H.Res. 423

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 112.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Graves).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Guinta.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I will yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Black), a member of the Budget Committee.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney), a member of the Budget Committee.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland).

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Labrador).

At this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), a member of the Budget Committee.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Let me just try to give, in a nutshell, the economic vision the minority leader just gave us. It kind of works like this:

Take more money from communities, from families, from small businesses and send it to Washington; swish it around the bureaucracy; make the decisions here; then, through trickle-down government, try to create jobs from government; borrow more money if that's not enough; then print more money if that's not enough over at the Federal Reserve; and we can make jobs in government.

It doesn't work. We've been trying this. Look at where we are today. Our debt is bigger than our economy. Look at the common theme we've seen before us. This budget, the House Democratic budget, has a $1.7 trillion tax increase; the President's budget, a $2 trillion tax increase; the CBC budget, a $6 trillion tax increase; and least, but not last, the Progressive budget has a $6.7 trillion tax increase. Is that for deficit reduction? No. It's for more spending.

The House Democratic budget has a $4.6 trillion spending increase; the CBC budget, a $5.2 trillion spending increase; the President's budget, a $5.2 trillion spending increase; and the Progressive Caucus Budget, a $6.6 trillion spending increase.

It is clear, they want you taxed more so they can spend more, and they never, ever balance the budget and they send us off a debt cliff.

This debt crisis is the most predictable crisis we've ever had in the history of this country, and we've got to stop this notion that we can just keep taking more and more and more from families and businesses to spend us deeper into debt. It doesn't work.

With that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the House Democratic substitute.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me just start off by thanking all of the staff and the minority and their staff for the hard work.

I want to congratulate Mr. Van Hollen for bringing his substitute to the floor. The minority does not need to do that, and I think that it is good for the process and the system that they do that.

In particular, I want to thank our Budget Committee staff: Alex Stoddard, Andy Morton, Austin Smythe, Charlotte Ivancic, Conor Sweeney, Courtney Reinhard, David Logan, Dennis Teti, Dick Magee, Eric Davis, Gerrit Lansing, Jane Lee, Jenna Spealman, Jim Herz, Jon Burks, Jon Romito, Jose Guillen, Justin Bogie, Marsha Douglas, Matt Hoffmann, Nicole Foltz, Paul Restuccia, Stephanie Parks, Steve Spruiell, Ted McCann, Tim Flynn, and Vanessa Day.

I also want to thank our personal office staff and the people who are over there at the Ford Building that not everybody sees but who work for the Congressional Budget Office. I had the privilege to meet with them last December while they were busy putting the payroll tax numbers together.

This year, the President's budget came late. Easter came early. Everyone was crunched. We worked them overtime, very hard. Now, we don't always like the estimates they necessarily give us, but I want to thank them for their dedication and their professionalism in making this process work.

With that, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Paul Ryan Personal Office Staff

Allison Steil, Andy Speth, Chad Herbert, Danyell Tremmel,

Joyce Meyer, Kevin Seifert, Megan Wagner, Nathan Schacht,

Sarah Peer, Smythe Anderson, Susie Liston, Teresa Mora,

Tricia Stoneking, Lauren Schroeder, Casey Higgins, Aubrey

Yanzito, Rick Jacobson.

CBO Staff

Adam Talaber, Adam Wilson, Adebayo Adedeji, Alan van der

Hilst, Alexandra L. Minicozzi, Allison Percy, Amber G.

Marcellino, Amy E. Petz, Andrea K. Noda, Andrew Stocking, Ann

Futrell, Anna E. Cook, Annette W. Kalicki, Athiphat

Muthitacharoen, Aurora K. Swanson, Avi Lerner, Barbara

Edwards, Barry Blom, Benjamin R. Page, Bernard C. Kempinski.

Brianne B. Hutchinson, Bruce G. Arnold, Carla Tighe Murray,

Caryn Rotheim, Chad M. Chirico, Chad Shirley, Charles

Pineles-Mark, Charles Whalen, Chayim Rosito, Christi Hawley

Anthony, Christian K. Howlett, Christina Vu, Christine M.

Bogusz, Christopher Murphy, Christopher Williams, Christopher

Zogby, Courtney Griffith, Cynthia R. Cleveland, Damien Moore,

DaMischa Phillip.

