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 not dealing with the underlying

spending programs. this is not theoretical, mr. speaker. the state of illinois has tried that and it is a mess and it's a mess that becomes worse the longer the state waits, the worse the options are. and so what the chairman is saying, let's not get to that point. we've got options. we've got time. we've got choices. we've got remedies, but we need to act now. so i urge favorable consideration of this budget and i yield back the balance of my time. . . the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i think for the people who may be watching this and for our colleagues, the question is, how do we achieve the priorities that we hope we all want to achieve, which is jobs, growing faster -- jobs growing faster, the economy growing faster, deal with the long-term deficit and debt in a responsible manner. and the glaring problem with

the congressional republican budget is that they don't call for any shared responsibility. they don't ask the most powerful special interests to contribute one dime by closing a single tax break. not one. and because they shelter the most powerful and the most wealthy, everybody else has to take a hit in their budget and as a result the entire country takes a hit. because those are investments in our kids' education, in basic science and research that are important to help power our entire economy. so now i yield 2 1/2 minutes to a terrific new member of the budget committee, the gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. kildee: thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you to my friend from maryland, mr. van hollen, for yielding and for his leadership. and he's exactly right. what this budget fails to do is address the fundamental questions that we have to address. and as a new member of the

budget committee during the most recent budget markup, i offered an amendment. as a couple dozens of our amendments were heard and dismissed rather quickly, i offered an amendment that would deal with the question of shared sacrifice. an amendment that would have simply said that if you make more than $1 million in this country, you should pay your fair share. applying the so-called buffett rule that basically says, if you're doing well, you should at least pay the same rate that another member of your staff would pay, as mr. buffett pointed out his secretary pays a lower rate. this would have required a 30% rate to apply to those folks making $1 million. what was interesting to me is what i was told by the other side, that this amendment was because people in the working middle class, people who go to work every day, are jealous of those who have done well in the united states. let me assure you, this has nothing to do with jealousy, it has everything to do with fairness. the only thing we ask is that

if we're all going to pitch in to adopt a balanced budget and invest in growing our economy, we should all pitch in and not have a tax system that benefits the wealthiest and has the rest of us not only have to pay more than our fair share, but not receive the important investments that will grow our economy. so what this budget doesn't do is require we all pay a fair share. neither does it extend unemployment insurance to those who are just trying to get from their last job to their next job without losing their house and their car and having their families split up. it doesn't raise the minimum wage so that those who go to work every day won't live in poverty. it doesn't address the fundamental question facing us and that is immigration reform, which would have a significant affect on growing our economy. people on the left and the right agree with that. but, no, this statement of our collective values fails to address that fundamental question. but what it does do is cut basic education, it would kick

170,000 kids out of head start, changing the trajectory of their lives forever. cuts $89 billion, $35 billion -- or $89 billion out of education, $35 billion alone out of title one. cuts higher education, which is an investment in our future, which we know pays dividends downstream. cuts infrastructure. mr. van hollen: i yield the gentleman another 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. kildee: thank you, mr. van hollen. cuts infrastructure which we have to address. if our companies, if our manufacturers are going to be competitive, we're going to have to make those sorts of investments. this budget does none of those things. all it does is protect those who continue to be sheltered by a system that allows for this kind of inequality in this country and doesn't address the fundamental questions facing us. i thank the gentleman for yielding and i hope that if my colleagues will join -- that my colleagues will join me in opposing this budget. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: may i inquire as to

how much time remains between both sides? the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin has 72 1/2 minutes remaining and the gentleman from maryland has 68 minutes remaining. mr. ryan: at this time i'd like minutes to the gentleman from new jersey. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker, and thank you to chairman ryan. i rise to support the republican budget, which is a path to prosperity. it includes commonsense priorities and policies that will foster economic growth and job creation. mr. lance: this is a plan to balance the budget in 10 years and begin to pay down the national debt and this is exactly what our economy needs. c.b.o. says that by reducing the deficit our budget would promote economic growth. in stark contrast, budgets put forward by the president and by house democrats, our budget will cut wasteful spending,

rein in our national debt and we hope balance the budget. and the budget needs to be balanced. and this would be done all without raising taxes on hardworking americans. it includes pro-growth policies that will harness domestic energy, restore patient-centered health care, strengthen retirement and the safety net programs that are so essential and it will reform our tax code. i thank my friend, chairman ryan, for putting forth a budget blueprint that addresses our nation's long-term fiscal challenges truthfully and in a fiscally responsible manner. and let me say that this blueprint spends $43 trillion over the next 10 years, reduces spending by $5 trillion, and only in washington can an increase annually of $3.5 -- 3.5% be considered a cut. that's ridiculous. at the rate we're going now, our spending would increase by 5.2%, we reform it to 3.5%

annually over the next 10 years. i applaud chairman ryan's hard work and courage and look forward to an honest discussion here on the floor of the house. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i would just point out that we hear a lot about the global aggregate numbers but the distribution of those cuts is important. and if you look at the portion of the budget that we have historically used to invest in education, to invest in innovation, to invest in places like the national institutes of health, that portion of the relative cut by 24% to the bipartisan ryan-murray agreement. and it is cut from there. so the part of the budget that does a lot of damage, that we're focused on in terms of

future investments, really does mean that we're going to be less competitive as a country. it will dull our competitive edge. and i will tell you, our economic competitors will be cheering. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i'll give myself a couple of minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. ryan: as the ryan of the ryan-murray agreement, look, i wish that the murray side of the agreement would have agreed to those out-year numbers. that didn't happen. that agreement is a two-year agreement. so to compare this budget and the baseline against that, that's not accurate. here's the problem, mr. chairman. we're spending money we don't have. we're going through the budget program by program, line by line, and trying to reform these programs so that they can better deliver on their promises. we're looking at certain programs, say like food stamps, and saying, some states have some pretty innovative ideas on how to better deliver these services.

there have been some wasteful and fraudulent activities that need to be gotten at so we don't waste taxpayer money. we think it's important to encourage able-bodied adults who do not have dependents to go to work. when we do that in welfare reform in the 1990's, it worked, people went to work, and by the way, child poverty dropped double digits. single moms went to work. it helps reduce poverty. we want to replicate that kind of success with these kinds of reforms on these kinds of programs. and when we talk about education. this administration and this democratic budget is making a bunch of empty promises. they're promising the world in pell grants but they're not funding that world. we're saying, let's keep pell and let's fund it. and let's keep it where it is, but let's fund it throughout the decade. i would rather take a full-funded promise than an empty promise any day. i think that's more honest with

our students. and the other part i think we have to look at is, we're feeding tuition inflation. if we just keep pumping more d more borrowed money, empty promised money, into the system, what we're getting out of it is higher tuition. why don't we look at why tuition's going up so much in the first place and, gosh, when we look at that, we're learning the federal government is part of the problem. let's fix that. yielding myself an additional 30 seconds i'll just say, we do go through these things line by line. the gentleman likes to talk about tax reform. what he won't tell you is specifically what this tax reform bill does. because we don't have a specific tax reform in here because this is the budget. the ways and means committee does specific tax reform. that's where the loophole closers are. we're saying, the outline of it is to get tax rates down on businesses, small and large, so they can compete. there's $1 trillion worth of loopholes every year that they can work with to get those tax

rates down. to suggest that this all of a sudden does these tax breaks for millionaires and does this for this people and does that, they're just making that stuff up. what i think we ought to do is put the rhetoric aside and balance this budget. with that i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: well, thank you, mr. chairman. i'm glad the chairman of the committee recognized that there are about $1 trillion worth of tax expenditures. what does that mean? that means tax preferences in the tax code. $1 trillion a year, he said. that's right. and yet the republican budget doesn't close one penny of those tax expenditures to help reduce our deficit. not one. it says we have to reduce -- we have to reserve all those tax loophole closures to cut the top rate for millionaires by

