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. this resident clinton

country grew a whopping 22.6 million jobs. and he left office running an nual surplus of under $128 billion projected to grow into the trillions. then under the eight years of president bush we added only 1.2 million jobs. what a stark difference. and the budget surplus was turned into an annual $1.4 trillion deficit. when president obama took office, our economy was shedding over 800,000 jobs a month, and the bush administration administration left office with in worst job creation record 75 years. nevertheless in the five years since prom took office, we have created -- president obama took office, we have created 4.7 million jobs, nearly four times

what was created under president bush. and we have more than halved the annual deficit to much less than that. the actions of swiftly implemented by the president and democratic congress quickly turned the economy around and job losses diminished. and as this next chart shows, those actions have worked. we have been gaining jobs for the last 49 months. in that time the economy has added 8.9 million private sector jobs, regaining more than all of the jobs lost during the great recession. this chart shows what i call the deep red republican valley where we were shedding over 800,000 jobs a month. when president obama took office with his economic plan, we have been growing jobs. democrats understand that in order to maintain our leadership in the world economy, america

needs to continually sharpen its competitive edge. and we understand that while investing in the future may carry some risk, refusing to do so carries an iron bound certainty, the certainty of a slow decline and crippling decay. but instead of investing in the future and next generation, the ryan budget guts funding for education, work force training, critical infrastructure, scientific research, public health, clean energy, advanced manufacturing, and public safety. all the investments needed to make the american economy of tomorrow competitive and put us on the cutting edge. instead of fully preparing the next generation for tomorrow's economy, the ryan budget cuts funding for early childhood education, k through 12 education, special education,

and higher education. it slashes grants and charges students more interest on their college loans. it lets the higher education tax cut expire. sad 8ing -- saddling our young people with even more student loan debt. we know now student loan debt is now larger than credit card debt in our country. it is a crippling concern. but sadly the cuts extend far beyond education. the ryan budget proposes draconian cuts to nutrition assistance, home heating assistance, and rental assistance. snap, which provides food security for millions of american children, is cut more than $135 billion. and 200,000 fewer women and children would get basic nutrition through the w.i.c. program. we can all agree that the economic recovery has been too slow. yet this republican budget cuts

critical investments to create jobs and enhance our competitiveness. in 2015 alone, the budget cuts $52 billion from efforts to update our crumbling transportation infrastructure. that amounts to over $1.5 million jobs. -- 1.5 million jobs. the budget cuts the national institutes of health, national science foundation, threatening our edge in medical and scientific innovation. and the republican budget even eliminates funding for the arts, humanities, and public broadcasting, which support the institutions that enrich our lives and chronicle our cultural and our heritage. further the ryan budget would cut health care funding and increase costs for seniors. it would raise the age to qualify for medicare to 67. and bring back the dreaded doughnut hole that leaves too

many seniors the choice between their medications and putting food on the table. after nearly a century of talking about doing it, we have finally expanded health care to cover more americans. yes, there have been bumps along the way as there have been with the implementation of transformational social programs like with medicare and part d prescription drugs, but the important thing is that it's working. already seven million people have signed up through the health insurance marketplaces and another three million young adults have been able to remain on their parents' health plans until they turn 26. but under the ryan plan, these 10 million americans who thought at long last they had reliable and affordable health care insurance would have it snatched away from them. but it's even worse than that.

by 2024, a staggering total of 40 million people would become uninsured under the ryan plan. the c.b.o. projects that 25 million people who would have gained coverage under the affordable care act will instead have to go without it. and there are another 14 million to 20 million people who would lose insurance as a result of the block granting and medicaid cutting laid out in the ryan budget. after 53 failed attempts to repeal the affordable care act, the ryan budget hopes to succeed in taking us backwards to those dark days when people with no -- pre-existing conditions couldn't get coverage, when protections against lifetime limits didn't exist, no cost preventive services like mammograms and cervical cancer screenings would be no more.

it would take us back to a time when women were charged more just because they were women. and when the insurance companies called the shots. from the smallest children to the oldest seniors who rely on medicaid for health care and to cover long-term health bills, the ryan medicaid cuts will negatively affect literally millions. women who make up almost 70% of adult medicaid beneficiaries will especially feel the sting. the most vulnerable will be hurt the most. mr. speaker, budgets are about choices and we face a truly water shed choice now. we can choose to continue to do things that have lifted the hopes of millions, provided unparalleled opportunities, and made our country the envy of the world. we can choose to continue to

help those who need it the most and provide a measure of care to those who have the least. or we can choose to go down a radically different road, concede the future to the bold, defer to others, expect less, and turn our faces away from the downtrodden and the dispossessed. yes we can make that choice, but please, mr. speaker, let's stop referring to this as a budget and call it what it really is, a retreat, an act of surrender. it's giving up on the america we have always known. this is not a blueprint, it's a black eye. we are a better people than this and a greater nation. i urge my colleagues to vote no. america does not retreat. and i reserve the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentlelady from new york reserves her time. the gentleman from texas. -- i'd like to yield to a man who knows more than half americans today believe in a recession and he knows the impact, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. paulson. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for four minutes. mr. paulsen: i want to speak in favor of the republican budget resolution. this is a budget resolution that stands in stark contrast today compared to what the president offered in his budget. it's a budget that balances, it's a budget that's responsible , it's a budget that's thoughtful. it addresses the spending side of the ledger to be more fiscally responsible and it also includes, mr. speaker, a road map for pro-growth tax reform to create a healthier economy. yes, we need to spend less. but our national debt and our

budget imbalance have grown so big we can't fix them alone by simply addressing spending. the we have also got to grow our economy. put people back to work. to bring in more revenue. we are suffering from a growth gap. normally the economy doubles every 20 years. but because of excessive washington spending, budget deficits, high debt, these onerous regulation that is come out of washington and higher tax, the economy is now set to double every 30 years. so we have literally added 10 years on to our growth cycle. what does that mean? the growth gap means this, mr. speaker. it means for disposable income since the end of the recession nearly five years ago, every man, woman, and child has been robbed of almost $3,200 every year. it means that a family of four has been robbed of about $13,000 . that's additional average after taxable income and disposable income. that's real money to a family. what could you do with $13,000? our economy is performing way below average. we can do a lot better than

performing below average. this budget expands opportunities for american workers by eequipping them with the skills that they need to succeed in a 21st century economy. it lays a path of reform -- to reform a broken tax code by simply filing and lowering tax rates, by eliminating special interest loopholes, and by moving us to an internationally competitive tax system so that u.s. employers can compete fairly in a global economy. we need commonsense tax reform to keep american businesses headquartered here in the u.s. so we can sell to customers overseas, bring the earnings back, keep our headquarter companies here, keep the innovation here, and keep the jobs here. this budget also it cuts cronyism, corporate welfare, and waste. it ends the dodd-frank bailouts of big banks. it eliminates billions in corporate welfare, and very importantly it protects and strengthens important programs that our seniors rely on and ensure these programs will be there for future generationings.

it's -- generations. it's time to stop spending money we don't have. we can no longer borrow 40 cents ever every dollar we spend. finally, mr. speaker, this budget not only balances by growing our economy and making government more efficient, it also puts the country back on a path to actually paying down the national debt. because the longer we wait to address the drivers of our debt, the harder our choices will be later. this is a budget proposal and a blueprint that puts the country back on track for a balanced and responsible path. i would ask my colleagues in joining me to support its passage. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. maloney: i now yield seven minutes to the gentleman from the great state of maryland, who is a champion of working families. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for seven minutes. mr. cummings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentlelady for yielding. since february, 2010, more than eight million jobs have been created in our nation. over the last year the

unemployment rate has fallen by 4/5 of a percentage point. these numbers demonstrate the significant progress we have made in growing our economy and putting americans back to work after the worst economic crisis since the great depression. however, there's still far more we can do to strengthen our economy and begin to reduce the growing income inequality in our great nation. sadly instead of proposing a budget that would help us expand the middle class, republicans have again offered a budget that seeks to help the wealthy at the expense of the many. just as in the years past, the 2015 ryan budget would slash nondefense discretionary spending without regard for the devastating consequences these cuts would have on the lives of main street americans. this ryan -- this year's ryan

budget would cut an additional $791 billion from the post sequester funding caps from fiscal year 2016 through fiscal year 2024. as in the past, the budget also offers an ideological wish list of policies that will increase the unemployment rate, hurt low-income families, and harm our seniors allle to protect the interest of the wealthiest among us. . the ryan budget does not extend emergency unemployment benefits even though these benefits would help our economy as well as the millions of families that suffered the devastating consequences of long-term unemployment rate. never before has congress failed to provide federal unemployment insurance when the unemployment rate, especially for long-term unemployed, is as high as it is today. this budget would also hit

middle-class families with thousandses in additional taxes every year while lowering the top tax rate for the rich. the ryan budget would repeal the affordable care act, taking health care from millions of middle-income americans. it would gut medicaid, taking health care from millions of r poorest families, and it would destroy the commitment away by turning medicare into a voucher program. this budget would also be devastating to our federal work force. the people who care for our veterans, who protect our homeland, who ensure the food we eat is safe and who conduct the research on which we rely to find new treatments for cancer and other devastating diseases. let me remind my colleagues that the republicans have been attacking our federal employees for years, treating them as if they were the piggy bank for deficit reduction. federal workers have already sacrificed $140 billion toward