Daniel Frisk, Daniel S. Hoople, Darren Young, Dave Hull,

David A. Brauer, David Arthur, David Austin, David B. Newman,

David C. Gaffney, David D. Jackson, David E. Mosher, David

Rafferty, David Torregrosa, David Weiner, Dawn Sauter Regan,

Deborah A. Kalcevic, Deborah Kilroe, Deborah Lucas, Denise

Jordan-Williams, Doug Elmendorf, Dwayne Wright.

Ed Harris, Edward (Sandy) Davis, Edward C. Blau, Elias

Leight, Elizabeth Bass, Elizabeth Cove Delisle, Ellen C.

Werble, Emily Holcombe, Eric J. Labs, Ernestine McNeil,

Ernestine McNeil, Esther Steinbock, Felix Reichling, Frances

M. Lussier, Francesca Castelli, Frank J. Sammartino, Frank S.

Russek, Gregory Acs, Gregory H. Hitz, Heidi Golding, Holly

Harvey, Jamease Miles.

James A. Langley, James Baumgardner, James Johnson, Janet

F. Airis, Janet Holtzblatt, Janice M. Johnson, Jared

Brewster, Jason Wheelock, Jean P. Hearne, Jeanine Rees, Jeff

LaFave, Jeffrey Kling, Jeffrey M. Holland, Jennifer C.

Gravelle, Jennifer Smith, Jessica Deegan, Jessica S. Banthin,

Jimmy Jin, J'nell L. Blanco, Joanna (Jodi) Capps.

Joe Miller, John H. Skeen III, Jonathan A. Huntley,

Jonathan A. Schwabish, Jonathan P. Morancy, Joseph Evans Jr.,

Joseph Kile, Joshua Shakin, Joyce M. Manchester, Juan M.

Contreras, Juann H. Hung, Judith Cromwell, Julia M.

Christensen, Julia Mitchell, Julie H. Topoleski, Julie

Somers, Justin Humphrey, Justin R. Falk.

Kalyani Parthasarathy, Kate Kelly, Kathleen FitzGerald,

Kathleen Gramp, Kent R. Christensen, Kevin Perese, Kim J.

Kowalewski, Kim P. Cawley, Kirstin B. Nelson, Kurt

Seibert, Lara E. Robillard, Larry Ozanne, Leah C. Mazade,

Leigh S. Angres, Leo K. Lex, Linda Bilheimer, Linda

Schimmel, Lisa Ramirez-Branum, Loretta Lettner, Lori B.

Housman, Lyle Nelson.

Majid Moghaddam, Marika Santoro, Marin A. Randall, Marion

C. Curry, Mark Booth, Mark E. Sanford, Mark J. Lasky, Mark P.

Hadley, Mark T. Grabowicz, Martin von Gnechten, Mary M.

Froehlich, Matthew Goldberg, Matthew Pickford, Matthew

Schmit, Maureen Costantino, Megan E. Carroll, Melinda B.

Buntin, Melissa Merrell, Michael Bennett, Michael Levine,

Michael S. Simpson, Mitchell A. Remy, Molly W. Dahl, Monte

Ruffin.

Nabeel A. Alsalam, Nancy A. Fahey, Natalie J. Tawil, Nathan

T. Musick, Noah P. Meyerson, Noelia J. Duchovny, Paige Piper/

Bach, Pamela Greene, Patrice L. Gordon, Patrice L. Watson,

Paul Burnham, Paul Jacobs, Paul Masi, Paula D. Brown, Perry

C. Beider, Peter H. Fontaine, Philip C. Webre, Priscila

Hammett.

R. Derek Trunkey, Rae Wiseman, Raymond J. Hall, Rebecca

Rockey, Rebecca V. Yip, Robert A. Sunshine, Robert G.

Shackleton Jr., Robert McClelland, Robert W. Arnold, Robert

W. Stewart, Rod Goodwin, Romain Parsad, Ron Gecan, Ronald L.

Moore, Ryan G. Miller.

Sam Papenfuss, Santiago Vallinas, Sarah Ammar, Sarah

Anders, Sarah Jennings, Sarah Puro, Shane Beaulieu, Shannon

Mok, Sharon Broderick, Sharon Corbin-Jallow, Sheila Campbell,

Sheila M. Dacey, Sherry Snyder, Simone Thomas, Stephanie

Burns, Stephanie Cameron, Stephanie M. Ruiz, Stephen P.

Rentner, Steven A. Weinberg, Stuart A. Hagen, Sunita C.

