never again will our country be hosts to terrorists. never again will we give extremists the santh sanctuary to be their destructive plots. we will be the platform for the peaceful cooperation of our civilization. together our two countries will finish the job that began on that clear terrible september morning almost 14 years ago. we have the will and we have the commitment that will anchor our country and the world community of peaceful democratic nations. knowing our condition, you the american congress and the american people, will decide how to ensure that our common goals and interests are written into the books that will be

telling the history of our shared future. thank you, again and may god bless the partnership between america and afghanistan.

the speaker: the purpose of the joint meeting having been completed, the chair declares that the joint meeting of the two houses is now dissolved and the house will continue in recess subject to the call of the chair. the house is now in recess subject to the call of the chair. members are expected to return shortly to resume debate on the 2016 budget. there will first be an hour of debate on the g.o.p. plan and then the house will debate six alternative budgets. one each from the progressive caucus, the congressional black caucus, the republican study committee and house democrats. and then there will be two versions from house budget committee chair tom price. one with $2 billion in extra war funding that is not offset,

and one without the extra war funding. when the house comes back into session, live coverage here on c-span. until then, a conversation from this morning's washington journal d. welcome you. he said on the armed services. i want to get your thoughts on what the president is doing sending to keep the levels the same in afghanistan. >> this is a minimum that we can do. on a bipartisan basis at least from the intelligence committee we have been able to see the pull out. we cannot support any intelligence activities. they are dependent on the military being able to them the cover for the protections they need.

all the great work that has been done, the assets that have been developed. they have health us keep the enemy and check. it would be like turning off the switch. i think the intelligence committee has been prepping the case or the president. republicans and democrats have been prepping this. i think the afghan president has made this case as well. i am not sure 10,000 is enough. it is better than zero. host: the new york times has exactly what you are talking about. part of the reason the president has kept them the same is because the cia has two important bases in afghanistan. troops were drawn n down they would not be able to collect the

intelligence or do the german strikes they have been doing to go after the taliban in pakistan. rep lobiond understand that they had way more than two basis. there on the afghan/pakistan border. i have been to that region of the world numerous times. i have personally been to each one of the forward basis. it is with inks that the cia has been forced to close down a number of the basisbes/ each one is essential with how to do with the bad guys. we were down to the two most critical. if the president had gone through this plan to zero out, there was no way the cia could keep them open. it would just be horrible. we will be turning afghanistan back over to the owl again -- taliban.

host: what can you tell the american people who serve on the intelligence committee, what can you tell our viewers about the threat of the taliban to afghanistan and the region? rep lobiondo: it is enormous. just by way of brief discussion, the house intelligence committee is the smallest committee and congress. it is called the select committee because it is picked by the leadership. we are responsible for authorizing the programs that protect the country in the oversight of the agencies and the operations the conduct. the big ones are cia and nsa and fbi. as we look at afghanistan, we have seen where we have done a lot to take out top operational leaders.

they have morphed. they understood what has happened. they have split into these affiliates. they are very effective. they are vying with other terrorist organizations to approve who is the most barbaric from a terrorist standpoint. when you look at what they have been able to do, to be able to lose the capability would be terrible. host: u.s. drone strike kills 11 at any taliban in what is the reaction that are i you look at the number of strike that had been taken over the last couple of years and what we're doing now, there are a lot of

surrounding. the decision to go after operational leaders, we have diminished what we have done. every time we have the operational planner who has the knowledge to put these together. we're putting people at risk. we have been very fortunate that they have not taken place. i'm convinced they have not taken place here. that is what we need to do. host: afghan leaders also telling you what is the isis is buying of afghanistan and pisces -- pakistan as well. what is attractive about this region for terrorist groups like isis? rep lobiondo: the weakness of the government. the fact that these have been

hotbeds for centuries with a completely different philosophy. what we are seeing with what you just that is what we have been seeing developing for a couple of years. these different terrorist organizations are vying to have top spots. it is for recruiting. it is for fundraising purposes. a situation in yemen and north africa is indicating how the influence has grown tremendously in large part because of these barbaric attacks that have been so visible to the world that attract a real sick mentality. host: is it also the financial resources that are possible in afghanistan? the fox website has this headline. u.s. efforts to try to give the

afghans another has been a failure and that the u.s. has only been able to seize about 1% about what afghanistan produces. it looks like isis needs money to keep operating as well. host:rep lobiondo: before anyone knew what isis was, the taliban were using the ob in revenue for financing their operations. it is so lucrative. we have not found a way to convince the poppy farmers to be able to do something differently. yes, that is exactly what has happened. host: congress this continuing debate whether to get the president new authority to fight isis> what kind of language needs to be in here that allows the

president to go into countries were ever isis ends up? where do you want to see this state? brilliant leaders who are retired from the military now has woken up. these are folks i have tremendous respect for. we cannot do an authorization for the use of military force which restricts what the president can do. this is an enemy that is not know any boundaries.

this is where they are. that is what he sent to congress. i do not think it allows them to do the job. it sends a message to our potential allies that we are supposed to be leaving in a coalition. either we are not serious about this we do not understand what we have to do to do it. they are reluctant to follow us. it has to be a coalition. >>host: you can start dialing it appears he represents the second district of new jersey. mario, you are first, democratic cholera. go ahead. caller: the morning. -- good morning. circuit 2001 the u.s. and cia

had about 100 agents in iran. they subsequently got out. they sent a list of all of the agents to iran to a double agent. i was wondering. i know congress was reached on this and that is why they got very worried about the situation. we advance the nuclear program. does the letter from the republicans to iran, does that stand for anything along the lines of the congress, giving them insight into what went on? rep lobiondo: the letter was from senators. it is a reflect and of how concerned the senate is in how they are about the iranian deal.

i do not have to comment that has to do with any the more than 10 years ago. host: do you think the letter was a good idea? rep lobiondo: i probably would not have signed it. i am opposed to the administration proceeding the way they are. host: what did you make that they are spying on these negotiations? rep lobiondo: it is interesting. this is what countries do. we cannot talk a lot about it. we do not like to hear these things publicly. we do not know the details. we cannot confirm or deny whether it to place. he protect their own interests. host: when israel says it is not conduct espionage, you do not believe that statement? host: i cannot confirm or deny

it. independent caller. caller: how can you send or more troops in afghanistan when you do not even take care of that. i have to drive more than it did miles one way or care. every other that in the country has been screwed over by you because we do not qualified to go to qualify to go to outside sources. that is shameful. watch the john daily show from monday night. the first 10 minutes. he showed how you cost us. if you covered every event and allows to do the -- we should not be able to drive more than 40 miles, it would cost $50 billion. the only thing you agree to was $5 billion. so we are still being screwed, sir. host: let's get a response from the congressman. guest: how our veterans have been treated in the -- is a

tragedy. we will first talk about the veterans issue because i feel very strongly about this that we have not kept the progress -- promise that has been made to our veterans. my district is 40% geographically the state of new jersey. we are -- our vets do not have the 40 mile parameter to work with. but i have introduced legislation and lively but the answer is -- and i have request a legislation to be a pilot program in my district because it is a rather small district -- that event has a veterans card. they take that to the doctor or hospital of their choice. i think first and foremost, it would provide the best level of care for veterans, and secondly, i think the v.a. with two that it would be very cost-effective. so i am on the caller's side. i don't think we are doing what we can do, what we should do.

if a vet's anywhere and the weight is longer than 30 days, they can automatically go to the doctor or hospital of their choice. but i don't think that is good enough. as far as afghanistan, again, if we don't keep a presence in afghanistan of our military, that can provide the cover to the intelligence agency, we go completely dark. we go completely dark. we have no ability to have eyes on and do all the things that we are able to do, but at least give us some opportunity to go after the bad guys who want to do great harm and destruction here within our borders. as much as we want to do for the vets, they are two separate issues. host: john, an independent. you are next. go ahead. caller: all right. you keep talking about vested interests. and thank you to c-span. people who listen to this, we have heard it over and over and over.

what are the vested interests in pakistan, afghanistan? what was the american interest in iran and iraq? i know iran has a nuclear bomb. we give every dam one of them -- damn one of them to them. bring them home from all 100 and 70 -- 147 countries we have them in. keep our country safe. to help with the rest of the people in the world. guest: well, america is a great place. i respect every caller's point of view, but in my estimation, that would be a terrible mistake. we are not living in a world where we can put up a fence and keep everybody out. and what would happen in america if the paris attack situation has happened here. how would americans feel?