1/3. from 39% to 25%. that's what they want to do with the tax expenditures. and because they refuse to get rid of one of those tax expenditures for the purpose of deficit reduction, their budget does hit all these students. what's honest is to tell students who are going to college right now that this budget is going to charge them over $40 billion more in interest because now they're going to have to pay interest while they're still in college. even though it doesn't close one of those tax expenditures from very wealthy people to help meet the targets and reduce the deficit. not one. so, as we look at the priorities in this budget we have to ask ourselves, why is it that this republican budget doesn't call for any shared responsibility? why is it that it does provide tax breaks to folks at the very top at the expense of the rest

of the country? i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: yielding myself 15 seconds. the shared responsibility we're asking for, it's to not pass it onto the next generation. with that i'd like to yield four minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma, the policy chair of our conference, mr. lankford. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for four minutes. mr. lankford: thank you, mr. chairman. it was the basic principle that george washington laid out in his farewell address. that every generation should take care of the responsibilities of that generation rather than pass it on to their children. it's a 200-year-old concept that's fairly straightforward. what's interesting to me, is i've been in a personal conversation with our current president of the united states about debt and about balancing the budget. our conversation back and forth was circled around a principle. bill clinton and newt gingrich two decades ago made it their crowning achievement that they balanced the budget in a bipartisan time period.

my request to this president was, can we agree that we should set a goal to balance the budget? his response to me was, no. 20 years ago that was a good idea. but now the perception was that we should have sustainable deficits. that is, balance everything except for interest. this year our interest payment is $233 billion. c.b.o. forecasts that 10 years from now our interest payments, single year, one year interest payment, 10 years from now, is $880 billion. . we must get back to balance. when i mean balance, i mean real balance. families balance their budget, businesses balance their budget, states balance their budget. we see times in our past when we had a balanced budget and saw the economic activity from that. but for whatever reason, now we're going to just ignore that.

why? first off, they'll say it's hard. it's difficult to balance our budget. i'm sorry that it's hard. this is what leaders do. we make difficult decisions to be able to get our nation back on track for now and for the future. the second thing is, let's co-a blabsed approach, raise taxes if we're going to reduce spending. right now this year, we have the highest amount of revenue in the history of the united states coming into the federal treasury. even with a down economy, thises the highest amount of revenue that's ever come into the treasury. the second highest amount that's come into the treasury, last year. this is not an issue of not having enough tax revenue. we have the highest amount we've ever had come into the treasury. the issue is, we're overspending. that's the key issue we have to get into. the other argument that comes out is, there's no more efficiencies left. there's nowhere else to cut in the federal government. it's difficult finding anyone outside of washington that believe this is government is running so efficient think -- efficiently, there's no fraud

new york inefficiencies of government, nowhere to cut. when you walk through our budget, we're not trying to damage our economy, we're trying to protect our economy, we're trying to grow and protect jobs by stabilizing the economy. you go to business people across the country, they ask for one thing -- give us a stable plan that gets us back to balance. give us stability in our economy. we'll go our business. some predictability. that's what this budget is heading toward. it's also dealing with things like national defense. national defense is a prime task of the federal government. this budget aggressively steps up and says, we have a responsibility for national defense. we should maintain that. the conversation about going to 10 carriers around the world. 10 aircraft carriers may sound like a lot until you realize only two are in the ocean at any given time when you get down to 10. if you get back up to 11, we can now have three out in our ocean.

when you drop that amount, you're making the decision, we're not going to have a presence somewhere in the ocean. we have a stable piece -- stable peace when we're strong. basic principle. if we weaken our military presence, we expose ourselves to weakness. we need to be able to do this. we need to take out obamacare, get us back to a stable economy, deal with national defense. that's what this budget is all about. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. -- the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: can i inquire how much time remains? the chair: the gentleman from maryland has 65 1/2 minutes remain, the gentleman from wisconsin has 63 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. the president's budget has two things in it. first of all, it actually calls for a fund to -- fund to increase defense spending for readiness in fiscal year 2015,

which is not included in the republican budget. number two, in the out year the president also grows our defense spending and as the joint chiefs of staff and secretary of defense have testified, those investments will make sure that e united states is second to none, in fact second -- the next 10 countries after that, together, spend much less on defense than the united states and we will continue to have that additional robust defense spending to make sure we're strong. but we also need to make sure that our economy is strong to support that kind of budget and if you gut the important investments that have helped make the economy grow other time, you will not get that. i would just respond to the gentleman's comments on revenue. any time the economy is grow, if you have a certain tax rate, you'll get more absolute dollars of revenue in.

but i mentioned that the last time we actually had a balanced budget in this country was in the year 1998 awe 2001. and if u look at the amount of revenue that was coming in during that period as a percent of the economy, you find that 19.2%e was 19.2% in 1998, in 1999. 19.9% in 2000. and so on. way ahead of the amount of revenue as a percentage of the economy that this republican budget calls for in year 10 even though between now and then, we will have millions more americans on medicare and social security. so again, they just can't bring themselves to close one of these special interest tax breaks. not one. for the purpose of reducing the deficit and contributing to our economic well being.

i reserve the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield myself two minutes, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. ryan: the first priority and responsibility of the federal government is to secure our nation and provide for the common defense of our nation. the gentleman from maryland mentioned the president, you know, has this proposal for this year, that would have violated our bipartisan budget agreement. it's a proposal that holds hostage defense for higher taxes and more domestic spending. but worse than that, we had a hearing in the budget committee about two years ago. then-secretary of defense panetta, along with the chairman of the joint chiefs, came and testified. they said to this budget committee, our budget committee, this is as far as we can go. we can't cut any further without doing damage to our military. that's effectively where the

republican budget is. that's not where this year's obama budget is. the president's budget, which is also replicated by the democratic substitute, cuts the military far lower than that. they're bringing the army and the marines to a level we have not seen since before world war ii. they're shrinking our navy to a size we have not seen since before world war i. they're shrinking our air force to a level we have never seen before. they're cutting compensation for our men and women in uniform, not to save money for other parts of the military like readiness and training and equipment, but they're cutting compensation, cutting force structure, cutting personnel, cutting equipment, cutting defense, not to reduce the

deficit, but to spend it on more domestic spending. and the joint chiefs, they said that now with this budget submission, it represents a moderate risk of actually affecting our national security. they've never said that before. they said we've got a low risk. i yield myself 15 more seconds to say -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: of all the problems we have in this budget, the president's budget, it hollows out our military, sends the wrong signals overseas, and we are not going to do that. with that, i would like to yield five minutes to the distinguished vice chair of the budget committee, dr. price of georgia. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to start by commending the chairman of the budget committee, mr. ryan, for his wonderful and positive work on real solutions. when i go back home and talk to

folks, they say, don't you all have any solutions that will actually work? and that's what this is. s that real solution a common sense solution. my constituents back home in the sixth district of georgia tell me they are saddened and disheartened by the comments we hear from the other side, primarily on dividing americans, pitting one american against another. it really is a cynical ploy. it may be politically opportune, but it's not helpful. it's not helpful for the discourse we have in this country, it's not helpful for us reaching those real solutions. so i hope, i implore my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's get together and work together and find those real solutions. but my constituents back home also tell me that the path we're on isn't working. the economy is not thriving. record deficits continue. mentioned the mantra of division

that seems to be the m.o. of the other side. but democrats seem to be happy with all this. they seem to be happy with an economy that's not thriving. they seem to be happy with an economy that results in fewer americans workering. they seem to be happy with fewer success stories across the country. they seem to be happy that more jobs are leaving the country. they seem to be happy with higher and higher taxes and more and more spending. they seem to be happeny with borrowing more money from foreign countries. they seep to be happeny with compromising -- they seem to be our with compromising principles. we have a balanced budget, a path to prosperity for every single american. we've had a little discussion over the past few minutes about defense. i want to talk about some specific issues in our budget, defense being one of them.

it's a very dangerous world. our budget recognizes that. it recognizes the danger that we have and that our allies have and we increase spending for defense and for national security. we account for that in our budget in a positive way. the president, irresponsibly, buries his head in the sand. his budget, as has been mentioned, puts us back at preworld war ii level for men and women in uniform. that's not consistent with what the american people see in the real world right now. what we do is account for that and increase defense spending in a responsible way. health care. i'm a physician. i recognize that the world of health care is in upheaval. physicians are leaving their practices, seniors are losing their doctors, there are new medicare patients who are unable to find physicians. in fact the actuaries of medicare, not republican or democrat, but the actuaries of the medicare system said that

the system is going broke. within a 10-year period of time, it won't be able to provide services for seniors that have currently been promised. our budget positively addresses these issues. we save and we strengthen and we secure medicare. how? with positive reform. putting patients in charge, not government in charge. in fact the proposal we outlined a number of years ago and continue to include in our budget right now, premium support for seniors, making it so they have more choice the congressional budget office did a study on that exact program, published last september, and they say, oh, recognize that this program, proposed by the republicans, will not only save money for seniors, it will save money for taxpayers. real, positive solutions. again, put patients in charge and not government. another exciting difference between our proposal, our budget, real solutions, and the other side, we understand that a

growing economy is essential to get us back on the right track. the past five years have certainly not been helpful. the congressional budget office once again has evaluated our proposed policies and said if we're able to get our economy back on the right track, by instituting our plan of saving over $5 trillion, that there would be significant benefits to the economy. realistic scoring shows, and i quote from the congressional budget office, they find that reducing budget deficit is a net positive for economic growth, deficit reduction creates long-term economic benefits because it increases the pool of national savings and boosts investment, raising economic growth and job creation. these benefits are both significant and lasting. that's our budget. positive growth in the economy and significant and positive benefits to the american people. significant and lasting. final foom -- finally i want to mention briefly, thank you, i want to mention briefly the issue of debt.

