tv House Session CSPAN March 25, 2015 2:00pm-9:01pm EDT
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. .
mr. ellison: let me thank the speak for allowing us time to talk about the people's budget. this is a budget that puts .4 million people back to work. earlier in this debate, my colleague on the other side of the aisle, pulled up a chart and did a comparison between our budget and the republican budget. but there was one category that i did not see on that chart and that is how many jobs do you create? how many jobs do you create? this is the right number we should be comparing budgets on. i would say for americans all over this country looking for work, wanting to make a valuable contribution to themselves and their family, this is the right budget because this is the jobs budget, this is the good work budget, and this is the people's budget. i'd also like to give a big thanks to over 150,000 people who signed a petition in favor of the people's budget. citizen ack at this slists know what's good for their government.
they want the progressive budget, trained economists who have stripped numbers and modeling have come up to help us out. the people's budget we urge a yes vote. we thank the gentleman for the time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: mr. chairman, my friend forgets the 8.4 million jobs that will be destroyed in the productive sector as government transfers those 8.4 million through taxes to the public sector. i think the reason these times are so impassioned is because we have arrived at a moment when two very different visions of society are competing for our nation's future. and they are very much reflected in the budgets put forward by the two parties in this house. america's prosperity and greatness spring from uniquely american principles of individual freedom, personal responsibility, and actually limited government. america's founders created a voluntary society where people are free to make their own
decisions, enjoy the fruit of their own labors, take responsibility for their own decisions, and lead their own lives with a minimum of government interference and intrusion. when someone needs our help, we freely give that help. what we ask in return that they make the effort to support themselves to the extent they can. our government views no one person or group as more or less worthy than any other. we are americans. we'll be judged on our own merits and we'll make our own choices including what kind of car we'll drive or how we'll raise our children or what kind of light bulbs we prefer or what we'll have for dinner. today a very different vision competes for our future. that of a compulsory society where our individual rights are sprord nated to the mandates of government -- subordinated to the mandates of government bureaucrats. where innocent taxpayers are forced to bail out the bad decisions of others and consumers are compelled to purchase products or underwrite the losses of politically
favored companies. under this vision the purpose of government is not to protect individual freedom but it's to improve society however those emin power decide it should be improved. to take from those that he declares undeserving to give to those who are deserving. or to put it more susssippingtly, to give to each according to his abilities to those according to his needs. not more than 14u7bd stetches from where we debate right now thomas jefferson reviewed the bountiful resources of the nation and asked, with all these blessings what more is necessary to make us a happy and prosperous people? still one thing more, fellow citizens a wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread that it has earned.
this is the sum of good government. this is the balanced budget for a stronger america put forward by the house budget committee. and let us be clear, the very -- various democratic plans, including the one before us now fundamentally reject these american principles and replace them with values that are alien and antithetical to those that built our nation. this is the question that our generation must decide in all of its forms, including the question put to us today by this substitute amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota, so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. ellison: we ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota will be postponed. it is now in order it consider amendment number 2, printed in
house report number 114-49. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. butterfield: mr. chairman, i rise to offer an alternative budget on behalf of the congressional black caucus. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2, in the nature of a substitute printed in house report number 114-49, offered by mr. butterfield of north carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 163, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield, and a member opposed, each will control 15 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. mr. butterfield: thank you, mr. chair. mr. chairman, the congressional black caucus has a long history of submitting fiscally sound and morally responsible budget alternatives that emphasize our commitment to eradicating poverty in america. the budget which is induce -- endorsed by groups such as the national education association, nciu, planned parenthood, and policy link. focuses on a fairer tax code ending the sequestration battle creating jobs, and eliminating
poverty, and reducing the deficit. mr. chairman, the c.b.c. budget is a plan that will work to protect and enhance the social safety net that continues to save millions from the ravages of poverty. i goal is to increase economic opportunities for all americans through significant and sustained investments in education and infrastructure, affordable housing, domestic manufacturing, small business, and job training. we propose, mr. chairman significant investments to further accelerate our economic recovery and ensure no community in america is left behind. additionally no other budget on capitol hill prioritizes the plight of voting rights enforcement into the federal fiscal map or contemplates $3 billion saved over 10 years by limiting mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders. once again the house republican budget relies on partisan rhetoric and gimmicks instead of making the tough choices needed to invest in our nation, grow our economy and provide
economic opportunities for hardworking americans. house republicans are unrealistic and unworkable budget continues. it continues the sequester for domestic spending this year and cuts that spending drastically in future years disinvesting in our nation and asking the most vulnerable americans to carry the burden of deficit reduction. we cannot allow their budget to move forward on the backs of the american people. i request my colleagues to support the congressional blackhawks alternative budget and it is a budget that re-- black caucus alternative budget. i yield the balance of my time to congressman bobby scott who really did the heavy lifting along with congresswoman barbara lee and congresswoman moo in drafting our budget. i also ask unanimous consent that mr. scott be allowed to manage the time. the chair: without objection the gentleman from virginia will manage the balance of the time. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized.
mr. price: i claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. price: thank you, mr. chair. i want to commend our friends in the c.b.c. for coming forward with a budget. it's not an easy thing to do having worked these last 10 or 11 weeks to try to fashion a budget that could be belt with on the floor of the house. i also want to just point out that this is one of the few opportunities that we have as a congress to look at comparison of apples to apples similar work products with each other. there are three budgets that will be offered by our friends on the other side. we talked just now about the progressive caucus. in the middle is the c.b.c. budget, the one we are discussing right now. i just want to highlight the differences between this budget from a numerical standpoint with the budget that's been offered by the republican majority, a balanced budget for a stronger america. taxes, what does the c.b.c. budget do? increases taxes by over $3.2 trillion over the next 10 years.
spending? increases spending by over $7 trillion over the next 10 years compared to the republican budget. deficits? increases deficits by over $4 trillion over the next 10 years. debt? same. $4 trillion added to the debt. what do they spend on defense? the defense of our nation in these perilous times? less than he decreasing spending on defense by $314 billion. the big question, when does their budget ever get to balance? a balanced budget is what we need to get this economy rolling again. when does it ever get to balance? never. so it's a worthy endeavor that our friends in the c.b.c. have undertaken. however, it's not right for the country and certainly doesn't stand up to the scrutiny of a balanced budget for a stronger america. i'd like to yield my remaining time to the gentlewoman from tennessee mrs. black, and i ask unanimous consent that she be allowed to control the time. the chair: without objection, the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized and will control
the balance of the time. mrs. black: i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: mr. chairman, i rise in strong support of the congressional black caucus budget which is a more credible and responsible alternative than the underlying republican budget. the nation's budget reflects its priorities, the republican budget continues to highlight the wrong priorities. the underlying republican budget is not a serious plan. it contains trillions of dollars in tax cuts, but claims to be revenue neutral without showing a dime's worth of tax increase that is will be necessary to make it leff new neutral. includes trillions of dollars in unspecified cuts, and many of the specified cuts will not be made. for example, are we really going to repeal medicare as we know it? if you actually believe that the republican majority will carry out their plan, it would actually devastate our economy by balancing the budget on the backs of students, workers seniors, the disabled, and vulnerable communities across
the nation. the republican budget assumes that sequestration cuts will be enacted, and then adds an additional $759 billion in nondefense discretionary spending cuts. that's a part of the budget that invests in education, work force training, scientific research, transportation and infrastructure. in stark contrast to the republican budget the congressional black caucus -budget puts real numbers on the page. we show our arithmetic. the c.b.c. budget proposes $2.7 trillion in additional revenue over the next decade, but our budget lays out $5.6 trillion in specific revenue options and loophole closings that congress could adopt to achieve that goal. with this additional revenue we eliminate sequestration. we propose a $500 billion jobs package and put millions of people back to work, and include more than $300 billion above the president's budget for significant and sustained investments in programs that have been instrumental in
lifting millions of americans out of poverty. a budget also calls for a raise in the minimum wage. as a public option to the health insurance marketplace and calls for the passage of comprehensive immigration reform. factors the pay-for elimination of sequestration, our revenue enhancements c.b.o.'s analysis of the deficit reduction impacts of both enacting a public option and comprehensive immigration reform, our budget credibly reduces the 10-year deficit by $1.9 trillion when compared to c.b.o.'s base line. mr. chairman, our budget is a credible alternative to the vague and unrealistic plan offered by our republican colleagues, and i urge my colleagues to support the c.b.c. budget. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized. mrs. black: thank you mr. chairman. today i rise in opposition to this surkstute amendment. every day -- substitute amendment. every day i hear from my constituents in tennessee who are still struggling to find
work and make ends meet. this is the result of the slowest economic recovery in american history. and in parts of my district communities are still plagued by double-digit unemployment rates. yet this amendment would raise taxes on americans by $3.2 trillion. this would be on the top of the $1.6 trillion in new taxes already imposed under president obama. raising taxes on small business is exactly the opposite of what is needed to reduce unemployment. get americans back to work and grow our economy. even with this $3.2 trillion tax increase, which would be the largest in american history, this budget would never balance. in fact compared to a balanced budget for a stroppinger america this substitute amendment would -- stronger america, this substitute amendment would add $4 trillion to our debt over the next 10 years. this is because this amendment would increase spending by $7
trillion compared to the house republican budget. in fact, it increases spending for every category in the budget except for our national defense. this budget would take $1 trillion of its proposed tax hike and use all of this money to break the budget control act spending caps for nondefense spending only. this is unacceptable. at a time when we are faced with russian aggression in the ukraine the threat of isis in the middle east, and an increasingly unpredictable security environment, we need to adequately fund our service men and women. . that is why the house republican budget would comply with the current spending caps in the law but still add $387 billion in defense spending over a 10-year window, all while balancing the budget without any tax increases.
long before i served on the budget committee, i got a crash course in budgeting 101 as a single working mother. in those years i raised three children on a nurse's salary, teaching me how to live within my means and stretch my dollars. mr. speaker, i've had to work to make ends meet and so i know how important our social safety net is for those in need. i want to see the safety net strengthened and preserved for future generations. however, this budget falls into the trap of measuring how much we care by how much we spend. federal programs and initiatives should be evaluated based on their outcomes, by how many people we help get out of poverty help to get back to work and help to get the training and the education they need. one example is our federal jobs training program. in 2011 the government
accountability office, the g.a.o., issued a report that found 47 overlapping federal job training programs, costing $18 billion in 2009 alone. the report showed that this duplication was not serving workers that needed training or responsibly using federal dollars. and if we want to help workers who need training here's a -- there's a clear need to reform these programs to improve outcomes. that is why last year this house passed the work force innovation and opportunity act. by the way it was bipartisan legislation which was signed into law and made important reforms to federal job training programs. better helping workers looking for a job while responsibly using taxpayer dollars. this substitute budget would take the step back from these reforms and simply spend an additional $13 billion on these
programs without any reforms. unfortunately, this is just one example of this substitute amendment's doubling down on failed policies of the past. additionally, it would create a $1 billion slush fund for a national stimulus program. just like the previously failed stimulus program, this would do nothing to create new jobs and simply adds another $100 billion to our debt which our children and our grandchildren will have to pay. it would also reverse bipartisan reforms made to the supplemental nutrition assistance program, or commonly called snap and increase spending. and if we want to protect those who are most in need, we need to find ways to reform this snap -- the snap program. the substitute amendment would go further than even obamacare has. calling for a creation of a
public health insurance option a back door way to nationalizing our health care system. this idea is so radical that when democrats controlled both chambers of commerce and the -- congress and the white house it was not adopted. health care should be a patient-centered allowing americans to make decisions with their doctors and their families, not with the federal government. instead of doubling down on obamacare, house republicans want to see greater choice more affordability, increased quality innovation in health care, which is why our budget proposes a market-based patient-centered reform. we also would provide structural reforms to medicare and medicaid, which provides care to our nation's seniors and those in need. the house republican budget would make no changes for those who are near or currently in retirement and by providing states the flexibility to
administrator their medicaid programs to meet the needs of the people in their own state. doing nothing to reform this unsustainable path that medicare and medicaid are on, as this substitute amendment does, ensures that we will go bankrupt. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from tennessee reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: mr. chair, i yield myself 30 seconds before yielding to another speaker. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. scott: the case has been made that this budget raises taxes. sure, it does. but the republican budget also raises taxes. you cut the a.m.t., reduce the marginal rate. you have other tax extenders and you say it's revenue neutral. only way you can make it revenue neutral, mr. chair, is to raise taxes. trillions of dollars to make it revenue neutral. you don't show a dime of taxes. that budget and ours as we list options, specific options that
can be used. you also repeal the affordable care act, but you keep all the taxes that paid for it. then you -- mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms. lee. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. lee: i thank the gentleman for yielding and also thank you for your tremendous leadership and continuing to craft the kkkk's budget and also for your -- congressional black caucus' budget and also for your work on the educational and work force committee. mr. chairman i rise in support of this amendment and for the kkkk's alternative budget. i want -- congressional black caucus' alternative budget. this budget is a budget that reflects our value as a nation. as a member of the budget and appropriations committee and chair of our task force on poverty, income inequality and opportunity, i know that our national budget is a moral document and a statement of our national priorities. the budget that my republican
colleagues have put forward does nothing for families struggling to find a job or those living in poverty. instead, it includes draconian cuts to programs which over the last 50 years cut poverty by 1/3 thanks to the war on poverty. the republican plan cuts the safety net while 45 million people still are living in poverty. mr. chairman poverty in the african-american community is 27.2% in the latino community it's 23.5%. our budget addresses this problem with the half in 10 plan by coordinating agencies under a national strategy. we will cut poverty by 50% in one decade. that's 22 million people lifted out of poverty in the next 10 years. this budget outlines the clear package for evad indicating poverty -- eradicating poverty. we expand food assistance for our children and seniors.
we extend unemployment compensation for those still looking for work following the recent recession. we give america a raise and thereby boost our economy because nobody should be working and living in poverty. with regard to the pentagon, we require that we audit the pentagon and encourage d.o.d. implement remaining g.a.o. recommendations that would likely lead to billions of dollars in cost savings by leaving a culture of financial accountability to the pentagon. as in previous budgets, the c.b.c. invests savings in cuts -- excuse me -- in the ballistic missile defense program to implement the remaining g.a.o. recommendations. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. scott: mr. chairman, i yield her an additional 30 seconds. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. ms. lee: i thank you. it has the 10/20/30 formula by directing at least 10% of federal spending into areas with poverty rates of more than 20% over the last 30 years, we
will make progress toward ending entrenched and generational poverty that hurts families and communities. a vote for the c.b.c. budget really is a vote with a conscience of the congress. it's a message to the american people that you stand with those who are working hard to find a job or working hard at a job with low wages. it's a message that country -- to the country that balancing the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable to keep giveaways to the superwealthy is unacceptable and that is not the american way. thank you, again, mr. scott. the chair: the gentlewoman from california's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized. mrs. black: the best way to lift someone out of poverty is to give them an opportunity to get a job. that's what our budget does is allows for more job opportunities and increased in wages for the workers. i reserve the balance of my
time. the chair: the gentlewoman from tennessee reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: mr. chair, could you advise us of the time remaining on both sides? the chair: the gentleman from virginia has 7 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentlewoman from tennessee has 6 3/4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from wisconsin, ms. moore. the chair: the gentlewoman from wisconsin is recognized for two minutes. ms. moore: mr. chair, i'd like a colloquy with mrs. black or mr. price. the chair: the gentlewoman from wisconsin is recognized. ms. moore: i was wondering if it were possible if the gentleman could yield the congressional black caucus
maybe four to six minutes of your time. we have many speakers and we've worked very hard on this budget. and, you know, the majority gets its way but the minority ought to get its say. mr. price: will the gentlelady yield? ms. moore: it's your time, yes. mr. price: i appreciate the gentlelady yielding. the gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. black, controls our time. we have another speaker or two but as soon as your time expires and if we have time remaining then we'll be happy to yield some time to the c.b.c. ms. moore: thank you so much for that courtesy. the chair: the gentlewoman from wisconsin is recognized. ms. moore: thank you, mr. chair. it's really my privilege to discuss the social safety net programs that are at the heart of the congressional black caucus' budget. the c.b.c. acknowledges the efforts on the part of the majority to address debt and deficits, but we cannot do it on the backs of the poor. much has been made of jobs being the answer. we agree with that, but there
are disabled elderly children, who comprise the poor who cannot and do not work. this budget cuts $759 billion, the republican budget, it cuts the nondiscretionary defense budget blow the already damaging sequester levels. in addition, another $4 trillion cuts to mandatory spending, a lifeline to benefits like food stamps, medicaid, medicare. the c.b.c. budget has a choice. a stark contrast to the republican's budget. we invest in low-income families, students and provide security so that our impoverished, our infirmed, the elderly and children are treated with dignity and respect. it protects the social safety net. it rejects the block granting of medicaid and food stamps and voucherizing medicare. it restores the tanf emergency contingency fund. rather than the $34 billion
o.c.o. slush fund, we do $2.5 billion rather than $34 billion for a slush fund. it also restores our emergency unemployment insurance for all americans. millions of americans have exhausted these benefits, and it invests in so many other vital programs such as w.i.c., liheap, public housing, homeless assistance, section 8 and rural housing programs, social services block grant, childcare development block grant. i want to thank the chair and my c.b.c. colleagues for working with me on this very worthy budget. please vote yet on this alternative budget and i yield back the time to the gentleman from virginia. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized. mrs. black: i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the
gentleman from louisiana, mr. richmond. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. richmond: thank you, mr. speaker and thank you to congressman scott who diligently prepared this budget. mr. speaker, i rise today to encourage my colleagues to vote for the c.b.c. budget. mr. speaker, the budget will speak to our values as a congress and our values at a country. i'm sad to say, that they're saying we're lacking a conscious. the republican budget makes severe cuts to medicare medicaid, education, job training and transportation so that it could have tax cuts for the wealthy. i want to be crystal clear, the republican budget is a hocus poe cuss that will not put us on a path to responsibility but it is to dire, moral bankruptcy that is counter to the soul of our great country. now, mr. speaker, on the other
hand, the c.b.c. budget is a financially superior budget that invests in what makes this country exceptional. the c.b.c. budgets eradicates poverty by increasing economic opportunities through significant and sustained investments in education, infrastructure, affordable housing, manufacturing, small business and job training. . mr. speaker, my colleagues on the other side talk about the ability to lift people out of poverty. we have the ability today to lift 14 million people out of poverty simply by raising the minimum wage. if we create more minimum wage jobs, we are only increasing the number of people who will still live in poverty. mr. speaker, the republican budget rewards who you make -- rewards those who make political contributions. and the c.b.c. budget rewards those who contribute to society. and the greater good. in closing, the c.b.c. bunt
recognizes that working -- budget recognizes that working families in this country are getting shortchanged. our budget tries to level the playing field and give more opportunities to those working families so that they can enjoy the economic prosperity that the investor class has enjoyed since our efforts to come out of the great recession. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana's time has expired much the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized. mrs. black: i yield two minutes to my fellow colleague on the budget committee and also fellow tennessean, mrs. blackburn. the chair: the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank ms. moore. she's still on the floor and she serves on the budget committee with us. she's such a good productive, and contributetory member of that committee, and i appreciation the perspective that she's -- that she brings.
i know she's worked diligently on the budget that the c.b.c. is bringing for us today. i do not support that budget. i support the committee print that we have. and, mr. chairman, here is exactly why. we all know washington does to the have a revenue problem. it has a spending problem. last year more revenues came in to our federal covers -- coffers than ever. it's important as we talk about the budget to put in perspective where this money comes from. it comes from hardworking taxpayers. and the government has not one single penny to spend until a taxpayer sends that money in. now, the budget that we have brought out of committee does something quite significant. number one, it will reduce federal spending, $5.5 trillion over the next 10 years.
that's an important thing to do. here's why. we are continuing to borrow somewhere around 30 cents for every dollar that we are spending. it's balancing right now -- bouncing between 28 and 30 cents for every dollar. that is too much. it gets to be a fairness issue for future generations. we've got $18 trillion worth of debt. $9 trillion worth of that debt has come on our books in the past six years. and that is not fair to future generations. it's not fair to our nation's security. and getting the debt under control is important. that's why a budget that saves $5.5 trillion and comes to balance, comes to balance for our annual outlays in nine years is significantly important.
the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. mrs. black: i yield another 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mrs. blackburn: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. when we talk about what will be accomplished by our budget, and we talk about fairness it is imperative that the spending be brought under control. and what we are bringing forward is a way for us to bring that in to balance and to begin to get the agencies -- even reducing the federal work force by 10%. making certain that we are right sizing that work force. those are steps that should be taken. they are steps that we ought to be taking. and it's something that we all should support. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentlewoman from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from texas ms. jackson lee. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for two minutes.
