republican budget plan. a vote to advance that measure expected later this afternoon. take you live now to the floor of the u.s. house right here on c-span. the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered today by our guest chaplain reverend dennis fountain, moses lake baptist church, moses lake, washington. the chaplain: let's pray. dear god and heavenly father, we come before you today

humming -- humbling ourselves and seeking your help. i want to thank you, first of all, for who you are, thank you for your goodness, your mercy, and grace in each of our lives and thank you for the blessings that you give to us every day. what i want to thank you for each and every representative and all they do to direct our great country. i pray today that would you have your hand of grace and guidance upon them. i pray god, that would you give them had the wisdom they need on a daily basis to fulfill the office that you've appointed them to. i also ask that you would guide and courage and protect them in their personal lives, as well as their families and loved ones. i love you, lord. that's in the name of jesus christ, i play. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, i demand a vote on the speaker's approval

of the journal. the speaker: the question is on the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the journal stands aproved. the gentleman from michigan. >> i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question shall be postponed. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from arkansas, mr. hill. mr. hill: please join me in the pledge. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman from washington state, mr. newhouse, is recognized for one minute. nuenue thank you mr. speaker. i rise -- mr. newhouse: thank you mr. speaker.

i rise today to talk about the pastor fountain. he has crossed the cascade mountain divide to serve common needs on both sides of washington state. pastor fountain began his ministry in 2006 as a youth pastor in lakewood, in western washington. he headed east across the cascades to plan the moses lake baptist church which first opened its doors four years ago this month. pastor fountain also currently serves as the chaplain for the grant county sheriff's office. i would like to thank him for his faithfulness and commitment to serve the needs of the people of our state particularly first responders and our law enforcement community. it is my privilege to welcome pastor fountain his wife, hanna, to the house of representatives as fellow washingtonians. i extend the thanks of this body for his delivering the morning prayer and i ask my colleagues to join me in making pastor fountain's time in our

nation's capital warm and inviting. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lafere -- lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir. i write to offer my official resignation as a member of the house armed services committee and the house committee on homeland security effective today, march 23, 2015. both committees are vital to ensuring our nation's secure at home and abroad and it has been an honor and a privilege to serve on these two committees over the last four years. signed sincerely, steven m. palazzo, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resignation is accepted -- the resignations are accepted. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. by direction of the house republican conference, i senleds to the desk a rive -- i send to the disk a privileged resolution and ask exor -- desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate

consideration. the clerk: house resolution 165, resolved that the following named members be and are hereby elected to the following standing committees of the house of representatives. ms. foxx: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be considered as read. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. without objection, the resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair will entertain up to 15 further requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: thank you mr. speaker. i would like to welcome a quish -- a distinguished visitor to the house floor today. flat stanley is visiting washington, d.c. this week from his martin -- from ms. martin's second grade class in clemens, north carolina. through flat stanley's adventures, the students in ms.

martin's class are learning about geography and maps. it's been more than 50 years since stanley lambchop was first flattened by a bulletin board in jeff brown's 1964 children's classic. today the flat stanley project is a global literacy activity that engages hundreds of thousands of children and includes more than 6,000 schools registered in 88 countries around the world. it's been my pleasure to show flat stanley around the u.s. capitol. i hope he has a safe trip back to north carolina's fifth congressional district and that ms. martin's class enjoys learning about his visit to congress. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? without objection. ms. hahn: thank you mr. speaker. i rise to call on congress to keep its promise to invest in

our nation's ports. the harbor maintenance tax collected at our ports should be returned to our ports, not stockpiled or diverted to other spending. for years only about 50% of the tax was returned to our ports. the harbor maintenance trust fund now has a surplus of approximately $9 billion. last year, with bipartisan support, we passed the water resources and reform development act, which set targets for annual increases in the usage of that trust fund leadinging to 100% -- leading to 100% of use by the year 2025. i've offered an amendment to the budget resolution to meet that target funding level for 2016 established in wrda and i'm disappointed that the rules committee did not rule it in order. to keep our united states ports globally competitive, we should fully use the harbor maintenance trust fund to maintain and improve our

harbors and navigation channels. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize the fourth annual arkansas run for the fallen. congratulations too to run organizer chief master sergeant bubba beesen. several years ago, to honor arkansas' fallen heroes, the arkansas run for the fallen was created. this year's run started in ozark arkansas, last friday, and concluded at the state capitol in little rock on sunday afternoon. mr. hill: a team of active duty and reserve airmen, soldiers marines and arkansas state police embarked on a 146-mile memorial run to honor every arkansan who has died since the attacks on september 11, 2001. i had the honor of attending the final ceremony on sunday

afternoon. i was deeply moved to be in the presence of approximately 30 gold star families that were in attendance. these men have served their country bravely and their example and sacrifice is one all americans and arkansans can admire. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? without objection. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, as congress debates how to best craft the 2016 budget proposal i hope that heavier consideration will be given to reality over ideology. and let's look at the facts. what have has actually worked in the past and what has not -- of what has actually worked in the past and what has not. the facts show that democratic administrations have outperformed the republican administrations in creating

jobs by a significant margin. the most recent jobs report, for instance, showed that the economy added another 295,000 jobs in february. that's the 60th consecutive month of private sector job growth. and the longest streak in history that's been recorded. over the past five years the american automobile industry added over 500,000 jobs due to the democratic-led restructuring. and during the past four years, while our friends on the other side of the aisle predicted hishe inflation, the collapse of the -- hishe inflation, the collapse of the -- hyperinflation, the collapse of the dollar and worse, we put more people back to work than all other economies combined. let's consider what has worked in the real world in creating jobs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition?

without objection. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i'm grateful to celebrate the strong relationship between taiwan and the united states. with the 70th anniversary of the ending of world war ii this year and the 36th anniversary of the taiwan relations act on april 10, we can reflect how this relationship has been beneficial for both countries. prior to world war ii, america recognized the importance of protecting the chinese people from invaders. in 1940 the u.s. operated a clandestine air support mission to protect the citizens of the republic of china, carried out by courageous volunteer group of pilots. known as the flyinging tigers, this group became the 14th air force and included my father, the late first lieutenant wilson. america is grateful that the chinese military in 1942 rescued most of the crews after 15 u.s. planes crashed in china following the doolittle raid, which formed in south carolina. today i'm encouraging everyone

to recognize the critically important -- the critical importance of the relationship and its continuation. in conclude, god bless our troops and may the president, by his actions never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? without objection. galinggaling thank you, mr. speaker -- mr. gallego: thank you mr. speaker. today veterans who are disabled can get their federal student loan debt discharged. but unfortunately the department of education reports discharge debt to the i.r.s., where it's considered as income for federal and possible state tax purposes. in many instances, having federal student loan debt discharge results in a substantial tax liability. that's why i'm introducing the veterans education tax security act. the vets act. this bill would ensure that disabled veterans, deceased

veterans and deceased members of the armed services are not financially penalized when their federal student loan debts are lawfully discharged. as veterans ourselves, congressman zinke and i both understand the importance of putting politics aside to support our soldiers and veterans. who have risked their whole lives and families to defend our country. they or their families should not be penalized when federal student loans are for given because of death or disability -- forgiven because of death or disability. i thank the congress mother for his support on this issue and look forward to -- congressman for his support on this issue and look forward to working with my colleagues to champion fairness for our veterans. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new hampshire seek recognition? without objection. mr. guinta: thank you mr. speaker. i rise today in support of one of new hampshire's most vital industries, the fishing industry. for nearly 400 years, our

fishing industry has helped sustain and build our local economy in the sea coast region of new hampshire. providing thousands of steady jobs and millions of dollars in economic opportunity for the granite state annually. unfortunately increasing and constantly evolving government mandates are threatening to put an end to this very historic industry. at a time when our nation's job creators are already struggling to add jobs, increase revenue and compete with cheaper, international companies, the last thing that we should require of them is to spend their already limited time and resources on adheringing to pages and pages of costly -- adheringing to pages and pages of cost -- adhering to pages and pages of costly regulations. new hampshire's fishing industry has been a long part of the new england tradition. this remains one of my top priorities and i will continue to work tirelessly in a bipartisan fashion with the new england region to essentially ensure that the granite state fishermen seek the obligations that they inter.

i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. mr. kildee: thank you mr. speaker. last week the republicans offered up their budget. just as has been the case for the past few years, it comes as no surprise that this budget will squeeze hardworking american families and make them, again, work more, work harder and get less. . wunl of our priorities must be to end the across-the-board sequestration cuts. unfortunately this g.o.p. budget goes further and jeopardizes national security by keeping sequester cuts on military and defense needs. sadly the past few months in

congress has been nothing more but continued give aways to special interest and the wealthy and to pander to the most extreme voices, the tea party voices in congress. today the democrats, we released our budget. this is a budget that works for hardworking americans. it protects national security. it gives michiganders and families all across america the tools that they need to buy a house, send their kids to college, to save for a decent retirement. we've got to put away -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, on march 1, penn state university's public television station wpsu-tv celebrated its 50th anniversary. on march 1, 1965 wpsu transmitted its first broadcast signal from atop pen field

mountain and viewers watched an introductory spanish class aimed at school children across central pennsylvania. since that initial broadcast wpsu has dedicated itself to informing and engaging pennsylvania communities and beyond. more recently they have looked to make a global impact by expanding its documentary productions. wpsu has produced several award winning projects such as "telling amy's story" which has reached more than six million people through on air broadcast online and various community events. mr. speaker, today wpsutv reaches approximately 515,000 households in 29 counties through cable, satellite, eafer overair deliverry. as graduate of penn state university, i'm so proud of all that wpsu-tv has accomplished and urge my colleagues to join me in recognizes them for 50 perfect tisk years. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition?

without objection. ms. brownley: thank you mr. speaker. as members of congress we have a responsibility to serve our veterans as well as they have served us and our country. that means a lifelong commitment to their health and well-being. veterans who are severely disabled or blinded after they return home are eligible for medical care at v.a. specialty rehabilitation clinics where we can improve their quality of life and independence. but too often veterans cannot afford the cost of the trip. blinded veterans of america estimates that even those these v.a. clinics have long waste lists, one of four beds are empty because veterans who need care cannot afford to pay for transportation for their care. that is why i have introduced the veterans medical access act. legislation to reimburse blinded and severely disabled veterans

in ventura county and across the country for travel expenses so they can access the lifesaving and life changing care they need. i hope that my colleagues will join me and support this critical legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada seek recognition? without objection. mr. hardy: mr. speaker, i rise today in recognition of women history of the month which we celebrate as a nation each march to pay respect to those women across the generations who have been trail blazers in so many ways, including our military. in 1944, one such remarkable woman was blazing trails in the skiles over what is now nellis air force base, which is in my district. betty wall, whom i had the opportunity to speak to yesterday, was one of those women, air force service pilots during world war ii.

when a skeptical male pilot would climb into her aircraft for training she treated them to an introductory flight they would never forget. as she put the aircraft through its incredible combat maneuvers, the guy guy in the back seat had no choice but to marvel at her skill and expertise. on par with men who are allowed to go into combat. in 2010 ms. wall and her fellow wasps received a well deserved honor of the congressional gold medal. now decades later she has been followed by many other female pilots who continue to break barriers and lead the way. that is why mr. speaker i call up -- on us as a nation to pay tribute to these amazing women during the month of march. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? without objection. mrs. dingell: mr. speaker, as the house begins to prepare to

discuss the next year's fiscal budget we need a budget that's for hardworking americans, not one that puts our families in jeopardy. the g.o.p. budget ends medicare as we know it cuts pell grants decimates head start, and doubles down a policy that put working families further behind. and one thing that we all need to fear in this budget is the harmful arbitrary budget caps on both our nondefense and defense programs. these caps hurt all americans and make our military vulnerable. our military leadership has made clear that the budget caps are harming our national security. michigan is an important northern border state, and too many places like the national guard base in michigan, our men and women in uniform face dramatic cuts to the critical training and equipment that they need to defend our country.

we can't afford more unrealingsic budget gimmicks or plans to just kick the can down the road. we need to take up a serious budget which the democrats will offer this week. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: to address the house for one minute. thank you. mr. speaker, according to c.b.o., the house republican budget cuts snap, would drive the poorest working families deeper into poverty and increase hunger in our communities. the republican budget would cut as many as 60 million people from snap, most of whom are working. cuts of this magnitude would be tragic for millions of hardworking americans and their families. basically the house republican budget makes people work harder for less. the democrats today introduced an alternative budget, this

democratic budget works for hardworking americans. first it makes it easier to own a home. second, easier to send kids to college. and third, easier to have a secure and enjoyable retirement. once again, the difference between the two. house republicans want, they want americans to work harder for less. democrats, on the other hand, want to help hardworking americans. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from nevada seek recognition? ms. titus: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. titus: i rise today on behalf of the lgbt veterans who face discrimination by the very government they fought to defend. and to urge my colleagues to join me in ending this injustice. two years ago doma was struck down and most federal benefits were effectively extended to legally married smex couples. yet the outdated law continues to bar access to v.a. benefits

to lgbt veteran families in states that do not recognize marriage equality. our men and women in uniform did not serve in defense of a particular state, but of the united states. all veterans should have access to all federal benefits regardless of where they live just as they do when they are in the military. when president lincoln laid out his vision for caring for veterans he said we should support those who have born the battle. well, he didn't say anything about discriminating against some because of who they love. so please join me in ending this injustice and supporting the bipartisan veterans, spouses equal treatment act which i will introduce tomorrow. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house

of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on march 24, 2015, at 9:18 a.m. appointments, board of directors of the office of compliance. signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i rise today against the majority budget resolution that fails to repeal sequestration. mr. ruppersberger: i'm proud to represent not one but two army bases, fort immediate and aberdeen proving ground as well as air national guard base at martin state airport. i am a' member of the subcommittee and co-chair of the army caucus. former ranking member of the intelligence committee. i have sat through hearing after hearing which the leaders of our armed forces have all testified that sequestration is not repealed it will make our country weaker against the threats that exist today from terrorism to cyber including the russia, can china threat. these outdated spending levels

are putting our national security at risk and damaging our credibility throughout the world. athe across-the-board cuts of sequestration take away all ability to make strategic decisions on the things we keep and cut. budget something a science of priorities not cutting across the board. we must ensure our armed forces and intelligence community have the resources they need to do their jobs around the world and to protect our countries and our families. the alternative democratic budget released today does that by repealing sequestration. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. roops: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. woodall: by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 163 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 17, house resolution 163. resolved that at any time after the adoption of this resolution, the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18 declare

the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the concurrent resolution, house concurrent resolution 27. establishing the budget for the united states government for fiscal year 2016 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2017 through 2025. the first reading of the concurrent resolution shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the concurrent resolution are waived. general debate shall not exceed four hours with three hours of general debate confined to the congressional budget equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the budget. and one hour of general debate on the subject of economic goals and policies equally divided and controlled by representative brady of texas and representative carolyn maloney of new york or their respective designees. after general debate, the concurrent resolution shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.

the concurrent resolution shall be considered as read. no amendment shall be in order except those printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report. shall be considered as read. and shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. all points of order against such amendments are waived. if more than one such amendment is adopted, then only the one receiving the greater number of affirmative votes shall be considered as fully adopted. in the case of a tie for the greater number of affirmative votes then only the last amendment to receive that number of affirmative votes shall be considered as finally adopted. after the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment, and a final period of underdebate which shall not exceed 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and

ranking minority member of the committee on the budget the committee shall rise and report the concurrent resolution to the house with such amendment as may have been finally adopted. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution and amendments thereto to adoption without intervening motion except one amendments offered by the chair of the committee on the budget pursuant to section 301-a-5 of the congressional budget act of 1974 to achieve mathematical consistency. the concurrent resolution shall not be subject to demand for division of the question of its adoption. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized one hour. mr. woodall: thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker, during consideration of this resolution all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only. and i'd like to yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from new york, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i was looking around to see if folks were getting goose bumps as the reading clerk was reading the

rule. i was, and i think if folks were honest with themselves they would be getting goose bumps too. because we don't always have the most open of process he around here. it's hard. the 435 of us. we all represent different districts. constituents that often have different hopes and dreams. different challenges that they face. it's not easy to craft a process that allows every member of this institution to have a voice. . and it's particularly not easy to allow every member of this institution to have a voice on something as important as the budget of the united states of america. that's big. $3.8 trillion worth of big. and yet what you just heard from the reading clerk, mr. speaker, is that if we pass this rule, this rule that my colleagues and i on the rules committee sorted out yesterday, if we pass this rule, we will begin the process that would allow a debate on every single

budget submitted by every single member of this house. now, mr. speaker i've written those budgets in the past. that's not an easy job. there's a reason we're not going to consider 435 budgets. it's a big, big job. but more than being big in that it requires hundreds and hundreds of hours, it's big that it requires to you put your money where your mouth is. that's not a task that folks often step up to the microphone to take on in this had town mr. speaker. but today -- in this town mr. speaker. but today we have budgets from the progressive caucus, we have budgets from the democratic minority on the budget committee, we have budgets from the republican study committee, we have budgets from the house budget committee and more. every group that decided that they didn't run for this job to make campaign speeches, but they ran for this job to make a difference, has a chance to put their money where their mouth

is. my friends in the progressive caucus, mr. speaker, if we pass this rule, we will be allowed to vote on a progressive caucus budget. my calculations suggests that their propose -- they're proposing to increase taxes by more than $7 trillion. $7 trillion. i don't support that kind of tax increase. but by golly, we ought to have a conversation about it. there are folks who are down here who are willing to recommend it, we should be willing to count the votes and see if it wins or whether it loses. i sit on the house budget committee as well as the rules committee mr. speaker. our budget doesn't raise taxes at all. at least not the tax rate. we believe if you implement a responsible budget, we're going to see the economic engine of america begin to churn once again we believe that revenues are going -- again, we believe that revenues are going to rise. it turns out, if you don't make any money, you can't pay any taxes.

if you get the economy going, tax revenues begin to take care of themselves. reduce about $5.5 trillion in spending. that's what the house budget committee proposes. i don't know where the votes are going to shake out, mr. speaker. and i am excited to find out. so often you come to the house floor, it's been prescripted. the votes have been counted, the process has been closed. it's just more of a show-up-and-vote to give it some finality. but not so today. if we can come together as a rules committee and pass this rule, if we can come together as a body and begin this debate, i don't know which budgets going to pass at the end of the day. but i know this. -- budget's going to pass at the end of the day. but i know this. i know america will be the better for us having a process that includes every voice in chamber. and i know that our chance -- in this chamber. and i know that our chances of

turning this budget process into the law of the land to make a difference in the lives of families in each of our districts back home, the chance of that happening will be much, much greater. mr. speaker, i've got lots to say about the budgets we have introduced. i have lots to say about the numbers that are behind those budgets. but i don't want to slow down what i know is going to be a bipartisan day and a bipartisan budget week, so with that i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: i thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker we have some good economic news. the private sector has added 12 million new jobs over the last 60 months five years, our national unemployment rate is down to 5.5%, we've reduced the deficit from 9.8% of our

economy to nearly 3%. 16.4 million people now have affordable health care who didn't have it before. these are good economic indicators that we're moving in the right direction, but there's more to do. to ensure that our economy gets and stays stronger. what we can't afford to do at this critical juncture is endanger all the progress we've made by pursuinging this drastic austerity -- pursuing this drastic austerity agenda and that's what the republican budget is. they have an almost religious commitment to slashing government to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. so they propose severe cuts to everything, except the military, even though it means destroying medicare coverage that was promised to seniors, cutting education funding that we need to help our children compete in the global economy literally taking food out of the mouths of the poor, and snatching health insurance away from millions who now have access to affordable care

coverage for the first time. not only would the house majority raise taxes on the poor and give a $50,000 tax break to millionaires, a play that some like to call reverse robin hood, but the house majority would slash funding for bridges and roads and gut funding for law enforcement and schools, doubledown on trickledown economics and dynamic scoring of failed and discredited set of policies that we know don't work. that's how the house majority wants to govern the greatest democracy on earth. by cutting our way to prosperity. not only is it dangerous, it is mathematically impossible it just doesn't add up. but don't take my word for it. here's some of the reactions to the republican budget from the majority's own members. the american enterprise institute said about this budget that, quote the house g.o.p. leadership took the easy way out, end quote.

a republican member and army veteran said that this budget, quote, makes our country weaker end quote. another member of the house majority said quote, i'm tired of seeinging gimmicks in the -- seeinging gimmicks in the budget process. i'm tired of seeing gimmicks in the legislative process, end quote. and tinally summing it up nicely one republican member said, quote, it's all hooey, end quote. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record several news reports documenting the criticisms of the g.o.p. budget. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: the republican budget forces hardworking families to work harder for lells. it turns medicaid into a state block grant, makes students pay more for tuition, decimates the pell grants for college tuition slashes food stamps, turns medicare into a voucher program for the future recipient. all the while keeping billions of dollars in tax breaks for big oil.

today the medicare guarantees insurance coverage for seniors. but imagine with me, if you will, a world in which medicare is just a fixed amount voucher. instead of insurance, your grandparent is giving a set amount of money is and is set out on his or her own to negotiate with multinational companies and if they need a medical plan that is more expensive than that voucher, the balance comes straight out of their pocket, or if they can't afford it they have no insurance. not only does the budget show a clear disdain for working families, middle class families, students and the elderly, but it was so haphazardly drafted last week that the media exposed a drafting error in the bill that revealed an additional $900 million in cuts. imagine that. nearly $1 billion that had been overlooked. what's more, the house majority's paying -- playing fast and loose, using budget gimmicks to violate agreed-upon spending caps sequestration

and fund critical defense needs out of a temporary war slush fund. the overseas contingency operations account. a slush fund that, the use of which republicans decried just last year for undermining the budgetary process. the secretary of defense dr. ashton carter, has highlighted the need for predictability in the department's budget. he would like to know from one year to the next what's a gimmick and what is real. something that the house majority refuses to ensure, saying that, quote this is ashton carter, secretary of defense saying, the only way he can provide funding for the military is through stability, not through slush funds spending caps and budget gains. this is how the majority chooses to run our government. with tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires with financial incentives for big oil, tax breaks for corporations that ship their jobs overseas and tax policies that burden the people whose

heads are barely above water. but most importantly, it hurts the snap program. when thousands, millions of americans go to bed hungry every night how dare we threaten the very thing that gives them peace of mind and food to eat. that is also, by the way, an agriculture program that our farmers depend on to help them make a living. mr. speaker let's take a different course. let's grow the economy from the middle class out. not try to hope something will trickle down on it. let's fix our crumbling roads and bridges and let's invest in our kids and make it easier to go to college, not harder. let's respect the contribution of our nation's seniors and make certain that they have the stability that they need in their health care to make financial decision with some dweg of certainty -- degree of certainty. we can do that by adopting the democratic alternative and while my colleagues in the minority might be getting

fatigued saying this over and over, that what we have isn't just a list of numbers, it's a statement of our ideals. instead of a slash and burn budget that puts at risk the economic growth of the last five years, we propose investments in our infrastructure in our children , in our economy and in our future and mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i'm not sure if i was clear when i got started. i apologize if i was not. we're going to vote on every idea that folks have. we're going to vote on every budget that was introduced. if you have a plan about how to better run this nation, you don't need to complain about somebody else's vision, you're allowed to bring your own vision to the floor. mr. speaker we all care about men and women back home in our district. what you can see on this chart

is the interest spending alone under current law in year 2025. that's the 10th window of the budget, the 10th year of the budget window. almost $1 trillion in interest alone. when we hear about what the spending priorities are that each member of this chamber has, we have to ask ourselves, so what are you doing to balance the budget so that interest doesn't consume it all? as you can see, mr. speaker, under current law, if we don't make necessary changes, we're going to be spending more on interest alone on the national debt than we are on all defense issues combined. we're going to be spending more on interest on the national debt than we spend on medicaid, our largest health care program to help those constituents in need in our district. if you care about folks who are

in need in your district, you care about balancing the budget because we all know that in a debt crisis, the folks who get hurt the most are the folks who are most dependent on government services. mr. speaker, we have a budget before us today in this great festival of democracy that is the budget process we have a budget that purports to balance in six years. the republican study committee has introduced that budget. we're going to have a vote on it today. we have the budget that came out of the house budget committee, it purports to balance in 10 years. and we're going to have votes on budgets in this process, mr. speaker that anticipate balancing never. never. the president's budget, for example. mr. speaker, the president's budget projects $2 trillion in

new taxes, $2 trillion in new taxes and never balances. it doesn't balance next year, it doesn't balance 10 years from now, it doesn't balance 20 years from now, it balances never. and every time we borrow $1 interest our -- from our children or our grandchildren, we're promising, we are committing either an additional $1 in taxes on those same children and grandchildren, plus interest, in the future or an additional $1 in benefit cuts. mr. speaker, we ought to have this robust debate about our spending priorities, but it ought to start from the position that we have an obligation to pay for the bills that we're running up today. i say to my friends, these are not small things that we're arguing about. i want to talk to you about how do we invest more in transportation, i want to talk to you about how do we invest more, lifting people up from that bottom wrung of the lat --

wrung of the ladder to the next wrung of the ladder. i want to talk about how to invest in america. but every time we vote for a budget that doesn't balance we threaten that future. more in more in interest payments on the national debt than all national security combined. i don't know we are going to find that agreement today, mr. speaker. but if we pass this rule, again we will be able to begin that process where all of the ideas will be debated. i just encourage my friends when each budget comes to the floor, to ask that question do we plan for balance ever? do we anticipating ending the added burden on our children ever? do we anticipate mortgaging our children's future for as far as

the eye can see? or do we anticipate taking responsibility? got a lot of budgets to choose from. a lot of opportunities to take responsibility, mr. speaker. i encourage my friends to support this rule so that we'll be able to bring those bills to the floor. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: thank you. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from colorado and a member of the committee on rules, mr. polis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. mr. polis: i thank the gentlelady from new york. mr. speaker, this is the time of year where we begin to debate our nation's budget. ostensibly our plans for the fiscal future of our nation. there was a time far ago in the past before the invention of the ryan budget, of the price budgets when this time of year represented an honest and forum discussion of our different views of the future of our nation and how to restore fiscal stability. since the ryan budget though, which says it balances but doesn't which includes tax

