speaker. madam speaker, the state of connecticut is bursting with husky pride this morning as the yukon men and the yukon women basketball teams did what was i think almost unmanageable, they both won a national championship. it would be great to stand here today and talk about how the women accomplished a perfect season and beat a team who was undefeated until last night. or the men, who defied every pundit, every odds maker, every ncaa know-it-all and won the national championship against all odds. but i want to really focus for a second on the fact that geno, his women's program over the years, has almost a perfect graduation rate in terms of the women who have played in that program. and kevin has three deans list players on the starting five, his all-star is going to graduate with a full degree, he's an amazing person and i'm glad the country got a chance to see him. i want to conclude by reading his final comment that he said to the press the other night. basketball is second to me. i want them to be better people once they leave the campus. if i did that, forget forget about the wins and losses, national championships, all that stuff i think i've done my job. you've done your job, we are so proud of you.

go huskies. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from maryland seek recognition? ms. edwards: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. edwards: thank you. i acknowledge the simple fact that women deserve equal pay for equal work. same job, same experience, same pay, but that's not happening. on the aggregate, women earn just 77 cents on the dollar. for african-american women, it's only 64 cents, and for latinas, it's a staggering 54 cents on the dollar for every dollar earned by white men, white nonhispanic men doing the same job. and as we know, the consequences are great. these pay gaps translate into a loss for african-american women of more than $18,000 a year. and for latinas, more than $24,000 a year that they lose to this pay gap. families increasingly rely on women's wages to make ends

meet. the pay gap is about our nation's overall economy and it's about women's retirement security. the fact is that when women succeed america succeeds, and it's time to address the pay and work family balance disparities that affect women. some have said that the argument for equal pay for equal work is politics. well, madam speaker, it's not. it's about pay. it's time to -- for 25 courageous republicans to step up and join 197 democrats to end wage discrimination and give women what women have earned, equal pay for equal work. and with that i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the enate on april 9, 2014, at

9:48 a.m., that the senate agreed to without amendment house concurrent resolution 90, appointments -- international conferences. with best wishes i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on the motion to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. any record vote on the postponed question will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 4414, the expatery ate health coverage clarification -- the expatriate health coverage clarification act of 2014. the clerk: a bill to clarify the treatment under the patient protection and affordable care act on health plans on which

expatriates are the primary enrollees and for other purposes. tylenol pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. -- the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. nunes, and the gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott, will eel control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. nunes: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. nunes: madam speaker, before i yield to my good friend who helped co-author this bill with me, i would just have a brief -- just a brief statement. the expatriate health coverage clarification act is a work of close bipartisan collaboration and extensive discussions with the obama administration. i would like to thank mr. carney for his work on this important bill, along with our numerous bipartisan co-sponsors, original co-sponsors. the bottom line is that this is a jobs bill, one that has been carefully drafted to address

the unique problems related to expat health insurance. madam speaker, at this time i yield six minutes to my friend, mr. carney from delaware. mr. carney: thank you. i want to thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for his hard work on this very serious issue that affects both our states, delaware and california. madam speaker, in a state of 900,000 people, losing 500 jobs is a serious blow. that's how many jobs we'll lose in my home state of delaware if we don't pass this legislation on the floor today. i'm a strong supporter of the affordable care act. so are a lot of people in my state. ut no law is perfect and a law as important, as complicated and technical as the affordable care act, there are bound to be a few things that needed to be fixed. the affordable care act was unintentionally written in a way that subjects u.s. expatriate health insurance plans to all the provisions of

the a.c.a. which places a unique burden on these types of plans. expatriate health insurance plans offer high-end robust coverage to people working outside their home country, giving them access to global networks of health care providers. individuals on the plan can be foreign employees working here in america, americans working abroad or, for instance, a german working in france. these employees can be n.g.o. and foreign aid workers, pilots, cruise ship workers and contractors set to support our troops deployed around the globe. these plans ensure these employees have worldwide access to quality health care while working outside their home country. several u.s. health insurance companies, cigna, met life, -- and united health off

offer expatriate insurance plans. they make up several thousand u.s. jobs, including 500 in my state. these insurance companies compete with foreign insurance companies that also sell expatriate health insurance plans. the issue is these foreign plans don't have to comply with the affordable care act. forcing u.s. expatriate insurance plans to comply with the affordable care act gives their foreign competitors a distinct advantage. it makes plans written in the u.s. more expensive which gives companies an incentive to purchase foreign-based plans instead. as a result, it makes more sense for u.s. expatriate insurers to move their business overseas, resulting in a potential loss of a few thousand jobs. in delaware, that's going to mean 500 jobs. in california, it's 700. the good news is that we have a bipartisan legislation here today that will level the playing field.

the obama administration has already recognized that it's burdensome and unnecessary to require expatriate insurance plans to comply with the affordable care act. in fact, the administration has provided temporary regulatory relief for expat plans from nearly every affordable care act provision that's gone into effect so far. the problem is this relief is only partial and only temporary. the administration can't make this relief permanent without a legislative fix. our legislation clarifies that the affordable care act does not apply to expatriate health insurance plans. it ensures that american expatriate insurance carriers are on a level playing field with their foreign competitors so that american jobs stay here in america. you may hear on the floor today that this bill is about destroying the a.c.a. or changing our immigration laws or giving a handout to insurance companies. but let me assure you, that's not what it's about.

it's about jobs, pure and simple. if we don't pass this legislation today, people who have the expatriate plans in their companies that offer them will continue to do so, the same as they are today. the only difference is the companies will buy these plans from insurance carriers that write the plans from abroad. that means those insurance jobs will go to foreign workers instead of workers in america. but go to workers based in singapore instead of those based in delaware. i understand as well as anyone that the affordable care act is a political weapon in a larger political war on both sides of the aisle, but that's not what this bill is about today. all i'm asking today is that we take action so 500 hardworking americans in my district don't become collateral damage in this partisan political fight. let's call a temporary truce in that battle today to protect

these jobs. i thank congressman nunes and ways and means staff for their hard work on these issues, and i want to thank the leadership on both sides of the aisle for recognizing this is a serious problem that needs to be fixed. and i ask my colleagues to vote yes on h.r. 4414. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcdermott: the republicans have blanded this bill as clarification, but what demands clarification is the cold-hard fact that this legislation is a bailout for insurance companies. this has never had a hearing in the house. it's never been discussed. we never had witnesses. no regular order whatsoever. this appeared out of nowhere. this bill pure and simple is a case of republicans seeking special treatment for certain

insurance companies who had' like nothing more than to avoid the responsibilities under -- who'd like nothing more than avoid the responsibilities under the law. this is exactly why the american people are fortunate to have the a.c.a. as the law of the land. it's currently protecting them from this kind of intolerable insurance company practices. republicans have focused on coming out against bailouts for insurance companies in several other a.c.a. context but this is all in fury because it means nothing. with this legislation, however, republicans want to a bailout for a few insurance companies that sells so-called expatriate coverage. but why should this situation be any different? why do the republicans get to pick and choose? as the republicans now in the business of picking winners and losers in this case, the losers are going to be the patients. republicans claim this bill is a simple fix to -- intended to

clarify the a.c.a. when it comes to expatriate coverage. and perhaps there is a need for that. perhaps there's a need. we might have found it out if we had one hearing. the current guidance defines individuals under expat plans as those who are out of the country for at least six months during the year. the theory is that the people are gone more than they're here, but this bill overrides current regulations and ignores the comments given by the administration that define a covered individual, and it does it and says you're an expat if you're out of the country for as few as 90 days or 15 trips. now, i don't know how many people in seattle make 15 trips out of the country in a year when they're working for boeing or working for mikes row soft or all the inter-- microsoft or all the international companies. i got all those people in my district. that means to serve people who move across the border daily or

frequent fliers for work would be exempt from the enrollees who are gone for only a few weeks. in addition, the legislation says all foreigners who are living and working in the united states but are outside their home country for 90 days or 15 trips can also be covered by these plans. as a result, the provisions of this bill would severely undermine current h-1-b visa requirements that leveling the playing field with american workers. if you're bringing people from the outside and they go home they're gone for only 90 days, well, you can somehow pay them less. this legislation will open the door for u.s. employers who wish to avoid the a.c.a. to hire foreign workers rather than american citizens. that's why the united farm workers are against this bill. the united farm workers do a pretty good job of clarifying this bill when they say, quote, congress should not pass laws that create an economic incentive to hire guest workers over professional u.s.

