includes-- >> this hearing is scheduled to last until 2:30 issue. the house gaveling in. aker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. loving god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. if long ago all people had taken your holy word seriously, make justice your aim, how different history might be. each day would be filled with promise and hope if all of us upon rising would make justice our aim. lord, if we as a people and as a nation were to make justice our aim, how would this change our priorities? could we change that much? in every age, your impeling spirit called our ancestors beyond their wishful thinking and beyond themselves to move

ever closer to our national calling of equal justice under the law. send that same spirit upon the members of this people's house, that they who have been entrusted with ensuring this great calling might fulfill that great promise and it will truly come to pass that justice would roll down like a river and righteousness like an ever flowing stream. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from florida, mr. garcia. mr. garcia: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, e nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the speaker: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous con sent to address the house for -- consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker: without objection. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today again to support equal pay for equal work. republicans and democrats share the conviction that no one should lose wages on account of their sex. as is so often the case in this politically polarized city, though, the broad agreement on the goal does not extend to the methods we should use to get there. under the guise of equal pay, our democrat colleagues would help -- have us pass more rules, institute more red tape and create more grounds for lawyers to drag business owners into court. perhaps there's a certain logic to this regulate-everything approach. after all, as "the new york times" reported today, the president hasn't even been able to equalize pay between men and women in his own white house.

however, this president's ongoing regulatory blitzkrieg has helped to equalize the wages of 6.7% of the population , the unemployed. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. higgins: madam speaker, i rise to honor water week, to recognize the critical need for clean water in our nation. in my western new york community, we understand the link between the health of the great lakes and the economic vitality of our region. studies have shown that nutrients like phosphorus and nitrogen are the cause of harmful algae blooms in the great lakes. in order to fight this, i have introduced great lakes nutrient removal assistance act which would provide $500 million in funding to upgrade wastewater treatment plants in the great lakes basin with nutrient removal technology.

madam speaker, the great lakes contains 95% of america's freshwater and supplies drinking water to more than 30 million people in north america. additionally, the great lakes supports 1.5 million jobs and 6 d -- and $62 billion in wages annually. protection of the demrakes is essential and i commend -- great lakes is essential and i commend those who are in washington, d.c., this week for water week, as those who work tirelessly to protect our water resources for the well-being of our nation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: madam speaker, tomorrow the house education work force committee will mark up two bills to protect all american workers by eliminating the national labor relations board's expansion into the work force. the work force democracy and fairness act restricts big business, big government, nlrb

and reaffirms the protections that workers and job creators have received, promoting a fully informed union election process. the employee privacy protection act gives workers greater control over the disclosure of personal information and helps modernize an outdated election process by replacing current rules that leave workers at risk of intimidation and coercion. for years the president's big labor bully has threatened to destroy jobs, such as at boeing in north charleston, invade american workers' privacy and encroach upon their rights. i am grateful to education work force chairman john kline and subcommittee chairman dr. phil roe for their dedication to promote the rights of every american worker and protect american job creators. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii seek recognition?

without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. hanabusa: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i rise in support of equal payday. 51 years ago the equal pay act was signed into law. still, women in my home state of hawaii, where women have traditionally been part of the work force, like my two grandmothers who worked in the sugar cane fields, women still earn 82 cents to the $1 earned by a man. equal pay is not just a woman's issue, it is a family and a community issue. women are 1/2 of the paid work force, 2/3 of the women are either primary or co-bread winners for their families. but women are 2/3 of the work force earning minimum wage. closing the wage gap cuts poverty in half and women and their families then benefit and nearly half a trillion dollars is added to our economy. remember, the president said, when women succeed, america

succeeds. please bring h.r. 377, the paycheck fairness act, to the floor. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? ms. ros-lehtinen: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized -- is recognized for one minute. ms. ros-lehtinen: madam speaker, i rise today to speak for those who are being violently muzzled by the autocratic ma doura regime in venezuela. this regime has used every arm of the state to attack its political opponents, resulting in at least 39 dead and many more imprisoned. one of these leaders is this man in this poster who has been unjustly detained in a military prison for almost seven weeks and now faces a 14-year prison sentence just for protesting peacefully to promote democratic principles.

the arrests -- the arrest has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with silencing the political opposition and venezuelans call for democrat -- venezuelans' call for democracy. yesterday the obama -- yet the obama administration still has not taken any action against the venezuelan government and has failed to hold human rights violators accountable. this communicates a dangerous indifference that is painful not only to the venezuelan people but to all who care about freedom and human rights and further erodes the little credibility that we have on the international stage. let's listen to the people of venezuela. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. garcia: madam speaker, i have always been a strong supporter of medicare for the simple reason that our nation's seniors deserve to keep their

hard-earned health care. that is why we've been working on a bipartisan basis to fight any potential cuts to medicare and medicaid. i am pleased to announce that yesterday the administration reversed cuts on these potential -- cuts to these health care plans. i'd like to say a few words in spanish. [speaking spanish] it's a good day for our nation's seniors. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. mr. tonko: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to recognize the community college on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. since its founding the number of students attending the colonel has grown from 350 to -- college has grown from 350 to today's population of 2,850, remarkable growth. these students are becoming special ifflets in one of 40 academic programs, including business, electrical technology, media communication, nursing, roadlogical technology and one in which i've had a direct involvement, clean room science. under the current leadership of the current president, a very effective leader and a much respected leader, fmcc is the region's partner for quality, accessible higher education,

economic development and cultural and intellectual enrichment. although the institution officially turned 50 in september, this is truly a year of celebration as the school continues to grow and boost our communities in the greater capital region of new york. again, i congratulate the fmcc administration, faculty, support staff and students for their hard work each and every day that makes us very proud. with that i yield back the balance of my time, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cohen: thank you, madam speaker. on saturday, the national civil rights museum in memphis was reopened. it is a spectacular display with all up-to-date technologies of civil rights in america. from the middle passage to april 4, 1968, the assassination of martin luther king at the site of the museum.

as i toured the fabulous museum, i thought about how far america had come and how much further it needs to go. there's stories about the voting rights act and yet i thought about the supreme court striking down provisions in -- and the possibility of getting sponsors here sufficient to pass a renewed voting rights act which is so necessary to america fulfilling its purpose. i thought about the affordable care act and efforts to repeal it, to simply give health care to individuals, many of whom are poor and haven't had health care br ever -- care before. i thought about jobs bills, because without economic justice, you don't have social justice and in full effect and you need infrastructure bills ushes need a minimum wage and you need unemployment insurance. we have a long way to go to fulfill dr. king's dream. i'm pleased the museum reopened its spectacular -- i urge all people to come to memphis and visit it and i urge all people to think about dr. king and try to full hill his dream by passing those measures that are

necessary. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. woodall: thank you, madam speaker. i come to the house floor today actually with three of my constituents from laurenceville. karen and haley and ashley. because this is budget week. madam speaker, this is budget week. this is where we decide what our priorities are and there's not going to be a man or woman in this chamber that does not believe that what we do, we do for this next generation of americans. but the question will be, what do we do? the rule that we're going to take up here this afternoon is going to make a every single substitute amendment offered in this chamber available for a vote on this floor. so that america can see what our priorities are and choose among them. madam speaker, this is the very best of our republic that will be on display this week. budget week. and i'm just pleased and honored to be a part of it. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the of ker, house representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on april 8, 2014, at 8:50 a.m. that the senate passed senate 2195, that the senate passed with an amendment h.r. 3979. appointments, joint committee on taxation, signed, sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the

senate on april 8, 2014, at 10:35 a.m. that the senate agreed to, without amendment, house concurrent resolution 92. signed, sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. woodall: madam speaker, by direction of the house republican conference, i send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will read the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 546, resolved that the following named members be and are hereby elected to the -- mr. woodall: madam speaker. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the reading is dispensed with. without objection, the resolution is agreed to. and the motion to reconsider to reconsider is laid upon the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. woodall: madam speaker, by direction of the committee on rules i call up house resolution 544 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 98, house resolution 544. resolved, that at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18 declare the house dissolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for

consideration of the concurrent resolution, house concurrent resolution 9 , establishing the budget for the united states government for fiscal year 2015 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2016 through 2024. the first reading of the concurrent resolution shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the concurrent resolution are waived. general debate shall not exceed four hours with three hours of general debate confined to the congressional budget equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the budget, and one hour of general debate on the subject of economic goals and policies equally divided and controlled by representative brady of texas and representative carolyn maloney of new york or their respective designees. after general debate the concurrent resolution shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the concurrent resolution shall be considered as read. no amendment shall be in order except those printed in the

report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, and shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. all points of order against such amendments are waived except that the adoption of an amendment in the nature of a substitute shall constitute the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment. after the could be clue -- conclusion of the consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment and a final period of general debate which shall not exceed 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the budget, the committee shall rise and report the concurrent resolution to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution and amendments thereto to adoption without intervening motion except amendments offered by the chair of the committee on the

