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 that costs

$100 today, will cost $122 10 years from now. at % annual inflation that same $100 good will cost almost $135 10 years from now. in total the price of goods and services in the united states have increased by more than the 1,000% since world war ii. under long-standing budget rules, c.b.o. and o.m.b. aassume that future designation career appropriations at the account level will be at the same dollar levels but adjusted for inflation. why do they do this? he they do it because it represents a more accurate analysis of our nation's actual spending habits. the aggregate total of defense and nondefense appropriations are then adjusted down to the spending cap levels set in law, but even those spending caps are higher than the freeze mandated by this bill. the c.b.o.'s current projection for the nks 10 years assumes that discretionary spending will be caps imposed by the budget

control act through 2021, rather than the inflation adjusted levels. but changing the definition of the budget baseline will have an outsized impact on future budget projections. discretionary appropriations are responsible for many of the programs that americans hold sacred. may i have an additional 30 seconds? mr. huffman: i yield such time he may consume. mr. bishop: the americans hold sacred including education, veterans benefits, definance, key seize research -- disease research and control, food safety, transportation projects, and the list goes on and on. by eliminating inflation adjustments and freezing discretionary spending over 10 years, the baseline would be a benchmark that builds in real and deep cuts in federal programs. the so-called reforms contained within this bill are nothing more than efforts at constraining future federal spending through budget trickery. i urge a no vote. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia.

million woodall: at this time it's my great pleasure to yield three minutes to a champion for budget transparency, a member of the budget committee, the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. mcclintock: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, our constitution assigns the principal responsibility over the public purse to the house of representatives. under that constitutional doctrine, a dollar can't be spent by this government unless spent.se says it yet today spending increasingly seems object out of our hand driven automatically by a variety of provisions and practice that is thwart the very design of the constitution. in roughly 2/3 of our spending is entitlement where we have lost any direct control offer the appropriations process. that's the big problem. but there are other reasons for this problem as well that this bill addresses. one of them is the current proses is by which we calculate the baseline from which we begin our annual budget negotiations.

any family would begin its budget process by asking for, for example, what it we spend pore groceries last year? once it has that baseline, then it would begin to adjust for changing circumstances. the price of milk is going up. should we cut back or look for substitutes? or should we cut back on something else to afford that increase? that is the rational process known to every reasonably well managed family. this process gives budgeters whether they are a household or house of representatives the ability to adjust for changing priorities and needs and conditions. yet the federal budget process builds in a variety of spending increases above and beyond what we had previously agreed that we could afford before our budget deliberations can even begin. now that same family doesn't begin its budget process by building assumptions of how it might change its spending in the future. for example if it took vacations the last several years, it

doesn't automatically budget for a vacation next year until it's met its other needs. it doesn't budget for decisions it has not yet made, but we do. quite routinely. thus we begin the budget process with a baseline that hides the many tough decisions that a budget requires. how do we cope with price increases? should we continue to deviate from our spending plan next year just because we did last year? the current budget process denies us the perspective that any family has when prices go up or when conditions change. it often prevents us from asking the questions a family would ask. instead we sweep these issues under the rug or more precisely we sweep them into the baseline. does this bill make our job harder? yes. because it requires us to figure out how to come with changing conditions. right now we start our budget by assume -- assuming we are hostages to our spending. this msh sure makes us the masters.

that's a harder job. but these our job -- that's our job. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. huffman: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia. madam speaker, at this time i'd like to yield five minutes to the chairman of the budget committee, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for five minutes. mr. ryan: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to thank mr. woodall for all of his hard work on this issue, and mr. gohmert, who was here a moment ago, for raising this issue, for keeping focus and attention on it, and bringing this much needed reform through the house budget committee an to the house floor. this bill basically fixes a real quirk in our budget process. under the current law the congressional budget office assumes every discretionary spending account gets an increase every year to keep up with inflation. now, what does that mean?

this means that this increase is built into the baseline and the baseline is our starting point of spending. it's our starting point of budget. so every year congress moves the line forward. it assumes that there's always going to be an increase in every one of these programs regard lst of the facts on the ground. there's no consideration to whether a program is working or not or even whether it's still necessary. under this bill, the baseline would just show the previous year's funding level. so that's basically what we are saying. if we are spending x amount of dollars today, when we write next year's budget we'll start with x. then we'll make a decision here in congress should it be more or less or the same? that's not how it works today. he we spend x today and there's an automatic increase an then we decide how to budget after that automatic increase. we should write the federal budget just like families write

their own budgets. they don't get an automatic increase. they don't get to decide like that. we've got record deficits. we've got an unprecedented debt. our job here in congress is to make decisions. it's to set priorities. it is to look at the hardworking taxpayers that are working so hard to pay their taxes, to raise their families, and tell them we are going to watch their money more closely than just assuming automatically each and every year we could just take more from them and then decide how to spend more on top of that . it's no way to run a budget. it's no way to run a government budget or a family budget or a business budget. so that's all we are saying. this, i think, is an inflated baseline which is a smoke and mirror move. what we are saying is take away the smoke and the mirrors, start from scratch, and then make informed decision from there. that is why i want to thank the