revenue for laws that it says it repeals which creates fiscal growth out of thin air, this discussion, unfortunately, has devolved into nothing more than political theater. somehow this year as we consider the rule today on the first ever price budgets, the process has fallen even further. gimmicks are being stacked on gimmicks. the budget control act and its caps are law and every one of my side of the aisle stand ready to work together to come to a compromise solution that allows for both our domestic spending needs to be met as well as our national security needs. but that's not the discussion we are having. instead, we have a budget or budgets which completely circumvent common sense by adding bills of base budget money to the overseas consin tency account. essentially giving president obama a record slush fund to engage in wars of his choys without consulting the us -- choice without consulting the united states congress. that's the republican plan before you. what we have is a fictional budget. that fictional budget wasn't

enough for everyone. here we are we are being asked to pass a rule which looks like a rule in a county fair. most votes win the blue ribbon. this isn't the county fair. this is the united states congress. this is a budget plan of a maimor political party for fiscal years 2016 through 2025. i reject this rule today. we can do better. we can have an honest discussion about our budget priorities, about restoring fiscal stability for the next generation. we deserve a serious proposal rather than this fun and games and gimmicks that we have before us under this rule. i encourage my colleagues to oppose the rule and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds to say to my friend that's what's so wonderful about this process. the days for pointing out who's so wrong and their ideas are so bad, that's left for a campaign season. this is the day where you bring your ideas to the floor of the house. and every single idea that was

offered is going to be considered. mr. speaker, that doesn't happen by accident. at this time it's my great pleasure to yield such time he may consume to the chairman of the rules committee, an outspoken advocate for trying to bring these ideas to the floor, the gentleman from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for such time he may consume. mr. sessions: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentleman from georgia who represents not only the rules committee but conservatives from across our conference on the budget committee. i want to thank the gentleman, mr. woodall, for bringing this bill to the floor today. mr. speaker, yesterday we had an opportunity to have chairman tom price to come and speak with us about the budget and what costs what, and what decisions we wanted to make, and what direction we were going to go. it was really pretty simple. he said he's presenting a budget that's going to balance. he's presenting a budget that's going to fund our military

properly. and he's got a budget which is one we cannot only understand but believe in. one of the questions i asked him yesterday was, mr. price, how much does the affordable care act, known as obamacare, cost the taxpayer in the budget? he said, you know i don't know but i'll get back to you. by the end of the hearing he said, what he could figure $108 billion. $108 billion. i had not checked this out. and in fairness to tom price, he's allowed to go and double check everything. that was a cursory view. mr. speaker, if that's true, and if i accept the figures that the gentlewoman, the ranking member of the committee, said of the number of people who are on obamacare, affordable care act it about 12 billion, if you just do simple multiplication, 12

million into $108 billion, we are talking literally every single recipient would be costing this government more than $5 million per person for their insurance. it's staggering. it's staggering that our friends, the democrats passed, straight up front, a bill that they told us at least 24 million people who were uninsured would be on it. and a whole bunch of other people. and now here we are some four years later, a whopping total of 12 million at a cost of $100 billion or more. and yet they come to the floor and look at us like we are some self-righteous group of people

because we want to balance the budget and change the direction. mr. speaker this budget is not about doing away with the affordable care act. it is about properly looking at the money that comes in to the federal government and us properly allocating it back out. and $108 billion for 12 million people is immoral. it's unconscionable. and yet that was the testimony yesterday. once again, i'm going to have to look at it again. and i know chairman price is going to. but mr. speaker, this is why we do budgets. we do budgets so that we do ask the tough questions. so that we can put a pencil to the millions billions, and trillions that the american taxpayer sent us here to do. and for us to be on the defensive by our friends, the

democrats, about wanting to balance the budget, about us wanting to do the things that will balance out not only netting them out to where we don't spend more than what we take in, but being on the defensive because we are doing the right thing to sustain america's greatest days ahead of us i think is a real mistake for the people that make the argument against us. when they are the people that pass without one republican vote what we were told is $108 billion for 12,000,500 people. we have to getway from this yelling and screaming and go to the numbers. that's what tom price did. that's what mr. woodall is doing. they are looking at how we are spending our money and what we are getting as a result of it. if it really is true that

everybody that is on this affordable care act that the true cost, cost to the taxpayer is over $5 million for each person, then shame on us. for not knowing asking, and understanding. and that's what we are doing today, mr. speaker. tom price, our young chairman from georgia, actually has taken time to go and look at the budget. he's also doing a lot of other things that the gentleman from texas, mike burgess gave him credit for yesterday where he's looking at some $800 billion, almost $1 trillion that is sitting in agencies that has not been spent yet that's previously been given to them. the taxpayer paid for it and they are just sitting there waiting to spend the money. mr. speaker it is republicans, it is tom price, it is rob

woodall, it is the members of the committee who have taken the tough votes and they have done their homework. that's what we are presented -- presenting here today. we are presenting the hard work from a committee, called the budget committee, to come and look at once a year how much are we spending, what are we getting, and how can we do it better? i will reject the arguments from those who say that the republicans aren't doing the right thing. we are doing the heavy lifting. it is republicans who are trying to look at the billions that are being spent not juts the thousands -- just the thousands but the hundreds of millions and the thousand billions because thousand billion is a trillion. and this is a big budget and we need people to do what we are doing. mr. speaker, i stand up for not just my party, the republican party, but i stand up for the honest and legitimate work that tom price anti-budget committee

has done. i intend to follow up with this committee and to make sure we know more about the real cost of government. because it's the real cost of government that turns the direction of our country where we pass by that effort of where we create good behavior and wheep people to one where we create -- to one where we create people who are leaning on the government for their life, for their lifestyle, and for their future. and that is a mistake. that's a mistake and one that the republican party will try to stand up to. i understand the difference between a person who is able-bodied and not. i have a down syndrome son. and i understand that we do need to do the right things for people who cannot take care of themself, intellectual or physical disability. i get it that we should be there for poor people. but it is unconscionable if we

are paying $5 million for an insurance plan per person on the affordable care act. that is beyond the wild ideas of boondoggle. it is immoral. so the republican party is going to ask the tough questions. and when we go to the vote earn we say, voter here's what we want you to understand about your money, and taxpayer, what you want to understand about your money, we can do it with the authority and the responsibility that we have done the homework. we sharpened our pencils. and we made a real difference understanding not just dollars and cents, but future for this great nation. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. woodall: we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields his time. ms. slaughter: i yield myself whatever it takes here. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york vefpblgt ms. slaughter: now i think i understand it all. i believe i understand how you

could lose $900 million when you're doing your budget. by what possible means do you think we are paying $5 million for everybody's health care, each person's health care on the affordable care act? the cost of -- the rising cost of health care for the first time in 50 years is going down. but nobody ever paid $5 million for anybody's health care in a single year. it's the most atrocious thing i think i have heard on this floor. mr. and mrs. america, these are the people you entrusted your congress to. they are the people who are writing your budget. they are the people who are going to voucherize your medicare. going to turn medicaid into a block grant and help some people, maybe not. these are the people making sure the roads and bridges are crumbling and are going to take food out of the mouths of the poor. and this is the kind of math that you're practicing over there? for heaven's sake. i reserve the balance of my time. i'm like to yield two minutes of

it to the gentlewoman from california who is almost as angry as i am. a member of the committee on budget ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. lee: i want to thank the gentlelady for yielding and for making it very plain in terms of what their budget does and does not do. i rise in strong opposition to this rule and the underlying bill. yes, i'm a member of the budget committee and the appropriations committee. and i know that our national budget is a statement of our national priorities and our values and i know very well that the republican budget is full of misplaced priorities and it is not a moral document. this budget should not be rigged in favor of special interest and the wealthy few but the republican budget s our nation's budget should prioritize working families, too many of whom are making low wages and living below the poverty line. and it should assist those working hard to find a job and invest in work force training

job training, and job creation. instead, this republican budget keeps tax breaks for corporations and the superwealthy. our budgets really should open educational opportunities for all. but the republican budget slashes pell grants that congress has already paid for by $89 billion. . a moral document, a budget that invests in the american people, should invest in our nation's crumbles -- in our nation's crumbling infrastructure, but the republican budget cuts funding for our roads, bridges and railroad -- rail. and it should contain a serious and effective strategy to end poverty, if we really believe that our budget is a reflection of our values and is a moral document. the house republican budget offers none of these. in fact, it slashes programs that support low-wage workers and people working hard to find a job. these families shouldn't have to go hungry. yet because their wages are so

low they need food stamps. but by cutting $150 billion from snap, this budget creates more hunger and more poverty for people who are working. many of the programs in this budget are a legacy of the war on poverty which cut the poverty rate in our country by 1/3 in 50 years. let me just read the list of programs that you're cutting and what the war on poverty lifted. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. slaughter: let me give an additional 30 seconds. can you talk real fast? ms. lee: the civil rights act, the civil justice act, food stamp act, older americans act, social security amendments voting rights act, h.u.d., all of these programs, higher ed act. these are initiatives that you're cutting that provide pathways out of poverty. this republican budget balances on the backs of most vulnerable to preserve tax loopholes for the superwealthy and slush funds for pentagon contractors.

i urge a no vote on the rule and on this budget. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i yield myself 0 -- 60 seconds just to ask the gentlelady from california, i understand why she objects to the republican budget. what i don't understand is why she objects to the rule. we've made every single budget that any member of congress asked to be made in order, we made that in order. could the gentlelady tell me why she opposes the rule? i'd be happy to yield. ms. lee: why do i oppose the rule? because i oppose the rule, first, because this rule, if it moves forward, would allow for the republican budget, which we know could pass this body, with these huge cuts. i think we need to go back to the drawing board and minimally restore cuts to the snap program. any budget that has snap cuts cuts to pell grants is not

invested in infrastructure, any budget that does that, regardless of the budgets that are being put forth, i don't want to see this debate go forward with those cuts. mr. woodall: i'm certainly on the other side of that issue. i understand somebody's going to win and lose. but i think the process is always bet when are we allow everyone's ideas to come to the floor. and that is one of the things this rule does. i'm very grateful that we've been able to do that. i thank my friend. mr. speaker, this time it's my great pleasure to yield time to both a member of the rules committee, a member of the budget committee and a member of the appropriations committee, the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. cole, i'd like to yield five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for five minutes. mr. cole: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend for yielding. i want to pick up and thank my friend and thank our chairman of the rules committee for doing exactly what he just suggested. bringing us a rule that lets everybody bring their choices to the floor. that's what we all like to do around here and interestingly enough, we essentially have

three democratic choices and three republican choices and we're going to have an opportunity for people to express a variety of opinions and arrive at a consensus in this body. obviously, as a republican i like all three republican alternatives pretty well. i like my friend, mr. woodall, he's always worked on the republican study committee budget, gets this balance faster than anything else on this floor. we look at the three republican budgets -- budgets, they have several things in common. first, they make tough choices. because we have an $18 trillion debt and, just left on auto pilot, that lynn crease by another $2 -- that will increase by another $7.2 trillion. this aims to bring that in balance. each republican budget does. that the republican study committee budget a little bit faster, but all within the 10-year budget window. second, they all repeal obamacare. not a big surprise. no republican voted for it. would we've never liked it. it would be remiss of us not to continue to argue our position. third, they all call for major

tax reform. we all know that lowering rates, eliminating exemptions, rationalizing the tax code contributes to economic growth. they all, frankly, defend the country pretty well. we do it in different ways. we have debates, but they all manage to do that. and none of them raise taxes. in the process of achieving those objectives. so i'm pretty content with the republican choices in front of us. and look forward forward to that. -- forward to. that but it behooves us all to remember, and it gets lost in this debate, a budget is not the law of the land. the budget is essentially a negotiating position. the president submitted a budget earlier. that's his initial negotiationing position. -- negotiating position. whatever emerging from the debate today will likely be the republican initial negotiating position. my friends on their side will present a budget today which i presume represents their initial negotiating position. they've also got other budgets

within the context of that. perfectly appropriate. we do too. but they'll have a general position. and our friends on the senate, on both sides of the aisle, are wrestling with this very issue as we talk. now, we seem to forget, as we draw our differences and distinctions here, we do live in an era of divided government. and despite what many people think, we do occasionally come to compromises around here. i'm pretty pleased we've lowered the budget deficit every year that we've been in the majority. but that has entailed some compromises. we compromised in the ryan-murray agreement. that was actually a pretty good agreement. both sides were happy with. frankly, this week, we'll probably compromise on the so-called doc fix, the s.g.r. so we compromised last december on the cromny bus bill. which -- cromnibus bill which again gave us some fiscal stability. at some point down the road we will indeed compromise. the president of the united states has a signature which is going to have to happen on any appropriations bill. our friends have a filibuster

control in the upper house, so my hope is we state our positions, i'm very content with where we're opening this debate, and then frankly, over the course of the months ahead, we work together and see if we can find that common ground. but that common ground ought to do what the republicans are trying to do in terms of lowering the deficit, reforming entitlements, not raising taxes and moving us in a fiscally responsible direction while we modernize our tax code. that's our opening position. i look forward to defending it. i thank my friend, mr. woodall, for bringing this excellent rule to the floor, which allows everybody to put forward their position. and with that i urge support of the rule and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i am pleased to yield four minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, a member of the committee on rules and an extraordinary colleague, mr. mcgovern. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognizes -- is recognized for four minutes. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, the

last eight years have been very difficult. we are recovering from the single greatest economic crisis since the great depression. this recovery heants been easy and it's forced -- hasn't been easy and it's forced us to make difficult decisions. working on budget priorities and wrestling with spending cuts have been difficult, to say the least. but our economy is beginninging to turn around -- beginning to turn around, thanks in a large part to an increase in hiring and the success of the affordable care act. yet we still must wrestle with the nation's budget. and it is true, as my republican friends say, that tough choices have to be made. but why is it that every time house republicans try to put our fiscal house in order they ask those among us who can least afford it to pick a the -- to make the most sacrifices? mr. speaker, we should not balance the budget on the backs of the poor and working families. they didn't cause the financial crisis and they shouldn't be the ones forced to get us out of this mess. there's a lot to dislike in the republican budget. from repealing the affordable care act to ending medicare as we know it to slashing pell grants. quite frankly it's awful.

but i want to focus on what the republican budget does to snap. the nation's premier anti-hunger program. once again, the republican budget would turn snap into a block grant, resulting in sharp cuts of $125 billion. on top of that, the republican budget requires a cut of at least another $1 billion, maybe more, from snap. mr. speaker, snap is one of the only remaining basic protections for the poor. for many of the poorest americans, snap is the only form of income assistance that they receive. the numbers don't lie. but the stories are far moore powerful. just listen -- far more powerful. just listen to the people who rely on snap to make ends meet. thousands of people wrote to congress, pleadinging with us to not cut snap -- pleading with us to not cut snap. one woman wrote, i was able to finish college, feed my family and find a career where i'm able to vote for -- where i'm

able to advocate for a program i know works. another person wrote, snap means dignity. snap matters to me because no senior should have to choose between buying food or paying for their medication. when i was a child my father left and the only reason we could afford food was because of food stamps. i never got a chance to say thank you, so thank you. for the life of me i can't figure out why house republicans are hell bent on arbitrarily cutting a program that feeds hungry kids, seniors and working families. these snap cuts are deep and hurtful. we've already seen how the farm bill cuts $8.6 billion how to those -- how those cuts are wreaking havoc among the hungry. imagine what a cust $125 billion -- what a cut of $125 billion-plus would do. republicans claim the snap spend something out of control. yet the congressional budget office shows that snap spend something going down, as the economy recovers and people go back to work. last night in the rules committee, i offered an amendment to strike these snap cuts from the republican budget, the republicans blocked

my amendment, while at the same time increasing spending for the pentagon by over $90 billion, without even paying for it. mr. speaker, budgets are moral documents. and what the republicans are doing, in my opinion, is immoral. penalizing working families and yes, the majority of people on snap who can work do work but penalizing these families by taking away food in the guise of fiscal prudence is just wrong. cutting snap while increasing unchecked spending for the pentagon is hypocritical. and let's be clear. there's a cost to hunger in america. hungry kids don't learn in school. senior citizens who take tear -- who take their medication on empty stomachs end up in the emergency room. workers who miss meals are less productive at work. cutting snap, a program that puts food on the table for hungry families is just a rotten thing to do. shame on anybody in this house who votes for a budget that

increases hunger in america. with that i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself one minute to say to my friend from massachusetts i know he cares deeply about these issues. and this house is a better house because of his leadership. on these issues. but just this year we're going to spend four times more on interest on our national debt than feeding families through the food stamp program. an unbalanced budget is eroding those opportunities to invest in people. i'm certain that we would come together to invest in america, i'm certain that we care, i'll concede the gentleman cares. i won't concede he care more than i do about lifting folks up and taking them to the next rung of that ladder. our debt and our deficit are eroding those opportunities to come together. i'd be happy to yield. mr. mcgovern: i would argue that the problem of hunger in america is actually increasing our duff is -- our deficit and debt.

but i would also argue, if you want to find ways to balance the budget, maybe go after some of those corporate tax breaks instead of going after poor people. mr. woodall: as the gentleman knows and again i thank the gentleman, i've introduced the only bill in congress that abolishes every single corporate tax break in the tax code. i would welcome support and enthusiastic co-sponsorship from any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: thank you mr. speaker. if we defeat the previous question, i'll offer an amendment to the rule to allow for consideration of legislation that would help families afford college tuition. by letting undergraduate borrowers refinance their student loans at a low interest rate of 3.86%. that's what families we represent need, not the education cuts in the republican budget. to discuss our proposal, i'm pleased to yield 3 1/2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. mr. courtney: thank you, mr.

speaker and i thank the gentlelady from new york. i rise in opposition to the rule and to the previous question to as she just stated, would allow consideration of h.r. 1434, the act. mr. speaker, there is an emergency out there for young americans who are trapped in high interest rate student loans. the federal reserve bank has tallied that. it is $1.3 trillion of overhang in the u.s. economy. and none other than the former republican governor of the state of indiana and the former budget director under george bush testified before the education committee the other day, and this is what he said, research from the pew research center shows that today's 20-year-olds and 30-year-olds are delaying marriage, delaying childbearing both unhelpful trends from an economic and social standpoint. between 25% and 40% of borrowers report postponing homes, cars and other major purchases. they say their student loans increase their risk of defaulting on other bills. there are 7 1/2 million young

americans who are behind on their student loans and they are trapped in no collateral, high interest rate documents that our bill allows them to write down. anyone watching this debate knows that when there's a period of low interest rates and that's exactly what is the situation today, midsle class families re-- middle class families refinance their houses, refinance their car loans, refinance their credit cards but students and people carrying student loan debt, because of the fact that they were no collateral loans are trapped. our bill allows them to go to the department of education write down those interest rates to 3.6%. the congressional budget office has told us that half of the trillion-dollar overhang would be refinanced down, if this bill took place. that puts money in people's pockets as the pew research center shows. they're going to go out buy cars, buy homes and start families. our failure to deal with this issue is strangling this economic recovery and incredibly we are going to take up a republican budget which

cuts pell grants and also raises interest rate costs for loan programs. let's be very clear. this budget allows the government to charge interest while people are in school. which has been a pillar of the stafford student loan program, that interest is not charged while kids are going through college. yet the republican budget adds to that $1.3 trillion of overhang by adding interest costs in their budget plan. . the hardworking american people have an opportunity with this legislation 13 -- 1434 to allow them to refinance down their interest rates to a lower out-of-pocket cost that will provide an automatic instant stimulus to the u.s. economy. that's what the american people are looking for, not a republican budget plan that compounds the largest area of consumer debt in the u.s. economy. it adds costs to folks whose

pell grants won't rise and whose interest rates will go up on their stafford loans. the choice is very clear on this vote we will take. one vote will add to the student loan problem with the federal reserve has identified is the largest consumer debt challenge in our nation, and the other vote will allow us to move forward toward solving that problem. vote no on the rule, vote no on the previous question. let's help those 7.5 million kids, young people who are behind on their student loans allow them to refinance down and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. takano. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. takai: thank you, mr. speaker. i, too -- mr. takano: thank you, mr. speaker. i, too, rise in opposition to the rule and the previous

question. every few weeks i spend time calling constituents who have sent me letters and emails and many of these conversations i hear about the burden of student loan debt. just recently i spoke with a couple with more than $100,000 in student debt and their monthly loan payments exceed the rent that they pay on their apartment. there's absolutely no question student loan debt is an enormous problem in this country. we all know the facts. as the gentleman from connecticut stated $1.3 trillion. student loan debt has surpassed credit card debt. nearly 3/4 of college seniors graduate with some debt. bachelors degree recipients graduate with an average of almost $30,000 in debt. the federal government, the states colleges and universities and other relevant actors in higher education must come together to address this issue. we must take steps to reduce the underlying costs of degree completion, strengthen federal and state investment in colleges and universities and provide additional aid to

students and diminish existing student loan debt. mr. courtney's legislation, the bank on students emergency loan refinancing act, would help bring down existing student loan debt by allowing eligible borrowers with existing debt to refinance their student loans and receive the same lower interest rates passed by congress in 2013 that new borrowers currently receive. lowering the interest rates for existing loan debt -- 15 seconds? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. ms. slaughter: i'm sorry. i can't give you more. mr. takano: i'll conclude. i oppose the rule and i oppose the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you mr. speaker. i yield myself one minute. if i could engage my friend from california i understand why he doesn't like the -- one of the republican budgets that's here but this rule makes in order every single democratic amendment every single democrat substitute

budget offered. i ask why does it oppose this rule since it allows everyone's ideas to be considered and i'd be happy to yield. mr. takano: i am not opposed to the rule by not allowing other budgets to consider but because the way the rule is structured i'd rather see us be able to consider h.r. 1434. if we oppose the oppose the previous question we could solve the student debt question here. mr. woodall: i thank my friend here. mr. takano: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from california mr. desaler in. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. salmon: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise -- mr. desaulnier: in 2013 there

were 37 million american student loan borrowers with outstanding student loans. those 37 million americans -- american students hold an enormous $1.3 trillion in student loan debt, as my friend from connecticut mentioned. student loan debt is growing by $3,000 per second. the bank on students emergency loan refinancing act would be a good first step in allowing students to refinance their loans and puts much-needed money back in their pockets and back in the american economy. in 2012, congress passed a bill to allow new student loan borrowers to receive a low interest rate. unfortunately students with existing student loan debt were left out of this fix. this bill would provide those students who borrowed before 2012 the same students that new borrowers have. if student loan borrowers could get lower interest rates, they would be able to more fully participate in the economy. they could buy houses, eat out in restaurants, move out of their parents' homes or even

just have enough money to save for their -- for a better future. this bill is simple and fixes a fundamental inequity. i urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from g.a.o. is recognized. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from maryland the democratic whip, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, madam chair. in parliamentary parliaments what we have before us is termed a structured rule. however, i'd venture to say this is an unstructured rule. it is a rule put forward by a majority with no clear structure to its strategy of how to govern this country. this rule will allow them to bring two versions of their

budget to the floor. as their deficit hawks and defense hawks continue to fight over what budget they should pursue. it is demonstrable of the deep divisions that we have seen displayed on a regular basis in the majority party. we have now seen one example after another of this republican majority's being unable to assemble the vose from within its -- votes from within its own ranks to pass important measures on its own. we saw it with funding to keep the department of homeland security open. we also saw it last congress when republicans were forced to withdraw an appropriation bill for transportation, housing and urban development when they didn't have the votes to support their sequestration strategy. hal rogers, the chairman of the appropriations committee, said at that time that bill's removal meant that, and i quote with this action the

house has declined to proceed on the implementation of the very budget it adopted just three months ago. thus, i believe -- chairman rogers went on -- that the house has made its choice. sequestration and its unrealistic and ill-conceived discretionary cuts must be brought to an end. that was the republican chairman of the appropriations committee speaking, not steny hoyer, not a democrat but a republican leader. so mr. speaker, today is not the first time that we're seeing the majority plagued by dysfunction as it budgets in a partisan way. but today it has gone a step further with a rule that essentially acknowledges there is no consensus among republicans as to how they ought to proceed. that's why republicans are putting forward this convoluted amendment strategy.

however i tell my friends on the other side, the votes exist to pass a budget in this house, but only if its one that replaces both the defense and nondefense components of the sequester with a commonsense and fiscally responsible alternative. and i say today this budget will not be followed as previous budgets passed by the republican majority have never been followed and were not followed by them. democrats would partner -- i tell my republican friends -- to pass a budget that invests in the future and does not stifle the growth of jobs and opportunity. i urge my colleagues we can do better. reject this rule. let's go back to the drawing board. let's get it right. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you mr. speaker. i yield myself one minute to

say to my friend whose leadership in this house i value, that he had an opportunity in that joint select committee that supercommittee an opportunity that i know he wishes we would have been able to come together on and we were not able to come together on. what we have now is not a division amongst ourselves, it's a reflection of the fact that we actually have different opinions and allowing different budgets to come to the floor is going to allow us to flush out those opinions. i wish, thinking about bipartisan cooperation, as we have had in years' past there would have been a republican-democratic substitute that would have gotten to balance as well making those tough decisions but we're left with democratic budgets that never balances and republican budgets that achieve balance all while ignoring the challenge that we have to deal with sequester long term. i appreciate the gentleman's leadership on trying to deal with sequester. i, too, wish we had -- be happy to yield to my friend.