agricultural workers. the afl-cio is against this bill because it would undermine the health security of 13 million green cardholders, people with work visas and individuals who are granted visas for humanitarian reasons. the national law immigration center is against this bill because it eliminates minimum essential standards for, quote, expatriate health insurance plans provided to individuals who travel abroad. as a result, this bill would deny health coverage security for low-wage immigrant workers, including farm workers and caregivers. this bill contains too many loopholes that amount to an extraordinary bailout for insurance companies. this bill also establishes a precedent for employers to hire guest workers. it's being brought here as a suspension bill with no opportunity to amend it. it might be made that we could make it a better bill if it had been through the process, but

it's being rammed through here by insurance companies who want to get a benefit. this bill is yet another attempt on the part of the republicans to repeal the affordable care act. they want to drill another hole in the bottom of the bill. they're going to keep drilling holes, trying this -- this is number 53, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from california s recognized. mr. nunnelee: thank you, madam speaker -- can mr. nunes: thank you, madam speaker. a lot of the language that was in here was worked out so this could not only gather bipartisan support in the house, but also quickly pass in the senate. because as my colleague from delaware pointed out, this is -- this does pant, it doesn't pass quickly, these jobs are going to leave overseas. this is just a clarification. at this time i'd like to yield one minute to my good friend and former dairy caucus co-chair, mr. welch from

vermont. mr. welch: i thank the gentleman. i'm a strong a.c.a. supporter. we've got to improve it, we've got to make it work and that's the reason why i'm supporting this legislation. some efforts that are brought to the floor about the a.c.a. are about unraveling it. but those of us who are the strong supporters, when an issue is identified that can help jobs and make some improvements, we have the responsibility in my view, madam speaker, to advocate for those changes. we have the member from delaware, a strong supporter of the a.c.a., who has identified a specific problem. i understand the concerns of the opponents because many are -- many efforts are made to unravel the law. but there's been an acknowledgment that there is a problem that is being addressed by mr. carney. and if the language is not as good as it should be, and part of that may be because we didn't have as much time to consider it, we have strong

allies in the senate. senator carper and senator koonce, both very strong a.c.a. supporters who are willing to make the adjustments over there, not to mention the majority leader, senator reid. i ask for another -- mr. nunes: i yield the gentleman an additional one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. welch: so this is not perfect but week of got a situation here where it's acknowledged by both sides, the opponents of this bill and the pro ponalts of this bill, -- proponents of this bill, that there is an issue because of the language in the a.c.a. bill. and if this congress were working the way ideally it would, when there is a problem that we could identify, we'd come up with a specific solution. if we had more time, it might be better language. but the fact that we would act here to keep this alive, give some hope to those folks that mr. carney is concerned about, whose jobs are at stake, and then work with our colleagues in the senate to make whatever

improvements can be made, we could maintain the strength of the affordable care act, preserve the jobs that may be lost in delaware and california and elsewhere, and demonstrate some flexibility to make all our legislation that by definition is imperfect better. and that can be done on a bipartisan basis. so i thank the gentleman and i thank my colleague from california and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, i yield to the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for four minutes. mr. waxman: i thank you for yielding to me. i want to say to my friend from vermont, a member of my committee, this is not the way to pass laws. this is not the way to correct problems. problems should be worked out through narrow fixes, in a public setting. this is a bill for an insurance

company that is threatening to district in the -- what is it? delaware and a little small part a of california. so that insurance company's saying, we're going to fire these people unless you correct our problems. the republicans will not correct their problem, they want to have a big hole in the affordable care act. but you can believe the senate may fix it. but the suspension calendar should not be used for bills that have never been considered in an open hearing and that cannot be amended on the floor of the house. this bill goes far beyond a narrow, sensible fix. it says that americans who are out of this country for a matter of weeks can be sold policies with harsh annual limits on their coverage, no minimum quality standards, and it says the families of these americans who may not even be overseas, but be living here,

will get a plan that will be lower quality than other americans. even though they live here 365 ays of the year. supporters are saying these expatriate plans are very high quality but republicans refuse to accept a bill that subjects the plan, even to the most basic standards of quality and affordability. why? there's no reason for that. except they want a.c.a. to have -- be competition with plans that are lower quality. this raises real querns -- concerns. worse yet this bill goes far beyond the stated goal of addressing coverage for americans who live overseas. it's not that narrow. it creates a whole new second-class health insurance system for foreign workers and legal permanent residents. these individuals currently have access to a.c.a.-compliant plans, putting them on even footing with u.s. workers.

it would undercut current law, it would weaken the rights of immigrants and foreign workers, it would create powerful incentives for employers to hire foreign workers instead of u.s. workers. so this bill isn't about a narrow thing to fix some possible unemployment in these two states. that's why this bill is opposed by organized labor. it's opposed by immigrant advocacy organizations. they were long negotiations in back rooms between republicans, democrats, the administration and the insurance companies. but there was no agreement on this bill. no one would compromise. and that's disappointing. it's mainly because of the intransigence of one insurance company and the republican leadership. we should not advance a deeply flawed bill because an insurance company is making threats. we shouldn't advance a deeply flawed bill with the expectation somebody else is

going to solve the problem. that's why we're here in this house. to make sure the legislation is good -- is as good as it could possibly be. if all parties are ready to act in good faith, they should go back to the negotiating table and solve the narrow problem we can agree on rather than opening a troubled loophole in the a.c.a. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. nunes: i reserve, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, i yield four minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. becerra. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for four minutes. mr. becerra: i thank the gentleman for yielding. let me first acknowledge the work that's been done by so many of our colleagues here,

bipartisanly. the gentleman from delaware, the gentleman from california, the committees of jurisdiction, leadership i suspect on both sides of the aisle. tie have been involved in trying to deal with this. if you take a look at the title of the bill, it tells you what they're trying to do. he bill's called the expatriate health coverage clarification act. so the bill tells us that it's to deal with the issue for expatriates. who are expatriates and how are they impacted by the affordable care act? expatriates, i think most of us would acknowledge, is an american who is told by his or her employer, need to send you abroad to go work, whatever the task is, but i need you to go. so that ex patriot now living abroad -- can ex patriot now living abroad -- expatriate now living abroad be told he or she

must have an insurance policy that abides by the affordable care act's protections for americans who get health care here. companies, the insurance will say, well, you know, we may have to deal with different standards in that other country. so give us some flexibility. that's very fair. we should make sure that any company that must sebled a worker abroad -- send a worker abroad has the flexibility to make sure they're provided good coverage but they're not strapped by the regulations that apply to coverage here in the u.s. everyone grease with that -- agrees with that. here's the problem. this bill doesn't do that. it doesn't do that. and i say that with all due respect to my colleague from delaware. it doesn't do that. let me ask you this. is someone who works in this country 365 days of the year someone who we would consider an expatriate? is an american who spends most of his time, 3/4 of his time, working in the u.s. an expatriate? should the family of that american who goes abroad, but

the family never leaves the u.s., be denied the protections of the affordable care act so a pre-existing condition can now not be used to discriminate against the child of that american worker? that's the difficulty with this bill. this bill talks about expatriates but the reality is, a lot of americans who never leave this country and a lot of foreign workers, including green cardholders who are on their way to becoming citizens, who have every lawful right to be here, because they've gone about it the right way, they're just waiting their time so they can qualify to become u.s. citizens they would -- many of them could be denied the protections that we now all have. we cannot be discriminated against based on a pre-existing condition. we must be provided minimal protections. we have a right now to make sure that insurance companies doesn't use what we're paying in premiums to put in the pockets of executives and big salaries. that money has to now be spent by law on health care coverage.

but this bill would say, no, those who are expatriates would qualify for different plans that don't have to meet those affordable care act standards. why should more than 13 million people who are in this country legally and on their way to becoming u.s. citizens, who today have the same protections you and i have, to not be discriminated against for pre-existing conditions, because a of this bill that's supposed to be for expatriates now be told, no, you might be offered a policy that doesn't have to meet the affordable care standards. why should an american family that sees one of its bread winners, father, mother, be sent abroad to work for 90 days, be told, no, we no longer have to offer you an affordable care -- a health care policy that prevents discrimination against your child because he or she has asthma? if this were a bill to focus on the issue of expatriates who go work abroad, where i think it's a legitimate concern of the insurance company to not impose

upon the insurance company costs that are beyond what are paid here, i would agree that this goes well beyond that and i would urge my colleagues to think twice before voting for this bill this way. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. nunes: i continue to reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: is the gentleman from california ready to close? do you have any more speakers? mr. nunes: i am ready to close. mr. mcdermott: ok. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, i will close on our side. i don't think we have any more speakers here. i've been an ex pat -- expat. i was in the state department can. state department sent me overseas, i lived over there, i came home one month a year, i would leave, the rest of the time he was an expat. my daughter teaches at the king can's academy in amman, jordan, she's an expat.