gentleman from georgia for all his hard work on this. and that's why i encourage all our members on both sides of the aisle to support this much needed reform. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. huffman: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. huffman: madam speaker, i think this may be one of the more oversold bills we have heard in a while. we keep hearing references to autopilot spending in mandatory programs. this bill doesn't have anything to do with them. we keep hearing references to automatic annual increases in spending. we don't have such automatic annual increases. this is about the budget baseline that the c.b.o. assumes for purposes of helping us make our decisions. we keep hearing about families and how they budget. i would submit, madam speaker, that any family that has reason to believe that some part of their budget is going to increase in the coming year had better reflect that in the reality of their budget, or else they are not going to be able to

meet their needs. if they have reason to believe that their rent is going up, if they have reason to believe their utilities are going to cost more, if they have reason to believe that anything that they spend money on is going to cost more than in the real world of america, families do include that in their budget. that's real. that's what the c.b.o. does. i would love to face a future in which big maximum cost the same -- big macs cost the same thing as they do today. i wish i was still paying the same as mr. van hollen's chart showed, but we know that's not how it works. we know inflation is reality. if we were in a deflationary or zero inflation environment, i suspect the c.b.o. would create the baselines differently. we are not. no one hear is arguing they are. they are just asking us to suspend disbelief. to try to legislate away the reality of inflation. why? so that the budget cutting government reducing agendas that

we hear in this house year after year might appear to be a little less draconian in the out years. that is not a very compelling argument when you think about it. i will reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: i would say to my friend from california that i do not have any speakers remaining, and i'm prepared to close. i am -- mr. huffman: i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. huffman this bill does not create any jobs, doesn't save one dime, reduce spending, it simply asks the c.b.o. to pretend that the reality of inflation does not exust. it is not a serious proposal. it is a bill that was heard and maffed largely -- passed largely on party lines. didn't go-n where, it's not going fi where this time either. this is political theater at a time when we need to talk in this institution about the real

needs of america. with that i request a no vote on this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves -- yields the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: madam speaker, i brought down a chart that takes us from 2006 out to 2044. for almost everyone here in the chamber, that's going to get into the meaty part of our lifetime. what it shows with the greenline, madam speaker s. what revenues have been in this country. historic revenues going backwards and protected revenues going forward. not in dollar values but as a percent of our economy.

what it shows us is that revenues going forward will continue to be historically normal, just under 20% of g.d.p. but the red line, madam speaker, the red line represents projected spending. this is the projected spending if we do nothing at all. we don't need to show up for work another day in this chamber. we don't need to come down here and pass one new law, spend one more dollar. the spending on autopilot, madam speaker, is represented by the red line and you see it rising off the top of the graph. spending is the problem. and for years, decades in fact, since 1974 and the passage of the congressional budget act, there has been an assumption that spending was going to rise each and every year. my friends on the democratic side of the aisle called inflation, inflation existed before the congressional budget act was passed.

it's going to exist after it's modified or repealed. inflation is an economic certainty and that is not the topic of discussion today. the topic of discussion today is, who makes decisions when it comes to america's budgeting? if spending is the problem, if it is spending that is rising faster than revenues, if it is spending that's changed over the past decade, who should make those determinations? here's the thing, madam speaker. go back to that washington math that i talked about coming from town hall meetings because i know everyone here has been a part of that. i know everyone here has had that hand go up when we talk about cutting spending and they say, is that a real cut or is that a washington cut? when you say cut in spending, rob, do you mean cutting spending or do you mean you are only going to increase it by $10 and the projection was it was going to go up by $20. only here is increasing spending by $10 considered a cut. there is no family in america

that considers that a cut. think about your budget back home, madam speaker, whatever that is, i remember buying milk for $1.99 a gallon. i'm a big milk drinker. skim is my favorite. but $1.99 i was comfortable. today i'm prepared to pay for it. i'm prepared to $4 a gallon for a gallon of milk, but i didn't assume that i was going to drink the same amount of every day going forward. i found powdered milk, madam speaker, it was on the discount shelf at giant, i got two gallons of powdered mil for $2.25 total. that's $1.12 a gallon for that powdered mil. i'm not paying $4 a gallon, i'm paying $1.12 because i have to make choices. we're borrowing from future generations every time we make a decision. this bill says one thing and one thing only.

who makes decisions for america? is it going to be the congressional budget office, is it going to be a statutory baseline or is it going to be the men and women in this room who put themselves up for election every two years? madam speaker, for me the answer is it's clear i got a constitution that lays it out fairly clearly here in my pocket. i don't think i need to read to folks here to get them to understand because i think we all share that view. we share the view that difficult decisions are not supposed to be made by unelected bureaucrats in a back room. difficult decisions are supposed to be made by us right here in this chamber. right here in this chamber. if you have a project back home in your district, if you see a national priority and you want to spend a penny more than we spent last year, come to the floor of the house and make your case. make your case. for pete's sake, i'm a huge supporter of federal research. the work that goes on at the c.d.c., the work that goes on

n maryland at n.i.h., it's amazing. it's amazing. and nobody is going to do it except here in this body. i don't need a baseline. i don't need a bureaucrat. i don't need any washington math to come and make the case that we need to spend more on n.i.h. than last year. i believe it. because my constituents elected me stand on up for federal research. we came here to make these tough decisions. back in the day before the class of 2010, before the class of 2012, back in the day there's good reason to assume that federal spending was going to go up every year. why? because every year since the end of the korean war that's exactly what had happened. i watched it. every year we spent more than we did in the last, but something has changed in this town, madam speaker. and i think the thing that's changed in this town are the people that the folks back home are sending to this town.