ms. jackson lee: , i too, want to offer my appreciation to ranking member scott both on his service on the education committee as the ranking member but for his continuing efforts and work on a very, very positive step great step toward changing america. there it's a premise in the republican budget two premises or underlying thoughts that i vigorously disagree with. and if i -- as i stand in explaining or supporting the congressional black caucus budget, let me also say i rise in support of the congressional progressive caucus budget and will i submit a statement into the record for its efforts in improving america. but the premise that the budget that our friends on the other side of the aisle is, is that if you are poor, if you are in need of help, then it is either your fault or you are taking advantage of the government's
charity and largess. walk a mile in the district that i represent and many districts across america, and you will find parents who get up at 4:00 and 6:00 in the morning to jobs that are less than the minimum wage in some instances or are the minimum wage. working very hard to support their families. those individuals deserve an equal opportunity. and i am grateful that this budget, the congressional black caucus budget, talks about a comprehensive jobs program totaling some $500 million, mere $500 billion over three years. we understand that people want to work. this involves a national direct job creation program. a program to assist local government in hiring and retaining teachers and law enforcement. investment to rebuild our nation's crumbling infrastructure. rebuilding neighborhoods. and as well understanding that you can't work harder and get less. one of the issues that i am very
supportive of in this budget, one that others would not think of, is ending the prison -- the cradle to prison pipeline. in fact, the congressional budget office has estimated that limiting the imposition of mandatory minimum sentencing -- the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. scott: i yield an additional 30 seconds. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. jackson lee: the imposition of mandatory mihm sentences on nonhaven't drug offenders will have anover all net savings of $3 billion over 10 years. this is a budget that goes to the heart of the concerns of americans who may not have the right start in life but deserve an opportunity. i want to be able to support a budget that reduces the deficit and takes away sequestration, not piles taxes on persons who cannot afford them and creates very little jobs and undermines the social network that is necessary for those of us who believe we are, in fact, our brothers and sisters' keeper. i ask you to support the congressional black caucus budget.
it is smart, strong, and leads america forward. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized. mrs. black: reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from virginia has one minute remaining. the gentlewoman from tennessee has 4 and a quarter minutes remaining. mrs. black: the gentleman two minutes. the chair: the jeement tennessee -- the gentlewoman from tennessee yields two minutes to the gentleman from virginia. one minute plus the two minutes that she has just given to you. mr. scott: thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman has three minutes remaining. mr. scott: thank you. i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, miss maxine waters. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. waters: thank you very much. i appreciate being given some
time at the last minute. the wealth gap and racial wealth gap has reached record levels. 46.5 million americans are living in and comparable numbers are even worse in the african-american community. and other communities of color. for decades, we have had policies and made funding decisions that have benefited only at the expense of the middle class and minorities. the great recession and subsequent years of budget cuts have only made things worse for these communities. while the republican budget demonstrates their commitment to maintain this inequality, the budget put forth by the congressional black caucus today attempts to rebuild and restore what we lost. especially in the housing sector in which it has my support. first the c.b.c. budget retains a robust consumer financial protection bureau which congress created to protect all americans from predatory loans that led to millions of foreclosures, many of which were in the african-american community. the c.b.c. budget also makes
critical investments in affordable housing programs, including fully funding public housing and fully restoring section 8 housing to vouchers lost due to sequestration. the c.b.c. budget would also invest much needed resources to add over 20,000 new beds for the homeless across our country. investments in these rental and homeless assistance programs is especially important given the fact we have nearly eight million households in america for whom decent and affordable housing is not available to them. put simply, the republican budget would widen the wealth gap in this contry. the c.b.c. budget would help eliminate it. further the c.b. crrgs budget strengthens our housing market, financial system, and economic stability as a whole. i urge all members of this house vote in favor of putting our country back on a sustainable economic path. i thank you. i yield back. the chair: the the gentlewoman from california yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized.
mrs. black: i'm ready to close if the gentleman from virginia is. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentlelady for her courtesy in extending additional time. mr. chairman, there's a percentage of the economy the republican underlying budget is 40% lower than the previous low in half a century. it only balances because it's missing a cupple trillion dollars where you cut taxes and say it's revenue neutral. there is no indication that the taxes will be restored. it's unrealistic because the level of cuts won't be made. you're not going to repeal medicare as you know t we tried to repeal -- know it. we tried to repeal the affordable care act over 50 times. haven't been able to do it. it's interesting they want to repeal the services but not the taxes. there's substantial cuts in pell grants and increases in student loans. transportation initiatives are just about zeroed out. on the other hand, the c.b.c.
budget has specific tax increases. it shows we'll make money by comprehensive immigration reform and the public option. we pay to eliminate sequestration and we create jobs, eliminate poverty, and have a realistic budget. i would hope, mr. chairman, that we would adopt the congressional black caucus budget as a realistic priority. with the right priorities. we are to adopt the congressional black caucus budget. the chair: the gentleman from virginia's time has expired. the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized to close. mrs. black: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to contrast these two budgets just a little bit. as we look at a stronger america, which our balanced budget does provide for a stronger america, we see that the congressional black budget is one that will increase our debt for our children and our grandchildren, increase taxes, neither one of these are going to help our economy grow nor get people out of poverty. our budget balances in less than
10 years. our balanced budget means a healthier economy today and greater opportunity for tomorrow. helping to raise people out of poverty. the budget also repeals the unworkable unfair obamacare plan and starts over with more choice the budget boosts our defense spending. helping to provide defense for our country and support for our men and women. the budget eliminates the double dipping of the disability insurance and unemployment insurance and has a plan to strengthen the social security trust fund rather than having the trust fund be depleted. the budget saves and strengthens medicare ending that $700 billion obamacare raid that was in the president's proposal. all of these things helped get us on the path and on the course to a successful america where we can be proud to hand our children and our grandchildren a successful country whereby they
can know the kinds of opportunities that we have had and live the american dream. so i urge a no vote on this budget amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from tennessee yields back her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina will be postponed.
the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 considered in house report 114-49. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? mr. stutzman: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 in the nature of a substitute printed in house report number 114-49 offered by mr. stutzman of indiana. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 163, thea. indiana, mr. stutzman and a member posed each will control 15 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from yinch. . mr. stutzman: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the chair: without objection, the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. stutzman: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in strong support for the blueprint of a balanced budget. the republican study committe's substitute amendment which will expand opportunities for middle class families grow our economy and strengthen our national defense. first off, i appreciate chairman price and his hard work on the budget that is being presented from the republican conference and
looking forward to the continued debate as we make sure that we look forward to strengthening our economy and america. mr. chairman, it's a very -- it's very clear we are on the wrong path despite improving indicators, folks across the country know that our economic recovery has been sluggish at best. over 90 million americans are not participating in the work force, wages are stagnant and businesses are struggling with the uncertainty about what new tax or regulation is waiting for them just around the corner. no how many stimulus packages shovel-ready jobs, the things the president promises, things aren't getting fast enough. on many fronts the fundamentals are getting worse. since president obama took office, our national debt has increased by 70% and has now soared past $18 trillion. to make matters worse, the president's recently proposed budget calls for even more
taxes and even more spending and never ever balances. fortunately we now have a choice. we can continue down the road president obama wants us to with reckless tax and spend agenda that will add $8.5 trillion to our debt and does nothing to reform our soon-to-be bankrupt social safety nets sore we can decide to make the bold and necessary decisions our constituents sent us here to make. with the republican study committee's blueprint we can fix our broken system and we can build a better future for the american people. we do this by addressing our nation's challenges head on. first, it's clear we must change washington's out-of-control spending habits. if we don't, by 2023 we could be spending more money paying off the interest on our debt than we do on our national defense. i'd like to show you a chart, mr. chairman. as you can see, under the
president's plan, because of the addiction to borrowing, our federal government continues to rack up more interest payments year after year. keep in mind that this is money that we have to pay as a federal government that we cannot go to a line item and say we're going to cut that particular payment. we have to pay the interest on our debt. this is locked in due to our borrowing. in fact under c.b.o.'s projections if our interest rates on government -- on government notes increase by just 1% for 10 years, this expense could go up by a whooping $1.75 trillion. i'd like to show this particular last year in the 10-year window, this particular bar is $785 billion alone, much more than what our defense spending would cost. we have to act and with the r.s.c. blueprint we do. our budget cuts $7.1 trillion in federal spending over the
next decade and balances the budget in six years. the only way we're going to ever start paying our debt is if we get to a balanced budget. by enacting commonsense reforms, we're able to have a surplus. by year 2021, we will have a surplus so we can start paying their debt down. and if you look at the president's budget, you will never ever see a balanced budget and so we'll never ever deal with our debt. in addition, our budget puts forward a pro-growth set of tax reforms that will make the tax code simpler and fairer. we do this by lowering rates and simplifying brackets. we reduce taxes on small businesses and corporations and we encourage money that is setting overseas to return home by transitioning to a smarter fairer territorial tax system. so get the government out of one area of our economy, through reconciliation, our plan repeals obamacare in full. however, we replace it.
we replace the failed law with the american health care reform act, a patient-centered free market and affordable way to provide health care for all americans. this act allows individuals and families to deduct health care costs, expand access to health savings accounts and creates options and choices for our american families to purchase across state lines. our budget also strengthens national defense. our federal government's primary role -- number one constitutional responsibility is the defense of the nation. by providing our men and women in uniform with $575 billion in our base defense budget, we are able to ensure our military has the resources it needs to meet the challenges of the 21st century. mr. chairman, in 1962 discretionary programs made up a majority of government spending. today it's the reverse. so-called mandatory programs
like we see right here, are on autopilot and this makes up 2/3 of the budget. as you can see, these programs are on a clock. we can see that social security disability insurance goes bankrupt in 2016. social security retirement for americans all across the country goes bankrupt in 2034. and of course medicare isn't too far behind that. actually in front of social security and goes bankrupt in 2030. the clock is ticking, mr. chairman, and we need to do something sooner rather than later. this is very predictable and it's very preventable if we act now. the president doesn't do that. in contrast, our plan does. it makes a critical structural reforms necessary to preserve these entitlement programs for current and future seniors. let's not let the solvable problems today become the
causes of decline tomorrow. let's stand together and let's pass a serious budget through a serious conversation that reforms the way washington operates. let's pass a budget that will allow opportunities for middle-class families to flourish. let's pass a budget that will keep america strong for years to come at home and abroad. thank you, mr. chairman. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from indiana reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. van hollen: mr. speaker, i rise to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. yesterday, we debated the republican budget proposal as it came to the floor. we saw that even as americans are working even harder every day, their budget would squeeze them more. it would squeeze middle-class families and those working to join the middle class. it would squeeze students
trying to get an affordable college education. it would squeeze seniors by immediately increasing the cost of prescription drugs immediately increasing the cost of co-pays for preventative health services. this budget on the floor today squeezes those families even harder, even as both budgets provide another round of windfalled tax cuts to the folks at the very top like cutting the top tax rate by over a third as they green light the romney-ryan plan. this particular budget actually will slow down economic growth over the next couple years, according to the congressional budget office. those are the nonpartisan professionals that analyze these budgets. they looked at the republican budget and says, you know, it will slow down growth in the next couple years. this fick version of a republican budget -- this particular version of a
republican budget will do so even more. why would we want to slow down economic growth just as the trends are picking up? look, we got a long way to go to get everybody back to work, but we're on the right path, on the right trajectory. why would we want to put on the brakes as both the republican budget does as well as the r.s.c. budget in the coming years? while the republican budget we had on the floor just the other day has no answer, immediate answer to the pending shortfall in the transportation trust fund this particular budget unreservedly just divests the federal government of responsibility for most highways and transit projects that are currently supported by the federal budget. i will say in closing that there is one redeeming quality to this budget which is that this budget does not plays
games with the overseas continsency accounts like the budget that was brought to the floor by the chairman. this does not use this as a slush fund. it supports the defense the same way that the president's budget does. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. stutzman: c.b.o. is projecting that economic growth is going to slow down. that's happening under this administration's policies, and it is not helping americans recover as quickly as possible. this is a serious budget that does deal with those challenges and it is straightforward. and we believe we have to get to a balanced budget sooner rather than later. so we can have a stronger economy. with that, mr. chairman, i'd like to yield to the gentleman from texas, chairman of the r.s.c., congressman flores for four minutes. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for four minutes.
mr. flores: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to support the republican study committe budget for -- for fiscal 2016, and i want to thank the gentleman from indiana for the great work he's done in crafting the blueprint for a balanced budget, a robust and responsible plan to tackle our $18 trillion of national debt along with the over $100 trillion of unfunded obligations which are crippling the futures of millions of hardworking americans, their children and their grandchildren. i also want to thank chairman price and the budget committee for their great work on the conference budget, but today i am proud to support the budget proposal put forth by the republican study committe. the r.s.c. budget will balance the federal budget in just six years providing a better future for our children and our grandchildren. it also reduces rampant government overspending by $7.1 trillion compared to current policy and it gets rid of redundant and unconstitutional government programs that wastes billions of precious taxpayer
dollars. hardworking american families know the importance of prioritizing to live within our means and it's time for the federal government to learn that lesson as well. this budget upholds congress' sacred congressional duty, first provide for our national defense maintaining a strong military must be congress' number one priority, especially in this increasingly dangerous world. our budget follows ronald reagan's successful strategy of peace through strength for our national security. defense spending should be determined first and foremost by our security needs capabilities and the threats facing our nation. acknowledging that this plan allocates $570 billion in base defense spending for fiscal 2016 and provides for a total of $6.4 trillion in defense spending over the next decade. we also believe that we must work to grow america's economy not the washington bureaucracy. the best way we can spur growth and job creation is by getting the government out of the way
of america's innovators and entrepreneurs. this means repealing obamacare through reconciliation and establishing patient-centered reforms for better american health care. the r.s.c. budget also calls for replacing the current tax code with a new pro-growth tax code that will benefit all taxpayers and families. we need a simpler, fairer, more competitive tax code that will help, not hinder america's opportunity. we also sunset the i.r.s. and end the death tax. it puts it back on a path toward solvency and to do the right thing for america's families. unless congress acts, medicare will be bankrupt by 2030, social security retirement will be bankrupt by 2033 and social security disability insurance will be bankrupt next year in 2016. this budget introduces new reforms that strengthens america's social safety net so they will be here for future generations and we structure them in such a way to keep
families together and provide ladders of opportunity out of poverty. we don't keep people trapped in poverty. we in congress have an obligation to the american people to live within our means and to be trustworthy stewards of taxpayer dollars. unfortunately, washington has fallen short. voting yes on the r.s.c. budget is an opportunity for this congress to restore the trust of the american people and to show that we are carrying out the important jobs that they sent us here to do. i ask my colleagues to vote on the r.s.c. budget and yes again on the house committee budget proposal. i yield back to the gentleman from indiana. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from indiana reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from wisconsin, a terrific member of the budget committee, ms. moore. the chair: the gentlewoman from wisconsin is recognized for two minutes. ms. moore: thank you so much, mr. chair. let me thank the ranking member and my colleagues on the other side for the tremendous effort and work that they have put into this budget. of course, i am opposed to the
republican study committe budget. this is the committee adopted budget on steroids. the republican study committe to kind of outdo their republican counterparts, balances this budget in six years instead of 10 and cuts it by $7.1 trillion. in just six years. and i can tell you while i am opposed to this budget, i have to commend the republican study committee for putting it on the table here in a very transparent manner. . rather than raising the defense budget by $9 billion above the president's budget and putting all those funds into the o.c.o. account, at least they end the sequester and do it in a transparent budgetary way. and commend them for that.
but i do urge my colleagues to reject this budget. this budget raises taxes on the middle class. it divests in education for our students and divests in infrastructure improvements for our roads, our ports and bridges and there is much to be said for balancing a budget, but you can't do it not only on the poor elderly, infirmed and children but on the backs of the economy. i'm also on the financial services committee, and we have been warned that growing inequality is not only bad for morale in our country, but will destroy our economy in the long run. and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. stutzman: i appreciate the other side complyments on how
we budget for defense but defense is only 18% of overall federal government spending. if you see on this chart, this is defense discretionary spending right here $59 before yill. and the rest of the pie in federal government spending is untouched, it's on auto pilot. here's the interest. all of these programs continue to grow. and if we don't protect these programs and reform them, this is only going to get squeezed more and more. if we want to protect the country, we have to recognize that we have to do it in a way that puts our priorities in order. with that, mr. chairman, i like to recognize the gentleman from from north carolina, mr. pittenger. mr. pittenger: thank you for your hard work and leadership
and thanks to chairman flores. america's national debt is well over $18 trillion. because of out of control spending we add another $1 million to the debt approximately every 30 seconds. the republican stud committee's budget cuts unnecessary regulations and strengthens job creation while it increases transparency and oversight. here's our budget proposal. it cuts $7.1 trillion in spending over 10 years. it balances the federal budget in six years. imagine that. repeals obamacare and replaces it with competitive reforms that will lower costs for all americans while protecting the relationship between a patient and its doctor. preserves social security, medicare medicaid and food stamps through reforms that brings reforms into the 21st century and addresses
inadequacies in the budget by providing critical funding for our national security. since i started speaking, mr. speaker, we have added $2 million to the national debt. our founding fathers never intended for washington to provide massive one size fits all programs that did not create better opportunities to americans. as well we need to return control back to the states where local leaders know the best sluges for their local problems. as a member of the r.s.c. budget task force i'm honored to place the priorities of north carolina ahead of washington's tax and spend schemes. please join me in supporting the r.s.c. budget to restore accounting principles to our federal government and better opportunities for the american people. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland is
recognized. mr. van hollen: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from the district of columbia distinguished member of the oversight and government reform committee, ms. holmes norton. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. norton: about the only thing that any of the republican budgets has done is to cut the deficit ignoring all together the desperate needs and declining wages. the american people will give congress credit for no budget that does not grow jobs and good wages. the republican budget including this one cuts growth by 2.5% and deficient states almost three million jobs. instead of using a ready-made need to grow good jobs with good wages the surface transportation bill that must be authorized this year any
way the republican budget would for the first time in our history cut all new highway and transit funding. states would be left able to fill pot holes but unable to begin a single new project. infrastructure needs must be met at some point any way, so we do ourselves no favor by our failure to meet the needs that have been shown to be the best way to fuel the economy with good jobs. there is no magical way to cut our way into good jobs and begin to repair income inequality. the old-fashioned american way of building america's neglected infrastructure is the best way today as it was when president eisenhower initiated the surface transportation bill 70 years ago. and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back.
the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. stutzman: may i inquire how much time? the chair: gentleman has two minutes remaining and the gentleman from maryland has nine minutes remaining. mr. stutzman: i yield to the the gentleman from colorado for one minute. mr. lamborn: i rise in strong support of the republican study committee budget. it balances in six years, repeals obamacare and replaces it with a patient-centered solution and simplifies the tax code. the budget offers commonsense reforms to strengthens america's entitlement programs and r.s.c. budget accomplishes this while funding our national security commitments by providing $570 billion in base defense spending not through budget gimmicks.
weakened leadership on national security, bad actors are given incentive to be more aggressive. i encourage all my colleagues to support the r.s.c. budget and return america to a position of fiscal strength and stability. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker, i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentlelady from florida, a wonderful member of the budget committee, ms. castor. the speaker pro tempore: -- the chair: the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. ms. castor: we are debating the federal budget when america is experiencing an economic recovery. unemployment is down. gas prices are lower and retirement accounts are healthier. but that is at risk if the republican budgets are adopted.
the republican budget turns its back on what makes america grow and what makes america strong including our students, medical and scientific research and modern transportation systems and infrastructure. democrats will offer a more optimistic vision for america that builds on our economic recovery. democrats want everyone to succeed, while republicans shower tax breaks on the wealthy at the expense of hard-working families. the people i know and meet work hard every day. they value a good job, good schools, safe communities and the promise of when they retire they can live their retirement years in dignity. the republican budget is not one for the people of america. the republican budget is crafted by the special interests for the special interests. republicans stack the deck against working families and small businesses and refuse to find one tax loophole to close or change, if you are rich, you are lucky because this
republican budget is for you. you pay less. if you are like the vast majority of americans, hold on, because you are going to pay more. if you are a student who wants to attend college, republicans make it harder by cutting pell grants and student loans. if you have a job in transportation or infrastructure at a port or airport, the republican budget could cost you your job and will put us farther behind. if you believe that america should remain the world leader in medical research and innovation, sorry the republican budget slashes research at the national institutes of health, our universities and research institutions. if you are an older american the republicans ask you to pay much more for medicare and long-term care. republicans take away that secure lifeline that has existed for decades and in doing so, the republicans bake the promise to older americans that after working hard all of
your life, you can live your retirement years in dignity without the fear of poverty in your old age. so you will pay more. the republican budget is a cynical special interest driven of america. in contrast the democrats will offeral balanced plan that invests in what makes america great. in contrast, the democratic budget invests in what makes america great and what makes america strong. one noted economist advised that america has the strongest economy in the developed world right now but the republican budget puts that at risk to boost a special few. therefore, i urge my colleagues to support the democratic plan and what makes america great a growing healthy economy, our students, scientific research, modern infrastructure in america and the great promise of our country.
