Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to establish the Committee on the Elimination of Nonessential Federal Programs.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I actually had been prepared to come to the floor of this House and say this was a refreshing moment, that this was going to be a moment of bipartisanship. I commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney) for finally offering a balanced plan to reduce our long-term deficit and a plan that will make sure our economy grows rather than offering a plan that results in over 750,000 fewer American jobs by the end of this year, and I hope that the gentleman will demonstrate his sincerity in the support of his own bill by voting for it. We will be able to tell whether this is simply some kind of stunt or a genuine effort.

Mr. Chairman, let me say, with respect to the comments about the President's budget, I think everyone in this country knows that this Congress was here until January 2 of this year, trying to work out a compromise to avoid going over the fiscal cliff, and until we'd resolved that, the President had no idea how much revenue would be available for the budget. I think most families recognize that you need to know how much revenue is available as you put together a budget, number one.

Number two, we've been lurching from one manufactured crisis to another. The sequester. You need to know how the sequester is going to turn out before you know how much money is going to be available for government agencies.

Finally, when the President has to put together a budget, it's not like the budgets Members of Congress put together in which you have one amount for all of defense or just one amount for the function for all of health care and all of education. The President actually has to allocate that money among different agencies. That's part of the process. So the President will be submitting a budget now that we know what the revenue stream is, now that we have some idea as to where we are in terms of those other issues.

I'm glad the gentleman brought forward this alternative, because it is the Senate Democratic proposal for the most part. Just for the record, he has left some stuff out, but it's close enough for negotiation and discussion purposes here.

What this measure does is, number one, replaces the sequester. It replaces the sequester with a balanced approach to reducing our long- term deficit so that you avoid the job losses that will result from the sequester. Our referees, our umpires--the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office--has told us, if we allow that sequester to remain in place, you will have 750,000 fewer Americans working at the end of this year. We also know that you'll have 2 million fewer jobs next year.

So it's a good thing that the gentleman brought to the floor a proposal

to replace the sequester. After all, in comments last year, the Republican leader, Mr. Cantor, called for a plan to replace the sequester, so we support that.

The gentleman talks about the Senate proposal on taxes. What he doesn't tell you is what the Senate proposal does. Like the House Democratic proposal, it proposes to balance the budget through a combination of cuts but also cuts to tax expenditures. These are the special preferences and deductions in the Tax Code. We say, yes, we should eliminate some of those tax preferences for very high-income individuals. Our colleagues tell us there are about $4 trillion worth of those that mostly go to high-income individuals. We say, okay, let's close some of those tax breaks of about $1 trillion over 10 years to help reduce the deficit. What's different between the Republican plan and this plan that our colleague has brought up is that they propose to provide tax cuts for very wealthy people, financed by increasing the tax burden on middle-income people.

We put that question to the test in the Budget Committee just the other day. We said, if your plan doesn't propose to give folks at the top a big tax break--because you do in your budget drop it from 39 percent to 25 percent. So a millionaire sees more than a third cut in his rate right off the bat. So we said, well, if it's not your intention to finance that by increasing middle class taxes, you should support this amendment. It was called the Protect the American Middle Class from Tax Increases, and it was very simple. It said, as part of tax reform, don't raise taxes on middle-income people to finance your tax breaks for folks at the very top. Every Republican voted ``no.''

So, yes, this plan that the gentleman has brought forward today, apparently under sort of a mock bipartisanship, will reduce the deficit in a balanced way. It calls for shared responsibility, and it certainly does not give folks at the very top a tax break financed by middle- income taxpayers like the Republican proposal does.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the only comparison between these budgets we're debating and what's going on in Europe is that the Republican budget proposes the same European-style austerity approach that many European countries tried, and as a result, they've seen their economies slip back into recession. We want to avoid slowing down economic growth in this country, which is why we're really glad that the gentleman from South Carolina brought this particular budget proposal to the floor of the House, and we hope he will vote for it.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to a terrific member of the Budget Committee, the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Castor).

I yield an additional 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady.

Mr. Chairman, I will just ask our colleagues to take a look at the latest analysis put forward by our own Congressional Budget Office, the professionals, the referees here. What they tell us is that half of the deficit in this year is as a result of the fact that millions of Americans are still looking for work. Three-quarters of the projected deficit next year is for the very reason, which is why we get to the heart of the issue, by going after the jobs deficit and then reducing the deficit in a balanced manner over a long period of time.

