Tax Code Termination Act

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

No, I do not.

The gentleman is free to lead off.

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

Mr. Chairman, it would be great if we could all believe in magic.

The gentleman says that their budget closes all the tax loopholes. No tax loopholes. In fact, he says theirs is the only budget that terminates the Tax Code all together, gets rid of it.

That is interesting because, if you look at the revenue levels coming in under his budget, it is identical to the current Tax Code, every year, exactly as the Congressional Budget Office says, dollar for dollar.

In fact, I think he said he got rid of it in fiscal year 2017 or so. But, gee, the dollars keep rolling in just as they would be if you didn't get rid of the Tax Code.

And you know why?

Because they don't close any of the special interest tax breaks. It is the status quo in terms of the revenue coming in.

If we were, in fact, going to close some of those special interest tax breaks, so that we could reduce our deficits, then you wouldn't have those numbers that they have got in their budget resolution.

Now, look, we all agree that we need to impose fiscal discipline. The question all along has been, how do we do it?

Do we do it in a way where we share responsibility as Americans, or do we do it in a way where some people don't have to pay anything, which means everybody else has to get hit that much harder?

Under the Republican budget, and under this Republican study group budget even more, they protect the very wealthy. You are doing great. But at the expense of everybody else.

So the gentleman talks about more funds for the National Institutes of Health; they more than double the cuts to the National Institutes of Health from the earlier budget we saw, which, again, I would just remind our colleagues, it was the Republican chairman of the Appropriations Committee who said that the House Republican budget is draconian, that one. That is from Mr. Rogers. All right?

So now this one is doubling down on draconian. And the question for us, as a country is, what are the consequences?

What does that mean in people's lives?

Well, it means real things. It means less funds for Head Start and early Head Start. It means a big cut to K-12 education.

We have a bipartisan piece of legislation saying that Congress is already failing to meet our commitments to special ed. We asked local school jurisdictions to take on the responsibility, it was the right thing to do, to make sure every kid got a good education. That was the right thing to do.

But these guys would cut that program. So this is the wrong choice for America.

Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment reflects the priorities and values of the country. This amendment focuses on growing jobs now, making sure that we have a strong economy and making sure we significantly reduce our deficit and debt as a share of our economy over the longer term and does it in a balanced way. It does it by, for example, closing some of the special interest tax breaks that actually perversely encourage American corporations to ship American jobs overseas. We believe we should be in the business of shipping American products overseas, and this budget does invest in jobs right here at home.

Unlike the House Republican budget, we don't allow the transportation trust fund to go insolvent later this summer. Unlike the House Republic budget, we do not make deep cuts in our kids' education. We think it is important to build that ladder of opportunity. Unlike the Republican budget, we don't reopen the prescription drug doughnut hole and require seniors to pay more if they have high prescription drug costs, and we don't shred the social safety net.

Mr. Chairman, I want to also bring to the attention of the body something else that is in here. We advance fund, 100 percent, the Veterans Administration, because what we saw during the unnecessary and unproductive government shutdown last fall was that the closure began to put at risk the benefits that were being paid to our veterans. Now, we already provide for the advance funding of those health care benefits, but what we don't fund in advance are the people who have to administer them to make sure that they are delivered to our veterans on time.

So we are very pleased to have a letter here from the DAV and other veterans' groups that strongly support this provision in our budget. It is something that they have been requesting. I just want to read one of the paragraphs:

We would like to commend you for presenting an alternate

budget proposal that contains a provision for advance

appropriations to all VA discretionary programs and services,

a critically needed reform that is universally supported by

veterans' organizations and is DAV's number one priority.

So whether it is veterans, whether it is our kids' education, or whether it is making our commitment to our seniors, we choose to make sure that we fund the priorities of the country and we don't keep off- limits tax preferences for the powerful and the privileged.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is right that we do close some special interest tax breaks, but we also have about $400 billion in revenue from pro-growth immigration reform which is in this budget, which at least some of our colleagues on the Republican side recognize as a good thing.

In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has told us that one thing we could do right now to get the economy moving faster would be to pass comprehensive, bipartisan immigration reform. In fact, they say it will help reduce the deficit by close to $1 trillion over the next 20 years and generate some economic activity. So $400 billion in that revenue is from more economic activity, the kind of pro-growth activity we thought our Republican colleagues liked.