she lives over there. she comes home in the summer time for a month or so. she's an expat. everybody understands that. what this bill says is that if you live in seattle and you make 15 trips a year out of the expat , then you're an or you can claim -- you can be considered an expat. now, that's not exactly what we thought -- what i think most people think of when they think of as an expat. or somebody who works as a contractor, suppose you work for the federal government for three months overseas. are you an expat? according to this you are. you are not -- you can easily be put in that category and not offered the protections. that means you don't have any protections around the issues of pre-existing conditions, you don't have -- you can't put your kids necessarily on your

your updates 26, lifetime limits, all of the things that are built into the affordable care act, the insurance company now can say, we don't have to offer that to you because you're out of the country 15 times a year. or you've worked overseas for 90 days. now, you are creating, and as mr. waxman said, you are creating a second class of citizens in this country. and mr. becertificatea raised the issue -- becerra raised the issue on the other side. people who come from other countries are expats, right? because they came from somewhere else. so they're not entitled to the -- they can be put into a plan that does not give them the protection of the a.c.a. that's not what i think my friend from delaware or my friend from california really wanted to do. what is missing here is that we

did a backroom deal. we had members of congress sit in a back room somewhere with somebody from the white house and talk about something and decide something and hear it is at the complete. no chance to change it, no chance to make it better or make it closer to what people really thought and most interestingly for republicans is you're sending a bill to the house and expecting that the senate is going to fix it. . our experience here on the floor and in the congress the last few months expecting the senate to do something is -- well, it's probably -- it's not like wishing for the tooth fairy, but it is certainly putting your trust in a rather weak situation. the house sent over 500 bills

the last session and got 12 or 15 back? and you're saying that this one's going to be fixed. i doubt it. and i urge people to vote no on t. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman yield? mr. mcdermott: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker sometimes in this body and with the senate we can sit down with -- for the common good of the american people. mr. nunes: sometimes we can sit down with democrats and republicans working together not only in the house but also in the senate. and also sometimes, mr. speaker, the arguments that are made on the floor are so ridiculous that they don't deserve a response. i'm going to submit a letter from american benefits council, i'd like to submit it for the record. the chair: without objection.

mr. nunes: i'd like to submit a letter from the u.s. chamber of commerce, and i'd like to submit a rebuttal argument for the record so people can really -- the chair: without objection, so ordered. mr. nunes: with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4414. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection -- mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

pursuant to house resolution 544 an rule 18 rblingts the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of house concurrent resolution 9 . will the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, kindly esume the chair. the chair: the house is in the

committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of house concurrent resolution 96, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: concurrent resolution establishing the budget for the united states government for fiscal year 2015 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2016 through 2024. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on tuesday, april 8, 2014, 60 minutes of debate remained on the concurrent resolution. the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, each have 30 minutes remaining. who seeks time? the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, i yield myself five minutes. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for five minutes. mr. ryan: here we are again, mr. chairman. resuming debate we left off yesterday. let me try and give a summary of what this is all about. this is all about getting our fiscal house in order.

this is all about prioritizing hardworking taxpayer dollars. this is all about doing in our generation what we need to do to make sure the next generation has a secure future, a debt-free future. so that's why we are bringing a budget to the floor and that's why we are making those difficult decision, and that's why we are advocating for these important reforms. in much of the 20th century, a lot of programs were created. a lot of laudable goals were established. but now in the 21st century, i think we have learned a thing or two about how we can better accomplish and abelieve some of these goals such as retirement security. because the way these programs were designed nearly a generation ago, they are now going into bankruptcy in this generation. and if we allow that to happen, then we will pull out from underneath those who depend on these programs for their health and retirement security. we will renege on that social

contract. more to the point, we are going to do damage to our economy if we keep this deficit and debt going on its current course. we asked the congressional budget office, take a look at the kind of deficit and deficit reduction we are proposing and tell us over the long period, over the course of this budget, what does that do for america, for our economy? and they tell us, getting your economic and fiscal house in order, reducing the deaf, and balancing the budget so you can begin paying off the debt, is good for economic growth. in fact, it will increase economic output by 1.8 percentage points, that's a lot. what does that mean to every person in america? about $1,100 in more take-home pay, in higher income because we did our jobs here. but more importantly, what it means for the next generation is instead of sending our bills to

them to work hard, to pay their taxes, to pay off our bills, then they have to start working for themselves, we are going to give them a better future, because we right now, c.b.o. tells us this much, they are going to inherit a diminished future. that's point number one. point number two is, we've got to stop spending money we don't have. he we will hear all of these arguments about the draconian cuts and the slashing and all of this. these are the same arguments we heard time and again, and when those arguments have prevailed, they have brought us to where we are today. extraordinarily high deficits. deficits going back to $1 trillion by the end of this budget period. a debt that's about to take off. if we don't get this under control, we will not have the kind of economy that the people of this country deserve. we don't want washington to stand in the way of people's success. we want washington to play its

rightful supporting role so that people can become successful. we believe in a system of natural rights and equality of opportunities so people can make the most of their lives. we don't believe in a system where government thinks they must take this commanding role within the middle of people's lives that end up bankrupting this contry. diminishing the future -- country. diminishing the future, he lowering economic growth and prosperity. big difference in approaches. we want to tackle these challenges. what i would also say is, we have an important obligation to secure this country and protect our national defense. america, like it or not, is the superpower nation in the world. and a duty befalls upon us to take that responsibility seriously. with that responsibility also comes the ability to chart our own course in the world, to help preserve the peace, and to help pave the way for prosperity so

that we can have economic opportunity, so that we can advance our views and our values and the protection of individual and human rights and democracy. these things are good for america. a strong america, a strong military helps make for a peaceful america, a prosperous america. so we need to take the needed reforms to make sure that these critical retirement programs are there, not only intact for people in the near retirement, but there for those of us who are younger when we hope to retire. we need to get our spenting under control so we cannle balance our budget and pay off debt. we need to commact pro-growth reforms to create -- enact pro-growth reforms to create jobs today. and yielding myself 15 seconds to say, instead of growing government spending at 5.2%, we are proposing to go to 3.5% over the next 10 years. hardly draconian. with that, mr. speaker -- mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. some things do not improve with age, and we are here one day later in this republican budget -- and this republican budget is just as bad for the country today as it was yesterday. our republican colleagues are going to have to choose. either you claim your budget balances, or you fess up to the american people that you're keeping big parts to the affordable care act. because you can't do both. as we talked yesterday the house republican budget only reaches their claim of balance in 10 years if they take the revenues from the affordable care act and all the savings from the affordable care act. and if they are going to claim that they are repealing that, as they voted 54-plus times to do on this floor, then their budget is automatically out of balance. now, all these budgets significantly reduce the deficit as a share of our economy in the out years. the fundamental question is what

choices these budgets make in getting there. and the democratic budget that's been proposed, the president's budget, all those budgets say we need to have shared responsibility. we need to work together to accomplish that goal. the republican budget breaks the rules in the favor of the most powerful, most wealthy. if you are a millionaire under the republican budget, you get your top tax rate cut by a full 1/3. and everybody else in this budget gets walloped. if you're a senior on medicare, you will immediately see your prescription drugs cost rise if you have high prescription drug costs. because they reopen the prescription drug doughnut hole. that's a choice they make in the republican budget for seniors today even as they choose to protect special interest tax breaks for the very powerful. they choose in this budget to say that students while they are still in college will be charged interest rates on their student

loans, that saves them $40 billion, while they protect tax breaks for hedge fund owners. we don't think that's the right choice. and i'm now pleased to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from washington state, member of the budget committee, and the ways and means committee, who is always focused on making the right choice for the american people, mr. mcdermott. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. without objection, so ordered. mr. chairman, this budget is not a real plan to address the urgent needs of the american people. this budget is announcement of a campaign for the presidency of the united states. this bill is intended not to stir great debate in congress that ultimately delivers fiercely needed solutions for americans, instead this bill is written for the 2016 republican

national convention. when you listen to the chairman talk about this budget, what you're really hearing is the inaugural address of the 45th president of the united states. a rousing address that asks not what you can do for your country, but proudly proclaims your country refuses to do a thing for you. millions of seniors tossed off medicare. the social safety net gutted to pay for millionaire tax cuts. infrastructure projects left to rot. denying millions of americans health security and medicaid slashed to the bone. that's just going to be the first 100 days. remember as you vote a budget is a statement of your moral principles of what you think ought to go on in society. today's vote is the first vote for -- if that kind ever people get elected either in the senate or in the presidency in 2016. this is what you're going to

see. they are putting it right out there for everybody in america to see. and that's why you must vote no. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: wow. that's a doozy, i have to say. that's a doozy. if that kind of people get elected. we want the government to pay off our debt. if those kind of people get collected, great. with that i'd like to yield four minutes to our distinguished majority whip, mr. mccarthy. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for four minutes. mr. mccarthy: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in support of the path to prosperity budget. every day millions of americans are competing in a race with an economy that asks us to accept a new normal. and aeven inic growth, an obama -- an anemic growth, an obama can economy. i was recently at a high school speaking of the challenge that america had and a student asked me a question about it.

i asked him, did he play a sport me? happened to be on the swim team. so i said, let me give you an analogy of america competing worldwide by a swim meet. picture america in a swim competition with every other country. many times at the early years, after the 1980's, we'd jump into the pool, we'd swim and we'd win. we'd hang those championship banners out. but in this new obama economy, things changed. stimulus spending. that meant we had to add a weight belt. about 20 pounds. then the tax increases came, we had to add more weight. onslaught of regulation, pretty soon you're up to 100 pounds. we jump into that pool, we don't always win. and nobody says, take the weight belt off, they just say, you just don't swim like you used to. you just don't swim like you used to. think about it.