D'Monte, Susan Willie, Susanne S. Mehlman.

T.J. McGrath, Tamara Hayford, Terry M. Dinan, Theresa A.

Gullo, Thomas B. Bradley, Tiara P. MizeIle, Valentina

Michelangeli, Vi Nguyen, Virginia Myers, Wendy Edelberg,

Wendy Kiska, William J. Carrington, William Ma, William

Randolph.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished majority whip, Mr. McCarthy.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader of the House, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of the time.

Mr. Chairman, we are bearing witness to history this week. Across the street, we are witnessing what could be the end of bureaucratic- controlled health care. What we are on the verge of witnessing is a powerful reaffirmation of the American idea, and we are finally having the debate we need to have.

Our rights come to us naturally, they come from God and nature, and not from government. This health care law is the latest and perfect example of the notion that government is now needed to grant us new rights. And if that is the case, then government has authority to ration, to regulate and to redistribute exactly how we exercise these new rights, such as health care. And if these new government-granted rights conflict with our constitutional rights and liberties, well, then, such is the sacrifice needed in the name of progress, or so the thinking goes.

Across the street, we are witnessing what could be a rejection of this line of thinking. The new health care law, which asserts unlimited power to the Federal Government to decide for Americans how they should go about getting their health care, simply is not compatible with the Constitution.

But the Justices who are considering this case, they've raised a very good point: If this is, at the end, a bureaucrat control of health care, what comes next? And if you listen to them, you may hear a pretty dim view of Congress' ability to solve this problem.

With respect, I would suggest that they take a look at what we are accomplishing here in this body today. Here, in this Chamber, we are witnessing the growing momentum of a new approach, one that maintains a critical role for government, but ultimately puts the American people in charge where they belong.

For the second year in a row, we are passing a budget that outlines a new approach to Medicare. We keep the protections that made Medicare a guaranteed promise for seniors throughout the years, but this is what we say to the bureaucrats who have mismanaged this program into bankruptcy: Enough. Your approach doesn't work. Government has never come up with the magic formula to micromanage America, let alone lower costs and improve quality. It's time to put 50 million seniors, not 15 bureaucrats, in charge of their own health care decisions.

Forcing insurance companies to compete, that's the only way to guarantee quality affordable health care for seniors that lasts for generations. That's the answer to what comes next. Let's keep building on the growing bipartisan consensus on how to improve patient-centered health care reform.

But putting our trust in Americans, it goes beyond health care. It is what this entire budget is all about. We get government bureaucrats out of the business of picking winners and losers in the economy because Americans should make their own decisions about what kind of car they drive or what kind of light bulb they use. We give power over the safety net programs to the States because we believe that governments that are closest to the people are in the best position to design programs for their unique communities, to get people on to lives of self-sufficiency and upward mobility.

When we lower tax rates by closing special interest loopholes, we're saying we in Washington don't need to micromanage people's decisions through the Tax Code. Let people keep more of their own hard-earned dollars; let them decide how to spend it. Economic growth, jobs, upward mobility, opportunity, these are what we're striving for, just like our parents did the same for us.

Mr. Chairman, it is so rare in American politics to arrive at a moment in which the debate revolves around the fundamental nature of American democracy and the social contract, but that is exactly where we are today. One approach gives more power to unelected bureaucrats, takes more from hardworking taxpayers to fuel the expansion of government, and commits our Nation to a future of debt and decline. This approach is proving unworkable in Congress, in our courts, and in our communities.

This contrast with our budget could not become clearer: We put our trust in citizens, not in the government. Our budget returns power to individuals, to families, to communities.

As these choices become clear, today's budget is a vote of confidence for the American experiment. We think that putting our trust in the American people will renew their trust in us. We think Americans should control their destinies, and we trust them to make the right choices about the future of our country.

Mr. Chairman, we think America is on the wrong track. We believe the President is bringing us toward a debt crisis and a welfare state in decline. We are offering the Nation a choice. We are offering the Nation a better way forward. And we are offering the Nation a plan to renew America and the American idea.

Mr. Chairman, let's have that vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We're here at a very important time for our country. As a result of extraordinary actions that have been taken over the last 4 years, and thanks to the tenacity of the American people and small businesses, we have begun to climb out of a big economic hole.