I am now very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Lee), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee, who has been focused on trying to make sure everybody in America gets a fair shake.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlelady.

Mr. Chairman, I find this newfound ideology of having to hit a particular target at a particular time interesting since 3 years ago the Republican budget balanced maybe around the year 2040. And this year, it doesn't balance if you also claim to be getting rid of the Affordable Care Act, because you have $2 trillion in revenue in savings in this Republican budget from the Affordable Care Act, the same Affordable Care Act you say you are getting rid of. You just can't have both things true at the same time.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), someone who knows a little bit about logic, a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, look, our Republican colleagues are going to have to choose and tell the American people, either they claim to have a budget that balances in 10 years or they are going to repeal the Affordable Care Act. But right now because they get rid of the entire Affordable Care Act, including the revenues and savings, they don't come close to balancing. I keep hearing balance, and the reality is that it has all that revenue from the Affordable Care Act.

The one thing we know is that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says the Republican budget will slow down the economy in the next couple years. Ours won't, in part because we make investments in our infrastructure.

At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), who is focused on making sure that this country has the modern infrastructure it needs, the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a distinguish member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, what we know is old and stale and doesn't work is trickle down economics. The idea you just give the folks at the very top a little bit bigger tax break and somehow it is going to benefit everybody else didn't work and made the deficit go up.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), a member of the Finance Committee.

Mr. Chairman I am now pleased to yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), a terrific new member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

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

It has been a good debate on the floor of the House over the last couple of days.

The question boils down to, what are our country's priorities, what are our country's values? We believe we should be focused right now on growing opportunity and growing jobs. That is what our budget does.

The Congressional Budget Office tells us that the House Republican budget will actually slow down job growth and slow down economic activity over the next couple of years.

We invest in our infrastructure to keep America going. Their budget actually has the transportation trust fund go insolvent later this year.

We continue to build ladders of opportunity so more people can prosper in this country. The Republican budget protects tax breaks for folks at the very, very top; in fact, provides millionaires with a one- third cut in their tax rate--they do that--but they cut our investment in early education, in K through 12. We actually increase, we increase our early investment education. We think our kids' future is the most important thing for the future growth of this country.

We protect our commitments to seniors. We don't reopen the prescription drug doughnut hole, we do not end the Medicare guarantee, and yes, we significantly bring down the deficits and stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio in the out years. We don't do it by playing games. We don't say we are going to get rid of the Affordable Care Act and then rely on all the revenue and all the savings from the Affordable Care Act to pretend to hit balance in the out years.

As I said earlier, we make sure we learn from our mistakes. In the 16-day shutdown, which was totally unproductive and totally unnecessary and all part of an effort to get rid of the entire Affordable Care Act, a lot of Americans got hurt, including our veterans who are on the edge. So we do in this budget what every veteran organization asked this Congress to do: we made sure we advance-fund those appropriations so that next time, God forbid, someone in this House thinks it is a good idea to shut down the government, at least those who served our country are not put at risk in terms of getting the medical and other support they need.

So yes, we invest in our veterans, we invest in our kids' future, we maintain our commitments to seniors, and we do that by asking the most powerful and the most privileged special interests to contribute a little bit more as we grow our economy through commonsense bipartisan immigration reform.

If you want an America that is going to grow and prosper as one country, where we respect our individual freedoms and liberty and entrepreneurship but also recognize that there are some things that history has taught us we do better by working together, which is what has made us a world economic power, then support the Democratic budget. If you want to continue to support and protect the special interests at the very top on some trickle down theory, that that will help everybody else, then vote for the Republican budget, because that is what they do at the expense of the rest of the country and at the expense of economic growth and prosperity for every American.

Vote ``yes'' for jobs, opportunity, and security. Vote for the Democratic budget.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I want to start by joining the chairman of the committee and thanking both the Democratic and Republican staff of the Budget Committee for their hard work and submit, for the Record, their names.

Budget Committee Minority Staff List

Sarah Abernathy

Ellen Balis

Kathleen Capstick

Zachary Cuff (Intern)

Ken Cummings

Bridgett Frey

Jocelyn M. Griffin

Tom Kahn

Najy Kamal

Andrea Leung

Sheila McDowell

Diana Meredith

Erin Miller

Kimberly Overbeek

Karen Robb

Scott Russell

Beth Stephenson

Andy Van Wye (Intern)

Ted Zegers

I would also, Mr. Chairman, like to take this opportunity, it is Chairman Ryan's last year as head of the Budget Committee, and I do want to thank him for the professional way in which he has conducted the committee.