i think the town's exactly the same. i think the folks back home are sending new folks. folks like the gentleman from california. folks like the gentleman from north carolina. sending people to town with the direction of not trading away their children's future because they were afraid to make tough decisions today. so what does that mean? that means in the four years i've been in this institution, four years i've been in this institution, madam speaker, we have spent less money in these discretionary accounts that this bill would affect every single year than we did the one before. think about that. think about that. in the absence of this legislation that i'm proposing, in the absence of this legislation, we're going to assume that spending goes up every year. but the reality, the reality that my friends on the other side of the aisle are talking, but the reality of inflation, the reality of congressional decisionmaking, the reality of our budget is that that spending has gone down.

not just from 2010 to 2011, though it did, not just again from 2011 to 2012, though it did, not just again from 2012 to 2013, though it did, and not just again from 2013 to 2014 but it did that too. four years in a row we spent less the following year than we did the year before. when are we going to get back to that 2010 level of spending? is it going to be next year? no, it's not. is it going to be the year after that? not by the budgets we're passing here on the floor this year. what about the year after that? no, not then either. so the opponents of this legislation suggest that we should create a process in federal law that assumes that spending goes up every single year and yet the reality of this institution, as it exists today, not as it existed 10 years ago, not as it existed 20 years ago, not in 1994 when

this bill was enacted, but as it is today, the responsible men and women in this chamber are prioritizing taxpayer dollars in such a way that for the entire 10-year window we won't spend a penny more than we did on day one, that is the reality. could we spend more each and every year? of course we could. could we borrow more and more from our children and grandchildren and ask them to pay it tomorrow with interest? of course we could. did our constituents elect us to come here and make difficult, difficult, difficult decisions? they did. i was in the rules committee last night, madam speaker. my colleague from massachusetts said, you know, some of these decisions have real consequences for folks back home. i disagree. i think every decision has real consequences for folks back home. every single one. this legislation simply asks

that before we spend another penny from folks back home that we come to the floor of this house, to the committee chamebirs around this institution and -- chambers around this institution and make the case for why it is worth doing. i challenge you to look in the eyes of the young people whose future we are mortgaging and suggest that they deserve anything less. with that, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate has expired. and pursuant to house resolution 539, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the balance budget and emergency deficit control act of 1985 to reform the budget baseline. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? >> i am opposed to it in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion.

ms. bus oast of illinois moves -- rs. bustos of illinois moves the bill back to the committee and reports the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. section 3, prohibiting cuts in education, health and safety protections. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: i ask for a dispensing of the reading. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized for five minutes in support of her motion. mrs. bustos: thank you, madam speaker. this is the final amendment to the bill and it will not delay or kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will proceed to final passage, as amended. madam speaker, the bill before us today, the baseline reform act, would politicize what is otherwise a simple, straightforward method of accurately measuring changes in spending policies. it is misguided. and here's why. it mandates that the

congressional budget office assume current discretionary spending is frozen indefinitely in its baseline projections rather than adjusted for inflation. this change would undermine the usefulness of the c.b.o.'s baselines. it would make it more difficult to measure the real-world impact of changes in discretionary spending at both the program and budget function levels. were this bill to be enacted into law be and inflation remained at current projections, the c.b.o.'s baseline projection by the end of the budget window or 10 years out would purchase about 1/5 less than in the current year. my amendment would blunt the damage this bill could cause. and it would protect many of our hardworking and most vulnerable constituents. specifically, my amendment would protect programs that help students and help families afford the skyrocketing costs of higher education. it would protect children with disabilities from being kicked out of the classroom.

it would protect our brave veterans and the benefits they have earned and deserve through their valiant service to our nation. it would protect vulnerable seniors in nursing homes. it would protect our air traffic controllers who keep us safe when we travel. our food safety inspectors who help protect us from disease and first responders who help keep our communities safe. madam speaker, when i'm home traveling in my district every weekend, i hear from people who this bill would harm. young people who are trying to better themselves through higher education but struggling to afford the rising cost of college. veterans who are caught in the v.a. backlog and trying to just get the care that they need. seniors who have worked hard and played by the rules their entire lives who deserve to live out their golden years in dignity. and law enforcement officers, like my husband, jerry, a captain with the rock island

sheriff's department, and commander of the quad city bomb squad, who rely on programs like the cops program to help keep our communities safe. madam speaker, my amendment would help protect the smart investments we have made in the future of our country, in our seniors, in our veterans and in those who fight to protect us and keep us safe. madam speaker, thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: madam speaker, i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. woodall: madam speaker, i hold in my hand a copy of the motion to recommit, and i'll read from line 1. it says section 3, prohibiting cuts in education, health and safety protections. i think that's something that generally speaking here on this floor we agree on. but it makes the case of why this bill is so necessary. because this bill has nothing to do with cuts in any account. no cuts in education. no cuts in health.