reducing this year's deficit through a three-year pay freeze and retirement contribution increases. now, house republicans want to squeeze another $125 billion out of these middle-class workers. how would they do this? the ryan budget would increase federal employee pension contributions to 6.53%, an increase of more than 5.5 percentage points for many current federal workers but it would not increase any benefits provided to these same workers. of course, federal employees make through their pension funds are not new. this year's budget also includes a provision prohibiting new federal employees from enrolling in the retirement system that has served federal employees since the 1920's. let me make this clear. under the ryan budget, one leg of the so-called three-legged

stool on which federal employees have relied for security in their retirement would be ripped out from under them. new federal employees would be left to rely solely on savings they accumulate in their thrift savings plan and on social security. as if that wasn't enough, the ryan budget would also eliminate the student loan repayment program for federal workers. even though this is a vital recruitment and retention inseptemberive used to attract the -- incentive used to attract the best and brightest american people. it proposes to cut the federal work force by 10%. contrary to claims of some that our government is growing out of control, the federal government has actually cut 85,000 jobs in the last 12 months. an additional arbitrary work force reduction isn't likely to yield the savings the republicans exact because much of the current work of the government will simply be shifted to more expensive

contractors. such a reduction would, however, impede the government's ability to provide needed services to the american people in a timely manner. i agree that congress must act to put our fiscal house in order, but we must do this in a balanced manner that increases economic stability and certainty in the marketplace. we must not do this on the backs of our neediest citizens, and we must not do this on the backs of the federal employees who make government work for our nation every day. republicans fail to understand that we simply cannot cut our way to prosperity. expanding opportunity and investing in america today will increase government revenues in the years to come and put our economy back on the path to prosperity. for the good of our nation, i urge my colleagues to reject the ryan budget, and with that i yield back. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired.

the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: mr. speaker, i yield myself five minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. brady: we hear all the boasts and claims from our democrat friends and how great the economy's going, what great leadership they've shown from the white house, get people back to work, they claim millions and millions and millions of jobs that americans don't feel -- but americans don't feel that way and for good reason. et's put all this job surge in perspective. here is the average economy, the recoveries, because america does face tough times from time to time. we normally bounce back very strongly, but not this time, not under this president. if you look at job creation over the last four years, this is the average of the other recoveries. this is the reagan average. that was real economic growth. as you can tell, only twice in the last four years or more has the obama recovery even met average. only two months on more than

four -- out of more than four years has this recovery even been merely average. and it's never reached the real strong growth of the reagan recovery whose unemployment, by the way, reached higher points than this recession. so clearly by underperforming, by being so disappointing, what this chart really shows is the millions of americans, middle-class americans who've been left behind by this disappointing recovery. you look at this and you wonder, well, so what does this mean to the economy? i'll show you what's missing. across america to say we got to get this economy going. it's hurting us so badly. because of the president and our democratic friends choosing to slow the growth of america, we are now missing, gosh, almost $4 trillion, $3.7 trillion to be exact, missing from our economy. that should be in our main street businesses. it ought to be in our small businesses.

it ought to be driving our economy instead of trailing china, instead of being lectured by the rest of the world. america should have a strong economy by now. this is a disappointing recovery. the republican budget actually starts to restrain spending to grow the economy. and while some claim, you heard trillions of dollars of cuts, devastating the federal safety net. the truth is the republican budget over the next 10 years grows by about 3% a year. that's because america's population is growing as well. only in washington is growth in spending a cut. and what it does, it cuts the waste and fraud and abuse in this big, fat, bloated government, and it makes smart investment, though, in defense, in medicare, in infrastructure. our democrat friends are crying today for more emergency unemployment benefits, but

those benefits are for when the unemployment rate is going up and getting higher. but today in all 50 states, that rate has gone -- is going down and going lower. what we should be focusing is n getting people back to work. a good-paying job. instead the white house has optionally blocked the keystone pipeline and those thousands of jobs. they've obsessively pushed the affordable care act on our small businesses who are cutting hours, cutting workers, cutting wages and hurting the economy. and then all the new regulation. the republican budget preserves medicare and medicaid. for medicaid, which is our health care for the poor, the budget grows for them. it does an important thing. it gives back to the state the ability to tailor health care for their states to meet their patients and their communities and their regions. and that's the way it ought to be done. the democrats hallow out our defense and hallow out our

intelligence system and ignore our veterans. the republican budget restores our military strength to the presequester levels, and we focus on our veterans in america. they deserve no less. the republican budget saves medicare, both for those who are in or near retirement, more importantly, for those that wonder if medicare is for them, it options -- it offers options for younger workers, tailoring a plan that's right for them and their family. the democrats ignore this disappointing recovery. they say stay the course, the country's doing fine, but the country isn't doing fine. our families, they aren't doing fine at all, and they're missing $1,000 a month from their paychecks because this white house and this democrat senate continues to stay the course. let's change the course for america. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from

texas reserves his time. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. maloney: may i inquire, mr. chairman, what time is remaining on this side? the chair: the gentlelady from new york has 12 minutes remaining. and the gentleman -- the gentleman from texas has 11 1/2 minutes remaining. mrs. maloney: i grant myself one minute. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. maloney: now, my good friend from texas pointed out that the recovery has been slow, but at least it's a recovery. it's not a loss of jobs. as we see in this chart, the long red valley of job loss, shedding over 800,000 jobs a month when president obama took office. and we have job growth. i'd like to see it stronger and better, too, but at least it's job growth. the former president, bush, he left us with a $1.4 trillion deficit when he inherited a

surplus, and the worst job growth record in 75 years. i reserve the balance of my time, and i yield six minutes to the gentleman from the great state of maryland, and he's a former c.e.o. of a public company which has brought great expertise to the joint economic committee, mr. delaney. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for six minutes. mr. delaney: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentlelady from new york for yielding me this time to stand up and rise and speak out against mr. ryan's budget. and while i have many significant policy objections that are indebted in mr. ryan's budget, my main objection is based on the fact that the budget is built upon a fundamentally flawed analytical framework. and i think it's important to focus on that when we think about budgets, mr. speaker. the fundamental driver or the goal of the ryan budget is to have our deficits at zero in 10

years. and i believe mr. ryan does this because he thinks it's good political optics and it sounds good. the problem with this goal is it's fundamentally and economically and fiscally the wrong goal. it's unnecessary and it's unrealistic. it's unrealistic based on the fact of the demographics the country is facing. we are somewhere through the midway of this aging of the population that we like to talk about, mr. speaker, where the population of people over 65 of our -- our citizens over 65 will double from 1980 to 2000 to 2030. this puts tremendous burdens on the federal government but it's also an unnecessary goal. a zero deficit is an unnecessary goal if you think about the basic math of deficits and debt. the reason our debt has grown to such a significant level in this country is because for the last several years our deficits, as expressed as a

percentage of the economy, have exceeded the economic growth on an annual basis for the economy. and the math of that results in a growing debt which is problematic. and unless we change the direction of our debt, we will have little limited financial stability in the future. if we get our deficits to a rate below the rate of growth in the economy, then definitionally, the debt in this country will go down. and most experts agree that we should be targeting deficits of 1% to 2% and economic growth of at least 2% to 3%. that will cause our debt to go down to historical levels and give this country the financial flexibility that it needs. so if you seek an unrealistic goal or if you seek the wrong goal in budgeting and forecasting, you are forced to overcorrect. and there are two ways to overcorrect in budgets. or at least in the federal budget. the first way you can overcorrect is to raise taxes

to an excessive level. the second way you can overcorrect is to cut spending to unrealistic levels. mr. ryan, obviously, doesn't choose to raise taxes. in fact, he cuts taxes which is, again, an unusual and puzzling conclusion, particularly in -- based on the fact that our tax revenues as a percentage of the economy across the last several years have been lower than the historical 50-year average for this country. so to be thinking we should be cutting taxes against that backdrop is a puzzling decision. but since he chooses to cut taxes, he's then forced to overcorrect on the spending side. and to put this into perspective in very, very simple perspective, the ryan budget takes discretionary spending, things like education, infrastructure, investments in basic medical research, to 1.7% of our economy. and this in the context of an historical average for these same investments of 3%.

so effectively -- and we can't really talk about growing or shrinking numbers in absolute dollars. we always have to talk about these numbers if we can't any kind of budget integrity in terms of a percentage of the economy, he effectively cuts in half our investments in infrastructure, education and basic medical research as a percentage of the economy as compared to the 50-year average. that's the overcorrection he does because he's trying to achieve a goal that is both unrealistic and unnecessary. and it's not clear to me, mr. speaker, as someone who spent his whole career in the private sector building companies how anyone with reasonable cognitive abilities would think in light of the challenges this country faces to create jobs, as we discussed, to compete in a global economy and to transform our economy based on what's happening with technology, that it is the right answer, that it is the right answer to cut our investments in research, in infrastructure and education by half. that is the fundamental flaw in

the analytical framework that is embedded behind mr. ryan's budget, which only reinforces my conclusion that this is a political document. this is not a substantive document. this is not a document that was created by looking at the facts, thinking about economics, understanding how deficits and debt interrelates and what we need to actually make this country competitive, create jobs and put ourselves -- long-term fiscal fiscally sound trajectory. so i yield back to my colleague, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: may i inquire how much time both parties has? the chair: the gentleman from texas has 11 1/2 minutes remaining and the gentlelady from new york has six minutes emaining. mr. brady: all the predictions of doom around glom, truth is, the really budget -- gloom, the trute is the republican budget grows by 3% over the next decade. doesn't slipping, it grows. because the population grows and so that makes sense. it does cut wasteful spending.