what would americans be demanding of us, of the government, of congress about keeping them safe? the questions would be -- how did it ever happen? if we were to pull everybody back and say, you know what, let them all do their own thing over there, you are saying that they keep themselves over there when that is not their goal. isis said they will take out the white house. that is their goal. that is what they want to do. they have targeted military members here. they have released names and addresses. how would we feel if we found out in an hour or tomorrow that there was a military family that was taken out by a group of terrorists here because they had infiltrated us. and now that we have sleeper cells, lone wolves who are activated by who know what crazy trigger in their mind, these are the reasons why we are trying to keep off our shores.

host: is the credible evidence that isis could attack the united states? guest: no. no. i mean, taking out the white house is -- but the fact that they have it as a goal, the fact that the iranians which we doubt -- would tweet out death to americans, i mean, this is how they feel about us. there is no bigger responsibility that i think our government has been to protect its citizens and the country. now, we are going to have a lot of debate and a lot of discussions. and, obviously, a lot of heated feelings on what is the best way to do that but completely withdrawing is a terrible mistake. host: mike in carnegie, pennsylvania. hi, mike. caller: yet. thank you for calling. for letting me get on. i wanted to know, why isn't isis

attacking russia? is the only reason for them not attacking russia -- russia is so independent they can come and go as they please. why is it that all these countries are after the united states? is it that we don't have the power, the know-how of what to do? i mean, i was in the second war. when japan attacked us, all the japanese people that put them in a big compound because they knew that we couldn't trust the japanese. host: mike, i will have the congressman jump in. guest: well, i don't know why they haven't attacked russia. russia certainly has its problems with terrorism, with chechnya and some of the hotspots they have dealt with. why hasn't isil been after russia? i don't know.

but clearly, they are not just after the united states. look at belgium, look at france. look at britain, look at spain. look at what they did two japanese journalists. so, they have a pretty broad brush of who they are going after. host: rich. south bend, indiana. democrat. hi, rich. caller: good morning. congressman, the answer to your question what would we have done if the american public -- if the attacked had happened here? the answer, go shopping at the mall. congressman, since the war on terrorism has started the military age members, 90% have chickened out. that is your answer. we would have done nothing. host: rich, what you proposing? caller: well, you want to fight a war congressman?

bring back the draft. i am a vietnam era vet. it is accident me -- absolutely ridiculous that you guys keep sending the same guys back over and over again. multiple tours. just how much luck you think they got? host: congressman. guest: once again, room for many points of view. the draft is not anywhere close to coming back. it is probably the best trained best men and women we have had. certainly as good as we have had. but i disagree with what we would do. i am talking about the american psyche. we all remember how we felt on september 11, september 12 after the tax -- attacks. the display of patriotism. the will to really go after the bad guys and to do whatever we had to do. and the rules of engagement to the matter in whole lot. all that mattered was attempting

-- protecting american lives. now that seems like a distant memory. while enemies are getting stronger and stronger. what we are seeing in yemen are terrible developments, as far as the united states is concerned. how isil is getting together with boko from -- haram. a few years ago, boko haram was considered a street gang by hillary clinton and mr. obama. now, they have teamed up with isil. this is happening all over. as these alliances these evil, unholy alliances solidify and take place, the threat to us is greater and greater. we are seeing that in yemen. host: the headline chaos and yemen leaves u.s. intelligence blinded. guest: we are. host: why? guest: a couple of years ago

and i was on the ground in yemen and i do not think this is a surprise -- not from the people that i talked to. they said the situation was bad and was getting worse. but we had a situation where we had the cooperation of government that was helping [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] >> we'll leave this "washington journal" coverage to return to the house. the clerk: the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the designate on march 25 2015, at 10:26 a.m., that the senate passed senate 301. with best wishes i am signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: whuent

to house resolution 163 and rule 18 the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of house concurrent resolution 27. will the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins, kindly take the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of house concurrent resolution 27. the clerk will report the title. the clerk: concurrent resolution 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: when the committee of the whole house on the state of the union rose tuesday, march 24, 2015, general debate on the congressional budget had expired. the gentleman from texas mr. brady, the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney, will now be

recognized on the subject of economic goals and policies. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. mr. brady: thank you. under the balanced growth act of 1978 the joint economic committee provides analysis and recommendations about the goals and policies set forth in the economic report of the president. this is to assist the house in its consideration the budget resolution. during the next hour the members of joint economic committee will answer two questions. why has this economic recovery been so weak when compared with past recoveries? and secondly, how would a gradual reduction of federal spending relative to the size of america's economy as envisioned in the house republican budget resolution, how would this help hardworking americans by accelerating economic growth, job creation and real wage increase? regrettably, our economy remains stuck in second gear. last year real g.d.p. in other words apples to apples economy grew by a mere

2.37%. that's an inperceptible increase over the average annual rate growth of 3.3% during the entire recovery. although conditions have improved, the obama recovery remains the weakest or near the bottom in terms of every major measurement of economic performance compared with other recoveries over the past half a century. the joint economic committee describes the differences in economic performance in this recovery and the average of other recoveries since 1960 as the growth gap. and this growth gap is real. since recession ended, the economy's grown by 13.5% compared with the average growth of over 24% during other recoveries. this growth gap means our economy is currently missing $1.5 trillion. a whole comparable and size to the economy of australia or mexico or spain.

since the recession ended private sector payroll, that is main street jobs, increased by 10%. but over the average of other recoveries it was more than 15%. thus, from the end of the recession, the growth gap in main street jobs is a staggering 5.5 million jobs. america is missing 5.5 million jobs, enough to hire everyone looking for work in 45 states. not surprisingly, hardworking american families have felt the adverse effects of slow growth and lagging job creation in their pocketbook. since the recession ended real after-tax income per person has increased by a total of merely 7%. 7.1% to be exact. in other recoveries it was over 15%. thus, the growth gap in real after-tax income equates to nearly $3,000 per person.

$2,915. so what that means for a family of four in america, they're missing $11,000 a year from their family budget. ironically, for a president that obsesses with income -- obsesses with income inequality and promotes middle class economics, the white house has presided over a disappointing recovery that has bestowed most of its benefits to the wealthy and the well-connected while families and businesses on main street continue to suffer from a very disappointing recovery. the s&p total return index adjusted for inflation meaning wall street has increased by 125.4% since the end of the recession. so wall street is roaring. main street and hardworking taxpayers are suffering. closing the growth gap in the economy, in jobs, in paychecks will be very hard for this

president to achieve with his current slow growth policies. while the economy has improved month after month, in truth it has gone so slow. it is like bragging that your car has run for 63 straight months but it is only running at 5 miles an hour. that's what our economy is doing. and to catch up from those slow-growth policies, merely to break even with the average performance of other recoveries, by the time president obama leaves the white house, our economy will have to grow at an annual rate at 7.4% in each of the next eight quarters. this is triple the growth rate in the obama recovery. private sector jobs, main street jobs, in effect, would have to generate 403,000 jobs every month for the next 22 months. so this is well above the average of the disappointing obama recovery of 285,000

especially in the last six months. real after-tax income for every person in america, that's what the real disposable income is, would have to grow at an annual rate of 6.3% through the rest of obama's term. this is more than four times faster than what it's been doing during the obama recovery. so why has our economy been so weak? why is the obama recovery been nearly dead last in all of these areas? first federal spending is out of control. albert einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again yet expecting different results. is this not the perfect description of president obama's budget? his budget reflects his dog matic -- dogmatic keynesian, creating this large and persistent growth gap.

from the failed stimulus, to obamacare to demands for more federal infrastructure projects, president obama's thirst for new spending has never slacked. like a basketball team that cannot make halftime adjustments, this president refuses to learn from his failures, his budget -- failures. his budget would increase spending by another $74 billion. and by another $00 billion-plus over the next five years. -- $300 billion-plus over the next five years. this as this president is taking more in tax dollars from every american than almost at anytime in history. we don't have a revenue problem. we have a spending problem. if you look at this chart, you can see where per person revenue in america through the federal government, nearly the highest it's been, frankly, in the last 30 to 40 years. formerly -- fortunately a republican house has successfully applied the brakes

to this spending, preventing a far worse economic mess. secondly, our tax system is broken. america has the highest corporate income tax rate among developed countries. we're the only one in our global competitors with a system that taxes you here, taxes you abroad and punishes you if you bring your profits back to invest in america. this puts american companies and the workers at a huge disadvantage with foreign competitors. for individuals here in america, our income tax system is so complex that 90% of taxpayers need to use a paid preparer and families can't possibly keep up with the 4,000 changes in the tax law that occurred over the last decade. that's one new tax change every day of the year. and thirdly, president obama's greatly expanded the regulatory burden, red tape on american businesses and families during and after the severe recession.