no cuts in safety protections. this bill does one thing and one thing only, and that's to say, let's spend next year what we spent this year unless someone makes the case to do more. i thought the gentlelady from illinois made a powerful case for why it's important to pay close attention to these accounts and focus the dollars on those accounts that we can do the most good. but to solve this misunderstanding that there are cuts in baseline budgeting, to solve this misunderstanding that prevails across -- conversations across america, let's support h.r. 1871. i reject this motion to recommit. i support the underlying bill, madam speaker. and i ask if we can bring fairness and transparency to the budget again for the first time since 1974. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. and without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion

to recommit. and all those in favor say aye. opposed will say no. the noes have it. mrs. bustos: i ask for the yeas and nays, please. -time the yeas and nays are -- 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. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered, ordering the previous question on house resolution 544 and adoption of house resolution 554, if ordered. this again is a 15-minute vote, a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 191, and the nays are 221. the motion is not adopted. the motion is not adopted. the question is on the passage of the bill. those in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. the opinion of the chair -- the gentleman from georgia. the gentleman from california. mr. huffman: madam speaker, i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by

the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 230 and

the nays are 185 and the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on which the yeas and nays are ordered and the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 98, house resolution 544, resolution providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution, house concurrent resolution 96, establishing the budget for the united states government for fiscal year 2015, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2016 through 2024, and providing for proceedings during the period from april 11, 2014, through april 25, 2014. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by

the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 219 and the that is -- nays are 190. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the ayes have it. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: on that i ask for

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

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 222 and the nays are 194. the resolution is adopted. and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. ryan: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.con.res 96. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 544 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of house concurrent resolution 94 and

the chair apionts the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, to preside over the committee f the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of house concurent resolution 96 which the -- concurrent resolution 96 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: concurrent resolution setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2016 through 2024. chilly pursuant to the rule, e concurrent resolution is considered read the first time. it is controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the budget and one hour on the subject of economic goals and policies equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from texas, mr. brady, and the gentlewoman

from new york, mrs. maloney, or their designees. the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, will each control 90 minutes of debate on the congressional budget. he committee will be in order. the chair will ask members to take their conversations off the floor. n the minority side. nd on the majority side.

the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, i am here to introduce and to rise in support of h.con.res 96 for the fiscal year 2015 -- excuse me. this is the fourth year we've done this. this being bringing a budget to the floor, about a toll the budget and to pay down the debt. this is exactly what our economy needs today. we ask congressional budget office to look at this kind of deficit reduction. what would it do? it's very clear it would promote economic growth. in 2024, economic output would be 1.8% higher than it otherwise would be. what does that mean? that means by getting our fiscal house in order, by

paying down our debt and balancing our budget, take-home pay would be $1,100 higher than it would otherwise would be if we didn't do something like that. that's one part of our budget. we call for more job creation, tax reform and energy development. all of these things would help get our economy back on track. now, i also understand there's a lot of confusion about what's going on in our budget, and i'd like to spend a few moments sort of clarifying and clearing up some of that confusion. first, our budget does repeal obamacare. let me say it again. our budget does repeal obamacare because we think it is going to do great damage to our economy, to our budget, to health care. we don't keep are the tax hikes in obamacare. instead, we propose revenue-neutral, comprehensive tax reform. our critics like to claim we're keeping it. what we're saying is let's scrap this tax code in favor of a better tax code, including

replacing obamacare taxes with pro-growth tax reform to create jobs, increase take-home pay and get this economy growing. second, we end the rate on medicare. the dirty little secret that the other side won't want to talk about is the fact that they turned medicare into a piggy bank for obamacare. they rated -- raided $716 billion from medicare to pay for obamacare. we say that those savings from medicare need to stay with medicare to make it more solvent, and if some of those savings from medicare are doing damage to the medicare provider network, like reducing access to things like medicare advantage, then we have a mechanism in it here to make sure we can fix that. just like we did for the s.g.r., otherwise known as the doc fix. we think we need to save and shrink this program, not only so it is there intact, for those in near retirement, for for future generations who are facing a bankrupt program if we

don't do something to reform it. second, we don't slash the safety net. if anything, we strengthen the safety net. this administration has made all sorts of promises that it has no way of keeping, or it's made all sorts of promises and it's not telling us in any way how they're going to keep these promises. it's promised major expansions in programs like medicaid and pell grants. how they plan to pay for it, we have no idea. we will not be complicit with the demands of these programs. we spend over $10 trillion in the next 10 years under medicaid. under our budget, pro-growth programs will rise -- we grow the program each and every year after fiscal year 2016 onyard. we simply slow the growth rate by giving governors and state legislatures to customize these programs to meet the needs of