since the recession, part time employment has increased at the expense to full time. 90 million americans are out of the work force altogether. 46 million live in poverty. you know, the c.b.o., congressional budget office, now says the new natural rate for unemployment is 6%. that means 11 million americans not working is somehow natural in america. that's what a weight will do for you -- weight belt will do for you, it will drown you. today's different. we're going to take that weight belt off. we have a budget that creates a tax code that is simpler and fairer. one that lets you keep more money in your pocket and lets you invest differently. one that balances, takes away that debt of the weight belt. one that unshackles the energy, more jobs, cheaper fuel, more manufacturing jobs to be able

to grow. we strengthen medicare and medicaid. so we take care of the current and the future. we plan to swim for years and compete for years in the future. i tell you today there are two different directions. you can stay with this anemic growth or you can jump into a pool with a future brighter than we've seen before and one that we know will hang a new banner of championships that america will rise once -- championships, that america will rise once again with the prose pert of a balanced budget -- prosperity of a balanced budget, one that will take us into a future of strength. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. the gentleman referenced several times the congressional budget office in the -- and the economy. i urge all my colleagues to read the congressional budget office report. it indicates that this house republican budget will actually slow down economic growth over the next couple years and slow down job growth over the next couple years. yes, we need a simpler, fairer

tax code, but this house republican budget would provide a huge tax break to the very wealthy and increase the tax burden on the middle class. in fact, they cut the top rate from 39% to 25%. that's a full 1/3 tax cut. so millionaires get an average of $87,000 tax break. middle income taxpayers have to finance that cut for the folks at the top. that means ancreased tax burden of -- an increased tax burden of $2,000 for a middle class family. that is not good, fair tax reform. somebody who knows a lot about the economy and doing it right, i'm pleased to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from kentucky, a member of the budget committee, mr. yarmuth. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. yarmuth: i thank my colleague from maryland. mr. chairman, budgets are a reflection of our values. they're a statement of our priorities and they are about the choices we make to set the

course for our future. with this budget, republicans are choosing the well off and well connected over middle class families. choosing, for instance, $45 billion in tax subsidies for oil companies whose own executives say they don't need it over veterans of the wars in afghanistan and iraq who are out of work. they choose a new average tax cut can of $200,000 per millionaire, per year, over 17,000 of our nation's most vulnerable children who would lose head start services. you know, mr. chairman, we just finished with march madness and i'm very proud of the university of kentucky wildcats. they had a great season. but isn't one of the cruel ironies of this debate that coach calipari of the university of kentucky, who makes $5 million a year roughly, under the republican budget would get a tax cut, an additional tax cut of $700,000 a year while the students who support his program would see their pell grants slashed nationwide by a total of $145 billion over 10 years, isn't that something?

a man who makes $5 million coaching basketball get cans a $700,000 tax break -- gets a $ 700,000 tax breaks while students get slashed. this is one of the choices that budgets are about, this is why the republican budget is totally out of step with american values and this is why we should reject the republican budget. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: boy, i wonder what tax bill they're talking about because it's not the one that's in the republican budget. the ways and means writes tax laws. we put out the outlines of tax reform that says there's $1 trillion a year of tax expenditures, of loopholes that can be closed. if you give us a fairers, simpler tax code to lower taxes for everybody, all families and businesses, not whatever it is they're saying, pell grants, give myself 30 extra seconds. the we're saying is keep award where it is, the maximum

award, and fully fund iter to the decade. that's slarbing -- fund it for the decade. that's slashing it? that's opposed to the president who is saying, let's grow it and then have some cliff and show no way or means of paying for it. the president in his budget is making a promise in pell grants that he shows no way of keeping. we think we should make a promise and keep it. that's why we fully fund the current awarded pell and oh, by the way we also are cognizant of the effect that many studies show us we are rising tuition, we are contributing to tuition inflation and we need to get to the bottom of that before we keep throwing more money at a ystem that is raising tuition. with that i'll yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. -- or three minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. wenstrup. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for three minutes. mr. owens: thank you. thank you -- mr. wenstrup: thank you. thank you. mr. speaker, in this house we take the constitutional power of the purse very seriously.

and we also take the future of young americans very seriously. and we take the notion of leaving something better for the next generation very seriously. again this year the majority has proposed a budget that responsibly balances our budget within 10 years. it secures, secures ourselves -- can scures our social safety net for the -- is a cures our social safety net -- is he cures our social safety net for -- secures our social safety net for our seniors. the budget begins to unburden future generations from the tyranny of debt can, being left to them by today's decision makers. the c.b.o. estimates we'll pay $223 billion in interest payments this year. $223 billion in interest. at's enough to build 100 new bridges which is an aging bridge that spans the ohio river in cincinnati, a critical artery for our nation's highways, reaching from

michigan to florida. going back to those interest payments. left uncheck canned, they'll balloon to $880 billion within 10 years. and that's about how much we're spending on social security every year right now. american prosperity cannot afford to throw our money away to interest payments. vice president joe biden is fond of saying, don't tell me what you value, show me your budget and i'll tell you what you value. it's a revealing quote, mr. speaker, especially since senate democrats yet again refuse to even consider a budget. i guess according to the vice president, senate democrats don't really value anything at all. it's disrespectful to the american people and to hardworking americans that this budget debate isn't happening in the senate. as we have seen in recent years, the senate majority leader has decided not to introduce a budget. in fact, the only time the senate has introduced a budget recently was when the senators knew that they wouldn't be paid unless they did so. i know that ohio families and

ohio businesses budget and plan for the future. they should be able to expect at least as much from their government and the house is meeting our obligation with this budget. and with that, mr. speaker, 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. speaker. i just want to respond to a couple points the chairman made about tax reform. you know, republican ideology in washington has been that of trickledown economics. the idea is you provide the wealthiest people in the country with a tax break and somehow it trickles down and lifts everybody up. the problem is, that theory was proven bankrupt in the early 2000's. under the bush administration we tried that, lowered tax rates at the top, the economy did not do any better. in fact, what we got were huge deficits. now in this republican budget, they're right back to the same old failed theory. and they call for reducing the top tax rate for millionaires

from 39% down to 25%. and they claim that they're going to do this in a deficit-neutral way. but when you do the math, what that means is you are going to have to increase the tax burden on middle class taxpayers to finance tax breaks for folks at the top. and just to give our republican colleagues an opportunity to say that that's not what they intended, in the budget committee we offered an amendment calling the -- called protecting the american middle class from tax increases. saying, ok, at least tell the ways and means committee that one of your principles as you reduce tax breaks for millionaires is not to increase the tax burden on the middle class. and every republican on the budget committee voted against that provision. and i'm pleased that we have the author of that amendment with us on the floor right now, that's mr. pascrell from the great state of new jersey. mr. pascrell. the chair: how much time? mr. van hollen: i yield him a minute and a half. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized. mr. pascrell: this budget is fundamentally unserious. we've heard this now for four years in a ree. my friends on the other side of the aisle come down to the floor with their draconian budget, claiming they are reluctantly forced to make tough decisions because the specter of a debt crisis is around the corner. this, despite the fact that our deficit is falling at the fastest rate since the end of the second world war. we said this, we would do it, and we did it. the supposedly looming debt crisis is going to be so incredibly bad for this country that we need to reluctantly gut programs that help low and moderate americans -- and you stand there and stand up there and talk to us about tax and

spend democrats? you can't balance your budget without the affordable care act . isn't that a honey? you've done everything to dismantle it, over 50 votes to get rid of it, now you're using it in the revenues to balance your budget. ho, ho, ho. how very convenient of you. their prescription to prevent this impending disaster is their world view prescribes in the first place. tax cuts for the wealthy paid for on the backs of those not so wealthy. unfortunately it leads to only one conclusion. the republican party does not care about our deficit. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. van hollen: i yield the entleman another 15 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized. mr. pascrell: in the words of vice president, remember him, dick cheney, he proclaimed, deficits don't matter. so, you've had a call to religion, you've come back. your budget, the deficit is simply can an excuse to gut the social safety net. so i say, let's vote down this phony budget, let's get on with the real things, mr. speaker. thank you very much for your indulgence. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair would remind members to direct their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: in order to balance the time out, i think we'll let the gentleman from maryland go with another speaker so we can catch up. mr. van hollen: if i can inquire can how much time remains on both sides. the chair: the gentleman from maryland has 20 3/4 minutes remaining. and the gentleman from wisconsin has 18 minutes remaining. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm now pleased to yield a minute and a half to a terrific member of the budget committee from the great state of new york, mr. jeffries. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes.