for example the affordable care act has imposed enormous new burdens on america's families, on our local businesses and health care providers. 4 1/2 years after enactment of financial regulations, regulators still haven't completed writing more than 40% of the new rules required under the dodd-frank act, meanwhile, our local bankers and local businesses have not been able to finance growth in their communities. as a result of these regulations. president obama has slow walked the development of oil and natural gas on federal lands and waters and stubbornly vetoed the job-creating keystone x.l. pipeline. most recently, president obama's federal communications commission imposed a 1930 style regulation designed to control the telephone monopoly and now applied to the highly competitive internet.

fourth, president obama greatly expanded social welfare benefits during and after the severe recession. during the 1960's, democratic president john kennedy, lyndon johnson, knew america's economy needed to be strong in order to afford the medicare medicaid, food stamps programs they favored. both presidents insisted they need across-the-board reductions in the income tax rate to put our economy into high gear before enacting the entitlement program. instead, president obama did the opposite. rammed obamacare through a divided and controversial late-night maneuver, rammed through a large expansion of food stamps extended unemployment benefits through a democratic-controlled congress before our economy had fully recovered. his entitlement expansion has reduced labor force participation. in other words, it has held back those who want to be in the work force.

according to the university of chicago economists casey mulligan obamacare will by 2017 cause a 3% reduction in weekly employment. 3% fewer total hours worked and a 2% reduction in labor income. so less jobs, less hours worked, less in your paycheck. taken together president obama's economic policies have increased the cost of doing business now in the heightened uncertainty about their future. this is the opposite of what economically successful presidents such as john f. kennedy and ronald reagan did. the republican budget recognizes the obama recovery is disappointing for republicans, for democrats, for independents, for college graduates for middle-class hardworking americans. the republican budget which is a balanced budget for a stronger america, will give us a healthier economy. and mr. speaker, with that i

would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, my friends across the aisle claim that this recovery is weaker than quote, average ones. however, economic research reveals that this is terribly misleading. because financial crisises like the one that caused the great recession have deeper, more damaging and longer lasting effects. in addition, the great recession was caused by a bursting of a housing bubble limiting housing's ability to contribute to recovery as it typically had after previous recessions. the recovery from the great recession is also different because monetary policy's ability to support the recovery was limited by hitting the zero lower bound interest rates simply could not go any lower. there have been a number of economic downturns since the founding of our nation. some mild, some deep and

strong. last week at a hearing of the joint economic committee with chairman jason froman of the council of economic advisors i asked him how he would characterize the 2008 financial meltdown under former president george w. bush. i asked him how does the 2008 bush recession rate. he said that economic blows in this recession were five times greater than the great recession. and he also said that it was -- when i had asked him to put it into layman's term, was it a common cold, a heart attack, a flu, he said that bush recession was especially deep and damaging. the worst since the great depression. and i asked if it was a common cold and he said, no, it was a heart attack. the reality is when you compare our record to other countries that are recovering from the great recession, you can see in this chart that the united

states economy has expanded at a significantly faster rate than other leading advanced economies in the world. so when he says we are slow we are certainly a lot faster than the rest of the year -- rest of the world. look at this. here's the united states. here's the european union. here's japan. here's the united kingdom. the united states has recovered stronger and faster than the other world economies. so when my colleagues across the aisle say that obama recovery pales in comparison to average ones just remember that comparison is an absolutely ridiculous one. the recession was an economic heart attack a financial calamity and we should thank president obama that we are now recovering and recovering faster than like economies in the world. a budget is about planning for

the future. that planning must be based on reality and must be grounleded in our recent experience. the republican budget is a misleading dishonest budget which relies on accounting gimmicks and $1 trillion in unspecified cuts. it rejects lessons we should have already learned. in 2000 and 2008 and 2009, the country faced the greatest economic downturn since the great depression. the shocks that hit the u.s. economy in the fall of 2008 were at least as large as those that caused the great depression. . the counsel of economic advisors told the joint economic committee last week that during the great recession household wealth fell by at least five times the decline seen in 1929. more than $16 trillion in

wealth evaporated in the american families, causing great pain and suffering. today some 6 1/2 years later the economy is a very different place. the u.s. economy has expanded at a faster pace than nearly all other advanced economies. the g.d.p. has grown in 20 of the past 22 quarters and we've had a record, a record 60 straight months of private sector job growth. this didn't just happen, it happened because of the unprecedented response from the federal reserve and the bold actions taken by the democratic congress and president obama. the recovery act stimulated growth and invested in our future. investing in infrastructure, education, research job training, those are things we don't see in the republican budget. we don't see those investments.

the recovery act cut taxes for middle class families, increased tax credits for the working poor and directed federal funds to states and cities so that they could keep police officers on the beat firemen on the job, teachers in the classroom. it invested $50 billion in transportation infrastructure. we don't see any of that in the republican budget. we don't even see cutting tax loopholes for special interests. we don't see any of that. we just see cutting tax support for the middle class and the working americans. other actions taken by congress included extensions of unemployment insurance and cobra subsidies. a payroll tax credit for hiring unemployed workers, a payroll tax cut for all workers, and help for small businesses. and it stopped an economic disaster and got our economy moving again. and this chart shows this. numbers do not lie.

the deep, dark red valley covered republican policies that are in this budget. when president obama came to office, we slowly worked our way up and have continued to add millions of jobs for working americans. today the unemployment rate is 5.5%. its lowest level in almost seven years. we've had 12 straight months of private sector job gains exceeding 200,000 jobs. something that has not happened since 1977. the auto sfri is thriving -- industry is thriving. remember the republicans wanted to abolish the auto industry. but we invested in restructuring and five years later the industry has added more than 500,000 jobs and we are exporting american cars at the highest level. the economy is strong and getting stronger. now is the time to build on this progress. now is the time to ensure that the economic recovery reaches

every american. now is the time to invest in our future, by funding infrastructure education, work force training, and scientific research. but that's not what the republican budget does. the republican budget slashes spending on things that would help continue our forward blue high rise of creating more jobs. and it uses a slush funds and unspecified cuts to make it appear that it all adds up. the republican budget offered, would get us off the path, this beautiful path of success, taking us back in the direction of the bush recession. it represents an abrupt u-turn, one that we cannot afford. it would risk the recent economic progress and harm working families struggling to get ahead. so let's support the democratic budget and the progress that we're making in creating jobs

and improving the quality of life of americans and the security of our country. let's not turn around to the old, tired republican policies that gave us that dark, deep recession and that red, dark valley. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. brady brathe i would point out, this -- tom brady i would point out, this was -- mr. brady: i would point out, this was a serious recession. it wasn't as severe as the 1982 recession, that reached a higher unemployment rate, 10.8% greater than this recession. and that was settled frankly with interest rates reaching over 20%. the truth is, there have been jobs added for 60 straight months. you ought to take that graph and double it. here you would get the average economic recovery. we continue to struggle as a country and we shouldn't settle for this second-rate economic recovery. with that, mr. speaker, i'd

like to yield eight minutes to a new member of the joint economic committee, someone who has had longstanding experience in the -- in arizona, managing money understanding state finances handling the numbers that our economy frankly is based upon. so i yield eight minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for eight minutes. mr. schweikert: thank you mr. chairman. and for my friend from texas, thank you. it's actually -- i actually enjoyed being on this committee. it's fascinatinging. it's fascinating how the data -- it's fascinating. it's fascinating how the data gets sort of politicized from some of us almost to the edge of fantasy. remember, if we step back to 2011, if we look at the president's own economic graph we were going to see economic g.d.p. expansion approachinging 5% g.d.p. -- approaching 5% g.d.p. and the indicators we were just getting this last week, it's this coming quarter, the quarter we're in right now, we

may be about to see g.d.p. about 1.2%. at some point, holding up a board, it says, look at the jobs, and then, looking at the actual math, reality should hit home. and here's the president's own report on -- or economic report. you start to look at the numbers in here. someone will actually break it open and actually read it. look at the numbers in here of work force participation. how many of our brothers and sisters out there in the work force are actually in the job market? there's something horribly, horribly wrong out there. so why do the republicans, so focus, so fixate on economic growth? the reality of what's about to happen in this country, in 4 1/2 years, so right now we're discussing a $3.8 trillion budget. in 4 1/2 years we're expecting $1 trillion more in spending.