mr. hoyer: i thank my friend for yielding. the fact of the matter is the reason i oppose this rule is because i think my republican friends, whose budget will pass -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. does the gentleman wish to yield? mr. woodall: i yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds seconds. mr. hoyer: i wish you would go back to the drawing board. i say i'll participate with you. nobody believes, i think, that sequester is going to ultimately rule the day in our appropriation bills because it is, as your chairman said, ill-conceived and unrealistic. i would think it better policy for us to decide that now and then implement appropriation bills consistent with something that is reasonable and not ill-conceived and i yield back the balance of my time. i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. woodall: reserve mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from north carolina ms. adams. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. adams: thank you, mr.

speaker. i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i stand before you today as a member of the higher education subcommittee and as a retired professor of 40 years, been in college in north carolina. i'm steadfastly committed that every student has access to quality, affordable education because education is key to achieving the american dream. however, too many of our graduates are burdened with insurmountable debt which hinders their pros pect of achieving the greater dream. even worse, the rising cost of education, the threat of educational debt has become a barrier for many students considering college. that is not acceptable. national student loan debt is more than $1.3 trillion. it's time to invest in our constituents help our graduates better manage their debt, homeowners and car owners can finance their loans refinance them. why can't our hardworking graduates do the same? the bank loan students refinancing act will allow them to do just that. it will allow graduates to refinance their old debt so they're better equipped to pay

them off. one in seven student borrowers default on their student loans in the first three years. if we don't do something now, they'll choose between paying school debt, purchasing homes, creating a savings account and starting their families. the threat is too grave throughout our country. i know what higher education can do for everyone because it helped me. i am fighting for the access to a quality, affordable education. we can't sit back and watch students, their adult life, paying off student debt so i urge my colleagues to put our graduates before partisan politics and let's pass this legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker, i say to my friend from new york i do not have any speakers remaining and i ask if she has any speakers remaining. ms. slaughter: i do not and i'm prepared to close. mr. woodall: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized.

ms. slaughter: they've favored billionaires before the middle class, politics over people. democrats have a clear alternative that we keep our economy growing and ensure strong fiscal future. our alternative ensures that college is achievable, that jobs are available and health care is affordable. and that's what will keep our economy on the right track. . i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: and mr. speaker, i urge my deleegs -- my colleagues to vote no, defeat the previous question and vote no on the draconian republican budget and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i

understand why folks want to vote no sometimes on this chamber. you want to vote no because you don't like the ideas the other side has and it turns out if they have more votes than you have on any particular idea, they win and you lose. i lose in this chamber from time to time myself. as i know all of my friends do. but this rule offers an opportunity at least for every idea to be heard and the best ideas ought to rise to the top. that's the america that i believe in. that's the congress that i believe in. that if we allow this democracy, if we all -- if we allow all of these provisions to be considered, we will have the best ideas rise to the top. when i hear my colleagues complaining about what isn't available today it is an indictment of our collective work ethic, because this rule makes every idea that was presented available. mr. speaker, my friends on the other side have decided to talk about student loan debt today. it's a troubling issue.

and member after member's come to the house floor and they said, the students they've taken out all of these loans and economic circumstances have changed and now their opportunities are truncated. i feel for those students. and america is in exactly that same circumstance. we have taken out loan after loan after loan, economic circumstances are changinging and if we continue on this -- changing and if we continue on this path, america's opportunities will be truncated. i hear my friends advocating for an opportunity to refinance student loans. where is the opportunity to refinance america's $1 trillion in debt? mr. speaker over the next 10 years if we do nothing, if we do nothing, as my colleagues propose, if we defeat this rule and do nothing america will pay $4.7 trillion in interest

alone. not a penny of the $18 trillion in principal. $4.7 trillion in interest alone. that is an entire year in fact that's an entire year and 1/4 of federal spending wasted on interest. these are not academic conversations we're having today, mr. speaker. these are decisions about whether we're going to be paying our creditors oirn vesting in america. these -- or investing in america. these are decisions about whether we're going to be paying our creditors or focusing on our collective priorities. these are decisions about whether the balance will budget -- whether the budget will balance or whether it never, ever, ever will. i choose balance. i choose balance and i choose the tough bipartisan decisions that we'll have to make together. i choose the tough bicameral decisions we'll have to make together. i choose the tough negotiations with the president that we'll have to do together.

but i will not be a party to mortgaging the future of america one more time. i'm grateful that we will consider all the ideas that are presented here today and i am confident that balance and fiscal responsibility will rise to the top. with that mr. speaker, i urge all of my colleagues to support this rule, get on to this great debate that we will have, i yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentleman yields back. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, on that i request the -- i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20 the 15-minute vote on ordering the previous

question will be followed by five-minute votes on adopting the resolution, if ordered, suspending the rules and passing h.r. 216, and agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal, if ordered. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 238. the nays are 180. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise.

a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 237. the nays are 180. one member voting present. the resolution is adopted. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from florida, mr. miller, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 216 as amended. on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 216, a bill to amend title 38 united states code to direct the secretary of veterans affairs to submit to congress a future years veterans program and a quadrennial veterans review to establish in the department of veterans

affairs a chief strategy officer, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 420. the nays are zero. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker. may i request the yeas and nays? the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are

ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 253. the nays are 156 with two voting present. the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. price: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.con.res 27. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 163 and rule 18, the chair declares the house committee of the whole house on the state of the union for house conresolution 27. the chair appoints mr. yoder to preside over the committee of the whole.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of house concurrent resolution 27 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: concurrent resolution 27 establishing the budget for the united states government for fiscal year 2016 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2017 through 2025. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the concurrent resolution is considered as read the first time. general debate shall not exceed four hours with three hours confined to the congressional budget equally controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the budget. and one hour on the subject of economic goals and policies equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from texas, mr. brady and the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney or their designees.

the gentleman from georgia, mr. price, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, each will control 90 minutes of debate on the congressional budget. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from georgia. the committee will come to order. members will remove their conversations from the house floor. the committee will come to order.

the chair: the chair now recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: i thank the chairman, and i want to thank my ranking member on the committee, mr. van hollen from maryland, for his work on our budget that we bring forward, the spirited debate that we had in committee. i want to thank all our committee members for the productive activity they brought forward over the last 10 or 11 weeks to work on our budget and produce this product. i want to thank our staff. they've done incredible work to get us to this point. i want to take a special moment to thank budget director doug elmendorf who will be leaving at the end of the month. i know the ranking member and i will have words on his service. thank him and his staff for the work that they've done. mr. chairman, i'm so proud and pleased to join my budget committee colleagues and conference member colleagues on this side of the aisle to present a balanced budget for a

stronger america. you know, when i talk with folks back home in the district, sixth district of georgia, across the state of georgia and truly across this country, individuals are concerned. they're very concerned. many of them are angry. most are frustrated about the direction of america. they feel we're adrift, that washington seems incapable of addressing their concerns, that federal government's getting in the way or impeding the very spirit of the people. and the president's response in his budget, more faxes more spending -- more taxes, more spending, more borrowing, more debt, more stagnant growth and a budget that never, ever, ever balances. remember, mr. chairman, the american people know this. every dollar that's taken for taxes and every dollar that is borrowed, stealing from next generation is a dollar that can't be used to pay the rent,

to buy a car, to buy a home, to send a kid to college, to open a business or to expand a business and create jobs. we think there's a better way. and framing that issue, as folks report, is our introduction in which we say this. it's often said that a budget is more than a dry collection of numbers and budgeting more than a mechanical act. with respect to the congressional budget, no one's put it better than the renowned political scientist, aaron vildosky when he said taxing and spending resourcing mobilization and resource allocation now take up as much more time on the floors of congress than all other matters put together. how large government will be, the part it will play in our lives whether more or less will be done for defense or welfare, how much and what sort of people will pay for the services what kind of society and some we americans want to have. all these are routinely discussed in budget debates. this resolution proceeds from

that conviction. it seeks to restore fundamental principles of budgeting and governing, to reverse the drift toward higher spending and larger government, to reinforce the innovative and creative spirit stiring among the myriad institutions and communities across this country and to revitalize the prosperity that creates ever-expanding opportunities for all americans to pursue their destinies. put differently, this budget resolution expresses a vision, a vision of governing and of america itself. . what is that vision? mr. chairman, we believe in promoting the greatest amount of opportunity and the greatest amount of success for the greatest number of americans so the greatest number of american dreams may be realized. and doing so in a way that demonstrates real hope and real compassion and real fairness without washington picking winners and losers. now, americans just have a

common sense about them and they understand something isn't right, especially with our debt. very troubling. over $18 trillion. they know that we can't spend more money that we take in forever. they can't do it in their personal lives. they can't do it in their families or businesses or communities. and we can't do it right here in congress. in fact the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said a few years ago, admiral mike mullen, the highest ranking military officer in our country, he was asked what's the greatest threat to national security? the highest ranking military officer in our country. asked what the greatest threat was, and he said the national debt. because he knows what americans know. that unless we have economic security we will never have national security. so instead of the insecurity and uncertainty of the president's plan, we think there's a better way. what are our highlights? we balance the budget in less than 10 years and we do so without raising taxes. our budget reduces spending by

$5.5 trillion. it stays in balance and sets us on a path to pay off that debt, all of it. we provide for a vote on the balanced budget amendment in the house of representatives. this congress, something that folks back home just think makes sense. we support a strong national defense, providing resources above the president's number when taking into account the base defense budget and the global war on terror funding. we repeal obamacare in its entirety. as a physician i can tell you it's not just harming the health of america, it's harming the economy of america. we stop the raid on medicare. we eliminate the independent payment advisory board where a board of individuals cannot pay your doctor, seniors' doctors for caring for them. we promote patient centered health care where patients and families and doctors are making medical decisions not washington d.c. we secure economic opportunity. we call for fair and simple and comprehensive tax reform to get this economy rolling again and get millions of americans back to work.

we repeal dodd frank and end the too big to fail bank bailouts. we reform fannie and freddie, cut corporate welfare. we promote federalism. the letter sent from governors across this state recently said, quote, over the last several decades the federal government has passed laws and promulgated regulation that is restrict the ability of states to innovate while requiring states to implement and run programs dictated by federal dollars and federal rules. for a long time states were willing to trade off power and responsibility for federal taxpayer funds, but we have reached a tipping point where states serve to carry out the wishes of the federal government instead of laboratories of democratcy. we give states flexibility. flexibility in medicaid and nutritional assistance. we return control of education to state and local governments. we hold washington kibble,

reducing the size of the work force through attrition and selling federal assets and unneeded federal lands. we call for regulatory reform to free up small business and job creation across this land. and we require fee collecting programs in the federal government to account for that revenue in our own appropriations process so the people's representatives can have a say about how that money is spent. we cut waste and fraud and abuse, end the double dipping in disability insurance and unemployment insurance. we require able-bodied adults of working age to work to receive federal welfare benefits. we support the rights of conscience for doctors and health care providers and employers, and we push back on the compkive overreach of this administration. we stop the president's car on coal. prevent -- war on coal. we hold the i.r.s. accountable for targeting american taxpayers. mr. chairman, this is a positive vision for our country. it will deliver real results for the american people. we responsibly lay out a path

for a healthy economy, an opportunity economy, one that opens doors for people not subjects them to the dictates of washington, d.c. you see, mr. chairman, we believe in america. and we believe in americans. we understand our problems are significant and we hear the people of this nation crying out for leadership here in washington, d.c. the balanced budget for a stronger america will result in a government that's more efficient, more effective, and more accountable. one that frees up the american spirit and optimism and enthusiasm to do great things and meet great challenges. and we encourage our colleagues and fellow citizens across this country to join us in this exciting opportunity. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to start by thanking the chairman of the committee, chairman price, for conducting the business of the budget committee in a professional manner. we have sharp differences but

have expressed them in a civil fashion. i also want to agree with him with respect to the great job the budget committee staff has done, both democrat and republican. and agree with them on one more thing and it may be the last thing i agree with the gentleman on during this debate, but dr. elmendorf, the current head of the congressional budget office has done a great job and we'll have more to say about that later. we all believe in america. but i do not believe this republican budget reflects the values and priorities. it's the wrong direction for america. now, as we gather here today, we are facing some good news. we are facing some bad news. and we are facing some really bad news. the good news is the economy is improving. more people are going back to work. in fact, the private sector has added 12 million new jobs over

the last 60 months. it's not all rosy. many americans are still looking for work, but the unemployment rate has fallen to 5.5% and trends are good. the bad news is that americans are working harder than ever but their paychecks are flat. this is not a new problem, mr. speaker. it's not even a problem in the last two years or just the last five years. it goes back quite a ways. in fact, as this chart indicates we have seen a growing gap between worker productivity, which has been rising steadily, and the incomes and paychecks of most working americans. the if you look at this chart it's very interesting. it goes from 1948 to the 1970's. you see these two lines are convergent. that means the additional worker productivity, the hard work of american workers, was translated

into higher paychecks and compensation for them. but starting around the 1970's you saw the great divergence. worker productivity went up. people are working harder than ever, better than ever. but their paychecks and compensation had been pretty much flat. so where is the value of that hard work going? if people are working harder than ever, why aren't their paychecks keeping track? well, that additional value of hard work is no longer going to regular working americans. people working for a paycheck. it's gone overwhelmingly to folks at the top. i don't mean just the top 10. it's gone overwhelmingly to the top 1% of americans who have seen their incomes rise dramatically even as everybody else has pretty much been running in place and flat. so our challenges to all those people working really hard, harder than ever how can we

make sure that they benefit from that increased productivity? mr. speaker, we had some hope right after the november election. i remember opening up the newspaper, the "wall street journal," there was an op-ed piece. by speaker boehner and the republican senate leader mitch mcconnell. and here's what they said. they said that they were humbled by the opportunity to quote, help struggling middle class americans and to deal with wage stagnation. that's what they said right after the election. but, mr. speaker, the very bad news today for the country is if you look at this republican budget, turns out they were just kidding. this republican budget is really hard on hardworking americans. and those who are looking hard to find a job. it says, keep working harder,

but you're going to get less. it will do nothing, nothing to increase paychecks and take-home pay for working families. in fact, it squeezes them even harder and tighter. it will increase the tax burden on millions of families. those in the middle class and those working hard to join the middle class. amazingly it just drops the higher education tax credits. it ends the boost in the child tax credit. millions of americans lose access to affordable care tax credits. it's not just working families. students who are working hard to try and get a job, they are going to find college even less affordable that today. this republican budget cuts student loans. it increases the cost of student loans. starts charging students interest while they are still in

college. it cuts $90 billion from pell, mandatory and more. not just students and working families, seniors. seniors who have worked hard to secure a financial -- a healthy retirement, they are going to see their costs go up, immediately. prescription drugs will cost more. co-payments for preventive health services go up right away. nursing home care will get much more expensive as they cut $90 billion out of medicaid, 2/3 of which goes to help seniors and disabled individuals. most of the rest goes to families with kids. then they turn medicare into a voucher program that will reduce medicare benefits. it so while this republican budget squeezes hardworking

families increases the cost of college for students, squeezes seniors, higher costs for them it's great for those who are already at the top 1%. it's great for millionaires. in fact, this budget paves the way for the romney-ryan plan to cut the tax rate for millionaires. by a third. paves the way, green lights it. if you look at this budget, it's based on a failed and disproven economic theory. topdown, trickle-down economics the same old theory, the theory that complieded with the real world under president bush. in the 2000s, right? cut the top tax rate. here he was the benefits will trickle down and lift everybody up. guess what? incomes of the top 1%, they went up. everybody else ran aground.

yachts went up, everybody else's boat went down. deficits went up. everybody else was running in place or fell behind. and here's the thing, while this republican budget makes life harder right away for hardworking americans life will get harder immediately. it also disinvests in our future. it slashes the part of the budget we use to invest in our kids' education. from early education and head start to k through 12 and beyond. it's a sad day when we start chopping away at the ladder of opportunity in this country. it will also devastate the investments our country has historically made in scientific research and innovation, investments that have helped power our economy and keep us at the cutting edge of world

technology. guess what else? it provides no solution, no answer to the fact that in just a few months in may we are going to face a shortfall in the transportation trust fund that will result in a construction slow down this summer. does nothing. -- does nothing about that in the budget. 8 says we'll come up with something after today, in a couple months. . so mr. speaker, when i say this budget disinvests in america, it's not rhetoric, it's a mathematical reality. i want people to look at this chart. this is a chart of the share of our economy that we spend on the investment portion of our budget, investment in our kids' education investment in scientific research like the medical research to help find treatments and cures to diseases like cancer, diabetes other diseases that plague american families.

here's what the republican budget does, it takes that investment budget and throws it off the cliff, off the cliff to the point that it's 40% below the lowest level as a share of the economy. since we've been keeping records in the late 1950's. here's a country that invested in the g.i. bill. we invested in our infrastructure, the national highway system. we've invested in our kids' education. this republican budget disinvests in america. so it cuts all those things. i tell you one thing it doesn't cut, it doesn't cut one single tax break for the purpose of reducing the deficit. not one penny. not one penny reduces the deficit. we hear the highest priorities, reduce the deficit, but yes, let's cut our investment in education. yeah, let's cut our investment

in innovation. let's not fund the transportation trust fund. but we're not going to cut one single tax break for the purpose of reducing the deficit. not for corporate jets, not for hedge fund owners. not one. so despite all that and despite the deep cuts it makes in our investment, the reality is this budget doesn't balance. it doesn't balance. not by a long shot, mr. speaker . this budget takes budget cadillacery to new heights. it claims -- clackery to new heights. it claims to repeal the affordable care act but it uses the revenues and savings from the affordable care act to claim balance after 10 years. senator enzi, the new republican chairman of the senate budget committee, said that was kind of a budget accounting that he didn't think was right. heritage foundation you know,

they called that question as well in comments last time this came up. here's the other thing. the budget doesn't account for the almost $1 trillion in tax extenders that our republican colleagues brought to the floor last fall and are on the way of bringing it to the floor now. $1 trillion. if you add that to the deficit, which is real money it's even farther out of balance. and then they go and claim a deficit dividend based on fan thom deficit reductions. -- phanthom deficit reductions. this is in the 10th year when they say their budget is balanced by $33 billion. well it's not. if you take out the affordable care act savings, if you add in the tax extenders, costs that

our republican colleagues keep bringing to the floor, you don't come close to balance. not close, mr. speaker. this balanced budget stuff, it just isn't true. it's just not true. it would make enron accountants blush. so i think mr. speaker, most americans would agree that this budget, cutting tax rates for the very wealthy while increasing the tax burden on working families raising the cost of seniors, raising the cost of students, cutting vital investments will even stack the deck more in favor of the very wealthy and very powerful and make it harder on everyone else to get ahead. mr. speaker, we can do better we can do much better and democrats will propose a budget that promotes a more rapidly growing economy with more broadly shared prosperity. that will be the right direction for america.

and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. price: thank you, mr. chairman. so much misinformation just presented and we'll work through that over the course of the next three hours as we debate this bill, but i guess the most disheartening thing is the -- is the rhetoric that divides the american people. this is a time for the country to come together and solve the challenges that we have. the individual that have been leading in that is the current chairman of the ways and means committee, past chairman of the budget committee, i'm proud to yield four minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin mr. ryan. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for four minutes. mr. ryan: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to tip my hat to the new budget chairman. it's a difficult job putting bauget together. i did it for four years. and so i thank the gentleman for bringing an outstanding budget to the floor. first of all, this is a budget to be proud of. this is a budget that makes our

country stronger. this is a budget that balances. you know, it's pretty important to note that hardworking taxpayers, the people that elected us here to represent them, they have to live within their means. well, so should government. that's the basic decision here. and so when you take a look at the budget being considered here, we basically want the government to get back in the business of being honest with people about our finances. here's the problem, mr. chairman. our government is making promises to people in this country that it knows it can't keep. that's dishonesty. what this budget does is it puts our budget back on track so that the government can keep these promises, the promises that people are organizing their lives around. what the gentleman from maryland and the president's

budget says, just keep race razing taxes. tax more. by the way that's not enough we need to borrow more and spend more. that seems to be the path to prosperity to them and look at where we are. highest poverty rate in a generation. our economy is growing below 2% in some cases below 3% which is what we're supposed to be growing at. the gentleman, i just listened to his rhetoric. he says this slices, this slashes, we're chopping away at opportunity. here's what this budget does. instead of increasing spending on average, like the president's budget does at 5.1%, it does that at 3.4%. so we're saying let's get the government to live within its means. government spending will still increase on average 3.4% a year instead of 5.1% a year. i guess that's the difference between whether people can live the american dream or not, whether we're slashing our

chopping or doing all these horrible, awful things to people. mr. chairman, just don't by this overheated rhetoric. the problem is we've got to balance the budget, we've got to get this debt under control. we see the storm clouds on the horizon -- in the horizon and what this budget does is it gets the government to be honest with the taxpayers that give us the money in the first place so we can balance the budget and get this debt on the right track. we invest in the right way by giving people their own money so they can make decisions what's right for their family, instead of having washington run it all. now, there's one last thing i'd like to say. as i get carried away on the rhetoric, the c.b.o. is an agency we use quite a bit here. and the congressional budget office is a very important government agency that gives us all of our cost estimates. this budget is written on their estimates. and for the last six years we've had a director at the congressional budget office by the name of doug elmendorf who

has done an outstanding job as director of the c.b.o. i've worked very closely with mr. elmendorf, dr. elmendorf, and with c.b.o. in my prior capacity. he was a democratic appointee, but the c.b.o. director is supposed to call the balls and the strikes and play it fair. doug elmendorf has done that, and so i just simply want to say for the record, mr. chairman, that we wish him well. he's leaving at the end of the month. we wish him well. we thank him for his service. we thank the congressional budget office for all the hard work that they put in so we can be here on the floor with these budgets, and we wish him great success in the future in whatever it is he chooses and thank him for the service to this house, to this congress and to our country. and with that, mr. chairman, i simply want to say, this is an outstanding budget that deserves our support. don't buy all the hype you're hearing from the other side and pass this fantastic price budget. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from maryland is

recognized. mr. van hollen: i thank you, mr. speaker. i listened to my friend and the former chairman and his remarks. the reality is that the president's proposal the democratic proposal, we don't increase tax rates but, yes, we do get rid of some of the tax loopholes in the tax code that are riddled with preferences that are there not because they make america more productive but because someone had a powerful lobbyist who is getting a special interest break for them. right. if you think about it, if the government provides a grant of $1,000 to somebody, that's $1,000 in value but if i say to you you know of the taxes you have to pay i'll give you a special break so it's $1,000 less, that's a pretty good deal too. and the reality is we spend $1.4 trillion, according to the congressional budget office, each year on tax expenditures. more than on social security. now, some of those are for good

purposes, good public policy purposes, but some of them are for like, corporate jets, some of them are for hedge fund managers. and here's the thing yeah, we think we can good rid some of those tax breaks to reduce the long-term deficit, our colleagues would just prefer to devastate our investments in education and other areas. you know, math is math, to the former chairman. the reality is, and he knows it, that the portion of the budget we use to make these investments, the republican budget does absolutely cut that to 40% below the lowest level of the share of the economy since we've been keeping records. that's a fact. another reality is that this republican budget doesn't balance unless you're using phony math. i'm now very pleased to yield three minutes to the gentlelady from wisconsin, a great member of the budget committee, ms. moore. the chair: the gentlelady from wisconsin is recognized for three minutes. ms. moore: i thank you so much and thank the ranking member for yielding to me. i want to add my voice to

those, congratulate everybody on the budget committee, particularly the chair and the ranking member, for their hard work and the staff that we put into this labor. i could tell you that i was indeed shocked, even though i've been on the budget committee for several cycles, i continue to be shocked at the -- at how this budget does not reflect what i call democratic values. and i mean democratic, not as a democratic party but as our democracy. i believe that our democracy is really at risk when we put forth such a budget. i think that this budget hallows out the middle class and based on the constructs we've seen in the past, it would raise taxes on middle-class families. i'm talking about those people earning modest incomes $50,000 to $75,000 a year, by $2,000 a

year. and of course it abandons the poor. of the 5.5 trillion dollars 69% of this is on the backs of hoes -- of those who are the most poor, most vulnerable. who do we care about in this budget? this budget pulls up the ladder of opportunity from our kids. that next generation that is going to make our economy work they're doing us a favor by trying to go to college but yet we cut pell grants in this republican budget by somewhere around $90 billion. it deconstructs our job-creating infrastructure investment by $187 billion. usually a time when the transportation budget was a bipartisan thing, but in the name of balancing a budget we even throw these workers under

the bus. it pulls the lifeline from seniors disabled, kids by block granting our medicaid program and cutting $ 13 billion, -- $913 billion, that $2 trillion from health care a lifeline by repealing the affordable care act and all this in the name of a phony balancing of the budget. it depends -- we're going to see a display here at some point. i don't know what you call it, the king of the hill, the queen of the hill budget, the "price is right" budget. i don't know. where we're either going to have $94 billion or $96 billion in a slush fund the overseas account that's $36 billion $38 billion above what the generals and the president say they need

for war and we're not going to take one dime away from the one -- can i just have 30 seconds? mr. van hollen: i yield the gentlelady another 130ekds. ms. moore: that's $1.4 trillion of entitlements that we spend through the tax code for gas and oil subsidies jets, hedge fund managers. there's talk in this budget of eliminating the estate tax. millionaires and billionaires are benefiting. tax income from c.e.o. pay, and yet we think that balancing the budget -- mr. van hollen: i yield the gentlelady another 15 seconds. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. . ms. moore: don't believe the

hype. this is not a democratic budget as americans have come to know it and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. price: this appears to be a common theme moving forward with this rhetoric and dividing american against american, not just positive. the gentleman from maryland said it's all about math and mathis math and he is right. we spend $12,000 per american. it doesn't work. what's it get you? this is what it gets you. this is the debt-to-gross domestic product in this nation. the red line is where the debt's going. this is the democrat plan right here. that is what will cost our country.

our friends are sticking their heads in the sand. this destroys lives and destroys every american. we stand for all americans. we believe having a balanced budget for a stronger america is the way to solve these challenges. we believe is important to save strengthen and secure the programs that are so vital to the american people. the gentleman has been working on this as vice chairman rokita. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rokita: i thank my colleagues for their hard work. it is nice to have this honest conversation with the american people. the whole goal here is to allow the opportunity for americans to build better lives for themselves and their families. not for the federal government to attempt to provide that better life, because, mr.