mr. jeffries: i thank my distinguished friend for yielding. the g.o.p. budget is a product of the same type of extreme philosophy that gave rise to the reckless republican shutdown last year. . it is like a heat seeking missile aimed directly at the american people. it is a parade of horribles too numerous to catalog, but in the time i have allotted i will simply try to highlight the most egregious aspects. it will cut $125 billion from the snap program, making it difficult for millions of food insecure americans to get access to the nutrition needed to lead a healthy life. it will cut $260 billion from higher education spending, depriving young americans of the opportunity to get a college education and robustly pursue the american dream.

it will cut $732 billion from the medicaid program, making it hard for older americans to get access to this vital safety net program. it will turn medicare into a voucher program, that's a trojan horse, effectively ending medicare as we know it. it will balance the budget on the backs of working families, middle class folks, senior citizens, the poor, the sick, and the afflicted. the democratic plan is designed to create progress for the greatest number of americans possible. the republican plan is all about prosperity for the few and for that reason we should vote it down. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, yesterday i was track cue la. . w i'm -- dracula and now i'm sending heat seeking missiles to the american people. with that i'd like to yield three minutes to the

distinguished member of the budget committee, the gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. blackburn. the chair: the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized for three minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the chairman and the opportunity to stand and discuss the budget that we have before us. i find it so interesting that our constituents are watching this. and they are paying attention because they are concerned. and with good reason as one of my constituents said in a town hall meeting, i've got to tell you, i've got too much month left at the end of my money. and i'm tired of it. i'm tired of what this economy has been doing to my opportunities. wage stagnation, increases in health care costs, the american people are over it. and they are ready to see the federal government start to live within its means.

think about it like this, this is the week when millions of americans are sitting around the kitchen table looking at their income tax form, filling it out, trying to make certain that they do it right. let me ask you a question, is it fair, is it right for the men and women, the taxpayers, hardworking taxpayers in this country, is it right and fair to require them to send money to washington monthly that they don't have? money that causes them to struggle to meet their bills and to live within their means. they are struggling every month. they have to send money to washington to a government that refuses to live within its means. this is what we are talking about and this is why a budget that actually makes $5.1

trillion worth of spending cuts is important. it's why it's important that we have a budget that says there is a pathway to economic growth. it is because it is what the american people want to see happen. now, i think our constituents find it very interesting that our colleagues across the aisle came to the budget committee room. what do they want to do? plus it up. spend more. $1.5 trillion in taxes. more, let's take more from the taxpayer. let's grow the size of the government. let's make it bigger, let's make it more bloated. that is their solution to how to deal with what we have here in washington as a spending crisis. we don't have a revenue problem. we have a spending problem. we have a priority problem. and we see this play out

regularly. mr. speaker, it is why it's important for us to have a budget that balances in 10 years. i have to tell yous -- you as a mom and grand mom, i look a lot at what is happening to our children and grandchildren. you-all can call it -- the chair: is recognized for an additional minutes. mrs. blackburn: you can call it draconian. you can call it all these names. but let me tell you what this is. this is a budget that is for our children. because it is for reduced regulation, reduced taxation, reducing litigation. it is for innovation and job creation. that is what this budget is for. it is for fairness because if we don't get this under control, it will be my 5-year-old and 4-year-old grandchild that are

facing draconian taxes, draconian rates, draconian cuts in order to be able to stand and live here in america. so as we look at this, yes, we put the focus on right sizing government, flexibility for the states, accountability to the american taxpayer, accountabilityle to the children who are going to inherit the consequences of the decisions we make today. i yield back. the chair: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. the gentlelady used the term draconian a couple times and the chairman keeps referring to comments that democrats have made as overblown. i would just remind the body it was just a few days ago that the senior republican, the chairman of the house appropriations

committee, called the budget we are debating on the floor of the house draconian. that's what he called it, not a democrat. so i think members should keep that in mind as we proceed. i'm now very pleased to yield a minute and a half to the gentlelady from florida, terrific member of the budget committee, ms. castor. the chair: the gentlelady from florida is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. castor: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, the people i know, the people i meet work very hard every day. they want an opportunity for a good job, want good schools, safe communities, and the promise that when they retire they can live their years in dignity. they want a government that is fair and helps make progress towards the american dream. but this republican budget is not for the hard work -- hardworking people of america. this republican budget is crafted by the special interest for the special interest. republicans stack the deck against working families and small businesses. incomes of c.e.o.'s and the top

1% are soaring, but everyone else is working harder to get by. we need an economy that's firing on all cylinders for everybody. creating jobs that pay enough to keep up. yet the republican budget raises taxes on middle class families in order to cut taxes for people who earn over $1 million republicans ignore one of the most important ways to cut the debt and deficit, and that's have more americans working. if the middle class succeeds, then america succeeds. republicans refuse to find one special interest loophole in the tax code, and if you're incredibly rich, then you are incredibly lucky because this budget is for you. you pay less. but if you're like the vast majority of americans hold on, because you are going to pay more. if you're a student who wants to attend college, republicans make that harder by cutting pell grants and student loans. if you have a job in construction at america's ports

and transportation, this republican budget -- mr. van hollen: i yield another 30 seconds. miss carsor: if you believe -- ms. castor: if you believe america should remain the leader in research, sorry, the republican budget slashes riche at the national institutes of health, our universities, and research institutions. if you're an older american, the republicans budget asks you to pay much more for medicare, long-term care, nursing care. takes away that secure lifeline that's been in place since democratic congress passed medicare and medicaid that you'll be able to live your retirement years in dignity without the fear of poverty. this republican budget is a cynical special interest driven vision of america. i recommend a strong no vote in opposition. the chair: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from maryland.

mr. van hollen: i'm now pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, distinguished member of the foreign affairs committee, mr. connolly. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. connolly: i thank the chair and i thank my colleague. this budget, i'm not going to call somebody track cue la -- track ue la -- dracula, i'm sure it's sincere, but it's about cutting taxes at the public's expense. it disinvests in america. we disinvest in r&d, in our future. the gentlelady from tennessee talked about children and the tax burden. what about their education? what about opportunity? what about the roads and bridges and tunnels and transit systems they won't have because they have crumbled because we have disinvested? that's what this budget is all about. and it's -- it's absolutely on the wrong path and handing over our future to foreign competition. i urge defeat of this budget and i urge more sensible solutions to the future. i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: when we call for revenue neutral tax reform, that means tax reform that keeps raising the same amount of revenue we raise today, do it through a better tax code so we are not picking winners and losers, so we can grow the economy and create jobs. with that i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from indiana, mr. bucshon. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. bucshon: thank you, mr. speaker. when i tour businesses in the eighth district of indiana and meet with hoosier families, they tell me they are concerned about the enormous debt burdening our country. just like hoosier families and businesses that have to make hard decision when is money is tight, washington must do the same in order to sustain our role as the leader in the free world. we are over $17 trillion in debt, it's clear washington, d.c. has a spending problem, and there are two very different pathways to address this issue. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would continue us

on the failed status pathway of more spending, more taxes, more debt. their plan does not address the long-term drivers of our debt. it raises taxes on families who are already struggling to make ends meet, and has no intention of balancing ever. it does nothing to protect and strengthen the medicare safety net promised to our seniors. put simply, their plan does not implement serious reforms necessary to put us on a path to a sustainable future. mr. speaker, our budget has a different vision for america. our budget plan saves $5.1 trillion over the next decade. pays down our debt. and encourages a growing and healthy economy. our plan expands opportunities for all americans by focusing on higher education and job training. we encourage a simpler, fairer tax code that saves americans thousands of hours spent every year on tax compliance. our plan protects the social

safety net programs by encouraging upward mobility and providing states with the flexibility to meet the needs of their residents. one of the most important aspects of our budget plan protects social security and medicare for our nation's seniors. we preserve traditional medicare for those in or near retirement, while also offering options for medicare that strengthens this vital program so it's still around for future generations. for these reasons, mr. speaker, i support the ryan budget plan which puts our country on a pathway back to prosperity. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. it does not strengthen medicare to reopen the prescription drug doughnut hole. which is exactly what this republican congressional budget does. so if you're a senior with high prescription drug costs, under

this budget, it will cost you $1,200 more per year. the whole reason we closed the prescription drug doughnut hole was to prevent seniors in that position from having to undergo such economic hardship. but this republican budget reopens that doughnut hole now. now with respect to tax reform and picking winners and losers, the reality is that this republican budget does pick winners and losers. the big winners are people at the very top of the income scale because millionaires will see their top tax rate cut by a full 1/3. now, the results of that is that middle income taxpayers are going to have to finance that in order to maintain what they call the deficit neutrality of it. that means that middle income taxpayers with kids are going to to an average of $2,000 more finance the tax cuts for millionaires. so millionaires are the winners,

middle class taxpayers are the losers, as i said just a minute ago, we gave our republican colleagues an opportunity to say no, that's not their intention. but they voted against the amendment to protect american middle class taxpayers. i'm now pleased to yield to one of our terrific members of the budget committee, a gentleman from wisconsin, mr. pocan. the chair: how much time? mr. van hollen: a minute and a half. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. . mr. pocan: thank you, mr. speaker. this is the fourth year in a row the republicans have introduced their road map for the future. who are the winners and losers? the chairman of the budget committee said this is a win-win budget. it's a win if you're in the top percent aisle, it's a win if you're in the second percent aisle. but the rest of us, the 98%, certainly aren't winning. we lose 1.1 million jobs in 2015 and three million jobs in