Lest he think I am getting carried away, this is an example where process did not lead to a better product, and that is why we are here today because, unfortunately, I have to report that this House Republican budget is the worst of the Republican budgets I have seen in the last 3 years for the United States of America.

Mr. Chairman, budgets reflect the choices we make for our country. They tell the American people what we care about and what we care less about. At every juncture in this House Republican budget, they choose to protect very powerful special interests and the most wealthy in our country at the expense of everyone else and at the expense of all the other priorities. For example, they have tax cuts that actually encourage companies to ship

American jobs, not products, overseas, while our budget invests right here in the United States of America.

Now, we heard the Republican leader say we want a better economy for everybody. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that this Republican budget will slow down economic growth right now for the next couple of years, that it will reduce job growth in the next couple of years, all while doing what? Providing another windfall tax break to millionaires.

Yes, look at their budget. They want to drop the top tax rate, 39 percent to 25 percent, full 30 percent. What does that mean? $200,000 average tax break for millionaires. Who finances it in their budget? Well, math tells you middle-income taxpayers pay more. They pay $2,000 more per, average, in order to finance trickle-down economics, even though we know from experience that that was a dead end for this country.

While our Republican colleagues talk about fiscal responsibility, apparently they don't care enough about it to close one single special interest tax loophole to help reduce the deficit--not one, not a hedge fund owner, not a big oil company, not one.

And because they say hands off the most powerful and the most privileged, their budget has to come after everybody else, and it does. So it hits our kids' education, early education, K-12. College students are asked to pay more interest. In fact, they got $45 billion savings by charging college kids more interest while they are still in college and not working, again, while hands off the powerful special interests.

Seniors, seniors on Medicare see the prescription drug doughnut hole open, the safety net, again, shredded. And all for what purpose?

Now, they claim that they are going to somehow balance the budget at the end of the 10-year window. But you know what? They can't have it both ways. We have had over 50 votes here in the House of Representatives from our colleagues to repeal the Affordable Care Act. But guess what. They have got $2 trillion in this budget from revenues and savings from the Affordable Care Act.

We use some of those savings. We use those Medicare savings to strengthen Medicare.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield the final minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Democratic leader who has been a fighter for America's priorities.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), the vice chairman of the House Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), a member of the Budget Committee.

I yield myself 1 minute, Mr. Chairman.

We have had a good three days of debate here. I plan on saying more in a few moments, but I find it really interesting, I don't see much of a defense of the budget that the gentleman is offering, and more of the continually what I would call discredited attacks against ours. Our budget increases spending on average by 3.5 percent over the next 10 years instead of 5.2 percent.

We are proposing to spend $43 trillion over the next 10 years instead of the $48 trillion. This is draconian, awful, evil, terrible, hurting people.

We have seen this movie so many times over and over again. All the other side is offering is just keep doing more of the same; the same economics that we have had for the same 5 years, just keep doing more of that.

If taxing, borrowing, and spending was working, we would know by now. It is not.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 additional seconds.

That is why we need a different direction. That is why we owe the country an alternative; one that actually grows the economy, one that balances the budget and pays off the debt, one that secures retirement not with empty promises but real reforms, one that goes after waste and cronyism, one that respects people and does not offer

more and more and more and more control in Washington.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

First off, let me start off by saying to my friend from Maryland: I am glad we are having this debate, and this is the last time the two of us are doing this, and it has been a pleasure.

I also want to thank the staff. All of our staffs have put so much hard work into this. I want to thank our staff, led by our great staff director, Austin Smythe, for all that he has done. I want to thank the people over at the CBO who work really long hours producing all of these estimates so that we can write these budgets.

Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record these names to show our thanks.