their unique populations instead of criming the one-size-fits-all which has been failing the population and the network. it spends $600 billion over the next 10 years on food stamps. this is a program that's qude rupeled since 2002 -- quadrupled since 2002. we propose to give governors more flexibility so they can customize this program to meet the needs of their populations, but not until 2019, when c.b.o. says the economy will recover by then. c.b.o. says the pell grant is going bankrupt, it will face a fiscal shortfall after 2016 and a year thereafter. so instead of making these pell promises that the government las no way of keeping, the budget maintains the current pell award, $5,730 throughout each of the next 10 years and funds it. our budget, all told, cuts $5.1 trillion in spending over the

next 10 years. now, we do this by cutting waste, by cutting abuse, by stopping the age-old washington practice of spending money we just don't vand by making much-needed reforms to government programs. our critics call this draconian. look at it this way. on the current path, we are set to spend $48 trillion of hardworking taxpayers' dollars or borrowing it from the next generation. $48 trillion over the next 10 years, on this path we will spend $30 trillion. by contrast, on the current path, federal government spending is slated to rise 5.2% on average in the next decade. this budget it will rise 3.5% over the next decade. hardly draconian. mr. chairman, there is nothing

compassionate about making promises that the government cannot keep. when that bill comes due, it's going to hurt the vulnerable, the first and the worst and the voiceless. this is why we need to get spending under control. let me show you what we are proposing in a nutshell. the red shows you our national debt. our national debt is on the course to hit catastrophic levels. our national debt is going to hit these catastrophic levels which guarantee that the next generation of americans inherit a bleak future, a lower standard of living, a burden of debt that they cannot have a high standard of living with. we in our generation have to make tough choices. we've got to face up to this issue, and what we are saying here with this budget is, the sooner we get on top of our fiscal problems, the better off everybody's going to be. we're saying if we get ahead of these problems now, we can

phase in reforms such as medicare reforms that don't even affect people in or near retirement. so the sooner we tackle these fiscal problems, the better off everybody is going to be. the faster the economy grows and the more we can guarantee that the next generation inherits a debt-free future. we've never given the next generation a diminished future in this country before. . that is the great legacy of this nation. work hard, make tough choices so that the next generation can be better off. we know without a shadow of a doubt that's not going to be the case. we know, according to the congressional budget office, in a couple of years the debt starts taking back off, we're back to $1 trillion deficits, our tax revenues are at an all-time high this year. the problem is, spending's outpacing that. the sooner we can get our fiscal house in order, the

sooner we can create jobs, get economic growth. the sooner we bring solvency to our safety net, to our social contract, the more people can depend on these programs. and the sooner we bring these reforms to get our spending in line with our revenues, the faster we can pay off this debt. just like a family, a government that lives beyond its means today necessarily has to live below its means tomorrow. we want to make right by the next generation. we want to grow this economy, we want to create jobs and increase take-home pay and we want to get people to work. that's what this budget is designed to do and that's why i'm proud to bring this balanced budget to the floor and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. we're looking forward to the debate on the budget over the next couple days. chairman ryan mentioned that the critics of this republican budget call it draconian. i would point out to the

gentleman that the republican chairman of the house appropriations committee just referred to the budget that's before this house as draconian. now, the chairman and i do agree on one thing. which is that these budgets that we bring before this congress reflect our different visions of america. they reflect the choices that we make. they show what we care about and they show what we care less about. they are fundamentally different blue prints for the future of this country. now, the president has presented a budget that will boost job growth, sharpen americans' competitive edge and expand opportunity in the united states of america. now we have before us the congressional republican budget. and of all the republican budgets that we've seen on the floor of this house since 2010, this one is the worst for america. many will argue, mr. speaker, that we should not be taking

this budget seriously because, after all, we have a short-term bipartisan agreement and the senate would never pass this budget, but i urge the country to take it seriously. because what it tells america is, -- is what our republican colleagues would do to the country if they had the power to do it. if they can impose their will, this is the budget that they would impose, so we need to look hard at the consequences. so what does it mean for america? what choices does the budget before us make for our country? at its core can it rigs the rules of the game for very wealthy and very powerful special interests at the expense of everybody else in the country. and at the expense of other priorities in the country. so, for example, if you're a multimillionaire, under this budget you will have your top tax rate cut by 1/3, all the

way from 39% where it is today down to 25%. that's an average tax break for millionaires of $200,000. that's great. for people who are well off. what does this budget do to the rest of this country? it guts vital investments in our children's future, it squeezes the middle class and it violates important commitments to our seniors. now, let's step back because the chairman mentioned the economic benefits of this budget. the reality is that our economic competitors around the world will eat our lunch if we pass this republican budget. it provides for perverse tax a incentives that -- tax incentives that ship american jobs overseas while shortchanging investments in jobs right here at home.