where's that growth? where's that money coming from? if you look at this slide, we're going to try to put up some slides that show you how quickly mandatory spending is consuming everything in its path and if we do not have a phenomenal economic growth, we are not going to be able to keep our promises. we've put these up. ok. for right now, here's where we are today. we're basically right now only 31% of the budget we ultimately get to vote on. the vast majority of our budget is in what we call mandatory spending. medicare, medicaid, social scurets, interest on the debt -- security interest on the debt, veterans benefits, and the new obama health care law. what happens over just the next 4 1/2 years? how quickly does this mandatory spending begin to consume

everything else in its path? well, think about this. just a couple years ago, in the 2013 budget, we were projecting that it was going to take all the way out to the end of 20 -- 2023 before we hit this split where over 24% of things we get to vote on and 76%, 76% of the spending was going to be the other stuff. guess what's happening because of the democrats' policy on economic growth? this president's policy on economic growth. so how quickly do we now hit where 76% of our money is going into mandatory? it's not 2023. it's in 4 1/2 years. now, yes, when we track what's

happening particularly in medicaid and medicare spending, it's tracking faster than we expected. and, yes, we've had discipline in this body on dealing with what we're allowed to have discipline on, because of the relationships having a split congress and being disciplined in discretionary spending, but understand, if we do not do those things that are necessary to dramatically grow this economy, and it's more than just talking about fanltsies within this -- fantasies within this economic profile it's regulatory, it's tax systems, it's trade. and yet simple things, and this one's rather personal to me, and the ranking member actually was somewhat helpful on. this things like crowd funding. little things that are -- on this. things like crowd funding. little things that are simple disappearing in the bureaucracy for years, even after we had bipartisan legislation. what is it with this white house with the democrat party, fear of those things that

create economic expansion? why does it always have to be some sort of massive collectist dogma to drive -- collectivist dogma to drive economic growth? and understand this is important because we're trying to help sell the story of why do we care so much about this economic growth? when you look at what's about to happen in net interest, look at how fast this growth -- i'm going to actually move to the next slide. just so you have a comparison. i want you to think about this. in just a few years, the interest, and this is using nominal interest rate if we have a spike it gets really bad really fast. but in just a few years we're going to be sending as much money in this body -- spending as much money in this body on interest as we do on all of

defense. well at that point, if you care about the entitlements, if that's where you are identifyly, you care about protecting the country -- ideologically, you care about protecting the country, you care about medical research, you care about those these -- these things, the economic growth is everything. we can't grow ourselves out of this debt and deficit, but we can sure do some great good. and i beg my brothers on both sides of the aisle my sisters too, you need to step away a bit from some of the crazy dogma pull back on some of the crazy regulations, the arrogance of thinking washington knows everything and let america begin to grow, allow it to begin to prosper. and that's what the republican budget is doing. it's dealing with the reality of the math we've been given by this president's policies. and trying to drive it to a

pro-growth future with lots of optionality. and with that i yield back to my friend from texas. the chair: the gentleman yields back to the gentleman from texas. the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: thank you, mr. speaker. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, in response to my good friends on the other side of the aisle, numbers don't lie. and these numbers were compiled by the bipartisan bureau of labor statistics. and updated in early march. and it clearly shows that our economy was shedding 800,000 jobs a month before president obama took office. and then because of his policies it has continued to grow. 12 million private sector jobs were added. in the past 60 months. the longest streak on record of job growth. and a 288,000 private sector

jobs added in february. i would now like to yield to an outstanding member of our committee john delaney from the great state of maryland. five minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. delaney: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my good friend and the gentlelady from new york for yielding me time. to talk about the -- my colleagues, the republicans' budget, which is something i oppose. and i oppose it on a number of policy reasons. but i thought i would spend my time today talking about what i view as a more fundamental, analytical flaw in the budget. and that relates to the overall goal of the budget. because if you have the wrong goal, you often make a series of bad decisions to support that goal. so i think it's important that we talk about what the goal of the budget and what the goal of the budget should be. the goal of the republican budget is to have zero deficits within 10 years. and in my opinion that's the

goal, because it sounds good. we've all heard the line, that we should not spend more money than we take in. that sounds really good. but it ignores, to many ex tents, the basic math of budgets. it's also an unrealistic goal and it's also an unnecessary goal. and as a result of pursuing an unrealistic and unnecessary goal, a series of very bad decisions are imbedded in the budget, which is why i want to talk about the goal. . it's up realistic when you look at the federal budget at this point if time. after several administrations, ignoring, in many ways the fiscal responsibility of this great country and allowing our debt to become such a high percentage of our economy, we put ourselves in a position where we have had very significant deficits and the debt levels are such we very limited financial flexibility as a country. if interest rates were to go up

it would increasingly consume a very large percentage of our budget. that's the problem and that's the situation we find ourselves in. if addition, mr. speaker, we are entering a phase where the demographic trends if our country and aging on the relative basis of the population are putting tremendous pressure on the resources of the federal government. so this is a very, very challenging time to take a budget that has had very significant deficits and try to bring them to zero within 10 years. that's why it's unrealistic. it's also unnecessary because the most important metric in the financial health of the united states of america is our debt as a percentage of our economy. and if we want to lower our debt as a percentage of our economy, what we have to do is have a budget where our deficits expressed as a percentage of our economy are consist tently lower than economic growth. -- consistently lower than our economic growth. we should be targeting deficits of 1% to 2% with a view the minimum base line economic growth of this country would be

2% to 3%, and definitionally over time that will take the debt of the country as a percentage of the country down, it will give us more financial flexibility in the future, and position us so that when interest rates rise, which they will it will consume a much smaller percentage of our budget. that should be the goal. but because we have this unrealisic and unnecessary goal of getting deficits to zero within 10 years, my republican colleagues are forced to overcorrect in the budget to achieve that goal. there are two fundamental ways to overcorrect in a budget. you either raise taxes, very high, to get revenues, to get it to zero or you cut investments very significantly. my republican colleagues don't choose to raise taxes. what they choose to do is cut taxes, which makes an already unrealistic goal more unrealistic. so the only thing that's left, the only thing that's left to bring this budget to zero within 10 years is massive, massive reductions in the investments we

are making in our future and in our nation which to me is a very odd decision in light of the facts that are in front of us. the facts in front of us are very clear. we are in a global and very competitive economy and we haven't made the investments, particularly in things like infrastructure, to position this country to compete as successfully as it should in a world that's increasingly interconnected. also we have to make investments in our children, mr. speaker. we are in a knowledge-based economy. to make sure that our kids are capable of being employed and having a rising standard of living across their lives we have to invest in their future. so to achieve this unrealistic goal, my republican colleagues make very significant, very, very significant cuts to these critical investments, which you could argue has never been more important to do that. in fact, they bring many of these levels down to half of what they have been historically. historically. again, and importantly expressed as a percentage of our economy.

because it's irrelevant to talk about absolute numbers. the only numbers that should be talked about is the budget in terms of the percentage of our economy. and that's why i view this budget as so troubling and misguided. mr. speaker, i spent my whole career prior to coming to congress running publicly traded companies that i started. i used to observe other managers who are running publicly traded companies who from time to time make really bad decisions about what to do with their business. those bad decisions were often based on a fundamental premise that they would pander to the market and put forth unrealistic -- another 30 seconds? or one minute? mrs. maloney: another 10 seconds. mr. delaney: unrealistic exspecialations. they would make bad decisions and the story would end badly. that's what we have here. we have unrealistic expectations, a series of bad decisions, if this were followed, a bad outcome. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york reserve. the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: mr. speaker, i yield myself a minute and a half. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for a minute and a half. mr. brady: the message we hear today from democrat friends, the economy is great. this is really historical. we are ating just -- adding just millions of new jobs. that's not the real story. that's not the real economy. the truth is millions of americans have become so discouraged they have just dropped out looking for work. four out of 10 college graduates, they can't a job, they can't find a job that needs a college degree, they are working behind a cash register. we have the fewest number of adults, percentage wise, in the work force than when their recovery began. since things are supposed to be so great fewer adults than ever, we are about flat. in some cases we have gone backward. the unemployment rate, while it's lowered to 5.5% in real terms, if our number of workers had stayed in the work force, the true rate is closer to 9.7%. if we want to stay with this second rate disappointing recovery, stay the course.