House Budget Committee Majority Staff

Austin Smythe

Andy Morton

Tim Flynn

Conor Sweeney

Vanessa Day

William Allison

Brian Bolduc

Dennis Teti

Paul Restuccia

Nicole Foltz

Jon Romito

Mary Popadiuk

Jon Burks

Jim Herz

Matt Hoffmann

Ted McCann

Stephanie Parks

Justin Bogie

Shane Skelton

Gene Emmans

Kara McKee

Jenna Spealman

Donald Schneider

Alex Stoddard

Jose Guillen

Richard ``Dick'' Magee

Eric Davis

Interns: Boyd Garriott, Gabriel Krimm, and Alyssa Wootton

Personal Staff (Representative Paul Ryan, Wisconsin, 1st District)

Cameron Clark

Chad Herbert

Casey Higgins

Susie Liston

Joyce Meyer

Teresa Mora

Sarah Peer

Lauren Schroeder

Kevin Seifert

Andy Speth

Allison Steil

Tricia Stoneking

Robert Swift

Danyell Tremmel

Megan Wagner

Tory Wickiser

Interns: Harrison Balistreri, Sarah Holtz, Gretchen Wade,

and Brittney Weiland

Mr. Chairman, the differences between our budgets and our approaches could not be more clear. Let me take them one by one.

We have had a number of substitutes on the floor. There is one consistent theme from the substitutes offered by our friends on the other side of the aisle. While we are offering a budget that balances the budget and pays off the debt, they are offering a budget that never, ever balances.

They are starting with a $1.8 trillion tax increase. That is on top of the $1.7 trillion tax increase that has already occurred. They go as high as offering in the Progressive Caucus budget a $6.6 trillion tax increase.

They are offering not only a spending on autopilot going out of control today, they want to raise it higher, $791 billion in this budget to as much as $3.3 trillion in more spending. They are offering a budget to add trillions to the debt.

Now, when they say they want to raise taxes, and that is what their proposal is, again, they like to say it is just on the rich: Anybody listening, don't worry, it is not on you, it is on just these few rich people.

Here is the problem. They have a funny way of defining the rich. They have a funny way of defining it as small business. Most of our jobs come from small businesses. Those are the people who are going to get hit with this tax increase. That is where our jobs come from.

Second, we have seen this movie before, and we know what it looks like. They have already raised taxes $1.7 trillion. Look at the taxes on ObamaCare. They were supposed to be taxes on the rich. It taxes everybody. It doesn't matter how much you make. You are going to get hit with a tax: a mandate tax, a sell-your-house tax, taxes, taxes, taxes.

Are they raising all these taxes so they can pay off the debt? No--to fuel more spending.

Here is what we are proposing. Here is what the gentleman doesn't want to say. We are saying have revenue-neutral tax reform, meaning take the amount of revenues we bring into the government today, keep that same revenue, but clean up this awful Tax Code. Plug the loopholes, cancel loopholes so that we can lower tax rates for families and businesses across the board to create more jobs, more economic growth. We have already gotten the studies that tell us doing this helps a lot.

We are taxing American businesses at much higher tax rates than our foreign competitors are taxing theirs, and they are winning and we are losing. So we are saying, fundamental comprehensive tax reform, stop picking winners and losers in Washington, lower tax rates.

Second, this House Democrat budget increases spending by $740 billion above what would happen if we did nothing. That is $5.9 trillion more than our budget. They used to call this stimulus. I remember just a few short years ago all these ideas were called stimulating and stimulus. Remember, Mr. Chairman, we have done this. And guess what? Stimulus didn't work.

So now they call it investment. If you disinvest, that means you are not spending enough. An investment, just remember every time you hear the word investment, it means: tax, borrow, spend in Washington. Take money from hardworking taxpayers, borrow from the next generation, and spend more money in Washington. That means take money from businesses, take money from small businesses, take money from people creating jobs, borrow more money from China, leverage it against the next generation, spend more in Washington.

We will spend $3.5 trillion this year. Spending is slated to go above about 5.2 percent on average. We are basically saying let's get this under control; 3.5 percent is enough.

What they will also say is look at what we are doing on Medicare, all these awful things that we are doing on Medicare. We are saving it for the current generation by preserving it as is, and then we are making sure that it is there for the next generation.

Here is the dirty little secret. Look at what they have already done to Medicare. It was ObamaCare that ended Medicare as we know it, it was ObamaCare that raided $700 billion from Medicare to spend on ObamaCare, it was ObamaCare that set up this new rationing board of 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to put price controls on Medicare, which will lead to denied care for seniors.