budget pursuant to section 305-a-5 of the congressional budget act of 1974 to achieve mathematical consistency. the concurrent resolution shall not be subject for demand of the division of the question of its adoption. section 2, on any legislative day during the period from april 11, 2014 through april 25, 2014, a, the general of the proceedings of the previous day shall be considered as approved, and b, the chair may at any time declare the house adjourned to meet at a date and time within the limits of clause 4, section 5, article 1 of the constitution to be announced by the chair in declaring the adjournment. section 3, the speaker may appoint members to perform the duties of the chair for the duration of the period addressed by section 2 of this resolution as though under clause 8-a of rule 1. section 4, each day during the period addressed by section 2 of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar day for

purposes of section 7 of the war powers resolution, 50 u.s.a. 1546. section 5, the committee on appropriations may at any time before 5:00 p.m. on thursday, april 17, 2014, file privileged reports to accompany measures making appropriations for fiscal ear ending september 30, 2015. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one hour. mr. woodall: thank you, madam speaker. for the purpose of debate only i'd like to yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. woodall: madam speaker, during consideration of this resolution all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. woodall: madam speaker, it's budget week. i have been trying to contain my smile all week long. i have the great pleasure of

sitting on both the budget committee and the rules committee here in this house, and the rule that we have before us today, house resolution 544, does candidly what i think my friend from massachusetts and i came here to do, and that is to have an open debate on the floor of the house about absolutely everyone's ideas. i want to tell you what that means, madam speaker, because we sit on the rules committee, my friend from massachusetts and i, and part of that responsibility is deciding whose voice gets heard and whose doesn't. it's a very solemn responsibility. one that neither of us takes lightly. i believe we would both say whenever possible we should err on the side of having more voices instead of less, and what we have to today, madam speaker, is a rule that provides for absolutely everything -- every budget alternative, written, drafted, and presented in this house. every one. i want you to think about that, madam speaker. this ought to be a place where we debate ideas, this ought to

be a place where we talk about what tomorrow looks like, how we make tomorrow better than today, and on this day we will be voting on a rule that will make every single alternative idea available for robust debate on the floor of this house. now, the underlying bill is the bill that came out of the budget committee, again, madam speaker, in full disclosure, i'm a member of that budget committee, proud of the work product that committee put out. some folks call it the paul ryan budget. i take umbrage at that. i sit on that committee, work shoulder to shoulder with paul, i'm going to call it budget committee budget. i hope at the end of the week it will be the house-passed budget because i think it reflects the priorities of the institution and the american people. but if it does not reflect the priorities, if any member in this chamber, they will have alternatives to vote on. one of those alternatives is written and drafted by the ranking member of the budget committee, the lead democrat on the budget committee, the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. that substitute amendment made in order today.

the congressional black caucus, madam speaker, comes together to put together a list of priorities, a full substitute budget, has done that for a number of years, has done that again this year, this rule makes that congressional black caucus substitute in order for a vote. the congressional progressive caucus, madam speaker, they have presented a budget. their budget is one that raises taxes by $5 trillion over the next 10 years. it's not going to be one i support here on the floor of the house, but it is absolutely a , itimate list of priorities as i talked about earlier, priorities that affect young people of this nation, we'll get a vote on that budget here on the floor of this house. the republican study committee, madam speaker, which i'm also a member of, proud drafter of that budget document, that vote espousing the absolute fastest path to balance that we'll be hearing in this institution during budget week, madam speaker, will get a vote on the floor of this house.

finally a budget presented by representative mulvaney of south carolina, but intended to replicate the budget written by the president of the united states of america. it's a funny thing in constitutional government, of course we have article 1, legislative branch, article 2, executive branch. certainly we have different responsibilities. but i don't think there's anyone in this chamber who would say the president has invested an incredible amount of time and energy presenting his budget. it wasn't here on time, but it did arrive here. it's a complete budget. and it deserves a hearing. no one on the democratic side of the aisle picked up that budget to present it, so representative mulvaney did. i think that's part of the robust debate that we must have. all together we are going to have four hours of debate on these budget alternatives. that's in addition to all the regular order that has already gone on in committee, in addition to the hours that we have invested in the rules committee already. four hours here on the floor of this house. why is that important, madam speaker? because i think what you'll hear

on both sides of the aisle is that these budgets represent a statement of values. a statement of values. who are you going to take the money from, who are you going to spend the money on? how are you going to invest in the future, how are you going to prevent the future from being eroded by payments on debt after debt after debt after debt? these are the discussion that is we are going to have. just 10 years ago, madam speaker, the public debt in this country was $7.3 trillion. today it's $17.5. all the debt that we have wracked up in the history of his country through 2004, more than doubled. in just the last 10 years. madam speaker, there may be folks in this chamber who say that is a debt worth making. that the investments that we are creating by borrowing that money from our children and spending it on the generations today, that that is worth doing. i say no. i say no.

i say our obligation to our children tomorrow, to our grandchildren tomorrow is not to advance ourselves at their expense. i think our obligation is to pay down that debt. but that is a legitimate discussion we are going to have over the next several days. $10 trillion in the nation's credit card in just the past 10 years, madam speaker. let there be no doubt that that is the graphity of the -- gravity of the conversation we are having today. i remember back in 2012, madam speaker, president obama said in an interview with abc news and i want to quote him correctly, he he said, we don't have -- he he said, we don't have an immediate crisis in terms of debt, in fact for the next 10 years it's going to be in a sustainable place. 2012 the president predicting that for the next 10 years the crisis won't come. that the crisis will be out beyond year 10. madam speaker, he may be right. but that was two years ago, and

there are only two bills, two budgets that we have before us this budget week that even balance in that 10-year window. this is a debate worthy of this chamber. this is a debate worthy of america. i hope that by the end of budget week, madam speaker, by the time we take our vote on final passage, irrespective of which substitute has passed or whether the house passed the committee passed budget remains, that we have a document that represents not just this institution's values, but that represents our constituents' values, that represents american values that is true to the obligation that we all have to protect the opportunities of the generations of tomorrow. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i want to thank the gentleman from georgia for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend.

i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, budgets are moral documents. these annual documents are really statements of who we are as political parties and as groups and as people. they represent our values. they tell a story about what we believe in and how we would govern. i had thought i would come here today to say that this budget before us, the ryan budget, is simply bad or it's misguided. madam speaker, it's much worse than that. this is an awful budget. it takes our country in a fundamentally wrong direction. it seems as though every year we shake our heads wondering how the latest ryan budget could possibly get worse than the previous years' efforts. and yet time after time the ryan budget manages to pull it off. this budget is cruel. but sadly it is not unusual. the gentleman from georgia says he can't contain his smiles when he talks about this budget. i don't think there's anything to smile about.

year after year the ryan budget does more and more damage to the social fabric of our nation. year after year it puts the wishes of the rich ahead of the needs of the poor. and year after year it sacrifices the reality of desperately needed investments at the altar of theoretical deficit reduction. let's look at the details. . let's look at the details. this includes deep cuts. how deep? $790 billion below the sequester level. that is amazing, madam speaker. now, i voted against sequester because of the damage it would and it did inflict on our economy. and this budget would actually cut nearly $1 trillion on top of the sequester. i thought we wanted to end sequester. not make choices that are even worse. that's not the end of the story.

according to one estimate, 69% of the ryan budget cuts come from low-income programs. it would have red the safety et, the -- it would have red the safety net -- it would . red the safety net that's what the ryan budget does. in fact, according to the same estimate, $3.3 trillion of the ryan budget's $4.8 trillion nondefense cuts come from low-income safety net programs like medicaid, snap, school breakfast and lunch programs. head start, the supplemental security income program, the earned income tax credit and child tax credits. 69% of the total nondefense cuts come from these life-changing, indeed life-saving programs. the ryan budget is successful at one thing. it deepens the divide between the rich and poor in this country. it successfully makes life harder for those who are already struggling to make ends meet. if you are hungry in america,

you would see food benefits cut by $137 billion. if you are a middle class college student merge, hopefully you can win the lottery or have a rich uncle, because pell grants would be cut by $125 billion by freezing the max a mum grant and cutting eligibility. if you are a low-income working mother in america who gets health care through medicaid, you would join at least 40 million americans who will become uninsured by 2024 after the ryan budget cuts at least 2.-- $2.7 trillion from medicaid. and if you are a middle class family with kids in america, just trying to get by in this sluggish economy, you would see your taxes go up by $2,000 a year. by if you're fortunate enough to be very rich in america, you lucked out. it's time to pop the champagne. because you make out like a bandit. the oil companies keep their tax breaks, businesses can keep putting money in overseas accounts just to avoid paying

taxes here in america, and if you're a millionaire, get ready for a big, fat check from uncle sam. that's because anyone making more than $1 million a year would see a tax cut of at least $200,000. on top of these disastrous policies, the ryan budget once again goes after seniors. this version once again ends the medicare guarantee and reopens the medicare prescription drug doughnut hole. as a result of these cuts, seniors will see their traditional medicare premiums soar by an average of 50%. as the aarp says, and let me quote, removing the medicare guarantee of affordable health coverage for older americans by implementing a premium support system and asking seniors and future retirees to pay more is not the right direction. end quote. these policies have real-world ramifications. last week, madam speaker, an incredibly strong and courageous group of women called the witnesses to hunger