The issue isn't whether we reduce our deficits dramatically; it is how we do it. We call for a balanced approach that, yes, asks the very wealthy people to get rid of some of their special interest tax breaks which our Republican colleagues concede they have, but get rid of them in part to reduce the deficit. Our colleagues refuse to take one penny from closing tax loopholes--not one--to help reduce the deficit. They'll only do that to help finance tax breaks for higher-income individuals.

So, Mr. Chairman, we focus right now on jobs, growing the economy, and a balanced approach to deficit reduction.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, we had a discussion yesterday and today about different approaches to the budget, and we've had a discussion about the Budget Committee budget, the Ryan budget, that was on the floor and will be voted on later.

That budget, of course, is an uncompromising budget. If you look at this budget, it's even worse. And on top of that, this budget has even more gimmicks than the earlier budget that we talked about.

So what are those gimmicks? Well, first of all, this budget says it comes into balance in 4 years. Look, if you want a race to a fake balance, obviously you should vote for this one over the Republican caucus budget. But the reality is, it gets to that balance by keeping the savings from ObamaCare, which our Republican colleagues say they want to eliminate, that they want to repeal.

You don't have to take my word for it. The Heritage Foundation did a quick action alert on this budget. Here is what they say: ``Another failing of this RSC budget is that, like the committee budget''--in other words like the principal Republican budget--``it keeps revenues near the levels reached with ObamaCare tax hikes even though it repeals the health care bill's spending provisions.''

So let's just be really clear what that means for the American people. They are repealing the spending provisions. That means they are getting rid of all the benefits in the Affordable Care Act, including the provision to make sure that your child can stay on your insurance policy until they are age 26 so a family is not bankrupted by an accident or some disease that their child gets. It means the provisions that make sure people can't get denied coverage because of preexisting conditions, that is gone. So they get rid of all that, but they keep the ObamaCare taxes. That is what the Heritage Foundation says.

Guess what? They also keep the savings from the Affordable Care Act in the Medicare area that we achieve by ending the overpayments to some of the insurance companies and other changes in the incentive structure. We did it without hitting beneficiaries. They have railed against that in the past, but it is right here in their budget.

And here is the catch: they say their budget gets a surplus in just 4 years. Well, the surplus is $22 billion, they claim. But here is how much of it comes from the Affordable Care Act, from ObamaCare. They have got a little under $100 billion in revenue that year coming in, and then they have got Medicare savings. So not close to balance in 4 years without those provisions, which, as the Heritage Foundation points out, are in there.

And do you know what? Even at the 10-year window, even at the end of the 10-year window, they claim to have a $246 billion surplus, and yet they wouldn't get there without the savings from the Affordable Care Act, from ObamaCare.

That's a hoax. To come to the floor and say you will have a balanced budget in 4 years or 10 years, but guess what, you are going to repeal ObamaCare, your budget doesn't work when you do that. That just doesn't add up.

Now, they have another big sort of gimmick in this one that is not in the other Republican budget that has to do with taxes. So the problem with the main Republican budget is that it will provide tax breaks to very wealthy people and help finance those tax breaks by bringing down those rates by raising the tax burden on middle-income people.

As we discussed earlier, we actually put that question to the test in the Budget Committee. We offered an amendment that says: Well, when you do tax reform, don't make it a Trojan horse for raising middle class taxes to finance tax breaks for the wealthy. Protect the American middle class from tax increases. A simple amendment. Every Republican on the committee voted ``no.'' So that is their problem with the main Republican budget.

This one has another problem. It creates two tax systems and says: Taxpayer, you get to choose. And then it assumes that they are going to choose the one that is worst for them. Because if they choose the one that is better for the taxpayer, from the taxpayer's perspective they don't have enough revenue in their budget to come to balance.

Now, look, the American people are smart. If you give them two choices, obviously people are going to add them up, and they are going to pick the tax return where they pay less. And if the American people are as smart as I think they are, they will blow another hole in this RSC budget.

So I am not even beginning to talk about the fact that they, once again, more than double the sequester cuts to places like NIH and places where we do scientific research, that they slash our investment in infrastructure. They do all that. They do even more of that than the other Republican budget, but it has the same fundamental gimmick with respect to ObamaCare. And then on top of that, it has this other tax gimmick in it.