the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mike mullin, said that the number one threat to our national security is not the threat from other nations and rogue regimes, it's the threat of our national debt. the american people know this. over $17 trillion in debt and continue the president has in his budget record deficits, record annual deficits. the path to prosperity, the plan we're proposing, gets us back on the right track, gets us on a path to balance, balancing within a 10-year period of time, on trajectory to pay off the entire debt of the united states of america, increasing economic opportunity and viability. we're for the greatest amount of success for the greatest number of americans and the greatest number of american dreams being realized. the way to do that is through the path to prosperity, a balanced and responsible budget. i urge my colleagues to support this balanced budget.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired this gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: i would just note that it's the republican budget here in the house of representatives that divides america. when we point out that this is a budget that protects tax breaks for the very wealthy at the expense of everybody else, our colleagues say, no, no, no, that's dividing america. but what we're explaining is the republican budget and that's unfortunately what it does. you know, the chairman originally said that only in washington is an increase really a cut. i would just point out in the president's defense budget it goats from $52 -- from $521 billion in 2015 to $646 billion 10 years from now. hardly a cut. in fact, quite an expansion going forward. i'm pleased to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from texas, the distinguished member of the armed services committee who has focused a lot on defense, mr. castro.

the chair: the gentleman is reck thesed for a minute and a half. . mr. castro: thank you for all of your work on this. there are many damaging cuts in this budget. but i'd like to speak for just a minute about the cuts to education. in ancient civilizations literacy and education were closed off to all but the very affluent. and the beauty of america since its founding has been the democratization of a way to become educated, make your way into the middle class and do well. this budget would threaten that and it does it in several ways. first, it cuts pell grants, that is grants to college students, by $145 billion. it also very significantly makes aid, help grant aid, unavailable to part-time students. and i want to focus on that for just a second. because this is something we see over and over in our districts again.

single moms or working parents, men or women, who are trying to balance a job and go to school at the same time. they're trying to take two or three classes maybe, make their way, still be able to work to support their families, but also go to college and finish off, slowly get their degree. this budget would not allow them to access pell grants. it would make achieving their goal of getting their education, maybe training for another kind of job, it would make that impossible for millions of americans. the cuts to pell grants are especially significant because in states like mine, in texas, since 2003 tuition has gone up an average of 104% for thousands and thousands of texans. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. castro: so when the republicans put forward a budget that cuts off access to higher education, what they're doing is cutting off a path to the middle class for millions of americans and every

american, young and old, should be concerned about that. thank you, chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from maryland is ecognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm now very pleased to yield 2 1/2 minutes to a terrific member of the budget committee, who's focused on lots of important issues, including the challenge of poverty in america, ms. lee. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. ms. lee: thank you. i want to thank the gentleman for yielding and for your tremendous support and leadership on behalf of the majority of the american people in our country. i rise of course in strong opposition to this very reckless republican budget. this is yet another republican messaging document massacre aiding really as a budget resolution. once again republicans have brought forth a budget that slashes the programs that keep

the poorest and most vulnerable americans healthy, working and with food on the table. under this cruel plan, and, yes, it's a cruel plan, seniors on medicare would see their payments for services and prescriptions skyrocket. we would see an end to the medicare guarantee as we know it. by converting snap to a block grant program, republicans once again seek to balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable by cutting our nation's first line of defense and that's hunger. between cuts and policy changes, this budget would cut $137 billion in snap benefits over 10 years. $40 billion wasn't enough. and at the same time that our nation is facing the greatest income inequality since the great depression, this republican budget would protect some of the most outrageous tax breaks and loopholes for the

wealthiest, millionaires, billionaires and big oil companies. that's right. once again this plan really wreaks havoc on the poor and the middle class who really pay the price so that my colleagues across the aisle can claim a balanced budget. and sadly it does not stop there. while the republican budget continues to keep the american dream out of reach for the poor, it would increase spending, mind you, for the already bloated pentagon budget and continue the overseas contingency operations slush fund, which is really paying for wars hopefully in the future that won't exist. we simply cannot continue to write a blank check for spemmeding on war if we are to ever -- spending on war if we are to of ever have a chance of getting our fiscal house in order. we can't do this to america's struggling families and the working poor. republicans claim they want to eliminate poverty and, yes, we are holding this debate, finally it's become a national

debate, we're debating poverty. yet -- and how to make sure people find pathways out of poverty. yet just read this budget. it is a pathway into poverty. mr. van hollen: i yield the gentlelady another 30 seconds. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. lee: yes i said a pathway, and thank you, mr. van hollen, because we've looked at this budget and looked at how it's creating -- will create more poverty. so it is a pathway into poverty. budgets are moral documents. they reflect our values. so the underlying values in the ryan budget really do not reflect who we are as americans, believing that we really are our brothers' keepers and our sisters' keepers. i urge a support of the budget proposal presented by the democratic caucus, the congressional progressive caucus and the congressional black cawculls. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired.

mr. van hollen: i yield the gentlelady another 10 seconds. ms. lee: we need a budget that puts americans back to work, that invest in our future, protect the safety net and work to reignite the american dream for all. this budget does just the opposite. so i hope that all will vote no on the ryan budget. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, i'll yield myself 30 seconds. just to say, there are different visions. we don't think we should take more money from hardworking taxpayers to spend it in washington and then borrow more from our chirp. we think we should balance the budget and pay off the debt. we're going to see a lot of budgets come to get floor here offered by the other side which is great, i'm glad they're offering alternatives. mr. van hollen's democratic budget will have a $1.can 8 trillion tax increase, just like the president's new $1.8 trillion tax increase. the progressive caucus budget, they got -- they've got the candle here, $6.6 trillion tax

increase they're encouraging. spending by the other side -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. ryan: yield myself 15 more seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: what they're saying is, let's just have a bidding war on how much we can raise people's taxes, let's even raise spending more and nobody else is offering a budget that will ever balance the budget. so the idea here is borrow endlessly, never balance it and give our children an inferior standard of living. with that, i'd like to yield five minutes to a distinguished member of the budget committee, the gentleman from mississippi, mr. nunnelee. the chair: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized for five minutes. mr. nunnelee: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank chairman ryan for yielding, but more importantly thank him for his work and leadership in this area. tonight around america families will sit down at the kitchen table to talk about their family finances.

and you know, there always seems to be more needs than there are dollars in a paycheck. and so those families will sit down, they may shed tears tonight, they may shed -- they may have some tens words between them -- tense words between them. but before the night's over, they will sit down and make tough decisions about how they'll spend their family's budget. just last week the state legislature in my state adjourned but before they did, they made some tough choices. they weren't able to fund everything they wanted to fund and they had to set priorities. local governments, county governments are making tough choices. if those american families sitting around their kitchen table, if the state legislature , if city governments, if county governments are making those tough choices, they have

every reason to expect their government in washington to do the same thing. and for four years now under the leadership of chairman ryan we've put forward a budget that does make these tough but necessary decisions. about getting control of our federal spending. so i'm proud to join my colleagues and vote for a budget that responsibly cuts $5.1 trillion over the next 10 years by reforming the main drivers of our debt, targeting wasteful spending. at the same time this budget seeks to expand opportunity, help the private sector create jobs by highlighting policies hat will grow the economy. meanwhile, the administration wants to take more money out of the paychecks of hardworking americans by raising their taxes, wants to spend more

money, wants to borrow more money from successive generations and never balance the budget. this administration has made all sorts of promises it can't keep. for example, the congressional budget office says that pell grants will begin to have a shortfall in 2016. and every year thereafter. medicare, my mom and dad worked all of their life, paid into a program and their government -- made them a promise that said, when you get retirement age, we're going to provide you health care. yet the actuarial models say that that program is going bankrupt and the administration doesn't deal with it. this budget does make tough decisions, makes tough choices. and the critics, they call this budget draconian. only in washington does making a tough choice label as being

controversial. it's important that we make these decisions and put our government back on a path of sustainable finances, to grow our economy. by making these tough choices we ensure our children and our grandchildren a better future. because we're doing more than just balance aing the budget. we're living out -- balance aing the budget. we're living out the american dream -- balancing the budget. we're living out the american dream. since our country was founded is the desire to lead a better way of life to successive generations. not saddle those generations with massive amounts of debt. so for those reasons i support this budget and i urge my colleagues to support this budget as well. mr. speaker, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized.

mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. the gentleman referred to tough decisions. well, it is true that the house republican budget is really tough on our kids' education. it cut cans deeply into early education -- it cuts deeply into early education. it cuts very deeply into k-12, that includes title one and special education for kids with disabilities. as we've talked about, it charges college students higher interest rates and it's true that the republican budget is tough on seniors on medicare because if they have high prescription drug costs the republican budget reopens the doughnut hole so they'll face $1,200 more per year on prescription drugs. so it's tough on kids' education, it's tough on seniors. i'll tell you who it's not tough on. it's not tough on powerful special interests.

people who are spending millions of dollars right now on tv advertising, trying to influence people's votes. it's not tough on them. at all. as i said, this budget calls for cutting the top tax rate by fully 30%. now, during the budget committee debate, the democrats said, ok, the only way you can do this mathematically if you're cutting the top rate by 30% from 39% to 25%, you do it in a deficit-neutral way, you're going to be increasing taxes on middle class taxpayers and families to finance those tax cuts. and so we said to our republican colleagues, if that's not what you intend to do, let's at least pass an amendment telling the ways and means committee that one of our principles is at least maintaining the current progress ivity of the tax code, so we don't increase taxes on middle class families or lower income families to finance the tax breaks for the folks at the

top. called the protect american middle class from a tax increase amendment. republican it's said no to that. they've got all kinds of other instructions to the ways and means committee in their budget. like reducing the top rate by 1/3 for millionaires. but when it came to instructing the ways and means committee not to increase the tax burden on middle class americans, they said no to that. so, yes, this republican budget is tough on the middle class, it's tough on seniors, it's tough on our kids' education, but for folks apt the very top, we just don't ask for -- we don't ask for any shared sacrifice. we're just pointing that out, that's a fact in their budget. the chairman talked about tax expenditures and not one of those was for the purpose of reducing the deficit. now i yield two and a half minutes to a member of congress who has worked hard throughout

his entire career to try and make sure that our country grows and that every american has opportunity, and that's the gentleman from california, ranking member of the energy and commerce committee, mr. waxman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two and a half minutes. mr. waxman: thank you for yielding to me. mr. chairman, we have a choice to make. the house democratic budget and the republican's budget present very different choices about america's future. the democratic alternative promotes job growth and expands opportunity. the republican budget gives away trillions to the wealthy and special interests, while shredding the social safety net. the affordable care act is the most significant expansion of health coverage in 50 years. it ends discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. it promotes health and prevention. it improves quality and lowers costs.

the republican budget repeals the affordable care act. over 10 million americans would lose coverage immediately. insurers could discriminate based on pre-existing conditions. more than eight million seniors who have saved more than $10 billion on prescription drugs and more than 32 million benefited from free preventive services would immediately see higher costs. the 129 million americans with pre-existing conditions would no longer be safe from discrimination. after they repeal the affordable care act, the republican budget would slash medicaid by 25%. this will hurt millions of seniors in nursing homes, millions of low-income babies whose mothers receive important prenatal care and millions of people with disabilities. these are a moral and outrageous -- these are immoral and

outrageous cuts. the republican budget also ends the medicare guarantee, forcing seniors to stay in fee for service to pay more for the coverage they have today. it slashes key domestic spending, cutting biomedical research, key job creation programs and programs that keep kids from going hungry, just to name a few examples. are these responsible choices? i don't think that's the path we ought to take. the democratic alternative is fiscally responsible and good for our nation's health. i urge my colleagues to reject the house republican approach and instead support working families, seniors and people with disabilities by protecting our health care system from these attacks. i urge a no vote on the republican budget, support for the democratic budget and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i'd like to yield four

minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from missouri, ms. hartzler. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for four minutes. mrs. hartzler: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman, for your leadership. as a member of the budget committee and the armed services committee, i am proud to support a balanced budget that stops spending money we don't have, provides regulatory relief, and provides for a strong defense. our federal debt costs an astonishing $17 trillion. this is unacceptable. it's irresponsible to take more money from hardworking families just to spend more here in washington. our path to prosperity budget balances in 10 years by cutting wasteful spending and reforming government. just as importantly this budget gets our priorities right again by providing for the common defense. it replaces $274 billion in scheduled defense cuts to ensure the american people have a

bright, safe future. it is imperative we do so because since taking office, president obama has directed over $1 trillion in cuts to our military. under the president's budget, which cuts $75 billion over the next two years, with deeper cuts expected if sequestration returns in fiscal year 2016, secretary of defense hagel and other senior defense and military officials acknowledge that these budget choices will create additional risk to our nation. we can't allow this to happen. while we cut nearly one fifth of our defense resources, russia and china are arming at an alarming rate. russia's mill tear spending is up roughly 30% and china's has more than doubled in recent years. given our military shortfalls, we must build upon the recent compromise and further reverse the current trajectory to mitigate the permanent damage to our national security. i am proud to support a balanced

budget that reins in government spend, promotes job creation and reprioritizes our national defense. our path to prosperity budget accomplishes these goals. we cannot keep going to the department of defense to cut spending. we must deal with the real drivers of our debt and put our country on a sustainable path to grow the economy. america's future depends on it. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from maryland is ecognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. it's my privilege to yield two minutes to a fighter for working americans, the gentlewoman from connecticut, member of the appropriations committee, ms. delauro. the chair: the gentlelady from onnecticut is recognized for twomens. ms. delauro: a moment ago the gentleman from mississippi said families are sitting around at their kitchen table. they are, and they are crying.

they do not have a job. their unemployment benefits have not been extended. their wages have stagnated. they can't afford to send their children to college. this majority fiddles while rome burns and refuses to address any of these issues. but they certainly make it easy to lower the top tax rate for the richest americans. i rise in strong opposition to this cruel budget proposal. yet again, the house majority has put forward an ideological plan that puts all of the burdens on the most vulnerable among us, especially women and families. today is equal payday a day that women's earnings finally catch up to what men made in 2013. but the fact is this dubious milestone, that it even exists, is a sad testament to the financial pressures that women and families face. this budget puts more pressure on women and families. 2/3 of seniors in poverty are women. they rely on the bedrock

american institution of medicare to survive. this budget ends medicare as we know it. it turns it into a voucher program. seven in 10 elderly individuals, six in 10 nonelderly individuals rely on medicaid, they are women. the budget proposes $2.7 trillion in cuts to medicaid and other support to help low and middle income families buy health insurance. w.i.c. provides critical food benefits to 8.3 million pregnant and postpartum women, infants, and children across america. the budget drastically slashes the program, hurting the families struggling most in this economy. devastating food stamp a program in which 2/3 of the adult participants are women, and children, and they account for nearly half of all recipients. it costs -- it cuts 170,000 kids from head start, educational resources for 3.4 million disadvantaged children. it cuts the pell grant by over

$125 billion. it allows the insurance companies to once again charge treat -- than men to it cuts pell grants and allows insurance companies to once again charge women more than men and to treat pregnancy as a pre-existing condition. according to the center for budget and policy priorities, 69% of the cuts in the republican budget would come from programs serving low and moderate income people. this ryan republican budget is not a reflection of america's values, it's not who we are as a country. it is an ideological document that threatens american families, i urge my colleagues to reject it. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expire. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i would like to ask unanimous consent to insert a very specific refuteation of the claims the gentlelady mentioned. the chair: the gentleman's request is covered urn general leave.

