to solve a problem is to spend more of the taxpayers dollars. we heard this over the last several years. we passed a trillion dollar

stimulus package. they failed miserably. energyed renewable projects like solyndra, they failed miserably. the window.ey out six point $6 trillion in new debt since the president has taken office. if we had an economist in the this they would tell you is a keynesian approach to economics. that has failed in the past. an average american in the room would say this amendment is stimulus economics. more borrowing and more spending is the answer to prosperity. if you live in a 2000 square foot today i'm a all you need to do is borrow more and you can borrow your way to prosperity.

what we have heard from all of the economists, all that is really doing is putting the burden on our children. these opinions are my opinions, but the facts speak for themselves as far as how badly this approach works. gdp under this administration, growth over the last four years, has averaged two percent. that is well below the three percent historical rate for this country. the u.s. economy has been growing less than half the typical rate exhibited since world war ii. forcebor force, the labor participation rate has fallen to 63%, the lowest level in over 35 years. 10.5 million americans are unemployed.

those are numbers, but if you translate that back to her constituents, that means real people having real hardships and real suffering because of this borrow and spend approach, which this amendment tries to use. i do not know how many times -- i guess i should start keeping a tab on how many times the koch brothers will be brought up during this hearing. i am not so concerned as the other side of the aisle with regard to the koch brothers. i am more concerned about the average citizen been able to afford a coke. the president's economy is not 11 not to occur. i have about four minutes left on the clock, i would like to yield to my colleague. >> i think my friend for yielding. i do not doubt the ranking members commitment to investing in america. i share that commencement.

there are fewer dollars to invest and we're trying to figure out how to use those responsibly. dollars inrillion interest alone above for the president would have been. because the borrowing and spending going on, interest more than 10 years is .he sum total if you think austerity is here, it is not. this is still an investment budget. austerity comes when you run out of other choices. the longer we wait, the more choices we run out of. the choices are never going to get easier.

$5 trillion in interest alone over the next 10 years in the president's budget. if we do not make these decisions today, we're only going to crowd out more of that investment. more of those opportunities. the time to act is now. i share the ranking member's passion for investment. i just hope that we make the correct choices before it is too late. >> i want to put into the record to the point of whether there really are slush funds out there to pay for all of this. the answer is no. no funds have been appropriated for years after 2014. i will give it -- >> the european austerity budget

suppressed economic activity, that is true they relied on tax increases. those that were towards spending cuts saw dramatic economic growth. we have had this discussion before. underway. a vote you get a minute to close. we will have recess during those votes and pick back up. fort is always interesting our colleagues to talk about economist but ignore the economist from the cbo. the comments are in a different amendment and the one i have got because the pattern under ronald reagan and others and we are talking about degrading our national investment in areas that have helped power the economy. >> 30 seconds.

friends, you are peddling the same old leftover soup. you are. you spend your way out of economic problems. you keep on saying this is our mantra. i will refer to europe. 12% unemployment, austerity budgets. if we cannot keep up with investment -- >> we have a vote underway. >> a roll call is requested. >> mr. garrett? >> no. >> mr. campbell? mr. calvert? mr. cole?

mr. mcclintock? >> no. >> mr. lankford. ms. black. mr. florez. woodall. ms. blackburn? mr. rice? mr. williams? mr. duffy?

mr. van hollen? ye. van hollen, a mr. varmus, aye. ms. castor, aye. mr. mcdermott? mr. jeffries? mr. hoffman? aye.

mr. schrader? mr. campbell? mr. calvert? no. mr. cole, no. mr. ryan? mr. ryan, no. mr. chairman? 19.s 14, no,

the amendment is not agreed to. student can is the annual competition that encourages middle and high school students to think critically about issues. students were asked to create their documentary answering the question, what is the most important issue the u.s. congress should consider in 2014? one of our second prize winners are seniors at thomas jefferson high school in alexandria, virginia. they would like congress to look at the defense budget control a of 2011. article one, section eight of the constitution says that congress shall have the power to raise and support armies to provide and maintain a navy, and to make rules for the government and regulation. a constitutional studies fellow at the cato institute explains.