but if we want a stronger healthier economy, we need to change direction. republican budget under chairman tom price changes the trajectory and momentum of america's economy, balancing it without raising taxes. federal reserve said one of the drags on our economy are the tax increases. we have so much more work to do to help our families, young people, and those looking for a job. we can't settle for second rate. with that i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from new york. is recognized. mrs. maloney: thank you. the republican budget looks like a blueprint, but it's not. it's more like a vague set of directions, with the most important pieces missing. this budget calls for vast cuts, but it doesn't specify what will be cut or who will suffer the pain. it claims to lower budget deficits, but it relies on

accounting gimmickry. this document is not a blueprint. it's not an engineering marvel. it cost not deserve our braise or even serious attention. it's fundamentally dishonest, it is a dishonest document that would hurt millions of americans and imperil our future. the deceptions in this document have already been brought to light by some of our nation's leading papers. at this point the fact that this budget is misleading doesn't surprise us, but the scope of the deception is absolutely breathtaking. and before we go to the great leader from the great state of north carolina, i'd like to point out who gets hurt in this budget. the republican budget is also deceptive because it hides the fact that the "savings" they talk about, it achieves these savings at a huge cost to working families. their budget is balanced on the backs of working americans.

this budget slashes our investment in education. it devastates our investment in research and innovation. it ignores the problems of our crumbling infrastructure. it provides no solution to the looming bankruptcy of the federal transportation fund. and it will destroy up to 2.9 million jobs in 2017 alone. this is not general belt tightening. it's the wholesale strangling of the dreams and opportunities of those who are already struggling. it could fairly be called a plan to soak the poor because the poor and working americans would be hit especially hard by this budget's proposal which would allow critical provisions of the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit to expyre at the end of 2017. -- expire at the end of 2017. democratic programs to help working americans would expire under their plan. and that would increase the number of people in poverty by

an estimated 1.8 million including one million children. this budget falsely claims that it will, quote in the republican words, make sure that those who need assistance get more than an invitation into a broken system, end quote. it then proceeds to cut the supplemental nutritional assistance program by $125 billion between 2021 and 2025. this would mean the end of food assistance for millions of low-income families or cut in benefits below the less than $1 .50 per person per meal household now receives. this budget would then further confer medicaid and the children's health insurance program into a block grant. and drastically reduce it funding. this is not a budget for the future. it destroys the dreams of the working americans for the future. i now yield three minutes to a new member of our committee,

alma adams from the great state of north carolina. the chair: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. adams: i want to thank the gentlelady from new york. i stand in opposition to this blatantly dishonest republican budget. republicans call this a balanced budget for a strong america, but i call it robin hood in reverse. republicans say that it will bring greater opportunity and a healthy economy for the working class. but i say it widens the gap between the haves and the have-nots. our economy is driven by middle class american families. this budget attacks them and it attacks our economy. it's a one-sided partisan plan, increasing savings for the rich by $200,000. increasing taxes for the average american by $2,000. it repeals the affordable care act which has insured 16 million more people previously uninsured. the district in north carolina i represent benefits from the democratic alternative budget. it's negatively impacted by this republican budget.

my district has an unemployment rate that more than doubles the state and the national average of more than 27% of people in my district live below the poverty line. that's 12% more, mr. speaker, than the national average. cuts to snap funding in this budget impacts more than 1.5 million north carolinians. more than 65,000 people inure 12th district. i -- in our 12th district. i cannot support a budget that hurts my constituents. we need a budget that brings jobs back to the 12th district and the millions of americans across this nation who work hard every day to feed their family. this budget launches a strong attack on education as a former professor and member of the education and work force committee, i'm troubled by the fact this budget slashes $1.2 billion in education funding for our country. cutting more than 36 million in education funding for north carolinians. 790 children under 5 in north carolina would be left out of critical head start programs.

pell grants would be frozen for students. when our children fail, everyone fails. the democratic alternative budget is what we need. because it supports hardworking middle class families. it contributes to job growth. it invests in our children's education. and it supports our most vital programs. my colleagues on the other side join me in countless other members in supporting a sensible democratic alternative. let's continue the blue ride our president made possible. i yield back to the lady from new york. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: mr. speaker, i am prepared to close when the former chairwoman of the joint economic committee wishes to do her closing remarks. the chair: the gentleman from texas prepared to close. mrs. maloney: may i inquire how much time -- the chair: the gentlelady from new york has 10 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from texas has 10. mrs. maloney: i have 10 minutes left? i have a number of other speakers who would like to

speak. and possibly the democratic leader would also like to join us. i'm not prepared to yield back at this time. mr. brady: i reserve at this time. the chair: the gentlelady from new york. mrs. maloney: the budget deceptively claims to adhere to the budget caps that are otherwise known as the sequestration levels of 2016, yet it adds tens of millions of dollars to what republicans themselves have called a slush fund for defense, including lucrative military contracts. and the budget dishonestly calls for another $1.1 trillion in cuts to mandatory programs. somewhere, somehow without specifying what those cuts would be, who they would hit or how it would all happen. and it does not balance the budget. the budget falsely claims that it will place the country on a path of prosperity and paying

off the debt. when in fact it will not. as the nobel prize winning economist, paul krugman, mass pointed out, if this budget were to become law as written, and i am quoting, it would actually leave the federal government $7 trillion deeper in debt than claimed. and i now yield to the good friend congressman two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes, from rhode island, is recognized for two minutes. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentlelady from new york for yielding. mr. speaker, today we'll be asked to vote on a budget resolution that should outline our priorities and values as a nomination. but this year house republicans have proposed what i refer to as a magic budget that goes far beyond the sleights of hand and fiscal gimmicks folks have grown accustomed to seeing in

washington. republicans would like us to believe their painful spending cuts will balance the budget in nine years. unfortunately, the basic immutable laws of accounting contradict this claim. republican budget claims to save $5.5 trillion and balance the budget in just nine years. allow me to explain this magic budget. the magic budget extends tax cuts for corporations and eliminates the alternate minimum tax but doesn't account for $150 billion in lost revenue. this is where it gets even trickier. . 8 it then cuts $1.1 trillion in spending without any indication of where it would come from. it then takes a sharp turn to the right and repeals obamacare. but still, amazingly uses the $1 trillion in future revenue from obamacare to balance the budget by 2024. mr. speaker this is one magic budget. america deserves better.

i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island yields back. the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from texas still reserve? mr. brady: mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: the one thing economist paul crugman is expert at is being wrong. had we followed his prescription, this economy would be even slower than it is in -- and our nation would be deeper in debt. washington doesn't have a revenue problem. it has a spending problem. here are the latest numbers, as of january this year showing the amount of revenue this federal government's been taking from each and every american it's nearly at record high. the republican budget strengthens the economy, tackles the spending problem and changes the course of this dispointing recovery.

with that i -- disappointing recovery. with that i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, i would like to respond to my good friend on the other side of the aisle. economist paul crugman, a nobel prize winner did not support the republican policies that led to the red, deep valley where we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. he supported many of the proposals that president obama and the democrats implemented that led to the growth in more jobs. now, the president and the democrats will not be satisfied until every american who wants a job has a job. but numbers don't lie. and this chart that is based on the bureau of labor statistics' numbers, shows policies that led to 800,000 jobs lost per month to one that is growing, i admit democrats are not happy until it grows even more, but 12 million private sector jobs have been added.

and i want to go back to a budget that i believe will turn this blue into the red again. we've got to continue with the blue policies that led to economic opportunities and job growth. now, the budget document, the republican budget document claims that it aims to make sure that government keeps the promises that it has made and then it proceeds to lay out plans to demolish medicare. medicare is one of the most successful and universally popular programs ever designed. it provides high-quality health care for americans over the age of 65. yet this republican budget would replace this program with a voucher program giving seniors a coupon to help defray the cost of private insurance. seniors would have to immediately pay new co-pays for

preventive care and much higher costs for prescription drugs. they don't say how they're going to help the seniors. they're just going to give them this voucher program. and can private insurance companies provide a better coverage? they don't know. they don't say anything about it. they're just going to give them a voucher and let them go to the private insurance and they don't say whether their program will cost more out of pocket expenses and i think it definitely will. dismantling medicare is a radical proposition. my guess is that if congress tries to take apart medicare millions of americans will storm on capitol hill. let's remember what happened in the early 2000's when then president george w. bush tried to partially privatize social security. like medicare, social security is extremely popular with seniors because it works and it

makes a huge positive difference in their lives. for many older americans, social security is the only source of retirement income they will have. and for others it is a critical supplemental to their savings -- supplement to their savings. and republicans have previously tried to privatize it. let's be honest with the american people. if my republican colleagues want to dismantle medicare they should come right out and say it and say it loudly. in their budget proposal, our friends across the aisle complain about how long it has taken for our economy to recover from the great recession. that it bubbled up and blew up on their watch. remember that that recession was on their watch with their proposals. their budget talks a great deal about accountability. yet nowhere our republican

colleagues indicate they should be held accountable for the mistakes and mismanagement that led to the great recession and to the $17 trillion in household wealth that was lost. thankfully most of that household wealth has been regained thanks to the obama recovery. for my republican friends who want to brush away any mention of the failed republican policies of the past that brought us to the verge of economic collapse i would remind you of the prophecy, the words of the great philosopher who said, and i quote, those who do not know the path are condemned to repeat it. i do not want to go back to the past of the red, deep valley, this chart shows. republican promises in the past to prosperity through austerity have proven to be hollow.