It is the House Democrats' budget that is complicit with the Medicare trust fund going bankrupt in 2026. Our budget strengthens Medicare, saves it for this generation, and puts reforms in place so that the next generation can count on it without having 15 bureaucrats running the program.

Look at what they are proposing on national security. They track right along with the President's budget. They are proposing to cut compensation for our men and women in uniform, to hollow out our force, to cut training and readiness and structure, not to lower the deficit, but to fuel more domestic spending. So we will have an Army lower than anything we have seen before World War II, we will have a Navy smaller than what we haven't seen since before World War I, we will have an Air Force smaller than we have ever had before, not for deficit reduction, but for more domestic spending. We reject that approach.

Finally, their budget adds $4.3 trillion to our national debt. That is despite this massive tax increase. Their budget never balances, ever.

Under their plan, in 2024, the deficit will be $637 billion. At the end of the day it is just not credible.

We trust the American people to have more control over their lives. We reject this budget. Let's balance the budget, grow the economy, create jobs, and pay off our debt, and pass the House Republican budget.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the distinguished House majority leader.

I yield myself the balance of the time.

Let me first start off by saying, Mr. Chairman, you have presided over this budget for many years. You have set a great example for the rest of us. This is your last year serving, and I want to thank you for what you have done for this institution. Thank you for setting a great example.

Mr. Chairman, what this debate comes down to is a question of trust. We have offered a budget because we trust the American people. Unlike the Senate Democrats who, once again, have punted, have chosen not even to offer a budget this year, we trust the people to make an honest assessment. We trust them to make the right choice for their future.

Now, to their credit, the House Democrats have offered budgets as well. The problem is they put their trust in Washington. Every time you hear this word ``investment,'' just know what that means: take from hard-working taxpayers, borrow more money from our next generation, from other countries, and spend it in Washington.

Time and again, they are proposing to put government in the driver's seat. They have already engineered a takeover of our entire health care sector. They are overregulating our energy sector. They are depriving us of jobs. They won't even give us the Keystone pipeline.

They are proposing yet new taxes, another $1.8 trillion increase. They are proposing more cronyism. They are proposing more control for Washington, less control of our communities, less control over our businesses, less control over our lives, less control over our futures. In my respectful opinion, it is a vision that is both paternalistic, arrogant, and downright condescending.

You know, Big Government, in theory, it sounds compelling. In practice, it is totally different. Remember, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Remember, if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. Remember, if government just takes over this sector, it will lower your costs.

Big Government in practice is so different than in the theory. The results have nothing to do with the rhetoric.

We, on the other hand, trust the people. We are offering a balanced budget that pays down the debt. We are offering patient-centered solutions, so patients are the nucleus of the health care system, not the government.

We are offering a plan to save Medicare now and for future generations. We are offering a stronger safety net with State flexibility to help meet people's needs and to help people get from welfare to work, to make the most of their lives. We are offering a progrowth Tax Code. We are offering more energy jobs.

You can boil the differences down to one question: Who knows better, the people or Washington? We have made our choice with this budget. I trust the American people to make theirs.

Mr. Chairman, let's call the votes.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I congratulate the Budget Committee for the hard work that you have done.

I wish we had more than 10 minutes on each side to discuss the House Democratic budget, but so it is.

Here we are, about to leave for the holy season of Easter and Passover. It reminds me of the Gospel of Matthew, in which Matthew says: ``For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.''

This budget is a statement as to where our treasure is and where our hearts are for the American people. A budget, as our distinguished ranking member said, must be a statement of our national values. What is important to us as a nation should be reflected in our spending priorities, in our treasure.

But you be the judge, I want to say to the American people, but the Speaker will not allow me to address the American people, so their representatives here. Is it a statement of your national values, of our country, to give a $200,000 tax break to people making over $1 million a year at the expense of increasing taxes $2,000 for the middle class? Is that a statement of our values? I didn't think so.

Is it a statement of our values, in order to finance the special interest privilege that is in the Republican budget, is it a statement of your values to cut over 170,000 children from Head Start? Is that a statement of our values? Children learning, parents earning, opportunity, fairness.

Is it a statement of your values to support a budget that says, 3.5 million children in our country, disadvantaged children in economically disadvantaged areas, will have cuts in the budget of Title I? Is that a statement of our values in order to give tax breaks to Big Oil?