chairman, after 50 years of the war on poverty, for example, we know that the federal government can't do the job. a lot of rhetoric out there. certainly, mr. chairman not positive and not right either. it's just plain wrong. we talk about hard work. you know what's hard work? getting the competing priorities in a continuing assertion of our limited monies in terms of our mandatory spending to get a budget to balance in 10 years. yet again, this budget committee and this house of representatives has a plan to do it and unlike you've heard to do it honestly. what's not hard work? what's a lot easier to do is to never balance. and this chart shows that. the president's budget never balances ever. of course, mr. chairman, you

know you can't start paying down the $18 trillion of debt that we have with another $100 trillion. we do it in a responsible, logical 10-year window. the federal budget is very big. it's like an aircraft carrier. you have to turn it and turn it decisively, but it doesn't turn on a dime. and that's what we show here and that's what we do here and again, it's hard work. it's hard work as i mentioned earlier because as time goes on more and moreover our $3 trillion are spent on programs that are going to bankrupt us. if we don't save for future generations, no one will take advantage of medicaid, medicare and social security. i know we put money into those

programs, but on average we only put about 30% into them, medicare, for example. and that 70% delta goes on the backs of our children and grandchildren, a lot of whom haven't been born. talk about taxation without representation. our budget solves this problem. we have the ability and we on the committee have had the honesty to have this direct, forth right conversation with the american people. frankly now, for five years. the worst thing we could have done was to turn tail and run and not have this honest conversation. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. rokita: we did it five years ago. we continue to do it. and i'm encouraged, mr. chairman. i think the american people see the light. they see that unless we correct and reform this mandatory

overspending, that one can be helped. we can't have americans building better lives for themselves, but be more dependent on the federal government and in doing so more and more people will be hurt. slush fund no. a very important fund to fight the global war on terror, to keep our troops safe and effective, that's an important fund. i wouldn't call it a slush fund and i wouldn't call dependency on broken programs good, positive either. republicans on the budget committee, republicans in this congress, i hope all of us eventually will have the courage and ability to have not only have this conversation with the american people, but to start putting this conversation into direct action. mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm a little surprised the

gentleman from indiana brought up what's called the funding -- these are the funds in the oversees contingency account for overseas contingencies like wars and other contingencies that come up. the reality is what the republican budget does here is create a slush fund out of the oversees contingency account. it sends a signal we are confused about how top fund our defense obligations and it's in total violation of what the budget committee itself stood for for years. i want to read, mr. speaker, from the 2015 republican budget. just a year ago, but we got real amnesia among our republican colleagues. here's what they said in their report. abuse of the cap adjustment is a backdoor loophole that

undermines the integrity of the budget process. the budget committee will exercise its oversight responsibilities with respect to the use of oco. the budget committee will oppose levels that our military commanders say are needed unless it can be clearly demonstrated that such accounts are war-related. i didn't write that, but the republican colleagues put it in the report. it's like whew, didn't mean it. so i'm baffled that our colleagues keep bringing this up. total violation of what the budget committee has always stood for on a bipartisan basis. i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from new york, ranking member of the small business committee and great friend to entrepreneurs around the country, ms. va last quezz. mr. valadao: i thank the --

>> i oppose the budget that would cut the legs out from our nation's small businesses. this would mean $10 billion cuts. taken together this reduction will mean 190,000 fewer jobs created. for many will be business owners and entrepreneurial development centers to provide critical training and guidance. and yet this budget will shortchange those programs removing local resources that allow small businesses to take root and grow in our community. nationally, small business development centers and women business development centers will see cuts of $195 million. this will mean, 16,000 fewer small businesses are able to launch, while 150,000 existing

small companies will be deprived assistance that helps their growth. beyond technical assistance, small businesses need capital to expand. sadly this budget undermines credit programs. new york city alone will see a $22.5 million in micro loans. do you know that 62% of micro businesses by low-income women with a default of less than 3%. shame on us. this lending helps the small businesses create opportunity. so, it only makes sense that this budget, which targets the most vulnerable would slash this program too. small businesses will suffer in other ways. for many small businesses having

the federal government as a customer can mean significant revenue and job creation opportunity. under this plan, small business contract awards will be reduced by $142 billion, lowering job creation by 2.1 million positions. new york city companies would lose out on losing out on federal work. republicans like to position themselves as small business champions. however, supporting small firms take more than lip service. it requires wise investments in programs promoting entrepreneurship. this budget slashes those programs and i urge my colleagues to reject it. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from georgia is

recognized. mr. price: i was amused by my friend's comments about the global on -- war on terror fund understanding that in 2015 2014 and 2013 for those fiscal years, he voted for the appropriations bills that included the defense money and the levels were $91.9 billion that the gentleman voted for. i'm pleased -- mr. van hollen: would the gentleman yield? mr. price: maybe later. i'm placed to yield to a member of the budget committee from california mr. mcclintock. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcclintock: we need to discuss the budget under the growing shadow of unprecedented debt that has literally doubled in the last eight years. with crushing debt comes

rowinous interest costs that the c.b.o. warns that will exceed our military budget in the current decade. the budget produced by chairman price's house budget committee meets our current defense demands by adding additional money into the war account, but i would reassure the ranking member member that it funds that increase to a decrease in other spending. that will hold us on a trajectory to balance the budget in less than 10 years and paying down the unprecedented debt this administration has run up. this plan is met with opposition by defense hawks who want extra spending, but who don't want to go through the fuss and bother of paying for it. and therein lies the problem. this is not just a one-year increase because it increases defense spending without making other cuts, it changes the

overall spending trajectory over the next 10 years. and here's the simple math of the matter. this adds more than $20 billion for total spending this year and it in effect, repudiates the budget plan for additional reductions next year. and on this new trajectory that these budget hawks would set, there would be no balanced budget in 10 years even if we enacted every other reform called for in the budget. after 10 years, we will still be running deficits and nearly $100 billion and interest costs will have eaten us alive. it is so important to pass the budget committee intact without the amendments being proposed. i'm curious how the self-proclaimed defense hawks plan to defend our country when our credit is shot and our debt service is approaching $100 trillion a year.

they forget in the spring of 1945, carrying a debt proportional to the one we have today, there was serious doubt whether we could conduct the war for another year. when he was chairman of the joint chiefs of staff admiral mike mullen warned that in his professional military judgment, the greatest threat to our national security is the national debt. he made that he made that warning five years and $4.5 trillion of debt ago. history warns us that countries that bankrupt themselves aren't around very long. before you can provide for the common defense, you have to be able to pay for it and theable of our nation to do so is coming into doubt. this budget offers us a narrow path out of debt while continuing to fund the military at the requested levels, and its adoption, intact, is essential to our short-term and long-term needs. we have a stark choice before

us. pay for the needed increase in defense by reducing other spending, or refuse to pay for those increases and sacrifice the long-term security and prosper i have to our country on the altar of instant gratification. aamongst the most chilling words in history are attributed to louie xv. after us, the flood. let that not -- to louis xv. after us, the flood. let that not be the epitaph of congress. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: the gentleman is right a about this oko slush fund. and the chairman is right, i did support the oco money at the level requested by the president and the joint chiefs of staff, our military commanders. it was higher a couple of years ago because we had tens of

thousands more troops in after began tan -- afghanistan. the gentleman may rethat we brought a lot of troops home. as a result of twheark don't need as much money in our war account, the overseas contingency account. so what i did mr. speaker, is exactly what our republicans -- our republican colleagues on the budget committee said we should do at that time. in other words, i opposed increases above the levels the administration and military commanders say were needed to carry out those operations. yes i did support a budget level at the level the president and our military commanders said was necessary. but as mr. mcclintock said, the republican budget does just the opposite. it does what we said we would not do and i say we, republicans democrats alike. so it's important to heed our own words otherwise we will as

the budget committee itself said, we will undermine the integrity of the budget process. that was the point mr. mcclintock was making as well. i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from oregon the ranking member of the transportation and infrastructure committee, somebody who knows we have to fund the mornedization of our country's infrastructure, mr. defazio. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. defazio: let's depart from a little bit of the acrimony, the acronyms, let's be concrete. let's talk about infrastructure investment and what the republican budget would do. we're running a deficit this year, we fall off a cliff at the end of may and if we don't put up $10 billionmark states will cancel project this is summer. that's not the subject of this

budget. this budget is for next year. what are they doing for the long-term? they're going to reform the highway trust fund. thank you very much, i appreciate that. they're going to limit the expenditures out of funds to future income. we've been supplementing it because the income is not adequate. but no, no more general funds, you live on the income. what does that mean? it means in this budget, put forward by these people, there would be a 99% cut in state funding. no, not exaggerating 99%. because basically the money is paying for past obligations, past projects for the states. when the states finish a project, they get reimbursed. while they're building it, they don't. under their tpwhudget fiscal year 2016, your state department of transportation will get 99% less federal funds. it kind of has a pretty big impact in some states here. if you're a -- in a bright yellow state you're over 0 -- 70% dependent on federal funds,

in a light green 49% to 59%. the chairman of the committee, georgia, they would get $1.1 billion less. i guess georgia doesn't need the money. the the roads congest on around atlanta, not a problem. the speaker's state would get $1.2 billion less thunder budget. california $3.2 billion less, the majority leader, and louisiana, the whip, $619 million less. these are facts. that's the actual impact of the proposed budget. it digs a hole so deep we'll never get out of it. what happens after the first year of their reform of the trust fund? well, actually, unless we pass a long-term bill with new funding which they are quite resistant to thus far, it would mean 30% less funding than today for all states and 60% cut in surface

transportation. we already have a system with 147,000 bridges that need repair or total replacement. 40% of the surface on the national highway system is in such bad condition it has to be dug up, not just resurfaced. none of that. no. major work. and a $75 billion backlog in transit systems, our legacy systems are so obsolete they're killing people right here in the nation's capital people are dying unnecessarily because they can't afford to bring in modern cars without the federal partnership. we held a hearing just last week in the committee and we heard from the governor of north carolina red state, red governor, mayor of salt lake, and the transportation director from wyoming they all say the federal partnership is absolutely critical and you're going to reduce it to 1%. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> i thank the chairman, i would

note for the -- mr. price: i thank the chairman i would say if he reads the resolution we accommodate for appropriate funding in section 510 with. the deficit neutral reserve fund, we accommodate for paying for it, for transportation and infrastructure, because we believe it's a priority, we believe it's a priority for the american people. i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from arkansas, mr. westerman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. westerman: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman for your leadership. americans know this country was built on a strong work ethic. this budget provides a framework to create projects if for able bodied working age adults receiving federal benefit. some may ask, why work requirements? in 1996, president clinton a fellow arkansasian from my hometown of hot springs, but from across the aisle said,

today we are taking a historic chance to make welfare what it is meant to be -- a second chance, not a way of life. the goal of work force requirements on able bodied working age adults is to give americans a hand up, not a hand out. mr. speaker, we should be concerned about the negative effects these federal benefit programs are having on our american work ethic when we review the day tafment the maximum an individual can earn and still receive government assistance under some programs according to the u.s. department of health and human services, is only $1,000. the cato institute reports that in 39 states individuals can make more on government assistance than by working an eight--- an $8 per hour job. in six states government benefits pay more than a $12 per hour job. in eight state, government assistance pays more than the average salary of an american teacher. in my home state, where medicaid expansion was accepted, 40% of

the able bodied working agent -- age adults receiving 100% funded medicaid have zero income. by adding work force requirement requirements for able bodied working age adults in the medicaid population alone this budget establishes a blueprint for work requirements that will result in savings by 2022 of up to $376 billion federally with an additional $170 billion saved at the state level. president franklin roosevelt made clear in a 1935 address to congress that these programs were not intended to be an entitlement, but a temporary aid to those in need. he said the lessons of history confirmed by the evidence immediately before me show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. to dole out relief in this way

is to administer a narcotic. a sult dell stroyer of the human spirit. it is inimical to the dictates of sound policy it is in violation of the ideals of america. work must be found for able-bodied, destitute workers. the principles that president clinton and president roosevelt before him promoted are more important now than ever before as we find ourselves in a fiscal crisis. president clinton reminded us in 1996 that this is not the end of welfare reform, this is the beginning. we all have to assume responsibility. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. westerman: this budget incentivizes work, not dependence. it reduces spending growth instead of growing government. this budget moves us in the right direction. i encourage my friends on both sides of the tile strengthen america by voting for this

balanced budget for a stronger working america. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. this republican budget strips away provisions that are in existence today to make work pay. child tax credits for working families they get rid of the bump up. they get rid of the enhanced earned income tax credit for working families. as i said they get rid of the higher education deduction for families so that they can send their kids to school. i also want to say a word about the transportation trust fund because as the ranking member thearks senior democrat on the transportation infrastructure committee just pointed out this republican budget has no provision inside the budget numbers for dealing with the crisis we're going to face in a few months. now the chairman of the

committee mentioned the deficit neutral reserve fund, section 510, i'm looking at it now. deficit neutral reserve funds can play an important role in signaling a policy direction. after all, these are 10-year budgets. and i would understand if we didn't know exactly what we're going to do, our transportation trust fund 10 years from now or nine years from now but we're talking about 1 1/2 months from now. we're talking about in the year, first year of this budget. middle of may, we're going to see construction slow down. the democratic budget alternative we have a plan. the president put forward a six-year man. $478 billion. it's included in his budget numbers. it's not like ok, little ast risk, we're figure this out in a month and a half. the president makes sure we don't have a shortfall and he said, we need a modernized infrastructure so we can compete in this global economy system of mr. speaker, it's just -- it

really is reckless to put forward a budget where it doesn't provepbvide any solution to something that's going to face us in a month and a half. now i'm really pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, a terrific member of the budget committee, mr. pascrell. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. ranking member, thank you mr. chairman thank you, mr. speaker. there is a stark choice to be made. there is no question about it, as i'm quoting from the gentleman from california. mr. chairman, this is the stark choice. look at this. this is what you tried to do to the american people after bill clinton left office. during his term, 21 million jobs were created. the next eight years, when we dropped the tax rate down from

39.6% to 35% for those most affluent, we didn't gain anything. in fact, we lost 463,000 jobs. you want to try this again? we're not going to try it again. toucht talk about dead on arrival, those are your words. this is dead on arrival. i rise in strong opposition to this budget. forget about the trillions of dollars worth of cuts to programs that help people with low or moderate incomes. forget about the tax increases that hit the middle class working poor, so that some millionaires and billionaires can squeeze a little more from the stone. forget about repealing obamacare for the 56th time. taking affordable health care out of the hands of 16 million americans, leaving them with nothing and not having the guts to tell them what's going on. forget about all of that the fundamental problem with this document is that even with all

the draconian spending cuts, and with all the tax increases, i just described, at the end of the day, it still doesn't balance as the ranking member just a few moments ago said over and over again. in fact, mr. ranking man, it's not even close. this budget, while calling for the complete and total repeal of the affordable health care act continues to assume that the law's $2 million revenue increases in medicare savings, it assumes that, will do away with the -- we'll do away with the bill but keep the money. i don't know any other way to put it. when we get to taxes, the budget assumes the revenues remain unchanged for the current law yet you, yourself, mr. chairman, i have a great deal of respect for you doctor, you stated explicitly through the chair

that you weren't -- you don't think we should be using the current law baseline. . you all voted for that. they weren't assumed in the current baseline. we have passed $100 billion. where is this money coming from? we are the tax and spend democrats. you folks know better than that. $200 billion. $200 billion has been reported out of ways means and another $300 billion tax cuts for paris hilton and others who are left a nice inheritance. that's what you are going to do tomorrow. my friend, the chairman, might be assuming that your majority

will pass a $1 trillion tax increase to offset these tax breaks and abide by the budget revenue assumptions. mr. speaker i urge a no vote for this budget. it's simply not worth the paper it's printed on. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. members are reminded to direct their remarks to the chair. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: i want to make a comment about the highway trust fund that was referenced and my friend from maryland said there is nothing that will be in this budget. this deals with physician cat year 2016. the good news is that last year's 2015 budget, we also had a proposal to provide for a

deficit neutral reserve fund which was used for map 21. a path of how we are able to actually solve the challenges before us. i am so pleased to yield three minutes to the gentlelady from california mrs. walters. mrs. walters: mr. speaker, i rise in support of the house republican fiscal year 2016 budget resolution a balanced budget for a stronger america. at a time when our nation is grappling with over $18 trillion in national debt and uncertain economic future, now more than ever washington must learn to live within its means. washington's spending problem is one that cannot be taken lightly. according to the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mike mullen, the single

biggest threat to our national security is our national debt. house republicans are working to confront this issue head on. in our budget proposal we seek to tackle washington's spending addiction by reducing federal spending by $5.5 trillion and balancing the federal budget in less than 10 years. this is a sharp contrast to president obama's budget, which never balances ever. despite the president's continued insistence on raising taxes. our budget aims to strengthen vital programs like medicare and social security in a fiscally responsible way, so we can fulfill the promises we've made to our nation's seniors. one of the federal government's top priorities is providing a strong national defense.

this budget boosts defense spending above the president's levels so we can ensure a strong safe and secure nation. furthermore, our proposal repeals obamacare in full, including the laws, taxes regulations and mandates that are crippling hard-working americans and small businesses nationwide. we also empower patients by repealing the president's independent payment advisory board, an unelected, unaccountable board of bureaucrats charged with making patients health care decisions. the republican budget is a positive step forward for our nation. it seeks to address our nation's debt crisis while also supporting the programs that are critical to our national and economic security. i urge my colleagues to support this budget resolution. mr. speaker, i yield back the

balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. as we previously pointed out this republican budget keeps the receive news from the affordable care act even as it claims to repeal the affordable care act and without that level of revenue along with other savings, it doesn't even come close to balancing. no accountant would certify this republican budget close to balance. i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from new mexico, terrific member of the committee, someone who is an expert on all sorts of issues, including health care. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. lujan grisham: i thank the ranking member. this budget, the republican budget is a collection of $5.5 trillion of devastating cuts of both mandatory and nondefense

discretionary programs. i heard my colleagues say that we need to treat the budget like we do american families when you can't live within your means, you have to figure that out. this is a budget that takes away those means. we are going to talk about entitlement reform yet to provide an investment and actually providing jobs and providing opportunities to have careers and meaningful wages. now, as we debate these numbers, i really hope that my republican colleagues when they vote for this budget, will you really know what you are doing and what these numbers mean for hard-working american families? because i know what the budget does and how it impacts them. here's what it means. it means 290 fewer new mexico children will have head start. fewer residents will receive job

training and employment services. 59,000 students will lose pell grants. 24100 seniors will likely have to pay more for their prescription drugs and about 431,000, bears repeating, 431,000 receiving snap, half of which are children, will be in develop ardy of losing their nutrition support. when we think about the budget we just cannot think about the numbers that sit on a piece of paper. we need to think about the human meaning behind the numbers. we need to think about the child who will go hungry, the student who can't afford college and the senior who won't be able to pay their medical bills. we need to invest in economic security for everyone. i urge my colleagues to oppose this budget and instead pass a budget that lifts people out of poverty, invests in hard-working families, who have been left

behind by the economy and provides for shared prosperity. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. price: i yield three minutes to the senior member of the budget committee, the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: mr. speaker back on january 20, 2009 the day president obama took office, the federal debt and as we stand here today, that's an increase of over 70%. debt now represents 101% of the g.d.p. let's put this in context, americans owe more money than the value of all the goods and services that are produced right here in the united states in one year. that level of debt quite honestly is unsustainable. is nt just me saying that.

c.b.o. says our high and rising debt would have serious negative consequences on the economy and the federal budget. admiral mike mullen said, the single biggest threat to our national security is the debt. america is faced with two paths. one to continue down the path of blissful neglect or on the other path to seek an honest solution to it. instead of solving our debt problems, president obama has committed to exacerbating them. the president's budget would add $8.5 trillion to our already staggering debt. but despite new taxes in addition the obama's budget never ever balances. it is a vision that confines our

children and grandchildren to heavy debt and tax burdens. the republican budget is a stark alternative. instead of ever increasing debt and ever higher taxes, republicans will balance the budget in less than 10 years without raising more taxes on you. instead of pretending that medicare is sound, republicans will strengthen the program by making much needed structural improvements to it. instead of dictating that washington knows all the answers, republicans will promote by innovation and also by flexibility for medicaid, for education and other programs by restoring local control. mr. speaker, i urge today all members of this body to stand up to support the budget and to support the american taxpayers. to stand up for strengthening our social safety nets and to stand up for our children and grandchildren who did not deserve to be handed a bill for

irresponsible spending today. i urge a yes vote. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you l speaker. i don't think that huge disinvestment in education starting with early education going through k through 12 helps our kids and their future. i don't think that the efforts that strip away at a lot of the job training programs help hard-working americans. the president's budget priority is to accelerate economic growth and have more broadly shared prosperity. i would remind my colleagues, the day the president was sworn into office, we were losing 800,000 jobs every month in this country. the bottom was falling out. now we've seen over the last 60 months, 12 million jobs created.

we have a long way to go, but we are certainly on the right track. and the president's budget provides for additional economic growth in a fiscally responsible way. the president's budget reduces the debt-to-g.d.p. ratio. the president's budget does not do is disinvest in our kids' education. it does not increase the costs to seniors or prescription drugs and co-pays for preventive health care and it doesn't get away from a lot of the important tax credits or relief for middle-class americans and those working to join the middle class. no, it does not do that. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california who knows a lot

about the importance of economic growth especially as it relates to small businesses, ms. hahn. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. hahn: i thank my colleague, chris van hollen, for the opportunity to speak today. i think a budget is a reflection of our priorities. the choices we make about how to invest and spend have an impact on our american families. we must make it easier for hard-working americans to own a home, to send their kids to college and have a secure and enjoyable retirement. that's why it's so important that we invest in our nation's ports, which create good-paying american jobs and sustain american businesses. providing our ports and waterways with the funding and support they need is a high priority for me and one that's shared by many of my colleagues especially the almost 100 members of the bipartisan congressional ports caucus. we know that america must invest more in our ports to remain

globally competitive and prepare for the expansion of the panama canal which will impact international trade and shipping routes. the budget we are considering today, however, does just the opposite. cutting funding for programs that support american commerce is both shortsided and harmful to the competitiveness of american businesses. i applaud the congressional progressive caucus budget because it meets the targets we have set for the harbor maintenance funding, using more of the revenue collected at our ports for its intended purpose for improving ports and navigation channels. let me emphasize that the harbor maintenance trust fund is self-funded. this is not new spending or new fees. shippers already pay this tax to fund improvements that congress is refusing to authorize. the trust fund now has a surplus

of $9 billion in fees that america's ports have collected. but unless we act, these funds will not be used as intended to improve our ports. . . the chair: the gentlelady is yielded 30 seconds. ms. hahn: i call on my colleagues to vote on a budget that return this is tax to the ports where it's collected. i want to thank the bipartisan group of members who signed the letter congressman boustany and i sent to the appropriations committee last week to call for funding to be restored to the wrrda level. mr. price: i thank the gentlelady for her comments. the budget is about priorities. and the priorities we have in our budget, we believe addressed in a very response -- address in

a very responsible way the challenges we face in this nation. what's the president's priority? well if you look at where his budget would take us, it's debt. this again is the chart that demonstrates the debt that this nation has held since 1940. that's the dark area here. you see the debt that's increased since this president came into office at virtually the highest level it's been since world war ii. where does his path go? where does the democrat's path go in their budget? higher than ever before. ever before. that's their plan, apparently. that's what their budget outlines. that's what the president's budget outlines. what does that mean? what that mean is that the interest on the debt, paying the debt service, everyone knows what interest means. they pay it on those in favor say aye credit cards, pay it on their home mortgage, pay it when they buy a car. interest. that's money you pay just to be able to borrow the money that you're using for whatever it is.

in this instance the interest on the debt when we get to numbers not too far away, consumes the entire federal budget. entire federal budget. that's what we're talking about. and in a very short period of time within the budget window this 10-year period of time, interest on the debt rises to over $1 trillion a year. more than the amount spent on defense, more than the amount spent on medicare more than the amount spent on medicaid, on education. all the priorities that the american people have. it's going to be spent on interest, on the debt. that's why we believe it's so -- that is a moral question. are we going to leave our kids this kind of debt? are we going to destin them to a life that has no opportunity? have them be servants to the federal government just to work so they can send their tax money to washington to pay the interest on the debt? mr. chairman, you know that's not the america we want to leave

our kids and our grandkids. i don't believe it's the america our friends on the other side of the aisle want to leave our kids and grandkids. but sadly that's what their budget does. that's what the president's budget does. that's why we're so excited about a balanced budget for a stronger america a budget that puts us on a path to plans within a less than 10-year period of time that saves $5.5 trillion. our friends on the other side say, oh, no, it really doesn't get to balance. even if you conceded that, and i don't, but even if you did, our goal is to get to balance. theirs never is. it's more and more and more borrowing. more debt, more taxes, more spending. that's not what the american people want. what we need to do is to come together and address these challenges that we have in a positive way, a real way, an honest way. get real results for the work we do here. we're proud of the work that this budget does lays out a palt, a positive path of real solutions, saving and strengthening and securing

medicare and medicaid. tax reform that actually works, gets this economy rolling again so we can grow the economy in this country. put people back to work. this is the positive things this budget does. the safety net programs are vital. they're important. we protect those programs. we actually make them work better for the individuals that are receiving those moneys. and we encourage them in a moral way to better their lives and get back on their feet. assist them in getting back to work. that's positive solutions, mr. chairman. positive solutions. balanced budget for a stronger america. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. as i said at the beginning of this debate, the one thing that the republican budget unfortunately will do immediately is make life harder for hardworking americans.