i thank my colleagues and yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. stutzman: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: mr. speaker i yield one minute to the gentleman from massachusetts, a terrific new member of the budget committee, mr. moulton. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for one minute. mr. moulton: i thank the gentleman from maryland, a great ranking member and leader. when i took this office, i vowed to work in a bipartisan fashion and i'm committed to doing that. i have been pleasantly surprised of how many republicans are willing, even eager to work across party lines. unfortunately it is not the case with the republican budget before us today. the republican budget not only fails to grow our economy, it deprives many americans of the
resources and support they need to succeed. a budget is a value statement. and it is clear that what the republicans are proposing today is bad for our working families, for our students and for our veterans. i was proud to offer two amendments last week during the house budget committee markup addressing issues that should have broad bipartisan support, our veterans and our students. unbelievably, my republican colleagues voted against funding to protect the v.a. from future government shutdowns and to provide more financial support to help students get the vocational training they need to succeed in the 21st century workplace. no budget is ever perfect. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. moulton: no budget is ever perfect, but the democratic resolution invests the most in
our future by placingally can families, students and military service members first. thank you. i yield my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. stutzman: i continue to reserve and ready to close. the chair: the gentleman from indiana reserves. mr. van hollen: may i inquire how much time is remaining. the chair: the gentleman has 4 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. van hollen: gentleman prepared to close? the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. van hollen: as i said in my comments earlier, this budget suffers from all the problems that the earlier republican budget suffered from, but it did have one redeeming quality, which is it did not use the slush fund but funds defense in a straightforward manner. but listening to the advocates of this budget, i thought maybe
their accounting had been more sound on other fronts. but as i look at it i look at the republican budget and how much revenue it raises over 10 years and i look at the republican study group budget, and it has the identical amount of revenue over 10 years, and what that means is we see the same thing in claiming a balance because that revenue includes revenue from the affordable care act, almost $1 trillion worth. it includes savings from the affordable care act which both republican budgets claim to repeal. and you know what else it includes? it includes the -- it does not include the costs of all the tax bills that are coming out of the ways and means committee, including one being marked up today which would entirely get rid of the estate tax meaning that it will benefit 5,500 people in this
count ti at the cost of $269 a year, 75% of this tax break is going to go to the inheritors of estates valued at more than $20 million. . you add that to this budget and it's even more out of balance. but it does point to the underlying theme in all the republican budgets, which is let's give another tax break to the very wealthiest in the country. let's cut the top rate for millionaires while we squeeze middle class families, increase the tax burden on them. the chairman of the committee went to emery university, i think they've got about 5,500 students, maybe a little more than that undergraduate this would provide almost $269
billion to a population of 5,500 households in the country. folks at the very top, while they're cutting their investment in our kids' education dramatically. while they're cutting their investment in innovation and research that has helped pow you are ore economy. while they're devolving most of our transportation system away from the federal government even though our federal transportation system has helped power our economy and make us competitive in this very competitive world. so from the budget gimmicks that apparently are the same in both budgets, to the fact that both budgets say to folks at the very top you know what, we're going to give you another tax break while we squeeze everybody else in america. right? they increase the costs of student loans. got over $1 trillion in student
debt. why would we be increasing the cost of student loans. they're going to start charging students interest while they're in college. they're going to require seniors on medicare to immediately pay more for prescription drugs. by reopening the doughnut hole. so hard working families, students trying to go to college, seniors who are trying to have a secure retirement they all get hit. on the same day that they provide a huge tax break of $ 5,50 -- to 5,500 people. and that says it all about what both these republican budgets do they disinvest in our future. they squeeze hardworking families students and seniors while saying to the folks at the top of the ladder, we're going to give you just one more break and go ahead and pull up that ladder of opportunity behind
you. it doesn't matter, we're going to leave everybody else behind. that's not what america stands for. i thought this was the land of opportunity. but while they cut our investment in education, they don't cut a single tax break for the purpose of recusing the deficit and then they go and claim a balance that's phony. mr. speaker, i ask everyone to reject both these republican budgets. they're wrong for the country. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from indiana. mr. stutzman: i want to thank our committee for putting this together. our revenue line highlights the benefit that americans receive when we have tax reform. for example, you know, the gimmick that was sold in the health care law was that the people were going to pay less in health care costs. i was at a cracker barrel a couple of weeks ago in auburn,
in my district. a lady coming up to -- comes up to me and says, mr. congressman, i'd like to share my story. i am now paying more in premiums. my premiums doubled my out of pocket expense went from $500 to $5000. that's more than a tax increase, mr. chairman. our foreign policy is on the wrong path. our spending is on the wrong path. our economy is on the wrong path. we have got to get back to priorities and recognize for our country to be strong economically, to be strong with our defense, that we have got to get our budget back into balance to make sure that we can pay off the $18 trillion of debt that our kids have to face. i have two boys 13 and 9 years old. they are going to have to pay the interest on this debt and the debt for years and years to come. i have -- i ask the members of this body to take a serious look at the budget.
the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from indiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. stutzman: i request a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from indiana will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number four printed in house report 114-49. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. van hollen: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may -- the chair: does the gentleman have an amendment at the desk snsm mr. van hollen: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment.
the clerk: amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in house report 114-49 offered by mr. van holen of mod. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 163, the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen and a member opposed each will control 20 minutes -- control 15 minutes. mr. van hollen: i'm putting forward the budget on behalf of my colleagues. it's based on a very different view of how our economy in this country has groub historically and how it should grow in the future. as we have heard from our republican colleagues, their theerroif the economy is top down, trickle down. they want to cut the top tax rates for folks at the very top millionaires on the hope that the benefit wills trickle down and lift everybody up. we tried that. under president bush. it lifted up folks who were already at the top of the ladder, everybody else was running in place or falling behind.
we believe that you accelerate economic growth through more opportunity and more shared prosperity. not from the top down but by making sure that hard working americans can earn a little bit more and go out and spend those at the shopping center and in any ways they want to support their families and have a good standard of living. so while the republican budget helps folks at the very top with additional tax rate cuts and squeezes working families our budget provides more relief to those working families. how? we adopt, for example, the president's proposed expanded child and dependent care tax credit system of if you're a working family and you want to make sure your child has a safe and secure environment with quality care, like every family would who is working, we provide
a much bigger tax credit so that you can ensure that quality and safer environment for your child. or if you have a loved one at home, an elderly loved one at home, but you're working. we want to make sure that you have a tax credit so that the costs you pay for that care don't come out of your paycheck at the end. stark contrast to the republican budget which actually increases the costs on working families. they get rid of the college tax deduction. they get rid of the step up on the child tax credit. they get rid of the tep step up on the make work pay earned income tax credit and of course they wipe out the affordable care tax credits that help millions of americans have affordable health care. so their budget is squeezing folks in the middle and working toward the middle. they raise the interest rates on college students. we provide additional resources
to help make college more affordable. and we adopt the president's plan for income-based student loan repayments. they'll immediately increase the costs for prescription drugs for seniors on medicare and increase the co-pays for preventive care for people who have worked hard for a secure environment. we don't do that in our budget. so this is a budget that supports working families in america and invests in our future, not one that squeezes those families harder and disinvests in america. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. price: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. price: thank you very much. mr. chairman, before i begin, i want to join with my colleague on the budget committee, the ranking member, in providing a letter for the record commending doug elmendorf, director of the
congressional budget office whose time at the c.b.o. is coming to a close. he has -- his time day is march 31. he's served this nation for the last six years as the director of the congressional budget office and ranking member mr. van hollen and i will be inserting a letter into the record to commend him for his service. i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman if he'd like to say a few words about director elmendorf. mr. van hollen: thank you. i appreciate us working together to salute dr. elmendorf who by all accounts has done a terrific job at the congressional budget office. he's led that office with great professionalism and i think he's continued to uphold the integrity of c.w.o. i think we've all benefited from his wisdom over the years and i thank you. mr. price: i do want to commend my colleagues for coming forward with the budget. it's important to have
contrasting visions that are able to be debated here on the floor of the house and i'm not surprised but i'm often amused by the misinformation and the distortion that comes from our colleagues on the other side. mr. chairman, we've had now three separate budgets that have been offered by our friends on the other side. first the progressive budget, progressive caucus budget. then the c.b.c. budget now the democratic caucus budget. i want to have our colleagues focus on the comparison side-by-side of this budget that's being offered to that of the republican budget, a balanced budget for a stronger america. these numbers on the far column there of the democratic budget identify specific areas in their budget and how they compare to the republican budget. so taxes, how do they compare in taxs? you hear our friends talking about taxes all the time. $1.9 trillion in new taxes. $1.9 trillion. spending what do they to on
spending? $6.3 trillion in spending over the republican budget a balanced budget for a stronger america. what about deficits? $4.6 trillion in increased deficits. debt? $4.7 trillion in increased debt over a 10-year period of time. what did they do to defense in these perilous times in our nation and our world decreased spending on defense compared to the republican budget by $314 billion. and you'd think with all of those taxes and all that spending that you'd get to balance. you could get to a point where the revenue coming into the federal government would equal the spending that's going out, but their budget never, ever, ever, ever balances. i guess they take their lead from the president. so let's take a little closer look at these -- a couple of these issues. tax increases. taxes, taxes taxes taxes, that's what we hear from folks on the other side after raising over $1 trillion in taxes for obamacare and forcing through
over $600 billion in new taxes during the fiscal cliff discussion and debate now they're calling for another massive tax increase of $1.9 trillion. even with these huge tax increases already enacted into law, the democrat budget never balances, ever, ever, ever. because it refuses to reduce spending and it refuses to address the biggest drivers of our debt. their substitute calls for more taxes on families. more taxes on small businesses. even though mr. chairman, congressional budget office tells us that the federal revenue collection will exceed, will be greater than, the 40-year average level about 17.4% of gross domestic product. every year, greater than that number for the next decade. that's not enough for our friends on the other side. in other words, washington son track to collect more taxes from the american people than it ever has in the past but democrats
want washington to take even more. as has been said so many times, washington doesn't have a revenue problem we've got a spending problem, there's no doubt about it. the american people understand that. democratic budget rhetoric claims to raise an additional $1.9 trillion by, quote, rejecting tax breaks for the wealthy and closing special interest loopholes. look out, ladies and gentlemen that means that what that clever rhetoric really means is they're going to hit small businesses with even more taxes. why? why is that? because the majority of small businesses, nonc-corp businesses, the majority of those businesses that create jobs around this country, pay taxes under the individual income tax system. that's how they do it. that's who our folks want to punish. the job creators. these tax hike ideas end up impacting successful small businesses across the country. they represent the job creation enjing of our -- engine of our economy. over 60 noveget jobs being
created. 2/3 of the jobs being created are all private sector jobs generated by small businesses. so despite the facts that we present, the democrat budget would continue the failed policy of washington picking winners and losers. picking their friends rewarding their distorting the free market and distorting a complex tax code which would have disastrous results and socializing what should be private investors. so more taxes. what about spending cuts? any spending cuts? the democratic budget never ever balances and doesn't come close. they defined as having equal parts. they are moving away from their previously described balanced approach. under their latest budget, a
balanced approach is tax increases and spending increases and it would increase spending by $855 billion than just staying on our current path. their substitute contains zero spending reductions containing $1.9 trillion in tax increases and $855 billion in spending. not the direction that gets us on a positive solution to addressing the solution that we face. a balanced budget for a stronger america is the direction which we need to go. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: let's just dispel with the myth from the start, which is that the republican budget balances, as we have heard only if you
believe in budget quack erie and "usa today" blew the whistle on the accounting gimmicks in the republican budget. let me say a word about receive news and taxes. the democratic budget doesn't call for any increase in any tax rate on anybody. unlike the republican budget that refuses to close one special interest tax break to reduce the deficit, which they say is the primary objecttive, rather than close one, they don't touch a single one, not for corporate jets, not for hedge fund managers. i want everybody to look at this chart. this is from the nonpartisan congressional budget office. what they say is that each year there are outlays. we spend $1.4 trillion on tax
breaks in the united states. more than on social security in any year more on medicaid and medicare combined. what's a tax break? well, if i give you, mr. speaker, $1,000 from the government i can also deliver that same benefit by telling you that of the taxes you owe me pay me $1,000 less. maybe you've got a great powerful lobbyist who is getting you a special break. so when the normal person has to pay regular tax rates you get a special deduction. some of them are for good causes, but many are not. and where do most of those tax breaks go or a disproportionate amount of those tax benefits often put there by powerful lobbyist.
c.b.o. says 17% of the benefits of those tax breaks, special deductions 17% go to the top 1% income earners. it's true. the democratic budget does want to close some of those special interest tax breaks that go to the folks at the very top rather than cut our kids' education or slash our innovation and we saw the most recent example of the republican plan to provide more tax breaks to the folks at the very top end of the income scale. just today in the ways and means committee. you know, right now, you don't have any estate tax obligation if you are a couple -- if your estate is lower than $10 million. and if your estate is lower than $10 million for a couple, your estate is exempt. but we do have a tax rate on
the amount over $10,000 because i thought in this country, we do not believe that people should get ahead just by the wealth they inherit from others but through their hard work and labor. so we proposed to change the tax code in a way that rewards work rather than in a way that rewards inherited wealth more than $10 million in an estate. that's why the democratic budget rewards hard-working families rather than tax breaks for folks at the top. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. price: thank you, mr. chairman. my friend from maryland will be pleased to know that our vision for tax reform is positive robust and makes certain that all americans, all americans benefit. that's what our budget does.
lifts up all americans. we don't pick winners or losers and not interested in dividing the country. what our friend on the other side seem to have in their stock and trade is dividing americans one against the another. that isn't america. let's talk about taxes. they want to increase taxes as far as the eye can see. they don't want to bring about any spending reductions, any spending reductions, understanding that what's happening right now in terms of the debt in this country, what we've got is a level of debt that was only surpassed during world war ii and this is a chart that demon states the debt in this country from 1940 to 2040, projection is from 2015 on. our debt was only surpassed at the end of world war ii. where does current law take it? where does the budget that our
friend on the other side of the aisle propose to take the debt? higher than ever before, ever, in the history of the country. what does that red line mean? it means fewer jobs, fewer opportunity choices for individuals, fewer dreams realized, mr. chairman. this red line is the destruction of the american dream. that's what it is. that's why our balanced budget for a stronger america -- gets our economy under control, gets the economy rolling again and gets the debt under control. gets to balance and gets us to paying off the debt. spending following the same tired plan of more spending with the promise of deficit reduction. has never happened. what do we achieve for all the spending? lowest labor force participation rate in decades. what does that mean?
fewer people working, mr. chairman. poverty rates stuck at high levels, 20% of the kids in this country living in poverty right now. that's under the poll sis -- policies that these folks want to double down on. a federal government that is growing beyond all proportion. and we have seen as i mentioned levels of debt that haven't been seen since the end of world war ii. we would be experiencing an economic boon, but the economic track record of recent years clearly has been abysmal. real g.d.p. growth over the past four years is just over 2%. those are real jobs that have been lost by this administration, by our friend who want to double down. slowest recovery that we have ever had coming out of an
economic downturn. labor force participation rate is at 62.8%, lowest level in 35 years. 8.7 million americans currently unemployed and those who are working have seen meager real wage growth. so more taxes, no spending reduction, more spending, more debt, more destruction of jobs, more destruction of dreams. sadly that's what our friends on the other side of the aisle are proposing. balanced budget for a stronger america is the way to go. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: listening to the chairman since the c.b.o. says that the republican budget will slow down economic growth in the next couple of years. i yield one minute to the gentlelady from michigan a terrific new member of the budget committee, mrs. dingell.
the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. dingell: i rise in strong support of the democratic alternative budget, which we are discussing today which addresses the many issues that working families are dealing with but there is one provision in particular that i want to highlight in long-term care. as the ranking member knows and too many americans know long-term care is a concern that nearly every american family is a -- or real confront in the coming years. we have made great strides to improve our health care system, but what we have a strong need for is a comprehensive long-term plan how seniors can get the help they need for basic tasks of living, like meal preparation, eating, bathing and getting dressed. too many seniors today are relying on a complex disconnected system full of barriers that doesn't work. it's a system designed for the 20th century while we are living in the 21st century.
addressing it will save money and can improve the quality of life for many. so to address this problem the democratic budget contains a revenue-neutral language -- mr. van hollen: yield another 30 seconds. mrs. dingell: would allow the house to consider legislation to begin to resolve the long-term crisis in our country. it's an important priority and important that it's been included in our alternative budget. my hope is we can work together on this soon in a bipartisan way. not dealing with it is not going to make it go away. thank you to the ranking member for working with us and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from michigan yields back. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. the gentleman from georgia has 5 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from maryland has 7 1/2 minutes.
mr. price: we'll reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: i'm pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, another a great new member of our budget committee. mr. norcross: we had to find common sense with the republican governor if we were to make the budget pass that made sense. as a freshman here in washington, when we are asked to vote on a budget that makes no sense at all. we all agree that students are now saddled with too much debt and certainly my colleagues across the aisle want to cut $220 billion, freezing pell grants. that doesn't make sense. we all agree that we need to create jobs and to get businesses to re-invest here in america and best way to do that
is invest here in ourselves in america. yet, their budget provides no new resources to upgrade our transportation and water systems, expand access to high-speed net or harden our electric grid. instead, i ask our colleagues to vote for the democratic alternative ta will provide tools for students and families that they will need to survive and succeed. create jobs by investing in research and infrastructure, properly fund a strong national defense and make good on our promise to our seniors by strengthening medicaid and social security. i ask you to vote for the democratic alternative. thank you and i yield become. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. price: i yield two minutes to the vice chairman of the
budget committee, mr. rokita. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. rokita: i thank the chairman for this process. look all day today we have been considering substitute budgets, laid bare in the people's house, in this chamber, for everyone to view and critique. and i think that's a good thing. considering the democrat substitute amendment, their budget, it adds an additional $4.7 trillion to the debt versus our budget. as as we stand here today we already have $18 trillion in debt and another at least $100 trillion on the way over the next decade this come despite under their plan a $1.9 trillion tax hike that we've already talked about this shows once again that you can't solve our debt problems by chasing ever higher spending with ever higher taxes. the fact of the matter is right
now we take in as a federal government over $2.5 trillion of the people's property. it's the people -- it's the people's property that we confiscate, some of it rightly so to run the things we need, but $2.5 trillion, mr. chairman. we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem, when you consider that we -- excuse me, probably nearly $3 trillion now when you take in $3.5 trillion in spending. the c.b.o. said in a letter to former chairman ryan that tax -- ryan that tax rates would have to double to raise the money by tax mikes alone. here's what they said, by 2023, everyone's rate woufs to increase by 23% by 2050, rates would have to increase by 86% in order to account for the debt
load that the democratic budget wants to put onot only on us but our children and grandchildren. we stand here today as the first generation in american history that i biany objective measure is going to leave the worst one next -- the next one worse off. mr. price: i yield the gentleman an extra minute. mr. rokita: i thank the chame. this is what we came to congress to solve. at least for many of us. hopefully republican and democrat. so that we're not the first generation in american history to leave the next one worse off. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you mr. speaker. as we've heard throughout the debate, there's a fundamental difference in how the united states grows our economy. i think if you look historically, the reason we have
grown the economy over time is because far long period especially in the post war period, as americans worked harder, they were able to translate that higher work, that harder work, into higher incomes. we are supporting a tax system that rewards hard work, our colleagues continue to stand by a tax system that actually gives better treatment to what is called unearned income compared to earned income. in other words if you earn income simply through making money off money, you actually get a lower rate than money earned from hard work, like most americans do every day. and so when you look at the fact that 17% of the tax rates in the country go -- tax breaks in the
country go to people in the top 1%, it's the tax code itself that's currently rigged in favor of powerful special interests. why should it be rigged against working people and in favor of people who can afford to hire powerful lobbyists to get tax breaks for themselves that benefit nobody else? that doesn't make any sense. and today, just today, in the ways and means committee, as i said, the committee that deals with taxes, our republican colleagues are saying that they want to get rid entirely of the estate tax. right now if you're a couple, the $10 million of your estate is exempt, you don't pay a penny. but yes, we do ask people who have accumulated lots of wealth to contribute a little bit to the country that helped them
develop such a great lifestyle. you know, i thought we were a country where we wanted to reward people who pulled themselves up by their boot straps by hard work yet we have a republican budget that says, we're going to provide 5,500 families with a huge tax break today at the same time we're cutting our investment in education. an investment that we know helps millions and millions of american families earn a better living over time. but no, let's cut that let's increase the cost of student loans. let's give 5500 families a huge tax break. teddy roosevelt would be turning in his grave at this republican budget. he would support the democratic budget that lifts up everybody, make shures everybody gets a fair shake. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. price: i'm prepared to close.