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

Mr. Chairman, our budget focuses first and foremost on jobs and getting the economy growing. It does balance in the same time that the Republican budget last year balanced. And unlike the Republican budget, the main one, we do not give tax breaks to the folks at the very top financed by increasing taxes on middle class taxpayers.

I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas), a great new member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to a distinguished new Member from Florida (Ms. Frankel).

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time remains on each side?

I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman another minute.

No, we do not.

I think the American people know full well that the best way to attack the deficit right now is to help put more Americans back to work. That's the sense in this country and that's what all the numbers show from the Congressional Budget Office.

If you take the austerity approach recommended in either this budget or the main Republican budget, we know from the referees, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, that we'll see 750,000 fewer jobs just by the end of this calendar year. We also know you'll see 2 million fewer jobs next year, which is why we say let's focus on the jobs deficit and address the budget deficit in a sustained way where we bring it down in a balanced way, where we ask for shared responsibility and not another round of tax breaks for the folks at the very top.

And yes, we achieve balance in the same year the Republican budget last year achieved balance, but our priority is getting the country fully back to work.

We also believe that when we put together these budgets, we shouldn't pretend that you can have it all ways. And as I have said repeatedly, the Republican budget, including this RSC budget, is based, on the one hand, on the claim that it gets to balance in 4 years--one, in 10 years--but at the same time that they're repealing ObamaCare, and that just is not the case. It doesn't add up.

So if you're in a race to fake balance, then you should vote for this one because it gets to fake balance in 4 years instead of 10 years. But if you're in a race to put America back to work, you should vote for the Democratic plan.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a substitute amendment.

Mr. Chairman, today we are offering a budget with commonsense solutions that first focuses on the issue that's most pressing for the country and the American people today: kicking our economy into higher gear and putting more Americans back to work.

We know from the Congressional Budget Office--the professionals--that one-half of this year's deficit is due to the fact that millions of Americans are still looking for work and that three-quarters of next year's deficit is because we're not at full employment.

Our budget goes to the heart of the issue. It attacks the jobs deficit because we know we can't get the budget deficit under control until people are back to work and we take a balanced approach to long- term deficit reduction where we ask for shared responsibility.

We do ask people at the very high end of the income ladder to give up some of the tax preferences and tax breaks they have in order to help reduce the deficit. It's very different than the Republican budget that doesn't close one tax loophole for the purpose of reducing the deficit. Theirs only lowers tax rates for folks at the very top by increasing the tax burden on middle-income Americans. We don't do that.

We make sure that people can get back to work by replacing the sequester, which we know will result in 750,000 fewer Americans working at the end of this year. We also have a jobs program investing in this country, especially in the area of infrastructure, to help rebuild our aging infrastructure and build the modern infrastructure that's necessary to compete in the 21st century. Those measures will make sure that, compared to our Republican colleague's budget, we have 1.2 million more Americans working by the end of this year and 2 million more by the end of next year.

We also make sure we keep our commitments to our seniors. Unlike the Republican budget, we don't reopen the prescription drug doughnut hole, which will mean seniors with high prescription drug costs will have to pay thousands more out of pocket over the period of this budget, and we don't turn Medicare into a voucher program that leaves seniors facing the risks and costs of escalating health care costs in the future.

We make sure that students don't face a doubling of the interest rate in July, scheduled to go from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. The Republican budget keeps that doubling of interest rate in place. We don't.

We fully fund the transportation program for the next 10 years. The Republican budget cuts it by 20 percent, even at a time when we have 15 percent unemployment in the construction industry.

Mr. Chairman, we get at the budget issues by putting more people back to work, by dealing with this in a balanced way. We reduce the deficit way down so it's growing much slower than the economy. We stabilize the debt, and we balance the budget in the same time period that the Republican budget for the last 2 years had balanced the budget, but our focus is on jobs and the jobs deficit as a way to tackle the budget deficit.

With that, I'm very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my colleague and friend, the distinguished whip from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

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

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I think, if you ask the American people, they know what the challenge is right now. It's getting the economy back in full gear, and they're struggling because too many of them can't find a job, and the Republican budget will make that even worse. That's not me saying it. That's not a Democratic economist saying it. Those are the professionals at the Congressional Budget Office saying it.

I don't have enough time. On your time, I'm happy to, my friend, but I can't do it right now.