democratic policies have produced an economy that just added more than 200 private sector jobs every month for 12 straight months. the first time that that has happened since 1977. republican predictions that the passage of the recovery act would produce economic doom hyperinflation and the collapse of the dollar were all proven wrong. democratic policies have produced an economy that has been growing steadily, with low inflation, a strong dollar, cheap gas a deficit that has shrunk by 2/3, and a dow jones index that has tripled. republicans lament that the passage of the affordable care act would make health care unaffordable. turned out to be totally untrue. the annual increase in health care premiums has dropped to a 50-year low.

so i'd like to take a short detour to give some advice for homebuyers. if you ever consider buying a new house that was built on a blueprint like this republican budget blueprint, please do not do it. save your money. look for a home that's built on a solid foundation. look for a house that has strong walls and a solid roof. look for one that will protect your family for a long time. don't buy a house built on a blueprint that is as shoddy as this one, and they're going back to their same failed policy. this budget is a fiasco. the numbers do not add up. and i'm pleased that even some of my republican colleagues have had the courage to say so. some have called it budgetary tricks. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. mrs. maloney: funny money slush funds. but the truth is far worse than that. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady's no longer recognized. the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: thank you mr. speaker. did i hear you say all time has

expired on the democrat side of the aisle? the chair: the gentlelady from new york is out of time. mr. brady: thank you. i yield myself as much time as i may use. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. brady: look. i don't blame democrats for not understanding this budget. they could never pass one. in fact, there hasn't been a budget for this great country since 2009 when they were in charge. in fact, it is republicans who have consistently in the house passed a budget, only to have a democrat senate do nothing. and now for the first time, the american public said, we had enough of this. enough of the deficit enough of this struggling economy enough of this out-of-control spending. we want a real budget. this step takes place today and chairman price's balanced budget for a stronger economy. i would point out, the american public knows exactly the democratic policies that have brought them the weakest recovery in 50 years and why five years after the recovery began most americans still

think they're in a recession. they think their family and their community is still in a recession. we're not going to settle for this second-rate economy. i would point out, while i'm pleased there have been some job creation over the last 60 months compare it to the average. i mean, if this were just a c-grade recovery, just middle of the pack, nothing to brag about, we would be creating 403,000 new jobs every month. not 200,000-plus. it would be almost double that. if you looked at the reagan croffery when i a higher uniment -- recovery which had a higher unemployment, 750,000 jobs more a month. that chart does show positive growth. it is so weak and so disappointing. and accompanied by stagnant paychecks and college graduates working behind cash registers. we want to stick with that, no problem. we know exactly what to do. if we want to change course as a country, if we want to stop growing washington's economy

and grow our local economy, we're going to change course. the weakness of this recovery can be captured in three numbers. we are missing a trillion and a half dollars out of today's economy and people are suffering. we're missing 5 1/2 million jobs enough to put everyone looking for work in 45 states back to work. and we're missing 11 -- $11,000 a year out of a family of four's family budget. can you imagine what those $11,000 could do paying for tuition? and fuel and college costs? with this growth cap -- this growth cap will persist unless we change course. the budget resolution gradually addresses these issues by gradually bringing federal spending back into line, allowing washington to balance the budget and grow the economy. it -- secondly, the budget resolution builds on the success of welfare reform in the 1990's when democrat president bill clinton and republican congress worked

together to give block grants to the states to develop programs to help abled-body working poor people help find jobs and it succeeded. employing a successful model, the budget resolution envisions converting medicaid and food stamp programs into block grants that would allow states to tailor these programs to the needs of their states, to experiment, to find more innovative ways to get people off of work and into a career and a lifetime that they have envisioned. thirdly, the budget envisions the repeal of the inpopular and unworkable monstrosity known as obamacare. fourth, the budget resolution envisions saving medicare once and for all. putting in place the reforms that would actually keep this important program for seniors for generations to come. finally, it envisions a pro-growth tax reform built for growth, to get america back to work and american companies

competing and winning around the world. there is so much more we must do besides reforming the tax code and balancing regulation and creating a solid dollar and creating sales agreements around the world, so our companies compete, but we can't do that until this government has a budget that is built for america's growth, not the government's growth. i strongly commend the work of chairman price and the other republican members of the budget committee, urge the house to vote for this budget resolution, we need to change course in this country so we can get hardworking taxpayers, young people and families back to work, to living the american dream. mr. speaker, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. pursuant to the rule, the concurrent resolution shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule and is considered read. no amendment shall be in order except those printed in house report 114-49. each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report and may be offered only by a member designatehood

in the report, shall be consider -- designated in the report, shall be considered read. if more than one such amendment is adopted, then only the one receiving the greater number of affirmative votes shall be considered as finally adopted. in case of a tie, the greater number of affirmative votes, then only the last amendment to receive the number of affirmative votes will be considered as finally adopted. after conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment, there shall be a final period of general debate, which shall not exceed 10 minutes equal request divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the budget.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 114-49. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. ellison: i have an amendment at the desk and i rise to offer an alternative budget on behalf of the congressional progressive caucus. the chair: is the gentleman a designee of the gentleman from arizona? mr. ellison: yes, i am. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 in the nature of a substitute printed in house report 114-49 offered by mr. ellison of minnesota. . the chair: pursuant to house resolution 163, the gentleman from minnesota mr. ellison, and a member opposed each will control 15 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. ellison: madam speaker thank you for the recognition. i'd like to stand by using this

visual aid so that i can show clearly the people's budget the people's budget we will enter today and will have debate on right now is the right budget for the american people because it puts the american people first. the people's budget has it firmly in mind, we, the people, so we think about how we should pull together a plan for the nation's spending and the nation's revenue and how we plan out what we are going to spend money on this people's budget is the thing. let me start by talking about where we are now and how we must respond to the american people's needs. corporations are pocketing record profits by driving down wages with one hand, increasing the cost of basic building blocks of a happy life on the other. where does that leave working families? huddled around a dinner table with their paychecks, doing the math in their head, wondering if they can make ends meet this month.

this shows clearly median income for all families down 8% between 2000 and 2012. price of rent's up. medical care up. childcare up. higher ed way up. the people's budget responds directly to the needs of the american people. first, by putting forth the most important thing in what we believe is the most important metric and measurement of any budget, how many jobs do you create? the people's budget creates 8.4 million jobs and raises wages by investing in -- investing $820 billion in infrastructure and rebuilding our nation's roads and fringes and our broadband and things like that. providing aid to states to help local governments rehire teachers firefighters, police officers, supporting a minimum wage increase and increasing funding for worker protection agencies to enforce wage laws. finally, funding student loan programs and help businesses

grow. the people's budget brings down the cost of the building blocks of the american dream. at a time when too many young people are getting priced out of the college education situation our budget offers debt-free college for all. for students already paying back student loans, we he offer affordable loan refinancing. to reduce health care costs, the people's budget removes the 40% excise tax on high cost health care plans and provides a public option for consumers, and the congressional budget office estimates that a public option would offer premiums that are 7% to 8% lower than those offered by private plans. and to help parents take better care of their children, our budget expands family tax credits and develops a fund to provide eligible low-income families with access to health care. the bottom line, madam speaker, is this. the richest nation in the

history of the world what may well be argued its richest point in its history, should be a place where working people can look forward to an american dream. where they don't have to huddle around the table at the end of the week and wonder if they are going to make it. so we offer the people's budget and i hereby recognize my co-chair, mr. grijalva, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. grijalva: thank you very much. madam chairman. thank you, mr. ellison, for the time. in support of the people's budget, let me simply say this budget places this nation's greatest resource, its people, as the priority. it places value on the needs and hopes of regular working people in this country. and the middle class. those aspiring to the middle class, and wanting to leave poverty and low-wage jobs behind. you're going to hear from our colleagues on the other side of