If you look at this chart right here, you'll see where we were back in January 2009, the first month President Obama was sworn in and took office. At that time, the economy was in total free fall. As a result of actions that were taken, we've begun to climb out of that hole and now we've had 24 months--consecutive months--of positive private sector job growth, creating about 4 million jobs in the economy.

We need to keep that job growth going, and that's what the Democratic alternative does. It builds on the President's proposals.

In here, we have the President's jobs plan--a plan which has been sitting in front of this body since he introduced it back in September. We took some action on the payroll tax cut. That was good. But the President has also called for a major infrastructure investment to modernize our roads and our bridges. We fund that plan, as opposed to the Republican budget which, as we've heard, slashes transportation--in fact, next year by 46 percent in spending--and which independent analysts have said will cost the economy 1.3 million jobs in 2013 and 2.8 million jobs in 2014. That is not the direction we should be going.

We need to nurture the fragile economy. We need to deal with our budget deficits in a credible way, which this does. It takes us from deficits over 8\1/2\ percent of GDP down to under 3 percent of GDP by 2015, and sustains them. And we do it in a balanced way by asking for shared responsibility.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

I have great respect for the Speaker. I would just suggest that he may call it a tough choice to provide and lock in another round of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans while cutting Medicaid by $800 billion, a full one-third, by the year 2022. Two- thirds of that money goes to seniors in nursing homes and disabled individuals. I don't know if it's a tough choice. It's certainly the wrong choice. And that's what this debate is all about. It's not about whether we reduce our deficits, but how.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Democratic Caucus, Mr. Larson.

Mr. Chairman, I do think the focus should be on our children and on the future, and that's why our budget does not do some of the things the Republican budget does do, which is, for example, say that kids who have preexisting conditions, whether it's diabetes or asthma, get insurance. We make sure that those kids can't be excluded because of preexisting conditions. They don't. We make sure that the interest rates on student loans don't double this July, as their budget would allow, because we think it's important that those students have an opportunity to get the education to get ahead and succeed.

So I hope we will continue to focus on that question as we debate the choices that are being made in this budget.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Yarmuth.

At this point I would reserve the balance of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm glad the gentlelady brought up the issue of health care and how these budgets impact health care.

She described their proposal as giving seniors a choice. It's interesting that they would give seniors on Medicare a choice that they don't want themselves to have, that they give Members of Congress a much better deal in health care than they would give to seniors on Medicare.

Here's what their budget would do in ending the Medicare guarantee. This blue line shows the current level of support Medicare beneficiaries get from the Medicare program, up around 90 percent. That green line right there, that's the level of support Members of Congress get from the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan. You can see it's steady; as costs go up, the support goes up proportionally. The Republican plan, that red line, is the one for seniors. That takes support steadily down relative to rising health care costs so that seniors would have to eat those rising health care costs. They bear the risk. That is a bad plan for American seniors. It's a bad plan for America.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, who has focused a lot on these issues as a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Neal.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I thought we were back to reality today instead of in the land of make-believe. Mr. Mulvaney offered an amendment yesterday that was not the President's budget. We debated that last night. I don't know why we're continuing that charade.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating).

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would just remind my colleagues that at the end of the 8 years of the Bush administration, after the tax cuts, which helped create the deficits, we ended up losing over 600,000 private sector jobs. That's the result of trickle-down economics.

The last thing we want to do is go back to those policies. The Republican budget takes us back to our policies. We invest in jobs.

With that, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Democratic leader, who's been focused on jobs, Ms. Pelosi.

Yes, I would. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, our Democratic alternative invests in the President's jobs proposal, a proposal that has been sitting here in the House of Representatives since September.

We reduced the deficit in a balanced and fair way. We make choices not to provide another tax break to the wealthiest but to say we need the combination of cuts and revenue, just like bipartisan commissions have done.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I want to start by thanking all the members of the Budget Committee, Republicans and Democrats alike. We had a very good debate in the Budget Committee. We had a good debate here on the floor. And I want to thank all our colleagues. We obviously have deep differences, but I think everybody conducted this debate in a civil manner.

I also want to thank the chairman for the way he conducted the proceedings in the committee. And to all the staff, Republican and Democratic staff, I want to thank our team, headed by Tom Kahn. Many of them are here on the floor. As I think everybody knows, they've spent many, many, many late nights working on this budget. So I salute all of them as well as the folks over at the Congressional Budget Office.

We obviously think that this budget proposed by our Republican colleagues is the wrong choice for America.