how does it do it? as i indicated, actually increases the tax burden on working americans, middle income americans people working their way to the middle. while providing another tax rate cut for folks at the very top. so people who are working harder than ever and feel that they're just on a treadmill, it doesn't help them at all. in fact, they're going to move farther behind in addition to the fact they're going to pile more costs onto students by increasing the cost of student loans. it's right there in their budget. they're going to start charging you interest while you're in college. they're going to start charging seniors with high prescription drug costs even more because they're going to reopen what's called the prescription drug doughnut hole. i don't know how that's good for seniors in america system of hard on seniors, hard on

students, hard on working families. the democratic budget, like the president's budget meets those priorities. for example working families are facing huge child care costs. so we propose a significant expansion of the child and dependent care tax credit. make it a little easier for those families who are working but want to make sure their kids have quality childcare, make it easier for them by providing them a significant tax credit for that cost. for couples who are working, we scale back the marriage penalty, right, so it's the second worker doesn't begin work at the same higher tax rate as the first worker in the household. that's the kind of important relief we provide to middle class families and those working to join the middle class. republican budget actually gets rid of some of the important

provisions that are already there to help those families. and our budget does this in a fiscally responsible way, as we've seen. the republican budget doesn't balance, not by a long shot. i'm going to quote i mentioned in my opening remarks, i'm going to quote the chairman of the senate budget committee, mr. enzi, who said, quote, one of the problems i've had with budgets that i have looked at is they use a lot of gimmicks. now, when there was anticipation that obamacare would go away and all that money would still be there that's not realistic. i'd like to see us get to real accounting with the budget. that's what senator enzi said. yet this budget assumes the revenue from the affordable care act at the same time it says we're repealing the affordable care act. but the democrats' budget and the president's budget put us on a fiscally re-- fiscally responsible path, reducing the

debt ratio, and provides economic growth. not a budget that provides another round of tax cuts for folks at the top with the hope it will trickle down and lift everybody up. somebody who knows a lot about these areas is someone who is both meab of the budget committee and a member of the ways and means committee. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. mcdermott: thank you, mr. speaker. a budget is a statement of values and priorities. you've heard people standing out here talking about what their priorities are we don't want to load up our kids with debt. we don't want to do all this kind of stuff. but the budget that is put forward by my republican colleagues is shortsighted -- is a shortsighted statement that

has no view of the future. it gambles away the future of the next generation in order to supply business and the ultra wealthy with near-term gains. what's made this country great is the strategic federal investments in health care, roads education bridges research the type of investment that build the middle class and america. now the republicans say their budget plan balances the budget in nine years. but they don't bush what they don't tell you is that they do this at the expense of medicare medicaid, snap, pell grants, everything in the social budget. what you learn from this budget is that when they say they're balancing the budget, they mean we are cutting domestic programs. we're cutting anything that helps hardworking families in this country. it also fails to cut one single

dime from the military. not one single time. they actually want to give the military more than they asked for. now despite raising taxes, you would think -- not raising taxes, you'd think they could at least cut a time from the defense department. by now, people's eyes are kind of glazed over at home thinking about this, but let me talk to one group of people. anybody who has a student with student debt. it is the largest debt load we have in this country. it is -- we've made our kids indentured servants of banks and of the federal government. this budget contains $127 billion over the next 10 years that we've extracted from students in interest on their loans to give cuts in taxes to the wealthy. to lower the rates, to make it

better for the rich. they have a loan a student loan you know anything about loans, those loans can't be renegotiated. you can renegotiate on your house or you can renegotiate on anything else but not a student loan. so when a student at his mother and -- and his mother and father, or her mother and father, sign up far loan and put their house in the teal and put their future and their 401k and everything behind that kid's education, they are stuck with that loan rate. you've got people in this country who are paying 6%, 8% 9% as high as 13% on loans. and they can't renegotiate them. is that fair? is that the future you want? to stick the kids in this country with those kinds of loans? in my view, this budget has no humanity and no view of the

future for our kids. i urge you to vote no. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. moolenaar. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. moolenaar: thank you mr. speaker. the federal government has a spending problem. last week, the government accountability office released a report estimating that the government made $124 billion in improper payments during 2014. spending like this is one of the reasons the national debt has skyrocketed to $18 trillion today. divide among 320 million americans, a child born today inherits $56,000 -- $56,250 in tet or $225,000 for -- in debt or $225,000 for a family of

four. americans work too hard to have the government waste their tax dollars. it's time to start our country on a new course. this republican budget puts america on a more sustainable and responsible fiscal path. in my district there are over 130,000 medicare eligible residents and over 169,000 social security recipients. this budget keeps the promises that have been made to our seniors and those near retirement age by stabilizing the social security trust fund. it also grants flexibility to state ops medicaid, allowing them to craft their own -- states on medicaid, allowing them to draft their done programs to serve the needs of their state and local communities. this budget also enhance ours national security. former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff admiral michael mullen, said our debt is the single biggest threat to our national security. over 20% of it is held by foreign governments. by balancing within 10 years

this budget ends deficits and slows the amount that will have to be paid to other countries. with less spending needed for debt payments, more future funding can go to our national security. this is a budget for solving problems and creating a better future this budget addressing our country's fiscal problems in a responsible way, without raising taxes, and puts our nation on a broither path for our children and -- on a brighter path for our children and grandchildren. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: i do want to say the impact on seniors. we talked about the fact that the republican budget will immediately increase the costs to seniors and increase co-pays for preventive services. let me say what it will do to

seniors who are in nursing homes and other settings that rely on medicaid and the previous gentleman just mentioned the number of people in his district on medicaid. let me just say seniors and people with disbilities account for 85% of medicaid spending. 65% of that spending is to the aged and the disabled. 20% to kids. now, here's what the congressional budget office, the nonpartisan folks, said about the medicaid cuts of this magnitude in the republican budget and the impact that they would have on states. here's what they say. even with significant efficiency gains, even if you imagine that the states are going to somehow come up with incredible efficiencies, even with that, the magnitude of the reduction in spending relative to such

spending in other scenarios mean states would have to increase their spending on these programs, make considerable cutbacks in them or both. in other words, passing the buck down to the states. either they raise taxes to make sure that folks in senior homes seniors in nursing homes don't take a hit or seniors in nursing homes take a hit through fewer benefits. you can't have it both ways when you are cutting $900 billion out of the program that helps seniors and the disabled. ok, here states, you do it on your own and we are going to give you $900 billion less. any nonpartisan person looking at this would arrive at the conclusion that c.b.o. concluded that states are going to have to increase their taxes to maintain

those services or those people are going to get less services. and that's why this republican budget is hard on seniors just like it's hard on students and why it's hard on working families around the country. as i said, it's great if you are already at the top. if you are a millionaire you will get green lighted by the romney-ryan plan. that's just not right. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. price: we heard our friends on the other side talk about gimmicks, let's talk about the president's budget and defense. he comes out and pounds his chest and says i'm a big defense hawk and going to give our defense folks more money, protect us from the threats

today. and the president says i believe in our budget we'll put $566 billion in our budget in the base defense budget. the president knows and the friends on the other side of the aisle knows, this is fiction. the president doesn't lay any path to deal with the sequester cap, to deal with the law of the land that that says that number is going to be $523 billion unless the law is changed, which is why we positively honestly, sincerely bring about appropriate increases for our men and women who are in harm's way defending our liberty and freedom. if this house actually stuck with the president's number and the president lays out no path to be able to change the law that number would snap right back down to $523 billion as

soon as the next fiscal year begins. we believe it's appropriate to lay out that path, lay out the path to be able to solve the challenge and we do that in our budget. you talk about gimmicks, the president's budget is full of gimmicks and what it isn't full of is responsibility. increasing the debt beyond where the eye can see. we have a positive budget. i'm pleased to yield three minutes to my colleague from the great state of georgia, mr. woodal, to talk about the -- woodall, to talk about the responsible things this budget can do. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. woodall: mr. chairman i thank my chairman for yielding me the time. it has been a great privilege to work with tom price here on the budget committee. i was bringing the rule to the floor but i was trying to defend the rule that was going to allow

all the ideas now we get to talk about which ideas are the good ideas. i heard my friend from maryland speak with passion and conviction on medicaid, and i share his passion and i know his conviction to be true. but if we do nothing, interest payments alone are going to be larger than the entire medicaid budget. we have six different budgets that we can consider down here on the house floor, three of them balance three of them never ever do -- i was listening to what the chairman said earlier, i do not concede any of the discussion from the other side about whether or not this budget balances or not. but the point is at least we are trying. even if you're right that the numbers don't work out, even if the economic circumstances change we have as a goal ending this wasted taxpayer resource, which is interest to our creditors. it dwarfs everything.

everything. it's larger than the defense budget. it's larger than the medicaid budget. it's five times larger than the education budget. five times larger than the transportation budget. whatever it is you care about, whatever investments in america you want to make by failing to commit yourself to a balanced budget today, you are trading away those opportunities. every dollar borrowed today is a tax increase on children and grandchildren or a benefit cut for children and grandchildren. i could not be prouder. when faced with a deteriorating economic situation, where every year the c.b.o. says we are con training growth. the hardest year since i have been here to balance the budget. and our chairman said if it's a big challenge i want it in my committee and he's done it. it's a partnership in that committee and i have great respect for the ranking member

and his leadership in that committee as well. we are trading all away. balance this budget. let's do it together. let's do it responsibly, but let it not be a question of whether or not we do it. let it be a question of when we do it. and we will have that debate together. i thank my chairman and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. just a couple of points. again -- and we keep hearing that the republican budget balances. it does not balance. it's interesting that instead of having the priority right now the accelerated economic growth, with rising paychecks and rising wages for americans our republican colleagues have made the absolute priority a balance

which their own budget doesn't achieve. in fact, the republican budget that was brought to the floor just three years ago didn't balance until something like 2047 20747. and yet now instead of having the priority growing the economy in a way that raises wages for all families, they've got a priority which their own budget doesn't meet. now, american families who are focusing in on their pocketbooks know from time to time they do borrow to invest in their future. they borrow to buy a home sometimes borrow for education because they know it's a good investment. actually, interest rates are very low right now. we should be investing in our national infrastructure so we

don't become a pothole nation in the days ahead. you know, the chairman of the committee mentioned again the transportation trust fund a little bit earlier today. the reality is that the president's proposal puts forward in the budget a six-year transportation plan that avoids the shortfall and actually helps to boost our national infrastructure, investment in roads bridges and modernizing our national infrastructure so that we can remain at the cutting edge and don't fall behind. the republican budget has no plan more than these 10 months and in this budget, nothing real at all. now, i do want to say one word about what the chairman said about the president's defense spending and the way the president did it. the president did not put it in

the slush fund. he put our base defense needs where it has always been, in the defense budget for the defense department. in fact, i was surprised to hear the chairman say that because the republican study group budget, i believe the republican study group budget represents the majority of republicans, i'm not sure, they did it the same way the president did it. they put the funds that the joint chiefs of staff say they need for our base defense needs they put it in their budget. they do exactly what the chairman said the president was doing in some indirect way. look i'm pretty surprised that our colleagues keep coming back to this point because it is a total violation of what they themselves said and wrote down on paper a year ago that you

shouldn't be funding our defense needs as part of the ongoing defense budget but putting them in the slush fund for the oversees contingency account when the military says they don't need that money for that purpose. so i'm pleased the president did this in a straightforward manner, in a manner that the joint chiefs of staff and the military leaders said and turns out the same way that the republican study group did but not how the majority wants to do business anymore. i am pleased to yield three minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the financial services committee, who understands the impact that the republican budget decisions are going to have on every day americans, including in their pocketbooks, ms. waters of california. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized.

ms. waters: thank you, mr. van hollen for your leadership. as ranking member of the financial services committee, i would like to express my serious concerns with how this budget resolution undermines our financial stability, protection for american consumers and the entire housing market. it is now seven years since our country's financial system was rocked by wall street, greed and predatory lending. all of our constituents bore witness to an economy where family members lost their jobs friends were made homeless and everyone's savings were depleted in all, trillions of dollars of wealth vanished in a span of a few months. and when some of the money returned it was not shared equally. democrats in congress worked to prevent a repeat of this disaster by among other things, putting in place, the tools

necessary to prevent bailouts of mega banks and creating an independent regulator solely tasked with defending consumers from financial harm. rehashing failed policies, the republican budget resolution would repeal these tools and bind the hands of the consumer financial protection burro. the republicans would return us to a system where a company like a.i.g. would once again threaten the entire financial system. the republicans would return us to a system where lenders can make predatory mortgages to some of the most disadvantaged communities including communities of color. this is not all. this budget resolution goes even further, it would privatize fannie mae and a terrible piece of legislation rejected by housing advocates, mortgage

banks, academics and i might add a majority of members in the house. why did we all reject it? we fear it would be the end of safe mortgages like the 30-year fixed rate mortgage. we fear it would favor only the big mega banks hurting community banks. we fear it would widen the wealth gap in this country. this budget resolution is built upon a flawed foundation that harms some of our most vulnerable communities. i urge that the members of this house oppose the republican budget resolution. i thank you so much, mr. van hollen, and i yield back. .

. mr. stutzman: i rise in strong support of the balanced budget for a stronger america. mr. chairman as we have seen the tax and spend policies of this president has made our economy very sluggish. a very slow recovery. our wages are stagnant. our national debt has increased to more than $18 trillion. this is 70% -- this is a 70% increase since president obama took office. if the president had his way, we'd actually add another $8.5 trillion of debt over the next 10 years. mr. chairman, if we look at this chart here, it shows the interest versus other spending. in this line right here, net interest is the one that we should all be very concerned about. because this is something that we have to pay for. this is not a line item that we can all of a sudden say, no, we're not going to pay as much

on net interest as we're going to maybe on defense or education or transportation. this is something that we as an american people have to pay because of the interest on our debt. this only gets worse if we don't do something sooner. so today in contrast to the president's budget that increases taxes and increases spending in his budget, it never, ever balances. we as republicans are putting forward a responsible budget, a balanced budget, one that i believe is critically important for the future of our country and for the future of our economy. our budget balances in 10 years, so mr. chairman, if you look at this chart, it doesn't take an economist to see which plan will ultimately lead to debt and decline and which will lead us to growth and prosperity. the house republican budget begins making payments on our national debt in year 2024.

the president's budget just digs us deeper and deeper into the hole. i can tell you, mr. chairman, i have two sons, payton and preston, 13 and 9 years old. we cannot continue to hand them the bill and expect them and future generations to pay for the spending of washington that's out of control and that's why we have to get to a balanced budget sooner rather than later. on top of balancing the budget, this plan calls for a fair and simpler tax code. it ends obamacare, broken promises, and stredgens our entitlement programs for -- strengthness our entitlement programs for current seniors and future beneficiaries. in light of current threats, this budget also increases defense spending, which is a priority for us, so that our military, our men and women in uniform can defebled this country at a very -- defend this country at a very dangerous time. this plan is an opportunity for us to stand together and show the american people that we are committed to a balanced budget for a stronger america, start paying our debt down to make sure that future generations don't have to pay for those

debts. and that we can work together on commonsense reforms. thank you, mr. chairman, for your work on this particular budget and i'm proudly standing here today in support of that hard work and ask my colleagues to support it as well. with that, mr. chairman, i'll yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you mr. speaker. not only does the republican budget not balance but it doesn't eliminate one special interest tax break for the purpose of reducing the deficit. not one. these are tax breaks that powerful interests have put into the tax code over many years. apparently it's ok to deeply cut our investment in our kids' education apparently it's ok to increase the cost of prescription drugs to seniors on medicare. but for some reason we're not going to get rid of one corporate tax break for the purpose of reducing the deficit. those are not americans'

priorities. someone who understands the importance of moving america forward is my colleague and friend from the state of maryland and a member of the transportation, infrastructure committee, ms. edwards. i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from maryland. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. edwards: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague from maryland and my friend from maryland in his leadership on the budget committee and the democrats on the budget committee. because, you know, mr. speaker, congress is really tasked with, at this time of year, developing a budget that lays out our nation's priorities in spending. but those priorities really should reflect our values. as hard as it is to imagine, and it is hard, this price budget resolution is actually worse than the previous ryan budgets for hardworking american families. once again we see how little republicans value protecting critical priorities that actually help americans live a

healthy life and enjoy a secure retirement. in fact, the republican budget would force working families to pay more in taxes. it would make college education less affordable. it would force seniors to pay more for their health care and prescription drugs. it would end the medicare guarantee by turning it into a voucher program. and, lastly, mr. speaker, it would block grant both medicaid and supplemental nutrition assistance programs. the fact is that this budget would decimate our nation's already crumbling infrastructure by reducing funding by 19% over the next decade. if you would imagine that, that means that every road that needs to be repaired, the bridges that are falling apart, the mass transit that needs investing in, and this budget would actually cut our spending by 19% over the next decade. and it would require an additional $318 billion from federal and postal employees and their retirees. hardworking people who have

given all that they can to deficit reduction. in fact, that's a constituency that's already contributed $159 billion in deficit reduction. mr. speaker republican priorities are making tax cuts for the wealthy permanent and they're shrinking the size of government, regardless of the damage, great daniel that it would cause -- damage, that it would cause. house democrats i believe, are investing in hardworking americans. we've said, it's important for us to improve access to high-quality education and child care. it's important to end the draconian across the board sequester cuts. may i have an additional 30 seconds? mr. van hollen: i yield the gentlelady another 30 seconds. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. ms. edwards: thank you. the democratics' budget -- democrats' budget really would create jobs in america through rebuilding our infrastructure and supporting jobs by making sure our nation's manufacturers get to invest in the research

and development that they need. in short mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote down this draconian republican budget and support each of the democratic alternatives. i know i'll be voting for them. because each of them even though they're different, would be way better than the draconian budget that's been proposed by republicans. and i thank my colleague from maryland for his leadership. we need to invest in america's future, including our hardworking men and women. with that i yield. the chair: the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to yield three minutes to a member of the budget committee the gentleman from south carolina, mr. sanford. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for three minutes. mr. sanford: i thank the chairman. i heard the budget described as draconian. i would say that doing nothing ultimately is draconian. with the number -- what the numbers show is that if we do nothing, roughly in 10 years we'll be spending about $800 billion a year in interest alone. more than we spend in all of

our nation's defense. i could give any number of different indicators that say, if we do nothing, we're headed for a train wreck that will have real impact to the very constituencies that my democratic colleagues were just alluding to. it's not a perfect budget. we're having an intense debate, whether it's on the democratic side or frankly even within the republican family. i just had a conversation with my colleague, mike turner from ohio, who's really passionate about the need to spend more on defense. we're still working out those wrinkles. but what i do know in fairness to the chairman, and what he's tried to do in managing the different folks that are affected by this budget, is to say, you know, if you're in a hole, you quit digging. fundamentally, if you look at our nation's budget trajectory, we're in a hole that's going to get far worse if we don't do what the chairman and the committee have suggested. i'd say, one, we're spending too much. and yet the president's proposal is to go from spending roughly around 20% of g.d.p. up to 22% of g.d.p. from a

historic average of around 18%. we're taxing too much. we're going to go from spending in the president's proposal around 18% to around 20%. a little bit over that. that doesn't sound like much, but you take two points of a g.d.p. in 2025 and you're looking at more than $500 billion. i mean, more than again, roughly what we spend in defense of our entire nation on a yearly basis. and we have a budget trajectory wherein we're handing too much debt to the next generation and we're headed for, again, this unsustainable train wreck. think about it this way. you take our country -- it took our country 200 years to accumulate $5 trillion in debt. over the bush administration in fairness to my democratic colleagues, it went from $5 trillion to $10 trillion in the course of about eight years. and then under the obama administration, it's gone from $10 trillion to roughly $20 trillion. i mean, the growth is becoming gee metric and the question is

-- geometric, and the question is, what are we going to do about it? what we can do is what the president has proposed, which ising nothing. adding $2 trillion in new -- which is nothing. adding $2 trillion in new taxes and going from a $500 billion deficits to $1.1 trillion deficits. i think that, you know, what we're talking about here is ultimately made important by what admiral mike mullin had to say on the subject. he said what's the biggest threat to the american civilization? his response was the american debt and deficit. we're reaching this tipping point. if you look at the numbers by 2025, we'll only have enough money for interest and entitlements and nothing else, without raising taxes substantially or cutting those benefits that my colleagues have just been talking about. i'll leave with you one point. and i think it's this. sir alex francis tyler studied history for the whole of his life. he got to the end of his life and the quote that was attributed to him at life's end was -- mr. price: 30 more seconds to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sanford: that a democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government, it can only

exist until the voters realize they can vote for themselves. it's generally followed by dictatorship. the average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. great courage to liberty, liberty to abundance abundance to selfishness, and then dependency back into bondage. ultimately what i think that this budget is about is avoiding that very bondage that that historian and many others have talked about over the years. the chair: the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you mr. speaker. i now yield five minutes to someone who understands the importance of a growing economy, a growing economy with shared prosperity and a growing economy with fiscal responsibility, i'm very pleased to yield five minutes to the gentleman from maryland, the democratic whip, my friend,

mr. hoyer. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for five minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the chair: without objection. mr. hoyer: i thank my friend, mr. van hollen for yielding. i thank him for the extraordinary job that he's done as ranking member of the budget committee. my friend from south carolina has left the floor. i regret that. he was the governor of a state. this budget would not have been tenable during his administration or frankly the administration of my own governor who happens to be a republican. we've had democrats in the past. the gentleman ended with a number of cautions about the path of fiscal irresponsibility and what it would lead to. i agree with them on that. but i will tell him, it is indeed unfortunate that once again we have a budget that does not put us on a path of fiscal sustainability.

we have a budget that is not real. we have a budget that pretends. that's what "u.s.a. today" said today. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition therefore to the budget resolution offered by the chairman of the budget committee. mr. price. for whom i have great respect. i say budget resolutions, plural. because there are two of them. one was reported by the committee that channels $36 billion in overseas account. disguising it as emergency war funding as a way of getting around the defense sequester caps. while offering token language providing about $20 billion of that increased to be offset at a later date. the other budget was unveiled by republicans yesterday. it includes an additional $2 billion on top of that $36

billion in overseas contingency operations and removes any mention of paying for this effective mitigation of the defense sequester. the gentleman from south carolina referred tody vices like that -- it -- to devices like that. this came about because republicans didn't have the votes for their own proposal. yet again. so they're offering their members two options. blow through the defense sequester ceilings by $36 billion or blow through it by $38 billion. . apparently going to mask hawkish perspective on defense or on the deficit by a vote for either a or for a. while they blow through the cap

on the defense side, they continue the cap on the domestic side before cutting dramatically below that level in future years gutting priority investments in education job training, innovation, research and other pirates -- priorities of this nation if it is to remain competitive in world markets, if it is to remain a growing, thriving nation. this budget is a severe disinvestment in america's future. and our long-term economic competitiveness. this approach is not a blueprint for growth and opportunity for america's businesses and workers. it is rather, sadly a recipe for economic and fiscal disaster in the years to come. mr. speaker if we fail to

invest in the next generation or to continue the war on poverty in this country, we are doing a grave disservice to our children and our grandchildren. by not giving them the tools they need to secure the jobs and opportunities that open doors to the middle class. like the ryan budgets, which were never implemented by the majority party at any point in time from this house, forget about blaming senator rid. they were not implemented in this house. hiding the specifics behind $1 trillion in cuts in order to appear to balance in a stated goal of nine years. so no one, no one knows exactly what programs republicans would cut or by how much.

that is not being honest with the american people. would turn medicare into a voucher program and access of affordable health care from millions of americans by repealing the affordable care act. make no mistake, the republican budget alternatives are political documents -- may i have one additional minute? mr. van hollen: yield the gentleman an additional minute. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, make no mistake, these budget alternatives are political documents that are unworkable and not serious when it comes to governing. like previous republican budgets that rely on sequestration, i have no doubt that the majority will not be able to enact appropriation bills that adhere to whichever version that you will pass. you have not done so in the past and you will not do so this

year. they will continue to be as republican chairman of the appropriations committee, mr. rogers, said, unrealistic and ill conceived. budget committee democrats the congressional progressive caucus and the congressional black caucus have all put forward alternatives that are far better than these dueling republican budget resolutions. democrats prioritize replacing the sequester, which mr. rogers believes should be done on both the defense and domestic side, so we can make investments in america's future that are fiscally sustainable. i urge my colleagues to reject the two republican budget alternatives and their strategy of selective sequester. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from georgia.

mr. price: he yield three minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. roth must. -- roth moss. mr. rothfus: with all the difficulties, chairman price and the committee have managed to find savings of $5.5 trillion and balance the budget in 10 years all without any new taxes. this budget resolution stands in stark contrast to what the president sent us. the president's irresponsible proposal makes no attempt to balance the budget, leaving future generations with even more debt. his plan proposes returning to returning to trillion dollar deficits and further eroding our standing in the world. for decades, americans have been told spending things that is in

good fiscal policy. president obama believes that maxing out the federal credit card and using more of the taxpayers' dollars to pay interest on the debt is good for our economy. well it's over. families aren't buying it. the charge now and pay later is no longer affordable. families understand that debt knows when the basement floods. what is true for american families is true for the federal government. purchases we can't afford need to be put on hold until we can afford it. tough choices must be made. every day families make responsible financial decisions to sign up the kids for little league or buy the bigger van. the simple principle must apply in our government. this budget, mr. chairman, acknowledges that addressing our

debt is a national priority. it puts forth parameters that will force the government to make reforms and live within its means so we can start to address a debt that now exceeds $18 trillion. this budget eliminates all of the obamacare taxes and p mandates that are costing businesses tens of thousands of dollars and driving up health care costs for the american consumer. importantly, mr. chairman, this resolution sets the stage for us to pass real health care reform that will address costs and coverage and help american families in their health care choices with more freedom more choice and less bureaucracy. this budget respects the rights of conscience for our nation's doctors and people of faith. this budget will result in a leaner and more efficient government that is more transparent and accountable to the american people sm the

budget committee's resolution makes the hard choices needed to move the country forward to make increases in our defense budget needed to address the threats in our world and set us on a path to a balanced budget. i thank chairman price and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. the republican budget makes bad choices. it doesn't cut one single special interest tax break in the code, while it makes deep cuts to our kids' early education. that is a bad choice, not a tough choice. i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from virginia, distinguished member of the oversight and government reform committee, my friend mr. con ellie. mr. connolly: i thank mr. van

hollen. thank you soich for your leadership. mr. chairman, this year's republican budget resolution is titled a balanced budget for a stronger america. but by every measure the draconian cuts proposed in this budget would severely weaken america's innovative advantage and competitiveness. it might as be called dis investments in america. research, once a bedrock of federal priority that spurred new discoveries that are now vital in our daily lives and the economy. it is critical in my district where the technology community is driving innovation. but this republican budget would slash r&d funding by 15% to its lowest level since 2002. that is a retreat from america's

role as the global innovation leader and essentially cedes the playing field to our international competition. the republican budget would disinvest in our classrooms. to achieve their ruse of balancing the budget they would cut nondefense spending 24% below the sequester level. for k through 12 education, that translates into $89 billion over the next decade and would surely leave every child behind and put higher education further out of reach for low and middle class families. america did not come to its role as the world's leading economy by quashing innovation from leaders. our republican leaders are showing they know the cost of everything and the value of very little.