Is it a statement of our values to say to aspiring families, some the first in their families to be able to go to college, that we are going to cut over half a million, maybe over 600,000 kids from Head Start? Is that a statement of values to say to over half a million young people you will not have opportunity to have higher education? Instead, we are going to give that same amount of money to Big Oil for tax incentives for them to drill. Is that a statement of our values? I don't think so. I don't think so.

So where is their treasure and where is their heart?

The treasure in this Republican budget is just as what our ranking member said; it is with the special interests and the wealthiest people in our country. It is a trickle-down approach that has never worked. It has worked for the rich. It has worked for the special interests and their supporters, but it has not worked for the great middle class.

Do we need any more evidence of it not working, that these same warmed-over policies that existed in the Bush era that took us to the Great Recession, a great recession where we met right before the election in September of 2008, where the Chairman of the Fed said to us, if we do not act immediately, we will not have an economy by Monday? This was a Thursday night. That is where these policies took us at the end of the Bush years, and we are still digging out of that recession.

Instead of having a budget that lifts us up to create jobs, to create growth, to invest in science and education, to keep America number one, they call their budget a path to prosperity. It is a road to recession and always has been, and that is what it is now.

So at least we have a few minutes to discuss our value system, where our treasure is, with the richest and the special interests or with the great middle class and those who aspire to it, and, therefore, where our heart is in terms of budget priorities in this budget.

This is an important budget. Some people want to dismiss it as a joke because it is so outrageous. It is deadly serious. It isn't funny at all because of the impact that it has in the lives of America's families, our children, our seniors, voucherizing Medicare, removing the guarantee of Medicare for our seniors.

Is that a statement of our values, to say to our seniors: you are on your own, you are on your own?

I don't think so. So if our heart is with the middle class, we will put our treasure there and make investments in education and job creation, investments in science.

I will just close. Again, I started with the Bible. Scientific research gives us an almost biblical power to cure. Where there is scientific opportunity, we almost have a moral responsibility-- certainly a moral imperative to invest in it, to improve health, to improve the quality of health in our country, and to make sure that everybody has access to it.

But don't worry about the access to it because our investments in basic scientific research are seriously impaired by this budget. It does violence to any concept of science that promotes innovation and keeps making America number one, advancing innovation with investments in science and technology.

It undermines investments in how we protect our environment, so that our children can breathe clean air and drink clean water, about how we protect our America by investments in science and technology to do so, and the intelligence to avoid conflict and the investments in job creation that science will enable us to do.

So if you believe in knowledge, if you would believe in fact, if you believe in the middle class, you must reject the Republican budget. You must reject the Republican budget.

What the Republican leadership is asking Members to do is something that I don't know that they share that value. Certainly, Republicans across the country do not. Republicans across the country support education, investments in science, and the rest. Any poll will show you that.

Just one other thing: if you really want to reduce the deficit, one of the fastest ways you can do it is to have a budget that does as ours does, to include comprehensive immigration reform, which reduces the deficit by $900

billion with a b, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

So by reason of treasure, by reason of heart, by reason of value, by reason of ethic, by reason of honoring our responsibilities to the American people, vote a good, strong ``no'' on the Ryan Republican budget. It is a path to ruin. It is not a path to prosperity.

Mr. Van Hollen's budget is a budget about growth, about investment, about keeping America number one, about strengthening the middle class, which is the backbone of our democracy.

Vote ``no'' on the Ryan budget.

Mr. Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. Chairman, I would ask my friend from Maryland if he has any speakers remaining.

I would ask the gentleman if he would like to give me the opportunity to close?

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

We have talked about tax breaks for the rich here. There are no such tax breaks in this budget. We have talked about the preservation of corporate loopholes. There are no such preservation of corporate loopholes in this budget.

I will say it again. This is the only budget that we will vote on that includes the Tax Code Termination Act, which admits to one another that the tax system we have today is broken. Republicans and Democrats alike have riddled it beyond repair with special interest loopholes, exemptions, breaks, and special carve-outs.

I, Mr. Chairman, am the cosponsor, the lead sponsor of the Fair Tax, the only proposal on Capitol Hill that abolishes every single deduction, exemption, exception in the Tax Code. So nonsense, if folks will suggest that this is a budget for special interests.