the aisle what a terrible scourge our people's budget is on raising taxes and spending. but our budget provides to the american people the very distinct and necessary support, jobs. it creates jobs. security in retirement and difficulty times for the american people. fair wages for a fair day's work. investments in our collective future. education, environment children, and job training for the future. income stability and ending income inequality. those are the priorities within that budget that reflect the needs of the american people. we offer opportunity to americans who strive for a better life in this budget. republicans are clearly angry we are ending this special treatment of wall street buddies, meanwhile they have no problem ending tax credits for low and middle income families. among the few specific tax

reposals in the house republican budget is a promise to spend hundreds of billions on high income and corporate tax cuts. the trickle down has not trickled and we have continued that process. republicans they say they are seeking to balance the budget. they are balancing this budget on the backs of the middle class while cutting taxes for the wealthy and well connected, and getting to balance through irresponsible budget gimmicks. we close corporate loopholes. offshore tax havens on profits are eliminated. and a progressive tax rate for income above $1 million. our budget is about the american people and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. ellison: we reserve our time. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. price: i claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he shall consume.

mr. price: thank you. madam chair, i want to commend our friends in the progressive caucus for bringing forward a budget. it's not necessaryly an easy thing to do. we want to thank them for bringing this budget forward. there aren't many times in congress when we actually get to compare like products to like products side by side. so i think it's important to compare exactly where this budget that's being proposed would take us. these are the three budgets that are going to be offered this afternoon by our friends on the other side of the aisle. the progressive caucus is the first one. so how does it compare to the budget, the balanced budget for a stronger america, that we have offered for this chamber? first taxes, their budget would increase taxes over $7 trillion over the next 10 years. spending? spending increases $9.3 trillion over our budget. deficits? $2.4 trillion increase over the next 10 years. debt?

$2.8 trillion increase in debt over the republican balanced budget for a stronger america. and defense. decreasing defense spending by $529 billion. when does it get to balance? never. never gets to balance. actually madam chair, it clearly is not the direction the american people desire or american people need. so we stand strongly in favor of a balanced budget for a stronger america. i'm pleased to yield my remaining time to the gentleman from california mr. mcclintock, and i ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control the time. the chair: without objection, the gentleman will control the remader of the time. mr. mcclintock: i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. ellison: to yield one minute to my good friend from the state of michigan, the dean of the house of representatives, john conyers. the chair: so recognized. mr. conyers: thank you. i stand up to cheer for the

ellison-grijalva progressive caucus and what it stands for. and especially for the full employment bill that is woven inside this very spectacular budget. le with 20 million americans unemployed or underemployed or have given up we put a fraction of a percent of tax on wall street speculators and fees on big polluters to finance more than $1 trillion in investment to repair our roads and bridges upgrade energy systems, and prepare our young people to thrive as citizens and workers. this budget will create 8.4 million jobs by 2018. when i came to congress a number of decades ago, to fight for dr.

martin luther king's priorities jobs justice, and peace, the progressive caucus does it. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. ellison: at this time sprs we yield one minute to mr. nadler, the gentleman from new york. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. nadler: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, for the fifth year if a row the republicans have put forth a budget that devastates nondefense spending and dismantles medicare, medicaid chip, and aid to college students. it gives a $200,000 trach to the wealthiest americans while imposing a $2,000 tax increase on working families. it abandons our critical national infrastructure and the jobs it could create. the republican budget makes a clear choice billionaires and corporations before our working americans and seniors. the progressive caucus people's pugget offers a clear alternative -- budget offers a

clear alternative. this budget creates . million jobs through investments in infrastructure, worker training and clean energy. it repeals the testify stating sequester cuts and gives the 46.5 million americans living in poverty a path back to prosperity. this alternative budget puts an end to a system where c.e.o.'s pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries. it closes tax loopholes that allow corporations to avoid taxes and overseas profits and makes it harder for american businesses to set up jobs in low-tax countries. mr. ellison: 15 seconds. mr. nadler: to lower their tax burden. it supports middle class families to pay parental leave and childcare. it proves that congress can pass a budget that supports working families and seniors, builds an economy that creates jobs, and restores faith in the american dream. i urge my colleagues to invest in this country and its people. support the people's budget. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentleman from minnesota has 7 1/47 minutes. the gentleman from california has 13 1/2 minutes. mr. ellison: we'll reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: madam chair, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcclintock: madam chairman, even though i disagree hartley with the budget's advanced by the progressive caucus, they do an invaluable service to the budget debate by bringing into sharp relief two very different visions of governance advanced by the two parties. the progressive budget is sincere and bold unfortunately it is also wrong. it would hike taxes by $ trillion over the next 10 years relative to the republican budget. by expanding $9th 3 trillion and run up $2. trillion more in debt than the republican budget over 10 years. let's begin with the reality check here. divide $1 trillion into the

number of families in this country. every $1 trillion we throw around here is roughly $8,000 taken from an average family's earnings. some of that they see as direct taxes. some of that they see as increased prices or depressed wages as businesses pass along their costs to consumers and employees. but ultimately it is paid by working americans. because that's where the bulk of our economy rests. $3.8 trillion in increased taxes means roughly $30,000 taken from the earnings of an average family over the next 10 years. $2.8 trillion in increased debt means another $22,000 of debt added to that family's obligations that they will have to pay in future taxes. we are told don't worry, rich people pay all those taxes. the problem is there aren't enough rich people if the country to begin to make more than a dent in these numbers. it turns out many of the so-called rich people aren't

rich. and they aren't even people. they are struggling small businesses filing under subchapter s. and remember this dirty little secret of finance businesses do not pay business taxes. the only three possible ways a business tax can be paid is by consumers through higher prices by employees through lower wages and by investors through lower earnings. that's your 401-k or your pension plan we are talking about. we are told, don't worry we are using that money to create wealth and jobs. the problem is government doesn't create wealth because government cannot inject a dollar into the economy until it has first taken that same dollar out of the economy. true, we see the job the government creates when it puts the dollar back in what we don't see as clearly is the job that is lost when government first takes that dollar out of the economy. we see those lost jobs in the

lowest labor participation rate in nearly 40 years and in declining median incomes for working americans. here's what government can do and what the progressive democratic budget proposes, it can transfer jobs from the private sector to the public sector by taxing one and expanding the other. it can transfer jobs from one sector of the private market to the other by taxing one and subsidizing the other. in fact, that is precisely the difference between apple computer and solyndra. it is the difference between fedex and the post office office. . it is the difference between the reagan recovery and the obama recovery. it's . estimated that if the obama recover -- it's been estimated that if the obama recovery had mirrored the reagan economy, millions more americans would be working today and family incomes would be thousands of dollars higher than they are today. but of course reagan diagnosed

the problem very differently than this administration. you remember his famous words in this great economic crisis, government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem. he dramatically reduced the tax burden from 70% down to 28%. he reduced spending by 2% of g.d.p. he rolled back many of the regulatory burdens imposed on our economy. and the result was one of the most dramatic and prolonged economic expansions in our nation's history. and it wasn't just reagan. we forget that after the 1994 congressional election, bill clinton realized his policies weren't working. he came here to this floor in his state of the union address and proclaimed the era of big government is over and he made good on that promise. he reached across the aisle to work with the republican congress and together they accomplished some amazing things. they reduced federal spending by 4% of g.d.p. they approved what amounted to the biggest capital gains tax

cut in american history. they dramatically reduced entitlement spending. in clinton's words, ending welfare as we know it. the result was the only four budget surpluses in the last half century and another period of prolonged economic expansion. and the percentage of children living in poverty dropped dramatically. budget reported by the house budget committee employs these principles that worked when reagan and clinton used them and worked when john f. kennedy and harry truman used them. republican house budget gradually reduces spending as a percentage of g.d.p., it calls for a lower, flatter tax rate, it puts our nation back on a course to a balanced budget. it saves medicare from bankrupting and collapsing on an entire generation of americans. it takes us off the path of debt and doubt and despair that this administration has doing matically followed and it restores us -- dogmatically