returned to capitol hill to talk about their struggles as low-income working women trying to make ends meet. it takes guts to come here to capitol hill to tell your story and challenge members of congress to do better. and that's exactly what these impressive women did. they told their stories. they talked about their struggles. and they challenged us to do more to help. so they don't fall back into poverty. these women and the millions of americans like them who work hard every day, don't earn enough to make ends meet, they are having to choose between rent and food and electricity. these women and their children aren't line items in our budget. they aren't statistics in our reports. they are people. people who just want to have a roof over their heads, food on their tables and an education system that will help their children learn and succeed. they want to go to college and not to have to worry about losing their scholarships just because they are a single mother and need to work a night job to feed their child. these women and millions of americans just like them would

hurt, they would be devastated by the ryan budget. i'm glad there are people who are able to make a lot of money in this country. i have nothing against rich people. but we shouldn't penalize those who are struggling. madam speaker, we should be providing ladders of opportunity to help people get out of poverty and move into the middle class. when people need a helping hand we should provide that assistance, whether it's a job training program, early childhood education, health care or something as simple and as basic as food. these aren't handouts, they're hand ups. they're investments in our future. and we should be providing opportunities to strengthen our communities and the middle class through jobs creation, higher education and advancing research and innovation. this is a great country. we've done great things. but we've begun to think install -- small. that's what the republican majority has succeeded in doing. they got to us start thinking small rather than big. we don't tackle big problems anymore. we use deficit reduction as an excuse to do nothing. what we need to do is tax --

tackle big issues like ending hunger. we should tackle the issue of ending poverty. we should want to strive for a country that benefits not just the few who are rich but the many who are poor. the ryan budget would set us back. it would do real damage to millions of real americans, our neighbors, our friends, our fellow parishioners. as pope francis has written, and i quote, i ask god to give us more politicians, capability of sincere and effective dialogue, aimed at healing the deepest roots and not simply the appearances of the evils in our world. politics, though often denigrated, remains a lofty vocation and one of the highest forms of charity in as much as it seeks the common good. in as much as it seeks the common good. this budget, this ryan budget, this republican budget or whatever you want to call it, does not seek the common good. this budget failed that basic test that pope francis outlined. it does not seek the common

good, it deserves to be defeated. we can do so much better in this congress and for our country. i am ashamed that this is what we are debating here today, that this is the republican vision for our future. this is the wrong way to go. democrat cans and republicans should say no to this -- democrats and republicans should say no to this. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: madam speaker, i yield myself two minutes to say to my friend from massachusetts, i believe we share many of the same priorities. but because of past congresses, because of past administrations, because of past decisions that have been made in this chamber, we're on track to spend $6 trillion on interest over the next 10 years. madam speaker, that's opportunity to fulfill every single one of those goals my

friend from massachusetts laid out that is frittered away from the borrow and spend behaviors of the past. there is no disagreement in this chamber about the commitment to a hand up. the disagreement is about how much further out of reach we put opportunity and success by trading away future opportunities for spending today. i have great respect and admiration for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have said yes, let's do raise taxes by $5 trillion, yes, let's do reset our priorities, let's actually describe a pathway to a balanced budget. it's not an easy pathway to get to. but it matters. it doesn't matter because it's a number, madam speaker, it matters because every year we don't balance the budget we steal opportunities from other children. and that is undeniable.

the debate is, do the investments today outweigh those stolen opportunities from tomorrow? or do the savings today, that ensure that opportunity for tomorrow, represent the best course of success that we can provide, again, for our children and grandchildren, about whom there is no disagreement about our strong and steadfast commitment? i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i think one of the differences between what the republicans have proposed and what democrats are proposing is that what they propose is just one thing. cuts. cuts and cuts and cuts and programs for the most needy in this country and more tax cuts for the most wealthy. what the democrats have proposed is a more balanced approach. yeah, there needs to be some sacrifice. but we also understand the importance of investment. if you want to find a way to

balance the budget, why don't we find a cure to alzheimer's disease? not only would that help improve the quality of life for millions of people, but it would also eliminate all the fiscal problems that medicaid has. let's find a cure to diabetes. let's find a cure to cancer. why aren't our energies devoted toward investing in medical research? and yet the ryan budget that we are now debating would devastate medical research in this country. it would devastate it. i mean, we have researchers coming in to visit us who are telling us that china is offering them a better package to do their medical research. singapore. i want these cures to be found here in the united states. i want to invest in that research that will not only save people's lives but create jobs. and also save money. and yet my friends on the other side, they devastate investments in medical research. they devastate investments in scientific research. they devastate investments in transportation.

their way, you know, is one way. cut programs, cut programs that help the most immediatey and give tax breaks to the donald trumps of the world. donald trump doesn't neat me more help. middle class families, those struggling to get in the middle class do need help. madam speaker, i'm going to urge that we defeat the previous question and if we do, i will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up h.r. 4415, the house companion to the unemployment insurance extension bill passed by a bipartisan majority in the senate just yesterday. representative kildee introduced this bill just hours after senate passage. today on equal payday, my amendment will also bring up h.r. 377, rosa delauro's paycheck fairness act. it is shameful that women in america still make an average of only 77 cents for every $1 earned by their male colleagues. the paycheck fairness act will require equal pay for equal work. to discuss our proposal i yield two minutes to the gentleman

from michigan, mr. kildee. mr. kildee: i thank the gentleman for yielding. and i join him in urging my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can immediately bring up h.r. 4415, which is identical to the bills passed on a bipartisan basis by the senate just last night. it would extend emergency unemployment benefits to the two million americans who have lost those benefits since congress failed to act late last year. i also will note that i read today a report that seven of my republican house colleagues have written the speaker urging him to bring this legislation up immediately as well. so we have bipartisan support for this effort to restore necessary benefits to individuals who have lost their jobs. it takes an average of 37 weeks for someone who loses their job in this country to find their next opportunity. yet in my state, after 20 weeks you're cut off of unemployment. so while today's a beautiful

spring day outside and all across the country people are breathing in the optimism that comes with spring, for two million americans, they look at it a different way. they go outside today and wonder if today is the day that the foreclosure notice will come. if today is the day that the eviction will be tacked onto their front door. if they'll go outside and today will be the day that the car has been repossessed. or that there won't be enough food to feed their family. these are real-life americans who are facing this struggle. we have it in our power to do something about it. h.r. 4415, like the senate action, is fully paid for, despite the fact that in the past, on a bipartisan basis, we have approved unemployment insurance extension without it being paid for. this is paid for. it will not increase the deficit. but it will decrease the suffering of millions of american people who go every day trying to find their next

job. i've heard some on the other side say, well, we shouldn't do this because it's not an emergency. well, if you're about to lose your house or about to lose your apartment or about to lose your car or don't have enough food to feed your children, let me tell you, for them, maybe not for all of you, but for them it's an emergency. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kildee: and this congress can should act immediately. yield back. mr. polis: madam speaker, point of parliamentary inquiry. is it a constitutional right of the house to change the rules for consideration of a budget resolution as they are otherwise established in the congressional budget act and were adopted in this congress pursuant to h.r.s remain 5? -- h.res. 5? the speaker pro tempore: the house has the authority to establish rules regarding its proceedings.

mr. polis: parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california will state his inquiry. mr. miller: supersede -- >> supersede section 308 which provides for 10 hours of debate. the speaker pro tempore: the chair does not interpret a special order prior to or pending its consideration under the guise of a parliamentary inquiry. mr. polis: madam speaker, parliamentary inquiry. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. polis: it states it is not in order for the committee on rules to report a rule that would prevent the motion to recommit from being made as provided in clause 2-b of rule 19. was it therefore in order under house rule 13 for the committee on rules to report h.con.res. 6?

the speaker pro tempore: the chair cannot interpret the pending resolution under the guise of a parliamentary inquiry. mr. cardenas: madam speaker, parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized to state his parliamentaryry inquiry. mr. cardenas: is a report from the committee on rules rivileged under house rules? the speaker pro tempore: the raugs was called up as privileged. mr. polis: madam speaker, parliamentary inquirery. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. mr. polis: is it in order to ffer an amendment to the rule? the speaker pro tempore: the amendment is only in order if the majority manager yields for it. mr. cardenas: madam speaker, parliamentary inquirery. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california state his parliamentaryry inquiry. mr. cardenas: will house concurrent resolution 9 be

considered under the--- the hour rule? the speaker pro tempore: it will be governed by the rules of house resolution 544. mr. polis: madam speaker, i would like to ask unanimous consent to permit representative cardenas to offer an amendment. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from georgia yield for that purpose? mr. woodall: madam speaker, i do not yield for that purpose. all purpose is yielded for purposes overwhelm. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman does not yield for that request. mr. cardenas: madam speaker, parliamentary inquirery. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california state your parliamentary inquiry. mr. cardenas: is it correct on april 2, 2014, i offered an amendment to the concurrent resolution on the budget during the markup in the budget committee and all republicans on he committee voted against it? the speaker pro tempore: the chair cannot comment on proceedings in the committee. mr. polis: madam speaker, point of parliamentary inquiry.