Let me tell you what this is a budget for. This is a budget for working Americans, because, Mr. Chairman--you saw it earlier when the chairman of the Republican Study Committee held up this chart. The red line represents a pathway of economic ruin contained in the President's budget.

The President talks about a balanced approach, and yet his approach never balances. The Republican Study Committee budget balances more quickly than any other budget proposal that we will discuss.

Does it have to make tough choices to do it?

Yes, it does. What is the benefit of those tough choices, Mr. Chairman?

The benefit is in interest savings alone. If you support NIH, as I do, with just the interest savings between our budget and the President's budget, we couldn't just double NIH funding, we could triple it, not just this year but every year in the budget window.

Mr. Chairman, on our current path, by 2017 we are going to be spending more on interest on the national debt than we spend on the entire Medicaid program to care for our children and our elderly.

By 2020 we will spend more on interest on the national debt under the President's proposal than we will on all national security concerns combined.

There is not a family in America, Mr. Chairman, that believes they can borrow their way into prosperity.

The interest that we pay on the debt that the President proposes that this Nation borrow steals opportunities from our children. It is immoral to advance our generation today at the expense of generations tomorrow.

Does this budget make tough choices?

It does. There is only one budget that we will be considering today, Mr. Chairman, that takes steps to protect and preserve Social Security. That is the RSC budget.

There are only two budgets that we will be considering today that take steps to ensure the solvency of Medicare for generations to come. That is the RSC budget and the Budget Committee budget.

Mr. Chairman, you cannot talk about a balanced approach that does not balance. You cannot talk about making tough decisions if you are willing to do nothing to save those programs, Medicare and Social Security, that so many of our families back home rely on.

We know those programs are headed towards destruction, which is why the RSC has made the very difficult choice to begin saving them today.

It will only get harder if we put those decisions off until tomorrow. We say, do it today.

I urge my colleagues to support the Republican Study Committee budget, as has been key voted out of organizations across this town.

I will end as I began. I appreciate the gentleman from Maryland recognizing the support of those outside organizations, and those are organizations committed to balancing this budget.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman of the committee for the great work he has done in bringing forward a positive, solutions-oriented budget.

What we are hearing here is the same song, different verse. You would think that they would get tired of singing this song because it is so out of key: spends more, taxes more, borrows more, adds $4.3 trillion to the debt and never, ever comes to balance. Ever.

The American people watching this and reading their newspapers about what the plan is in Washington, what the budget is in Washington, they recognize that the Democrats' plan is never, ever to balance; not something they can do in their homes. People have to balance their budgets. Not something they can do in their businesses; people have to balance budgets. So we hope that at some point in the future our friends on the other side of the aisle recognize that fiscal responsibility has something to do with the American dream.

When we don't balance as a Nation, when our Federal budget doesn't balance, when we continue to add $4.3 trillion more to the debt than the Republican budget, what that means is we are robbing from future generations. We are telling them you are going to have to pay this; we are not responsible

enough to pay it. You get to pay it. How does that sound to the young person out there who, by the way, is graduating from college and can't find a job in their sphere of interest because of this faltering economy.

So what is the alternative? That is the good news, Mr. Chairman. There are positive solutions that we are offering. That is the Republican budget we are going to have a vote on just this morning, a positive budget that actually balances the budget over a period of 10 years. And it not only balances the budget, it gets us on a path to pay off the entire debt of the United States.

Think about the wonderful dreams that can be realized by young people and others across this great land when we don't have any debt. Think of what happens when you finally pay off that car. What a great relief that is. When you are finally able to pay off your home, when you are finally able to pay off those debts, you remember, you wake the next morning and you feel freer and more excited. There is a greater opportunity to realize your dreams.

Our budget recognizes that health care is indeed important, and that Medicare and Medicaid, not according to me or the Republican side but according to the actuaries in those programs, is going broke. Bankrupt. What does that mean? That means that seniors and individuals in the Medicaid program will no longer be able to receive the benefits, the services, the health care that we have promised them as a country. That is what that means. That is what this program does on the other side of the aisle. That is why in our budget we save and strengthen and secure Medicare and Medicaid. We do so by making certain that patients are in charge of health care, not the Federal Government. The Republican budget is the premier budget that is being offered today. I urge my colleagues to vote down the Democrat budget and vote for the Republican budget.