i hear my colleagues lament we should run government like a business. if that's the case, perhaps we should start listening to the business community which is to invest more and not less in r&d, education and infrastructure for the future work force of america and the building blocks of a competitive economy. these are investments that yield tremendous returns for our families, for our children, for our future and the republican budget would take down those pillars of american exceptionalism. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: i thank the gentleman for building up jobs in america. i ask unanimous consent that a letter of support of our budget from the chamber of commerce be included in the record. the chair: it will be covered under general leave. price prays a letter from

national federation of independent business in support of our budget. i'm now pleased to yield three minutes to a senior member of the republican conference from the state of virginia, commonwealth of virginia, mr. forbes. mr. forbes: i thank chairman price for doing such a tremendous job and yet with the great job he has done it is confusing to people listening to this debate at home, throughout the day we will argue. but when all the voices have silenced and everyone sits back down in their chairs, we know it will come down to two choices, those two choices is price one or price two. and mr. chairman, we also all know that the difference between those two bills is going to be how much we're willing to spend for the national defense of this

country, to defend the grittest nation the world has ever known. and in addition, one of the things that will be clear is not that we will be spending what we need to defend the country, but will be spending the amount we have to spend to keep from putting our national defense in a crisis situation and a devastating situation to the men and women who serve this country around the globe. just two points i would like to leave members with as they cast their votes and the first one is this, the difference in the amount of money we will be spending in national defense if the budget were a dollar, would be equal to half of this penny if i could cut it in two. half of this penny. yet as small as it may seem, it makes the difference between a crisis in national defense and devastating situation to our men and women in uniform. last thing i would like to everyone with when they cast their votes is this, it will not be about the men and women who

make speeches in here but about men and women who wear uniforms because they will fight regardless of what we do. the question is whether we will leave them in a crisis situation and a devastating situation and that's why i hope this body will vote no to price one and yes to price two and if price two passes, vote for final passage of this budget, which is a well-done document by the chairman. and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i thank you, mr. speaker. and just for all members listening the last gentleman was talking about the differences between the two versions of the republican budget. i want to point out that the president of the united states funds our defense budget in the straightforward way and in the way that the joint chiefs of staff have asked for, funding the base budget as it should be and funding the o.c.o. budget as

it should be. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from virginia, somebody who understands that growing our economy depends on our kids getting good education, the ranking member of education and work force, my friend, mr. scott. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. . scott scott -- mr. scott: thank you. i rise to commend the gentleman from maryland for his strong opposition. mr. chairman, this budget is not a serious plan. it contains trillions of dollars in tax cuts, but it doesn't show a dime worth of tax increases when they say it's going to be revenue-neutral. it includes trillions of dollars in unswessified cuts -- unspecified cuts that will not be made. are we really going to repeal medicare as we know it? if you actually believe that the republican majority will carry out this plan, it would actually devastate our economy

by balancing the budget on the backs of students workers, seniors the disabled and vulnerable communities across the nation. the republican budget assumes that sequestration cuts will be enacted. and then adds an additional $759 billion in nondefense discretionary spending cuts. the budget -- that's part of the budget that invests in education, work force training, scientific research, transportation and infrastructure. with those cuts, the budget would be funded at the -- at 40% below the lowest level in the last 50 years as a percentage of g.d.p. those cuts will not be made. but if they are, that would be devastatinging. as the ranking member of the committee on education and the work force, i'm particularly concerned about the cuts in education. education fundinging would be cut by -- funding would be cut by $103 billion over 10 years. that's a 22% cut in federal aid

to teachers principals, school districts colonels and universities -- colleges and universities. that would include significant cuts in file the one funding, resources that go to areas of high poverty school districts. it would cut individuals with disabilities' education act, which supports education services and resources for students with disabilities. and significant cuts to head start. college students are having trouble paying for tuition, room and board. well, this budget cuts pell grants. in the area of job training and employment services, the budget would result in two million fewer workers receiving critical support that does nothing to help long-term unemployed get back into the work force. mr. chairman, the republican budgets sends student, families and workers down the wrong path at this important crossroad. we need a strong budget that reflects the values of all americans and makes necessary investments in programs that we know will expand the economy for all. the republican budget fails to

do this and therefore should be rejected. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: thank you mr. chairman. i'm pleased to yield three minutes now to the gentleman from ohio, the former mayor of the great city of dayton, mr. turner. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for three minutes. mr. turner: thank you mr. chairman. i want to commend chairman price for the work that he's done. the chairmanship of the budget committee is one of the most difficult. he has a 360-degree responsibility of all aspects of funding the federal government, balancing our priorities, looking at our financial security. and most of the time we ask the budget committee chairman to produce a budget. in this instance we asked him to produce two. i greatly appreciate that the chairman has produced two. we have what's coming to this floor, price one and price two. i'm here to speak in support of price two. but even beyond that, i'm asking people to vote no on price one. and it's very important that you vote no on price one. we can't pass multiple budgets. we have to have one agenda coming out of this house. and that one agenda is only the

difference between price one and price two with respect to how do we defend this nation? now price two has 5 -- $523 billion for the department of defense and $96 billion in overseas contingency operations funding. it fully funds our national defense. it is the amount that is endorsed by chairman dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the department of defense. it's what he's asked for from this house. and what he says is necessary in the face of things such as isis isil, what's happening in libya, what's happening with putin and his aggressiveness. the secretary general of nato was just here today and spoke to members of congress and he said, we're facing a russia that is both willing to use its military force, modernizing its military force, and also is not being bound by international agreements. this is only going to be able to be responded to new york city by force, but by strength -- not -- responded to, not by force, but by strength. secondly the chief of staff of the army was before us and i

asked him, what will happen if we go to the sequestration levels, what happens if we don't fully fund, as in price two, and he says, it means that it will take us longer to do our mission, it will cost us in lives, it will cost us in injuries. the difference between price one and price two from the chief of staff of the army is lives. and whether or not we can win and do our mission and whether or not our men and women in uniform are injured. that's -- that's serious stuff. it's serious enough that people in this congress need to vote no on price one, yes on price two. mr. chairman, we cannot afford to jeopardize our national security and reduce funding for defense anymore. our men and women in uniform need to have a clear message and that clear message is that we're behind them, that clear message only comes by a vote no on price one, vote yes on price two. i urge all of members of congress to support our men and women, vote yes on price 2. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland.

mr. van hollen: thank you mr. speaker. i'm now really pleased to yield three minutes to a terrific member of the budget committee, the gentleman from ohio my friend, mr. ryan. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for three minutes. mr. ryan: thank you, mr. chairman. i've been in congress now 13 years. i've had many discussions with the chairman over the course of my career. i am stunned and i know he won't be stunned that i am stunned with the inability of the republican party to govern this chamber. or to govern the country. if you just look at price 1, price 2, the contortions that the republican party has to go through, in order to meet the basic standard of trying to govern the country it's mind blowing. and then to go through all these contortions just so you don't have to fund the domestic agenda that's going to actually grow the economy in the united states, and i say this because i was here and watched when

president bush was here and the republicans controlled congress cut taxes deregulate , and the economy will grow and jobs will be created. and we had a stagnant decade of growth because we failed to make the kind of investments that we need to make in this country in order to grow the pie. so here we are today, after we were able to survive a huge economic collapse after that agenda was fully implemented, and we have -- the average c.e.o. making $296 for $1 that the worker makes. we have the top 1% getting 17% of the tax expenditures that this chamber and this government dolls out. and wages have been stagnant -- doles out. and wages have been stagnant. to so i think we have to go back and ask ourselves, how did we grow this great middle class, how did we grow this economy, how did we have the

highest standards and the highest wages in the entire world for such a long period of time? we invested in research and development. at the national science foundation. and now we're down hundreds of grants from the national science foundation. you think china's not putting money into these programs? india, pacific rim countries? they're investing in research, development, technologies, alternative energy and they're beating us to the punch. and we're cutting our budgets. and some of these programs that ultimately lead to growth. these budgets are supposed to provide stability for the government in the private sector. we say, well, we're providing stability but we'll tell you what the tax rates are going to be later. we're going to fund transportation, we'll tell you how later. this formula is fairly simple. invest in research, educate your work force, invest in transportation and make sure that everybody has access to a decent education. and your economy will take off. this budget does the exact opposite. and the ultimate contradiction,

the deep cuts in the snap program, the cuts in the medicaid, and everyone's supposed to pull themselves up by their bootstrapsance go to work and we try to raise the minimum wage and you fight us on that. so i think that we have proven how to grow this economy. i'm sure most americans would want to go back and say, we'll take the clinton economy, we'll take the democratic budget, in 1993. and we'll grow the economy where we see every income group increase in the income that their families are making. this budget continues to hollow out our military and our domestic priorities. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: thank you mr. chairman. i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for three minutes. mr. lamborn: thank you. and i thank the chairman for his hard work on this budget. mr. chairman, i rise today in support of the house republican budget with the defense fix. our country needs to get back

on a responsible financial path, a path that protects our national security, repeals obamacare and reforms our entitlement programs so they are sustainable. mr. chairman, i'm going to remind us that the rapidly deteriorating security situation we face russia has invaded ukraine, isis is spreading, iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. and long range missiles. while actively supporting terrorists ors around the world -- organizations around the world. "newsweek" is pursuing a sub-- north korea is pursuing a submarine launch to go with its nuke lee -- nuclear weapons program. china is threatening our friends and allies in asia. this is a laundly list of bad actors that threaten the safety of our nation. meanwhile, president obama's foreign policy is a disaster. which puts us at even greater risk. shockingly, the president's even turning his back on israel damaging our partnership with our closest ally in the middle east. our military has already faced drastic cuts. the air force is the smallest it has ever been. the army's on the path to being

the smallest since 1940. and the navy will soon be the smallest since 1915. mr. chairman, i firmly believe most americans agree now is not the time to cut our national security spending. russia isn't cutting its military budget. iran isn't cutting their military budget. isis certainly isn't cutting its military budget. so i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this budget by voting yes on price 2. this is a vital step in keeping our military strong in the face of dangerous threats around the world. thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from colorado yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm now really pleased to yield three minutes to a member of the budget committee, the gentleman from kentucky, a good friend, mr. yarmuth. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for three minutes. mr. yarmuth: thank you mr. speaker. i thank my friend for yielding. as a six-year member of the budget committee, and the

second ranking democrat, i've seen this budget proposal up close and personal. i've seen the way it's been reshaped over the years. from its early days as the first ryan budget to the collection of budget trim tricks and gim bes -- tricks and gimmicks we find before us today. despite the highly questionable math and mysterious growth projections, the consequences are clear. this budget hurts american families now and in the future. hitting their pocketbooks and checkbooks today, while disinvesting in our and their future. it immediately raises taxes on the hardworking families who are simply looking for a shot at the american dream. owning a home, providing their kids with access to a good education. living a healthy life. and being able to save for retirement while their parents enjoy theirs. it makes college more expensive for those families, cutting pell grants by $90 billion and eliminating higher education tax credits. it cuts investment in our infrastructure and innovation, leaving us less competitive in the global economy.

this budget kicks more than 16 million men, women and children off of the health insurance plan they now have thanks to the affordable care act. people will again be denied care because of pre-existing conditions, lifetime caps on coverage return. if the affordable care act will re-- were repealed as proposed in the republicans' work harder for less budget, here's what would happen in my state. more than 500,000 kentuckians would lose their health care coverage. we wouldn't gain the 40,000 new jobs that are projected over the next six years because of the affordable care act. and the kentucky budget would miss out on $800 million more in revenue. for seniors, this budget ends the guarantee of medicare as we know it, prescription drug costs will go up on day one, co-pays will increase. the prescription drug doughnut hole will reopen and eventually seniors will be given a voucher and sent on their way, told to find their own health plan.

ironically in something that very, very closely resembles the health care exchanges that our friends on the other side despise so much. this is not what the american people want. they want us to invest in our people invest in innovation, and continue our economic recovery by creating new opportunities. the democratic budget will do just that. cutting taxes for working families, making college more affordable, health care more accessible and retirement more secure. it's time we reward hard work and i urge my colleagues to reject the republican budget and support the democratic alternative. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: thank you mr. chairman. it gives me particular pleasure to introduce one of the most diligent and dedicated members of this congress, a member of both the armed services committee and the budget committee, a dear friend mrs. hartzler of the great state of missouri, three minutes. the chair: the gentlelady from missouri is recognized for

three minutes. mrs. hartzler: thank you. thank you very much chairman. you're a wonderful chairman and have helped us produce a wonderful, responsible budget. and this budget goes a long way to address the out-of-control spending problem and crushing debt the administration has fostered over the last few years. unlike the president's proposal, though, our budget contains pro-growth economic reforms, repeals obamacare and it balances. most importantly price 2 restores harmful defense cuts and provides the necessary resources our war fighters need. the threats facing this nation in the world right now -- and the world right now are vast, real and expanding. isil has proclaimed a caliphate in the middle east and it is now looking to expand into other countries. . russia is making invasion into ukraine and other surrounding areas. china is looking to build its

military. and the islamic militants are spreading to more and more countries. we are charged with providing for the common defense. given the size, reach and increasingly dangerous things we face, we should feel obliged to give our military the digit they need to face today's threats and the threats of tomorrow, whatever they may be. as the only member to soint the house budget committee and the house armed service committee, i'm proud that these two committees have come together for price 2 to provide total defense funding above the president's request. missouri's fourth congressional district is proud to be one of our nation's most military intensive congressional districts, home of two major military installations, whiteman air force base and fort leonard wood and thousands of dedicated military families sacrificing so

much to keep us safe. providing our military the resources necessary to safeguard our liberties and protect our shores is one of the top legislative priorities i have and i'm proud that these resources are provided in price 2. again, i thank chairman price for his leadership on this committee and in this process and i urge my colleagues to vote yes on price 2. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady -- the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you mr. speaker. i think our colleagues can hear that there's an awful lot of confusion and uncertainty among our republican colleagues about funding our national defense. the president's budget is very clear he funds the national defense the way the joint chiefs of staff propose is best for the country. i'm now pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from texas a distinguished member of the judiciary committee, who fights for justice and other

really important causes, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the -- the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank my good friend from maryland for his leadership, consistently, that really speaks to the hearts and minds of americans because we know what americans want. just a simple opportunity to live and thrive and to create the values that we have built this country on. if you work hard, you are successful. mr. speaker, the budgeteers on the majority side have a poor track record when it comes to forecasting economic projections and let me also acknowledge the chairman of this committee for the work he has done. we just happen to disagree. ever since the affordable care act has passed, it's been the challenge of rerepublicans to suggest that it wasn't working. we have close to 11 million people insured, some populations were never insured now have high numbers. citizens who were uninsured.

so the idea of the affordable care being a failure, you're just dead wrong. i am very glad to support the democratic alternative because it is the opposite of the republican budget which says work harder for less. when we know what americans need and what they want for their families. they want to be able to buy a home. they want to be able to send their kids to college. and they want a secure retirement. under the g.o.p. budget, it's harder to buy a home, absolutely almost impossible to send your children to college and certainly hard to enjoy a secure retirement. house republicans propose increasing the minimum wage, claiming it costs jobs. wrong again. for every increase in minimum wage has been accompanied by expanding economy. groups as far apart as the chamber of commerce and the afl-cio indicate that the gross domestic product will grow $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

s that sorry track record of economic forecasting and therefore this budget is one i have to oppose because it favors the wealthy over working class families and those struggling to enter or remain in the middle class. i oppose the republican budget pause it asks major sacrifices of seniors who can barely make ends meet fundamentally alter the social contract by turning medicaid and snap programs into a block grant and medicare into a voucher. mr. speaker, it is clearly -- mr. van hollen: i yield the gentlelady po seconds. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. jackson lee: it is clearly not a working road map for success. if the house republicans work harder to get less budget were adopted, here's a sampling of the pain and misery that will be visited on working families. end to hiring education tax debts, end to needed earned income tax credit a reduction in tax raters in wealthy, an average tax cut of $200,000 by

millionaires financed by a $000 tax increase on the average working families. mr. speaker this price is not right budget will make it harder for working class patient who send their kids to college, ending these higher education tax credits and cutting pell grants. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. van hollen: i yield the gentlelady 30 seconds. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman for his courtesy. i served on the judiciary committee, it's there we deal with problems at the end of someone's detour in life. you know what mr. speaker, those detours in life that wind up with 75,000 persons in the federal prison system has been because people cannot read and do not have opportunities and do not have jobs. i want to invest in a budget that lifts the boats of all people that if you work hard you get a home. if you work hard you can send your kids to school if you work hard you can retire. that's budget i want to support.

not the no success budget that's being proposed by republican friends. i ask my colleagues to support the alternative budget along with the c.b.c. budget. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. price: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to yield three minutes to a senior member of the armed services committee, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ill with -- mr. wilson: thank you, chairman price for your extraordinary leadership. i'm there willed to speak in support of chairman price's budget, price 2. as the chairman of the emerging threats subcommittee on the house armed services committee my top priority is to provide adequate funding for special operations forces currently deployed in more than 80 countries worldwide derek feeting terrorists overseas. i support our cyberforces who play a critical role in the defense of our national security from state and nonstate aggressors areich.

-- alike. and i appreciate our scientists and engineers who develop the cutting edge technologies povided for our war fighters to protect american families. in an environment where our air force is the smallest since its creation, the army son the path to being the smallest since 1939, and the navy will soon be the smallest since 1915 we cannot risk reducing our national defense. we can best provide for peace through strength. i would like to point out that tomorrow we'll be taking a vote on two seemingly similar budgets, price 1 and price 2. but there are two major differences between the budgets. price 2 represents the product of fruitful negotiations between the leadership on the house budget committee and the house armed services committee. and director of intelligence jim slapper's recent assessment before the senate armed services

question committee, he said quote, in 0 just over 11,000 terrorist attacks worldwide killed 22,000 people. preliminary data just for the first nine months of 2014 indicate nearly 13,000 attacks which killed 31,000 people. when the accounting is done, 2014 will be the mosley that will year for global terrorism in the 45 years such data has been completed. end of quote. the world has become a -- is becoming more dangerous and it's time congress comes together and fund our troops appropriately. terrorists have declared war on american families. i would like to thank our leadership team, chairman price and chairman macthornberry for their work in -- mac thornberry for their work in negotiating the alternative, price 2 and it's my hope that tomorrow we come together and pass price 2. in conclusion, god bless our troops and may the president by his actions never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back.

the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: i would just say to my republican colleagues if you want to vote for defense budget in a straightforward manner, the way the joint chiefs of staff have recommended, vote for the democratic alternative. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. price: i thank the chairman. may i inquire how much time remains on each side? the chair: the gentleman from georgia has 27 minutes and the gentleman from maryland has 10 1/2 minutes. mr. price: i thank the chairman. i'm pleased to yield four minutes to the gentleman from california, a member of the armed services committee a gentleman who has served this country in the armed services, duncan hunter. four minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. hunter: i'd like to thank the gentleman from georgia for dealing with the entire congress

and coming up with only two budgets. price 1 and price 2. i think the chairman has been pulled into just about every different direction and i'm actually glad that this is coming to fruition. i'd like to urge my colleagues to vote for price 2, the defense budget that chairman price is putting out. and vote no on price 1. there's a reason for that price 2 is the defense budget. our job as members of congress is to do a lot of things. we go to different meetings, we vote on transportation, education, labor issues, all kinds of things. but our number one job for the american people is to keep them safe. it's national security. that's why i'm here. i did three tours. two tours in iraq, one in afghanistan. i was in iraq when we didn't have up armored humvees. i was in iraq when we didn't have enough scopes for our ma veens and special forces. i was in afghanistan when we

didn't have enough stuff too. if you vote for price 2 you're still only volting for the ragged edge of what our defense department needs. we have things going off all over now. africa is gone. the middle east is gone and going. eastern europe is going now because of the russians and air force base and china china is impinging, coming eastwards to the united states. things will never be safer. things will never be safer. i think the american people have to realize that and they have to contend with it. the american people need to know their navy is patroling the ocean, that their marines and army are able to go wherever we ask them to at a moment's notice, wherever we need them to. the american people need to know their saferse patroling the skies. if we're $20 billion under the ragged edge of what our defense department needs, we're going to have to make sacrifices. the american people are not going to be as safe. we would have to leave here if we vote and price 1 wins, we

have to leave here and tell the american people that the american military cannot do what they think it can do. price 2 will find the u.s. -- fund the u.s. military where it needs to be to face all these challenges but still barely, still barely, but the american military will be able to do it. i would urge my colleagues to look around the world and ask themselves one question. what is their job as a u.s. congress member? what is their number one job? there is no social security without national security. doesn't matter what our education budget is if another 9/11 happens. i wear this 9/11 memorial bracelet on my wrist. that's what made me join the marine corps, when those phau towers went done. -- went down. when those towers fell we realized what was important, keeping our country safe. price 2 will help keep our country safe. price 1 will make it a more dangerous place. i urge my colleagues to vote no

on price 1 and yes on price 2 and i thank the chairman for giving his heart and soul to this and listening to so many people and trying to come up with something that this side of the aisle can agree on. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: mr. speaker, i just point out to my colleagues that both, what we're referring to as price 1 and price 2 are total violation of what the budget committee on a bipartisan basis has said we would not do with respect to using the overseas contingency account as a slush fund. both price 1 and price 2 do that to different degrees. if you want to fund defense in the straightforward manner that the military leadership has recommended to the president and the president has put in the budget, then you should support the democratic alternative. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman

reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: well mr. chairman, i just -- it saddens me to have our colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about a slush fund when they're talking about the military. i think it maligns the military the men and women that protect our freedom. hard to even recognize the comment when you talk about those men and women of a slush fund. i have great respect for members of the armed services, incredible respect for their leadership. we believe strongly in their ability to take the resources that we provide them and do the

job, do the mission make certain that this nation is safe and kept from harm. so i would encourage our colleagues on the other side to rethink their language and their rhetoric. words mean something. words mean something. i hope that -- i hope that they're able to recognize that that -- that that language doesn't do dignity to this chamber, doesn't do dignity to the men and women who stand in the breech. i want to take a few minutes, mr. chairman, and i want to recognize those folks who have recognized us and supporting the balanced budget for a stronger america, groups all across this nation, men and women who stand up and say we know that there's a challenge out there, we know that fiscal situation of this nation is difficult and we want to support those who are actually providing positive solutions.

citizens against government waste have a letter from citizens against government waste supporting our budget. americans for tax reform supporting our budget. americans for prosperity supporting our budget. national taxpayer union supporting our budget. 60-plus association supporting our budget. so i want to make certain that included in the record are all of the letters of support that have been provided by these organizations. association of mature american citizens supporting our budget. i mentioned before the u.s. chamber of commerce and national federation of independent business and we'll supply those letters for the record. also want to address this issue of morality. we had a number of folks on the other side of the aisle talk about the morality of a budget. and budgeting is priorities. it is a moral document. there's no doubt about it. in the earlier debate, a number

of folks on the other side talks about this notion that moral documents, moral issues are raised in budgets, and i agree, there's no doubt about it. budgets say what kind of people we are. they say what kind of people we want to be. so i want to ask this question, mr. chairman. what's the morality of trapping disadvantaged people in a web of welfare programs that discourage self-sufficiency and instead shackle them to government dependency, what's the morality of that? what's the morality of keeping retirees to a health care coverage program that's going bankrupt, becoming insolvent? not according to my numbers. according to the trustees of the program itself. and that can't keeps its promises if the so-called protectors keep blocking reform, what's the morality of that? what's the morality, mr.

chairman, of forcing low-income people into a second-rate health care program in which many can't get appointments with doctors and those doctors are grossly underreimbursed by the government, what's the morality of that? what's the morality, mr. chairman, of stifling medical innovation, preventing new treatments from reaching patients because of ever-expanding washington bureaucracy and red tape, where's the morality in that kind of program? what's the morality of tying college students to years of crippling debt because of a government-run student loan program that drives up tuition? i hear my friends on the other side saying how difficult it is for students and it is. mr. chairman, it's difficult because of the student loan program that they put in place when they were in the majority, that doesn't give access to students to low interest rate loans. where's the morality of that?