the chair: the gentleman is prepared to close, the gentleman reserves this egentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia has the right to close. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: the gentleman has -- how much time is remaining? the chair: the gentleman from maryland has three minutes remaining. the gentleman from georgia has three minutes remaining. mr. van hollen: let me just again underscore a couple of key points here. we saw during the early years of the 2000's what an economy based on the trickle down theory looks like. under president bush, the theory was, ok we're just going to cut tax rates for millionaires, thinking that the benefits would lift up everybody in the economy. what happened in the real world to that economic theory? it crashed and burned.
the reality was that people at the top did very well. god bless them they did great but everybody else, they were running in place. paychecks flatlined. wages stagnant. and this has been a chronic problem for some period of time. then we went off the cliff when president obama was sworn -- went off the cliff. when president obama was sworn in we were losing money every month. now we're coming out of that. millions of people have gone back to work. we've got a long way to go but we're coming out. the republican budget will slow down economic growth in the next couple of years. why would we want to do that? and again their theory is, let's accelerate economic growth by trying again what failed before. look, the definition of insanity is trying to -- trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results but they want to cut top tax rates
again. they want to eliminate a tax that will benefit 5,500 households. run up $260 billion on the deficit. the democratic budget does something very different. we want to empower hardworking american families. we want to change the in-- incentives in the tax code to incentivize higher pay system of for example, we say that corporations should not be table deduct c.e.o. and executive bonuses over $1 million unless they're giving their workers a pay increase, right? pay your c.e.o.'s whatever you want. but you don't get a taxpayer subsidy for those deductions if you're laying off workers. or you're cutting their wages. you know corporations deducted about $70 billion in c.e.o. bonuses over a three-year period from 2007 to 2010 wefment say why should the taxpayer be --
taxpayers be doing that for corporations that are cutting pay for their employees? so our republican colleagues continue to embrace a tax code that's rigged in favor of folks who have powerful lob yithses here to get special interest deductions. that's why the top 1% get 17% of the value of all those tax breaks. let's have a tax system that insent -- incentive ideses higher pay. let's invest in our kids' future not slash our investment in education and innovation. let's invest in the future of america. that's what the democratic budget does. i urge adoption of the democratic alternative. the chair: the gentleman's time has expire. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. price: thank you mr. chairman. i think it's important to recognize that the congressional budget office says our budget grows g.d.p. at the end of the 10-year window we talk about in order to turn this battleship in the direction, takes a little
while. but we're prepared to do that we're offering a positive solution. i want to revisit, though, the debt. admiral mike mullen chairman of the joint chiefs of staff was asked a few years ago what the greatest security threat to the united states was. the highest ranking military officer in the land asked what the greatest threat to the united states was, and he said, the debt. this red line right here. this is what he was talking about. increasing debt beyond -- as far as the eye can see more than we've ever had. that's what the democrat budget does. this is the current path we're on right now unless last changed. fewer jobs. fewer dreams realized. fewer opportunities. fewer choices for the american people. what's a debt crisis look like? we haven't seen one here. what's it look like? higher interest rates on everything from mortgages to credit cards to car loans. lower business investmentses and opportunities. lower wages for people struggling just to hold on to
their jobs. fewer resources for critical government services. a crowding out of all the things that folks on both sides of the aisle say they want to use. in short, less opportunity, less hope fewer dreams realized, a very sad future for america. that's not us. that's not america. that's not the people that we are. what we are is a balanced budget. balanced budget for a stronger america. positive solutions. our budget proposes that we balance in less than 10 years. reduce spend big $5.5 trillion over that period of time. strong support for our national defense. higher spending for national defense than the president or the democrats propose in these dangerous times. repealing all of obamacare in its entirety not just because it's harmful to the economy, it's harmful to the health of the nation. as a physician i can attest to that. all you have to do is listen to my former professional colleagues. ending the too big to fail bank
bailouts. cut corporate welfare. embrace federalism including increasing opportunity and choices for folks whether it's in the health care arena, whether it's in nutritional assistance, whether it's in the getting those decisions back in the states and local communities back where they belong. to hold washington accountable. to cut waste and fraud and abuse, make certain we support the rights of conscience for health care providers and physicians across this land. we push back on the incredible overreach of this administration. we stop the president's war on coal. we prevent his carbon tax increase. we hold the i.r.s. accountable and make certain that they stop targeting the american taxpayers. this is a positive vision for our country. a positive vision. it will deliver real resulters in american people. a balanced budget for a stronger america. i urge a no vote on the subs duet and a yes on the price 2 and the final passage of the budget at the end of all this.
i urge my colleagues to vote yes. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maryland. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maryland will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 prork seedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 114-49 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number one by mr. ellison of minnesota. amendment number two by mr. butterfield of north carolina. amendment number three by mr. stutzman of indiana. amendment number four by mr. van holen of maryland. the chair will reduce to five minutes the time for any vote after the first vote in the series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote printed in house report 114-49
by the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number one printed in house report 114-49 offered by mr. ellison of minnesota. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 96, the nays are 330. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in house report 114-49 by the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 in the nature of a substitute printed in house report 114-49 offered by mr. butterfield of north carolina. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote.
the chair: the yeas are 120 and the nays are 306. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote printed in house report 114-49, by the gentleman from indiana, mr. stutzman on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 in the nature of a substitute printed in house report 114-49,
offered by mr. stutzman of indiana. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a request of the recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered, members will record their votes by electronic device. . this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
mr. van hollen, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the knows prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 4 in the nature of a substitute printed in house report 114-49 offered by mr. van hollen of maryland. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc. in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 160, the nays are 264. the amendment is not adopted. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in house report 114-49. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. price: mr. chairman, the committee is not in order. the chair: the committee will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. price: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 in the nature of a substitute printed in house report 114-49 offered by mr. price of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 163, the gentleman from georgia, mr. price and a
member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: i thank the chairman and i want to thank my colleagues for their participation yesterday. we had extensive debate on the committee mark yesterday. and so i'll review very briefly the committee mark and then touch on the differences between this and the next substitute. amendment. -- substitute amendment. this amendment is the committee mark, the balanced budget for a stronger america. as we've talked about, this balances the budget in less than 10 years. it does so without raising taxes. which is absolutely vital. all the other alternatives that were brought from our friends on the other side of the aisle to the floor today, every one of them raise significant taxes on the american people. we set out a path to be able to provide for a fairer, simpler, more appropriate tax code where washington isn't picking winners and losers. our underlying bill, underlying resolution repeals all of
obamacare, eliminates the independent payment advisory board, lays out a path for patient-centered health care where patients and families and doctors are making medical decisions. not washington d.c. we ensure a strong national defense. our numbers when you combine the base budget with the global war on terror budget, are above the president's numbers required for making certain that our men and women who stand in harm's way have the resources available to make certain they can protect not just us but protect themselves. we secure our future by laying out a path to save and strengthen and secure medicare and medicaid. so incredibly important. medicare itself has been estimated by the trustees to go insolvent, go broke, in 2033. it's absolutely vital that this congress recognize the challenge before us and lay out a path for saving and strengthening and securing medicare and we do just that. we restore federalism. we think it's important to
increase choices and opportunities for the men and women back home. it's imperative that we have increased flexibility for states, not just in the area of health care and the area of medicaid, but also in the area of nutritional assistance and the area of education. folks in our states and our local community knows better how to respond to the needs of their citizens. we cut corporate waste and waste, fraud and abuse, and corporate welfare. positive solutions, mr. chairman positive solutions in a bill that we label a balanced budget for a stronger america. solutions that will get us on track to revive this economy, get folks back to work and make certain that we put a cap on the debt and get us on a path to paying off the debt. can only do that if you get to balance. this is a balanced budget for a stronger america. i encourage our colleagues to adopt and support this substitute and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. van hollen: mr. speaker i rise to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you mr. speaker. let me start with something i think, members listening to this debate should know already, which is that the republican budget does not balance, not by a long shot. it assumes the revenue from the affordable care act, even though they claim to repeal the affordable care act. it doesn't account for the costs of additional tax cuts that are coming through this house as we speak, and if the revenue from that was lost, their budget would be even further out of balance. in fact, just today, in the ways and means committee they're increasing the deficit by over $250 billion over 10 years by giving a huge tax cut to 5,500 families, getting rid of the estate tax. everyone should understand the estate tax only applies to
estates for couples over $10 million. and yet they're saying that, you know, people with estates for $10 million who have done really well shouldn't contribute anything toward investments in our country even deficit reduction. that increases the deficit right away and puts their budget even more out of balance, so this doesn't come close to balance. while it is actually cutting special interest tax breaks for folks at the very high end of the income scale it actually disinvests in the rest of the country. they dramatically cut the portion of our budget that we use to invest in our kids' future. in early education, in kindergarten through 12. they make it harder for students to afford college.
they say, they're going to start charging students interest while they're still in college, even though we have record student debts of over $1 trillion in this country. make it harder on seniors right away. seniors will pay more for prescription drugs, seniors on medicare even source yo -- seniors will may more co-pays for preventive care. they really got rid of the affordable care act entirely. seniors would also be paying higher part b premiums. that's what they say they want to do, get rid of it entirely. . the democratic budget we put forward presents an alternative and we're disappointed that the this body voted against that and decided again to support a budget that squeezes hardworking families and is hard on everyone in america except for those who are already at the very top. i now reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia is
recognized. mr. price: how much time remains on each side in the chair: the gentleman from georgia requires 2 1/4 minute the gentleman from maryland has three minutes. mr. price: i'm prepared to close so i'll reserve. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. let me just emphasize a couple of specifics in the republican budget that's before us. we haven't talked a lot about seniors in nursing homes, you know, 2/3 of medicaid goes to help seniors and disabled individuals in nursing homes. and yet the republican budget cuts $900 billion for medicaid. the congressional budget office says one of two things will happen. either states will increase taxes back home or seniors will get lescare.
the republican budget provides less for our veterans this year than the president's budget. less by $1.9 billion. $19 billion less for the veterans administration over the next 10 years compared to the president's budget. at the same time that their budget plays games with defense spending. that's why we have so-called price one and price two. neither prices are right here. they both play games with our defense spending by using defense overseas contingency account as a slush fund something the republican-led budget committee said last year they would not do. in fact, they said it was a back door loophole that undermines the integrity of the budget process. this is the committee report. this is the republican-drafted committee report.
when mr. ryan was chairman of the committee, one year ago. tear it up. just as they said what they're doing would violate the integrity of the budget process, it does. exactly what it does. and it plays games with our defense spending. the president's budget, the democratic budget did this in a straightforward way. we said joint chiefs of staff, our military leadership says they need a certain amount for funding our defense needs and our base budget, a certain amount for overseas contingencies. president's budget and democratic budget funded that. republican budgets all of them, all of the ones here, play games with that. so mr. speaker, i hope as we consider this republican budget that plays games with defense spending, which disinvests in america and in our future and
which squeezes hardworking americans every day even harder, working families seniors students the only people it says, don't worry, you don't have to do more to help this country move forward are folks at the very top. they get a tax rate cut and don't get a single special interest tax break. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. price: thank you, mr. chairman. as i said yesterday, somewhere across this land somebody has turned to their wife at home and said, hide the kids and pets, dear, they're talking about the budget. i really am amazed at the -- i shouldn't be amazed but i am amazed at the level of misinformation and hyperbole that goes on. the gentleman on the other side knows that the way we treat the defense spending $613 billion with base defense and global war
on terror funding is exactly the way it has to be treated until the law is changed. the gentleman on the other side doesn't even recognize that. the democrats don't recognize this the president doesn't recognize that. he puts a phony number in his budget that will snap right back down to the sequester level of $523 billion, unless the law is changed, something that we support something we provide a path to be able to dwosme provide the path to a solution. the other folks are just providing rhetoric. what about balance? here are the deficits over the next 10 years, mr. chairman. the red line is current policy. what our -- what the president and our friends on the other side do mirrors basically that line. you'll notice at the end of this it gets nearly to $1 trillion in deficit in one year. these folks think you can spend and spend and spend. this is our line.
this is how you get to balance. this is how you begin to pay off the debt. this is how you begin to have greater opportunities for the american people. a budget of real hope, real opportunity. our friends on the other side say it's harder on seniors and students and workers and medicaid, not true. what we actually do is propose solutions to the challenges that we face. we can't stick our head in the sand and expect these problems are going to get solved. i just wish that our friends on the other side would join us together and help solve these challenges. challenges are huge. the american people know it. what our budget does, a balanced budget for a stronger america, lays out a path to be able to solve these challenges. positive solutions for the american people. and they recognize that. we're standing up on behalf of all americans to solve the challenges that we have. i urge a yes vote and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.
in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. price: i request a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in house report 114-49. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. price: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number six in the nature of a substitute printed in house report 114-49, offered by mr. price of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 163, the gentleman from georgia, mr. price, and a member opposed each will control 15 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment number two labeled price 2 is an important amendment. important substitute. it's important for our colleagues and important for the members of the chamber and it's
important for the american people to know the differences between this amendment and the substitute amendment that we just talked about. there are two changes in this amendment. two changes in this substitute. this is an important debate. the first change is that in this substitute, we increase global war on terror spending from $94 billion in fiscal years 2016 to $96 billion in 2016. an increase of $ billion in the global war on terror. the second change from the underlying resolution is we remove the requirement for an offset of any of the funding in the global war on terror. mr. chairman this is an absolutely vital substitute amendment. so that the house can work its will, so that the members of the conference are able to stipulate and say what they believe is to be most appropriate. regardless. the level of spending for defense is north of the president, the level of spending
for defense when you look at base spending and global war on terror spending is where it needs to be. to assist our men and women in accomplishing the mission. so significant changes, yes, but changes in a positive direction to be able to make certain that this house is able to adopt a budget, work with the senate and come forward with a unified budget. i'm pleased to offer what's become known as price 2 and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. van hollen: i rise to claim time in opposition to the eamendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, it's bad enough that the republican budget uses games and gimmicks that would make enron accountants blush with respect to their basic budget. it's not just me who would say
that. people independent -- people independent observers from all over the country have said that. "usa today," that's not a partisan newspaper, here's what they said about the republican budget quackery. pretend is the operative word because the republicans supposed path to balance is fanciful at best. that's "usa today." why do they say that? they say that because republicans claim in the ninth and 10th years of their budget that they have this balance, but their budget depends on revenue from the affordable care act. that's the obamacare that they say they're repealing. depends on savings from the affordable care act. it assumes that the costs of the tax cuts that this body is
enacting by the day for corporations and wealthy individuals mostly aren't happening. that's a whole different universe. in fact, as we heard today, they just passed, worked out a bill in the ways and means committee. they're marking it up. $280 billion p -- billion more to the deficit for the benefit of 5,500 american families. 75% of whom have $20 million dollars plus estates. so their budget accounting is all wrong. in my view their priorities and values are all wrong too. but that same phony accounting that they are using for their big budget, now they're doing it to the defense budget as well. they are pretending that we need more in the overseas contingency
account than the military leadership says it needs. they've been here testifying, saying that's the wrong way to go. and yes, last year, as i read earlier, republicans said the same thing in the budget committee report. they said that doing what republicans are doing in this amendment is a back door loophole that undermines the integrity of the budget process. i didn't write that. former chairman of the budget committee paul ryan wrote that. so we got budget quackery in the main part of the budget and now games with defense. -- defense spending. that's just the beginning of the story. because despite all that quackery and not balancing, what they do is hit hard at working families in america. we've had this debate now over
the last two days. the good news is the economy -- in the economy is things are getting better. more people are getting back to work. a long way to go but trends are good. yet people are working harder than ever and feel take lyre walking in place or even falling behind. yet this budget makes it harder on them. it eliminates the college tax deduction. gets rid of the bump up in the child tax credit. gets rid of all the affordable care tax credits that help people afford health care. in fact, the irony is they keep the parts of the affordable care act that raise revenue and get rid of the parts of the affordable care act that help people afford health insurance. what a deal. so it's an unfortunate day for the country mr. speaker. i think members, when they look at this will recognize that the republican budget takes us in the wrong direction.
i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. price: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the republican majority whip the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scalise: i want to thank my colleague from georgia, the chairman of the budget committee, for his leadership and the hard work of his entire committee and when we talk about this budget that's on the floor i rise in strong support of this budget that restores fiscal sanity back to washington. if you talk about one of the greatest threats facing our nation right now, it's the fact that out of control spending and the lack of ability to set priorities and make tough decisions to get our economy moving again have held our economy back and it's also held back the opportunities for so many young people that deserve the same opportunity to achieve the american dream that we and every generation that's come before us have been able to achieve. and so, mr. chairman, what's so important about this budget is not just the fact that we get
back to balance within 10 years. balancing the federal budget. we can do it, we actually lay it out in this budget. but it's all of the underlying policies. the great reforms that have been so desperately needed by washington for so long. actually confronting challenges facing our country in a way that puts us on a path to get the economy moving again. let's talk about medicare. medicare is on a path to bankruptcy, mr. chairman. and what's so important with this budget is we actually lay out a plan to save medicare from bankruptcy and strengthen it for future generations. that's in this budget. we repeal the president's health care law ofmentba macare. something that's cost -- law. obamacare. something that's cost millions of people. cost doctors that leave the practice of medicine. killing jobs across the country. we lay out the process of tax reform, we lay out good reforms that people have been asking washington to make.
these are things families have been doing for years. sitting around the kitchen table, making tough decisions to live within their means and make sure they can go forward and provide better opportunity for their children. that's what this budget does. . let's contrast that to president obama's budget. president obama lays out a budget that never ever gets to balance and not only that, he adds another $2.1 trillion in new taxes. taxes that will kill economic growth even more, that will take jobs out of this country and ship them overseas. the president he always talks about raising taxes on people if that's the only way to balance the budget. you would think the president's budget with those new taxes would get to balance within two to three years. yet, his budget never gets to balance. in our budget we don't raise a new dime in taxes. we let the american people have decisions over their health care decisions again and with that power we get to balance less than 10 years.
this is the direction we need to head for our country, mr. chairman. this is the reason we all came here to washington, to tackle the big problems in a way that restores opportunities for all americans. i urge all of my colleagues to vote yes and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you mr. speaker. we've heard that despite all these claims the republican budget doesn't balance. i just read from "usa today," they don't have a stake in this battle, they said it's fanciful at best. and it's interesting that if that is the number one priority of our republican colleagues, why is it they don't cut one single special interest tax break to help reduce the deficit? not one. there are $1.4 trillion a year
in what the congressional budget office classifies as tax expenditures. these are tax breaks. $1.4 trillion a year. that's more than we spend on social security every year. more than we spend on medicare and medicaid combined every year. they don't cut a single one of those. maybe, maybe it's because 17% of those tax breaks go to the top 1% of income earners and this is a budget where their whole economic theory is we're going to cut tax rates for the people at the top. the ways and means added billions of dollars to the deficit. to help 5500 american families. so they don't cut a single tax break. in fact they're giving bigger ones to families with the states over $10 million.