>> the government is instituted at the very beginning to provide for the general welfare. 101.ical theory congress has a pretty wide berth to spend money on defense. is the responsibility of leaders and department of defense to report to the secretary of defense what they need in the budget to be successful. >> we will put in a wish list. we really want to work on these things, these research projects. it will go to our navy and marine corps leadership and we will submit it and pushed onto the secretary of defense. once the secretary of defense has that, he looks at the army's wish list, the air force's wish list and a few other entities.

they try to balance things out and then they send it up the hill to the president. the president says, i like it, i don't like it. approved, has been they will submitted to congress. year, theykes that are looking at it and reviewing it. congress will be satisfied and they will sign a bill. >> and 2011, congress passed the budget control act. we asked benjamin friedman, a research fellow at the cato institute, to explain how the budget control act works. moreou shalt not spend than this amount for defense. if you do, we will go across the board to every program.

there is no way [inaudible] you can pass an appropriations bill that spends more. you would be right where you would have been if he did not have sequestration. >> the sequestration cuts to the department of defense will have a dramatic and possibly irreversible effect on the military's ability to provide national defense. >> when sequestration comes in, it not only dramatically slows down the research, but it also -- you may lose people, brilliant people, people you do not get back again. you may never get them back into your labs or into your centers. >> we will take one percent off the top or five percent off the top. it is a very blunt instrument. it is not as good policy is

having a more surgical type of cut. this is how we're going to do it. when it gets to our district, both is financed through u.s. government dollars and military money, the cookie-cutter approach did not apply to us. it does not work well for us. we cannot put out some broad-based directive for guidance because each employee is affected differently by the directives we receive. we invest a lot of man hours, a lot of human capital that we would normally use doing a routine day-to-day jobs. the sequestration is the worst way of handling the budget other than not cutting it all.

but for department of defense understands that the current economic state. >> too many believe that we can maintain a policy that is driven by budget choices, not strategic ones. defense has contributed more than half of the deficit reduction measures taken. there are some in government who want to use the military to pay for the rest. to protect the sacred cow that is entitlement spending. entitlements implied that you are entitled to a certain benefit and i cannot think of anyone who has earned that right that our troops. by volunteering to put their lives on the line for this country, they are entitled to the best training, equipment, and leadership our nation can provide.

the 2014 budget sustains our , giving dodength the time, flexibility to make the necessary reductions and adjustments over a 10 year period. hard choices will have to be made over these next few years. >> we are making choices between the military services. we can cut the army a little more. some of these choices have been deferred. >> we are now in a different fiscal environment. to realities are forcing us more fully confront is tough and painful choices. to make the reforms necessary, but this department on a path to sustain our military strength and make these -- we will have to do it differently. this will require the continued

partnership of congress. >> congress has taken steps in the right direction with recent budget agreements. there is still work to be resul

across the country are having their hours cut at work and seeing smaller paychecks. at a time when the cost of groceries, gas, and health care keep increasing, -- mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. will members please take their conversations off the floor. the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: as a direct result, mr. speaker, americans across the country are having their hours cut at work and seeing smaller paychecks. at a time when the cost of groceries, gas, and health care keep increasing, lower paychecks are simply unacceptable.

the bill we have before us today to save american workers act would repeal obamacare's 30-hour workweek definition of full-time employment and restore the traditional definition of 40-hour workweek. today we are voting to restore hours and wages and give businesses and their workers some relief from the burdens of obamacare. this is a critical step in creating an america that workers. -- works. i hear about the effects of obamacare from workers and employers across mid michigan. recently central michigan university was forced to cut back student employee i think it's going to become increasingly harder for them to pay for school when we can only work 25 hours, end quote. a faculty member at a community college in my district wrote to me recently and said, again i'm quoting, i hold two part-time positions. today i was informed i cannot continue to do both jobs because of obamacare laws. beginning in august i will no

longer be advising and will lose approximately 1/3 of my income. last year i bought a house. a house i now fear i will no longer be able to afford, end quote. by forcing employers to shift workers from full-time to part-time, 309-hour rule is destroying hardworking americans' ability to earn more during these tough economic times. at a time when the president is calling on congress to increase pages, it is his health care law that is forcing americans to see smaller paychecks. obamacare is putting full-time work an the potential to earn more wages out of the reach of millions of americans. those who are hit the hardiers are low-income americans already struggling in these tough economic times. according to a hoover institution study, 2.6 million americans making under $30,000 a year are most at risk of having their hours and wages cut as a result of the 30-hour rule. of that, over 60% are women, and