does 3-b of rule 13 which requires committee reports to include for recorded votes the total number of votes cast for and answer an amendment as well as the names of members voting for and answer the amendment pply to the rules committee? the speaker pro tempore: members may consult the standing rules. mr. cardenas: madam speaker, parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california state your parliamentary inquiry. mr. cardenas: parliamentary inquiry is requirement of house rule 13 clause b that a committee report include the total number of votes cast for and answer and amendment as well as the means of members voting for and answer an amendment -- and against an amendment and against a reported bill or resolution? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may consult the standing rules. mr. polis: madam speaker, parliamentary inquirery. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from colorado state your parliamentaryry inquiry. mr. polis: would a point of order lie gens h.res. 5554, if the accompanying report did not include a record of the votes cast for and against and amendment as well as the names and members voting for and against an amendment knowing that transparency is so fundamental to the rules of the house and the democratic process? the speaker pro tempore: house resolution 544 is currently pending. mr. cardenas: madam speaker, parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: does any member seek time for debate? mr. polis: madam speaker, parliamentary inquiry, i believe parliamentary inquiries are privileged, is that correct? the speaker pro tempore: entertainment of parliamentaryry inquiry is within the discretion of the chair. does anyone -- does any member seek time for debate? mr. woodall: madam speaker, i seek time. mr. polis: parliamentaryry inquire. madam speaker, parliamentaryry

inquiry. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: madam speaker, i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: madam speaker, there are often reasons to come to this floor and instruct the rules committee about how the rules committee could do better. we do the best we can, but we accept constructive criticism from all comers. but the rule that is before us today is an example of what's gone right not what's gone wrong. the rule that's before us today makes in order every single budget that was offered to the rules committee. i don't dispute that there are lots of different agendas that are being pursued here on the floor at this time, but for the budget agenda, for the openness agenda, for the full debate agenda, we have a rule before us that has made in order every single substitute offered in the

rules committee. that happens to be five substitutes in addition to the base bill, but had there been more, we would have made more in order. again, lots of things that we can come to the floor of the house and disagree on, but this rule to bring those disagreeing budgets to the floor should be a point of great pride for both sides of the aisle. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized for parliamentary inquiry. mr. cardenas: thank you, madam speaker. would a point of order lie against house resolution 544 if it did not include a record of the courageous votes cast by representative ros-lehtinen in favor of allowing an amendment on comprehensive immigration reform? the speaker pro tempore: the current resolution is pending. therefore asking for an advisory opinion. the chair will not give an advisory opinion. mr. polis: parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is

recognized for parliamentary inquiry. mr. polis: is it correct that representative cardenasas amendment, which acome taughted changes in 515, which lowers our deficits and secures our borders and establishes clear and just rules for citizenship was not ade in order under h.res. 554? the speaker pro tempore: members may consult the committee on rules. mr. cardenas: parliamentary inquirery. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for parliamentary inquiry. mr. cardenas: is it correct my amendment known as the cardenas amendment, which also called for the house leadership to allow a vote on house resolution 5, the houses' bipartisan comprehensive immigration bill since the house majority had refused to bring it to the floor for a vote was not made in order under house esolution 544?

the speaker pro tempore: the chair cannot comment on proceedings that happened in the committee on rules. mr. polis: madam speaker, point of parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for his parliamentary inquirery. mr. polis: how many co-sponsors does h.r. 15 currently have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is not stating a parliamentary inquirery. mr. polis: further parliamentary inquirery, how many of those co-sponsors are republican members of the house of representatives? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has not stated a parliamentary inquire youry -- inquiry. mr. cardenas: parliamentary inquiry, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized to state your parliamentary inquiry. mr. cardenas: how many members have signed on the discharge petition, h.r. 15? the speaker pro tempore: members may consult the resolution at the desk. mr. cardenas: further parliamentary inquiry on that note, how many of those co-sponsors are republican members? the speaker pro tempore: members may consult a discharge petition

at the desk. mr. polis: madam speaker, parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. entertainment of the parliamentary inquiry is within the discretion of the chair. the chair's prepared to recognize members for debate. mr. woodall: i seek time for debate. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: madam speaker, it's my great pleasure to yield five minutes to the chairman of the house rules committee, the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. sessions: thank you very much, madam speaker. madam speaker, i recognize why we are here and so do the members of this body. and the reason why is because if you look at the pathway that the democratic party, which is what our colleagues are arguing for today, it's a pathway not only to destruction but insolvency for the united states of america. up to and including social security, medicare, medicaid,

our ability to pay for things that this great nation needs. last night in the rules committee, i want to thank the gentleman from georgia who is our representative to the budget committee, mr. woodall has spent hours not only in understanding, talking, and debating these issues, but making sure that he brought back a product that was worthy of the sale to the american people by the house of representatives today. the gentleman, mr. woodall, is taking time to describe that really there are at least two different pathways that we could go down. now, i am aware that we also made in order five other opportunities. opportunities where there are groups of people, members who came to the rules committee uptears, talked forthrightly about what was in their bills, and they were very proud of saying they wanted to raise taxeses. trillions of dollars. they wanted to blame the ills and woes on a balanced budget

and america does something that was about solvency and a good future. but here we are on the floor today to talk about the pathways. one pathway where we can sustain what we do, which is called the ryan budget. the chairman of the budget committee, paul ryan, thoughtfully and carefully, i think artfully, came and spoke about how we need to make sure that he we continue to grow jobs in this country. the alternative to that was higher taxes and putting more off on the american people to not only have to work harder for what they would earn, but less take-home pay. we argued forthrightly about putting us on a pathway with our budget to where we could look at the energy resources of america providing us with those opportunities to develop jobs

and more revenue for the country. our friends on the democratic side want to tax oil by billions of dollars, raising the price of energy. we forthrightly understand this and we get it. we have seen energy prices double at the pump by president obama and democrat leadership. we have seen food double in price. no wonder it's difficult for average americans to make ends meet. we have seen the democrat party through their budget and through their actual laws that they passed to diminish not only hours of work which was the debate of the last few weeks about whether we would diminish the 40-hour workweek in favor of a 30-hour workweek. two different pathways. two different directions he we would go. taxing and spending -- directions we would go. taxing and spending, blaming people who had jobs, blaming

millionaires and billionaires the would hes -- woes of america. ladies and gentlemen, i would submit to you today that it is people who are innovative and creative that do do well in life who create jobs and opportunities for this country. but they will quit doing so if we really tax them out of existence. if we do what the democrats want to do and move for a pathway that means that america does not have a brighter future. we will do exactly what we have seen this happening in greece, in ice lapd, and in france. -- island, and in france where he right -- iceland and in france where the brightest of the people have given up because they cannot make a go of it. quite honestly the republican party is proud of what we are doing. we are talking about how important it is to be careful and cautious, to make sure we can sustain what we do, to make sure that our promise to

america's seniors on medicare and social security is taken care of. not to go and make promise that is we know we cannot fulfill. on the other side they turn right around and say let's just go tax business. let's go tax energy. let's go tax people. those rich people. ladies and gentlemen, that's how you kill the goose that lays the golden egg. i have worked hard, never missed a day of work in 36 years. i am not one of those people that they want to pick on, but i say thank goodness that we have entrepreneurs in our country who have chosen to make america home. who have chosen to employ american workers, and what the democrat party wants to do with their budget is to throw us all out of work and make us beholden to them. i thank the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves.

the gentleman from colorado is recognized for parliamentary inquiry. mr. polis: madam speaker, is it correct that the concurrent resolution on the budget fails to assume enactment of h.r. 15, immigration reform, and in doing so squanders the opportunity to reduce taxes that mr. sessions just talked about to the tune of $900 billion? . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has not stated a proper parliamentary inquiry. the gentleman is engaging in debate. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. cardenas: madam speaker, isn't it true that unlike the current resolution on the budget which fails to balance in 10 years, h.r. 15, the house bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill, would, according to the independent congressional budget office, reduce our deficit by nearly $1 trillion over the next 20 years? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has not stated a proper parliamentary inquiry. the gentleman is engaging in debate. mr. polis: madam speaker, parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. state your parliamentary inquiry. mr. polis: madam speaker, is it true that unlike the concurrent

resolution on the budget, which slashes the transportation budget by $52 billion this year alone, and according to the economic policy institute, decreases g.d.p. by $2 -- by 2.5%, that h.r. 15, the house comprehensive immigration reform bill, would create 120,000 jobs, according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has not stated a proper parliamentary inquiry and the gentleman is engaging in debate. mr. cardenas: madam speaker, parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry. mr. cardenas: thank you, madam speaker. is it correct that the ranking member van hollen's substitute amendment assumes the passage of immigration reform and a passage of the substitute is a vote against immigration reform? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has not stated a proper parliamentary inquiry. the gentleman is engaging in debate. mr. polis: madam speaker, point of parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. state your parliamentary inquiry. mr. polis: would it be in order

to introduce an amendment to allow for an amendment to the rule to allow for consideration of h.r. 15 as part of the udget? the speaker pro tempore: the amendment would only be in order if the majority member yielded for the amendment. mr. polis: madam speaker, i would like to ask unanimous consent to allow for the consideration of the cardenas amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia yield? mr. woodall: all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman does not yield. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. the gentleman from california seeks recognition. mr. cardenas: thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does do you seek recognition? mr. cardenas: permission to de bait for one minute -- to debate for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may get the time from the member. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentleman one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute.