75% of whom have over $21 million, but they cut education. they don't fund the veterans administration the president does this year. $19 million for the veterans administration over 10 years. how about the folks who are working hard every day in our veterans hospitals those nurses, federal employees? how about the border control agents? how about the f.b.i.? how about the folks in the intelligence community who helped track down osama bin laden? how about all of them? you know what the big thank you to them is? they cut federal employee pay by 5%. they don't want to do that in a straightforward manner either. here's how they do it. they're going to require all those federal employees to put about 5% more into their pension without increasing the pension by a penny. that's what they do. thank you. thank you to the folks who are
taking care of veterans in those hospitals. thank you to folks in the foreign service who are putting their lives at risk. a lot of those people in the foreign service have given their lives overseas for this country. the big thank you from the republican budget it's not just -- no cola. it's cut by 5.5% effectively. in a budget that doesn't cut a single tax break where 17% of those tax breaks go to the folks at the very top whether a lot of the tax breaks are in the tax code because someone had a powerful lobbyist who got them a special break that's not available to other americans. this budget is wrong for america, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. price: again, mr. chairman
the misinformation and outright errors -- mr. van hollen: if the gentleman will yield? mr. price: you'll get time. mr. van hollen: if the gentleman will yield? mr. price: are phenomenal. the fact of the matter is gentleman knows that it's the ways and means that handles tax reform, not the budget committee. what we do is lay out a path to allow the ways and means committee to come up with a positive pro-growth tax reform. that's the plan that's laid out in this budget. and i'd be so concerned about the gentleman's comments about getting to balance. i don't buy a thing that he's saying about our balance because we do get to balance less than 10 years by reducing spending by $5.5 trillion. and i'd be concerned about his statements if i believed for one second that the other side thought that getting to balance was even important. the fact of the matter is they don't. in fact, their budget never, ever, ever gets to balance nor does the president's. so the crocodile tears that i see on the other side about us allegedly not getting to
balance just isn't -- is absolutely not credible. and what we request of federal employees is that they be treated exactly like folks in the private sector. that's what the american people think is fair. appropriate treatment for all americans. not favorite treatment. not favorite treatment. not picking winners and losers like the other side enjoys doing. i'm so proud now to yield five minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry, who is the chairman of the house armed services committee, a gentleman whom i've worked closely over the last 10 weeks on this budget and who i have the utmost respect to his positive contributions to our conference and to our nation, five minutes to mr. thornberry. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. thornberry: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the chairman of the budget committee for not only yielding but for all of his work in putting this budget together. i spent some time on the budget committee. putting a budget together is never easy, and i believe that committee has done excellent work in putting together a
budget that as the whip just described leps increase economic opportunities for -- helps increase economic opportunities for the whole country. and i particularly appreciate the gentleman as he's had to navigate through a variety of interests and a variety of concerns in putting that budget together. i know firsthand that chairman price and other members of the committee are very concerned about national security, and so i want to take a moment to explain why i believe the amendment we're considering now, price number 2 is better than price number 1 when it comes to national security. i think members deserve that explanation. the amount of funding that the president has asked for for our military this year ends up being $612 billion when the add the base and the overseas contingency account, or the global war on terrorism account, whatever you want to
call it, if you add it together it's $612 billion. all the military leaders says that's the lower ragged edge of what it takes to defend the country. and my opinion is that it would be rather reckless of us to ignore those warnings and do less. now, i'm for more than the lower ragged edge, but that is a base minimum, at least that our military leaders have said is required. so if you look at price number 1 it has $613 billion, but the problem i have is that $20 billion-something of that is conditional upon, first, the house and the senate and president obama reaching agreement on how to fund the reserve fund before the military can spend that money. now, we have a track record here, and i'm not at all convinced that president obama really wants to find those savings, and if that happens, then that reserve fund is never funded and we don't have the $20 billion. price number 2, on the other hand, fully funds that military
up to that basic minimum level and there's still a reserve fund so if there can be an agreement that reduces the deficit, i'm for it. i'll have no doubt i'll vote for it, but it doesn't make our equipping, training of our military dependent upon doing that first. and it just seems to me it would be hard to look a spouse or a parent in the eye and say, oh, we can only train your son or daughter for the mission they're about to be sent on conditional upon this reserve fund being funded. now, i think that there have been several misconceptions that are going around. price number 2, the budget before us still balances in 10 years, removing that condition does not change that in any way. our committee, the armed services committee, is going to authorize the overseas
contingency account just like we authorized the base account, and that is different from what happened before, but we're going to do it program by program, just like we do the base, so some notion that there's a giant slush fund out there the pentagon can do what they want is just not true. it's going to be authorized and appropriated program by program just like the base budget is. and i think members ought to know our committee, on a bipartisan basis, is absolutely committed to reforms to work to make sure we all get more value for the money we spend for everything in defense. and the same is true on the other side of the capitol as well. we hear that it would be better to put this money in the base, and that's right. it would be better, but the problem is the law of sequestration does -- can't be fixed in a budget. we've got to live under the law as it is now. now i'd like to change that law.
i'd like to remove the cap on defense spending because it turns out there is no cap on the dangers that we're facing around the world. but in the meantime we've got to live under the law. the way to do that is to increase the o.c.o. fund and really -- if we authorize and appropriated, it doesn't really matter what we call those funds. it still meets that minimum threshold that president said and the military leaders have said that's necessary. let me make one other point. i'm concerned that president is going to try to use defense spending as a hostage to force increased spending in other areas or higher faxes, and i think that we need to say right now that is absolutely wrong. it is important for the house -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. price: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. thornberry: it's important for the house and especially important for the commander in
chief to fully fund the military without conditions and not trying to use it as leverage for other parts of his political agenda. i hope members will vote for price 2 and for the final budget. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: mr. speaker, as the gentleman just recognized, this is a huge departure from the way this house of representatives has dealt with our military spending in the past. in fact, it's a departure that budget committee, the republican-controlled budget committee, said violated the integrity of the process. the budget committee specifically said it would oppose increasing above the levels the administration and our military commanders say are needed to carry out operations. the budget committee said last year, republicans. this year, forget it. just have some amnesia.
let's play games with our defense spending. mr. speaker, i want to go back to an issue that's come up a couple times during this debate regarding economic growth. as i said, the congressional budget office's indicated that the republican budget will actually slow down economic growth in the next couple years . just after we're regaining momentum, they're going to slow it down. the congressional budget office said something else that's interesting. it says, as you look ahead over the next 10 years, the biggest single factor with respect to growth rates that don't keep up with the past averages are demographic changes. the fact that baby boomers are going to be retiring and they're not going to be in the work force. you just have to look at the c.b.o. report from this budget year.
so, you know, you would think that one way to deal with that would be to pass immigration reform. in fact, the congressional budget office says that that will help spur economic growth. it will also help add to the solvency of social security because you'll have more workers today supporting the baby boomers who are retiring over the next couple years. . so if you want a pro growth budget you would support the democratic approach that provides help to struggling families working every day, invest in our future, by investing in our kids' education and pass comprehensive immigration reform. there's a bipartisan bill that passed the senate last year. over here in the house, what happened to it? not that there was a vote on it
and it went down. we never even had a vote here in this body. on comprehensive immigration reform. one of the things that the budget pros and economists say could help spur our economy in the years ahead, something that is support pid the chamber of commerce as well as folks in the labor community. but no, republicans didn't want to do that. they didn't even allow a vote on that bill here in the house of representatives. that would have been a pro-growth effort too. so mr. speaker, instead of those pro-growth efforts, efforts that will help shore up social security, all we get is the same old same old. another budget that refuses to cut a single special interest tax break to help reduce the deficit provides more tax breaks for folks at the top and is based on a failed theory of top down, trickle down
economics. we can do a lot better. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized with 3 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. price: may i inquire what amount of time remains on each side. the chair: the gentleman from georgia has 3 1/2 minutes, the gentleman from maryland has 3 1/2 minutes. mr. price: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the majority leader, mr. mccarthy from the great state of california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mccarthy: i thank the speaker and i thank the gentleman for yielding, especially to chairman price for his work. budgets are never easy. lots of times some don't even bring a budget to the floor. i want to thank you for your work an thank you to everybody else. also, i know the work is hard on the other side of the aisle. i may not agree with your argument and part of me feels sorry for you that nobody else in your conference is down here to even join you but you're making the fight by yourself very strongly and i thank the secret for that.
s that body to debate and i thank you for filling the time. today, the house will adopt a budget. a budget is a vision for the future. republicans are making our vision very clear. in our vision, washington lives within its means. in our vision, we don't raise taxes on the american people. in our vision, we set the stage for a strong american future. our vision looks to the road ahead, not to the rear view behind us. we face many challenges here at home and abroad, but we can tackle those challenges and create a more prosperous america if we choose a better path. this budget is a better path. today, we look forward to a simpler and fairer tax code. today, we look forward to an end of obamacare. today we look forward to saving our children and grandchildren from elects respending by balancing the budget and -- in less than 10 years.
today we start growing america's economy not washington's. that's the big contrast between the republicans and democrats have to offer. you see, the democrats continue to call for higher taxes more spending and more debt. in fact, the democrat's budget has all the same tax increases the president's -- that president obama's budget has. i want to give them credit. at least they actually submitted a budget this year you see, it was only in 2010 when the democrats became the very first majority party since the budget act of 1974 had passed when they didn't even offer a budget here when they were in the majority, let alone get one out of committee. i think the american public saw their vision and made a change in who was in the majority after that. at least the president has actually submitted a budget every year, eventually. he did that.
but just like the democrats' budget, none of the president's budgets even balance. they didn't balance in 2010. they -- they didn't balance in 10 year, they didn't balance in 100 years. this budget of the president's has been so bad that altogether on this floor, he's only gotten two votes in the house for his entire presidency. i understand why my friend on the other side of the aisle has more difficulty with those coming down to join him. so while republicans are attacking -- are taking the debt seriously, the president and the congressional democrats are not. their budgets, in my view are propaganda. not a path to the future. to get a better future republicans understand that we have to make tough choices. choices today to create opportunities for us tomorrow. you see, i believe the best days are in front of us. we are an exceptional nation. we are too strong and too good to ever be kept down.
sometimes we might have leadership in the white house that doesn't want to make the tough choices. but americans are remarkably resilient. and america will always be better than our faults. you see, america is an idea. and as long as we have the wisdom to listen or the courage to lead, that idea will never fail. so i ask my members to join with me and i hope my talk today helped my friend on the other side get some others to join him. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: i thank the speaker and to the republican leader, let me just say, i think there's a lot of confusion on the republican side. this is the first time since i've been on the budget committee we've had two official republican budgets on the floor of the house. that's a little bit of confusion
here. i am really pleased to be joined by super reinforced -- reinforcemented. a gentlelady who -- reinforcements. a gentlelady who understands that we power our economy by making sure we have an economy that works for all people. not just folks at the very top. that economic growth is based on an economy where hard work translate into higher incomes for everybody. and that we have a tax system that rewards work, not one riddled with tax breaks. where 17% of the tax breaks go to the top 1%. that's a tax code written by lobbyists. we want a tax code that's fair to the american people and the american worker. with that, i'm very proud to yield one minute to the gentlelady from california, the democratic leader, ms. pelosi. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. pelosi: thank you mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for
yielding and i say with great pride how impressed all of us are by his statement of values that he has put forth in this house democratic budget. the breadth of knowledge, the depth of commitment, the vision for a strong way to keep america number one thank you, mr. van hollen and thank you to the members of the -- to the house members of the budget committee. it is -- we say it all the time. a budget should be a statement of our values. but it's important to ulls as a nation to be reflected in how we allocate our resources. are we allocating them as investments in the future, the education of our children? the building of our infrastructure, to promote commerce, to protect the environment, to improve the quality of life of all americans ? or is it a budget that
subscribes to the trickle down economics of the republican party which has never been successful for america's hardworking families. instead, we have a budget that subscribes to what president obama spoke about in the state of the union address, middle class economics. and that is a better set of values to build a strong and prosperous future for america that is reflected in the house democratic budget. but as i said this budget should be a statement of our values and i ask you mr. speaker i'm allowed to ask our colleagues is that correct, mr. speaker? oh, you changed. i'm allowed to address my remarks to my colleagues? just you. the chair: all marks shall be addressed to the chair. ms. pelosi: so you're the one, mr. chairman.
to awe you and anyone else, i say, do you think it's a value of the american people to give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our country while increases -- increasing taxes on the middle class by around $2,000? we don't begrudge the wealthy their success and their achievement. but why should people come forth and say, we're going to balance our budget by giving tax increases to the middle class and tax decreases to the very wealthy and by the way, it doesn't balance the budget. the republican budgets are not balanced. is it a statement of value to end the boost in child tax credit end higher education tax credits, freeze pell grants for 10 years, thereby curbing the opportunity for people not only to reach their fulfillment but for our country to be
competitive and be -- and keep america number one? it's not just about personal aspirations, that would be reason enough. but this is also about keeping america number one. because we know that innovation begins in the classroom. if we want to have great innovation, we have to have access to education to many more people. but again, this budget, the republican budget does not invest in innovation in any way. is it a statement of value to say to seniors we're going to end your medicare guarantee and focus on -- for you to pay more for preventive care and high prescription drug costs instead of keeping what we have now which is free preventive care for seniors and reducing their prescription drug care? infrastructure. the republican budget abandons
the nation's crumbling infrastructure by cutting $187 billion or more than 19% from transportation funding over the coming decade. how could that be a state ofment values when we're not building the infrastructure of our country? by the way, infrastructure and transportation have in years past not been partisan issues. this is a place where we've come together because it made all the sense in the world to build the infrastructure of america. to know that no maintenance is the most expensive maintenance. and their bill it's stunning to see, once again the republican budget repeals the affordable care act. now mind you, the affordable care act has nearly $1 trillion in savings. they don't -- they take the savings and spend it on other things like tax cuts for the rich but they repeal the bill. it just doesn't make any sense
at all. i just don't understand how you can say that that doesn't add up -- how you can't see that that doesn't add up system of this budget savepbles the things we need to keep america competitive with even deeper cut than the already devastating sequester. i know if you're sitting at home and watching this on tv you're think what does this mean to me? what this means to you is that this is a budget that our -- our house democratic budget works for hardworking americans, making it easier to own a home easier to send a child to college easier to have a secure and enjoyable retirement. and even if your child does not want to go to college that you can enable your child to reach his or her aspirations because of your own financial security. for us to achieve a bright and
durable future for our country, we must embrace the fact that financial security of our working families is both the measure and the engine of our nation's success. democrats are proud to offer a budget that grows opportunity, prosperity and dignity for every american, not just the wealthy and the well connected. it's time for republicans to abandon their fuzzy math and their broken priorities and come together with democrats to pass a budget dedicated to the future of hardworking american families. i think that's what we all came here to do democrats and republicans but you never know it to see not one, but two of the republican budgets they have put forth today. that's why i'm so proud of the work of the house budget members on the democratic side. that's why i commend mr. van hollen for his superior work on this subject of having a budget that reflects the values of the
american people for a brighter future. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. price: mr. chairman, i'm prepared to close. if the gentleman from maryland desires to close that would be fine. the chair: is the gentleman from maryland prepared to close? mr. van hollen: i am. is the chairman prepared to close? the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. you have two minutes remaining. mr. van hollen: two minutes remaining. as leader pelosi just said, this really comes down to what vision you have for what has helped power our economy. the republican theory of the cases that our economy is the power of providing tax rates cuts it the very high end of
the income scale and somehow the benefits of that will trickle down and lift everybody up. the problem with that theory is it already crashed in the real world. right, in the early 2000's, that's what president bush did. income for folks at the top went up and everybody else was run into the ground, running in place or running behind. that's why we presented a budget based on an economy that accelerates because more americans are able to make bigger paychecks through harder work. and why we proposed to change the tax code from one that is currently skewed and tilted in favor of unearned income and simply making money off of money and against people who make money off of hard work. why is the tax code skewed that way today? probably because a lot of people who can afford to pay a lot of wealthy lobbyists made
it that way. and yet the republican budget doesn't close a single tax break for the purpose of reducing the devers. not corporate jets. not the -- reduces the deficit. not corporate jets. not for american companies to move jobs overseas back here. we propose to move them back here to the united states, to help power our economy, not the economy of our global economic competitors. so i hope that this congress will reject a view of the economy that's based on the idea that everyone can only do well when the folks at the top get a tax cut as opposed to an economy where we're all in it together. i thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. price: i thank the chair and my friend on the other side talks about the two budgets that we have before us and i would remind him, as the
majority leader did, about the debacle of 2010 when no budget came. so we would say that two budgets are better than none. the -- i am -- though continue to be saddened about the politics of division of our friends on the other side dividing americans pitting americans one against the other. there -- in order for their vision to be true, one would have to believe that the government doesn't take enough of the american people's money and that government isn't big enough. those are the things you have to believe to believe that their vision is correct. let me set the record straight on a couple items that have just been brought up. one, our budget allows for over $300 billion in spending on innovation and research over the next 10 years. our budget provides for a
medicare program that is guaranteed for all seniors and with greater choices for those seniors. our government provides -- our budget provides for a path, in terms of infrastructure, to actually find real money for transportation not just painting a rosy picture for folks. and our budget believes that health care ought to be controlled by patients and families and doctors, not by washington, d.c. what we do is responsibly lay out a plan for a healthy america, an -- healthy economy, doesn't subject them to the dictates of washington, d.c. you see, we believe in america and we believe in americans, all americans. we understand our problems are significant. there's no doubt about it, mr. chairman. we hear the people of this nation crying out, crying out for leadership here in washington. this balanced budget for a stronger america will result in a government that is more efficient and more effective and more accountable, one that
frees up the american spirit, that of optimism and enthusiasm to do great things and to meet great challenges. i ask my colleagues for their strong support for this balanced budget for a stronger america. i encourage a yes vote on the amendment and a yes vote on final passage and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. price: mr. chairman, on that i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in the house report 114-49, on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 5 by mr. price
of georgia, amendment number 6 by mr. price of georgia. the chair will reduce to five minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in house report 114-49 by the gentleman from georgia, mr. price, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 in the nature of a substitute printed in house report 114-49 offered by mr. price of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 6 in the nature of a subs actuality printed in house -- substitute printed in house report 114-49 by mr. price from georgia. the chair: a requested vote has been recorded. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the house will be in order. the committee will be in order. pursuant to the rule, it is now in order to consider the final period of general debate which shall not exceed 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the committee on the budget. the committee will be in order. the members are advised to -- members are advised to take
their conversations off the floor. the gentleman from georgia, mr. price, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: i thank the chair and i want to thank all of my colleagues for their work on this -- on this. budgets aren't easy things, clearly. week of navigated some interesting times over -- we've navigated some interesting times over the past couple of weeks but i want to thank my colleagues for their wonderful and remarkable support. i especially want to thank the staff on the budget committee. both the majority and minority staff. they worked tirelessly to get these work products forward. so i just want to say before
all the members of the house of representatives how proud i am of the staff work that's been done and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you madam speaker. i want to start by joining the chairman of the committee in thanking all members for a vigorous debate and especially to thank the staff of the budget committee. as for the republican budget itself, nothing has changed since we began the debate yesterday to make it any better. it is the wrong direction for america. you know, madam speaker when we gather here today, there's good news and bad news and some very bad news. the good news is the economy's been picking up. more americans are going back to work. not everything's rosie. we got a long way to go -- rosy. we got a long way to go. the chair: the committee will be in order. the gentleman is recognized.