mr. ryan: i would like to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. black. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. black: i rise in support of the house republican budget plan. unlike the president's budget, this is a serious proposal that balances our budget and helps our economy grow. our nation is $17.4 trillion in debt and if we want to pro serve this country -- preserve this country for our children and grandchildren, we must reform the way washington works. everyone knows that medicare will soon go bankrupt and that's why i'm so happy that this budget proposal save this is important program for our seniors and future generations. by transitioning to a premium support model, we can preserve medicare for those in or near retirement and strengthen medicare for younger generations. furthermore this budget ends obamacare's raid on the medical -- medicare trust fund and

repeals obamacare's independent payment advisory board to help ensure our seniors get the care they deserve. and despite what some critics say, this does not eliminate traditional medicare. instead, it ensures that americans will always have traditional medicare as an option. under this plan, every senior will have the support they need to get the care they deserve. those who attack this reform without offering credible alternatives are come plist in medicare's demise so i want to commend chairman ryan and my republican colleagues in the budget committee for leading where president and -- where president obama and the senate democrats have failed. one way or another this country will have to address out of control debt and deficits and this budget does so responsibly. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from maryland is recognized.

mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. it's now my privilege to yield four minutes to a fellow marylander, the democratic whip, mr. hoyer, who is -- who has spent a lot of time focused on budgets to empower our economy and make sure we do so in a fiscally responsible manner. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the ranking member for yielding. i would first observe, mr. speaker, that the american people ought to lament another opportunity missed. an opportunity to come together and adopt a big, balanced plan for investment and balance in our fiscal system in america. mr. speaker, last year we adopted a budget and during the course of its implementation with the consideration of appropriation bills, the republican chairman of the committee called the sequester numbers adopted in the 2014 ryan plan unrealistic and ill

conceived. mr. r 2016 through 2024, speaker, this budget has numbers below sequester levels that the chairman said were unrealistic and ill conceived. chairman rogers has called the numbers in this budget draconian. chairman rogers, responsible for funding the operations of government and assisting and building our economy and its people. mr. speaker, i believe it's all that and a call to disinvestment, this intudget a call to disinvestment -- this budget is a call to disinvestment in america's growth and success. we have heard a lot of claims about what the republican budget will do for our country. i've heard those claims from previous republican chairmen, frankly, they did not pan out. let me clear the fog away and

get down to the raw numbers which reveal the magnitude of the damage the republican budget will inflict. as a matter of fact, with all due respect, i call it a retreat. the chairman's retreat. first the republican budget would repeal the patient protections and other benefits of the affordable care act, leaving millions without health insurance coverage. of course, it keeps the money. it just doesn't give the benefits. it would turn medicaid into a cap grant program and cut its funding by $732 billion over the next decade. that's for seniors who need long-term care, for people with disabilities who need medical services. 2/3 of medicaid aid spending goes to low income seniors and the republican budget cuts it by a quarter. it would also end the medicare guarantee and reopen the doughnut hole for prescription

drugs, shifting costs back to seniors. secondly the republican budget disinvests as i said from many of the very important initiatives congress has made a priority for the future growth and competitiveness of our economy. it cuts over $120 billion from middle class college affordability programs like pell grant and will leave a college undergraduate taking out a student loan as much as $3,800 deeper in debt. by eliminating funding for a i plied research, their -- for applied research, it will reduce federal research grants by half. disinvestment. it could result in 2,400 fewer national science research awards and 104,000 fewer national institute of health awards. the republican budget would decimate pediatric research. we've heard a little bit about that it would decimate pediatric

research and decimate all other research as well, and other medical research into life-saving diseases by billions of dollars. not just pediatric research, cancer, heart, lung, blood, alzheimer's and others. $173 billion would be cut from highway spending over the next 10 years, disinvestment. even though infrastructure investments are critical to the growth of our manufacturing sector and job creation. . it reduces our investment in long-term education -- one minute. mr. van hollen: one minute. mr. hoyer: long-term investments will be reduced in education, research, infrastructure and job training by over 15% over the next decade compared to the deal the republican chairman negotiated just four months ago. i will tell you, mr. chairman and mr. ranking member and mr. speaker, our competitors around

the world are not retreating in terms of investments. perhaps the most egregious market against this budget, though, is it does not achieve the fiscal balance its authors give as the reason for these cuts in the first place. instead, it relies on dynamic scoring. that's pretend something will happen. now, if it happens we'd have a bonus and we could use that bonus, but if it doesn't happen, this budget will guarantee that we will be further in the hole. it has an astrisk for $166 billion. doesn't say what that $966 billion is about. at least 2/3 of it, but you guess. pretend, hope. if it doesn't happen you're in the hole. this budget -- 30 additional seconds, if i might. mr. van hollen: i yield the gentleman. mr. hoyer: this budget is a blueprint for economic decline for vulnerable americans being left to fend for themselves and

for an america less equipped to protect its citizens. i urge my colleagues to defeat this resolution and send a message that our country will continue to invest in its priorities. opportunity, security and growth. let us not retreat. let us serve this country and serve its greatness. defeat this budget. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, i yield myself a minute. i want to rest the mind of the distinguished minority whip at ease, chairman rogers does support this budget. his comments in 2013 aside, he's a supporter of this budget. this budget balances using c.b.o. numbers, and i would also say this. all these complaints about spending cuts or slower increases in spending aside, this budget, by the way, doesn't specify that n.i.h. is going to have all of that, all of these reductions in spending

or reductions in the increase in spending will pale in comparison if we have a debt crisis, if we have a bond market -- if we have a shock. if we keep kicking the can down the road, the solution then will be so much uglier, so much more draconian -- mr. hoyer: will my friend on that point? mr. ryan: with that i yield to the gentleman from tennessee, dr. roe, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. roe: i rise in strong support of the house republican budget. today our national debt exceeds $17.5 trillion. mr. chairman, that's a blueprint for decline. more than $55,000 for every man, woman and child in america. if we fail to address this mounting debt now, our children and our grandchildren will inherit an america that will be poorer, less free and provides fewer opportunities. to address this looming crisis,

republicans propose balancing the federal budget in 10 years. most americans don't realize that discretionary spending has decreased four consecutive years, a tremendous accomplishment spurred on by house republicans. now we must show the same resolve to tackle our largest drivers of debt, mandatory programs, including medicaid, medicare, social security and snap. we can achieve balance without reducing overall spending. let me say that again. we can achieve balance without reducing overall spending by simply slowing the rate of growth at which spending increases. we must spend hardworking taxpayer dollars smarter. mr. speaker -- mr. chairman, i'm medicare age, and i realize that for every dollar that we pay in in premiums we get $3 out in benefits. this is clearly not sustainable. as a physician, i would like to commend chairman ryan for his

continued efforts to save and strengthen medicare. we must act to protect seniors' access to medical care before the medicare trust fund becomes insolvent in in 2026, a short time from now. this proposal achieves that goal while ensuring those americans 55 and older experience absolutely no change. i urge my colleagues to support this very conservative budget and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: i reserve, mr. chair. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from montana, mr. daines. the chair: the gentleman from montana is recognized for two minutes. mr. daines: thank you, mr. chairman. to create jobs and grow our economy, we must work toward lasting solutions that puts our nation back on solid fiscal ground, stopping wasteful

washington spending and balance our budget. the american people deserve more accountability from washington, and washington has a responsibility to the american people to produce, number one, a budget, and number two, a budget that balances. anything less than that is a failure to lead. and that's why i introduced the balance budget accountability act, which requires congress to pass a balanced budget or members won't get paid. the principles found montana common sense and they stand in stark contrast with the president's budget which never achieves balance. and the senate where democrat leaders have decided the american people don't deserve a budget at all. that is irresponsible and will only lead to never-ending deficits and a debt that will take generations to pay off. that is not the montana way. that's not the american way. i don't agree with everything in this budget, but i know that the people of montana want and

deserve a solution to our debt crisis and a balanced budget and a congress with the courage to lead. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm now very pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from oregon, a member of the budget committee and the ways and means committee, mr. blumenauer. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for three minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you. i have appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding me time. as i'm sitting on the floor listening to the back and forth and the division, i was thinking back to a time when there was consensus in this body on important investments for our future. indeed, the character of our nature -- nation, our economic vitality was grounded in the