and there's a lot of wasteful spending to cut. more importantly, it grows the economy. and tackles the biggest challenges america has, which is a broken tax code. this resolution begins to rein in the i.r.s. this budget begins to save social security and medicare for families and younger generations so we can count on -- so they can count on them. and makes sure we don't hollow out our defense. this is the only budget that balls. and more importantly, it's the only budget that says, that's not enough. it begins to pay down the national debt and it says, our goal in america will be to have a debt-free america. i mean, think about that. after all these years of dangerous deficits, america could be debt free. economically the strongest in the world, financially the strongest in the world. but today if we don't change course, look what happens. today a baby born in the

woodlands, texas, their share of the debt is already almost $50,000. a new baby owes uncle sam a lexus. if we don't change our ways, by the time they're 13, that child will owe uncle sam a second lexus. by the time it's 22, beginning to go -- they're finishing college, beginning to start their life and live their dreams, they'll owe uncle sam another lexus. the good news is young people don't actually buy luxury sedans for the federal government but they pay the price in a very different way. all that debt slows the economy. so there will be fewer jobs for them to compete for. and all that debt means higher taxes and higher interest rates. so they'll have fewer jobs to compete for and they'll have less money in their paycheck as a result. our democratic friends say that's fine to stay the course. let's not change anything. the economy's great, our deficits, fantastic.

our country is going the right direction. but that is not the truth in america today. we need to spend less as a government in a smart way, we need to grow the economy in a strong way, we can't ignore the challenges facing us, we have to save medicare and social security. this is the budget that grows america's future, doesn't shrink it, this is the budget that america needs. we can't afford to stay the course. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. maloney: i yield myself one minute. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. maloney: the gentleman from the great state of texas says that the republicans have been cutting the deficit. but the facts are different. under president clinton we created a stunning $22 -- 22 million jobs, left this country with a surplus. under george bush in eight years he only created 1.2 million jobs and left us with a

1.4 -- $1.4 trillion deficit. and in the five years that president obama's been in office, he's created 4.7 million jobs which is five times more than his predecessor did, and cut the deficit in half. so the record of cutting deficits is on the side of the democratic administrations and policies. i yield two minutes to a newly elected member from the great state of california, and this is mr. cardenas, he's a member of the budget committee, and i yield him two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. cardenas: thank you very much and i've owned a business and i know what it's like to be a job creator in this country. and i'm very proud of it. this week house democrats introduced our budget alternative, a budget dedicated to priorities of the american people. creating jobs, raising new ladders of opportunity and building an economy that works for everyone. it's in stark contrast to the broken priorities of the ryan budget. the ryan budget will take

$2,000 more in taxes away from american families. that's working class families, without closing one tax loophole for the corporate rich. the ryan budget is an attack on seniors, students, workers and middle class families, all for the sake of protecting loopholes for the wealthy and special interests. the budget will have a devastating impact on jobs. republicans would lay waste to our commitments to education, life-saving medical research, clean energy, modern infrastructure and high-tech manufacturing. the ryan budget will cripple our growth and surrender the future of jobs for american kids' jobs to other nations like china, india and russia. the ryan budget devastates our middle class. it even rejects comprehensive immigration reform. the ryan budget denies people the important bipartisan legislation that would create 120,000 american jobs each year for the first 10 years should that legislation be passed and

empowers small businesses to spur innovation, supercharge the economy and reduce the deficit by over $900 billion. the ryan budget is nothing less than a job-killing recipe. democrats are strengthening the middle class, embracing economic growth and we want responsible deficit reduction. comprehensive immigration reform is investing in the future and creating jobs for our country, creating jobs for americans. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: yielding myself one minute, i might point out -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for a minute. mr. brady: did not leave this country with a deficit. speaker nancy pelosi and her democrat colleagues left this nation with a deficit. and it continued to grow the first year of their governance, the deficit doubled. the second year it tripled. then it went to trillion dollars, trillion dollars, trillion dollars and only under the republican house have we started to cut the growth and the deficit today. the truth is, on immigration

reform democrats held the presidency, the house and the senate and they did nothing. when it comes to reducing the deficit they held the house, the senate and the white house, they did nothing. when it comes to grow the economy and give the middle class a fighting chance, they held the house and the senate and the presidency and did nothing. let's not stay the course. because that's got us going the wrong direction. we need to change it. the republican budget does that. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. maloney: may i inquire how much time remains? the chair: the gentlelady has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. and the gentleman from texas has eight minutes remaining. mrs. maloney: i yield such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. maloney: i'd like to yield to the distinguished whip on the democratic side, steny hoyer from the great state of maryland. the chair: how much time? how much time do you yield to

the gentleman? mrs. maloney: as much time as he may consume. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for as much time as he may consume. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: i was sitting in my office downstairs and i heard mr. brady, mr. speaker, make the extraordinary claim that it was the pelosi leadership that led to the doubling of deficits. i would remind the gentleman, as he ought to know and i'm sure he does know, not a single economic plan was pass aed in 2007 or 2008 that changed the bush economic plan. not a single bill. and to make the assertion that the deepest recession he and i have experienced, mr. speaker, in our lifetimes, which occurred under the bush administration with bush economic policies, was somehow the responsibility of a pelosi-led congress is absolutely absurd, incorrect and the gentleman ought to know

better. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: yielding myself as much time as i may consume. i know the facts hurt. i know they hurt, mr. whip. the deficit doubled the first year under speaker pelosi and your leadership. the deficit tripled the second year under your leadership. and every year that president obama -- the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman from texas has the time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: i know the facts hurt. i know these deficits hurt real people. and i know the democrats now want to revise history. they didn't create the deficits, they didn't create this slow economic recovery, everything's going great. but it's not. you created record deficits, you took what was turning into lower and lower deficits, a trend to the balanced budget, and you exploded it and our american families are hurting today. millions more can't find a job.

young people with college degrees are working behind a cash register. the deficits are frightening and scaring america. it came under democratic leadership, it's continued under the democratic presidency. i know the facts hurt but those are the facts. i reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. i remind the members to direct their remarks to the chair. mrs. maloney: i yield myself 30 additional seconds followed by 30 seconds from the great leader from the great state of maryland. the chair: the gentlelady is for 30 seconds. mrs. maloney: the facts speak for themselves. george bush's administration left us with a $1.4 trillion deficit. they cut taxes, led us into two wars and they blew the deficit. look at the democratic deficit. we had a surplus from bill clinton and president obama halfed the deficit. i yield to -- i reserve the balance of my time and reserve to the distinguished gentleman

from maryland. the chair: how much time? mrs. maloney: 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. hoyer: tell the gentleman from texas, i do know the statistics. 800,000 jobs lost in the month, the last month of the bush administration. 800,000 in one month. the worst job production since herbert hoosker under the bush administration -- hoover under the bush administration. yes, this administration has had tough times because we inherited such a struggling, devastated economy from the bush administration. the gentleman knows those figures are accurate. and he ought to admit those facts. the budget deficit went up 87% under george bush. when he inherited a balanced budget. he inherited a balanced budget. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hoyer: the gentleman ought to be truthful with the american people, mr. speaker, an i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: granting myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. brady: the president doesn't allocate funding. he doesn't spend one dime congress doesn't give him. a republican congress balance aed the budget for president clinton. and under president bush a democrat congress doubled, then tripled, then went to trillion-dollar deficits. this congress, your legislative branch, you passed a nearly trillion-dollar stimulus without one republican vote. you passed trillion dollars of affordable care act that's continued to destroy the economy and drive deficits even higher. that is the truth. those are the facts. i know they hurt. but we're not revising history today. we're talking about changing the course of this country away from deficits, away from the second-rate economy, toward a country that actually can grow and grow stronger. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. and i again remind members to direct their remarks to the

chair. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. maloney: i yield to the distinguished whip 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. hoyer: unfortunately we don't have the time. but i would like to take the time at some point in time to discuss the facts with the gentleman from texas and i will take a special order out to do exactly that, to discuss the economic success of democratic administrations and republican administrations in bringing down the deficit. let me say further, i will repeat to the gentleman, no change in the bush economic program was affected in 2007 and 2008 because george bush was the president and would have vetoed anything we passed. so the representation to the contrary, mr. speaker, is inaccurate. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. brady: mr. speaker, yield myself 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. brady: mr. whip, i am your hurricaneleberry. i'll be glad to have that debate with you in a special order or anywhere else. the fact is, this country is

struggling, your leadership has failed us as a democrat governance in this white house. it is time to change course. i would like to yield one minute to my friend from ohio, mr. jordan. mr. jordan: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. again, the chair would remind members to direct their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mr. jordan: i thank the chair and i thank the gentleman for yielding. i say, when do you stop blaming the former president? for goodness sakes, we're in the fourth year of the obama presidency. here's the problem. they're talking about the wrong republican -- the fifth year of -- the first year of ronald reagan's second term, the growth rate in this -- this economic growth rate was 7.5%. for goodness sakes, quit blaming -- ronald reagan was able to turn things around. we're meandering around, balancing things around at a 2%

growth rate. we could do so much better if we had the right policies in place. that's the point the gentleman is making. quit blaming george bush. we're in the fifth year of the obama president sifment if you want to look to a comparison, fifth year of ronald reagan's presidency, a 7.5% growth rate. i yield back. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. maloney: may i inquire how much time remains? the chair: the gentlelady has one minute remaining and the gentleman from texas has 4 1/2 minutes remaining. mrs. maloney: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for as much time as she may consume. mrs. maloney: mr. chairman, our economy is recovering from the depths of the great recession, but for too many americans are left behind and this budget kicks them even further back with draconian cuts. we were sent here to create jobs, not eliminate them. and according to the congressional budget office, the ryan austerity plan would slow our economy and cost us jobs over the next three years.