mr. cardenas: thank you. i just wanted to correspondent a little bit to what congressman woodall said a little while ago. the fact of the matter is that 58 senators and the majority of the american people believe in debate and reform. when it comes to comprehensive immigration reform, it is about the budget, it is about the budget. 120,000 american jobs every year for the next 10 years. $900 billion reduction in the deficit. in our deficit, the united states deficit. that is why we need comprehensive immigration reform and it is about the budget, madam speaker, and members. i think it's important for us to understand that that would be the responsible, responsible budget to pass, one that has comprehensive immigration reform. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: madam speaker, i'd like to yield an additional minute to the chairman of the rules committee, the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. sessions: madam speaker, thank you very much. i recognize that i need to hold some classes up at the rules

committee so that members have a better opportunity to understand more about the rules of the house and about how we operate on the floor. the facts of the case are very simple. the rules committee last night made in order anything that was a complete substitute or an opportunity to have their bill heard last night. we do not take on what might be one single issue or literally an amendment. and the process that we're trying to follow here today is one that's happening because for four years the democratic party had the speaker of the house, the senate hjorth leader and the president of -- majority leader and the president of the united states and they did not do for four years what they're asking us to do today. and all these shiny objects swirling around do not fool the american people. they want to raise taxes and raise spending and blame someone rather than coming to the table and working together.

mr. mcgovern: will the gentleman yield? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i think what you just saw on the floor is frustration. in this supposed open house that my colleagues brag about erroneously, i should add, this issue of comprehensive immigration reform has failed to be given a day on the floor. the united states senate in a bipartisan way passed comprehensive immigration reform, a bill that would, by the way, raise close to $1 trillion over the next 20 years to pay down our debt. and yet we can't even get it scheduled on the house floor. the leadership here continues to block it. and mr. cardenas and mr. polis last night in the rules committee thought that given the fact that there's such an incredible savings here that it was relevant to this.

and by the way, the rules committee can do whatever it wants to. the rules committee could issue the necessary waivers to allow this to happen. there's no reason at all why this couldn't have been brought up today except that a majority in the rules committee said no. i mean, that's the reason why. so what you see is frustration. what you see is frustration. not just by democrats. there are people in the -- on the republican side who as well would like to see us debate comprehensive immigration reform and instead we're blocked at every single avenue. so that has to change. otherwise you're going to see more of the kinds of displays that you just witnessed. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: madam speaker, this time it's my great pleasure to yield five minutes to a member both of the rules committee and the house budget committee, the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. cole. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. for one minute. mr. cole: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection. mr. cole: thank you. i want to thank my friend, mr. woodall, for yielding me the time. i want to urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation. i'd be the first to tell you that this budget's not a perfect budget. not all perfect -- excuse me, no budget is actually perfect. but it's a good budget. there's a couple of issues that do concern me, as i addressed mr. ryan last night, i'm a little worried we haven't dealt with the wildfire issue to my satisfaction which disrupts the appropriating process within interior. but he assured me that he recognized that was a problem, we were going to continue to work on it. i'm actually going to vote for mr. woodall's budget when i had the opportunity to do that. it's the most conservative approach on the floor and i appreciate that. but i think we ought to stop and remember, without paul ryan we wouldn't have the choices in front of us today. the united states senate has chosen not to have a budget once again this year. something that it frequently

does. with all due respect to my riends who do have a budget, and i'm pleased that they do, in 2010 when they were actually in the majority, they didn't present a budget to this body either. it's paul ryan that's forced us to confront the fiscal crisis that's facing the country and has actually put something on the table to deal with it. you don't have to deal with everything in it but it has a lot of virtues to it. the first is it actually focuses on the number one driver of the debt and that's our unsustainable entitlement programs. we've made a lot of progress in the last few years in this body on a bipartisan basis in reducing discretionary spending. we're actually spending $165 billion less in the discretionary accounts than we were in 2008 when george w. bush was president of the united states. i don't agree with all those reductions, i suspect my friends on the other side don't either. but that's a tangible contribution to reducing the deficit, to moving us toward balance. what we haven't dealt with, what the president has largely

refused to deal with, and what i suspect my friends in their budget will not deal with, but paul ryan has, are the real drivers of the debt. medicare and medicaid in particular. and there's an offer in there to sit down and deal seriously with social security as well. and until we do those things and paul ryan has started us on a path to do them, we'll never bring the budget into balance. now, one of the other things i like about mr. ryan's budget is, gosh, it really does balance within 10 years. makes a lot of tough choices. my friend mr. woodall gets there a little bit faster because he makes even tougher choices. but it balances. my friends on the other side of the aisle and the administration haven't presented a budget that balances in 10 years or 20 years or 30 years or 40 or 50 or just draw the lines right on out to infinity. i don't think that's what the american people senlt us here to do. but until -- sent us here to do. but until somebody tombly has he courage to do what mr. --

actually has the courage to do what mr. ryan or mr. woodall's done, that's where our country is. this incorporates in it the agreement that mr. ryan agreed with on -- agreed on with senator murray in the other body. it's not something i would have done. but it was a real agreement. only a two-year agreement, but a real agreement. and against a lot of criticism, mr. ryan incorporated. ok, if that's going to be the settled law of the land, that should be part of our budget. he put it in there, i'm proud of him for doing that. finally again it reduces not spending but the growth of spending. we're not -- we're going to hear a lot of talk about flashes and -- slashes and not investment. if you look at the ryan budget, federal spending still grows. it grows by about 3.5% a year. the difference is the democratic alternative or ex keys new the current course is like -- excuse me, the current course is like 5.2%. that's not a great deal of difference. we could really restrain our deficit in the short-term and

ultimately bring ourselves into balance not by slashing everything but by simply making some of the simple commonsense reforms that my friend mr. ryan , to great criticism, has advanced and put on this floor year after year and year doctor -- year after year after year. i want to urge athe adoption of -- the adoption of this rule which is a terrific rule. the rules committee have put a variety of choices before this body. we're going to have a budget from the progressive caucus, very different than i would like, but it's going to get its opportunity. we're going to have a budget from the congressional black caucus. again, different than i would choose, but it certainly deserves to be heard and examined. we're going to have mr. woodall's budget. so we're going to have several choices before we get to mr. ryan's budget. any one of whom might win. might actually persuade people. but at the end of the day we're going to have multiple choices because of this rule. and so it deserves to be dealt with because it does indeed open the process. the end of the day, i suspect mr. ryan's budget will be the one that passes.

again, i'm very proud to do that and i urge its pass and with that, madam speaker -- passage and with that, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you, madam speaker. i want to agree with my friend from oklahoma that mr. ryan has given us a choice. he's presented us with a budget that would end medicare as we know it. it would slash the social safety net to smithereens. it cut cans snap by $137 billion. it would damage the national institutes of health, transportation funding, pell grants would be cut, i go right down the list. we've got a choice here. and people ought to understand what that budget is all about. and my friends on the other side may be proud of this and, again, i find that puzzling because the notion that the only way to balance the budget is by, you know, hurting poor

people or hurting the middle class, i don't agree with. you talk about sacrifices. why are all the sacrifices on the backs of middle income families or on the backs of the poor in this country? the rich get a tax cut. the rich get a tax cut. middle class families get a tax increase. poor people get their food stamps taken away from them. why is that always the choice that you provide members of this house? why are those the only people that sacrifice? i find that just -- i find it unconscionable, quite frankly. with that, mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is ecognized for two minutes. mr. defazio: let's talk about what's not in the ryan budget. the federal highway trust fund,

which funds all highway, road, bridge and transit projects in the united states of america, will be exhausted sometime this summer. number states -- a number of states are already delaying or canceling major problems -- projects and there will be a flood of states doing that after the trust fund goes belly can-up. for next year, under the ryan budget -- belly-up. for next year, under the ryan budget, there will be zero, no, none, zero federal investment in roads, bridges, highway and transit, despite the deteriorated state of our infrastructure, for between nine and 11 months until we pay our past bills and then there will be a little trickle. meanwhile bridges will be falling down, people will be driving through pot holes, delayed in congestion. we'll walk away from or lose over a million construction, manufacturing, engineering jobs and we'll have an impact on hundreds of thousands, millions of other jobs across the united states of america. not even to begin to talk about our lack of competitiveness with the rest of the world. now, the ryan budget does

address this in a rather novel way. so the trust funds -- trust fund's going broke. probably what we've done the last couple of times, we got to that point, we said, hey, transportation is so important. we transfer some general fund money over. the ryan budget says, you cannot transfer general fund money over to transportation, it must go broke. well, the other thing would be a new source of revenue or user fees. the gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon and that was from 1993. me tax in 1993, a gallon was $1.11. last weekend i play $3.71. that money's going to exxonmobil and wall street speculators but it's not going to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and putting millions of americans back to work. under the ryan budget we're going to devolve the federal transportation -- what does that mean? it means we're going to have a 50-state and territory federal transportation policy. you know, we actually tried that once. this is 1956.