90% to not have a college degree. the administration has made exceptions and delays for big businesses and political allies, why not american workers and job creators. the nonpartisan congressional budget office confirmed the bill we are considering today will reduce obamacare's unacceptable burden on job creators and increase wages for american workers. according to the congressional budget office, the save america workers act will increase wages for american workers by $75 billion. repeal $63.4 billion of obamacare tax increases, and reduce the number of employers subject to penalties related to obamacare. i applaud todd young for his work on this legislation. it's time to vote in support of americans who are facing higher bills and smaller paychecks. i urge my colleagues to join me in a yes vote. i yield the balance of my time to mr. young from indiana.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. young: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, as the senate continues to push for a 25% increase in the federal minimum wage, they continue to ignore that millions of hourly workers face as much as a 25% pay cut as a result of obamacare. because of the 30 hours' full-time provision buried in the employer mandate, many employees face the prospect of being limited in their work hours. when they aren't allowed to work more than 29 hours, they simply aren't able to generate the income they need to support themselves and their families. it's worth noting that an employee who he sees their hours cut from 39 to 29 is losing 10 hours a week, which over the course of a month is an entire weeks' worth of wages. the employees work we are talking about are people who most depend on getting ever hour and every bit of wages that they

can. we are talking about custodians, cafeteria workers, and substitute teachers at your child's school. we are talking about the waitresses and bus boys at your favorite restaurant. the cashier who rings you out at the grocery store back in your district. and the guys on the assembly line who help make your car. in my district we are also talking about adjuncts professors. in places like ivy tech community college in indiana university. these are all americans who want to work but they are dealing with the unintended consequences, and i do believe they are unintended, of this health care law, obamacare. some of these provisions are limiting their hours and pay and this needs to be fixed. so i introduced the save american workers act because i want to help these hardworking hoosiers and other americans who are just trying to make ends meet. by simply he repealing this provision and restoring the traditional 40-hour workweek, we can help make an america that

works. now, i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill. i commend my colleagues on the other side who have already signed on as co-sponsors, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. on the n: my colleagues republican side in the house, they are so blinded by their ideology that they will not or cannot see reality or hear other voices. so here's the reality. seven-plus million people have n rolled in private plans through the a.c.a. marketplaces. the a.c.a. is working.

millions have new coverage under medicaid. up to 129 million americans with pre-existing health conditions, including 17 million children, in longer have to worry about being denied coverage. or being charged higher premiums due to their health status. 3.1 million young adults have gained health coverage because they can now stay on their parents' health plan up to age 26. that's the reality of a.c.a., and there's more. there's also the reality of what this legislation would do, and i want to emphasize this because i don't think it has been accurately stated today. it would force one million people out of employer-based health insurance, according to

c.b.o. one million people would be forced out of employer-based health insurance. it would increase the number of uninsured by about half a million people, also according to c.b.o. and so they are bringing this up at the same time that seven million people have enrolled in private plans through the marketplace. and when millions now have coverage under medicaid, so they essentially want to go in reverse in terms of health coverage. also -- and they don't face up to this. and i think it's also been misdescribed. this bill would add $74 billion to the deficit, according to c.b.o., when there is no offset. $74 billion? and you're coming forth here the

day after we receive the latest information about a.c.a., all that has happened beneficially, and you're now coming and saying, not people -- knock people off of insurance, knock them off of employer-based insurance and add $74 billion to the deficit? . if i am wrong i'd like someone to stand up and say so. also, there's been much discussion of the impact in terms of part-time employment, and i want to read in quotes what the c.b.o. said definitively in february. in c.b.o.'s judgment, there's no compelling evidence that part-time employment has creased as a result of the a.c.a. so as we heard in testimony, a

community college came forth and said they had reduced the hours of teachers in order to avoid paying health insurance? that's what somebody in the education field wants to come forth and say that's their policy? i suggest, instead of forgoing their responsibility as employers, they ought to go into the marketplace and see what they can do to bring more coverage for the people who are working hard. essentially, what you're doing here today is saying to many, many people who are working hard and who need insurance, this bill will knock you off of your employer-based insurance and increase the number of uninsured by half a million while increasing the deficit by