mr. chairman, the republican budget would make life harder for the vulnerable americans from cradle to grave. it represents a choice to be less except tiff and less compassionate. voting for this budget is voting to slow our recovery, lower our hopes and dim our dreams. it's not a budget. it's a retreat and americans deserve better. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this draconian republican budget. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: i would be glad if my colleague and the gentlelady if you would like to make your concluding remarks or have you done so? mrs. maloney: i have made my -- within the time frame we had. mr. brady: i'll close out as well, thank you. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for 4 1/2 minutes. mr. brady: mr. speaker, if you like the direction the country's going, i guess

there's no reason to change. you know, if you want young people who don't believe they earn as much or have a standard of living as their parents do, let's just stay the course. if we want a nation, second rate economy where millions of people have given up looking for work, where the average family is missing over $1,000 every month from their paycheck, let's just stay the course. you know, if we want a nation that continues to add debt and debt and debt and debt, we are becoming financially weaker than financially stronger, then let's stay the course. if you want a lot of medicare and social security, a lot of younger people have given up hope will be there for them, and many seniors are worried won't last for them either, well, then let's just stay the course. and if we want a president who will hallow out our defense and our intelligence, who will continue to waste money, taxpayers have earned, then let's just stay that course.

or we can take a different direction for this nation. we can impose smart spending cuts that actually get us back toward a balanced budget. we can grow the economy to tax reform and balance regulation that actually gets main street pumping again, gives people hope again. we believe there's a brighter future for america. but first it starts with living within our means. it begins with growing this economy. it concludes with increasing the wages of women and men and fathers and sons and young people and women and minorities who now today have given up hope. the republican budget is about opportunity. it's about not giving up on america. it's about not settling for a second-rate economy and a financially strapped nation that can no longer compete

against china and brazil and europe and our other competitors around the world. it really is about changing the direction of this nation in a way that gives power to people, that gives power to main street, gives power to middle-class families rather than taking it all for washington. we know the path we're on isn't working. we can no longer stay the course. it's time to change. the republican budget spends less, grows the economy, solves the biggest challenges in america and gives us hope that america can continue to be the strongest economy in the world through the next 100 years. that's the goal america should be setting. that's the direction the republican budget puts in place. it uses two smart, i think, revolutionary ideas, dynamic scoring so we know the real-life of our growth. it focuses on controlling spending as a percentage of our economy.

that's the right way to measure how we're doing as a nation. and it uses a number of innovative approaches, again, to grow the economy, to shrink the deficit. and what i like most of all, it doesn't merely balance the budget, it puts us on a path to a debt-free america. that's something that can give us hope. that can give us opportunity. that's the direction we ought to go. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to the rule, the concurrent resolution shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule and is considered as read. no amendment shall be in order except those printed in house report 113-405. each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent. the adoption of an amendment in the nature of a substitute

shall constitute the conclusion of consideration of any concurrent resolution for amendment. after conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment, there shall be a final period of general debate which shall not exceed 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the budget committee. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 113-405. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. mulvaney: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 113-405 in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. mulvaney of south carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 544, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney, and a member opposed, will each control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. mr. mulvaney: thank you, mr. chairman. i reserve such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as

he may consume. mr. mulvaney: thank you, mr. chairman. it's good to be back this year to once again offer the president's budget as an amendment to the republican budget. it's the president's budget that i'll be offering, again, this year. you may recall, mr. chairman, i did this two years ago in an effort to try and drive a debate over what i thought was a misguided document, a document that the president had offered us that i thought offered bad ideas for the future of this country. i came in, offered it as an amendment as none of my democratic colleagues sought to do so and for various reasons failed to get a single vote on that particular amendment. my colleagues at that time, mr. chairman, took the position that my amendment really was not the president's budget. in hindsight, there were things we could have tightened up and we did. we tightened up all the loose ends. we specifically referenced the president's budget in this amendment. it is the president's budget. last year i tried and do it again. last year i came in with a blank piece of paper because the president had not offered his budget in a timely fashion

as required by law. perhaps rightly so i was ruled out of order. we did not have a chance to vote on that particular amendment last year. the president has solved that problem for us this year. still a little late but at least we have the president's budget now in time to debate it here on the floor during budget week and i'm looking forward to doing that. i'm looking forward to doing that, mr. chairman, because this budget does a lot of things that i disagree with. it does a lot of things that folks on the other side may agree with, but i think it merits a debate. anytime the president of the united states takes the time and the energy to produce a budget, i think it at least merits 20 minutes of debate on the floor of the house of representatives. i look forward to doing that today. i look forward to having my friends defend a budget that does things such as continuing the affordable care act, adopting immigration reform, supporting common corps, creating a new infrastructure bank, creating a $1 billion climate fund, increasing airport fees on passengers, making pell grants a mandatory

spending program, creating a preschool program for everybody, increasing duck stamp fees, extending emergency unemployment compensation, increasing costs for tricare on our veterans and extending the federal health benefit programs to same-sex partners. i think it's a valid discussion that we should have every year. i was very glad to learn, by the way, that i am not the first person to do this. i was talking to the gentleman from texas, mr. barton, who did this with the -- with president reagan's budget back in the 1980's. i'd like to see it become a regular feature in the house and i look forward to the debate as we go forward today. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? mr. van hollen: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in approximate opposition to the gentleman's amendment. -- in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. you know some things never change. as the gentleman from south carolina said, he offered this political stunt two years ago and it's no less of a political

stunt today than it was two years ago. mr. chairman, i'm a strong supporter of the president's budget and of the president's policies. this is not a vote on the president's budget and his policies. you know what, i wish it were. i wish the speaker of this house would bring up the president's proposal to shut down those tax incentives that actually encourage multinational corporations that ship american jobs overseas and instead use some of those savings to invest in jobs here at home. i wish the speaker of this house would let us vote on that president's policy. i wish the speaker of this house would bring up the bipartisan immigration bill. one has already passed the senate. we have a version over here in the house. mr. speaker, let's vote on that president's policy. i wish the speaker of the house would let us vote on the president's minimum wage proposal to make sure that more

eople would be able to prosper in our economy. we haven't had a vote on that. mr. speaker, i wish that we could have a vote on the president's proposal to extend emergency unemployment compensation. the senate's passed that. let's have a vote over here. so this is a political stupt just like it was before -- stunt just like it was before. by the way, the white house sees it as a political stunt this year just as they were right to call it that the other year. this is in fact the president's budget. right here. right here. this is it, mr. chairman. now, it's interesting to hear our republican colleagues who claim to be in favor of transparency, accountability, saying this is the president's budget and then allocating 10 minutes per side, right? i thought we didn't want -- we didn't even want to take up

1,000-plus-page bills. we don't want to take those up, and yet now supposedly we're going to debate and vote on something that o-- that is over 2,000 pages, less time on the president's budget than on any of the other proposals before the house? give me a break. if this was serious it would be a total abuse of process. in fact, the congressional budget office hasn't even had a chance, mr. chairman, to evaluate and score the president's budget yet, right, so you got the house republican budget, you got the democratic budget, all those were written to c.b.o. but c.b.o. hasn't had a chance to go through that this quickly. i'm surprised to hear the gentleman thinks the house can go through this in 20 minutes. so let's not play games. the white house has made clear if you want to support the president's priorities and the framework of the president's budget going forward, you

should support the democratic alternative which i'll offer tomorrow. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. mulvaney: i'd offer two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. scalise -- excuse me, the gentleman from louisiana. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the gentleman from south carolina for bringing this budget forward. in fact, this is president obama's budget. i wouldn't be surprised if president obama referred to his budget as a political stupt. if you look at the history of president obama's budget, which he's legally required to file every year, he's in the sixth year of his presidency. do you know that five of those six years, president obama failed to meet the legal deadline to file his budget? during that five out of six-year period, every single year of those six years, president obama made time to fill out his final four brackets. his final four brackets do about as good as his budget

does for the country, because if you look at the president's budget, which we're here debating, and i'm speaking against, as my friend from south carolina is, the president shows his priorities for the country. we want to get our economy going again. what does president obama do? president obama raises over $1 trillion in new taxes, job-crushing taxes that will pull our economy even further back than he's already brought. but you would think, if you listen to liberal orthodoxy that that $1 trillion is going to get us to a balanced budget, right? they always say they need more money in form of taxes to balance the budget. but look what happens. mr. chairman, the president's budget never, ever gets to balance. with over $1 trillion in new taxes that he takes out of this economy, killing jobs across america, never gets to balance. our budget that we're bringing forward does not raise a dime in new taxes and in fact gets to balance within the 10-year

window which underscores the difference in our vision for the country. we show, we show through real policy that actually controlling spending in washington, forcing washington to live within its means is what gets our economy moving again and what gets us to balance. president obama proves with his own budget that with over $1 trillion in new job-crushing taxes he never ever gets to balance. but, again, five out of the president's six years in office, only one time has he actually met the legal deadline to file his budget. he's always met the deadline to make his final four picks. i think he's shown what his priorities are. we're showing ours. i'd urge a no vote on president obama's budget and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i mean, the gentleman referred to the house republican budget a couple times. i just remind my colleagues that the house republican budget claims the to balance in 10 years. it also claims to get rid of all of the affordable care act, all of obamacare.