as we will see over the next couple days, it guts important investments that historically have helped power our economy. and the nonpartisan congressional budget office tells us that in the next couple of years this is going to slow down economic growth. it's going to slow down job growth. and one estimate puts the job loss at three million jobs. at a time, mr. speaker, when we need to be modernizing our national infrastructure, the backbone of our economy, this budget slashes the transportation budget by $52 billion this year alone. stopping new projects, throwing construction workers off the job. it will condemn the united states to a potholed road of economic decline. and it refuses to include one thing that the congressional

budget office says will help boost our economy right now. which is to pass bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform. so, mr. speaker, as this budget provides these windfall tax breaks for the folks at the very top, let's see what does to others -- what it does to others in our country. we all depend on our kids getting a good education. it's good for families, it's good for the country. the saddest part about this budget is that it casts a dark shadow over the american dream and violates the fundamental promise that every hardworking american should have a fair shot at success. at a time when we should be investing more in education in the united states, all told, if you look at early education, k through 12, and college education, this budget cuts it by $370 billion below current services. that has devastating impacts on

everything from head start to early head start to k-12 to college. let me just mention one of the things it does to college student loans. it starts charging college students interest while they're still in college. before they've gotten out and gotten a job. that saves $40 billion in this budget. actually a little more than that. in the same budget that provides huge tax breaks to the wealthiest in this country. so much for wanting to address the lack of upward mobility in america. rung by rung this budget knocks out the steps of that ladder of opportunity. tough luck and worse. let's look at seniors as our next example. those on medicare will immediately, immediately pay more if they have high

prescription drug costs. right? the chairman mentioned that the democratic budget cut medicare and turned it into something else. the reality is the savings that were achieved in medicare by ending some of the overpayments in the democratic budget were recycled to strengthen key parts of medicare. including to close what has been called the prescription drug doughnut hole. the republican budget here reopens the prescription drug doughnut hole. if you're a senior with high prescription drug costs, $1,200 more per year on average as a result of this budget. and seniors who have been able to get preventive health services without having to put down co-payments will no longer get those screenings and now they'll be at risk of not getting the treatment and care when they need it. n top of all that, it ends the

medicare guarantee by creating a voucher program. so for seniors who decide to stay in the traditional medicare program, they'll see their premiums hiked by 50% when that goes into effect. so, they can stay, but they have to pay big-time to stay. that's not the medicare guarantee. middle class families. i mentioned that this budget cuts the top tax rate for millionaires from 39% to 25%. that's a 30% tax cut. but it says it's going to do that in a deficit-neutral manner. so, it's simple math, mr. speaker. if you're going to do that, you're going to squeeze middle class taxpayers. and in fact, this budget pretends that chairman camp and the exercise he went through in the ways and means committee, the fact-based exercise, never happened. because what chairman camp found was that you couldn't bring that top rate down to 25%

without squeezing middle income taxpayers. that's why he had a top rate of 35% in his plan. and yet this says, let's go to 25% top rate. and that means $2,000 more for a family with kids in taxes to finance the tax breaks for the folks at the very top. now, this budget reserves perhaps its cruelest blow, for those who are seeking to climb out of poverty into the middle class, have the opportunity to participate in the american dream. you know, in the last election the republican candidate mitt romney said he didn't really care about the 47%. this republican budget sets out to prove that statement. and if you look at this budget, it is an assault on americans who are struggling to climb out of the middle class. we had a big debate in this

congress about food nutrition programs, right? the republican plan called for $40 billion in cuts. it ended up being $8 billion. this budget, $137 billion, millions more kids will go hungry as a result of cutting that safety net. and that is why faith-based groups that have looked at these republican budgets over the last three years have said that they don't meet the tests of a society that cares for the least of these. now, i want to close by asking a question. because our republican colleagues say the goal is to -- the goal has to be in 10 years to hit this political target. it's interesting because the republican budget three years ago didn't balance until around 2040. but now we have this sort of olitical target that they have to hit and if it's so important

to hit that, why do they ask everything of our kids and our seniors and struggling families and nothing from very powerful special interests? this budget does not close one special interest tax break for the purpose of reducing the deficit. not one. not a special interest tax break for hedge fund owners, not a special tax break for big oil companies. we've got a race to hit their political timetable here, but we're not going to ask those special interest groups to pay one dime to help reduce the deficit. and here's the really strange thing. after all is said and done, this republican budget does not balance in 10 years if at the same time republicans claim to be repealing the affordable care act. it just doesn't add up. the math isn't there. what this republican budget does is this. it gets rid of all the benefits

in the affordable care act. so it gets rid of the tax credits that help americans purchase affordable care. it gets rid of the provision that says you can stay on your parents' insurance policy until you're 26. it gets rid of the provisions that say you cannot be denied coverage because you have a pre-existing condition. it gets rid of all the benefits. but guess what it keeps? it keeps all the tax revenue from the affordable care act. and you don't have to take my word for it. this is the heritage foundation. this isn't some liberal group. here's what they say. perhaps the biggest shortcoming of this budget is that it keeps the tax increases associated with obamacare. that's what they said about last year's budget, this year is exactly the same. and this budget also keeps all the savings from medicare. it doesn't recycle any of those savings to strengthen it, as the democratic budget does. but it keeps them and if you

actually look at this chart, you'll see that in 2024, when the republican budget claims to balance, without the revenues and the savings from medicare, they don't come close to balance. so, our republican colleagues have to choose. either you claim to have a balanced budget and you recognize that you support all the revenues and savings in the affordable care act or not. but you can't have it both ways. and the sad thing is, after hitting everybody but the very wealthy in this budget, they still can't achieve what they claim is their goal. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, i yield myself 30 seconds to say, can't have it both ways. it's interesting. you can raid medicare by $716 billion to pay for obamacare and then count that money as if going back to medicare,