Let me say another thing, Mr. Chairman, with respect to balance. It's really interesting.

One of the reasons the Republican budget that last year came into balance in 2040 and the year before was able to balance this year is that the increase in per capita health care costs has come down significantly, in part because of the Affordable Care Act and the changes in incentives. In fact, if you applied much more reasonable assumptions to our proposals than the Congressional Budget Office applied to the Republican budget last year, you'd get balance. I know our Republican colleagues don't want to hear it. Now our focus and our priority is on dealing with the jobs deficit. That is the best way to reduce the long-term deficit and to do it in a balanced way.

I now yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished assistant Democratic leader, my friend from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

The way to save Medicare is to bring down costs overall in the health care system, not give seniors a voucher that puts all the risk on the senior, which is what the Republican approach does.

I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana just made the point that under the current Medicaid system States have lots of flexibility, including Indiana, to help bring down costs. But when you have a tight program, cutting another $820 billion is not a lifeline; it's throwing them an anchor.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, it is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Pelosi), the very distinguished Democratic leader, who just returned from the Vatican and hopefully will bring some hope from the Pope, as I say.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

May I inquire again how much time remains?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The fundamental choice here is whether we want a budget like the Democratic budget that focuses on economic growth and strengthening the middle class or whether you want to take a budget like the Republican budget that imposes European-style austerity by more than doubling the size of the sequester on essential investments to help the economy grow. Investment in our infrastructure, when we know we have 15 percent unemployment in the construction industry. Investment in our kids' education, not doubling the student loan interest rate in July, as the Republican budget would do. Investment in science and research. If we don't make those investments, our global competitors are going to eat our lunch.

And yes, we do ask the very wealthy to get rid of some of their tax breaks and loopholes to help contribute to the reduction of the deficit so that we can reduce the deficit in a balanced way that calls for shared responsibility. And no, we do not ask middle-income families to pay higher taxes in order to finance tax breaks for the wealthy. And yes, we get the deficit down in a steady way. We balance it in the same year the Republican bill balanced last year, and we don't pretend that we're going to balance and get rid of ObamaCare at the same time. That's fake balance, not real balance.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

I yield myself 2 minutes.

I enjoyed my friend from Maryland, and I appreciate his attempt to speak on my behalf. I will just try to do that myself. There is one thing that is identical in this budget--the base budget--and the Senate budget: it's the appropriations No. 966. It's the one thing that is equal in both the House and the Senate budgets.

The reason I rise in opposition to this budget, unlike what the gentleman just said, is that there is no way this could pass. I would say the opposite. Why? This budget never balances the budget.

You will hear Mr. Van Hollen claim that, in 2040, because of certain assumptions they, on their own, make and that cannot be verified by the CBO, they think they'll balance. It never, ever balances the budget. Here is why:

We are going to go from a $16-plus trillion debt to a $25 trillion debt in this budget--period. What does this great budget do? It shaves $612 billion off the debt. It has a $1.2 trillion tax increase. It has a $476 billion spending increase. We've got a $1 trillion deficit. We're piling debt as high as the eye can see, and they bring a budget to the floor that is increasing spending?

Let's look at every budget offered by the other side: a $1.2 trillion tax increase by Mr. Van Hollen and a $476 billion spending increase; the Congressional Black Caucus has a $2.8 trillion tax increase with $1.1 trillion spending increase; the Progressive Caucus--that's the doozy of them all--has a $5.7 trillion tax increase with a $4.065 trillion spending increase.

Here is the theme:

Take more money from the economy; take more money from families; take more money from small businesses--spend it in Washington, and hope everything works out.

It's not working out.

Families are struggling because of this borrowing, because of this debt. We need to reject this amendment and go with something that works, and that means balancing the budget to get a healthier economy to create jobs, which is precisely what our budget does.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

[From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 18, 2013]

How the House Budget Would Boost the Economy

(By John F. Cogan and John B. Taylor)

This week the House of Representatives will vote on its

Budget Committee plan, which would bring federal finances

into balance by 2023. The plan would do so by gradually

slowing the growth in federal spending without raising taxes.

Still, the plan has been denounced by naysayers who assert

that it would harm the economic recovery and that, at the

least, any spending reductions should be put off until later.

This thinking is just as wrong now as it was in the 1970s.