but the reality is it has over $2 trillion of revenues and savings from the affordable care act. here's what the heritage foundation had to say about the budget. perhaps the mrs. biggert:est shortcoming of this budget is -- perhaps the biggest shortcoming of this budget is that it keeps the tax revenues associated with obamacare. they say they're repealing all of the affordable care act. both things cannot be true. now, what is it true about the house republican budget is the priorities it reflects. and once again it protects and rigs special interest tax breaks for very powerful groups at the expense of the rest of the country. so, yes, as i indicated earlier, the president has proposed that we get rid of some of the tax breaks that actually have a perverse incentive for companies to ship jobs overseas, to close those tax breaks, use that revenue to invest in our infrastructure and help power our economy

right here at home. but from a republican colleague's perspective, oh, no, you can't cut one special interest tax break. not for hedge fund owners, not for big oil companies, uh-uh, can't do that. but you know what you can do? you can come after the seniors' prescription drug benefit by reopening the doughnut hole, costing seniors another $1,00 a month. you can come after our kids' education, you can charge college students higher interests to raise about $40 billion, higher interest while they're still in schooler, before they get a job. you can do all that, but, hey, hands off the big special interests. so i'm glad that the previous speaker reminded us exactly what this republican budget does. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from south carolina. >> now i yield two minutes to the gentleman from south carolina. -- ohio. >> i thank the gentleman and the chair.

i rise in opposition like i assume everyone who speaks on this amendment is going to today. it's amazing the other party is -- everyone's opposed to it. here's what it does in simple -- cut to the chase it. hollows out national defense, raises trillions in new taxes over the next 10 years, add as about $8 trillion to the national debt, from $17 trillion to approximately $25 trillion, does all that, never, ever, ever getting to balance. and sometimes we talk about numbers. here's why it matters. in the end you think about what makes the country special. moms and dads making sacrifices so their kids is have a life better than they did. with this kind of vision this kind of budget, this kind of plan for where we're going to go, it's going to make it that much tougher for young people to get the opportunities they need to experience the american dream. and that's why it's so important. all those policies that the ranking member mentioned in his opening statement, they're in this budget. this is not a political stunt.

mr. jordan: this is just putting up with the president -- what the president says is actually going to make the country better. we know it's going to make the country worse. we're offering for the democrats to stand up and defend this and they won't. none of them are going to vote for this. i'd urge a no vote on this. it's the same old, same old. cut national defense, raise taxes, add to the debt, never, ever balance and continue to create this environment that's not conducive to economic growth. as a i said to the minority whip in an earlier debate, in the fifth year of ronald reagan's presidency, we were growing at 7.5%. here we are in the fifth year of the obama presidency, meandering along, bumping along at 2% growth rate. that's the big problem. this budget will continue that same poor economic performance and that's why we should vote against it. i thank the gentleman for bringing it to the floor. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: mr. chairman, i'd like to say i'm going to yield to the gentleman from massachusetts, but i will not at this time. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his

time. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. mulvaney: i reserve the balance and the right to close. the chair: the gentleman from maryland has the right to close. mr. mulvaney: then i'll take my last couple minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. mr. mulvaney: mr. chairman, my friend from maryland made a couple of different points. he said that he wishes he could vote for the things in the president's budget. i will say to him again here, i'll say to you, i'll say to anyone listening the same thing i said in the rules committee and the same thing i said the last three years. i keep waiting for one of my colleagues across the aisle to do exactly that. you think i want to be here offering the president's budget? if my colleagues across the aisle would like the opportunity to vote on the president's budget and the items that are contained in it, they have the ability to do so by simply offering this particular amendment. failing that, failing that, they will have that opportunity to hear today. because if you look at our amendment it specifically says that the budgetary assumptions underlying this concurrent resolution are based on the data and the policies in the

president's budget. it goes on to say, the concurrent resolution adopts and incorporates by references all that, policy provisions and information contain -- contained therein. everything that is in the president's budget is in this amendment. they have plenty of opportunity to vote on this. they could do it themselves, they could vote for what i have offered here today. lastly, i'll address the point, my good friend makes the point every single year that this is a political stunt. i want to tell a story as to why it's not. this year. and it's a real story. it happened to me, it happened to you, it happened to everybody here who represents folks back home. i got a letter, mr. chairman, from the social security administration telling me that they were closing the field offices in my district. by the way, they closed field offices in everybody's district. in the letter they said they did that because we had cut their budget by $1 billion for three years in a row. i'm no longer on the budget committee but as mr. van hollen knows, i used to serve on that

committee, and i don't remember us cutting the social security administration by $1 billion each of the last three years. so i wrote them a letter and said, you said you're closing the field offices in my district because we cut your budget. would you please provide me with evidence of that. and what they wrote back is a letter that said, we got $1 billion less from congress than the president asked for in his budget. they got more than they did the year before and more than they did the year before that. the actual money they had to spend went up. but because they didn't get what the president asked for in his budget, they closed the offices in our districts, that serve our constituents. this is a very important document. clearly the social security administration thinks it's an important document. it's at least important enough for us to vote on in the house of representatives. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time.

the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i -- mr. mulvaney: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: you yield back the balance of your time? the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: how much time remains? the chair: the gentleman has five minutes remaining. mr. van hollen: i thank you. the gentleman just mentioned the social security administration funds for operations. let me tell you, if you vote for the house republican budget today, you're going to be decimating the funds available for those kind of ongoing operations because they cut that part of the budget that allows for the administration, of the social security administration, and cut it big time. so, it's interesting to hear my colleague talk about the president's budget in that regard. but i would suggest he lookality the impact from the house republican budget. now, let me just say, mr. chairman, i indicated earlier, we would like to vote on the president's policies. we've been waiting a very long time to vote on comprehensive

immigration reform. in fact, we filed a discharge petition to do it. we'd like to vote on increasing the minimum wage. we filed the discharge petition to do it. we'd like to vote on emergency unemployment insurance. we filed a discharge petition on that. mr. speaker, the house has refused to allow democracy to work. and now we have what is clearly a stunt, as i said, i'm a supporter of the president's budget, supporter of the president's policy, but it's a stunt. the white house recognizes that it's a stunt. we'll have tomorrow, the democratic alternative, that has the support of the white house. but i still find it incredulous that our colleagues are telling us that they really are giving 10 minutes per side of debate to what they claim is before us which is 2,000 pages? right? these are our colleagues that went around the country calling for transparency and accountability. they really want members to vote on something that the

congressional budget office, the congressional budget office has not had a chance to score? apparently they're going to do it next week because they're in the process of looking through the president's budget. so you can't -- even if this were on the level, which it's not, you can't compare apples to apples without the congressional budget anal sills. so i'm so glad our republican colleagues were able to speed read through this thing in 10 minutes and make judgments. the good news for them is that's not the president's budget either. so, let's not play games, let's recognize that, as we debate these budgets we are debating the country's priorities. we're debating very different priorities and once again the house republican budget chooses to double down on reading the rules -- rigging the rules for very powerful special interests. if you're a millionaire you're going to get a 1/3 cut in your tax rate under the house republican budget. you know who's going to pay for

it? middle income taxpayers will have to pay more to finance that tax break for the wealthy. in fact, thsdz 2,000 -- $2,000 for a family with kids on average. you know who else is going to have to pay for that? our kids' education. early head start, head start, k-12, college kids. you know what else is going to pay? our competitiveness. as a country. because we're not going to make the investments that historically have helped power this country forward in the area of transportation and infrastructure. republican budget, you know when the trust fund goes insolvent? this summer. nothing in there, nothing in the republican budget to address that issue. ust down the tubes, insolvent. hopefully we'll have an opportunity to actually vote on the president's proposal. as i said, to eliminate some of the special interest tax breaks that encourage companies to move jobs overseas, close those down so we can invest in our

transportation right here at home. so, let's not fall for this political stunt. i mean, i have to believe that if my colleague seriously wanted to debate a 2,000-page document, that even they would agree that it merits more than 10 minutes. even they would agree that we should have the benefit of the congressional budget office analysis before we asked this body to take on that responsibility. so, let's not fall for a sham. let's reject the amendment by mr. mulvaney and then tomorrow let's vote in support of the democratic alternative. i thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time? mr. van hollen: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time is expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. mulvaney: on that i ask for

the taking of the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? mr. mulvaney: yes. the chair: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 113-405. for what purpose does the gentlelady from wisconsin seek reck fission? ms. moore: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 113-405 in the nature of a substitute offered by ms. moore of wisconsin. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 544, the gentlelady from wisconsin, ms. moore, and a member opposed will each control 15 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from wisconsin. ms. moore: thank you so much, mr. speaker. i'm so proud to be here today with my distinguished colleagues from the congressional black caucus to

present our budget for fiscal year 2015. we spent the last week, two weeks analyzing the house republican budget and you've heard here on this floor today the flaws in this budget, that it doesn't reflect the needs of our nation, that it achieves the deficit reduction by imposing more austerity provisions at the expense of our most vulnerable populations , it stifles economic growth and our ability to compete on a global scale. but instead of just criticizing the majority's budget, the congressional black caucus once again has done the due diligence to put together a budget alternative which we believe meets the highest priorities of all americans. first of all, it reduces the eficit responsibly.