investment the united states made in our ports, our railroads, our highways. the finest infrastructure in the world gave the united states the strength to be victorious in battle in world war i, world war ii, to have the economic strength to be able to meet national challenges and to provide economic security and well-being for our families. unfortunately, as families struggle, as we have difficulty providing family wage jobs for american workers, the american infrastructure is no longer the envy of the world as it is in the past. in fact, all the independent studies show we're nowhere near the top of the pact. we've fallen to the lower ranges of the development world. the american society of civil engineers has given our infrastructure a grade of d-plus and suggests we'll need to invest over $3 trillion over

the next six years just to remain economically competitive in the global marketplace. the failure to deal with our infrastructure is going to cost american families in terms of wear and tear on their vehicles over $1,000 a year and millions of hours stuck in traffic in congestion. now, we're facing a soon-to-be bankrupt highway trust fund. the clock is ticking. by the end of september it will run out of money, which means we're seating cutbacks on federal contracts this summer which means some states are having to act now this spring. the decision of tennessee this last week is the 11th state that has announced cutbacks. the republican budget, being debated today, ignores this pending crisis, let alone the growing needs of american communities. their budget would freeze us in

decline, a 30% reduction over the next decade from already inadequate levels, making it impossible to deal with projects of national significance, severely strange ongoing maintenance of our highways and transit systems. it doesn't have to be this way. a broad and powerful coalition ranging from the afl-cio to the chamber of commerce, the trucking association, the a.a.a., bicyclists, contractors, businesses large and small have joined with a group of 17 bipartisan governors and the heads of 31 state chambers of commerce. mr. van hollen: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one additional minute. mr. blumenauer: to urge congress to face this crisis so we can have a full six-year re-authorization, so that we can put hundreds of thousands of americans to work, strengthen the economy and protecting our communities. instead of wasting more time on

a budget that is going nowhere, we should come together to address our failing bridges, roads and water system. our future demands it, our constituents expect no less. i strongly urge the rejection of the republican budget if for no other reason than it freezes us in this decline for infrastructure and look forward to the day when we'll work together to solve this problem. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves his time. mr. van hollen: may i inquire how much time remains on each side? the chair: the gentleman from maryland has 40 minutes remaining -- mr. van hollen: 40? the chair: and the gentleman from wisconsin has 41 1/2 minutes remaining.

on today's time, the gentleman from maryland has nine minutes remaining. and the gentleman from wiff has 11 minutes -- wisconsin has 11 minutes. mr. van hollen: does the chairman have further speakers? ell, let me see. all right. mr. chairman, i'm now pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, a member of the energy and commerce committee, mr. tonko. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to our ranking member of the budget committee for the opportunity to share some thoughts. wow. mixed messaging.

it really grips the american public. washington republicans are presenting their budget and proclaiming that we're about reducing the debt and addressing the deficit, reducing the deficit. we're concerned about our children. we're concerned about our grandchildren. while at the same time the mixed messages to the crowd that is above $1 million threshold, income threshold, we have munl for you, we're going to spend for you. we're so -- we have money for you, we're going to spend for you. we're so concerned about the debt and deficit that needs to be reduced, but we'll spend on you. we'll offer you on average $200,000 tax break so allow us to spend on you. somehow the children and the grandchildren are not aworry then, so the mixed messaging is amazing. i had the opportunity to either meet in the office or in group sessions or in large gatherings here in washington a number of

advocates who are concerned about investment that needs to be made in this federal budget. well, there's the alzheimer's association imploring us to find a cure, invest in research. so washington republicans say, no, we need to spend on tax cuts for the wealthy and we need to use your funds to reduce the debt and the deficit. . washington republicans will tell our college-bound students who need an affordable path to that higher ed opportunity that we can't spend on you or invest in you, we need to spend on tax cuts for the wealthy. washington republicans will sweep the savings and the revenues of the affordable care act and proclaim to the senior community, we're now repealing the affordable care act, all the benefits that were there for you are now removed.

washington republicans will tell a group that i met with about water infrastructure needs. we can't spend on you, but we need to spend on tax cuts for the wealthy. you know, this is a mixed message that is disingenuous. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. van hollen: i yield 30 seconds. tonchingtonching i think we should be -- mr. tonko: i think we should be truthful with the american public. that will grow for the economy, provide greater opportunities for jobs, there is a path to prosperity for a few that the republicans have put together with their budget. i suggest we look at a highway for hope that has been advanced by the democrats in the house that invest in alzheimer's research, higher ed opportunities, infrastructure for this nation and continuation

of the affordable care act. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield myself two minutes. you know, i think there's this view that the pie of life is fixed, society's static, the economy, a fixed pie and that we here in washington should decide how to redistribute the slice of the pie. you know, we reject that whole entire premise. life is dynamic, the economy is dynamic. we want to grow the pie for everybody. and you don't grow the pie, grow opportunity or grow the economy if you drive this country to a debt crisis. if you continue spending way beyond your means, if you spend money we don't have that's taken from the next generation.

this president has already raised taxes $1.7 trillion. the top effective tax rate on successful small businesses is almost 45%. the tax rate on big businesses ike corporations is 35%. our competitors, the countries we compete with -- i yield myself another minute, they tax their businesses at 25%. and so when we tax ourselves a lot more than our foreign competitors tax themselves, they win, we lose. what we are hearing from the other side was, that $1.7 trillion tax increase, that's not enough. let's go farther and tax another $1.8 trillion and this rhetoric about winners and losers and the few and the this and the that, it's a notion that all the good

ideas come from washington. it's a notion that goes beyond the idea that government needs to play a supporting role in our lives. but does government need to play a commanding role in our lives? it needs to dictate these things? government decides who wins and who loses? guess what, mr. chairman, when you do that, the interest groups that they are complaining about, they are the ones who call the shots up here. what we are trying to do with this budget is get the basics right. what we want to do is make sure we can make good on these very important missions of health and retirement security. and we want to make sure that people, they get to decide how it's done in their lives. we want to make sure that american businesses have what they need to compete, survive and grow jobs in this global

economy. we want to make sure that we don't live beyond our means so that our kids live below their means. we want to grow this economy. i'm going to give myself another minute. we've got a big debt. we all know that. the question is, who owns our debt? who's in control of our future? we are asking much from the next generation. when i was born in 1970, 6% of our national debt was owned by foreigners. 1990, when i was in college, 19% was owned by foreigners. today, 47% of our national debt is owned by foreigners. they control half of our debt. that's not in our country's interest. relying on other countries to cash flow our country, to cash

flow our budget is not smart economics. and we know we are taking control of our country and feeding it elsewhere. this is why we have to get this debt under control, for our kids, for our grandkids, for our economy and for our soncht. and with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. we all believe in growing an economy and greater prosperity, the issue is how do we make sure we have that prosperity as a country. we have two very important strains in the american character. one strain is the frurel strain and self--- entrepreneurial strain and helped unleash huge amounts of potential. but we have learned as a country there are some things we can do better by working together than

if we are just hundreds of millions of people working separately on their own, things like investing in our national infrastructure, things like investing in the world-class college system and working and investing in medical research so we can be the world's leader in those areas. those are what have made us a world economic power and have allowed us to support that military. and the problem with the republican budget is it ignores that part of the american character. and we keep hearing from our colleagues about all those tax expenditures that are out there, but i have to go back, mr. chairman, to pointing out, they don't close one of those tax loopholes for the purpose of helping to reduce the deficit. and because they make that decision and because they decide to say, we aren't going to touch those very wealthy, their budget

has to come after other people in the country, after the middle class, after seniors, our kids' education, after infrastructure. our budget and the president's budget dramatically reduces the deficit and reduces the debt as a function of the economy in the outyears going down. the republican budget didn't balance until a few years ago. whether you are going to be driven by the ideological target or whether your focus is on jobs and opportunity. i now yield -- with unanimous consent, to yield the balance of the time to mr. blumenauer. the chair: without objection, the gentleman from oregon will control the time. the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. rothfus.

mr. rothfus: i thank chairman ryan for the hard work he has been doing over the last several years as we look to get a handle on the spending problem we have here in washington, d.c. mr. chairman, our debt is out of control. in the past 10 years it has doubled from $7.1 trillion to $17.6 trillion today. we paid $416 billion in interest just last year. imagine where that money could have been better spent. failure to address the debt and deficits reduces opportunity and prosperity for future generations and directly threatens our ability to pay for our priorities like social security, medicare, a strong national defense and taking care of our veterans. unfortunately, president obama has offered another budget that increases taxes, expands the government, does nothing to save medicare or social security and never balances.