$74 billion? ideology is in deep line when this kind of a proposition is put forth. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. >> mr. speaker, this bill worth noting would decrease by $63 billion the number of taxes on our employers during the worst economy, some will say, since the great debregs. it will cause our wage earners around the country to realize an additional $75 billion in wage income. you know, i take fiscal impact, the fiscal condition of this country very seriously. i find it very hard to believe, though, that anyone, a member of this body, would desire to pass a national health care law that is paid for on the backs

of our hourly workers, those who can least afford to absorb lower wages, fewer hours, perhaps losing their job altogether and i think that's essentially the argument i hear from the other side when i hear the $75 billion figure put forward. mr. young: with that, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. buchanan, a distinguished member of the ways and means committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for three minutes. mr. buchanan: i want to thank the gentleman, mr. speaker. there's no issue today that's more important in this body than growing the economy and creating jobs. "the wall street journal" noted that there are fewer jobs today been this -- there has fewer jobs since 2007. the gentleman from michigan said we need to go in the marketplace. i've been in the marketplace for over 30 years as someone who created jobs. this health care mandate that

is 30 -- is a big issue. the 30-hour requirement is forcing businesses to reduce working hours and cut wages. i had a gentleman last week that's in our -- in my congressional district. he has 291 employees, three restaurants, he's mentioned to me numerous times that he's going to have to cut quite a few employees from 40 hours to 29 hours and he's even suggested in many cases to reduce his health care costs he's going to have to push it up to more people more hours because he can bring down his health care costs. the fact with health care costs in my district, anyway, is as much as $1,500 to $2,000 an employee. so it's a big issue. another employer in our area, one of our largest employers, is going to be moving hundreds of employees from 40 hours to 29 hours a week. so it's a very big issue in sarasota, my congressional

district. with that i'd like to just ask my colleagues for quick passage. we need to move this bill quickly, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. levin: look, the evidence is clear that more people would have their hours reduced if this bill passed than might -- if this bill passed. that might be true under the present a.c.a., and i said what the c.b.o. has said in terms of reduced hours of work. so once again, you're just now facing the reality. changing this to 40 hours will hurt all around. i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. castro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. castro: thank you, ranking

member levin, thank you for yielding to me. you know, we speak a lot in this body about the freedoms that as americans we have been endowed by our forefathers and that are enshrined in the constitution, whether it's the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, our second amendment freedoms, but i think we all understand and know and unfortunately too many americans know firsthand that when you're sick and lying in a hospital bed or when you're at home and can't go to the doctor that those freedoms many very little. how is someone who couldn't get ealth insurance, whose life is spiraling downward, who can't make their car or mortgage payment, how much are those freedoms worth when their life is spiraling downward because they can't afford health care anymore? the fact is the affordable care act, one of the greatest things that it's done, is allowed more americans to be able to enjoy the freedoms that all of us

here in congress fight so hard to protect for the american people. one of the troubling -- a few of the troubling things about this bill is that a million people, up to a million people would lose their health care coverage if this piece of legislation was enacted. it would cost $74 billion to the american people, adding to our debt and our deficit. what's also interesting is just about every bill that is allowed to pass through the house of representatives in this day requires a pay-for. in other words, the republican majority does not allow a piece of legislation to be passed unless it is paid for by cutting something else. what's different about this piece of legislation is that there's no question that it would cost $74 billion and yet there's absolutely no pay-for in this bill. i would also note, and as was

mentioned, this would cost american business some money, well, a few things. even many, many businesses don't define the workweek as 40 hours, they define it -- mr. levin: two minutes to the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. castro: so this is inconsistent even with how millions of american businesses define full-time employment. and i would also point out this , we know as our economy has started to rebound from the worst recession that we've had since the great depression that many american businesses are doing well, that wall street is tting all-time highs, that the stock market has soared and that's good for america. we don't begrudge any company that. but small businesses are already exempted from the a.c.a. requirements, so this is about more sizeable companies. so in an economy where business is doing well, why should we say to all of these workers,

people who are going to work every day, who have incredible work ethic, that are empowering our economy, that they don't deserve health insurance? i was in san antonio and i know we had long lines the last day to enroll in the affordable care act and people's faces lit up because for the first time in many of their lives they were going to be able to afford health care coverage. and many of them had their kids with them. there were teenagers there. there were senior citizens there. this is a milestone in people's lives, and this bill would take that away from a million people. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. young: thank you, mr. speaker. i know my good colleague spoke with a great deal of sincerity and earnestness when he talked about pay-fors. it's worth noting the attempt to pay for this affordable care act, obamacare as it's popularly known, on the backs of our hourly workers strikes