2016 in the republican budget. that's like firing every single person in the state of wisconsin. we lose by slashing investments in infrastructure and science, transportation and education and our seniors and the middle class taxpayers pay for it and we also lose on the fact that this has fuzzy math and the logic is terrible. the status actually balances in -- to say this actually balances in 10 years is saying cheese whiz is like real wisconsin cheese. they cut the affordable care act benefits but they keep the revenues and the savings and that's simply impossible. so i hope the american public realizes that the republicans' takeover, this is their road map, these are the cuts you're going to see and i urge a no vote on the budget. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i'll reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: mr. chairman, i'm now pleased to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from texas, a member of the budget committee and the ways and means committee, mr.

doggett. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. doggett: this budget is too weak. it's too weak in all the wrong places and all the wrong ways. it's weak on opportunity, it's weak on competitiveness, it's weak on dealing with the tax avoidance and loopholes that would allow us to invest in america. the house republican budget actually grows the deficit, the opportunity deficit. a strong budget would help our students earn a degree without mortgaging their future in order to achieve their full god-given potential. and it will enable an educated work force that will allow us to be competitive in the world economy. a strong budget would invest in life-saving medical research to grow our economy and to respond to the folks from san antonio who are here today to ask for more for alzheimer's research, not by taking it from aids or cancer research, but by investing more to get the cures

, to save the lives and create the jobs that america ought to be about. and a strong budget would invest in the infrastructure, in the roads and rails and bridges and harbors like the chinese are doing to move goods and move people and a be competitive. a strong budget would ensure seniors' dignity in retirement, not what aarp says about this budget, that it would weaken the programs that provide the very foundation of health and retirement security for current and future generations. i urge the rejection of this weak republican budget in favor of needed investments in our education, our infrastructure, our research, retirement security -- mr. van hollen: i yield the gentleman another 30 seconds. the chair: are a the gentleman is recognized -- the gentleman is recognized. mr. doggett: those investments can be made simply by asking those who have been so privileged to enjoy so many tax

loopholes to pay their fair share for the future of america. i believe it's an investment for a stronger america that affords more opportunity to every family. i ask for the rejection of this budget in favor of a strong budget that is strong for america, strong for our economy can and strong for opportunity and i yield back -- economy and strong for opportunity and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: apparently a strong budget needs we need to borrow more from the chinese to fund our government. with that, mr. chairman, i'd like to yield three minutes to the distinguished wisconsinite who does know the difference between real cheese and cheese whiz, mr. duffy can. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for three minutes. mr. duffy: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. as i sit and listen to this debate today, no doubt the democrats' position is, let's just keep the status quo. don't change anything. let's continue on with our $17 trillion debt, let's continue to borrow and spend and spend and borrow and never change

course. and we know that's their position by way of the amendments they offered in the budget committee, by the conversation here on the floor today and, mr. speaker, we know that by way of the senate budget when they put one out because it never balances and we know that because of the president's budget that he puts out, it never balances. it passes off this massive liability to the next generation. and their policies have a real impact on the country as a whole. listen we talk about seniors. the medicare trust fund is going broke in 12 years. it's going bankrupt. and my friends across the aisle, mr. speaker, they don't want to change it. they want to leave our seniors today and our future seniors today in jeopardy with a trust fund that's gone broke. and it's hard to lead, it's hard to put ideas on the table and say, listen, my friends, let's come together, let's be responsible, let's make it sustainable, let's fix it. and the response is, don't do a

darn thing -- don't do a darn thing. continue on the course to a bankrupt trust fund. that doesn't serve our seniors well, that doesn't serve our next generation of seniorswoman. speaking of medicare, there is only one party in this town that took over $700 billion out of medicare and used it for obamacare. they raided it and that's the democrat party, mr. speaker. that's unacceptable. and to come to the floor today and tell us and the american people that they're here to protect it just isn't true. listen, we're on the course to a fiscal calamity. and if that happens, who are the people who are hurt the most among us? the people who are hurt the worst are the poorest. the ones who are most in need of government assistance. i think, listen, we should look to our churches and our communities for that help, but there is a role for government. and if you have a debt crisis, if you have a fiscal crisis, and you have people who have a hard time heating their homes

and putting food on the table or kids that want to go to college or you want to build roads and bridges, there's not money there for those projects. if you want to be able to invest in your future, you have to make sure you have a budget that's sustainable. when you pay $230 billion in interest alone today, when the fed is printing money to buy down that interest rate, the president says in 10 years, interest on the debt is going to be $880 billion. you can build a lot of roads, bridges, you can feed a lot of people, you can send a lot of kids to school for almost $is trillion a year -- $1 trillion a year. let's fix this problem, let's work together, let's balance our budget and start right here in the house in the budget committee. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i hope all of members of the house will check the facts with respect to the impact of the affordable care act on medicare.

if you actually look at what's happened since the affordable care act was enacted, the per capita rate of increase in health care costs in this country has actually gone down. talk to seniors on medicare, anybody who's paying attention right now, i ask them, what has their part b premium done over the last couple of years? it's been steadier in fact this year, went down in real terms. and so the value that seniors have gotten under medicare has actually improved significantly in part due to the affordable care act. now, unlike the democratic budget, which used some of the savings from getting rid of overpayments to some of the big insurance companies in medicare and using those savings to strengthen things like the prescription drug benefit, the republican budget keeps every dime, every dime of the medicare savings from the affordable care act, but they don't use any of it to strengthen medicare.

in fact, they reopen the prescription drug doughnut hole. they start charging seniors now for preventive health services. and ultimately they actually end the medicare guarantee by turning medicare into a voucher program so that if you actually want to stay in traditional medicare, you'd be paying a whopping higher premium. that is not the way we should go can. and that's all in a budget that continues to provide tax breaks to the very wealthy in this country. those are not the right priorities for america. now i'd like to yield a minute and a half to somebody who has focused on the right priorities for america and recognizes that small business is the engine of growth and opportunity and that is the ranking member of the small business committee, a member from new york, ms. velazquez. i yield a minute and a half. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. velazquez: thank you and thank the ranking member for yielding.

and thank you for fighting and being a real fiscal leader for small businesses in this country. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this budget. far from being a path to prosperity, it is actually a path to the poor house. sadly, just as it falls short in so many other ways, the ryan budget clearly fails small businesses. under this budget, resources that help small companies launch, grow and hire will be cut by nearly $11 billion. a wide range of resources will be gutted, from contracts to access to capital to international trade assistance to job training. this budget is not the right budget to help those businesses that are the backbone of the american, at a time when this economy is still struggling.

studies have shown that many of these small business programs generate more than $3 in federal revenue for every $1 spent. what type of economic policy says that you cut programs that generate income for the treasury? we just held a press conference today with so many small business people who have benefited from these type of programs. they are businesses that open up into -- mr. van hollen: i yield the gentlelady another 30 seconds. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. velazquez: and today we have a lady who provides i.t. d.o.d. and to many federal agencies. her business grew from six people to 130 employees. this is the type of program that we need in place in order to grow our economy.

republicans like to say that they are the champions of small businesses, they oppose the a.c.a., claiming it will harm small firms. they oppose the dodd-frank saying that it will hinder the ability of small businesses to get lending from traditional financial services. and yet they cut the very programs that provide -- access to capital for small businesses. when we look -- mr. van hollen: i yield the gentlelady another 30 seconds. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. velazquez: thank you. yet when we look at this project, we know that the rhetoric does not match the reality. rather than paying lip service to small businesses, we must invest in the programs that help them drow -- can help them grow and create jobs. that's what we need. we must do better, vote no on this budget and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time

has expired -- the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: at this time, mr. chairman, i'd like to yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from illinois, mr. davis. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. davis: mr. speaker, i want to thank chairman ryan for engaging the house in this very important process. we're talking about real alternatives and routes we can take for the future of this country and the future of our children can. as a father to a 17-year-old daughter and twin 13-year-old boys, riding the fiscal path of this country is the reason that i ran -- righting the fiscal path of this country is the reason i ran to serve in this institution and part of serving in this institution is creating a vision for america's financial future. this budget balances, putting a budget on the floor of the house and putting forth a vision for america's fiscal future that balances is something that we need to do on a regular basis. it's sad that i had to fight for a provision to be put into this bill called no budget, no

pay. as we know, the senate will not take this budget process up. and they shouldn't be paid. i fought for that proposal because members of congress can, if they're not willing to put in the work to help balance our country's checkbook and fulfill their constitutional duties, they should not be paid. for hardworking taxpayers, this budget allows you to keep more of your paycheck while again balancing our budget. compare that with the president's budget, which we will have a chance to vote on this week. i'd urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to vote yes on president's budget if you think it is the future for america. but that budget raises taxes by more than $1 trillion and never balances. we have got a clear choice here, mr. speaker. for our seniors, this budget ends obamacare's raid on medicare and puts seniors back in charge of their health care decisions. this budget also preserves medicare for our current seniors and ensures that had this vital program is available