I now yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Democratic whip, my friend, our colleague from the State of Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

If I could ask how much time remains?

I thank our colleagues for a vigorous debate, and I would remind everybody that just a few years ago when the President was sworn in, our economy was in a total free fall. The bottom was falling out, we had negative 8 percent GDP, and over 800,000 jobs were being lost every month. And as a result of extraordinary actions that were taken, along with the tenacity of the American people, we have climbed out of that hole that we inherited. We have now had 24 months of consecutive private-sector job growth. Let's keep that growth going.

The budget that the President proposed, the budget that the Democrats proposed, did that. It expanded investments in jobs. The Republican budget will cut our investment in transportation next year by 46 percent when we have 17 percent unemployment in the construction industry.

Independent analysts have said that their budget will cost us 1 million jobs this year and cost us 2 million jobs next year. That's not what we need. The Congressional Budget Office has said that over one- third of our current deficit is because of underemployment. Why would we want to add to underemployment, as the Republican budget does?

Now, in the long term, we've got to get our deficits under control. The issue is not whether we need to do that, the issue is how. As the previous speaker said, the question is the choice. Our Republican colleagues overwhelmingly have signed this pledge saying they are not willing to close one tax loophole--not one penny--for the purpose of reducing the deficit. And when you say to folks making over $1 million a year, you don't have to share any more responsibility of reducing the deficit, when you say to big oil companies we're going to keep going with the taxpayer subsidies, do you know what? You've got to take out the budget on everybody else, at the expense of seniors, at the expense of middle-income taxpayers, and at the expense of important investments in our economy. And that's what their budget does. That's why it ends the Medicare guarantee.

They're proposing to give seniors a deal that's a lot worse than we have for Members of Congress--worse than the one for Members of Congress, seniors on Medicare. They cut Medicaid by $800 billion, more than one-third of the program, by 2022, putting seniors and disabled individuals at risk. They cut education investments and would allow interest rates on student loans to double this July. Those are not decisions that we make if we want a strong economy and a robust future for our children and grandchildren.

So this is all about choices, and we don't think that it's bold to provide tax breaks to millionaires while you're ending the Medicare guarantee for seniors. We don't think it's courageous to protect big taxpayer giveaways to companies that ship American jobs overseas while we're cutting investments in education, science, research, and infrastructure right here at home. We don't think it's fair to provide another round of tax cuts to folks at the very top. The Tax Policy Center says it's going to be close to $400,000 on average for people making over $1 million. We don't think it's fair to do that, financing those tax cuts by increasing taxes on middle-income Americans.

I would challenge our colleagues: show us how you make up for $4.6 trillion in lost revenue from dropping that tax rate without socking it to middle-income taxpayers? So far, Republican colleagues have been absolutely incapable of showing us that they're not shifting the burden to middle-income taxpayers.

So, Mr. Chairman, it is all about choices. Unfortunately, we didn't pass the alternative Democratic budget. Let's not make the mistake of passing this Republican budget plan. We can do better. We can do what bipartisan groups have done, take a balanced approach, cut spending and also cut the loopholes for special interests. Let's do it in a way that the American people would say brings us together, rather than apart.

So I would urge rejection of this budget. It makes the wrong choice for America. I thank the chairman, and I thank my colleagues.

Mr. Chair, I will vote today for H. Con. Res. 112, authored by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, because we have a duty to address our nation's looming fiscal obligations. Simply put, we cannot continue to kick the proverbial can down the road.

When I came to the floor to vote for last year's budget, we were $14 trillion in debt. Today, we are $15.5 trillion in debt. It is projected we could be $17 trillion in debt by the end of the year and $21 trillion in debt by 2021.

This will be our fourth straight year of trillion dollar deficits. Four straight years.

We are currently spending 10 cents of every dollar on interest to finance the debt, even though we're borrowing money at historically low rates. If we realistically assume that rates will rise, we could be spending close to 1 out of every 6 dollars to finance the debt by the end of the decade. And that is under the best case scenario.

That is money that could be going to our national defense, repairing our roads and bridges or life-saving cancer research.

In 1970, 5 percent of debt held by the public was in foreign hands. In 1990, it was 19 percent. Today, more than 40 percent of our publically held debt is in foreign hands.

Who are our bankers? Nations such as China, which is spying on us, where human rights are an afterthought, and Catholic bishops, Protestant ministers and Tibetan monks are jailed for practicing their faith, and oil-exporting countries such as Saudi Arabia, which funded the radical madrasahs on the Afghan-Pakistan border resulting in the rise of the Taliban and al Qaeda.