me as unconscionable. something that none of us ought to be contemplating which is why this is a bipartisan effort. mr. speaker, i now yield three minutes to the distinguished majority whip, mr. mccarthy of california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. mccarthy: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of h.r. 2575, the save american workers act. mr. speaker, working on an hourly wage is tough. i know this. i worked every single part of the job in a deli, one that i started 25 years ago. during an hourly -- doing an hourly wage is an opportunity to start, to progress, to be able to move up. but in today's world, it's a little different. today because of obamacare, you don't have the opportunity to work the extra hours. you don't have the opportunity

to expand. mr. speaker, i listened to another colleague on this floor say small businesses were exempt, up to 50. so now our law is saying, you have to stay small. you can't grow. you can't have that american dream to be something bigger. you know, mr. speaker, this affects business but it also affects the public sector as well. in every single district across this country, this is having a great deal of effect. in my own hometown in kern county, the board of supervisors no longer have seasonal workers. those are firefighters, those are seasonally, because they can't go beyond the time. y community college's district class for he extra the students. they asked why and they pointed to one bill, obamacare. those are the stories you hear, the stories you know about. you know what, numbers don't

lie. so what have the numbers shown since this law has gone into effect? department of labor. department of labor shows for low-wage workers in december, 2013, clocked the shortest workweek on record. only 27.4 hours a week. that is lower than during the recession. today we have an opportunity to change that. today we have an opportunity to unshackle that an individual can work more hours, that an individual that maybe owns a business to give people an opportunity. yes, the barrier will not be there to make sure you're only small, you can have the american dream, you can grow. mr. speaker, i ask all to join us in making a bipartisan bill where individuals have co-sponsored this bill to have america move forward. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill.

the clerk: h.r. 4152, an act to provide for the costs of loan guarantees for ukraine. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: it's too bad that we don't have a position called fact checker on the floor and so we could yield to the fact checker every time something is misstated. if there were such a position here, today that person would be immensely busy. for example, i think it's correct that student workers are exempted from the count, so to come here and talk about udents i think misstates the fact. and same is true of the story out the shift would hurt

workers when the truth of the matter is this shift from 30 to would indeed have a major impact in terms of people. let me read to you from the center on budget and policy priorities dated october 12, 2013. moreover, i quote, raising the law's threshold for full-time work from 30 hours a week to 40 hours would make a shift toward part-time employment much more likely, not less so. that's because only a small share of workers today, less than 8%, work 30 hours to 34 hours a week and thus are more at risk of having their hours cut below health reform's threshold. in comparison, 43% of employees work 40 hours a week and another several percent, 41

hours to 44 hours a week. thus, raising the threshold to 40 hours would place more than five times as many workers at risk of having their hours reduced, end of quotes. that's the reality. . that's the reality. and to come here and say what would happen if we don't pass this bill is that more people would have their hours reduced than if we pass the bill. that's simply -- that simply is not correct. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. young: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, mr. cantor, the house majority leader. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia, leader cantor, is recognized for one minute. mr. cantor: thank you, i thank the gentleman from indiana for his leadership on bringing this bill forward, the save american

workers act. it is today that i rise in support of the save american workers act. mr. speaker, every working american deserves a fair shot at climbing the economic ladder of success. and every wage earner he deserves a chance to live the american dream. however, over the past few months we have watched the president's health care law wreak havoc on working families and squeeze the middle class who already struggle to make ends meet. as we all know, millions of people have seen their premiums and deductibles go up under the president's health care law. while others have been forced off the very plans they were promised they could keep. but that's not the full picture. because of the 30-hour workweek provision in obamacare, wage earners could see their hours he reduced, resulting in a 25% cut

to their pay. let me just take a moment to explain exactly who might see their paychecks shrink. according to a study by the hoover institution, there are 2.6 million americans, especially at risk of having their wages cut. are 2.6 million, 59% younger workers between the ages of 18 and 34. many who may be trying to save for college. or for their first home. 63% are women. many of them single moms trying to support their children. the medium household income for families most at risk from harm under this obamacare regulation is just over $29,000. that's the median household income most at risk. the bottom line is this, the

workers most affected by these cuts are those who earn the least. for someone who currently earns $10 an hour and works 40 hours a week, being cut to 29 hours means a loss of $110 each and every week. three out of four americans are already claiming they are working paycheck to paycheck, but 25% cut to their income would have a devastating effect. this is not how america should work. while this rule will impact americans in all different industries, those who are most likely to be affected work in retail, restaurants, manufacturing, and even america's education sector. in my hometown of richmond, many school districts have begun to limit part-time workers to less than 30 hours a wto