brand new kansas turnpike. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. defazio: well, they said, sorry, guys, can't build it. people crashed through the barrier and went into his field. until dwight david eisenhower, a republican president, passed a national highway transportation bill with a trust fund. that would be undone by paul ryan. he said states can opt out. they on the even have to collect the 18.4 cents federal tax. they can do whatever they want with that money. you know, counties are actually ripping up paved roads and turning them back to gravel because they can't afford them. 140,000 bridges need repair or replacement. 40% of the national highway system has pavement that has totally failed. $70 billion backlog on our transit systems. these are millions of jobs forgone, productivity forgone. and if you are so darn proud,

why aren't you proud of the future of america, competing with the rest of the world with a world-class 21st century transportation system? you're going to kill it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: madam speaker, at this time it's my great pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from the class of 2010, former sheriff and a member of the rules committee, the gentleman from florida, mr. nugent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is rked. mr. nugent: thank you, mr. woodall and thank you, madam chair. one of the most important things we do in this congress is a constitutional requirement is that we provide for the common defense of this nation, to allow things like my good friends on the democratic side are arguing for, with regards to more entitle programs, more helping our neighbors. but without a national defense, all of this is moot. it doesn't matter. it adds up to nothing if we can't defend the homeland and defend our friends when they need it. now, i will tell you this

budget does something that is needed. it increases the spending for our military. it actually takes something that the president, commander in chief, who's cut the military by $1 trillion in the last few years, is actually restoring money that he was holding hostage. he said, listen, the military can have $26 billion more if, if you give us $27 billion more for domestic spending. it's about holding our safety hostage. when those that are in a position to talk to us and tell us that, listen, the world's changing, you don't have to look very far, watch tv, see what's happening in russia, see what's happening in china, in iran, in north korea. this is not a safer world since this president's taken office. it's become a much more dangerous world, particularly

from state actors. you know, it's not all his fault, i must say, madam speaker. the president is not at fault for this. this goes back of years kicking the can down the road by this congress. you know, mr. woodall and i came to congress at the same time three years ago. madam chair, we weren't part of the problem. with those that were here prior to that have been part of the problem, they continue to kick the can down the road. paul ryan, the chairman of the budget committee and members of the budget committee, actually choked the bull by the home and is starting to turn this country -- mr. woodall: i yield an additional 60 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 60 seconds. mr. nugent: is actually talking about questions that we have to talk about. if the problem isn't immediate, we don't have to worry about. don't worry about it because it will never happen, but we're being told by professionals

that, guess what, social security and medicare are at risk if we do nothing. if we don't challenge the status quo, if we don't start talking about how do we move forward to protect our seniors today from cuts in medicare and social security, how we move forward for our younger folks as they get closer to retirement age, we've got to do more. and i believe that this budget is actually creating a dialogue for us to move forward and do more, not just put our heads in the sand and say, you know what, we just need to spend more money, it will all get money because we can tax our way out of it and everybody knows that is not true. and madam chair, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i'd say to the gentleman from florida, the national defense includes more than a number of weapons we have in our arsenal. it includes the quality of life for our people here at home. and these programs he's denigrating like snamsnap, for example, i should remind him there are -- extremely high

number of military families that rely on snap to get by. and a high number of veterans that do as well. basic food. they're looking for help putting food on the table. so before anybody denigrates those programs, understand they contribute to our national defense as well. they're feeding our military families, sadly, and they're feeding a lot of veterans, sadly, because these returning veterans can't find the jobs that pay a little wage. but having said that, madam speaker, it's my pleasure to now yield since to the gentlewoman from new york, the distinguished ranking member of the committee on rules, ms. slaughter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for six minutes. ms. slaughter: thank you, madam speaker. and thank you, mr. mcgovern. madam speaker, this is pretty exciting here this morning. i think this is the first time in five years i've been here when we were actually having a debate. really discussing what both sides stand for. mr. defazio was wonderful. he's absolutely. he knows what he's talking about. we haven't built any roads. do you know we've built one airport from the ground up in

the united states since 1972? and that every place else in the rest of the world have brand new airports? high speed rail, we don't have any. a we've spent $2 billion week while we were in iraq. willing to spend that, maimed 46,000 young people, killed thousands of them as well as the people in those countries for oil. so -- what we really are doing here this morning is we're showing the difference in this country of what the two sides believe in. we don't believe over here that the richest people should get richer. we don't believe we need a budget right now that raises -- that lowers the corporate tax rate. we believe that all americans should be paying their fair share so we can try to build it back up and maybe we can start to enjoy some of the things that happen elsewhere in the 21st century. but this budget is a misguided

proposal driven by flawed math. at worse, it's a cynical choice to balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable americans in order to protect the incomes of the powerful special interests and the wealthiest few, and it does precisely that. it's not news to anybody in the country now that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer and the unemployed are desperate. everybody knows that. the issue is, what is the congress of the united states going to do about that? now, with this proposal, the majority gives an average tax cut of $200,000 to families earning more than $1 million a year. so they're ok. they ought to be dodging it. they're going to get a $200,000 tax cut for it. but to pay for it, we have to raise the taxes on the middle class. and let me tell you how we do that. with this proposal, they defend this tax loophole we've been trying to close ever since i

have been in congress the $40 billion we give all companies so they'll drill. the five major oil companies, we'll give them $40 billion so they'll drill. nobody needs to encourage them to drill. but we pay them to do that. to do that they are going to turn medicare into a voucher program. we discussed this before. that means your aged parents, grandparents will go into a marketplace by themselves or maybe you can go with them. that would be good. and look for their own insurance policy. they will be given a government voucher or a stipend or whatever you want to call it to help them pay for it. the rest of the cost will come from the senior citizens. it takes exactly away what lyndon johnson had in mind in 1968, the benefit guaranteed by medicare will be gone. now, to pay for that, again, they want to keep the medicare plan we have today.

and with this proposal the majority reduces the tax rate paid by corporations. i've said that before. i want to say it again. corporations' tax rates are already reduced. we already know that most of them put all their assets in the cayman islands or some other country and pay no taxes whatever. if we just brought some of the tax money back from the cayman islands i bet we can have high speed rail in the united states. wouldn't that be wonderful? billions out -- of the mouths of low-income families struggling to get by. the author of this bill said such draconian cuts are necessary because, quote, we don't want to turn the safety net into a hammock that allows abled body people into complacency, end quote. if that's his goal, he and his colleagues have written a

budget that badly misses the mark. it is not found in the homes of working families but own the beaches of the cayman islands, those that build their own hammock out of the social net that used to support the largest middle class on earth that is fast disappearing. for more than three decades, the wealthy and the powerful have used money and influence to secure tax cuts to deregulate industries and to pass free trade deals that put corporate profits before america's jobs. in so doing they have redirected revenue away from the federal government and made it virtually impossible to fund the programs that made our nation the envy of the world. with the wealthy and powerful exempted from paying their fair share, our nation puts tens of billions of dollars on two wars on the nation's credit card and fail to invest in maintaining our roads and modernizing our airports, building efficient passenger rail here at home.

as a result, highway, bridges are literally falling into the water. our airports have become laughably out of date and our trains travel at speeds half as fast as those found in germany, china and japan. the majority budget's doubles down on the failed policy by reduces taxes on the rich and powerful further. we said that a millionaire gets a $220,000 tax cut. so we're going to ask the most vulnerable americans to pay the price. under this budget, 170,000 will lose head start. 29,000 teachers and aides will be left without jobs. college students already suffering under the staggering cost of higher education will say they must repay their loans while in school and 200 -- may i have an additional two minutes, please? mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentlelady 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. slaughter: are told to repay their loans while in school and will be cut from pell grants, making to harder than ever to get the education that a modern world needs. perhaps most egregiously, secure and affordable health care will be broken with the repeal of the affordable care act and the end of the medicare guarantee. under the majority's budget, medicare will be turned into a voucher, as we said before. on sunday, a news program, "60 minutes" traveled down the winding roads into the heart of appalachia in an r.v. called the health wagon. it's the only source of health care for thousands of meashes americans in desperate need of medical attention. the vehicle is staffed by two incredible nurses including a doctor. after completing medical school, dr. smitty had to enroll in truck driver school so he can drive the health wagon's x-ray lab, an 18-wheel truck, to find diseases that would go undetected.