harry reid's senate will not even consider a budget this year. the budget we offer to the american people protects and preserves medicare and social security and balances in 10 years. when congress responsibly budgets, we increase economic security for our families and ensure we leave our children and grandchildren with more opportunities and a brighter future. mr. chairman, i call on my colleagues to do right things and pass this budget. i yield back my time. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: at this point, i would yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlelady from texas, distinguished member of the judiciary, ms. jackson lee. the chair: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman from oregon and the members for a thoughtful and important debate, and that's what this is all about, it is about gripping a hold of the

heart and soul of america. the budget is actually a moral document, a moral compass of where we want to take this country. i think what needs to be explained to the american public is in tulet, we have been making progress. the deficit has gone down from $1 trillion from the past administration, the bush administration, to now $680 billion. we are making trog, from losing 800,000 jobs a month to imagining close to 200,000. but the document that is on the floor today, the ryan budget, the republican budget chooses to not have the morality and affection for the american people that is desired. when you look at their budget, you will see that $3.3 trillion, 69% of their budget is cuts for programs for people with low or moderate income, the people who need a stair step of

opportunity. they give $200,000 in tax cuts to the top 1% and none of us have any challenge to prosperity and opportunity, but how can you have a budget that hits low-income programs or programs that give opportunity, how many have gone to schools because of pell grants, $175 million in cuts. how many people have gotten their health care from medicaid and still do, like children? how many people have needed to have the snap program? i believe we have budgets to work all people. i plan to vote for the c.b.c. budget and democratic budget and no on this republican budget. we need to have a standard that respects all people in this country and this budget does not. i yield back. the chair: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from arizona. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for two

minutes. mr. schweikert: i have been listening to the speakers on the left and as the gentlewoman just spoke, it's a moral document. i agree with that. let us discuss what is moral for the next generation and the generation after that and the generation after that. i grabbed this little poster which had been dropped off to me last week and it's a little poster from over at the center which has been doing calculations of what would united states' debt look like if you took the debt and unfunded liabilities of this country and put it on g.a.p. accounting, what's the real number, the window attached to the regular debt. process in your mind what you

have been told year after year of your unfunded liket. i need you to wipe -- liability, i need you to wipe that number clean. they came up with $205 trillion. $205 trillion of debt and unfunded debt and liability. you do realize if you go to google and look at the best estimates of the wealth of the world, our unfunded liabilities are now exceeding many of the estimates of the wealth of the entire world. and this is what so many members are willing to hand to our children, our great-grandchildren and the future generation. if you want to make a moral argument that debt, those unfunded liabilities is the moral argument. i yield back. the chair: the time of the

gentleman has expired. the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: i would yield a minute and a half, the gentleman from vermont, member of the energy and commerce committee, mr. welch. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. well well we are -- mr. welch: we are making an argument as we see it alliance with our point of view on the budget and the bottom line is we have to invest and have a balanced budget, but the question i have about this budget is what's going to happen to the potholes in america? i came out of the state legislature where we had constraints on it and we had to find ways to pay our bills within the needs of the people of vermont to pay them. we had to deal with real problems and required a confident approach in investing in the future. that has to be part of a budget and america's roads are falling apart, our bridges are falling

down. this is a real disaster when it comes to meeting the infrastructure needs of this country. the american society of civil engineers rates our infrastructure d-plus and estimates that the amount of investment needed by 2020 to be $3.6 billion. this budget accepts the looming insolvency of the highway trust fund and does nothing to fix it. those potholes are not going to fix themselves and that is not republican or democrats but potholes in your district and mine. scientific research, both sides are proud at america's scientific achievements and what this budget continues to do is reduce and squeeze national institutes of health grants by about 1,400. the university of vermont has seen a 20% drop in those research grants and affects

folks who are finding the cures for diseases in the future. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. . mr. ryan: how much is left? the chair: while there is no set time, the time is approximately 34 -- it will be 34 for -- full time and 32 on the minority side. mr. ryan: all right. having the right to reserve to close, we have no more speakers so i'll let the gentleman consume the rest of the time. mr. blumenauer: further inquiry, as i understand, the majority has consumed 34 minutes -- the chair: has that much time remaining. and the gentleman from oregon has 32 minutes remaining. mr. blumenauer: but we're going to carry that. got it. so i yield myself two minutes.

the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you. and i do appreciate the back and forth discussion here, but i want to put this in perspective, if i could, because our friends with the republican budget have assumed, for instance, that we're really not going to -- we don't necessarily have to raise taxes. we could actually cut some of the loopholes that we've offered repeatedly, and although that is referred to rhetorically, they've never been able to follow through with any that they would cut. there are medicaid cuts -- and make no mistake about it -- these medicaid cuts are actually reductions in nursing home care for america's most vulnerable. that's 2/3 of this money, and it's going to be visited back on the states and impacting on families. they repeal the affordable care act, but they keep all the associated revenues. we went through a campaign season excoriating democrats

for the reductions in medicare advantage and they keep that in their budget. there's the magic of dynamic scoring, which we've heard about repeatedly for years which never quite proves itself. and then we have cuts to pell grants. we heard described in committee that these cuts to pell grants are not a problem because they're just an excuse to raise tuition and enrich lavish academic salaries. mr. speaker, this republican budget not only would constrain us to have a -- freeze us into a downward decline in our infrastructure, it would be the lowest level of nonmilitary discretionary spending that we have seen in generations. it's not going to happen. it shouldn't happen, and my republican friends should not

be able to get away with assuming that this is a viable and responsible approach. i hope we'll come to the point, again, where we can find a way to come together to deal with things that we fuelly agree on in a tangible way and make some real progress. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield myself four minutes. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for four minutes. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, budgeting is about choosing. budgeting is about setting priorities, and in this particular case, setting a path for the country. we've got serious fiscal challenges unlike any we've had before. and when we look at some of these fiscal challenges, it is very clear that the sooner we get on top of these problems, the sooner we deal with these problems, the better off everybody's going to be. here in a nutshell is our big fiscal issue. it's not a democrat-republican

thing. it's not a partisan thing. it's sort of a demographic and math thing. we are going from roughly 40 million seniors to about 80 million seniors, retirees. the baby boomers are retiring 10,000 people a day at this pace for 10 years. the programs they use, that they rely on like medicare, really important programs, they grow 6% to 8% a year. so when you have a pay-as-you-go system where current workers pay current taxes out of their current paychecks to pay for current when i'm 'm paying, retired, my kids will do the same for me, when you have an 89% increase in the retirement population but about a 17% increase in the tax-paying population, therein lies your

challenge. so these programs are growing so much faster than our ability to pay. they're growing faster than wages, than our economy, than revenues. to the point where these programs that we rely on -- look, i've seen social security and medicare do very important things in my own family, in my own life. these things are going bankrupt . the sooner we fix it the better off we're all going to be. the other problem is, if we don't fix this, if we don't even show the world or the country that we even intend to x this, our economy really suffers, because the economy, business, banks, credit unions, creditors, small business, large business, they don't know what the future is going to look like. so all these things we need to do to get people to take risk,

to hire people, to invest, to start a new business, we're slowing that down. that's why the c.b.o. says the economy is just slowing down. it's hard to get people out of poverty if we don't have good jobs that can get out of poverty too. now, you look at a chart, we're going into uncharted territory. we've had big debt before. our debt was as big as our economy in world war ii but for the years we fought world war ii and then it went back down. because of this problem i described, not a republican or democrat problem, just america's problem, our debt is going more than twice the sees size of our economy. -- twice the size of our economy. you can't have a prosperous society with na kind of debt. it's never been done before. and so what we're saying is, let's get ahead of this problem. let's phase in these reforms so that we can make good to our promise to our seniors who've already retired, so all those people who are nearing retirement, people in their

later 50's who are thinking about planning for their retirement, let's make good for them but let's acknowledge that those of us in the x generation and lower, younger, these programs will not be for us when we retire. we need to fix this. and oh, by the way, we need pro-growth solutions, reform the tax code, balance the budget, have an energy renaissance in america, streamline our regulations so businesses know how to plan so we can plan and create economic growth. this budget does that. that's why i urge this budget. i look forward to the continued debate tomorrow and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the time of gentleman has retired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i ask that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the committee do now rising. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration house concurrent resolution 96 directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration house concurrent resolution 96 and has come to no resolution thereon. the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. act lerk: senate 404, an to preserve the green mountain lookout and the glacier park ilderness of the baker