According to our research, the spending restraint and

balanced-budget parts of the House Budget Committee plan

would boost the economy immediately. With the Budget

Committee's proposed tax reform included, the immediate

impact would be even larger. The entire plan would raise

gross domestic product by one percentage point in 2014,

equivalent to about a $1,500 increase for each U.S.

household. Ten years from now, at the end of the official

budget horizon, we estimate that the entire plan would raise

GDP by three percentage points, or more than $4,000 for each

U.S. household.

Our assessment is based on a modern macroeconomic model

(developed with Volker Wieland of the University of Frankfurt

and Maik Wolters of the University of Kiel) whose features

include a recognition that the resources to finance

government expenditures aren't free--they withdraw resources

from the private economy. The model provides for other

essential attributes of the economy--that consumers,

businesses and workers respond to incentives, and they are

influenced by their expectation of future economic conditions

when making decisions today. None of these features is

provided for in old-style Keynesian models.

The House budget plan keeps total federal outlays at their

current level for two years. Thereafter, spending would rise

each year, but more slowly than if present policies continue.

By 2023, federal expenditures would decline to 19.1% of GDP

in 2023 from 22.2% today.

Since the Congressional Budget Office projects that

revenues will equal 19.1% of GDP in 2023, the House plan will

balance the budget that year. Also by 2023, the publicly held

federal debt relative to GDP would decline to 55% from its

current high level of 76%.

The House budget is hardly austere: The federal spending

claim on GDP would still be considerably higher than it was

in fiscal 2000 (18.2%) and only slightly below its claim on

GDP in 2007 (19.7%).

The reductions in the growth rate of spending are to be

achieved primarily through entitlement reforms. The

Affordable Care Act would be repealed. Medicaid and food-

stamp administration would be turned over to the states.

Medicare would be fundamentally reformed. Anti-fraud measures

would be applied to federal disability programs. Among the

major entitlement programs, only Social Security would remain

unchanged; this is a deficiency in the plan. As for

discretionary spending, the House budget plan would provide

for only slight reductions from the levels that are set by

the budget sequester.

The long-run economic gains from restraining government

spending would not, despite what critics claim, harm the

economy in the short run. Instead, the economy would start to

grow right away. Why?

First, the lower level of future government spending avoids

the necessity of sharply raising taxes. The expectation that

tax rates won't need to rise provides incentives for higher

investment and employment today.

Second, since the expectation of lower future taxes has the

effect of raising people's estimation of future disposable

income, consumption increases today. This change comes thanks

to Milton Friedman's famous ``permanent income'' hypothesis

that the behavior of consumers reflects what they expect to

earn over a long period. According to our macroeconomic

model, the higher level of consumption induced by the House

budget's effect on consumer expectations is large enough to

offset the reduced growth of government spending.

Third, the new budget's reduction in the growth of

government spending is gradual. That allows private

businesses to adjust efficiently without disruptions.

Still, our macroeconomic model likely underestimates the

positive impact of the House budget plan. The model doesn't

account for the greater economic certainty that results from

preventing the national debt from soaring to dangerously high

levels and from stabilizing the federal tax burden. Nor does

the model account for beneficial changes in monetary policy

that could accompany enactment of the budget plan. Lower

deficits and national debt would reduce pressure on the

Federal Reserve to continue buying longterm Treasury bonds.

The U.S. economy has been experiencing its slowest recovery

from a deep recession in modern history. Tragically, fewer

people are working as a percentage of the working-age

population than when the recovery began--and economic growth

was only 1.6% last year. The large federal budget deficits--

by increasing uncertainty and delaying private spending--are

an important cause of this lackluster economic performance.

For too long, policy makers have been misguided by models

that lend support to bigger government or to the politically

convenient objective of delaying any reduction in spending.

It is better to recognize the flaws in this approach and get

on with the sensible budget reforms the country so sorely

needs.

Will the gentleman yield?

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to simply say that I think that people know over here that we're not proposing a voucher plan. The premium support is quite different, and it's the only bipartisan solution to save and strengthen Medicare.

With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to a member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds simply to say that Indiana is being denied their waivers, so they're being denied the flexibility they are asking for to run Medicaid as they see fit to serve their populations. Point made.

I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).

I'm just not going to agree with that one, Mr. Chairman. I'll yield myself 30 seconds.