these volunteers have seen the price of the american individual when the chamber puts the rich and powerful ahead of everyone else. he said of life in the cumberland, this is a third rld country of diabetes, hypertension and copd, madam speaker. the health wagon, though every day is heroic, no individual on the wealthiest nation on earth should be relying on the goo will of volunteers to be receiving modern medical care. doctors and nurses should not be relying upon federal grants -- ms. slaughter: can't do it? mr. mcgovern: i yield 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 130ekds. ms. slaughter: that's why we say this budget is not a reflection of our values but theirs. it's through the budget we decide whether we protect tax loopholes for big oil or provide our fellow citizens with access to secure and affordable health care and education, a job and a place to

live. it's through tower budget we decide whether kids can go to college or not. only by choosing and act and asking every american, including corporations to pay their fair share -- corporations are people, i understand. we established that in the supreme court. will be able to put every american on a path to prosperity, restore our role as the most advanced nation in the world. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. . wood -- mr. woodall: it's my privilege to yield to ms. foxx. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman from georgia for yielding. i also thank chairman ryan and his staff for their hard work in producing this budget. we owe them a debt of gratitude . madam speaker budget puts a -- madam speaker, budget puts a numerical value on the priorities we claim to value and as such it's a moral

document. this budget will protect and strengthen medicare, preserve our commitment to veterans, keep faith with future generations by getting spending under control and fostering economic growth. this budget controls spending by ending sweetheart deals for favored corporations and returning government to its proper limits. years of overreach and cronyism have weakened confidence in the federal government and damaged our economy. as chairman ryan mentioned in his rules committee testimony last night, the c.b.o. has warned that if we fail to address our lackluster economic growth and rising debt, our children and grandchildren are guaranteed a lower standard of living than what we currently enjoy. for the first time in american history, we may bequeath to our chir and -- children and grandchildren a less prosperous country with limited opportunities to pursue their american dream. as a mother and grandmother, i will do all i can to keep that from happening.

over the next decade, the u.s. government will spend $5.8 trillion servicing debt. $5 trillion, madam speaker, simply to make interest payments to our creditors. those dollars could be put to work at home, strength ing our military, -- strengthening our military, caring for our veterans and improve the lives of all americans. instead, nearly all of it will go to pay for the inability of those who came before to manage the nation's treasury responsibly. we need to stop spending money we don't have. unlike the president's budget, this budget actually balances within the budget window, a balanced budget will foster a healthier economy and help create jobs. by reducing the capital the government takes out of the private sector, this budget will foster opportunity. thank you, madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i yield 1 1/2 minutes to can the gentlewoman from connecticuts

ms. delauro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from connecticut is ecognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. delauro: i rise in opposition to the previous question, defeat of the previous question will allow us to amend the rule to provide for consideration of the paycheck fairness act. an act at that addresses the persistent problem of unequal pay in our economy and would help make the bill before us a real boone for women and their families. women are now half of the nation's work force, 2/3 are primary or co-bred winners. the sad a fact is they're still making and only making 77 cents on the dollar on average compared to men. this holds true across all occupations and education levels and for women of color, the disparities are even worse. less pay for women means less pay for an entire family. at a time when millions are struggling to enter the middle class, give their kids a chance at a better life, achieve the american dream, it affects all of us.

we have seen the republican budget being discussed today already does so much to put that dream out of reach for america's families. it slashes our social safety net, cuts off nutrition support, denies food to millions of low-income americans and our most important antihunger program in the nation. center for budget and policy priorities said 69% of the cuts in this republican budget would come from programs serving low and moderate income people. let's be in opposition to this previous question because we'll have an opportunity to pass a paycheck fairness act. i urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question can because when women succeed, america succeeds. let's help hardworking families take home the pay that they deserve, ensure that women are being paid the same as men for the same job. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: i advise my friend from massachusetts that we have no further speakers remaining.

if he's prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is roadwayed -- is recognized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, how much time do i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: you have 30 seconds. mr. mcgovern: i want to ask unanimous consent to insert the text in the amendment in the record along with extraneous material prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: i'd also like to ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a report on the center of budget and policies priorities intended ryan budget would cut snap by $137 billion over 10 years. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question. a vote no on the underlying bills, the ryan budget will create a government without a conscience. it is cruel, this budget is a rotten thing to do to poor people. it is a rotten thing to do to the middle class, it is an outrage, so please again vote no on the previous question and vote no on the underlying bill. this really is an embarrassment. we could do so much better in this chamber. the people of this country deserve much better than what we're giving them.

with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: you couldn't tell it from the acura moany that's been expressed over the last hour, but this is a good day. there are so many opportunities we have to come to this house and be disappointmented -- disappointed with the bills that are here before us. why? because we have different ideas. we have different ideas. my constituency different than the constituencies of so many of my other colleagues, i don't question that they do their best to serve their constituencies, but in serving their voters, they harm mine. and sometimes vice versa. but today that's not the question. we don't have a choice between the lesser of two evils. we don't have a choice against my way or their way. we have a rule that allows for absolutely every member of this congress to write their own budget. think about that, madam speaker. we're talking about the budget of the united states of

america. $3.5 trillion. now, everybody doesn't write their own budget. turns out we have more in common than we have that divides us around this institution, madam speaker. we have six budgets that we're going to be voting on. that's every single budget that was submitted. but it's only six budgets. one came out of the house budget committee, one came out of the republican study committee. one came out of the congressional black caucus, one came out of the progressive caucus. one came from the ranking member of the budget committee, mr. van hollen, and one came from mr. mulvaney, representing the president's budget. by golly, madam speaker, if you can't find something that you believe in, in that continuum of budgets, you're that looking hard enough and -- can you're not looking hard enough and here's the thing. budgets are about choices. budgets are about priorities. and the budgets of previous congresses and previous presidents have run up a debt the size of which, servicing

even at these lower teaser interest rates in american history, will suck out 18 months of productivity over the next 10 years. i do not question my friends' commitment to the snap program. but understand that decision cans of the past -- decisions of the past, paying the interest alone require the snap program be closed completely for 18 months. i do not credit my friends' commitment to national security. but the budgets and the priorities of past congresses have barred us into such a state that paying interest alone would require us to close our military for 18 months over the next 10 years. we could not agree more that this budget week is about choices and priorities and i tell you the choices and priorities of past congresses and past presidents are trading away hope for the next

generation of americans. they are trading away opportunities to serve americans who need to be served today, they are trading away security that folks should be able to have in a land as great as america. but because of decisions that this body, the senate and the white house have made over the past decades, that security is no more. not the budget-passed budget, madam speaker. the budget-committee budget begins to balance. we'll reclaim those opportunities for those future generations, don't we owe it to them, madam speaker, not to advance ourselves at their expense? i think i know what the answer to that question is. but we're going to be debating it over the next three days here on the house floor. i hope my colleagues will agree with me at the end of that process, that we owe it to them to do better today. with that, madam speaker, i

yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this uestion will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. woodall: madam speaker, pursuant to house resolution 539, i caup up the bill h.r. 1871 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 94, h.r. 1871, a bill to amend the balanced budget and emergency deficit control act of 1985, to reform the budget baseline. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 539, the bill as amended is considered read. and the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, each will control 30 minutes and the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall. mr. woodall: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. woodall: i'd like to ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 1871 in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. woodall: madam speaker, i'm pleased to be down here with the ranking member of the budget committee, the gentleman from maryland, a gentleman whose opinion and counsel i have great respect for. what i love about the budget committee is that we have a chance to talk about issues that are defined by numbers in committee but whose outcome is a difference in people's lives back home. after all, the reason the gentleman from maryland is the highest ranking democrat on the budget committee is not because he cares about math, it's because he cares about people. and that's who the budget committee consists of, madam speaker. the budget that is before us first conceived in this house by the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. i happen to be on the budget committee, i happen to have passion on this issue, and so

my name exists to carry this bill forward, but it's been an idea that's been around in this institution and it says this, we've all seen it, we've all been in town hall meetings, madam speaker, where you say, this is what week of done to spending for next year, and somebody's going to raise their hand and say, is that washington math or is that real math? is this one of those things where you raise spending by $10 but you call it a cut because you predicted you'd raise spending by $20 instead? how sad is that? how sad is that, that in a country run by the american people, that they have to ask their representatives, is this real math or is this washington math? this bill, madam speaker, puts a stop to washington math forever. it says this. don't assume you're going to spend more money next year than you spent last year unless the law requires it. so security's a good example of that. we raised social security each

and every year. why? because the law of the land requires it. but not so in federal budgeting rules. in the crazy world of federal budgeting, madam speaker, you raise spending next year just because. the assumption is, well, of course they're going to spend more money than they did last year. are they getting more bang for their buck? i don't know. is the crisis still there, does it still need to be funded? i don't know. but we're going to assume more dollars go out the door. my bill asks one thing and one thing only, madam speaker. and that is, to justify the american people's tax dollars when they are spent, if you need more money next year, come to congress and say so. if it's a priority for my constituents back home, i promise you you'll get my yes vote. but gone are the days of assuming congress will always spend more irrespective of the merits. with that i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam speaker. i appreciate my friend from georgia, mr. woodall, kicking off this debate. as he indicated earlier, as we debate the budgets, there will be differences of opinion and differences of philosophy, but when it come cans to math -- comes to math, there's not republican math, there's not democratic math, when you run a math equation, you get the same result, whether you're a republican or a democrat and what this bill attempts to do s to legislate away inflation. gee, that would be so nice. if we could pass a law and inflation would go away. but worse, this bill says we are going to put together budgets on the assumption there's no inflation, on the assumption that the price of goods and services doesn't change over time. and if you do that, you get

very misleading results in your budget. now, the gentleman talked about washington math. madam speaker, i just like to show you the change of a cost of a hamburger from the last 10-year period. we do our budgets in 10-year windows. so the price of a hamburger in 2004 was $2.71. the price of that same hamburger 10 years later in 2014, that's $4.62. that's not washington math. that's reality-based math, right? now, here's what this republican proposal would do. it wants to take that fantasy land math and apply it to our budgets, right? so here's the chart. if you applied that idea in the budgets that we have from 2004 to today, you would assume that the price of that hamburger or

any goods and services that we bought as a federal government remain the same. no inflation, no change, but that's not the reality. the reality is between 2004 and 2014, we had inflation and the cost of goods and services went up. now, the good news is that we did not have this proposal in effect from 2004 to 2014, so we didn't have this detachment from reality. but what our republican colleagues want to say, from now on, from 2014 on, when the congressional budget office puts together its estimations of future budgets, it's got to assume away inflation. presto. and as you can see over time, that would become further and further detached from reality. not washington reality. economic reality. so here's what would happen if you budgeted that way.