mr. van hollen: thank you, madam speaker. i was saying there is some good news in the economy. more americans are going back to work. we got a long ways to go, but the trends are in the right direction. the bad news is that americans are working harder than ever, but a lot of them feel like they're running in place and many falling behind. this is not a new problem, it's a chronic problem. we have seen worker productivity in this country go up and up and up over the last several decades. but that additional hard work but that additional work and productivity hasn't translated to higher wages for most americans. they have seen flat paychecks. so if it's not going to higher paychecks for most workers, where is it going? it's gone disproportionately to the folks at the very, very top. they've been doing great. but others are falling behind. we had some good news after the
election. the speaker of the house and the republic leader said they understood this issue. they both wrote they were looking forward to helping struggling, middle class americans and looking forward to dealing with wage stagnation. the very bad news for the country, madam speaker is when you look at this republican budget, it turns out they were just kidding because this republican budget is very hard on hard working americans and those looking to find a job. it says one message, work even harder, take home even less. it does absolutely nothing to increase the take home pay of workers or increase their wages. it will increase the tax burden on millions of working families, amazingly it eliminates eliminates the college tax deduction, it increases the costs for working americans by getting rid of the bump up in the child tax credit, gets rid
of the bump up in the make work pay earned income tax credit and for students, it makes college much more expensive. they actually increase -- the chair: the committee is not in order. the gentleman deserves the right to be heard. members will please take their conversations off the floor. the gentleman is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you madam speaker this republican budget actually increases the cost of going to college. it increases the cost of student loans even as we hit over $1 trillion in student debt. it eliminates $90 billion worth of pell grants. for seniors, they will immediately see higher prescription drug costs, by reopening the doughnut hole. they will immediately see higher
co-pays for preventive care and seniors in nursing homes will see much worse care as they cut $900 billion from medicaid. now while this budget squeezes working families and students and seniors, it paves the way for the romney-ryan tax cut plan. tax -- cut tax rates for folks at the very top on the theory somehow that's going to trickle down and boost the economy. a theory that crashed in the real world under president bush when incomes for folks at the top went up, but everybody else fell behind. and while it makes life harder on working americans right now it also disinvests in the future of america. it dramatically cut ours investment in early education and k through 12. it dramatically cuts our investment in innovation and research that has helped power our economy. it assumes the transportation trust fund will begin to run dry in a month and a half and construction jobs will come
short in a few months. the one thing it doesn't cut is any of the special interest tax breaks for the purpose of reducing the deficit. not one. not for corporate jets. in fact, today, the ways and means committee worked to provide a big tax break for 5,500 american families. with average 75% of them have $20 million estates. so they didn't want to touch that for the purpose of reducing the deficit system of they don't cut a single tax break. and despite all this disinvestment in america, here's the thing. the budget never balances. it doesn't come close. look at the "usa today" editorial. they're not a partisan paper. they said it's pure fantasy to claim that this balances. so it doesn't balance. but it does disinvest in america. we can do a lot better. we can do a lot better than a budget that continues to break the rules for the -- rig the
rules for the folks that already made it and make life harder for everybody else. let's reject this republican budget and let's get started back to work for the american people. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. price: thank you, madam chair. it has been said that budgets are about visions and about tissue and that they're a moral document and they are. budgets are -- what's our vision? we believe in promoting the greatest amount of opportunity. and the greatest amount of success and the greatest number of americans so that the greatest number of american dreams can be realized. and doing so in a way that demonstrates real hope and real compassion and real fairness. without washington picking winners and losers. many of our friends here on this floor have talked about budgets being a moral document, and they are. so let me ask, madam chair
where is the morality in trapping disadvantaged people in a web of welfare programs that discourage self-sufficiency and instead shackle them to government dependency. where is the morality, madam chair new york committing retirees to a health coverage program that's going bankrupt, that can't keep its promises if its so-called protectors keep blocking reform? where is the morality, madam chair new york forcing low income people into second rate health programs in which many can't get appointments and doctors are grossly underreimbursed by the government. where is the morality, madam chairman new york stifling medical innovation and preventing new treatments from reaching patients because of ever-expanding washington bureaucracy and read tip? -- red tape? where is the morality in tying students to crippling debt and
program loan thoss drive up tuitions. and where is the the morality in heaping debt on future generations because today's policymakers refuse to stop overspending? those are only a few examples of the regrettable consequences of well-intentioned government sponsored compassion. this republican budget aims to break that pattern. it's not about cutting programs. it's about saving and strengthening programs to ensure a sustainable safety net for those who need it while encouraging and helping others sustain themselves. the most truly compassionate thing that one can do for another. that's the morality of this budget. what does this budget do? it balances in less than 10 years without raising taxes. reduces spend big over $5.5 trillion. repeal os -- obamacare and the
independent payment advisory board. ensured a strong defense, makes sure we save and strengthen and secure medicare and medicaid. we restore federalism and provide greater opportunity and greater choices for individuals in our states across this nation and we cut waste and corporate welfare. these are positive solutions for the american people. a balanced budget for a stronger america. i encourage a yes vote so that we can get this economy rolling again and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 163, an amendment mt. nature of a substitute number six offered by mr. price of georgia is finally adopted and shall be reported to the house. under the rule, the committee rises.
the speaker pro tempore: madam chair. the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration house concurrent resolution 27 and pursuant to house resolution 163 report the concurrent resolution back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration house concurrent resolution 27 and pursuant to house resolution 163 reports the concurrent resolution back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the adoption of the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. the question is on adoption of the concurrent resolution under
clause 10 of rule 20. the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a is a 15-minute vote. pursuant to clause of rule 20 this 15-minute vote on house concurrent resolution 27 will be followed by a five-minute vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal if ordered. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. price: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.con.res. 27. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 173, resolution providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 2, to amend title 18 of the social security act, to repeal the medicare sustainable growth
rate, and strengthens medicare access by improving physician patients and making other improvements, to re-authorize the children's health insurance program and for other purposes. and providing for proceedings during the period from march 27 2015 through april 10 2015. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. becerra: by direction. democratic caucus, i offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 172,s remain solved that the following named member may be and is hereby elected to the following standing committee of the house of representatives. one, committee on small business, mr. moulton. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek
recognition? >> madam speaker, i request unanimous consent that my name be removed as a co-sponsor of h.r. 612. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordersed. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair lays before the house an enrolled resolution. the clerk: senate joint resolution 8, joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5 united states code of the rules submitted by the national labor of relations board relating to representation case procedures. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on the motion to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20.
any recorded vote on the postponed question will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1527, the slain officers family support act. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1527, a bill to accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable cash contributions for the relief of the families of new york police department detectives and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan and the gentleman from new york, mr. jeffries each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: madam speaker i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 1527 currently
under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. ryan: madam speaker, i'm going to let mr. jeffries from new york explain what the bill does. this is something that i want to thank the gentleman from new york for bringing to our attention. this is the kind of thing we have done in the past under certain situations and emergencies such as this, and i will reserve the balance of my time because i have the right to close i'll yield to the gentleman. i'd simply like to thank the gentleman for bringing it to our attention and for the pump of explaining the bill, i think mr. jeffries can explain it very well. with that i yield. . mr. jeffries: i yield myself such time as i may consume. let me thank chairman ryan for his support in bringing this important legislation to the floor of the house of representatives. let me thank my good friend,
representative, peter king for his partnership on this bill, which is of great importance to the people of new york as well as law enforcement throughout the entire nation. it is an honor and privilege to represent the 8th congressional district proud home of the new york police department, one of the finest in the world. on december 20 of 2014, unspeakable tragedy struck the community that i represent. while sitting in their marked patrol car, the detectives were aapproached from behind, assassinated from point blank range through the passenger side window. they were both brooklyn residents and had bep assigned
to patrol the housing development as part of a critical response detail responding to an increase of violence over the previous year. they volunteered to be there as part of their willingness to protect and serve the people of new york city. and they were killed simply for wearing that blue uniform. detective liu, aged 3 , who moved to brooklyn earlier that year, was the only son of chinese-american immigrants who came to the united states with his family at the age of 12. he is survived by his parents and his new wife, who he just married a month prior to that fateful day. committed to his adopted new york city, mr. liu was
committed to become a police officer after witnessing the attacks on september 11. after studying as kingsborough college and he joined in 2006 and in 2007 graduated from the police academy. the detective served as a new york police department officer for seven years. detect ramos was a two-year veteran, who had recently celebrated his 40th birthday and life-long brooklyn resident and was active in his church in glendale queens. he served as a school safety agent before realizing his long time dream after becoming a
police officer after january of 2012. he decided he wanted to become a police chaplain and spent 10 weeks studying to get his certification. and his chaplain class was scheduled to graduate at 4:00 p.m. on the day he was killed. he had intended ongoing into full-time ministry after retiring from the new york police department. he is survived by his wife and two sons, jadeyn 13 and throughout new york and across this nation, there was an outpouring of love and support for the fate of these two men and the families that he they left behind. under current law, individuals
contributing to organizations that provide financial support to the families of the slain detectives were required to make their contributions by december 31 of last year, in order to qualify for a tax deduction in connection for the 2015 filing. those officers were assassinated on december 20. this bill extends the date of ellgict, upon enactment contributions made by this year april 15 tax deadline would be deductible immediately. the joint committee on taxation has forwarded the bill as having a impact of $500,000 or less over 10 years. it is similar as chairman ryan
pointed out the legislation this congress passed in 2014 and in 2010, in the wake of natural disasters in the phillipines and in haiti. the assassinations were a national tragedy that shocked the conscience of america and shook new york city to its core. in the aftermath, we cannot forget the families left behind when these two brave heroes were killed tragically in the line of duty. as part of that effort, this legislation would take a significant step in that direction and let me thank chairman ryan and representative king as well as the other co-sponsors of the bill for their support in
bringing this legislation to the floor. and for these reasons, i urge my colleagues in the house to support h.r. 1527. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: this is the right and appropriate thing to do and i yield back the balance of our time as well. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the bill is passed and without objection the the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? without objection. mr. garrett: mr. speaker, it is indeed with a heavy heart that i rise today to honor the life and legacy of one of new jersey's sons staff sergeant augustine. he was killed almost three years ago this week on march 27 2012 while conducting combat operations in afghanistan. in the greatest act of sacrifice possible, he gave his life while protecting his men and women and uniform. i come to the floor and come to
the house to introduce legislation that will ensure that stf sergeant augustine's legacy lives on. this legislation will designate the united states postal service located at 1 walter hammond place as the post office billing. no action by this congress could ever repay his sacrifice. this bill will create a memory of his heroism. although this bill passed this bill before last congress unfortunately i, my colleagues did not take it up. i'm hopeful in the house and the senate will take this action to get this bill passed and to sign into law and his legacy will live on.
than and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york rise? >> permission to address the house for one minute. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, sk trafficking is one of the world most pervasive and underpenalized crimes. under 300,000 kids and the the act which i co-authored and passed this house in january, clarifies that the true criminals are the traffickers who enslave adolescents. the bill would create stiffer penal altsdz. and provide restitution to the survivors. the bill has strong support in the other body but is being complicated by a proposed
expansion of the hyde amendment which i do not support. we must pass this underlying bill. they should find some other compromise. the voice of victims of modern-day slavery is crueltyy and we cannot let our young people suffer any longer. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from utah rise? without objection, the lady is recognized for one minute. ms. lofgren: i wish to stand with others in my district and my constituents and offer to the family and friends of david marsh. david he became the victim of a senseless act of violence where he worked in utah where he was
shot during a robbery. many individuals are honored on this interior. but i wish to honor david because of his consistent impact on others. he made a profound impression on those he met. he was a wonderful father and role model who became a fixture and his kind and loving nature made his family, friends smile. it is people like david who make our nation great. i hope to honor him and connecting with the love and understanding, all people around us. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. thompson: permission to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: i rise this evening with deep sadness in the wake of the deep tragedy in
the flight. while the investigation is still ongoing. all 1350 passengers have been lost. all on board were 16 german students were on their way back to germany. mr. speaker, every tragedy brings heartbreak but we are saddened by the loss of people with hope and promise. i hope they can determine the loss. i offer my heartfelt thoughts and prayers to their families and allies. thank you, mr. speaker and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence
requested for mr. payne of new jersey today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6 2015, the lady from michigan, mrs. coleman is recognized. mrs. coleman: i'm honored to represent new jersey but i love michigan. i ask unanimous consent that all members have legislative days to include extraneous material on the subject of our special order. thank you, mr. speaker. no problem. earlier today my colleagues debated and passed a budget which i have a quite of few skeshes. budgets should speak about the priorities. the resolution that the house adopted earlier suggested that
our priorities are the interests of the top 1% of earners. the interests of corporations, certainly not the interests of working families. mr. speaker, according to pe one data, four out of 10 households with children now have a mother who is either the sole or primary breadwinner. families are led by women. as we approach the end of women history month, my colleagues have come to the floor this evening to talk about the impacts of the republican budget on women. . as i've said, women now lead 40% of our nation's households with children. a huge socioeconomic shift for this country. but when you dig deeper, 25% of those households are
single-parent homes where women are the only provider. those women need health care, to be able to keep going to work. and as we know mr. speaker, not every employer offers health care. fortunately five years ago we passed the affordable care act and now more than 16 million americans have access to health insurance. many of them for the first time. the affordable care act gave women more control over their health than they've ever had before. with free preventive care, including annual screenings and free coverage for contraceptives. there were also a host of benefits economic and otherwise. the congressional budget office projects that combined federal spending for medicare, medicaid and children's health insurance programs commonly referred to as chip will be $62 billion less over the -- $682 billion
less over the 2011 to 2020 period than projected in 2010 without the affordable care act. our national health care costs have indeed slowed dramatically. the uninsured rate for working-age adults dropped 35% from 20.3% to 13.2%. but it seems that all those benefits don't mean much to my republican colleagues who have found a huge and factually questionable portion of their budget savings from repealing the law. mr. speaker, we've just discussed the impact of health care and the republicans' budget repeal of the a.c.a. without access to the health care they need for themselves and their families republicans must be assuming that women will be able to take paid time off from work. unfortunately we passed the wrong budget for that. to tell you a little more about
this problem, it is my pleasure to yield to the gentlelady from michigan, ms. brenda lawrence. mrs. lawrence: mr. speaker i rise today to urge this house to support the people's budget. the federal budget is not just the financial document. it's the moral document. it is the best way to grow our economy, to ensure that americans have good jobs and pay a livable wage. the numbers that you just heard is a fact. 40% of households with children under 18 mothers are either the only or the primary source of income for the family. many of these mothers do not have the support of an affordable child care -- of affordable child care, paid family leave or paid sick days. increasing the minimum wage and
providing paid medical or sick leave will have a direct positive impact on millions of working mothers. as of last month three states and 17 cities will soon have or now have paid sick leave day laws. this is a good start. but we as members of congress we need to set a national standard and we need to do it now. our nation's future, our nation's failure to establish a basic workplace standard of paid sick days is hurting workers, is hurting families and the public health. nearly four in 10 private sector workers and 80% of the low-wage workers do not have a single paid sick day.
is that what we want our budget to reflect? the republicans are say they are for families and yet -- the republicans say they are for families and yet their budget reflects more of the same. the budget that the republicans have introduced doesn't invest in growing our infrastructure. it cuts vital programs like medicaid, and help keep working families in poverty. this is totally unacceptable. paid sick days keep families financially secure. workplaces and communities healthy and productive. the institute for women's policy research calculates that the federal government could prevent over 2,600 loss of jobs for women. why? because 2600 women left their
jobs because they were not offered paid parental leave. the people's budget will create over eight million good-paying new jobs by 2018. the people's budget also ensures that our tax codes work for everyone by closing tax loopholes and expanding the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit. mr. speaker, i support the people's budget because deficit reduction should not be fixed on the backs of hardworking americans. we must put people first. do you pay your car note before you buy groceries for your family? no. i agree that we must pay down the deficit, but at what cost? there are many things we must cover in our federal budget, but people mr. speaker, people
must be first. i thank you mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. mrs. watson coleman: i thank the gentlelady from michigan very much. mr. speaker, with more women as their family's primary breadwinners than ever, it's important to point out that 2/3 of the minimum wage workers are women. women are notoriously under-represented with equal pay for equal work. the federal minimum wage right now is only $7.25 per hour. a woman working full time would make just $14,500. that's below the poverty line for a family of three. if we want to make sure american families can work hard to get ahead, it seems that we'd want to make sure they're getting paid enough to do so. yet this issue is completely absent from the republican
budget and still women will be notoriously underpaid for the work that they do. mr. speaker, women are also notoriously under-represented in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. these are the jobs of tomorrow. these are the jobs that will grow our economy, will make us globally competitive. unfortunately we cannot address these issues of under-representation of women in those areas science, technology, engineering and math mat micks fields, -- mathematics fields, because of the -- because the republican budget that we passed today does not think it's important. the people's budget on the other hand would lift the minimum wage would increase the opportunities for women in educational fields that they've been under-represented and would result in a raise for
more than 28.7 million workers, including the 15.3 million women. there are broader socio societal impacts to raising the minimum wage as well. for starters, since women are the majority of minimum wage workers, lifting that federal minimum wage would close the pay gap by nearly 5%. and i know it's been said time and again, mr. speaker, but raising the minimum wage will also boost our economy. for these workers, additional wages aren't dropping into savings accounts. they're paying for things they need right now. research indicates that for every $1 added to minimum wage low-wage worker households spent an additional $2,800 the following year. you see, that's a win-win situation. but unfortunately we didn't adopt the budget that included the minimum wage increase. we adopted the budget that included new taxes for the top 1% at the expense of the middle
class. mr. speaker, the point that we've tried to make here is that we passed the wrong budget. the republican budget is wrong for women, it's wrong for the middle class, it's wrong for the nation's economy. foundations of the american dream are crumbling beneath our feet. just right as we speak. with stagnant wages struggling schools, and a wealth gap that is only getting bigger. we can't move forward with policies that are only going to make matters worse. we need to open our eyes and fight together for policies that will build an economy that works for everyone. mr. speaker i want to thank you and it's now my pleasure to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from california, mr. swal we will. -- mr. swalwell. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015 the gentleman from california mr. swalwell is recognized for the remainder of the hour as a
designee of the minority leader. mr. swalwell: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to address one of the greatest moral crises of our time. student loan debt on my generation. because of student loan debt an entire generation is in financial quicksand. here are some startling facts of the student loan debt that our generation carries today. approximately 40 million
americans have one or more student loans. the average amount owed on student loans is $33,000 and 70% of students graduating this year will be burdened with this debt. on average it will take this debt and a student with this debt, graduating with a bachelor's degree, over 19 years to pay off their loan. this evening the house democratic caucus' future forum will address this moral crisis and we've got a number of members who will work with us this evening to talk about their personal stories or stories that they are hearing in their district. we've also asked americans across our country, including in my congressional district in the east bay, to tweet or facebook at us under the hashtag #mystudentdebt or #futureforum. first i'd like to yield to a colleague of mine who came in the 113th congress, someone who had student loan debt himself and represents a district in washington mr. kilmer.
mr. kilmer: thank you, mr. swalwell, and thank you, mr. speaker. i grew up in a small town in washington state. i now have the opportunity and honor of representing. my folks are school teachers. my father actually this year is in his 50th year as a teacher in the classroom. the reality is, i couldn't have gone to college if it hadn't been for the support of my community and the assistance of financial aid. i got grants and i got loans that made the dream of college a reality. and i had a community that had my back. that literally passed a hat by providing me with scholarships to help me fulfill my own dreams of a college education. i believe that education is the door to opportunity. and for a lot of families, including mine, financial aid is the key to that door. but the reality is, we're -- for too many families today, that door is lobbed. we've got work to do -- locked. we've got work to do. in 2013 democrats and republicans came together to
pass legislation to protect student borrowers, so that they can obtain low interest rates. but our work isn't done. we need to continue to have a commitment to quality and affordable education. that's why i'm proud to be a co-sponsor of a bill that would allow those without standing student loan debt to be able to refinance at the same low rate as new borrowers. 2 1/2 centuries ago, benjamin franklin wrote, an investment in knowledge pays the greatest interest. i think that was true when he wrote it and i think it remains true today. we know this. not every student's going to go to college. but we know that college is a door-opener. we know that. we know that america's competitiveness depends on our ability to have a good, skilled qualified work force. to have quality educational opportunities for our work force. we know that as educational attainment rises, so do wages. and so does employment levels. we know that it is wiser to
invest in education on the front end than it is to pay for prisons and unemployment on the back end. and that to a large degree is a decision that we make as a country and as a society. but that only works if we provide opportunities for students. if we ensure that they don't drown in debt. . student loan debt surpasses credit card debt. when young people graduate from college, they can start a business or teach the next generation, not to be bogged down with debt. one of the coolest part of this job is to meet with young people college and high school students people who have a long runway ahead of them. and i think what i want for my own kids. i want them to look at the
future, not with fear of debt and fear of debts but hope for their future. college education i was afforded and the financial aid that i received that afforded that enabled me to fill a lifetime of hope. i'm committed to work with the gentleman from california and make sure all young people and all who want to pursue the opportunity. mr. swalwell: when you talk to young people today and they think about going to college, how much are you hearing the potential of debt is weighing on that decision?