mountain-snoqualmie forest. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i rise to address the house for one minute and to attach extraneous material. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. kaptur: i would encourage the house to follow the senate's example so we may provide a vital lifeline to provide for their families. these are hardworking americans who are out there every day looking for employment or receiving education to be better prepared to re-enter the work force. in ohio, 75,200 unemployed workers need these extended benefits that they earned. as our economy continues recovering from the greatest recession in modern history, let us give them what they earned. we must avoid making this a

partisan issue. workers in both democratic and republican districts desperately need this critical lifeline. let the speaker bring the senate bill for a vote here so our house can finally pass legislation. let us do what is sensible and allow these americans to keep our economic recovery going by not falling into the ranks of poverty themselves. these hardworking americans have earned their benefits. mr. speaker, i yield back my remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from missouri, mr. cleaver, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. cleaver: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my special

order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cleaver: and as we proceed, mr. speaker, there will be additional speakers coming in and out. like to begin our special order which deals with the very difficult and even inful subject of are a -- of rwanda. mr. speaker, there is an , and t story about rwanda it is one that a number of meanings can be extracted. we are here today because we do remember the victims of the horrific events in our world's history, and we honor survivors

and recognize the steps that have been taken to remedy the atrocities that have occurred. over and over you'll hear people on this floor, mr. speaker, say things that have happened in our history that inhuman shall nd never happen again -- american slavery, european extermination, mainly by germany, of jews throughout europe, they shall never happen again. and so we must continue to fight for justice as the international issues come to our consciousness, and we know that as time moves on there will be additional tragedies around the globe. rwanda has certainly experienced its share, if not ore than its share of tragedy.

is ancient parabole in god spends the day elsewhere but he sleeps in rwanda. for those of us who are familiar with the creation story, we know that god worked for six days and then rested. the rwandan people believe that god on the seventh day came to rwanda to rest from his work the previous six days. rwanda is one mile above sea level, about what denver, colorado, is. and because of

-- the tion, rwanda imate is cooler in rwanda, subsaharan africa, and the greenery is like that of no other place in africa, and it will rival even some of the beautiful spots in the caribbean. it is also a fabulous place, the people of rwanda thought, for god to come to rest. well, in a country of seven million at least in 1994, who knows what the population is today after many of the atrocities, but the people believed that god could rest there in this beautiful, this receiving and

welcoming land without being interrupted. ow all cultures, all religions choose to elevate its land or its people. for example, jewish people understandably refer to the sea of galilee as a sea. oggra se who know ge gee if i know that the sea is a lake. the jordan river, i envisioned the jordan river something comparable to the mississippi river or the missouri river, which is about 2,000 miles across the country. the truth of the matter is there are certain points of the jordan river that i actually jumped over and it flows down into the

dead sea, which is again, not a sea, but another lake. so it is under sfandable that people will declare -- understandable that people will declare it to be more than it is. believed of rwanda that god came to their country that is one mile above sea level is something we would have done. i also know there are people that question how could god sleep in a place where all the genocide that has taken place, where all the violence the men, women and children and even violence based on tribal ethnicity? believepeople of rwanda that god sleeps in their country. i believe that god sleeps in

rwanda, but he is awakened because of what has happened. god can neither sleep nor slumber where there is gin justice, where there is wrong, where there is murder. and so god has had an unrestful amount of time, unrestful nights in rwanda since the beginning of the great genocide. 800,000 people, mr. speaker, tiedy ethnic and moderates at the hands of hutu extremists during a 100-day period. that would be killing all of the people of my hometown of kansas city, missouri, the largest city in our state, and all the people, 221 miles away in st. louis, both cities would be

completely exterminated if they lost 800,000 people. but the people of rwanda lost days. people in 100 that's seven human beings eated by god, murdered every seven minutes. 10,000 victims were killed each day. just think about it. 10,000 human beings created with god and something stole their lives for something as petty as ethnicity or something as petty as a different language. and so, when you think about hundreds of thousands of victims

who were murdered, there are hundreds of other thousands of victims who were infected with h.i.v. as the hutu extremists raped, raped as a tool of girls. women and young rebel forces attacked and retook the country. when i think about what we have done and what we spent in lands ound the world, tragedies no less repus i have, i have to raise the question why has the united states been asleep, lo these many years.

i think that our children and our children's children will look back on the 1990's in particular and wonder where were the americans, where was the united states when all this happened. now, 20 years after all of the genocide, rwanda has moved stunningly in a new and positive direction. and i am very pleased that they have and all americans should be pleased, but there still is much work to be done. i would like to yield, mr. speaker, to mr. welch, at this time. such time as he may consume. mr. welch: i appreciate you

doing this. it's staggering to think about what happened and all of those people going about their daily lives 20 years ago, april 7 and knowing they're going to die, knowing their loved ones are going to die and so unspeakable that i can't really imagine what it would be like to live in that country, to live in a neighborhood where you know your moment is coming, where you have a child who's going to die before your very eyes or a daughter is going to be raped and then killed. and to have this sense of the horror of what is taking place that's unspeakable, but the realization that the world is going to ignore it. and that happened day in and day out.

in -- and most of us didn't know about it. there would be reports, but it would be in a distant place, there wasn't anything you could do anything about. and it was only as the stories fully came out and the horror the lly revealed collective gaze of the world, not acting, i suppose we couldn't or didn't, but try to put yourself in the place of the families up and down that country when word is going from one community to another, one family to another, that you have got to do everything you can to get out and where you live in a community where the majority is going to kill you if they find you, whereas you hide and try to conceal yourself or your kids, you can't figure how how to feed

them and you have to come out in the light of day and put yourself at the mercy and meet someone who might give you a meal so you can carry on another day. it's not anything that i can imagine, just the wholesale use of murder and ethnic cleansing, in order to achieve a political goal. what is an amazing thing is what mr. cleaver just told us about the recovery of rwanda. people go on. imagine living with the heartache that will never leave you that you lost a son or daughter, parent or grand parent, how do you get yourself up and start all over again, how do you deal with the hatred that you have to fight because it will consume you and prevent you from carrying on yourself? how do you do that?

and the people of rwanda are doing that and rebuilding their country and rebuilding their onomy and face life on a day in, day out basis. having a moment to pause and remember i think is hum pling for all of us. the capacity that the human -- that we have as people to go awry and do things that we never thought was possible reminds me how fragile life is and how fragile good governingance is. you can't take it for granted and there are forces that can get unleashed that once they are, have an an enormously powerful and destructive tendency and the challenge for a of all of us is for us to create

in to resolve conflict peaceful and civil ways and that's the work of this congress and this democracy. and it's fragile and isn't anything we can ever take for granted, that has to be with that purpose for people to find ways to resolve differences peacefully. this is an amazing moment, 20 years after the beginning of the slaughter of 800,000 innocent people. and slaughter by very cruel and very painful, very relentless efforts. so thank you so much, mr. cleaver, for allowing us to have this moment of reflection. and i yield back to you. mr. cleaver: thank you, mr. welch, who is a very con show enissues member of this body and we appreciate his sensitivity

and many others who probably not be here on the floor. i will state again because congressman welch mentioned it, and that is 800,000 people, 800,000 people killed, murdered in 100 days. 10,000 human beings killed every 24 hours in this world during our lifetime. nd so the people of rue ando arobole good god sleeping in rwanda is only partially true. god could not sleep nor slumber with this kind of tragedy taking place anywhere in a world that he created for freedom and justice and peace and harmony. i would like to yield at this the mr. speaker, to the

gentleman from maryland, the whip of the democratic caucus, mr. steny hoyer from the 5th istrict of maryland. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. never again. we entone those words never again. we entone those words because we have seen horror and felt guilt that it happened on our watch. and so we say never again. mr. speaker, i have the honor of chairing the commission on security in europe. that commission was formed as a sult of the signing of the

helsinki final act by president ford and 34 other nations including the soviet union, including west germany, including east germany. never again. the extraordinary holocaust that cost the lives of millions and millions and millions and millions more. the holocaust where six million jews were taken from us, taken from their families, taken from their countries, taken from fe, but millions more in russia, ukraine, and literally scores of