it constructs a meaningful job-creation package, something americans desperately needs. it invests in our infrastructure, education so we can grow our economy. it ends the ongoing threat of spending cuts due to sequestration. it raises revenue through the tax code fairly. we just cannot cut our way to prosperity. and finally, it extends a compassionate hand towards those who live in poverty, which is the signature of the heart of the congressional black caucus budget. mr. speaker, i'd like to now yield time to the chairwoman of the congressional black caucus, ms. marcia fudge. the chair: how much time? ms. moore: i'd like to yield two minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. s. fudge: thank you. i'm proposing a fiscally sound and morally responsible

alternative budget. the c.b.c. has a long history of introducing an alternative budget that protects and vests in programs that are vital -- and invests to programs that are vital to our community. we look to eradicate poverty in america by increasing economic opportunities through robust investments in infrastructure, education, affordable house, domestic manufacturing, job training. we do not believe the well-being of the most vulnerable in this nation must be sacrificed for us to remain on a path to economic recovery. the c.b.c. alternative budget for fiscal year 2015 remains true to the principle of opportunity for all. the ryan budget, on the other hand, completely misses the mark. it disregards the fact that millions of americans struggle to feed their families and find jobs. it requires the sacrifice of the most vulnerable, including the youngest and eldest among

us. the center of budget policy and priorities, some -- they said go to me 69% of the cuts the programs for those most in eed. contrasts sharply with the ryan budget's rhetoric about helping the poor and promoting opportunity. need i say more about that? to my colleagues in the house, the c.b.c. substitute budget is the best blueprint. let's build a stronger, better and more fiscally responsible america together. i encourage all of my colleagues to vote for the congressional black caucus budget. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for 15 minutes. mr. mcclintock: thank you. i yield myself six minutes. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for six minutes. mr. mcclintock: mr. chairman, the budget constitute offered by the congressional black

caucus is a good-faith effort to lift a growing portion of our population out of chronic poverty and despair, a goal all of us share. it attempts to do so over the next 10 years by raising $2.3 trillion of taxes on corporations and the wealthy and running up an additional $4.3 trillion of debt to increase overall federal to ing by $6.7 trillion fund so-called stimulus spending relative to the republican budget. my fear is that it will accomplish exactly the opposite of what it intends, harming the very people it's trying to help. now, let's start with some fundamentals on tax policy. first, we need to understand businesses do not pay business taxes. there are only three possible ways for business taxes to be paid. they're paid by consumers as higher prices.

they're paid by employees by lower wages, and they're paid by investors as lower earnings, your 401-k or your pension plan, for example. secondly, we need to understand what $1 trillion is. divided by the number of u.s. households, it comes to about $8,200 for every family in america. and as much as we like talking about taxing the wealthy, there aren't enough wealthy people in this country to make more than a dent in these numbers. indeed, many of the so-called wealthy are actually small businesses filing under subchapter s. raising taxes by $2.3 trillion ultimately then means that families on average will have $18,000 less to spend on their own needs that they will pay through higher prices in stores, through lower wages at work or as lower retirement savings. in addition, the c.b.c. budget would plunge our nation $4.3

trillion further into debt after 10 years, relative to the house republican budget. that's more than $35,000 per household. now, that's not a theoretical number. that amount plus interest will have to be paid back in future taxes just as surely as it appeared on your credit card statement. in fact, families will required to pay this debt back before they pay the credit card and the i.r.s. is quite insistent that they do. now that will not be direct taxes. it will be in lower wages and retirement savings for families, but make no mistake. it must all be paid back and families will bear that burden. now, let's look at the massive increase in spending designed to jump-start the economy. that policy has already failed us and failed us miserablely. and here's why. government cannot inject a single dollar into the economy

until it has first taken that dollar out of the economy. if i take a dollar from peter and give it to paul, it's true, paul is going to have an extra dollar to spend. he's going to take it into a store. the store keeper will order more inventory. the manufacture will order more resources and that dollar will ripple through the economy. but we have completely forgotten the other half of that equation. peter now has one less dollar to spend in that economy. one less dollar to ripple through it. so in the end we've not stim stimulated the economy at all -- stimulated the economy at all. that's why the trillions of dollars we've tried to stimulate the dollar have not worked. indeed, this does great damage to the economy because we're transferring huge amounts of capital from the productive sector which invests this money based on the highest economic return of a dollar to the public sector which invests based on the highest political return of the dollar. those are two very different things. indeed, that's the difference between fedex and the post office.

it's the difference between apple computer and solyndra. it's the difference between the reagan recovery and the obama recovery. so i beg my colleagues to reconsider. we tried these policies and they do not work. under this administration, we've seen record tax increases, record spending increases and record debt, and the result is tragic. the poverty rate for americans of african heritage has grown from 12% to 2008 to 16.1% today. median income for white households has declined 3.6% during this administration but has dropped 10.9% for african-american households. now, compare that to the reagan years when median income increased for all americans by 4.4% but grew 4.5% for african-american households. no one doubts the sin seert of the black caucus in bringing --

sincerity of the black caucus in bringing this substitute to the floor. there is an old saying you can't fix a broken bucket by pouring more water into it. at some point you have to fix the bucket. the house republican budget does this by reducing the tax and regulatory burdens that are choking investment and job creation and that are causing the long, cold winter that our country has endured. if we can't to see morning again in america, we need to restore the policies that have produced it before. and with thatt i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves his time. the gentlelady from wisconsin. ms. moore: thank you so much, mr. speaker. i'd like to now yield three minutes to assistant minority leader, jim clyburn. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for three minutes. mr. clyburn: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank the lady for yielding me this time. mr. speaker, i rise in support to the republican budget and in support of the alternative put forth by the congressional black caucus. put simply, the republican

budget is bad for seniors, bad for young people and bad for america's economic future. it may be a path to prosperity for the investor class in our society, but it's a path to permanent struggle for america's working families. the republican budget is a disaster for our senior citizens. it brings back the doughnut hole for medicare prescription drugs. we eliminated the doughnut hole with the affordable care act, but this republican budget brings it back. the republican budget ends the medicare guarantee of earned benefits and replaces it with a risky voucher scheme. american workers deserve the guarantee of earned benefits. this republican budget slashes

732 billion from medicaid. mr. speaker, 2/3 of medicaid funds serve seniors and disabled americans. the republican budget is a disaster for our children and young people. it guts head start and cuts school lunches and pell grants. this budget repeals the affordable care act provision that allows young people to stay on their parent's health plans until their 26th birthday. it allows discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions, like diabetes, heart disease and asthma. this republican budget rigs the system so that only the children of the well-off and well-connected can get ahead while the children of the less

well-off are consigned to a life of permanent struggle. this budget does not include immigration reform. in contrast, the c.b.c. budget continues our long history of fiscal soundness and moral responsibility. we make tough choices to secure our financial future. but we do not believe that the most vulnerable in our nation should be sacrificed on the alter of political expediency. the c.b.c. budget, focuses on eradicating poverty in america through robust investments in education, infrastructure, affordable housing, manufacturing and small business development. our budget targets funds through needed -- needy

communities. 10-20-30 our initiative requiring 10% of federal funds -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. cleaver: at least 10% of federal funds in certain accounts are directed to those that had a poverty rate of 20% or more for the last 30 years. mr. speaker, our budget should reflect our nation's values and establish what kind of future we want for our citizens. t is fundamentally unfair that 69% of the cuts in the republican budget come from services to low-income and hardworking americans. we can do better. we must do better. the c.b.c. budget is better. we should support it and reject the republican budget. i yield back. the chair: the time of the

gentleman has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mcclintock: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm now pleased to yield 2 1/2 minutes to the former governor and distinguished member from south carolina, mr. sanford. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. sanford: i thank my colleague. i rise in respectful opposition to the c.b.c. budget for the reasons that my colleague from california just enumerated but, as i listened to this debate over the last few minutes, you know, the ryan budget has been called a draconian budget, a phony budget, a heat seeking missile aimed at the american people, but what it has not een recognized as is a -- as a brave budget. gets ay that because it that what no other budget in this process gets at which is entitlement spending. the president's budget doesn't. the c.b.c. budget doesn't. the democratic alternative doesn't. the progressive budget doesn't. it's only this budget that really begins to address the

elephant in the room. so is it perfect? no. will i vote against some of the authorization appropriation bills that come along in its wake? i suspect yes. but it's been said that a journey of 1,000 miles begins with that first step, and to the credit of the ryan, the republican budget, it begins that first step at addressing entitlement reform in a way that has not been the case because to do nothing would indeed be to launch a heat seeking missile in the pocketbook, the wallet, the purse of every american as we await for the day of reckoning to occur which is 2025. 2025, there will only be enough money for interest and entitlements and nothing else so we can talk about all these other worthy programs, but without addressing that terminal date of 2025, we're in real trouble. i think there are particular problems with this amendment, as you look at taxes going up by $2.3 trillion, you look at spending going up by $6.7 trillion and you look at an

additional $4.3 trillion of debt, it says we have real problems but, again, the operative number is what happens to the value of our currency to future -- to future inflation and to the value of our savings if we do nothing which is, again, addressed in this ryan budget with the address of entitlement spending. to do nothing is indeed extreme and it's reckless. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from wisconsin. ms. moore: thank you so much, mr. speaker. i'm very happy now to yield three minutes to the leader of the congressional black caucus' budget task force, mr. scott. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i rise in support of the congressional black caucus budget which is a more credible and responsible alternative than the underlying republican budget. mr. chairman, the republican committee budget raises tax -- cuts -- starts off by cutting taxes by $4 trillion.