Quite frankly this borrowing is unsustainable, dangerous and irresponsible.

That is why I have been willing to make the hard choices to ensure a better future for our children and grandchildren. Every two years I take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. I do not sign pledges to lobbyists or special interest groups.

That is why I have been working with my colleagues, through my assignment as chairman of the House appropriations subcommittee that funds the departments of Commerce and Justice, to cut $95 billion in federal spending since the start of this Congress, including $11 billion from my subcommittee alone.

That is why I have repeatedly voted against the payroll tax holiday, which steals from the Social Security Trust Fund. The most recent extension alone took $93 billion and brought us nearly a month closer to the statutory debt limit. With just one vote in February, we practically wiped out all the $95 billion savings from the cuts enacted since Republican took back control of the House.

I have speaking out about the need to get our nation's fiscal house in order since George W. Bush was in office.

In 2006 I introduced legislation to create an independent, bipartisan commission to address our debt and deficit. I called it the SAFE Commission, short for Securing America's Future Economy. It said everything should be on the table for discussion: all entitlement spending, all domestic discretionary spending, including defense spending, and tax reform, particularly changes to make the tax code more simple and fair and to end the practice of tax earmarks that costs hundreds of billions of dollars. Congress would be required to vote up or down on the commission's recommendations, just as was done in the base closing process.

I was glad to have been joined in this effort by my good friend and colleague Jim Cooper of Tennessee. Our legislation served as the blueprint for the president's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, commonly referred to as the Simpson-Bowles Commission. I am pleased Mr. Cooper and Mr. LaTourette produced a full substitute amendment that I believe is the right way forward. I commend them for their work.

The Simpson-Bowles Commission produced a credible plan that gained the support of a bipartisan majority of the commission's 18 members. Called ``The Moment of Truth,'' the commission's report made clear that eliminating the debt and deficit will not be easy and that any reform must begin with entitlements. Mandatory and discretionary spending also has to be addressed as well other ``sacred cows,'' including tax reform and defense spending.

Had just three more members of the Simpson-Bowles Commission supported the recommendations, this plan likely would have passed the Congress and be law today. I was disappointed that the president, and his administration, walked away from the commission. The president failed the country. And the Congress has also failed. This town is dysfunctional. If the plan had advanced, we would already be on our way in getting our nation's fiscal house in order.

We have to find a solution to this debt crisis. Failure is not an option.

Congress and the president must be willing to support a plan that breaks loose from the special interests holding Washington by the throat and return confidence to the country.

Congress and the president also need to be honest with the American people and explain that we cannot solve our nation's financial crisis by just cutting waste, fraud and abuse within discretionary accounts. The real runaway spending is occurring in our out-of-control entitlement costs and the hundreds of billions in annual tax earmarks. Until we reach an agreement that addresses these two drivers of our deficit and debts, we cannot right our fiscal ship of state.

I regret that the bipartisan Cooper amendment failed. But since it did, today I'm voting for the Ryan budget.

Like last year's proposal, this budget blueprint calls for significant reductions in discretionary spending, for reduced tax rates and for the repeal of the costly health care reform law.

The plan also points out that we can no longer ignore the trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities that consume our budget. There may be disagreement on the significant changes in Medicare and Medicaid entitlement programs that he proposes, and while his plan is again silent on changes needed to reform Social Security entitlements, it does recognize that need. Mr. Ryan continues to pull back the curtain on the mandatory spending ``elephant in the room,'' which we can no longer ignore.

I want to be clear: I would prefer for this House to pass the bipartisan Cooper-LaTourette budget, which is modeled on the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles plan. Even though there were some parts that I would have liked to change, I spoke in strong support of that budget proposal and continue to believe that it is the only plan that can pass the Senate. That proposal put everything on the table, and, more importantly, sought to achieve enough deficit reductions to turn off the need for the sequester that could be so harmful to our defense capabilities. But, again, as that bipartisan proposal failed to pass, I will support the Ryan plan.

I do not agree with everything in this proposal, and will work to improve future legislation. For example, I regret that this proposal does not offer more on ways to address Social Security and tax reform efforts.

This resolution also unfairly targets the federal workforce. While there are many federal employees in the Capital region, it is worth noting that more than 85 percent of the workforce is outside of Washington.