where's the morality of heaping trillions of dollars of debt onto future generations to finance today's government spending because today's policymakers refuse to stop outspending our tax revenue? where's the morality in that, mr. chairman? and these are only a few examples of the regrettable consequences of well-intentioned government-sponsored compassion. our republican budget aims to break that pattern. we aim to respect the american people and talk to them about the seriousness of the challenges that we face that provide real alternatives, real solutions with real results. that's what they're longing for, real leadership in this town. our budget isn't about cutting programs, it's about improving and saving them to ensure a sustainable safety net for those who need it while encouraging and helping others sustain themselves, the most truly compassionate thing one

can do for another. that's the morality of our republican budget. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves and the gentleman's previous request will be covered under general leave. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you mr. speaker. let me just start with some comments about the importance of making sure we make investments in defense in a straightforward and honest way. the chairman's comments were directly contrary to the position he took one year ago. here's what he said as part of the republican majority. abuse of the o.c.o., that's the overseas contingency account, is a back door loophole that undermines the integrity of the budget process. that's what our republican colleagues said. they said they weren't going to

allow it. they are using the overseas contingency account as a slush fund for moneys that should be invested in the normal defense department accounts. that's what they said last year. they've done a 180 here. that is a discredit to this house. we keep hearing all day about price 1 and price 2. what's that all about? i'm sure colleagues listening have got to be going, what's going on, price 1, price 2. it's because our republican colleagues haven't figured out how they're going to defend the defense of the country. but both price 1 and price 2 were a violation the position our republican colleagues took just a year ago. so let's do this in a way that honors our commitment to our

defense and do it in a straightforward manner, the way the joint chiefs of staff and others have recommended. now it's always -- always interesting to understand people's different perceptions and morality. i would just ask a question. is it right to have a budget that refuses to cut a single special interest tax break in order to reduce the deficit while cutting our investment in our kids' education? right? is it right to have a budget that won't cut the corporate jet loophole but cuts our investment in our kids' education, increases the cost of prescription drugs to seniors says to students you're going to pay more for your student loans? i was really interested to hear the chairman's comments about the student loan program.

what the democrats did when they were in the majority was get rid of a system where the big banks were making guaranteed returns off of taxpayer dollars that were not going to students. they were making guaranteed 9% returns so we said, why should we have a system where the big banks are getting these guaranteed taxpayer subsidized returns and we moved to a direct loan program. that meant every dollar could go farther in terms of providing student loans. they were stifling off dollars. that's what we did. we understand that despite those improvements our students are finding it costly to go to college. that's why actually in our budget we provide for increased

opportunity and more affordable college. the opposite of what our republicans do which say they want to increase interest rates on student loans and cut $90 billion-plus from pell grants. is it moral -- or i should just ask, does the country really think it's right to have a budget that paves the way for cutting the top tax rate for the wealthiest people in the country, the people that have done just great over the last 20 years, 30 years? is it right to cut their tax rates by 1/3 from 39% down to the mid 20's while increasing the tax burden on working families middle-class families and those that are working their way in the middle class? getting rid of the deduction for higher education, getting rid of the child tax credit,

getting rid of the people -- you know, the tax policy center did a study that said a proposal like the romney-ryan plan would provide about an average tax cut of $200000 to millionaires and increase the tax burden on middle-income families by $2,000. is that right? look, the issue here is whether you believe that we should grow our economy and accelerate economic growth in a way with more shared prosperity. or whether you believe in an economy that grows through trickle down. you know, the idea that cutting tax rates for those at the top will run down. that theory ran into hard reality. we should not go back to that. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. price: thank you so much,

mr. chairman. i am amused by my colleagues -- colleague's interpretation of what happened with the student loans. it's an interesting rewrite of the history. the federal government controls the vast majority of student loans controls and dictates interest rates on those student loans so the money that students are paying out there in interest on those loans where's it going? going to the federal government. when in fact those students could actually get loans at a lower rate but that's not precluded. so our friends have a proclivity for rewriting history. their plan by the way, it was their plan to put the federal government in charge of student loans. the gentleman has said, what's changed in a year? well, a lot has changed, mr. chairman. russian aggression in eastern europe, isis, chinese making

more noise. look i admit that funding the defense for our country in this way $613 billion $523 billion in the base budget and $90 billion in the global war on terror fund is not ideal. why are we doing that? the president so far has refused, refused to lay out a path to change the law which it takes in order to put it in the base defense budget which is why we in our budget responsibly, proactively, honestly lay forth the path to be able to get that done. our friends know if the president's number were included in the budget as soon as the next year begins boom, right back down to $523 billion. he can talk about the number he's got all he wants, but the law of the land brings it right back down to $523 billion

unless the law is changed. so we look forward to working with our colleagues. we look forwarded to working with the administration so we can actually do so in a way that modifies base defense budget. i hope that that's able to happen. i hope that that's able to happen. i'm now pleased to recognize a very active member of the appropriations committee and of the budget committee, the gentleman from florida, mr. diaz-balart, for a period of three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for three minutes. mr. diaz-balart: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today first to thank the chairman of the budget committee for the job he's done and the staff of that committee. as the chairman stated, this budget actually deals with the issues that are important to our country. the president has put together and has put forward a budget but as the chairman stated it's a budget that assumes that the law is not the law, that assumes that you can just throw

money on top of the -- of the law and that it's going to stay there some -- by some miracle of nature when the reality is we know as the chairman stated, that that's fake. because if we were to mark up to those numbers the sequester would kick in and just eliminate those funds outright. so this budget deals with reality. this budget deals with the fact that if we don't deal with if we don't reform what is causing , frankly, the debt, the deficits, which is mandatory spending, it will consume 100% of the budget in a generation. . this budget also demands from congress frankly, tax reform. tax reform that we all know would increase the economy, would create more jobs, would make it easier for americans to open businesses, small medium, and large, to create jobs here in this country.

and i want to thank the chairman because it also recognizes the fact that no al qaeda is not on the run. that no we have not defeated terrorism. that the world is not as safe as any of us would like it to be, and this recognizes that we have to give our military what it needs to do its job. and yes, the president adds money to the base. but i repeat, the chairman mentioned, that's fake. because unless you change the law, which this budget cannot do, unless you change the law, that money automatically goes away system of the one thing that we can do that is in the hands of this bill, of this budget that's in front of us is to do it precisely how the chairman has asked -- has put forward. sit perfect? absolutely not. it's responsible. it helps create jobs. it will grow the economy. it will stop this out of control

spending and yes, it will deal with making sure our military has the tools it needs to fight the enis of freedom and the enemies of america and it does it in a realistic fashion not in this dream world the president's budget seems to be living on. so again with that i encourage our colleagues to support this effort from our chairman from the budget committee and i thank the chairman for his effort. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm puzzled by the comments of the gentleman from florida since the republican study group budget, and i understand the republican study group consists of about 170 members, a big majority of the republican caucus, the republican study group budget funds defense in the straightforward way that the president's budget does. and the -- and that the democratic alternative budget

does. it's interesting to hear the republican study group budget approach to defense characterized as a fake. i think that would be a surprise to the members of the republican study group. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. price: thank you mr. chairman. i'd like to put a little more meat on the bones if you will, of this issue of discretionary spending and mandatory spending because it is -- it really is the locus of the problem that we have. and i think our friends on the other side of the aisle would agree. when you look at history, the last 50 years or so, the red on this is mandatory spending. the blue is discretionary spending back in 1962 -- discretionary spending. back in 1962, mandatory spending

was about a third of our budget and discretionary spending is about 2/3. over the last 50 years what has happened is that has flipped. mandatory spending has become 2/3 or even more of federal spending and discretionary spending is about a third. now why is that important? all the things that we say that we care about outside of medicare, medicaid and social security basically, all the things we say we care about are in this blue area. so defense is in the blue area. transportation. energy. education. all the things -- research. all the things we say that we want to protect are in the blue area. this is what our appropriations committee deals with. the automatic spending. the mandatory programs. are crowding out, as you see mr. chairman the discretionary spending system of my challenge

to our colleagues is to recognize this problem. recognize what needs to be done. what needs to be done is that the mandatory programs need to be addressed. you can't bury your head in the sand and say it doesn't make any difference. we spend about $3.6 trillion a year, about $3.6 trillion a year in the entire federal budget. about $2.6 trillion ballpark, about $2.5 trillion or $2.6 trillion is basically three things. medicare, medicaid, social security and interest on the debt that we aren't able to do anything about, can't change. everything else, when you think about the federal government, everything else is about $1 trillion a year. so education, energy legislative branch judiciary court system transportation,

research, defense everything else in the federal government with the exception of medicare medicaid and social security is about $1 trillion. now mr. chairman, people out there across this great nation know that four out of the last six years, washington, this country, has run a deficit of greater than $1 trillion each year. four out of the last six years. which means you could do away with the entire federal government. the entire thing. everything. with the exception of medicare, med cade and social security. and you wouldn't even balance the budget. that's the challenge. and very shortly, mandatory spending is going to consume the entire federal budget. so we've got a problem that we've got to deal with. if we don't what happens is that we're no longer going to be able to pass off to our kids and grandkids the kind of opportunity for them to realize

their dreams. that's what we need to do, mr. chairman. we need to recognize the problems, we need to recognize the challenges and -- that's what our budget does. it recognizes that mandatory spending can't continue on the path that it's on. and sadly new york that mandatory spending, those programs are actually going broke. medicare, insolvent by 2033. social security insolvent by 2034. what our budget does is responsibly, positively, honestly say to the american people, we recognize that channel. it's reckless for us not to recognize and address that challenge. and so we do in our budget put forward positive solutions to those challenges. so that we can as a percentage of the amount of spending in the federal government, that we can narrow the amount of money spent on mandatory programs system of that we have more moneys available for the kinds of things that everybody in this house -- on this house floor,

everybody in this chamber wants to do. we want to make certain that we have the greatest opportunity for the next generation. but that light is getting dim unless we address the challenges that we face. that's why it's so important to adopt a positive budget an honest budget a sincere budget a budget that recognizes these challenges but puts in place positive solutions. soy appreciate the conversations and the discussion with my friends on the other side of the aisle but it's absolutely vital absolutely vital, that we as representatives of the people come together and solve these challenges that we have from a financial standpoint. so that we can pass on to our kids and grandkids the great etc. -- great etc. nation the world has ever known. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: mr. speaker, if i could ask how much time remains on each side. the chair: the gentleman from maryland has four minutes

remaining. the gentleman from georgia has 6 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. van hollen: i reserve unless the gentleman wants to close. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. price: i would say to my friend i'm prefire department close, i'm happy to have the gentleman close. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. when we're talking about the budget and priorities chairman of the committee left out one of the biggest areas of quote, spending in the tax code according to the congressional budget office and that's the amount of spending that goes to a whole range of tax breaks. if you look at this chart you find that what the congressional budget office calls expenditures exceed the amount spent each year on social security, medicare and medicaid on defense, $1.4 billion in tax breaks.

now some of those are for good policy purposes, but some of them, a lot of them, are there because some powerful special interest got some special break that helps them and nobody else. and this republican budget doesn't touch one of those in order to reduce the deficit. not one. doesn't close one of those $1. trillion in tax expenditures to reduce the deficit. what it does do is make life harder for people who are working hard every day. it increases the tax burden on middle class americans and those who are working to join the middle class. it raises the cost of going to college diincreasing the cost of student loans. it increases the daily costs of seniors who are going to face higher prescription drug costs and higher fees for co-payments. seniors, students working class family, i started this discussion by pointing out that

we have seen worker productivity grow american workers working harder than ever, but their paychecks have been flat. our democratic alternative budget will address that issue. this republican budget makes the situation worse. it doesn't do anything to help hardworking americans get ahead, it says work harder, but get less. going to take homeless, and you're going to get hit with higher taxes because they take away certain important tax benefits to middle income and working people. why in the world we would want to pass a budget that makes it harder an hardworking people today and disinvests in the future of american -- future of america tomorrow i don't know.

there is a much better way to do it, we will present an alternative tomorrow that does that. that says we should have a tax code that is not rigged in favor of making money off of money but actually favors people who earn living thru hard work every day. our current tax code actually gives better tax rates to unearned income than to earned income. that doesn't make sense. so we propose to provide important tax incentives and benefits to hardworking americans whereas the republican budget just provides another tax rate cut for folks at the top on the failed theory that it's going to trickle down and lift everybody up. that's not the way to accelerate economic growth. the way to accelerate economic

growth is to make sure every hardworking american can bring back a bigger paycheck to provide for their family, to make sure their family can achieve the american dream. that's an economy where everyone moves forward together as opposed to an economy that says to the folks at the top, you've made it. we're going to give you even more tax breaks, and once you climb the ladder of opportunity it's ok to lift the ladder up after you. that has not been the way our country has worked from the beginning. let's reject this budget. there is a better way. we'll have a chance to debate that tomorrow. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expire. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. price: i thank the chairman. we've heard a lot of conversation this afternoon about the budget a lot of hyperbole a lot of misinformation, i would suggest. i suspect that somebody out

there watching if they're looking at this, they said to their spouse, hide the kids and pets dear, they're talking about the budget. but let me set the record straight on a couple of items. some friends -- some folks on the other side have talked about the research budget being decimated. well, table one in the budget, the budget report, has a line item for general science, space, and technology. that's research. research and innovation. 2016. $28,381,000,000. going to 2025 $34,488,000,000. for the 10-year window, $313 billion. to research and innovation. chairman ryan early on in this conversation, debate, talked about all of the hyperbole on

the other side and how the words slashing and cutting and decimating around destroying mr. chairman, what the other side proposes, what the president proposes is a growth in the budget of 5.1% on average. that's what gets you this amount of debt. that's what gets you this amount of debt. crowds out everything else we want to do in our society. our growth rate 3.4%. 3.4%. that's what gets you a balanced budget for a stronger america. . now, my friend talks about productivity in this country and it's true productivity is up but let me talk about the growth. if the policies -- if they want to double down on the policies we had for the last six years, let's talk about what happened. this is the congressional budget office estimate of

growth over the ensuing 10 years. in 2012 they predicted that growth was going to average 3%. in 2013, 2.9%. in 2014, 2.5%. this year 2.3% growth over the next 10 years. now, what does that mean? what that means is that a full percent growth off the average growth rate over the last 40 years and such a distinctive decrease in growth that jobs aren't going to be able to be created at the numbers they need to be, that the economy doesn't get to be roaring at the way that it needs to be, that revenue into the federal government has diminished because the growth hasn't -- isn't projected to be what it ought to be. how much, is it a little bit? if we -- if, when we're able to adopt the policies our budget, a balanced budget for a stronger america, projection we

would suggest are that we can return to the average growth rate of the last 40 years, 3.2%, 3.3%, what that means is more jobs, more economic vitality out there. what that means is nearly $3 trillion $3 trillion more to the federal government in terms of revenue just because of the increased activity in our economy. imagine what we could do with those kinds of resources, to balance the budget to get this economy going again, to allow the american people to realize their dreams in so many, many wonderful, vital ways. how do you do that? you do that with tax reform. my friends on the other side of the aisle said, you haven't identified what you want to do. that's the responsibility of the ways and means committee. the budget lays out the pathway, and then the committees of jurisdiction go to work and accomplish that pathway, put in place the programs that would accomplish

that pathway. balance budget for stronger america. want to reiterate once again, remember, mr. chairman, every dollar that's taken in taxes from the american people and every dollar that's borrowed is a dollar that can't be used to pay the rent, can't be used to buy a house can't be used to buy a car, can't be used to send a kid to college, can't be used to expand or to begin a business. so what we need are positive solutions, real solutions, honest solutions like we put forward in our budget. highlights once again -- we balance the budget in less than 10 years without raising taxes. our budget decreases spending by over $5.5 trillion in the 10-year budget window. $5.5 trillion instead of adding trillions of dollars of spending. we support a strong national defense. we defined that. $613 billion combined with base defense spending and global war on terror spending.

we repeal obamacare in its entirety, not because it's only harming the economy but because it's harming the health of the american people. we secure economic opportunity for all citizens. we don't leave anybody behind. we recognize the imperative and the opportunity that's so necessary for folks. we do, however, believe that there are places where appropriate federalism ought to occur, where states and local communities can better respond to the needs of their citizens. whether it's in the area of health care, whether it's in the area of nutritional assistance or whether it's in the area of education, something that so many state legislators and so many governors are talking about as we speak. and we hold washington accountable. we think it's important to have a right size of washington, not an expanded federal bureaucracy that continues to overreach and continue to affect adversely in regulatory schemes the lives of the american people. we cut waste, fraud and abuse

all across the federal government. finding areas that need to be audited and where we need to find savings. the american people the hardworking american people they're sick and tired of the kind of waste in this government. we support rights of conscience for physicians all across this land and we push back on the executive overreach. this is a balanced budget for a stronger america. it will result in a greater efficiency greater effectiveness and greater accountability of this government. i urge my colleagues to support a balanced budget for a stronger america and i yield back. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. all time for general debate on the congressional budget has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. price: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion.

all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the chair: mr. speaker the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration house concurrent resolution 27 directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration house concurrent resolution 27 and has come to no resolution thereon.

pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on the motion to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote inoccurs objection under clause 6 of -- incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. any record vote on the postponed question will be taken later.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1092 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1092, a bill to designate the federal building located at 2030 southwest 145th avenue in miramar, florida, as the benjamin p. grogan and jerry l. dove federal bureau of investigation miami field office. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from florida, mr. curbelo, and the gentleman from

indiana, mr. carson, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. curbelo: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 1092, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. curbelo: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker h.r. 1092, as amended, would designate the federal building located at 2030 southwest 145th avenue in miramar, florida as the benjamin p. grogan and j.y l. dove federal building -- and jerry l. dove federal building. they were killed in 1986 during a gun battle with robbery suspects. special agents dove and grogan have been a part of a surveillance effort in connection with a series of violent bank robberies in miami, florida. special agent dove was born in january, 1956, in charleston, west virginia. he earned degrees from marshall

university and west virginia university and had been in law enforcement for four years prior to his death. special agent grogan was born in atlanta, georgia, in february 1943. he became an f.b.i. special agent in 1961, and had been with the f.b.i. for 19 years prior to his death. this legislation recognizes the ultimate sacrifice of these two f.b.i. agents who were killed in the line of duty. i am pleased to be a co-sponsor of this legislation and i want to thank the gentlewoman from florida ms. wilson for her leadership on this bill. mr. speaker earlier this afternoon i spoke with george piro, special agent in charge of the f.b.i.'s miami field office, and on behalf of the families of the fallen officers and of all of his colleagues, he conveyed his sincere appreciation to this house for

considering this important legislation today. i urge my colleagues to support passage of this legislation. thank you mr. speaker, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. carson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 1092, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for debate. mr. carson: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. carson: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 1092, as amended, which designates the federal building located in miramar, florida as the benjamin p. grogan and jerry l. dove federal bureau of investigation miami field office. i'd also like to thank my dear friend, pioneer and legend, the

gentlelady from florida madam federica wilson who really is a floridian icon but i want to recognize her for her dedicated work with law enforcement officers, including the two who died in the line of duty. on april 11, mr. speaker 1989, f.b.i. agents jerry dove and benjamin grogan were killed in southwest miami, florida. while these two f.b.i. agents were investigating violent armed robberies, they spotted vehicles suspected to be connected to the robberies. when the agents attempted to stop the vehicles and the suspects refused, a high-speed chase ensued. a gun battle followed and special agents dove and grogan were killed. five other agents were injured in the attack. since this incident mr. speaker every april 11, the

miami f.b.i. field office has held a special ceremony to honor special agents dove and grogan and other law enforcement officers who have been killed in the line of duty. as a former police officer, i have a deep appreciation of this honored being bestowed today. naming this new facility after f.b.i. special agents jerry dove and benjamin p. grogan is a fitting tribute to these two law enforcement officers who gave their lives in service and protection of the citizens of miami, florida. i urge my colleagues to join us in supporting h.r. 1092, as amended. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. curbelo: mr. speaker, i would like to yield two minutes to my distinguished colleague from florida, ms. ileana ros-lehtinen.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for two minutes. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you very much mr. speaker. i thank our brand new florida colleague, the gentleman from miami, mr. curbelo, for his leadership in bringing this important bill to the floor before us tonight, and i especially commend my good friend, the gentlelady from miami, dr. wilson, for spear heading this effort to commemorate and thank our law enforcement officers and especially to highlight the sacrifice that these two special agents made. as was pointed out by the previous speakers mr. speaker in 1986 special agent ben gentleman miffer p. grogan and -- ben gentleman miffer p. grogan and jerry l. dove were killed in the line of duty after they and others gave chase to two robbery suspects. a five-minute gun battle the bloodiest in f.b.i. history,

erupted when the suspects' vehicle were stopped in my sleepy neighborhood of pine crest, florida, and both suspects began firing on law enforcement. in addition to the tragic loss of special agents grogan and dove, five other agents including the agent who shot and killed the suspects were injured. as approximately 145 shots were fired during this exchange. and even though a tragic scene like this is very rare in south florida today, our community understands the dangers that all law enforcement officers face in the course of their daily work to protect us civilians. the sacrifice of both special agents and their families is a testament to the ethos of service to our south florida community. although nothing will bring back these brave agents i am proud to support ms. wilson's

important bill to name the f.b.i.'s new south florida field office for them. it is just one way mr. speaker, in which we can honor their service and their sacrifice. special agents dovel and grogan are role -- dove and grogan are role models. their bravery, their courage, their selfless dedication is seen every day in law enforcement officers in south florida every day. . i thank the gentleman for the time and i commend dr. wilson for this bill. thank you, mr. dur bellow and yield back. -- mr. curbelo and i yield back. mr. curbelo: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. carson: i yield 10 minutes to the gentlelady from florida, the author of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 10 minutes.

mrs. wilson: thank you -- ok. thank you, mr. speaker. a special thank you to speaker boehner for realizing the urgency of this bill. we just got this information and i went to the speaker and he redlined the bill and brought it to the floor, so i'm proud to have my florida colleagues here with me a legend in her own time representative ileana ros-lehtinen and mr. curbelo who is new and has really jumped into congress and has been so help nfl all that we do. -- so helpful in all that we do. it's a pleasure the time being managed by andre carson who himself is a police officer and who understands who we consider

a role model in that field system of thank you so much for being here today for this important bifment i rise today to urge my colleagues to support h.r. 1092 which proposes to designate the federal building located at 2030 southwest 145th avenue in miramar, florida, in the heart of my district, as the benjamin p. grogan and jerry l. dove federal building. this new 475,000 square feet facility is a state of the art office building and was developed in accordance with the 23rd zero environmental footprint. according to the architects, this facility is part of the g.s.a.' -- g.s.a.'s design excellence program and in the words of the architect, it

expresses the dignity, enterprise and stability of the united states government while the landscape restores the native environment by reintroducing wetlands and vegetation typical of the everglades. the facility is lead certified and is designed to reduce the consumption of water by 95%. they're -- there are also solar panels on the roof of the annex and garage that will provide renewable electricity. the building will be high tech and be able to support over 1,000 employees. there are a few major points i want to mention about the building. first, the building iss a at thecally gorgeous and far from what you would consider your typical government building. it sheds the model that the government buildings always place function over form.