>> i was in a high school classroom just this last month and students said i want to go to college but i'm fearful i won't be able to afford it. mr. kilmer: two things happened. state support for our educational institutions got cut and it rose. and didn't keep up with those increases in tuition. young people are concerned. they recognize that further education is important for their chances of getting a good job. not everybody job requires higher education but as we look at those jobs in our economy, more and more of those
jobs require secondary education. mr. swalwell: what do you hear from the parents with a child who has just graduated? are you hearing from the parents as well. >> mr. kilmer: folks in my community have lost their jobs. i was at olympic college and they had a luncheon that was to support students and we heard from one of the students who started their college career, sleeping in their car. and that for too many people is a reality test days and need to make sure that education is affordable and quality and that key and that is available for
everybody. mr. swalwell: i thank the the gentleman from washington. i thank you for addressing this moral crisis. i mentioned that we are going to be having a conversation not just here on the house floor but we have been talking to young americans so you can tweet on your phone at #mystudentdebt. i want to read one of the first tweets and this came from natalie and she is from my hometown and a place where i was growing up there, only less than 0% of the graduates were going on to four-year universities. but young people like natalie
have this to say. she is in college now and she pays $00 to reduce her interest payments. and we are asking on social media first, what is your monthly payment for the student loan debt. you have to start paying while you in the college, others you have to pay them immediately upon graduation. the second question is, what would you do with that money, how would you spend that money. natalie's $00 if she didn't have to spend it, she would save to buy a home and pay her auto payment and her represent where she works. so there is a ripple effect that goes out into the economy if we can lessen the economy
the student loan debt has. this issue is personal to me because i have student loan debt. my student loan story is i was fortunate to go to college on an athletic storeal -- scholarship. i had to work hard and play soccer well. but i got injured and i wanted to stay in college. ap i had the to take out student loans. 90 rs% of the loans were federal loans. and there had to be a bridge twn the stupid loans and had to take out higher interest private loans. over $100 is what i have today
and i never complained about it i knew it was an investment in my future and i worked every job to make it work and meet the tuition demands that i had every semester. i talk to young people across where i grew up and across our country and i realized this isn't something that just isn't affecting me. i play pay $400. it is something that is like an anchor. 41 million young people with over $1 trillion in student debt. weighs on every decision they have to make. when to start a family. being able to buy their first home. leaving the job they have to
take a risk and start a business on their own. all of these decisions, the biggest factor today is that student debt and weighing an entire generation down and this congress must do. i'm glad to see to see my colleague from colorado, congressman polis and what you think and what you are hearing of how this weighs on young people. mr. polis: i thank the gentleman and raising public awareness and congress is failing to play. this morning i had the opportunity to meet with one of our universities in the district i represent the university of cole at boulder
and we talked a lot about college affordability. the university in its own right is doing what it can, creating a three-year program and students can graduate and only have to pay for three years and interest and students can pay their fees spread out over a longer period of time without interest and c.u. will only increase student tuition which is the lowest inkorea. moving from what many of our universities are trying to do is where we need to shift the discussion. reducing the interest rate and
raising the cap available. absolutely critical so help young people afford a higher education that enables them to succeed. we need to address the cost drivers. i think we took a good first step in the affordable care act looking at the costs of health care in education. another example is looking at the content of ack which situation. the doctor told me their library subscriptions have increased 15% a year. that's why some of us here supported a bill and president obama took the first steps on this to make sure that taxpayer-supported research, money that is funded through n.i.h. is made freely available to the public and not only
available in prescription journals that not only raise the cost for universities that make access by limiting those to who came pay for it. would you believe after you pay tuition. oh, my gosh, with my debt and my parents' help, $1100 more for textbooks. i have heard from a lot of students that their textbooks books were $1100. i said am i hearing that? he said that's average. costing $1100 for the textbooks they need. through innovation we have col
brave same and superior quality that professors put together for students that is available for free or near free. and the physical act of producing a textbook is $3 $or 4 $. most of that margin goes to textbook companies. and very little and they largely do it for professional consideration and prestige. and if we have have platforms, we could bring down those costs that are so high for students. we should challenge congress not just for the students for today but the people who graduated five, 10 years ago
and suffering under the yoke under the debt they incurred to allow them to have a decent job in america. >> what do you do with the student today and stupid tomorrow. mr. swalwell: and you just alluded too this isn't about today and tomorrow but the generation taking on the debt and we do have just introduced in the congress, emergency loan refinancing act and maybe talk about what can we do for students and what can we do to help them? mr. polis: students that finance their education years
after their graduation will suffer under the debt. that is a reason why representative courtney brought forth his bill. and i hear from people who might have graduated five years ago, but their debt load is impacting their abuilt to build a home and ability to have a family and that is simply because of the way or manner. i think it is appropriate for us to find a way to make sure that people are rewarded for their educational achievement. the greatest asset is our intellectual capital. that's our greatest asset. in this day and age we are penalizing people and for
acquiring knowledge that is needed for a economy to succeed is ridiculous. and i yield back to the gentleman from california to talk about how some of these were highlighted. what a lot of people here, republicans and democrats are fighting about the budget. well these are very important statements because it shows how each party would govern acknowledge the vision that each bucket would set forth and how they are night and day and i'm hoping you can talk about the budget that unfortunately our republican colleagues pass and the budget you and i voted for would have made colleges more affordable.
. mr. swalwell: as graduation approaches, my student debt looms over me like an oncoming storm. it makes me hesitant to start grad school. i appreciate the gentleman from colorado alluding to the budget that we just moments ago on this house floor voted on and we had two competing budgets. when it came to many issues that are important to this country. but for my generation looking at the generation of 18 to 35-year-olds there is no issue that's more important and affects more people than student loan debt. the republican budget would cut $220 billion in funds for college accessibility. it would cut pell grants it would cut subsidized student loan programs, and it cuts income-based repayment. these backward policies not only are hurting students, they are hurting the progress of our economy. they would make colonel more unaffordable for million -- college more unaffordable for
millions of prospective students. nine million students today benefit from pell grants. 2/3 of african-american students receive pell grants and half of latino students receive pell grants. nine out of 10 pell grant recipients are already taking out student loans. these students need more help from their government. i want to make it clear that no student that i've ever talked to no student who has ever taken on the debt believes that this should just be a handout or a gift from the government. the position of future forum, the position of the house democratic caucus, is that if you believe in young people, if you take a chance on them, and if they're hardworking and qualified they'll take that investment, they'll take that risk, they'll pay back their student loan debt, but we don't have to gouge them. the government doesn't have to make money on young people looking for a way up.
the government doesn't have to make money on people who are looking for and seeking to seize upon opportunity. speaking of young people, just joining us now here in the house chamber is a first-term member of congress, someone who is also making his second future forum appearance, someone who cares deeply about what student debt loan -- student loan debt means for his constituents. i'll yield to the gentleman. mr. boyle: thank you. i very much appreciate the leadership that the gentleman from california has shown in forming our caucus. and also especially when it comes to this issue, which is near and dear to my heart. i talked many times during my campaign about the fact that i thought it would change the dynamic, to now have a member of congress who himself has tens of thousands of dollars of student loan debt because i wanted to do exactly what we're doing tonight. be able to speak on the house floor and say, yes, this is an
incredibly serious issue that needs to be dealt with as the national problem that it is. we now, depending on how you budget mortgages, student loans are considered either the largest source of debt or the second largest source of debt in america today. a 10-fold increase in the last 20 years. 10-fold increase. that is unsustainable. i believe that it is unfair and a tremendous burden to those who are young and frankly not so young and raising families of their own. but not only is there the fairness argument, there's also the argument that it just makes no sense for the united states of america in the 21st century to be going in this direction. to be penalizing those who are attempting to better themselves become better workers, become better trained, and ensure that they can participate in the work force of the 21st century. so i believe that this is an
issue, frankly, that has been undercovered and underfocused on over the last several years. i believe that there is a danger of this actually being a student loan debt bubble. and i believe that it is about time that this congress, the house and the senate, finally dealt with this as the national crisis that it is. mr. swalwell: i would ask the gentleman i'm looking through our twitter feed here. we've got a number of people who have kind of chimed in on it. one young person just tweeted at us, she's a child of immigrants from guatemala and she's the first in her family to go to college. her parents, she said, make the minimum wage. and she's been working for six years at a nonprofit and pays $350 a month on her student loan debt. she said without this payment she'd buy a car, she currently has to share one with the entire family. and she would move out of her
parents'. have you heard stories like hers in your district or across our country? mr. boyle: first, i couldn't help identify with the tweet from dolores. like she, i am a first-generation american. my father is an immigrant. and like dolores i'm the first of my family to go to college. student loans played an important part in enabling me to go to college. so i don't in any way use my own personal experience as a woe is me. i consider myself one of the very fortunate ones. but the fact that i had the benefit of winning scholarships and piecing together student loans and tens of thousands of them, along with every work study job, you could -- job could you imagine, the fact that i'm actually one of the lucky ones and it was that difficult, i know so many people in the neighborhood which are grew up in philadelphia who weren't as fortunate. i know so many people today in my neighbor and all throughout the country who have exactly the same story that dolores had, in that she says, well
with this extra $350 a month, i would be buying a car, i would be saving for a down payment on a home. it's interesting i hear these kind of stories not just from those who are in repayment i hear them from realtors who have been in the business two, three, four decades. they will say to me, i can't tell what you a difference it is today, back when i was starting out i would sell so many homes to younger people, 24 25, 26. now i don't have one customer in their 20's. why? because the student loan payment are taking up that. so that means that it doesn't only hurt the graduate who is in repayment. it also has a slower affect in our overall economy. it hurts the realtors, it hurts the contractors who would have done work once that young couple or the young person bought a how the, -- house, it hurts the home depot down the street. there is this spillover effect in our economy and it's getting
to the larger point i was talking about, that this is not just a problem for young people. this is a problem for families who want to send their kids to college, this is a problem for realtors this is a problem for anyone who wants economic development to be spurred in our country. essentially this is a national issue. mr. swalwell: we're looking at twitter and i see jenna on twitter from new york city says, i chose a state school as the affordable choice over better schools where i was accepted. and still i have $30,000 in student loan debt. are you seeing that in pennsylvania? where the state universities are starting to see their tuitions go up almost as much as the tuition at private universities? mr. boyle: unfortunately, yes. while i'm a born and raised and proud pennsylvanian, i'm sad to say on this score we're the second worst in the country.
we have the second most expensive public colleges and universities in the nation. sure enough our pennsylvania residents have the second highest amount of student loan debt in the country. so this is a problem affecting my state. it feablingts -- affects all 50 states but unfortunately it is worse in my home state than almost every other state in the country. mr. swalwell: we're talking about student loan debt as well as student loan interest rates. two separate issues. but both affecting essentially statement generation. we saw just this week our colleague, mr. courtney within the past week, introduce his bill. and i want to see if the gentleman has a position on this. it's the bank on students emergency loan refinancing act. what it would do, it would allow eligible student loan borrowers to refinance their private and federal loans. as the gentleman knows. if you have an auto loan or if you have a home loan if you have a business loan, you can often if qualified, refinance
those loans, as interest rates change and the markets change. right now you can't do that with student loans. how do you think this would change the debt load that young people are carrying today, if they could take that student loan to the marketplace, and find competitive refinancing rates? mr. boyle: i am proud to be a co-sponsor of representative courtney's bill. elizabeth warren is the sponsor in the senate. of the companion legislation. this would have a transformative effect on helping those who right now are struggling with the student loan payment. so many of the ideas that we have are more geared toward those who will be going to college and aren't yet college age. this is the one idea that can actually help those who are living today under the burden of higher student loan debt. and it's important to note that neither of us are talking about for giving debt or eliminating -- forgiving debt or eliminating debt or giving
people a free ride or allowing them to get away from the debts they incurred. we're simply saying allow them to have the market mechanism that so many others have, allow them to refinance at the current low rates. it would be a tremendous saving. literally tens of billions of dollars saved. and then that is money that in turn would be repumped into our economy. i believe it would have an incredibly positive effect and i'm a strong supporter of it. mr. swalwell: i'm glad you mentioned the effect it would have on the economy. i just heard two minutes ago from andres. he said with the $389 that's going to student loan debt, i could be buying a house. just imagine, you take 40 million people who have debt right now, if we find a way for them to refinance it or reduce it, and save them hundreds a month, they're not going to just sit on that money or put it under the mattress. they're going to put that money back into the economy. mr. boyle: i'm thinking of you
being in california, a much more expensive area, while pennsylvania's not cheap, by california standards, is much more affordable. how much of an effect would have it -- would it have for the young, bright well-educated folks in northern california if they could suddenly have an extra $300, $400 a month to help them afford the cost of living there and save for a down payment? mr. swalwell: the bay area is a beautiful place to live. it's 80 degrees there this week. it's one of the most educated places in the world. it has an innovation economy that is charting the course for the new american economy and is really defining how the american worker is going to work going forward. but the biggest downfall, the down side, if there is any in the bay area right now, is the cost of living. it costs so much to own a house, it costs so much for
health care and starting a business, so many costs to be in the bay area today, that it's pricing out young people. so if you go to a good school, you're qualified, you make it into a good school, you take on the student loan debt, and you want to go into the work force with the debt that you carry, first chances are you're not going to be able to live anywhere near where you're going to work because you're not going to be able to afford. it i had the california association of realtors in my office today. our local rep. he was telling me how hard it is for him. he told me this story today of somebody who works in one of the largest tech companies in america. person makes, he said, over $100,000 a year. and because of the student loan debt that she had, she's having a very, very difficult time buying a house. that's somebody who makes over $100,000 a year. and that is in the upper echelon of incomes in our
country. can you imagine the middle class worker hardworking american, who is making $40000, $50000 a year, wants to maybe go do some good and teach in a classroom, how is that person going to live near where they work, how is that person going to buy a home somehow that person going to start a family and have kids? i'm glad the gentleman asked that because those are the stories i see back where i grew up. that's why people care about that issue. mr. boyle: and you -- actually just referenced another point of this, that i think is such a good point. and that is that this student loan debt is actually preventing young people from going out and starting their own businesses. which is a personal tragedy for them, but also has, again, tremendously negative effects on our overall economy. i'm wonder, particularly in an entrepreneurial area like the bay area, you must hear similar stories. mr. swalwell: you know we have
become, in the bay area a place where approximately 75% of the venture funding is going right now. and there are a lot of smart young, energetic determined people with good ideas, but they don't have a lot of funding. ass and for them, -- and for them the decision becomes, well, i've got this job right now that pays my student loan debt and pays my other bills but i have this great idea, which is my passion which is my dream, but if i leave my job and i risk it all, i still have this debt, it's still going to follow me. . and it's going to be really hard if it doesn't take off system of i see that decision point so often acoose -- across the bay area. we're not asking to just completely say, you know to every bank, you no longer can collect on this debt. i think what we're asking, let's start the conversation how do we reduce it? how do we refinance it?
how do we give people more money in their pocket every month so they can help themselves, lift up our families. i see in the chamber here with us our former caucus chair, john larson the gentleman from connecticut. i'm putting him on the spot a little bit here but i know he cares just as much as the gentleman from pennsylvania and i do about what young people in his district are doing and how student loan debt affects him. i'm wondering if our former chair could weigh in on what we can do in the congress to help young people with student loan debt. mr. lar son -- mr. larson: i want to thank the gentleman from california and the gentleman from pennsylvania for their hard work in this subject matter area. certainly, when we know that all credit debt combined is exceeded by the amount of debt that those who attend and receive a college
education are currently bearing an the awful burden that that has created on the working members of the middle class and how difficult a burden it is. so i commend the gentleman -- the gentlemen for their efforts here on the floor. first of all, it starts with our budget that we debated today and making sure that there's not cuts to pell grants, but there's investments made in pell grants. you know, frankly, as people talk about repatriation that is as both the gentleman from pennsylvania and california know, where money has been sent overseas and there's a lot of talk about bringing money back and what will we do with that? what about a trust fund that will allow an opportunity for young people all across america to refinance and restructure their ability to pay off their college debt. not a novel idea, after all
isn't that what we did for wall street after 2008? isn't that what we did to make sure that banks and financial institutions didn't fail? shouldn't we do this for the human infrastructure, for all those hardworking families who have refinanced their home, who have gone into their personal savings, who are saddled with enormous amounts of debt, what a great thing for the country and how valuable that would be for people who once -- to once again be able to have completed a college education, placed themselves in a position to be more product i have members of society, but also in a position where they're not burdened with the debt that prevents them from carrying on a life, to get married, to purchase a first home, to buy a new automobile, all the things that help our
economy grow, all the reasons that they went to college in the first place. so i commend the two gentlemen for their continuous work in this area. your support of the democratic budget, what a great job that chris van hollen did today articulating the values that this side of the aisle has been putting forward not only in terms of the morality of the issue but also the economic impact that it has on so many working families. with that, i yield back to our distinguished colleagues from california and pennsylvania and hope that you'll join us in the second hour in a discussion on all generations on social security. mr. swalwell: i was joust going to say how happy -- mr. boyle: i was going to say i'm happy to welcome mr. larson to the future caucus, there aren't many of us
with white hair in the future caucus. but this is something we're going to talk about next with social security, it is all part of the same system. mr. boyle: you give opportunities to people you give them opportunity, they pay into a system, then the next generation benefits. people on social security today are able to benefit because of the workers of today. 30 40 years from now, those student loan -- those students who are worrying about student loans will probably still be in the work forest and making hopefully -- work force and making hopefully more money to pay into social security to help the workers of today who will be the retirees of tomorrow. this is all actually linked and part of making america work system of i'm proud to be with the two gentlemen, i yield to the person who has led this effort boldly and wisely, my friend from california. mr. swalwell: thank you. i don't think we could end on a more inspirational note than the eloquent words from our former
chairman from connecticut, mr. larson. and this is about the future. i'm proud to be a sponsor of the social security fairness act. i'm glad that's getting some attention this evening. to summarize, the future forum -- to summarize the future forum and what we aspire for young people to have is not a handout when it comes to student loan debt. not a complete free pass where you just take on government investments and you don't give anything back. what we're saying is that if you're qualified and you worked hard and you have this student loan debt it should be easier than it is today. we should be able to pass joe courtney's bill and allow to -- allow you to refinance. we should find every way to believe to -- possible to reduce this debt for each person as low as we can. if you are a student today the government should not make money on your student interest loans. they shouldn't make money.
if you're qualified and able to go to college, especially if you're like the gentleman from pennsylvania or myself and you were the first person in your family to go to college, we should reduce every barrier to college because it is part of achieving that american dream of starting a family, owning a home buying a new automobile and saving for a secure retirement. i thank the gentleman from connecticut for his help this evening and coming down as a special cameo guest appearance. i also thank the gentleman from pennsylvania for again being part of our future forum. you can tweet at us at #futureforum and we'll continue this conversation until we address what is the greatest moral crisis of our generation, student loan debt. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced
policy of january 6 2015, the chair recognizes the gentleman from connecticut, mr. larson, for 30 minutes. mr. larson: i request unanimous consent to address the house and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. larson: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm honored to be here this evening and to talk about and to follow two distinguished colleagues from california and pennsylvania who spoke with great eloquence about the future. and who were addressing the issue of student loans and student loan dead debt that
we're experiencing all across the country. this evening, i am here to discuss social security. now, currently before the ways and means committee, we are addressing the issue of social security that as everybody knows not only covers old age and survivorship but also disability. that fund is due to ex-spire in 2016 if -- to expire in 2016 if congress does not paycheck action. due to be cut severely and have an impact on so many americans. and yet all across this country and frankly on a bipartisan basis on the committee and from without the committee, people are talking about coming up with solutions for social security, and that's why we've introduced
the social security 2100 act. why 2100? well, because we want to make sure that the program of social security which by law is required to make sure that it is solvent for 75 years in fact is. and that's what our proposal does. but i want to talk about this in terms of a pragmatic practical, commonsense path forward to make sure that social security is not only there for seniors who are currently receiving it, but for future generations as well. social security is uniquely the most indispensable plan that the
government has been committed to. we have a slide that i'd like to put up and that demonstrates exactly how indispensable social security is. today, 2/3 of seniors rely on social security for the majority of their income. think about that for a moment. of all the people that you know of all the retirees that you're associated with 2/3 of them rely on social security for a majority of their income. the median retirement account balance for all americans all americans, is $2,500.
ask yourself america, is there anyone that could sustain themselves or a family or a spouse with $2,500 in their retirement account and savings? only 14% of private sector workers are participating in defined benefit pension. what does that mean? that means that 86% of americans are not. and so what we're faced with in the united states congress really isn't a social security problem because we all know that social security works. social security has never missed
a payment. and social security is there to both help people who are disabled, to help the spouse and the children who are survivors after an untimely death, and it is there in retirement and serves as a pension, as i said before, almost exclusively for 2/3 of all of america. so simply stated, it makes no sense at all to cut social security. it makes no sense at all to raise the age of social security . since 2008 and the great
recession, and the devastation that so many americans went through, people who had worked hard and played by the rules and invested their none 401k's, well, the reality is that they saw their 401k become a 101k. and so it's long overdue for congress to come together in a nonpartisan way to fully address this issue. at the start of the session, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle developed a rule. i commend them for this rule. the rule says that you can't just address simply disability with respect to the social security trust fund.
you have to address both disability and old age and survivors' benefits. collectively. that's the way the program has always been addressed. and i commend them for underscoring what is a retirement crisis and why we need to take these bold steps. i say retirement crisis. can we have the next slide? because you saw the statistic before where only 14% of the private sector workers are participating in benefit contribution. well, that simply cannot sustain us. what this particular chart shows is that more seniors than ever are also paying taxes on their social security benefit.