counting the same dollar twice. that's not our word, that's the word of the congressional budget office and the act wears at medicare themselves, is what the other side did with obamacare. look, apparently the only way to revive and protect the american dream is to bring our debt from $17 trillion to $24 trillion and on the way there raise taxes on hardworking americans another $1.8 trillion. and if you're not for that, you're against the american dream. with that i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from nebraska, mr. terry. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. terry: i rise in support of this budget because i believe it's the necessary thing, the necessary fiscal path to secure our children's future. i hear it from my constituents every time i go back home, we can't keep borrowing nearly 40 cents of every dollar we spend. this budget is a commonsense blueprint that grows our economy. it will force washington to live within its means by cutting $5.1 trillion over 10 years and balances the budget

then. under this plan, we'll make much-needed reforms to the complicated and oversized tax code that will make americans more competitive and create jobs. it will keep the promise to our seniors by strengthening social security and give our troops the tools they need to secure our country. this budget will provide relief from rising health care costs by repealing obamacare. families across my congressional district will be able to keep more of what they earn which is exactly what we need to have happen to grow our economy. right now too many of them are struggling paycheck to paycheck under this obama economy. gas prices are still high and still volatile, and my constituents are paying higher health care premiums because of obamacare. families need a break, mr. speaker, and this budget gives them a chance to get ahead while holding washington

accountable for its stewardship of your money. and i'm looking forward to now, since we have a budget agreement, to seeing the senate budget and when they'll vote on a budget and i would encourage our friends on the other side keep harry to reid's feet to the fire and vote on a budget. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i thank you, mr. chairman. i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from rhode island, the distinguished member of the judiciary committee, mr. cicilline. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. cicilline: i thank the ranking member for his extraordinary leadership and for developing a budget proposal that actually reflects our nation's values and priorities. mr. speaker, this republican budget, offered by my colleague from wisconsin, is another attempt to impose a failed economic theory on the american people. this budget would damage

economic growth in the short term and disinvests in our future in the long term. it's absolutely the wrong course. millions of americans continue to struggle to find work. congress should be investing in priorities that will create jobs, priorities like education, rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and investing in advanced manufacturing and innovation that will help set the platform for a 21st century economy. the ryan republican budget does exactly the opposite. according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office, compared to current law, the ryan republican budget would stifle our economic growth, reducing gross domestic product per capita by about .5% in each of the next three years. let that sink in. if you're searching for work or struggling to get by in this difficult economy, the message from this budget is clear. it's about to get a whole lot worse. what could possibly be the rationale for this? for my colleagues who say we need to make the sacrifice in the short term so we can experience long-term economic gains, they have it backwards.

we need to invest in the short term to have long-term economic prosperity. how does a budget that slashes pell grants and higher ducation by $260 help the long term? our nation's infrastructure is the backbone to our economy and it's essential to move goods and services in the long term. so how does a budget that cuts transportation help our economy? how can are you say a budget that singles out for elimination bipartisan programs like the manufacturing extension partnership will boost our economy in the long term? a program that leverages federal funding to provide small and medium-sized manufacturers the capacity to grow, innovate and prepare for a 21st century focus on advanced manufacturing? the answer is you can't. let's be clear. this budget cuts from today and disinvests from tomorrow. and for what purposes? to pay for another round of tax cuts for the wealthiest americans, amounting to about $4 trillion in the next 10 years. but it's ok.

they claim because the benefits will trickle down to the middle class. this budget goes after medicare, medicaid and nutrition programs for hungry children, all to pay for another round of tax cuts for the wealthy. this is immoral, and we know from past experience it's the wrong strategy for our economy. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to reject this budget because it will hurt jobs and inflict unnecessary pain on working families and our economy. i yield back. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to a distinguished member of the budget committee, mr. mcclintock. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. mcclintock: in august of 2010, the chairman of the joint chiefs warned that the greatest threat to our national security was our national debt. that was $4 trillion of debt ago. in fact, since inauguration day of 2009, we've accumulated more

total government debt than we'd run up since the first day of the washington administration through the third year of the george w. bush administration. we were told this would jump-start the economy. it hasn't. instead it's deprived markets of the capital that would otherwise be london to businesses seeking to expand jobs, to consumers seeking to make purchases and to homebuyers seeking to re-enter the housing market. and i would remind the house that we cannot provide for the common defense or promote the general welfare if we cannot pay for them, and the ability of our government to do so is being slowly surely destroyed by our debt. balancing our budget and ultimately paying down the national debt is a national security imperative, it is an economic imperative and it is a moral imperative. now, under chairman ryan's

leadership, the house is about to pass the fourth budget in a row to balance. it stands in stark contrast to the president's budget that never balances, and it condemns our nation with a debt spiral that will consume our future. it reforms and reorganizations our nation's social safety net. it restores them to sound financial foundations for the generations to come. now, this is not beyond our ability. president clinton, working in cooperation with a republican congress, delivered four balanced budgets in a row. together, a democratic president and a republican congress cut federal spending by 4% of g.d.p. they enacted what amounted to the biggest capital gains tax cut in american history. they reformed entitlement spending by abolishing the open-ended welfare system, and the economy blossomed.