-- that this vital program is available for all future generations. for our students this budget guarantees pell grants that are still there for those who greem of going to college but need a little help. right now the program is estimated to become insolvent by 2016 and every year we don't have a plan we risk the future of millions of students and contribute to the rising cost of tuition. and as someone who represents nine universities and colleges and eight community college districts, no plan is unacceptable. for our veterans, it ensures veterans still receive their benefits regardless of what happens in washington. additionally, this budget would dedicate another $400 million to veterans programs. i did not come to washington to sit idly by and remain content with the current state of our nation. i came here to make washington work and provide the hardworking taxpayers of illinois' 13th congressional district with a better vision for america.

this is a better vision for america, mr. speaker. and the attacks will come. don't let the attacks get in the way of the facts. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time of the the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: mr. chairman, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the distinguished member of the budget committee and ways and means committee, mrs. black from tennessee. the chair: the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized for three minutes. mrs. black: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the distinguished chairman of the budget committee for yielding. our nation is $17.4 trillion in debt and out-of-control spending here in washington has no end in sight. in fact, the nonpartisan congressional budget office estimates that on our current trajectory we will return to $1 trillion annual budget deficits by the year 2022.

this situation is untenable, and it threatens the nation that we leave behind for our children and grandchildren. as i stand here and look at these young children up here or young adults, it looks to me, those are the ones that are going to have to pay for our lack of courage to do what we need to do to balance this budget and get our country and our spending under control. the vast majority of americans agree that the federal government should live within its means and that it should balance its budget the same way that american families do. that's why it's so disappointing that president obama's f.y. 2015 budget proposal would increase federal spending and never balance. yes, never balance, despite calling for an additional $1.8 trillion in taxes from hardworking americans. in fact, the president's budget proposal would add an additional

$8.3 trillion to the national debt. the american people and these children deserve better than this. that's why i'm proud that my house republican budget colleagues and i have again acted where president obama and the congressional democrats failed to lead. the path to prosperity is our vision to control washington spending and to help get our economy moving again so americans can get back to work. this responsible budget proposal $5.1 ut spending by trillion, balance the budget in 10 years, and put us on a path to pay off our debt. we accomplish all of this without raising taxes on the hardworking american people. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to join me in passing this budget proposal. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr.

chairman. i'm now pleased to yield three minutes to my fellow marylander, the distinguished democratic whip, mr. hoyer, who is focused on these important issues successfully for a long time. the chair: the minority whip is recognized for three minutes. mr. hoyer: i focused on them, how successfully is an item of debate. with myself. i thank the ranking member for yielding. this republican budget as i have said before is an exercise in how not to achieve fiscal sustainable -- sustainability. bob dole-is imson -- bowles-simpson is a combination of balance and strategic investments in long-term economic growth. the bowles-simpson report says, and i quote, we must invest in education, infrastructure, and

high value research and development to help our economy grow, keep us globally competitive, and make it easier for business to create jobs. the chairman of the budget committee voted against bowles-simpson. this budget disinvests in those priorities, which will help us create jobs and grow our middle class. it undercuts our ability to invest in economic competitiveness and the growth we need to secure the goal of a sustainable fiscal future. at the same time the republican budget does not follow the bipartisan commission's framework for achieving deficit savings, a balanced approach that combines new revenue with spending reductions. there are no new revenues in this budget, and it's spending cuts are severe and irresponsible, cutting even deeper than the painful sequester. as i said yesterday, g.o.p.

appropriations committee chairman hal rogers called the sequester levels unrealistic and ill-conceived. to which the chairman then rose and said, he said that last year. he made have said it last year, but you -- but the proposal you make are unchanged from last year, essentially. and this year he said your cuts were draconian. just a few days ago. the chair: the gentleman is dr hing remarks -- addressing remarks to the third person. mr. hoyer: i regret the chairman -- taking my remarks personally. of course they were meant simply from a policy perspective on how bad the policy itself is, not the chairman himself who is a wonderful individual. in closing, let me say i urge everyone of my colleagues who is troubled about our deficits and debt who is deeply concerned about creating jobs and growing

our economy to do the right thing. oppose this budget. now, the chairman of the appropriations committee, who has called the numbers in this budget draconian, apparently intends to vote for it. mr. speaker, i don't understand that. if i thought as i do that these numbers were draconian, the only alternative i would have is to vote no. i lament the fact that we are not addressing in a bipartisan comprehensive way putting america on a fiscally sustainable path. that would be the best economic stimulus that we could do for america. what a shame, what a shame that again we have wasted that opportunity. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. who seeks time? the gentleman from -- mr. ryan: we have the right to

close and have no more speakers. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for four minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. let me just pick up where mr. hoyer left off and ask the question, why would the republican chairman of the appropriations committee call this republican budget draconian? after all the chairman of the budget committee has told us today that don't worry, actually we are going to continue to grow the government just a little more slowly. but what that ignores is the fact that the portion of the budget that the chairman of the appropriations committee has jurisdiction over is that portion of the budget that we have used historically in this country to make investments that help our economy grow. investments in our kids' education. from early education to k through 12. it college education. that's the part of the budget that we have used to invest in

research and development, discoveries that place the like nasa that have had huge spinoff benefits for the rest of the country. and the economy. investments that actually help lead to the internet, that have been hugely beneficial to our economy. and that portion of the budget, that doesn't grow but a little less slowly, that cut that portion of the budget. in fact, as a share of our onomy it is cut by 40% below the lowest level since the 1950's, since we have been keeping track. and so that's why we are saying that our global economic competitors, they are going to be cheering this republican udget. we'd like to see it in america agenda. this is accept america agenda. this actually provides tax cuts for u.s. corporations that move jobs overseas and yet cuts

investments in jobs and economic development right here at home. that's why it's so misguided. that's why the republican chairman of the appropriations committee says it's draconian. now, what's worse is that it makes those cuts in our kids' education. it makes those cuts in basic r&d. makes the cut in the senior prescription drug benefit. it takes those while protecting these tax breaks for the most powerful and the very wealthy. the chairman referred a number of times to tax expenditures. he mentioned the other day that on an annual basis tax expenditures are over $1 trillion. in fact, more per year than social security, medicare, medicaid. some of those tax expenditures have worthy policy goals, but a lot are there because very powerful special interests have gotten an exception to -- exemption for themselves. what we said we should get rid

of some of those tax breaks for the purpose of helping to reduce our deficit so we don't have to hit our kids' education so hard. so we don't have to disinvest from basic r&d. so we don't have to make the kind of cuts that the republican chairman of the compropingses --appropriations committee calls draconian. no, republicans don't want to do that. they say every time you close a tax loophole, you got to use it to reduce the tax rate for wealthier americans. we don't say if you identify a spending program that no longer makes sense you have to go spend it somewhere else. but when it comes to special interest tax expenditures, that's exactly the republican position. you can only use it to bring down tax rates for multimillionaires. and as a result, while the winners in this republican budget are those folks at the very top, they sock it to everybody else. they do sock it to seniors on

medicare. they sock it to our kids' education. and they sock it to the fundamental economic power of this country when they disinvest in the things that have helped make us a global power. and that is the wrong decision for america. so i urge my colleagues to vote no on this washington republican budget. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, i yield myself the remainder of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. ryan: let me try to translate for the viewer what's happening here. every time you hear the word from that means take hardworking taxpayers and spend in washington. and then when that's not enough, invest means, borrow nearly half of which from other countries for the next generation and

spend in washington. just so you know, when they keep saying invest, invest, you're not investing enough, it means tax, borrow, and spend here in washington as if we know better how people should spend their money. the same analysis we hear about job loss and this isn't going to work and cost all these jobs is the same analysis that said the stimulus was going to be a boon. it's the same analysis they said if we just borrow and spend $780 billion in washington on shovel worthy jobs, unemployment will never reach 10%, we'll create millions of new jobs. it didn't work. it all comes down to this. rather than prioritize our spending, rather than holding the federal government accountable and more transparent to make sure that are taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely and prudently. rather than balancing the budget and paying off the debt so the next generation is a debt free

inheritance, rather than taking on the bloated tax code that is mired with special interest give aways and tax breaks and loopholes, rather than opening up this incredible store of oil and gas that can give us a huge renaissance of more jobs and lower gas an home heating prices and a better foreign policy, rather than he preserving our military and giving our troops what they need, rather than growing our economy and creating what is estimated by the c.b.o. to give each person an average of $1,100 more in take-home pay because of that economic growth, rather than doing any of that just do more of the same. stick with the status quo. that's what this rhetoric is. it's a strawman argument. it's an argument that says let's

affix certain views to our opponents so we can defeat these awful views we say they have and win the debate by default so we can stick with the status quo and keep doing more of the same. mr. chairman, here's where we're headed. this debt, this red line is the status quo. this is where america is going. it's not a republican or democrat thing. it's a math thing. and what we're saying with this budget is the status quo isn't working. we can't comore of the same because we're head -- we can't do more of the same because we're headed in the wrong direction. everybody in this country knows this. this is our plan. it's actually a plan, pay off a debt, grow jobs and challenge the status quo and that's where i urge adoption of this budget. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired.