It is also worth noting that more than 65 percent of all federal employees work in agencies that support our national defense capabilities as we continue to fight the War on Terror. The first American killed in Afghanistan, Mike Spann, was a CIA agent and a constituent from my congressional district. CIA, FBI, DEA agents, and State Department employees are serving side-by-side with our military in the fight against the Taliban.

Let's also not forget the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who are working to stop the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs across our borders.

Or the medical researchers at NIH working to develop cures for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's and autism.

Or the VA doctors and nurses treating veterans from World War II to today.

Or the FDA inspectors working to stop a salmonella outbreak. These are all federal employees.

Mr. Chair, enough is enough. It is simply wrong to claim, as the Ryan budget does, that these public servants ``have been immune from the effects of the recession.''

This budget also could be improved by providing for the needs of the most vulnerable in our society. As the Congress deals with the budget, we must always do it in a way that does not neglect the needs of the poor. Scripture (Proverbs 19:17) tells us, ``He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord.'' And in the New Testament Jesus talks a lot about the poor. Matthew 25 says that if we ignore the poor and hungry it is the same as ignoring him. But this budget resolution is an outline for future action, not an enacting piece of legislation that carries the weight of law.

The budget also seeks to shore up our defense capabilities for the next year by finding alternative savings to prevent the across-the- board cuts that are coming in January as a result of the Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction's bipartisan failure of leadership, which, regretfully, represents the larger failure of the President and both political parties.

Another example of this failure of leadership is the decision by the Senate not to even offer a budget proposal. While the Budget Control Act, BCA, does not require a new budget to establish FY 2013 spending levels, the BCA was passed with the assumption that the so-called supercommittee on deficit reduction would be successful. We need to have a robust debate in the public arena as everyone works to mitigate the harmful cuts that will result from the coming sequester. It is an abdication of responsibility for the Senate to refuse to put forth a budget.

This budget recognizes that our fiscal challenges are too great to wait until the next election. We, as elected representatives, have a duty to lead. We have a duty to put forth ideas within the public sphere and engage in debate. I'm ready to make the tough choices today. I vote for the Ryan budget so that the House can get to work.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to strongly oppose the Republicans' budget proposal. I remain committed to creating jobs, expanding health care coverage, and promoting education, but this budget signals that the Republicans do not. In fact, this budget seems designed to have devastating effects on American families and businesses, and would dramatically damage our nation's improving economy. This legislation makes significant cuts to social programs and investments in education, destroys American jobs, and represents the latest in a series of Republican attacks on Medicare.

Although our economy is recovering from years of misguided policies, many Americans are still struggling to make ends meet. Gas prices have skyrocketed in recent months. Quality health care and education are becoming more expensive for the average American. Families are fighting to save their homes from foreclosure and escape from under mountains of debt.

Instead of focusing on these important issues, Mr. Ryan and the Tea Party have developed a budget that dramatically undermines the social safety net that so many Americans depend on. I believe that budgets are reflections of our values--and it is clear from this proposal that Mr. Ryan and the Tea Party do not possess the same values as ordinary Americans.

By turning Medicare into a voucher program, this budget would effectively end Medicare as we know it, and shift thousands of dollars of health costs onto seniors. But gutting Medicare is not enough for the Republicans. The Ryan budget would also cut more than $1 trillion from Medicaid, and endanger health care coverage for over 60 million Americans, including low-income children, pregnant women, nursing home patients, and persons with disabilities.

This budget also demonstrates the Republicans' lack of commitment to investing in America's youth. By proposing to cut funding for education by 45 percent, it is clear that the Republicans do not understand the importance of investing in education, and in science, technology, engineering, and math in particular, to ensure our nation's competitiveness in the

global economy. At a time when states are drastically reducing their education budgets--including my home state, which recently cut funding for education by $5 billion--the Republicans' budget attacks critical initiatives ranging from extra reading and math help for low-income students to much-needed financial aid for college. If Mr. Ryan and the Tea Party get their way, in 2014 nearly 10 million students would see their Pell Grants fall by more than $1,000 dollars, and 200,000 children and their families would no longer be able to participate in Head Start.

In my 16 years proudly representing the people of my district, this is by far the worst piece of legislation that I have seen. Mr. Ryan and the Tea Party have once again put forward a budget to benefit the wealthy and special interests groups at the expense of middle-class Americans, seniors, veterans, and children. While this budget provides huge tax cuts for the richest one percent of Americans, it does nothing to stimulate the economy nor create jobs, and would adversely impact the Hispanic community and the residents of my district.