and claims it can be revenue-neutral. simple arithmetic therefore requires a $4 trillion tax a increase and the budget doesn't mention a word about where that money's going to come from, not a loophole closing or any other tax increase. and therefore the budget starts off with a $4 trillion hole in it. the budget then expects people to believe that they'll make $4 trillion in cuts, by repealing the affordable care act provisions for tax credits and medicaid changes that have resulted in millions of people getting insurance for the first time, they're going to lose that coverage. do they think that's going to happen? do they think they're going to be able to increase the age of edicare for medicare recipients and reopen the doughnut hole? do they think they're going to be able to make the cuts in the budget and medicaid, denying access to health care to millions of low-income americans, requiring millions

to lose their nursing home coverage? we know that that's not credible. neither is it credible that the over $10000 billion in cuts to -- $100 billion in cuts to food assistance, that's not credible. they ended up with $8 billion cut, now they say, well, all of a sudden we can do $100 billion. the budget fails to say where the other cuts are going to come from, whether it's going to come from education or job training or research or transportation. you have unspecified cuts and to the extent that they're unspecified, that's $4 trillion, isn't going to happen. so they have a $4 trillion hole in revenue, they have a $4 trillion hole in spending cuts. $8 trillion hole in their budget. you can talk about it being balanced but until you come up with the specifics of where that $8 trillion is going to come from, it's just not a serious budget. in stark contrast, the congressional black a caucus

budget puts numbers on the page. we show our math, we show not only that we can raise $2 trillion in revenues, we show where it can come from by laying out over $4 trillion in options. specifics. not $4 trillion unspecified, but $4 trillion specified. $2 trillion needed to make the budget. we eliminate sequestration, we propose a $500 billion jobs package that will end the recession by putting millions back to work and approximately $400 billion for an antipoverty initiative that will restore cuts to the social safety net and enable people to get job training in education, to make them able to work their way out of poverty. mr. speaker, this is a simple, straightforward arithmetic with the other -- can i have 20 additional seconds? the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 20 seconds. mr. scott: our budget calls for policy changes and

comprehensive immigration reform, public options for health care and others and it will be scored at a $1.8 trillion real, live reduction in the deficit compared to the c.b.o. baseline. our budget is a credible, job creating alternative to the unrealistic, draconian plan offered by our republican colleagues. which has an $8 trillion hole in it. i ask you to support the congressional black caucus budget. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mcclintock: thank you, mr. chairman. it's been the honor of a lifetime to serve on the budget committee under the leadership of our gished -- distinguished chairman, paul ryan, to whom i yield such time as he may consume. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. ryan: i thank the gentleman and i want to thank the c.b.c. for offering a budget. i think that's what's important that's happening here, people are coming to the floor of congress, offering their ideas and solutions. and one of the things that they're so clearly concerned about, that they have their method of dealing with in the budget, is what do you do about poverty? this is something that we're

also deeply concerned about. and a year ago we decided to look at our strategies from the federal government's perspective on fighting poverty. because after all, we're in the 50th year, the 50th anniversary of the so-called war on poverty. we wanted to say, is there a good accounting of all those federal poverty programs that we can look at to see, you know, if they're working well, if they need updating, because after all, they were put in place largely in the mid to late part of the 20th century. no such accounting occurred. so we spent the last year looking through all these programs, looking at all the audits and the general accountability office reports and the inspector general reports and outside academics' opinions of these things. and we took it altogether and we realized that the federal government has nearly 100 programs aimed at fighting poverty, spending about $800 billion a year doing so, and look at the results.

we have the highest poverty rate in a generation. deep poverty is the highest on record. 46 million people are living in poverty. and so we're asking ourselves, does one more program from the department of health and human services, is that going to do the trick all of a sudden? it's not working. and so our concern is that we've moved from a war on eradicating poverty to simply treating the symptoms of poverty, to make it more tolerable. to manage poverty. we're measuring our success, and this is how this debate always goes, based upon how much money we throw at programs, based on inputs, not based on outcomes. how many people are we truly getting out of poverty? as we look at these programs, the best thing we should do is go and listen to people who are

fighting poverty. go listen to people who have successfully fought poverty. i got up real early monday morning and went to a low-income neighborhood in indianapolis, indiana, to learn from people who are successfully fighting poverty. who are really doing amazing ings, seeing potential and great lives realizing their potential. we can learn a lot by getting out of this town, by finding out what works and getting behind them and helping make sure what works continues. but if we suffocate this debate with more one-size-fits-all, with more washington-knows-best, with one more program, you know, the 93rd one's going to be the charm, then we're not going to get at the root cause of the problem. the goal here is to get at the root cause of the problem and to break the cycle of poverty. there's a lot we all need to learn about this and hopefully what we're accomplishing here

in our budget is letting people who are closer to the problem have a little more flexibility, a little more discretion so that they can customize and tailor solutions to meet the unique and particular needs of the people in their communities who are actually striving and fighting poverty. one more point. when we stack all these points on top -- these programs on top of each other, we have done something inadvertently in this government and that is we have built barriers toward self-sufficiency. we have made it harder for a rational person to leave benefits and go into work because they lose more when they do that. we've got tax rates, single moms making less than $40,000 a year with kids that are like 80%. meaning, you go to work, you lose more in benefits than you gain going to work. we have to do something about that. that should not be a republican-democrat thing, that's just plain old economics. and so i think we need to

rethink our approach and not measure it based on inputs, not measure it based on how much money we can throw at programs, but measure it based on what's working, who's doing a good job, how can we support them, how can we learn and listen from them? oh, and why don't we start measuring success based on outcomes? that's what we're trying to achieve. we've got a long ways to go but i hope that that's the kind of conversation we can get to and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from wisconsin. ms. moore: thank you so much, mr. speaker. i am so pleased at this time -- first, may i inquire how much time i have remaining? the chair: the gentlelady has 4 3/4 minutes. ok.moore: i'm so happy at this time to yield to the chair of the democratic whip's task force on

poverty and opportunity and also a distinguished member of the budget committee, representative barbara lee. the chair: how much time? ms. moore: two minutes, i'm sorry, sir. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. lee: thank you very much. first let me thank congresswoman moore for your very bold leadership on the budget committee and also for leading us today in this debate and to, of course, congressman bobby scott, the chair of our congressional black caucus, just want to thank you all for bringing forth really what is a very pro-american budget and i rise in strong support of the congressional black caucus budget. i just have to say, chairman ryan and i, we constantly talk about how to lift people out of poverty and i have to say that his poverty report, and i just have to respond to what he said, because we know that the war on poverty and the programs and the safety nets, they have worked. they have saved millions and millions of people from falling into the ranks of the poor and have lifted people out of poverty. if we raise the minimum wage right now, these single moms that you talk about who rely on

food stamps and medicaid because they can't get a decent living wage, yeah, they would be very happy and i think the country would be have a lot better if in fact we raised the minimum wage which of course the congressional black caucus budget promotes and allows for and invests in terms of job creation and in terms of ensuring that the safety net is preserved. instead of ending subsidies for big oil, tax breaks for corporate jets, tax breaks for companies that cite offshore, the republican budget cuts at least $125 million from snap. in stark contrast, the c.b.c. budget provides $388 billion to eradicate poverty in america, restoring cuts to snap, extending unemployment insurance and targeting resources to those most in need. our budget also addresses health disparities and protects and strengthens social security, medicare and medicaid

, restoring the cuts the ryan budget would make. this budget provides $230 billion to revitalize our nation's infrastructure and create's 500 billion jobs to accelerate -- excuse me, 500 billion jobs to our initiatives in our budget to accelerate the nation's economic recovery, include youing seven billion in a summer jobs program. a budget is a moral document. it reflects who we are as a country. the c.b.c.'s budget reflects the best of american values. i urge a yes vote on this balanced, pro-growth, pro-jobs budget. finally, it ends the overseas contingency account. this perpetual spending on war needs to end. nation building at home must begin. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mcclintock: mr. chairman, we're ready to close when the gentlelady is. the chair: the gentleman from california has the right to close. the gentlelady from wisconsin is recognized is recognized -- is recognized. ms. moore: thank you very much,

mr. speaker. i am so pleased at this time to introduce and yield time to a freshman on the budget committee, mr. jeffries, who's been a great member. the chair: how much time? ms. moore: two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. jeffries: i thank the distinguished gentlelady, my good friend from the badger state, for her leadership. mr. speaker, 50 years ago president lindsen baines johnson came to this very chamber and declared a war on poverty. and as a result of the legislative efforts that were brought about in connection with the great society vision, tens of millions of americans were lifted out of an impoverished condition and set on a trajectory toward the middle class. but the c.b.c. is here today because we recognize that there's still a lot of work that needs to be done. particularly in the aftermath of the collapse of the economy, the great recession, the worst economic condition since the great depression.