so we have this retirement crisis where people are retiring, 2/3 of americans are retiring with just about -- social security is their own means of moving forward. their only means of sustaining themselves. so to further compound that problem, the way the social security act was changed in 1983, has now found us in a situation where taxable income for a single person over $25,000 is subject to being taxed. and $32,000 for a motherried couple. and this is only -- for a married couple. and this is only escalating as more and more baby boomers retire into the system.
for example in 1998, that was not that long ago 26% of all seniors came under this law. and were taxed under the current law. just last year, in 2014, that figure rose to 49% and it's only growing. we need to address this issue. why? because more seniors out of necessity are finding themselves working, working to make up for the loss that they incurred from 2008 forward in their 401-k's and in their investment portfolio. working to make ends meet.
one thing seniors understand, and i think america understands, is this. social security is not an entitlement. certainly you're entitled to social security payments, but why? you're entitled to them because they're the insurance that you paid for. it's the earned compensation that people through the dearth of their hard work and sweat of their brow, have put into a system. a system -- the system is called fica. the federal insurance contribution act. those contributions have been made by all americans. and as i said earlier remain
the bulk work for the nation's retirement program and the safety net that prevents seniors from retiring into poverty. that allows them to exist. and so this is a time to focus on strengthening the social security program. this is the time we should be talking about expanding the social security program. because of the retirement crisis that we find ourselves in. not for lack of contribution, not for lack of effort. but because of the real economic conditions most families have found themselves in. so that's why we introduced the social security 2100 act. so what does it do?
well, first and foremost, it doesn't raise the national debt at all. it's completely paid for. and we have -- how do we know this? because we have an act wearl report -- actuarial report. the chief actuary for social security has determined that it exceeds the 75-year limits in terms of its solvency, so that social security will not only be here now, tomorrow and well into the future justin bieber will be 106 years old and social security will still be there for him. and for those of his generation as well. it is that important and vital -- it is that important and vital a program for our nation why it needs our very specific
and direct focus and attention. with so many relying on social security, we all also need to expand its benefits -- we also need to expand its benefits. we're proposing a modest 2% increase across the board. but we're also proposing what senior citizens know already. the system that we have of calculating the coala is inadequate and doesn't work. an most importantly it doesn't reflect what seniors actually pay. what they actually have to go through in terms of the cost of heating their homes, of buying prescription drugs, of paying for the escalating costs of food and heat and energy. and so we've devised a system endorsed widely by groups that embrace what we call c.p.i. -- cpie, consumer price index
based on the actual costs of the elderly. e standing for elderly in this circumstance. making sure that there are sufficient amounts of money that are there to provide for our senior citizens. the next thing that we do also is to make sure that nobody can retire into poverty. so we raise the minimum benefit to 125% 125% of poverty. which should amount to, in so many cases, that the lower end of the economic scale of a 50% increase in benefit for the poorest amongst us. when i say poor, i'm talking about working poor. people who have pooled into this system again. this is not an entitlement this is the earned compensation
. this is the insurance that so many have already paid for. and why this has become so important and so vital. and we also provide a tax cut for 11 million working seniors. let me repeat that again. we provide a tax cut for 11 million seniors. how do we do that? as we said earlier, people out of necessity have found themselves in this system, found themselves in a position where in retirement they're finding themselves working. and they work hard for their money. but, as i said earlier, if they're single and their combined incomes are more than $25,000, they are taxed. if they're a couple and their
combined income is $32,000, they're taxed. these numbers are easily reached and are being exceeded and that's why we're recommending the tax cut. why raising those limits and providing those working seniors and the value added they bring to all of our communities with the break that they need so that they can sustain themselves and also continue to pay their way in retirement with the benefits that they've earned with the benefits that they've paid for but haven't kept pace with, the economic times. it provides across-the-board benefit increase for 2% -- by of 2% for every senior. and it improves the cost of living adjustments by going to cpie, as i said before.
a new minimum benefit to ensure that no one who is paid into -- who has paid into the system retires into poverty, is flat-out fair. so, you may ask, how do you pay for this? certainly at the outset of this, we made the boast that this is solvent into the next century. beyond the 75 years that's required. signed off by the social security chief actuary who has determined the solvency of the program. how do we do this? first and foremost we say that we ought to increase the contribution to the fund by 1%. now 1% may not seem like a lot. but when you have the whole country contributing well, in fact it is. so, even at that 1% level though we believe that
especially dealing in the times that we are today that we ought to phase that in over a 25-year period. what does that mean? what that means is that for a worker who's making $50,000 a year, for 50 cents a week, as part of his or her contribution , for a mere 50 cents a week they get the most valuable governmental program in the history of this nation. a program that keeps people out of poverty the program that for more than 2/3 of them is the only retirement vehicle that they'll have the program that's also there in disability and for survivors' benefits. we have so many members in this
body who can tell their stories about how they would not have made it without social security . both the chairman of the ways and means committee paul ryan and probably one of the foremost authorities on the issue richie neal of massachusetts benefited from social security. it made it possible for their mothers to help them and their families into college and beyond. and look how successful both of them have been. this is america's story. this is about america coming together. and that's why around modest pragmatic, straightforward proposals that don't shy away from the cost but address it
head-on, address it head-on in a simple pragmatic commonsense manner. these aren't taxes. these are contributions that people are making and they are receiving a direct benefit from . it is unique amongst all of the programs that we have. we are also asking along with the 1% increase phased in over 25 years, which amounts to .05% or 50 cents a week, for someone earning $50,000 or more less if you're earning less, a little bit more if you're earning more, we're also asking the top .4% to pay the same
rate as everyone else. as you may know, social security is taxed currently only up to $11,000. after that people stop paying -- $118,000. after that people stop paying into the system. what we're say something that listen, the country's going through some difficult times. people, especially people bho work hard and play by the rules, the working class, the middle class who is suffering under this we ought to give them a little bit of a break, so not until $400,000 do we start taxing social security again. excuse me asking those who are paying into the system to pay the same rate as everybody else. at that level. so only .4% we ask to pay to
make this fund in conjunction with raising the percentage by 1% solvent for the next 75 years and beyond. . we keep social security strong for generations to come, and that's why this is such a vital and important benefit for this great nation of ours. at the end of the day, what is -- what has made our country great, going back to those first settlers who all gathered together to help one another raise their homes and their barns and plow and sow and reap the benefits of their fields americans have rallied to come together, rallied with one another from the time 13
colonies formed a union to the day of our 50 states. our states are unique, our states all have special qualities, but the one quality that we all share is that we are americans. social security is america's program. it's what roosevelt recognized, as did the congresses back then, the importance of dealing in our system of entrepreneurialism and capitalism and risk taking, that that gives us an unbelievable strength in a global and world economy. but it has to be balanced off with the value and the notion that if you work hard and play by the rules that your nation is there for you as well. and that you can't retire into poverty after working all your
life. that some calamity or misfortune a disability a tragic death, can't ruin you or your family because it's part of a larger family the united states of america. god bless you, god bless america, thank you for listening to this presentation, we hope -- we have 56 original co-sponsors of the bill and we know all across this country the more we talk about this straightforward commonsense, practical solution to social security americans are going to require that congress steps up to the plate and meets its responsibility and obligation to make sure that no senior no individual, can
retire into poverty and the system that has work sod extraordinarily well for every american is there not only today and tomorrow but well into the future without raising the national debt and only calling upon americans to do what they've done traditionally. contribute to a program that guarantees a secure retirement and pension and benefits that they will reap throughout a lifetime. thank you so much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. does the gentleman have a motion? mr. larson: you moan the motion that everybody here has been waiting for? yes i move that the house now do adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. the question is on the motion to adyourn. -- adjourn.
vigorous debate and especially to thank the staff of the budget committee. as for the republican budget itself, nothing has changed since we began the debate yesterday to make it any better. it is the wrong direction for america. you know, madam speaker when we gather here today, there's good news and bad news and some very bad news. the good news is the economy's been picking up. more americans are going back to work. not everything's rosie. we got a long way to go -- rosy. we got a long way to go. the chair: the committee will be in order. the gentleman is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam speaker. i was saying there is some good news in the economy. more americans are going back to work. we got a long ways to go, but the trends are in the right direction. the bad news is that americans are working harder than ever, but a lot of them feel like they're running in place and many falling behind.
this is not a new problem, it's a chronic problem. we have seen worker productivity in this country go up and up and up over the last several decades. but that additional hard work but that additional work and productivity hasn't translated to higher wages for most americans. they have seen flat paychecks. so if it's not going to higher paychecks for most workers, where is it going? it's gone disproportionately to the folks at the very, very top. they've been doing great. but others are falling behind. we had some good news after the election. the speaker of the house and the republic leader said they understood this issue. they both wrote they were looking forward to helping struggling, middle class americans and looking forward to dealing with wage stagnation. the very bad news for the country, madam speaker is when
you look at this republican budget, it turns out they were just kidding because this republican budget is very hard on hard working americans and those looking to find a job. it says one message, work even harder, take home even less. it does absolutely nothing to increase the take home pay of workers or increase their wages. it will increase the tax burden on millions of working families, amazingly it eliminates eliminates the college tax deduction, it increases the costs for working americans by getting rid of the bump up in the child tax credit, gets rid of the bump up in the make work pay earned income tax credit and for students, it makes college much more expensive. they actually increase -- the chair: the committee is not in order.
the gentleman deserves the right to be heard. members will please take their conversations off the floor. the gentleman is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you madam speaker this republican budget actually increases the cost of going to college. it increases the cost of student loans even as we hit over $1 trillion in student debt. it eliminates $90 billion worth of pell grants. for seniors, they will immediately see higher prescription drug costs, by reopening the doughnut hole. they will immediately see higher co-pays for preventive care and seniors in nursing homes will see much worse care as they cut $900 billion from medicaid. now while this budget squeezes working families and students and seniors, it paves the way for the romney-ryan tax cut plan. tax -- cut tax rates for folks
at the very top on the theory somehow that's going to trickle down and boost the economy. a theory that crashed in the real world under president bush when incomes for folks at the top went up, but everybody else fell behind. and while it makes life harder on working americans right now it also disinvests in the future of america. it dramatically cut ours investment in early education and k through 12. it dramatically cuts our investment in innovation and research that has helped power our economy. it assumes the transportation trust fund will begin to run dry in a month and a half and construction jobs will come short in a few months. the one thing it doesn't cut is any of the special interest tax breaks for the purpose of reducing the deficit. not one. not for corporate jets. in fact, today, the ways and means committee worked to provide a big tax break for 5,500 american families.
with average 75% of them have $20 million estates. so they didn't want to touch that for the purpose of reducing the deficit system of they don't cut a single tax break. and despite all this disinvestment in america, here's the thing. the budget never balances. it doesn't come close. look at the "usa today" editorial. they're not a partisan paper. they said it's pure fantasy to claim that this balances. so it doesn't balance. but it does disinvest in america. we can do a lot better. we can do a lot better than a budget that continues to break the rules for the -- rig the rules for the folks that already made it and make life harder for everybody else. let's reject this republican budget and let's get started back to work for the american people. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia is
recognized. mr. price: thank you, madam chair. it has been said that budgets are about visions and about tissue and that they're a moral document and they are. budgets are -- what's our vision? we believe in promoting the greatest amount of opportunity. and the greatest amount of success and the greatest number of americans so that the greatest number of american dreams can be realized. and doing so in a way that demonstrates real hope and real compassion and real fairness. without washington picking winners and losers. many of our friends here on this floor have talked about budgets being a moral document, and they are. so let me ask, madam chair where is the morality in trapping disadvantaged people in a web of welfare programs that discourage self-sufficiency and instead shackle them to government dependency. where is the morality, madam chair new york committing
retirees to a health coverage program that's going bankrupt, that can't keep its promises if its so-called protectors keep blocking reform? where is the morality, madam chair new york forcing low income people into second rate health programs in which many can't get appointments and doctors are grossly underreimbursed by the government. where is the morality, madam chairman new york stifling medical innovation and preventing new treatments from reaching patients because of ever-expanding washington bureaucracy and read tip? -- red tape? where is the morality in tying students to crippling debt and program loan thoss drive up tuitions. and where is the the morality in heaping debt on future generations because today's policymakers refuse to stop overspending? those are only a few examples of the regrettable consequences of well-intentioned government
sponsored compassion. this republican budget aims to break that pattern. it's not about cutting programs. it's about saving and strengthening programs to ensure a sustainable safety net for those who need it while encouraging and helping others sustain themselves. the most truly compassionate thing that one can do for another. that's the morality of this budget. what does this budget do? it balances in less than 10 years without raising taxes. reduces spend big over $5.5 trillion. repeal os -- obamacare and the independent payment advisory board. ensured a strong defense, makes sure we save and strengthen and secure medicare and medicaid. we restore federalism and provide greater opportunity and greater choices for individuals in our states across this nation and we cut waste and corporate
welfare. these are positive solutions for the american people. a balanced budget for a stronger america. i encourage a yes vote so that we can get this economy rolling again and i yield back the balance >> the house today completed work on the 2016 federal budget blueprint>>. it was mostly a partyline vote, with 17 republicans voting against the plan. rebecca chiffon tweeted out "th those who voted against the. the senate proposes version tomorrow. ahead of the fbi spoke about some of the challenges the u.s. faces combating domestic terrorism. the hearing is next on c-span. then, the price and afghanistan addresses congress. later, president obama marks the
anniversary of the health care law. >> here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span2 saturday at 10:00 p.m. eastern government housing policies caused the 2008 financial crisis and then it could happen again. sunday at 5:00, jeffrey sachs on combating global issues like poverty and environmental decay. saturday morning on c-span3 a discussion on the last major speeches of abraham lincoln and martin luther king jr. then, in the 1865 meet the press interview with martin luther king, jr. find our complete television schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. called us, e-mail us, or send us
a tweet. join the c-span conversation like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> next, fbi director james combing testifies about the budget priorities at the bureau. the fbi is requesting an additional $20 million for cyber security and i.t. infrastructure. john culberson chairs the appropriations subcommittee hearing. >> the subcommittee will come to order. it is a privilege to have with us the director of the fbi, jim call me. -- jim comey. before we start i would like to take a moment to recognize our newest member from mississippi.
we are delighted to have you with us, steve. i know under the circumstances you would rather not be. we are glad to have you. we are pleased to have with us the chairman of the committee. we are going to go ahead and crank it up. this is particularly appropriate today to have you with us, because the 9/11 commission has issued its findings this morning, and we will talk about that today. we are privileged to have you with us here in front of our subcommittee to submit your budget request. it is a very important, complex critical mission that the fbi has performed. on the subcommittee over the years we have helped the fbi facilities mission -- fbi fulfill its mission.
it is a vital law enforcement effort, and as you mentioned i knew this instinctively when you made the connection -- once the criminal's got a hold of automobiles across state lines and someone could hold up a bank in three different states at the same day, it suddenly made the role of the fbi in fighting crime very important. your role has only grown over the years particularly in light of the growing danger of cybercrime the ongoing cyber warfare against the united states. your role in fighting human trafficking is vitally important. we have a responsibility to help make sure you were able to do your job and be sure that our
constituents tax dollars are wisely spent. we want to be sure in the budget request that you submit today on behalf of the fbi and the president that the subcommittee -- we want to be certain that we have scrubbed your budget and done everything we can to make certain that our constituents hard-earned tax dollars are wisely and prudently spent. we face tremendous pressures in this very difficult budget year. the report that was issued this morning by the 9/11 commission, we are pleased to see the progress the fbi has made in transforming the office in light of the continuing challenges posed by terrorism. i would particularly thank the members of that commission with georgetown university. this commission was put together
-- the report is comforting to see the progress that the fbi has made in transforming itself in light of the 9/11 attacks. we will be working through some tough questions in today's hearing, mr. director, and we will make sure the investments we make have a real impact on national security, reducing crime. we deeply appreciate your service to the nation and i would like to recognize -- >> i thank the chairman, and thank the director for being with us today. you said recently that we have in every single state the bureau has active investigations around terrorism. obviously, it is a major concern, even the activities taking place in all parts of the world. part of the big discussion was
whether or not -- how we recalibrate ourselves to deal with these challenges. here i was about catching people after they have done something wrong and in the case of terrorism it is a different approach where you are trying to prevent something catastrophic from happening. by people who, in many instances, have no desire to get away. it is a much different circumstance. it will be interesting as we talk about cybercrime, which is a big deal, and a lot of these other issues -- obviously, this is something that from a national government perspective the decision of the commission was that we should not have a terrorism only entity, that the fbi was quite capable of dealing with this challenge, and the bureau has proven today. but you also faced criticism
from some of the processes you had to utilize which in some cases is the question of whether or not people are espousing ideas for taking action. you know where the line falls. i will be interested in your comments, your budget will do everything necessary to make sure that you have the support needed to protect the country. you are not going to protect the fbi -- you will have the fbi protect the nation. i will be looking forward to your comments on the subjects i have raised. >> thank you. we recognize mr. rogers from kentucky. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. director, welcome. i was looking at your resume, your work record. prosecutor.
i did that for 11 years, myself, on the state level. so i commend you for your education and your experience in that regard. pardon my raspy throat. the chanted rightly said that the fbi has a critical mission protecting homeland. frankly, the charge to the fbi has changed dramatically over the last decade or so. when i first came to congress in 1981, we were focused on catching armed robbers and all of that. but now it is such a sophisticated and complicated new charge that you have, dealing with counterterrorism,
hostile foreign intelligence agencies espionage domestic and foreign cyber threats. cyber is a new word. it is a new challenge. and of course, the traditional caching of crooks and these in dangerous criminals here at home, particularly drug-related. especially prescription pill taxes that cdc says is a national epidemic. you have a hefty load. we are going to try and give you what we can afford to help you fight all of these charges. and it won't be enough.
but there is a limit on what we can appropriate. we are confronting an extremely difficult budgetary climate here. we are debating today on the floor the budget, which is severe and strict and stays with in the sequestered levels. so we are not dealing with a lot of new money, hardly any. it is extremely important for you and others like your agency, which rely so heavily on intelligence information to leverage and maximize the partnerships towards the local state, and international level to ensure that every penny the taxpayer spends is targeted, efficient, and effective. last week, i visited with the -- in france.
my second visit with them. in the last several years, that agency has grown. when i was that first time, 10 or 15 years ago the difficulty i saw at that time at our agencies were not participating in interpol. now they are. it is imperative that we continue that work with interval, -- with interpol. you have been taking strides in recent years to streamlined and optimize -- streamlining and optimize your intelligence components, but i think we can all agree that much work is still to be done there. last year, you requested and we granted permission to restructure the fbi's intelligence program. the more seamlessly integrate --
two more seamlessly integrate intelligence operations. then i hope you can provide us with an update on those efforts. particularly, as we all begin to assess the report evaluating the fbi's implementation of the 9/11 commission recommendation. finally, i want you to provide the committee with some information about how the bureau is working to combat the threat of homegrown, domestic extremism. isis has demonstrated very sophisticated recruiting techniques through the internet and social media. by some accounts, as many as 20,000 fighters have traveled from 90 countries to fight in syria, including some 150 from the u.s.. it is imperative that we work to
prevent the radicalization and recruitment of american citizens who could later return to the u.s. and cause us harm. i know the fbi has an important role to play in that regard. you would like to hear about it. -- we would like to hear about it. mr. director, thank you for your work and your dedication to your country. >> thank you. director comey i appreciate your service to the country. thank you for being here today and we will submit a written testimony in its entirety as part of the record without objection, and welcome your testimony today. to the extent you can summarize it we would be grateful. we look forward to hearing from you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will be very brief and i want to start by thanking you for
your support of the fbi over many years. the fbi's budget request for 2016 is about maintaining the capabilities you have given us, which is mostly people. the magic of the fbi is its folks. 70% of the budget goes to analysts and surveillance specialists, and my goal is to be a good steward of the taxpayers money. we have asked for two small enhancements -- one that relates to cyber and the other that relates to our efforts to integrate better our systems with the rest of the intelligence committee. we are about sustaining what you have already given us and you have supported the fbi in ways that we are extremely grateful for. the threats that we face are well known to this committee and you alluded to them in your remarks. counterterrorism remains our top priority.
counterterrorism has changed dramatically. they have changed in the 18 months i have been on this job. the shift has been the growth of the group that called themselves the islamic state from a safe haven in syria and portions of the iraq. they are issuing a siren song to troubled souls that travel to these so-called caliphates, or if you can't travel, kill someone where you are. that song goes out into social media and it is consumed by people who are hard to see. they are in the basement or space and consuming poison. increasingly the focus is on people in uniform