followed and it restores us to policies that have brought prosperity to our nation. government cannot create jobs but it can create conditions where jobs mull ply and prosper or where they -- multiply and prosper or where they stagnate and disappear. that it can do very well. and we have a very consistent experience with the policies that create these conditions. increase the burdens on the economy and the economy contracts. lighten the burdens on the economy and it grows and prospers. that's what is out of control with this administration. no nation has ever taxed and spent its way to prosperity. but many nations have taxed and spent their way to economic ruin and bankruptcy. we know what works, we know what doesn't work. the house budget committee's balanced budget for a stronger america follows principles that have time and again consistently and rapidly produced economic expansion and prosperity. the obama budget, the house democrats' budget, and the progressive budget before us

now doubledown on failed policies that have bankrupted nations throughout recorded history. that is the choice before us today. and we're running out of time to make it. let's choose wisely. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. ellison: at this time we'd recognize the gentleman from washington state for two minutes, congressman jim mcdermott of the ways and means committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. mcdermott: madam chairman, the last speaker said, there are two visions for this country. and there is. there's the republican vision, that is give more to the wealthy. and there is the progressive vision of investing in the future so that we can all all americans, do well. the republicans would believe, they'd want to you believe that millionaires and billionaires have the same tax problems as

folks on the bottom of the scale. the hardworking americans who are trying to make a living. that's not the case. when republican budgets give tax breaks to the wealthy and the corporations the c.p.c. budget boosts the permit and permanently extends the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit which makes stronger working families. the second thing the c.b.c. budget does, and this is even more for the future -- c.p.c. budget does, and this is even more for the future, it takes on the issue of student debt, which is a crisis in this country. we have $1.3 trillion of debt wrapped around the necks of our children. every student and parent knows that the cost of a college education is going up. millions of students are stuck with loans at interest rates of 10% or larger. rather than the republican budget that keeps students and families endentured to wall street and federal student loan

program, our alternative allows students to refinance their loan. you can refinance your house. why can't the millions of students in this country refinance their student loans? to get a lower rate? it's because the republicans are tied to the banks and won't let it happen. now, if the republicans had their way students would continue to choose between paying the rent and paying their student loan debt. that's where kids are today. they're paying more to the banks on their loans than they are paying for their rent. that's not the america i want. it's not the america anybody in this country really wants. except a very few people that the republicans represent. i urge you to vote yes on the progressive budget. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the distinguished member from south carolina governor sanford.

the chair: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for three minutes. mr. sanford: i thank the gentleman and i would just make the point that, as we have this debate on so the called progressive budget versus the house budget, that in fact it is chairman price's committee budget that is indeed the progressive budget. i say that for this reason. if you stop and think about this notion of being progressive, it is to yield to innovation, to change, to flexibility to one's own choice in the way that one does something. and i don't think that there's anything more sacred in that regard than the way that one spends one's own money. if we were to go with this alternative, what we would see was, you know, on the tax and spending side, going from around 18% of g.d.p. up to around 22% of g.d.p. those are sort of numbers. what does that equate to in 2025? $00 billion. $800 -- $800 billion.

$00 billion means you could go and -- $800 billion means you could go and fund the state of south carolina government 18 times. you could think about what we spend on transportation here at the federal level. you could fund it 60 times. i mean, it's a big number by any account. and fundamentally it's a question of equity in that should 435 folks here in this chamber decide how folks' money is spent? or should they decide how their money is spent? i think it's also important because when you think about debt and deficit and interest payments, if we were to go with this alternative, what we're looking at is substantial increases on that front, so much so that i think that you're looking at the next generation that to a degree becomes an endentured servant to the federal government. this isn't my thinking. if you go up to the university of boston, there's a study called generational accounting.

what is the computed cost for a child born in america in terms of tax and spending load. it's about 82%. 82%. in fairness to chairman price, what he's done is to try and stem that tide and move us back in the direction so that people have more discretion on how they spend their money. and that's ultimately what's at play. i'd also say that it's progressive from the standpoint in the way that the house budget attempts to deal with entitlements. take, for instance, just the health care side. on medicare, there's nothing crazier than trying to do the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. because what all the act wears have said is -- actuaries have said is if we continue on that road we're going to see real shortfalls in regard to the federal government's ability to handle entitlements. in obamacare, there's nothing progressive about forcing somebody to pay into a system that may or may not fit their needs. and on the medicaid level, there is nothing less progressive than not offering choices. think about the divert of

different states that we have -- diversity of different states that we have out there and how different the health care needs may be in south carolina than the inner steph los angeles. what chairman price's proposal -- city of los angeles. what chairman price's proposal says, let's give governors the flexibility so they can look at what works best for them and their citizens. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does the gentleman reserve? mr. mcclintock: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. mr. ellison: madam speaker, may i inquire how much time we have left? the chair: the gentleman from minnesota has 5 1/4 minutes. mr. ellison: at this time we yield two minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. pocan, a member of the budget committee, and work force and education committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. pocan: thank you madam speaker. thank you to mr. ellison for all your work with the progressive caucus. i have to tell you, i couldn't disagree more with the good governor of south carolina on the budget.

to call the republican tea-party-infused progressive is like calling velveeta a type of wisconsin cheese. it just doesn't compare. the republican budget means americans will work harder and earn less. it will be harder to buy a home, harder to send your children to college and harder to save for a secure retirement. it will do nothing to grow wages or help people get ahead, but it will do one thing for the people in the middle class. it will give you a $2,000 tax increase that the wealthiest in this country can get a tax break -- so that the wealthiest in this country can get a tax break. the progressive caucus budget is exactly the op sifment the people's budget boosts -- opposite. the people's budget boosts economic opportunity for more americansance gives hardworking american -- americans and gives hardworking americans a raise. progressive caucus budget grows our economy and will create .4 million jobs by investing -- 8.4 million jobs by investing in things like infrastructure and teachers. it puts money into the pockets of workers so that you can.net a raise and go out -- can get a

raise and go out schooping -- shopping. the progressive budget puts our next generation on a better track by making college more affordable, even debt-free, and more accessible for more people. that's why i'm supporting the people's budget the progressive caucus budget because it will grow your paycheck and create more hardworking -- more jobs for hardworking americans and i encourage my colleagues to join me in that support. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. mcclintock: at -- mr. ellison: at this time i'd yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, barbara lee, former chairperson of the progressive caucus black caucus, and appropriations committee member. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. lee: thank you very much. let me thank the gentleman for yielding. and also thanks to you and congressman grijalva for your tremendous leadership of the progressive caucus and for crafting this people's budget, which is a people's budget. today millions of americans are working hard and still struggling to make ends meet.

and millions are working hard trying to find a job. paychecks are shrinking while corporations reap record profits. instead of developing a budget to create jobs and help american families the house republican budget balances the budget once again on the backs of the most vulnerable to protect giveaways to special interests and the wealthy few. the c.p.c.'s people budget stands in stark contrast to the house republican budget. this is a moral document. it reflects our values as a nation. it creates more than eight million million -- eight million good-paying jobs. it is a plan lift it millions out the of poverty. it restores funding for snap and opens educational opportunities to all. it ends the pentagon's slush fund known as the overseas contingency account, that far too long has padded the wallets of defense contractors at taxpayer expense. it also tackles waste, fraud and abuse at the pentagon by demanding audit readiness. make no mistake, the people's

budget does what the house republican budget does not. it works for american families. not special interests defense contractors or the 1%. i urge my colleagues to do what's best for all american families and that's support this amendment. i yield back. and thank you. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: we're ready to close when the democrats finish. the chair: without objection. mr. ellison: madam speaker, at this time i would recognize the gentlelady from new jersey freshman member mrs. watson coleman, who is a very well-respected member of the progressive caucus. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. watson coleman: thank you very much. i rise to support -- i rise to urge support of the people's budget, the budget put forth by the congressional progressive caucus. this budget is a response to working people in this country who work hard every day and play by the ruse and attempt to accomplish the noble task of

providing for their families in the midst of escalating costs and decreasing wages. the people's budget recognizes that corporate profits are at their highest level in 85 years, workers' wages are simultaneously at the lowest level in 65 years. progressive budget was built with the working people of america in mind, it is designed to allow working families to keep more of the money that they earn, access higher wages and live healthy, productive lives, by increasing access to health care and lowering taxes. it recognizes that it's not enough to fight against efforts to take from the middle class to give tax breaks to the rich, we must also fight for tax breaks for the middle class expand family tax credit, fight for the cost of living increases for the retired, provide universal pre-k for children and help students finance their student loans. the people's budget makes real working people of this nation its priority and i would urge my colleagues to support this, the people's budget thank you. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from minnesota has one minute remaining. .