for $2.71 today, you don't get as big a hamburger, right? you don't get as big a hamburger. so apply that idea to an aircraft carrier. right. we have 10-year budgets. the gentleman's proposal is to pretend that over the next 10 years there's no increase in the price of the inputs to making that aircraft carrier. just assume it away, inflation. well, you know what, if you plan that way, at the end of the day you are going to have half an aircraft carrier in your budget just like you'd have half a hamburger in your budget. imagine a business that was planning ahead next 10 years trying to do a profit-loss statement. they had to calculate what it was going to cost them to buy inputs to their manufacturing process, energy inputs, oil and

gas, other inputs of material they have to purchase. and let's say that today they assumed miraculously there was no inkeys in the cost of those -- there was no increase in the cost of those inputs. boy, that would be nice, but you know what, that private business would go under and that business would be sued for malfrom its shareholders. so -- for malpractice from its shareholders. why would we do that to the federal government that we would not allow in a private sector business that would make a private sector business go belly up? i would say, madam speaker, the reason the congressional budget office projects the budgets as they do today, the reason they include the estimated costs of inflation is not because they did washington math. it's because they can go out and go to mcdonald's and find out that, you know what, the price of a big mac is not the

same today as it was 10 years ago. and it would be misleading to pretend as we put together our next 10-year budgets that the price of aircraft carriers, the price of education, the price of providing health care to our veterans will be the same. and if you assume that, at the end of the day you shortchange those veterans, you shortchange that defense policy, you shortchange our kids because just like you can only buy half a hamburger today for what you could have in 2004, you are not going to be able to buy the same education for kids, the same military 10 years from now. so we're not talking about washington math. this is the case of basic math. as i said, it shouldn't be a republican math or democratic math. we would all love to repeal inflation, madam speaker. that's not the real world. let's stick with real world budgeting. if we get away from that, we are going to be in a world of trouble here in the united states congress. i ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to be controlled by the gentleman

from california, a terrific new member of the budget committee, mr. huffman. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from california will control the balance of the time. mr. huffman: thank you, madam speaker. and i will reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: madam speaker, i'd like to yield myself 60 seconds before i yield to the author of this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: i think i got one of the best chart teams on capitol hill. i'll say to my friend from maryland, that's a great big mac chart. federal government math assumes if you got to buy a big mac 10 years ago you buy the same. i buy from the dollar menu. i have to get into my wallet and justify the expense. and when prices double, sometimes we as americans have to substitute -- mr. van hollen: if the gentleman will yield? mr. woodall: i yield.

mr. van hollen: the value menu 10 years ago cost more today. this is again about math and budgeting in a transparent way. mr. woodall: reclaiming my time. absolutely inflation is not going to go away, but we have to make tough choices and this bill requires us to make those choices in a transparent way for the american people. at this time, madam speaker, i'd like to yield to the gentleman from texas who first said we must be transparent in this way, we must be fair and honest in this way, the gentleman from texas, the original author of the baseline budgeting reform act, mr. gohmert. the speaker pro tempore: recognized for how much? mr. woodall: five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, madam speaker. and i am immensely grateful to my friend, rob woodall. it was back in the 1990's i heard what apparently was a loveable old fuzz ball, turned out to be rush limbaugh, talking about the absurdity of

the united states government doing something that no person, no family, no business, no charity in all of america could do and with due respect to my friend who just spoke, mr. van hollen says businesses would go out of business. i would challenge anybody in this room to show me a business, show me a family, show me an individual, show me a charity that has an automatic increase in every year's budget. because america can't do that. and i was shocked this was going on. in the army i helped with the budget. in private sector i prepared budgets. as a district judge i prepared a budget. it had to be approved. we never got an automatic increase. you had to justify any change

in anything. and if you needed an increase, you had to show why that was important. and the same thing has been true. i get to congress, never dreaming that that would not have been taken care of when republicans took the majority. but in my freshman term in 2005 and 2006, the republican chair of the budget committee said we have to do the automatic increases. and i said why. he said because it's the law. i was shocked. we make the law. we can change the law. and then of course our friends across the aisle took the majority and for four years there was no chance of eliminating the automatic increase in the -- every federal department's budgets. but then we got the majority ack, and for all the disagreements i had with the speaker, speaker boehner agreed that if paul ryan passed zero baseline budget, ending the

automatic increases out of committee, then he would bring it to the floor. well, then it meant we had to right guy marshalling this bill. some tweaking was done and i will be forever grateful to my friend, rob woodall, who is brilliant as his predecessor, dear friend, john linder, and he took this bill and he marshalled it through. he kept his word and i will be forever grateful for that. it came to the floor. and the senate wouldn't take it up. for those that want to talk about the children, i'm not hearing a lot of that talk today. because when i talk to college students, high school students, junior high students, they're wondering why they're going to have to pay the debts that we were not responsible enough to pay ourselves. there's not a good answer. it is absolutely immoralable.

it's neglect. to say one generation like ours is so much more important that e have to spend future generations' money. and yes, if there's inflation, let's deal with it that year. but i've heard enough stories people talking about, gee, this important -- this department is apparently out there saying, spend their money. don't leave any. if you don't you won't get much next year. they get an automatic increase. of course they spend their money. that's no way to run a country. it's not right. and so there's so much issues i have with the budget, but i know the heart of the men that was behind that and i know he wants future generations to not -- urdened with our neglect negligent handling of our money. so it is time that we end the

crease in every federal budget. and when my friend said, gee, you can end up with half an aircraft carrier, good grief, we lost aircraft carriers because of those automatic increases every year for decades now. there are aircraft carriers that won't be there because we couldn't control ourself. we had to automatically increase everything we spent. madam speaker, it's time we did the responsible thing and ended the automatic increase in every single federal budget for next year. and i'll be continuing in my gratitude to my friend, rob woodall, and i will the gentleman will yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. huffman: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. huffman: in response to the gentleman from texas, i think it's important that we be careful in the rhetoric we use

on these subjects. it is incorrect to say by law there is an automatic increase in the federal budget and that that applies to the discretionary budget. that is absolutely incorrect. what we're talking about here and what this bill concerns is the c.b.o. baseline that is used, and the c.b.o. reflects inflation in that baseline as does every serious budgeting professional and forecaster and economist in the real world, but they don't do it because the law has told them they have to or because democrats have told them they have to. they do it because that's what serious budget forecasters do. they know that inflation is a reality and they believe that the baselines they use and the projections and forecasts they use should reflect that reality. so i think that's an important clarification. we choose to budget and to spend at the level that we choose to do so each and every year. what the c.b.o. does as a matter of baseline projections is a different matter. at this time, madam speaker,

i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, a distinguished member of the education and work force committee, mr. bishop. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york for three minutes. mr. bishop: thank you very much, madam speaker. i thank my colleague from california for yielding. the baseline reform act does nothing to address the economic challenges facing american families. doesn't create a single job. it does not renew expired unemployment compensation for the millions of workers and their families who are struggling right now. it does not raise the minimum wage to a living wage. what it would do is would essentially impose sequestration on steroids in our budgetary baseline, and we all pretty much agreed that sequestration was a terrible idea that was holding the country back. the bill in front of us today simply establishes an unrealistic and misleading benchmark against which to measure changes in government spending. requiring the c.b.o. and the o.m.b. to construct budget baselines without adjusting for inflation will serve only the

weakened fiscal discipline and will have long-term spending projections. madam speaker, inflation is an accepted part of our growing economy. we've seen year-to-year increases over every calendar year but one since 1956. the notable exception being 2009 when our economy was meyered in the great recession. -- mired in the great recession. inflation has hovered near 4% annually over that near six-decade window. it's inevitable that goods and services become more expensive over time and the purchasing power of the dollar will be weaker in 10 years than it is today. although this may not appear to be seg as first blush, rest assured that even such a modest inflationary rate will produce considerable price differences over the long trm. using the federal reserve's targeted 2% annual rate of inflation, and item