in the years since, under both democratic and republican administrations, we have veered far from these policies of fiscal responsibility and economic expansion, and the economy languishes. the budget before us combines the policies necessary not only to restore solvency to the government and to save the social safety net, but it also restores prosperity to the american people. all we lack is the same cooperation from the president and the senate that we had just two decades ago. time's not our ally. every day we delay, the problem becomes more intractable and the road back becomes more difficult, protracted and perilous. i yield back. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i thank -- i thank the chairman, and i would just point out i think it is useful to look at this through the perspective of history, because the last time we had balanced budgets in this

country was at the end of the clinton administration and shortly after that when president bush came into office, we saw back-to-back tax cuts. the theory at that time was if you dropped the top tax rate on high-income individuals it would trickle down to everybody else and power charge the economy. only problem is that didn't work. it did not work at all. the trickle down theory of economics did not work. we didn't get that boost of economic growth. what we did get was huge, huge deficits. as far as the eye could see. and so the problem with this budget is that a u-turn back to that philosophy, the idea again that we are going to provide these tax cuts, it will create a big boost of economic activity but reality has shown that it doesn't work that way. that we should be building our economy from the middle out and from the bottom up, the

top-down approach doesn't work. i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, a distinguished member of the armed services committee, mr. johnson. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. this budget is worse than a wolf in sheep's clothing. it's like a drag la in sheep's clothing -- dracula in sheep's clothing, coming to suck the blood out of the middle class. house republicans have brought forth another attack on america's seniors, students, workers and middle-class families all the while protecting giveaways for the wealthy and the corporations that ship jobs overseas. this budget kills jobs at home by gutting critical investments in education and technological research and throws a wrench in the engine of american innovation. instead of laying the foundation for innovation to create the new middle-class jobs of tomorrow or spur new

technology, economic growth and the next generation of entrepreneurs, this republican budget uses fuzzy math and magic air sticks to hide its attack on the middle class. this embarrassing budget is an excuse to assault the social safety net that has saved millions of americans who fell off the economic ladder of opportunity during the bush recession. programs like food stamps and unemployment insurance, medicaid and job retraining are helping to get americans back on their feet. americans who lost their jobs and homes due to no fault of their own but instead to the reckless speculation of wall street speculators. food stamps, unemployment benefits, medicaid and job retraining are helping these victims get back to their feet. the victims include defenseless infants and dependent children as well as the sick and the

elderly. the republican budget uses these programs as punching bags for their reckless agenda to cut and gut. republicans' attack on these programs will only hasten the dishearten those on the brink. republicans are playing the game hide and cut. first, they hide behind air sticks and then they cut unnamed programs that all magically fall ponl the backs of the poor -- upon the backs of the poor, the working poor and the middle class. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: i yield myself 30 seconds to say, wow. geez. that sounds horrible. good thing it's not true. only in washington is a slower increase in spending awful, blood occurredling, terrible

draconian cuts. look, if we're going to get our fiscal house in order, what we're saying in this budget, instead of increasing spending cut 2% on average, let's it 3.5% on average. maybe people closer to the problems like the states, they might have a better idea on how to help people in their communities. those are the principles we're talking about here. with that, mr. chairman, i'd like to yield to the cheap deputy whip, the gentleman from illinois, mr. roskam. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. roskam: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. my home state of illinois and the state of illinois, mr. speaker, is a delightful place. it's the land of lincoln but it's a fiscal bask case. it's a national punch line from a fiscal point of view because one party, the other party has dominated state government for years.

decades they had the governor's mansion. they have majority in the illinois house and the illinois senate. what has happened? it has been avoidance behavior, mr. speaker, an unwillingness to take on the issues, mr. speaker. what did the people in springfield, illinois, do? they raised taxes? didn't deal with the underlying figure fistle can problem? what happened? the budget gap didn't close, higher than average unemployment and now a -- you know, more per capita debt nearly than any other state in the union on the taxpayers of illinois. all right. so what does it all have to do with this? springfield, illinois, is a foreshadowing of what not to do. basically we need to look at the fiscal situation in springfield, illinois, and look at it like a big, big traffic signal that says, don't come here, don't go this route, don't take this pathway. instead, go another direction, and the direction we need to go is the direction that the chairman is has articulated and

i think a majority is going to vote for tomorrow. it's a pathway that says, let's look clearly at these difficulties, let's articulate them clearly, let's be clear-eyed about what they are and let's make decisions. so what does this budget do? the budget repeals obamacare and makes way for a patient-centered approach on health care that our constituencies are calling out for. it says that we're going to empower states to make decisions. it says we're going to keep promises that are going to be made. not false promises, not telling folks something is going to be there and assuming there is going to be some pixie dust that makes things go away. no, these problems are going to be dealt with and be dealt with in a forthright manner. i think the house is at an incredibly important stage right now and we can go one of two pathways. one pathway we know. one pathway of more taxes, more spending, more avoidance and