This budget yet again shows how out of touch the Republican Party is with the lives of ordinary Americans. Instead of focusing on creating jobs and putting Americans back to work, it extends the Bush tax cuts-- which I voted against and continue to oppose--for the wealthiest Americans, and provides millionaires and billionaires with an average tax cut of $150,000. To put this amount into perspective, $150,000 would pay for: one years' worth of savings for a senior in the Medicare prescription drug ``donut hole'' ($600); one school computer lab ($40,000); one year of medical care for a veteran returning home ($8,945); one grant for medical research on chronic diseases ($50,000); one tax credit to make a year of college more affordable ($2,500); one firefighter, police officer, or first responder kept on the job ($42,000); and one college student receiving the maximum Pell Grant ($5,550).

In today's economic climate, we don't need more subsidies for big oil and bigger tax loopholes for hedge fund managers on Wall Street. Yet, the Republicans have put forward a budget that provides huge tax cuts and subsidies for the mega-rich and corporations, while utterly failing to support vital investments in education, job training, research and development, and our nation's crumbling infrastructure.

For these reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this ideological, radical budget, and stand firm in support of job creation, health care, and education for all Americans.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Ryan, who is an outstanding Member of this body and my friend, and who is one of the most able among us, as well as Mr. Van Hollen, who has been my close friend for many years and one of the most able among us,

have just spent time thanking our staffs for the work that they have done. I share their view that our staffs have worked mightily. And, indeed, there has been much debate.

Tragically, the product we will produce today is far less than the sum of our parts in this body. It is, I would suggest to you, a product unworthy of the intellect that has been applied to it. It is a product, indeed, that I think will hurt America, not help America. It is a product that is too much politics and too little policy. It is a product of which I think this House can not be proud.

It is a product that relies on substantially undermining the security of seniors. I say that as one who has said repeatedly that in reaching a fiscally sustainable path we must deal with entitlements. We need to do so together, and we need to do so in a balanced way.

But there is no balance in this proposal. Seniors, middle class, the vulnerable, and working Americans are asked to pay the price of this agreement. And, indeed, not only are they asked to pay the price, but the best off among us is asked to do the least.

That's not the America of which we're all proud--that has worked together and sacrificed together at times, to come together to make a joint contribution to the welfare of this country.

This product is less than the sum of its parts. This product would undermine the guarantee of Medicare.

Again, we need to deal with entitlements, but not in a way, I tell my friends in this House, that undermines the guarantee of senior security as well as family security, so their children will know their parents are secure.

Ladies and gentlemen of this House, we had an agreement. I think that the gentleman from Wisconsin is an honorable man. He is my friend. I like Paul Ryan. But I am sorely disappointed, I tell my friend.

We came to having a difference of opinion on what the number ought to be for this year's budget. You had a lower number. We had a higher number. We almost took the Nation to the brink--as a matter of fact, we took it to the brink--of default.

We came to the brink of default in this great Nation, the most creditworthy Nation on the face of the Earth, and were downgraded as a result of failing to get to an agreement. But when we got to an agreement, it was an agreement. And if we are able to rely on one another's words, we ought to keep our agreements.

It simply said that 302(a), which simply means, for the public, that the dollars we were going to spend on discretionary spending this fiscal year coming would be $1.47 trillion. That's a lot of money, no doubt about it. Your side didn't like it, my side didn't like it, but we agreed on it.

That agreement is not carried out in this budget. How can we rely in the future on such an agreement? It asks seniors to pay the bill, the vulnerable to pay the bill, but not the wealthiest in America. It puts Medicare at risk and does not get us to where we want.

In fact, it adds $10 trillion, and then some magical formula that's somewhere out there, like waste, fraud, and abuse, we're going to find the money to pay for the $10 trillion in tax cuts. That's by the extension of the Bush tax cuts and the 35 to 25. Some magical way, we're going to eliminate preference items. It doesn't say which ones. It doesn't say who's going to pay the bill.

Ladies and gentlemen, we can do better. The parts in this body are very good on both sides of the aisle--good intellect, good instincts, and a love for this country. We can do better.

Let's reject this budget. Let's do some real work. Let's come together and put this country on a fiscally sustainable path without harming our people.