the gentleman from texas, mr. brady, and the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney, will each control 30 minutes on the subject of economic goals and policies. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. yield dy: mr. speaker, i

myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for as much as he may consume. mr. brady: the federal government simply won't live within its means. spending cuts can get us halfway back to a balanced budget, but if we want to finish the job, we need to grow our economy so we can begin paying down this dangerous $17 trillion national debt. under the full employment and balanced growth act of 1978, the joint economic committee, which i chair, provides analysis and recommendations about the goals and policies set forth in the economic report of the president to assist the house of representatives in its consideration of this budget resolution. during the next few moments, the members of the joint economic committee will answer three questions. one, why has the obama recovery been so weak and disappointing when compared with past recoveries? two, how would a gradual reduction of federal spending relative to the size of our economy as envisioned in the

budget resolution help hardworking americans, by accelerating economic growth, accelerating job creation and increasing real wages? and finally, how would the reforms envisioned in the republican budget help congress to make better tax and spending decisions in the future? the call -- to call the current recovery a disace pointment to the american people is an understatement. it ranks dead last or near the bottom on virtually every economic measure when compared to the other recoveries in the past century. the economy's poor performance has left the united states with an enormous growth gap. real gross domestic product, our economy, our output, has grown slightly more than half the average above the recovery. not surprisingly, given the recovery's anemic rate of economic growth, private sector payroll employment, that's jobs on main street, have also

increased by half the average of other recoveries. if you look at the paychecks, after what people have in their budget -- at home after taxes, well, for middle-class americans, middle-class people, their wages have increased 1/3 above the recovery. ess than half of the worst recovery. wall street is roaring. s&p 500 total return index, adjust for inflation, has more than doubled. this, mr. chairman, is recovery that left main street and middle-class families behind. the joint economic committee has compared this recovery to the average other recoveries over the last 50 years and has identified this dangerous growth gap. and what's missing from the economy, because of this disappointing recovery, is our economy should be $1.3 trillion

larger today. over $1 trillion larger today if this had just been an average economic recovery rather than dead last. you know, had the number of jobs along main street grown at the average rate of others, we would have 5.7 million more americans working today than what they are under this disappointing recovery. last month, we reached a milestone. the number of jobs along main street finally met its peak when the recession began. this milestone would be good news, except it comes about four years late. so after all these years, now six years, we're just back to breaking the number of jobs along main street. and if you look at the economy, proportionally, there are fewer adults working today than when the recession ended. we've actually gone backwards in the economy since the recovery supposedly began. so no matter how you try to slice and dice the numbers, there's no hiding the fact that

a smaller percentage of americans are working today than when the recession ended. turning from jobs to income, the hardworking families receive, this recovery regret plea is even more disappoint -- regrettably is even more disappointing. real income per person has barely edged up. i think it's 3.8%. barely noticeable. that's less than half it should be during an average recovery. what does it mean to an average family and what it means is that the average person in america is missing over $3,000 a year from their paycheck. an average family of four in america today is missing $1,086 a month from their family budget. imagine that. imagine for every family in america having an extra $1,000 a month to pay utilities, to save for college, which costs

are exploding, to pay for the new health care costs under the affordable care act, to invest maybe in that new washer-dryer, repair that car, $1,000 a month is missing from the average family because of the slow growth policies of the white house and regrettably congressional democrats. that's why middle-class families are being left behind. that's why we can no longer stay the course in america. families like this are missing too much money for washington to continue to do the same old things that leave them behind. you know, i could fill this entire hour with different statistics to make the same point, but by every measure, the recovery is so disappointing. and the question is why. what's different about it? well, some blame the housing bubble, the financial panic for the persistent weakness in our labor market. price es following the

bubble like this is typically slower than other recoveries. while the collapse of the housing bubble undoubtedly had some lingering effects, it's not the main factor, let alone the only factor for this disappointing recovery. what's unique about this recovery is the combination of the slow growth economic policies that president obama has pursued. for example, looking back from 1982 to 2000, federal spending declined as a percentage of the economy. in the private sector boom, creating more than 37 million jobs. under president obama, the opposite happened. federal spending exploded to a world -- post-world war ii high of 24% of the economy, and we lost jobs. the president's -- presidents kennedy and reagan, they reduced the after-tax cost for new business investment, and the joint economic committee has shown there's a strong

relation between when businesses invest and building equipment and software and the creation of real jobs along main street. in contrast, president obama increased taxes on successful small businesses, on capital gains and dividends and slowed this recovery. looking back, presidents clinton and reagan took a balanced approach toward environmental health and safety regulations. by contrast, the obama administration has launched a regulatory tsunami, red taped the highest levels of the last three years, historically high, and that slowed job creation along main street. presidents kennedy, reagan and clinton opened the new markets for american sales through international trade agreements. and aside from completing the agreements left unfinished by president bush and despite having first-rate trade team in place, opening new market, tearing down the america -- allowing our companies' workers

to complete on a level playing field, that's now stalled under this white house. presidents kennedy, reagan and clinton didn't burden a weak economy with costly new entitlement programs. by contrast, president obama rammed the affordable care act through congress on party line votes. the controversial affordable care act is heightening uncertainty, boosting taxes by more than $1 trillion, undermining key industries like medical devices and small businesses and causing millions of americans, including families in my community, to lose access to doctors and health insurance plans that they liked. and now they're paying more for a plan they didn't ask for and are forced to do it or pay a tax. notice that these past approaches to taxes and regulations, international trade were taken by both republicans and democrat presidents, approaches that

both parties recognize as good for our economy. if president obama's actions remain remarkably out of sync with those sound policies, he continues to stay the course while millions of americans that can't find full-time work, millions more have just given up looking for work, fewer and fewer people are in the work force. it's not the elderly, it's younger people, college graduates who spend all that time and that money and now they're working behind a cash register. we have middle-class americans, again, missing over $1,000 from their monthly budget that could be helping meet their needs because the president's economic policy. what we do know and what's incorporated in the republican budget is an economic policy mix that would do the opposite. it would ignite a boom in our economy through simple and well-known policies. a sound dollar that protects families against inflation and

losing their purchasing power, gradual decline in federal spending as a percentage of the economy. that's a key one. tax reform. grows our economy. balance regulation and open new markets around the world for american companies and workers, that's the best way to strengthen our economy, create millions of new jobs and get america back on the right track again. the budget resolution proposed by republicans in the house says no more slow growth, no more stay the course. we will not settle for a second-rate economy. our families deserve better, deserve $1,000 more a month, and this is the path to get us back. with that, mr. speaker, i will reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves his time. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, i ask as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for as much time as she may consume. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker,

unfortunately the budget offered by our republican colleagues is not by any stretch of the imagination the solution to our problems. it is the problem because this is not a budget. it is a retreat. it's a retreat from the high ideals, noble goals and bold dreams that have made this country so great. s the authoring columnist, nicholas christophe, pointed out, a new ranking of livability in 132 countries shows that the united states has fallen to 16th. fallen. but apparently our republican friends think that's a little too high. we now rank 24th in inequality in the attainment of education. but the republican budget would cut pell grants that help low-income students afford college. we rank 29th in life expectency

and 24th in nutrition and basic medical care. and the ryan budget would cut funding for food stamps and medicaid and raise the eligibility of medicare. we rank just 70th in health, and republicans want to repeal the affordable care act and snatch health care coverage away from millions who just received it. this is not a budget, mr. speaker. this is a call to americans to dream small and aim low. this is an attempt to shift costs onto the shoulders of the middle class, the young and the elderly in a way that would cripple our ability to compete. but i believe we are a better people than this and a greater nation. look at just about any poll on the subject these days and you can see that americans are most concerned about jobs and growing our american economy. what the american people want

to see from a congress is a plan that will help accelerate the growth of our economy and create good jobs. but the crushing austerity of the ryan plan would do just the opposite. this makes no sense because we know what actually works and what actually grows jobs and what doesn't. we've seen it and we've lived it. . the record speaks for itself and shows whose ideas actually work in the real world and whose don't. since 1961 the private sector has added a total of 66 million jobs. 24 million of them were added under republican presidents. and a whopping 42 million were added under democratic presidents. let's take a look at this chart. under president clinton