24e building stands up from the neighboring buildings so much that most people don't know that it is the new f.b.i. field office. also the construction costs -- cost was approximately $8 million below the budgeted amount and this is achieved through the operational efficiency of the contractor the f.b.i. and g.s.a. the project provided a boost to the local economy by creating hundreds of jobs for rethe residents of my community. and the employees will be able to give back to the economy, which is so great, by spending money in the city of miramar. now, mr. speaker we have an opportunity to create an even stronger personal connection with the local community. we're naming the building in

honor of special agents benjamin p. grogan and jerry l. dove. members of the federal bureau of investigation, who died valiantly on friday, april 11, 1986, in what is still considered the blood jest -- bloodiest gun battled in the storied history of the f.b.i. most men and women in law enforcement leave their homes for work knowing that there's a possibility that they may not return. but i don't know if that was on the minds of agents grogan and dove as they left their homes an april 11, 1986. i do know that it was an unusually cool and breezy spring morning in south florida. i do know that miami in the 1980's was plagued by crime and graphic violence. this period has been chronicled

in media reports and dramatically portrayed on the tv show "miami vice" and in movies like "scarface." and i know that agents grogan and dove knew about this violence when they said good-bye to their families, picked up their badges and their guns and left home on the morning of april 11, 1986. yet they still answered the charge to protect their community in the face of this danger. i know that agent grogan was a company man. i know that he had 25 years of dedicated service to the bureau and was one year from retirement. his wife was also an employee of the bureau. i know that agent dove had only four years of service in the bureau after completing law

school. but he was living his boyhood dream, according to his family. i have their photos displayed here so that you can see the men we are proposing to honor. i wanted to have their pictures so that you can see the bravery in their eyes. i know that their bravery was the motivation for them joining a team of fellow agents on the morning of april 11, 1986 to tell a vehicle -- to tail a vehicle with two suspects onboard that they thought was connected to a string of violent bank robberies. the agents attempted to hail the driver of the vehicle to pull over. and when that failed, the agents strategically cornered the vehicle which came to a crashing halt by hitting a tree. a gun battle immediately ensued.

there was a barrage of bullets. i can only imagine how the crack frl the guns cut through the normally peaceful morning of that neighborhood. yet our brave men of the federal bureau of investigation returned fire. their fire hit the suspect several times but unfortunately those weapons were not powerful enough to stop them. on the other hand, the weapons that were used by the suspects were so powerful that the agents were injured by misses thatter to pieces of metal from their vehicle. however, those agents continued to battle on. those agents knew that this could be that day for which they prayed to avoid as they said fwoob to their loved ones and left their homes, but they still battled on. i can only imagine the

frustration of special agents richard menucci, gordon mcneil, edmundo morales, gill rert arocho john hampton, ronald risner and grogan and dove as they shot dozens of bullet in the suspects' direction and the high powered rifle continued to return fire but they still battled on. in a desperate attempt to flee, the suspects tried to commandeer grogan and dove's vehicle. when they came around to the side of the vehicle grogan and dove were on the ground in a defensive position they had take ton battle the suspects. it is reported that the suspects shot both agents with a high powered rifle at close range. shortly after the suspects -- shortly after, the suspects

themselveses were fatally shot by agent edmundo morales. agent morales made a very impressive statement about his role in that tragic event. he said i knew, and i felt, that i was going to die but i was going to do my best to make sure that the suspects didn't get away. when the dust cleared, two agents lay dead on that spring morning and five were seriously injured. i know one other thing, that if request -- that if for no other reason we are near congress it is to honor, commend and decorate those americans who live up to the ideal os -- ideals upon which this great country was founded. mr. speaker, i implore you and my colleagues in congress to join me the transportation

committee, and my florida colleagues and lift up special agents benjamin grogan and special agent dove. from that street in south miami and place their names high where the world can know that we're proud of their sacrifice for their nation. it is only fitting that these names should be placed on the same mantle with the letters f.b.i. because special agents grogan and dove embody the motto for which the agency has become known -- fidelity, bravery, and integrity. god bless the f.b.i. and god bless america. thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. curbelo: i continue to

reserve, we have no additional speakers so i'm prepared to close at any time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. carson: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. curbelo: mr. speaker, i want to thank my two colleagues from florida for their moving and eloquent remarks and i especially want to thank mrs. wilson for raising awareness and taking this very special initiative to honor these men who gave the ultimate sacrifice for the safety and security of our community. mr. speaker it's often in this house that we take time to remember those who are defending our freedoms around the globe, our men and women in uniform, as we should because many of them also pay the ultimate sacrifice. less frequently do we take time to honor our heroes in law enforcement. those who live with us in our

neighborhoods and who keep our neighborhoods and our homes safe. by doing this today, this house is honoring not just these men not just their families, but all of our law enforcement officers throughout this country, who every day fight to keep us safe and to guarantee the security of our neighborhoods and of our families. so once again, i thank my colleagues for this wonderful bipartisan effort to honor those who truly deserve to be honored by this house. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 1092 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection

the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. without objection, the title is amended. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir. this is to notify you, pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives, that the committee on homeland security and its subcommittees have received document subpoenas issued by the united states district court for the district of massachusetts in a civil case. after consultation with the office of general council regardinging the subpoenas, i have determined that compliance is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. signed, sincerely, michael mccaul chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the

gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? ms. ros-lehtinen: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much mr. speaker. i am so proud to stand here today on the floor of the u.s. house of representatives to recognize the upcoming 50th anniversary of my alma mater, florida international university, on april 6 2015. not only is f.i.u. worlds ahead in finding solutions to the most challenging problems of our time, but the university and the entire f.i.u. community has moved miami-dade county worlds ahead as well. since its founding in 1965, f.i.u. has grown alongside south florida and has helped enable the region's notable progress and evolution over the last five decades. to president mark rosenburg, my good friend and the whole florida international university family, i say, happy

anniversary, and thank you for decades of outstanding contributions to south florida. i look forward to the next 50 years of amazing accomplishments to come and as a two-time graduate of f.i.u., i say go, golden panthers. thank you, mr. speaker, for the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. johnson: to address the body for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize the competitive carriers association which is the leading organization for competitive wireless carriers and stakeholders. c.c.a. was founded in 1992 by nine rural and regional wireless carriers. since its founding c.c.a. has grown to become the nation's leading association for competitive wireless providers serving all areas of the united

states. today is the first day of c.c.a.'s 2015 global expo in atlanta. more than 100 c.c.a. member volunteers will gather for a special day of volunteering with hands-on atlanta. c.c.a. will assemble 2,000 boxed meals and deliver them in person to schools, senior citizens homes and other locations in the old fort worth neighborhood. i'm pleased that c.c.a. is bringing the spirit of community to atlanta and i'm confident this event will be quite successful. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. payne of new jersey for today and mr. ruiz of california for march 23 through 26. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted.

under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the gentleman from georgia, mr. loudermilk, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. loudermilk: thank you mr. speaker. i ask that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the topic of my special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. loudermilk: thank you mr. speaker. georgia's 11th congressional district is home to some of the nation's most innovative and leading-edge businesses. one such business has been providing emergency management services to residents in northwest georgia. a family-owned and operated business with a strong reputation for delivering state of the art medical services to the people of cobb and dade

counties. but today i'm especially proud that this business has recently taken the national stage as one of the leading innovators in emergency health technology. in 2013, puckett emergency management services was recognized by the c.b.o. county chamber as the -- cobb county chamber as the small business of the year for its work to support local community and to ensure the highest level of care. most recently, puckett e.m.s. software company, e.m.s. technology solutions, received the emergency management services world magazine's top innovation award for its controlled substance tracking software operative i.q. this cutting-edge solution uses biometric technology to track controlled substances from the time the medication is administered to the very last dose. in fact, using this software is much more secure way of monitoring prescription drug use and bringing medical records in line with today's technology.

what's even more remarkable is operative i.q. uses available technology to continually update patient medical records helping prevent substance abuse. in the emergency management industry, where seconds could mean the difference between life and death, this technical innovation is a life-saver. i commend puckett e.m.s. for their tireless efforts to protect the public's safety -- the public safety of our citizens and congratulate them on their well-deserved recognition as a top innovator. mr. speaker, i am honored to stand before this body to recognize the contributions the management and employees of puckett e.m.s. have made to our community and their success in improving the safety and access to critical health care. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. loudermilk: mr. speaker, i

move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands

they reach balance at least on paper, i think a lot of budget experts think that there's perhaps an optimistic growth assumption that probably will not pan out. of course the president will not allow his affordable care act to be repealed. so it's a budget that republicans were determined to have a balanced budget plan and

it seems driven very, very intently by reaching balance, actually a slight surplus near the end of the budget window. budget experts i think are a little bit skeptical that it would actually reach balance but they do credit republicans for putting together a package that at least drives deficits down. host: one of the main sticking points seems to be the department of defense and current wars. how are they dealing with this issue in the house? guest: well, both -- one of the big debates is whether she thud at here to the -- they should adhere to the budget enforcement agreement and particularly the caps on discretionary spending both defense and nondefense. what republicans have said is they will adhere to the defense cap, which is $523 billion. but they're also using what actually house minority whip steny hoyer called a slush fund. and this is a special fund that was created for -- to fund the wars in iraq and afghanistan. it has been used fairly aggressively in the last couple

of years. it's sort of a separate defense budget where they can tap into, to pay for other defense operations, outside the base budget. so the house and senate republicans use this overseas account, it's called o.c.a., that's the acronym. they use it pretty aggressively. democrats argue that this is effectively a second defense budget, as it were. and they say that republicans are using that while purporting to adhere to defense caps, so they say it's a shell game that's sort of disguised as what they're really trying to do. host: we also heard that the house is going to use a procedure called the queen of the hill to consider amendments on the floor on thursday. what is queen of the hill and why do they need to use it? guest: they're what they're looking to do is to have -- what they're looking to do is to have six on -- votes on six different alternatives. three democrat plans, three republican plans. they're doing this process called queen of the hill, which i've seen done a couple of times before in the early 1990's i think the democrats

did a few timets. it a allows people to vote on multiple budgets, actually vote for multiple budget. it's usually set up in such a way that the budget that the leadership wants to have pass is reserved for the end. and so what the house republican leadership is doing is having the final vote on a budget that is very similar to the budget that was passed in the house budget committee last week, by tom price, but it also will have two additional -- excuse me, $2 billion additional for defense programs. and this one is being set up for the one that the house republican leadership wants to have passed. the speaker has said that it's the version that he wants to seay proved by the house. so i think the notion is it would allow people to vote on various alternatives but structure the votes in such a way that the final vote is on the plan that the leadership wants to have prevail. host: and then in addition to the two republican plans, you mentioned some alternatives four alternatives. including one from house democrats.

how does their plan differ from the g.o.p.'s? guest: quite substantially. the house democrats don't even try to balance the budget. in the last year their plan, they used to have a deficit of $700 billion. they have some significant tax increases. they have lots of spending on investments. and they say that the focus of their budget is more to generate growth than it is to actually balance the federal budget, so this is a plan that is sort of the democratic agenda, it's based on what they call the architecture of president obama's budget. which was introduced in early february. guest: we're going to be keeping tabs on you up there on capitol hill. if anyone wants to follow you on twitser, the #-- the hashtag is #atmninews. thank you very much. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> this morning house republicans spoke with reporters about their budget. first, tennessee congresswoman diane black, a member of the

budget committee. mrs. black: good morning. long before i served on the budget committee, i got a crash course in budgeting 101 as a single working mom. in those years, raising three children on a nurse's salary taught me to live within my means and stretch my dollars. and frankly, i didn't have much of a choice. unfortunately that concept is lost for many here in washington. for example, the president's latest budget would never balance, despite the the fact that it's calling for $2 trillion in new taxes. house republicans believe that we can do better. and that's why this week the house will vote on a balanced budget for a stronger america. our plan brings our books to balance in less than 10 years,

without raising taxes. importantly for me as a nurse, this budget would also fully repeal obamacare and give us an opportunity to start over on health care reforms that put patients and their doctors in charge. not washington bureaucrats. families and businesses know what it's like to live within the real world of budgeting. and we believe it's time that washington learned to do the same. >> the president's health care law is 5 years old. while it isn't cute like a real 5-year-old it is clumsy, way more expensive than we'd hoped, and we need to keep it under close supervision or it's likely to cause a lot of destruction. americans need a health care law built on their priorities, not those dictated from washington and on the whims of an executive who is inclined to

overreach. mr. jenkins: five years of increased costs and wasteful bureaucratic problems is simply far too long. that is why the house has put forward a responsible budget that completely repeals the president's disastrous health care law in full including all of its tax increases all the regulations and all the mandates. ms. jenkins: our budget paves the way for a better alternative that empowers americans by letting you choose the health care plan that fits your needs and by reducing costs and improving access through choice and competition. >> this week marks the five-year anniversary of the president's health care law and despite the promises, five years later this legislation has not delivered what was promised. i wanted just to read some words from different corners of the country, voices that i believe deserve to be heard. a woman from georgia writes,

i'm a 62-year-old widow and only make $8.79 an hour. i lost my insurance and cannot afford to pay for it. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: a man from pennsylvania said, my family's health coverage was canceled. and my new health care premiums increased 85%. thanks to obamacare. a husband from california writes our health care costs were affordable until this law became -- until this law came along. now the increase in costs puts a serious hurt on our budget. and a young man, family from my home state in washington, was overbilled by the state exchange and for three days didn't have the money they needed for food, gas or medicine. the people are different, but the stories are repeated all across the country. obamacare's made lives worse. and that's why our balanced budget for a stronger america is so important. we're bringing it to the floor this week, it repeals obamacare and it makes government accountable to you. american families all across

this country balance their money to pay their bills. they afford, you know, so that they can afford the co-pays at the doctor's office and send their kids to school. families have to prioritize, they have to save, they have to live within their meefpblets the federal government needs to do likewise -- means. the federal government needs to do likewise. >> it's an important week in the house as we get ready to pass a budget tomorrow. and then also move forward and completely repeal the s.g.r. on thursday. while also putting in place mandatory spending reforms that we haven't seen in decades. reforms that will actually strengthen medicare for seniors. mr. scalise: if you look at our budget it's not only an important vision document that lays out our priorities and our plans to get our country back on a path to a balanced budget, as well as the kind of economic reforms that are needed to get hardworking taxpayers the relief they need from a heavyhanded federal government and also to get our economy back on track. there's something else that is in our budget that's very important to how things work

today in washington. and that is the reconciliation process that allows us to send a repeal of obamacare to president obama's desk with 51 votes in the senate. as we look at the five-year anniversary yesterday of obamacare and how it's devastated families, how it's caused millions of people across this country to lose the good health care that they have while facing higher costs and fewer doctors to choose from, american people know how devastating that law is. so the strength of having a budget that lays out those priorities to tackle real problems that our country is facing, get a our budget balanced again get our economy moving again, and also set the stage for repeal of obamacare and the ability to actually replace it with patient-centered reforms. >> there's a lot that happens in this house that shows contrast but there's no greater contrast than this week. a budget is your vision. it's your desire for the future. mr. mccarthy: but it shows a contrast between republicans and democrats.

there will be a lot of budgets on the floor. from progressive c.b.c. r.s.c. and others. but only one final budget will pass. that budget balances. that budget doesn't have tax increases. that's the difference between republican budget, the president's budget anlts democrat. there's that tax increase -- theirs has tax increases and theirs never balances. we have believe in a future for this country and we believe it can be even better than today. >> this is a big week for the house's focus on the people's priorities. mr. boehner: we'll be considered a balanced budget that helps create more jobs, strengthens our economy, frankly from the ground up. a stark contrast to the president's budget which never balances, full of tax increases and a lot, lot more spending. we're also going to act this week to strengthen medicare and make the first real structural entitlement reforms in nearly two decades. for washington, this means the

end of the doc fix. for seniors it means a stronger medicare system and better health care. and for taxpayers, it means real savings. questioner: the "wall street journal" says israel was leaking information to congress -- [inaudible] -- did they tell you anything? mr. boehner: i read that story this morning and i was a bit shocked because there's no information revealed to me whatsoever. questioner: this question is for mr. scalise. you all said this was a very big week here. we have two big issues on the docket. but you've had some unsteady votes in the past -- [inaudible] -- when it comes to getting the whip count. do you feel for confident the votes are there? and have you changed anything to preserve how your operation

is so it goes more smoothly? mr. scalise: our whip counts have never been off on the floor. we're going to have a whip on the floor today for the s.g.r. vote that we'll have on thursday. and we're continuing to work through questions that members have on the but the. our members have actually been coming together and the agreement that was reached last week between chairman price and chairman thornberry to represent the bond between our fiscal and defense hawks, so that we can bring a budget forward to the floor that actually satisfied the requests of both sides of our conference, to bring them together, is going to be a very important moment for our conference. again, budgets are always a visionary document but also a unified document. i think you're going to see a unified house republican conference on the floor wednesday when we pass that budget and send it over to the senate. mr. boehner: why would you wear socks that look like that? [laughter] i thought the circus was coming to town or something.

questioner: they're actually here. mr. boehner: you better go catch up with the elephant. [laughter] any more questions? that's nice. questioner: [inaudible] mr. boehner: i was shocked by the fact that there were reports in this press article that information was being passed on from the israelis to members of congress. i'm not aware of that at all. questioner: [inaudible] mr. boehner: i'm not sure what the information was. i'm baffled by it. questioner: [inaudible] are you confident it will pass? mr. boehner: i feel good about where we are with the doc fix. i have to say that the conversations that ms. pelosi and i have had now for the last

2 1/2 months have been productive, they've been open, they've been honest. and while a lot of people wanted to weigh in from the other body, and frankly from our own body, we've done a pretty good job of crafting, i think, a very solid package. i should make clear that we have no intentions of passing any kind of a short-term doc fix. we've got a good product, we're going to pass it here on thursday and i hope the senate will move as quickly as possible. questioner: any reaction to senator cruz jumping into the presidential race yesterday? proclaiming himself as an alternative? mr. boehner: i have a real job to do right here. questioner: you're doing something a little unusual with the two budgets. can you talk about that? and which budget you favor personally? mr. boehner: i believe in the

budget that will pass. i think the way we're considering all of these budgets, both democrat and republican budgets, is frankly the most democratic, small d, way you can consider this. the budget, the alternative that gets the most votes is what goes to final passage. i think that's a great way to do it. questioner: what do you make of -- [inaudible] mr. boehner: i don't know that there is great opposition. at least not that i'm aware of. he may have some concerns. questioner: [inaudible] mr. boehner: we'll see. thanks. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]

>> yesterday was the fifth anniversary of president obama's signing the affordable care act into law. to mark the occasion, house minority leader nancy pelosi, and other house democrats spoke outside the capitol.

ms. pelosi: good morning everyone. very proud to stand on the steps of the capitol to observe the fifth anniversary of the passage of the affordable care act. yeah. [applause] this morning we'll be hearing from our distinguished whip, mr. hoyer, our assistant leader, mr. clyburn, the chair of our caucus, mr. becerra, our special, very special guests, all of our house members welcome jamal lee dr. renee fox and her daughter, christine, and amanda. they will explain why the affordable care act is important to them. five years ago yesterday marks

the fifth anniversary. the day after the passage of the bill, president obama called and said, i was happy -- thank you, he congratulated the congress for passing the bill. but he said, i was happier last night with the passage of the health care bill than i was on the night i was elected president of the united states. [applause] of course i said, mr. president, if you had not been elected president of the united states, we would not have an affordable care act. thank you, president obama. [applause] today we are gathered to -- in the celebration of this anniversary, and to highlight our historic progress towards making health care a right for every american, not a privilege for the few. -- for the few. we'll be brief. for the first -- the facts speak for themselves. and we have powerful stories from our guests.

thanks to the affordable care act, it's important to note, as many as -- this is woman's history month, so i'm going to speak to you from the perspective of a woman. as many as 65 million women with pre-consisting conditions are no longer at riss -- pre-existing conditions will are no longer at risk for being denied coverage. no longer will being a woman be considered a pre-existing medical condition. nearly 30 million women american women with private health insurance, are benefiting from newly free preventive care, including wellness visits, mammograms, cervical cancer screenings, prenatal care and immunizations. in fact, overall, 76 million americans in private plans including 18 million children are now benefited from expanded access to free preventive services, with no co-pay under the affordable care act. an additional 39 million seniors in medicare are also receiving one or more free preventive services with no

co-pay in 2014. we're very, very happy about the policy and more importantly what it means to the people, to individuals. and we're very very, very pleased at what it means to reduce the cost of health care to our budget and on that score, i'm delighted to yield to our distinguished whip of the house, the democratic whip of the house, steny hoyer. mr. hoyer. [applause] mr. hoyer: thank you very much leader pelosi. there is no person in our country more responsible for the pass and of the affordable care act than then-speaker nancy pelosi. i thank her for her leadership. [applause] the affordable care act adopted five years ago yesterday, is good for people, but it's also good for the economy, and it's been good for our budget. the president signed the affordable care act into law to protect patients from

discrimination, make coverage more accessible, and get health care costs under control. according to the c.b.o., the affordable care act reduces the deficit by over $100 billion in the first decade of its existence. and by more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years. that's smart policy, as well as good moral policy. at the same time, the law has helped slow the growth in health care costs to its lowest rates since the 19 60's. c.b.o. reported this month that the projected deficits for 2016 to 2025 will be $431 billion less than what was projected in january because of the affordable care act's reforms. the affordable care act is working so well to bring down deficits that the c.b.o. keeps

having to revise deficit projections in the right way and that is down. central to the law, are measures that help small businesses provide affordable coverage to their employees. remember at the outset i said it's good for people, good for the -- i said, it's good for people good for the economy and good for the budget. we're fortunate today to be joined by a small business owner from my home state of maryland who correctly predicted the positive economic impact this law would have on small businesses. and i am now so pleased to yield to my friend, mr. jamal lee, from lawyer he will, maryland. mr. lee: good morning. my name is jamal lee. i'm the owner of razor productions. we're a vision production company here in maryland. yesterday marked the fifth anniversary of the passage of the affordable care act. and represents the beginning of access to affordable health care for every person in america.

as well as for myself as a small business owner i can tell you the health care law is already helping more than so many small business -- individuals, helping them have comprehensive health care for their employees. while it may have been a tough or difficult start for some in some places, the health care law is helping to lower costs which allows small business owners like myself to spend less on insurance premiums and more on expanding our companies and hiring new employees. [applause] when i first started my business, i couldn't afford insurance. when i first started -- ms. pelosi: what's happening?

mr. lee: all right. so when i first started my business, i couldn't afford health insurance for myself and my employees. but thanks to the health care law and small business friendly provisions i qualify for the small business tax credits, which helped me to obtain health insurance for my family and my employees, as well as myself. the affordable care act is one of the key components that helped my business grow. in fact, we grew by 40% last year. yes. [applause] so it's good to know, if we -- it's good to know that we have checkups that are in place, we can have our checkups without being concerned with outlandish costs. owning a small business is like having a second feafment and providing health insurance -- family. and providing health insurance makes this family a little more secure. it makes me happy to know about the constructive work that was set in motion years ago has

helped many american families and workers today. it's good to know that if i get sick, the premium it's won't go up. it's good to know that new comers like my new employees won't be turned away because of pre-existing conditions. and we have one on stoff that has a pre-existing condition -- staff that has a pre-existing condition so we're happy about this. i'd like to thank leader pelosi and all those behind me and her team and of course president obama and so many others from state to state who saw this through, to ensure smaller businesses have what's necessary to succeed. i believe small businesses are the backbone of our economy and it's important to have like-minded individuals in place to make solid decisions for us. i'd like to turn the podium over to assistant democratic leader, james clyburn. thank you and god bless you. [applause] mr. clyburn: thank you all very much. that's what it took.

get down into the diaphragm and into it. thank you so much. thank you, jamal. speaking at an international health care coverage conference in 1966, dr. martin luther king jr. said, of all the forms of inequality unjustice in the health care is the most shocking -- unjustice in the health care is the most shocking and inhumane. i profoundly agree with that view. it should not depend on the circumstances of one's birth. more than five years ago, during house debate on the affordable care act act, -- affordable care act, i labeled it the civil rights act of the 21st century. and i am pleased and very proud that the law is living up to that moniker. under the affordable care act,

insurance companies can no longer discriminate against the 129 million americans who have pre-existing conditions. 105 million americans no longer have a lifetime limit on their health care coverage. no longer, as the leader said, can women be penalized by insurance companies simply for being women. thanks fat tord ford -- thanks to the affordable care act, 16 million americans who were previously uninsured finally have the security of health insurance for their families. despite repeated republican claims that the affordable care act would kill jobs, our economy is creating jobs at the fastest rate since the 1990's.

[applause] so i've got a message for our republican friends. the affordable care act is the law of the land. let's work together to make it better. [applause] and now i'd like to introduce our next speaker. catherine floria, currently second-year law student from baltimore, maryland. she was covered by her mother's plan, but she graduated college in 2011. she had some pre-consisting conditions -- pre-existing conditions, so it was a god-send. in the fall of 2014, catherine turned 26 and bought her own

insurance on the exchange. her mom dr. renee foxx, is a doctor on the board of the american academy of pediatrics. and i think she's here with us. i got the wrong color coat. you changed coats on me this morning. catherine and renee. [applause] renee: good morning. i'm dr. renee foxx, a pediatrician and a newborn specialist from baltimore. i'm also a member of the american academy of pediatrics, committee on federal government affairs. thank you, leader pelosi, representatives hoyer clyburn and becerra, for giving me the opportunity to speak today, to commemorate the fifth anniversary of the affordable

care act. i'm here both as a pediatrician and as a parent of two terrific daughters in their 20's. my oldest daughter, catherine floria, is here with me today. as mr. clyburn said, catherine graduated from college in 2011, was a -- with a french and english major, and is currently completing her second year of law school at the university of baltimore. catherine has several chronic health issues, including asthma, which has required frequent doctors visits and prescriptions to keep her out of the emergency room and hospital. she's here today to tell you her story of how she has benefited from the affordable care act. as a pediatrician and an active member of the american academy of pediatrics, i've long understood the benefits of the

affordable care act. including one of the most popular provisions, to extend parental health insurance coverage to young adults until the age 26. -- until age 26. until it affected me personally, i did not realize what a blessing this provision would be for my family. [applause] catherine: i was covered by my mother's health insurance plan until i graduated from college. remember that in 2011 the economy was still recovering and there were not many jobs available for college graduates. i found work in a medical office, but that position did not offer health insurance coverage. as a benefit. without the affordable care act, i would have been forced to purchase individual coverage or go without health insurance. which my mother would not have allowed. [laughter] my asthma, as a pre-existing condition, would likely have been excluded.

i would have had to pay for my asthma medications myself. i need these medications to stay healthy, out of the emergency room and at work. because of the affordable care act, the pre-existing conditions cannot prevent or -- or excuse me, pre-existing conditions cannot prevent people from being covered. [applause] because of the law's passage five years ago, i was able to remain insured on my mother's insurance plan, so i spent the first few years out of college covered by an affordable, high-quality insurance plan. i turned 26 this past september, i was able to find affordable coverage through the maryland health connection, and was able to keep my physicians and my prescriptions covered by insurance. [applause] i continued to benefit from the affordable care act because i qualify for subsidies that keep my coverage affordable for a student. five years after its passage the affordable care act is still making a difference.

for pediatricians like my mom and the children they care for, for parents and for young adults like me. i am truly grateful for all the benefits the law continues to offer and i thank president obama and the members of congress here today for their efforts to protect the law's 'cheevements. thank you. [applause] -- achievements. thank you. [applause] i will now turn the podium over to representative becerra. mr. becerra: catherine, thank you very much. and thank you for your story and your success. you can't beat the security and peace of mind that comes from knowing you have a doctor or a hospital within your reach. and for seniors, that's typically meant medicare. because they've paid into medicare, they know they have that security. but what sometimes seniors forget is that the affordable care act was there to help seniors as well. because it made medicare an

even better program for our americans who paid into medicare. today americans who are seniors know that that doughnut hole that required them to make payments out of pocket, that could break their bank, are now able to afford those prescription medications that they need. today we can say that over the last five years, seniors have saved on average $1,500 apiece over these five years as a result of the affordable care act, when it comes to paying for their prescription medication. [applause] that's $15 billion that seniors have saved as a result of the affordable care act. 39 million seniors today don't pay a co-payment for preventive care services. they get their preventive care services free. and that's as a result of the affordable care act. and so we have to remember that for all americans, from cradle to grave the affordable care act is helping and for seniors who rely on medicare they now know that they can have the security and peace of mind of knowing that medicare is being

fortified by the affordable care act. and as a proud american of latino descent i have to add as well, there has been no community who has benefited more by the affordable care act than america's latino descent. over 1/3 of latinos in america today who were uninsured now have affordable health care insurance. and that's a result of the affordable care act. when you see that kind of drop in the uninsured rate, you have to feel very proud, so madam leader, to all the leadership, to my colleagues and all our guests, we say, we are very proud of what the affordable care act has meant for all of us. let me give you now the case of someone who can tell you personally as well about what happens when you have a pre-existing condition. amanda is someone who had a stroke at a very young age. she had some difficulty holding on to a job, when she finally got back to work, she found that the insurance she could get from her employer was not