that is why the c.b.c. budget invests in the american economy, invests in job training and education, invests in transportation and infrastructure, invests in research and development, invests in affordable housing, invests in creating manufacturing jobs. the c.b.c. budget would renew unemployment compensation. in order to make sure that the long-term unemployed who are collateral damage of the great recession can get back into the mainstream of our economy. the c.b.c. budget will give america a raise to $10.10 per hour, by lifting the minimum wage. help grow that will the economy, because we have a consumer demand problem and as a result of the increase in spending, resulting from the minimum wage increase, everybody in america will enefit. and the c.b.c. does this in a

fiscally responsible way that will reduce the deficit but it does it in a manner that won't balance the budget on the backs of working families, middle class folks, senior citizen, the poor and the afflicted, and that's not even an exhaustive list of what the ryan budget does. so i'm urging all our colleagues to vote yes on the c.b.c. alternative, invest in america, invest in our economy and invest in our workers. i yield back. the chair: the time the gentlelady has -- gentleman has expire thetched gentlelady has 45 seconds remaining. ms. moore: thank you to my colleagues in the congressional black caucus who have worked hard on this budget. we obviously don't have time to continue this conversation on poverty, and i think that there's much to talk about since we shouldn't blame poverty prame -- programs or blame the poor but we need to look at inequality, the state of our economy, and an unfair tax code.

indeed, 2007 and 1928 two year this is a ushered in the great depression and the great recession chronicled the highest nequality in our country and that might impact talk about where our budget priorities ought to be. i yield back and i urge my colleagues to vote for the congressional black caucus budget. the chair: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, it's human nature to claim our briefs have been proven by our experience. mr. mcclintock: but sooner or later two of -- we have to acknowledge from our own experience that certain policies work and certain policies don't whether they're tried by republicans or democrats.

my democratic colleagues are right to praise the clinton administration's handling of the economy but we must ask, what were those policies? in 1995, he announced that the era of big government is over. working in cooperation with the republican congress, they reduced federal spending by amy rack louse 4% of g.d.p. they enacted what amounted to the biggest capital gains tax cut in american history. they reformed entitlement spend big abolishing the open ended welfare. is they produced four budget surpluses in a row. and the economy flourished and expanded for all americans. and my colleagues are also right to heap scorn on george w. bush's handology they have economy but we have to ask again, what were those policies? he increased federal spend big 2% of g.d.p. he enacted the biggest expansion of entitlement spending since the great society. he began the era of stimulus

spending he ran up record deficits. don't my colleagues say they're advocating the same policy this is a got us into this mess. my objection to president obama is not that he changed president bush's policies but that he hasn't changed them. he's taken the worst of them and doubled down on. the c.b.c. substitute takes us further down the path of doubt and debt and despair. in 1862, the -- abraham lincoln sent this message to the congress and i think that they are words meant for us today he said the dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. the occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise with the occasion. as our cause is new, so must we think anew and act anew. we must disenthrall ourselves and then we will save our country. i invite my colleagues to think

anew and act anew, to return to the policies of individual liberty, constitutionally producedovernment that the most prosperous, happy, free society in history. freedom works and it's time that we put it and our country back to work. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from wisconsin. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the gentlelady from wisconsin. ms. moore: thank you, mr. speaker, i request a roll call vote. the chair: a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from wisconsin will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number three printed in house report 113-405. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek

recognition? >> thank you, mr. chairman, i rise as the designee of the gentleman from minnesota to offer amendment number three, the congressional progressive caucus better off budget. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number three printed in house report 113-405 in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. grijalva of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 544, the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, and a member opposed will each control 15 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you again, mr. chairman. the congressional progressive caucus brings to the house a budget that is a blueprint for economic growth and opportunity for all americans. in the course of the last few weeks and certainly the last few days we have heard over and over from our colleagues and various -- in various hearings and here on the floor about the growth gap in america. and the policies that are being

reinforced in the ryan budget, in my estimation, created that growth gap. but we are here today with a budget that assures we deal with all the gaps the american people have. income inequality gap. wage disparity gap. education gap. minimum wage gap. the gender pay gap between men and women. and the job gap that is present in our country at this point. the best way to get out of poverty is to go to work. everybody knows that our budget within three years creates 8.8 million jobs. with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 15 minutes. mr. price: thank you, mr. chairman. the abbreviated remarks by my friend the chair of the congressional progressive caucus belie the challenge before us with this budget.

the congressional progressives, the far left in the house, don't disappoint with the budget they bring to the floor today. what's the top line? taxes. increasing taxes by 6.-- by $6.6 trillion over current policy. spending. increasing spending by $3.3 trillion over current policy. what about that all-important issue of defense in a very dangerous world? $7 billion increase. $7 billion increase at a time when our nation is seeing significant and increasing threats. does it ever come into balance? never. never does this budget come into balance. one would think that given the challenge this is a we have from the debt, the $17-plus trillion an , that this would be irresponsible budget and that would be correct. taxes, relative to the republican budget this increases akes $6.6 trillion over 10

years. this caucus budget has trillions of dollars in tax increases focused on penalizing those creating wealth and creating jobs in this country this budget would decrease the number of jobs available. these are tax policies that are motivated out of a notion of, quote, fairness, but a warped notion of fairness, where the tax code's primary purpose is to redistribute income and equalize outcomes. these policies would clearly end up hampering growth and job creation. what about spending? mr. chairman, this budget that's being proposed spends a happen withing $8.4 trillion more than the republican budget. $.4 trillion. as if we had it growing on trees. it doubles down on the obama administration's failed economic policies and stimulus program by calling for trillions of dollars of new domestic spending, borrowing more and more money

from overseas. compromising our kids. and our -- compromising our kids' and grandkids' future. the area of health. people look at the budget of the united states they recognize that the biggest challenges that we have are in the area of health care spending, particularly medicare and medicaid. both of those programs going broke. both of them going broke, bankrupt. what does that mean? it means those programs in a relatively short period of time won't have the resources to be able to provide the services to seniors and those on medicaid that have been promised to them. unless something is done. what does this budget do? it furthers -- it further increases the overreach of the federal government in the area of health care, putting the government in charge of health care as opposed to individuals. it embraces the policy that would lead directly, directly to completing the government takeover of health care. i want to mention a bright light in this budget. the progressive budget actually

recognizes that the alternative utilizing a block grant of federal funding to the states is a wise idea. we call it state flexibility, giving states greater flexibility with the use of resources. i want to commend the progressive caucus for recognizing that that's a reasonable method of proceeding. what about job training? this budget expands the current dying jobs program. the jobs programs harm the ability for jobs to be created. the government accountability office issued a report that found 47 overlapping federal job training program this is a spend approximately $18 billion in 2009. this budget -- does this budget do anything to decrease that duplication and redundant effort? no. not a doggone thing. and then defense. as i mentioned at the beginning,

mr. chairman, this substitute fails in the government's -- the federal government's first responsibility, providing for the common defense this substitute guts the defense budget by calling for $569 billion in cuts to the pentagon compared to the republican budget. these are level this is a would reduce military readiness and hollow out our forces. this is a very dangerous world, mr. chairman. you don't have to take my word for it, listen to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general dempsey, who recently testified, quote, our current security challenges are more formidable and complex than those we faced in downturns following war in korea, vietnam and the cold war. there is no foreseeable piece dividend on our horizon. the security environment is increasingly competitive and dangerous, unquote. mr. chairman, i would suggest that decreasing the ability of our men and women standing in harm's way and defending our liberty and freedom at this time is an absolutely reckless and

irresponsible move. so i know that our colleagues in the house of representatives recognize that it's important to have all sorts of alternatives being proposed. i commend the progressive caucus for proposing this alternative but any review of this budget recognizes that it spends more than it should, it taxes more than it should, it expands the role of government more than it should. and it doesn't address the real challenges of the day in a way that brings about positive, real solutions. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. at this point, i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from illinois, ms. schakowsky. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. schakowsky: we hear over and over again from republicans about how we can't afford to make investments in education and infrastructure and science and medical research and we

can't keep our promises to seniors. but at the same time, over the past five years, we have raised less federal revenue as a percent of g.d.p. than in any five-year period since 1941. but this country, my colleagues, has never been richer. "the wall street journal" said last month, u.s. wealt rises but not all benefit. the top 1% of earners have received 95% of the income gains in this country since 2009 and at least eight americans earned more than $5 billion in income last year. so what's the disconnect? why are the rich, richer than ever before but unable to invest in basic priorities? the answer is that paul ryan and the house republicans refuse to raise a dime from the millionaires and billionaires and multinational corporations that dodge their fair share of taxes. it would even pad the pockets of the wealthiest americans, the ryan budget says if you make $1

million next year, that that budget would give you a $200,000 tax break. our budget presents a stark contrast to the austerity proposals peddled by this republican congress in order to add $8.8 -- in order to add 8.8 million jobs to the economy over the next three years and provide americans an opportunity to get a good education and find a job and live in a safe and secure home and afford decent food. we raised revenue that is needed. we do so by asking millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share. yes, we do. and by closing egregious corporate loopholes including incentives to ship jobs overseas. we would also cut $4 trillion from the deficit over the next decade. look, we can't build the economy for the many, not just the moneyed, unless we make significant investments in our future. those investments can and should