The minority leader says she's concerned about the debt that is befalling the next generation. I'm glad to hear

that. Doing nothing, the debt will go up by 56 percent if we just do nothing.

If this budget passes, the Democratic substitute, it will go up by 54 percent. That's basically doing nothing as well.

Jobs: the CBO statistic the gentleman talks about, it's not even an estimate of this budget, it's the sequester.

I yield myself another 10 seconds.

But the Stanford economist who did look at this Republican budget says that we will create 500,000 jobs in the first year and 1.7 million each and every year by the end of this budget window. Faster economic growth, more jobs, getting the government to live within its means, balancing the budget.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski), a member of the Budget Committee.

Little do some know that ObamaCare ended Medicare as we know it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished senior member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Chairman, this green graph shows you the revenues we've historically had in America. The blue line shows you the

tax increases our friends are hoping to achieve, some of which have already occurred. The red line shows you where spending is going. We have a spending problem. But the time my kids are my age, the government will be taking twice as much money to spend on the Federal Government.

Austerity is what you do when you have a debt crisis. You raise taxes and you cut spending on seniors to try and please the bond markets to stop the panic. That's the path we're on. What we're trying to do is prevent austerity.

What do we propose? Let's grow the economy. Let's reform the tax system. Let's stop picking winners and losers through loopholes, lower tax rates for everybody--families and businesses--to create jobs and economic growth. Let's open up the resources we have in this country-- oil, coal, and gas--so we can bring down gas prices, increase paychecks, create jobs, help manufacturing.

We have a safety net that isn't working. We have the highest poverty rates in a generation. There are 46 million people in poverty. We need to fix this safety net so it works to get people back on their feet again. We need to save Medicare so that it's not bankrupt--because it is on a path to bankruptcy--so that current seniors can rest in comfort knowing it's not going to be taken away from them, so that the ObamaCare rationing board won't take it from them, and so that those of us who are younger can plan for it.

We need to balance the budget. Balancing the budget is necessary for a healthy economy, for creating jobs, and for giving our kids a debt- free Nation. That's why we do this. Their budget, despite what they say, never, ever balances. The budget the Senate is considering today never, ever balances.

The budget that they're talking about here, the budget that they're passing in the Senate, it actually has a net spending increase. And don't forget the fact that taxes just went up by $1.6 trillion. What do they want to do? Throw another trillion on top. Guess what? They may say it's for the rich. They may say it's for the loophole. Watch out, middle class. The tax man is coming to you. Because that's exactly what all these deficits and all these tax increases are pointing at--taking more out of the paychecks of hardworking families. We're going to balance the budget and stop that from happening. That's why I urge a defeat of the Van Hollen substitute and passage of the base bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the CBC for actually coming to the floor with a budget, something that the President of the United States has not been able to do four out of five times, even though it is the law of the land that he is required to do so. So I commend them for doing so.

We should look to see what is it that we agree with in this and what do we disagree with. We do agree on several points, such as that we want to have a just and fair Tax Code. We do agree, as we have in our budget, to make sure that we address the most vulnerable, those people who are out of work, the poor in the country, those who are trying hard to make ends meet, to try to end poverty as well, to try to make sure that there is health care in this country. But where we differ from the CBC is the impact that their budget would have on each and every one of these.

Their budget would have a devastating impact on those who are out of work, those who are trying to not just get a handout, but get a hand up; those who are looking for health care and not being able to afford it; those who are looking for health care from the Federal Government and realizing that within a short period of time, over the next decade, we will see, actually, the money in the Federal Government for the health care that they're receiving right now basically run out.

So that is why I applaud their attempt to come to the floor with a budget. But I ask them to take a look at what the impact of their budget will do as opposed to what the Republican budget will do. We will actually be able to create jobs in this country. We did so before in something called the JOBS Act, which we passed in a bipartisan manner.

We are going to take the next step to make sure that there is a level playing field in this country versus other countries, to bring back those jobs that have been lost to other foreign nations and bring them back into this country as well. We will be able to reform the system with regard to the poor. We will be able to provide for a system that provides for the American family in a fair and just Tax Code.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today, as they say, in opposition to the Progressive Caucus substitute. While my friends across the aisle are motivated by good intentions, I believe that their substitute is, frankly, a blueprint for fiscal disaster. Instead of restoring the certainty to the economy by promoting fairness and providing American families the opportunity for more prosperity, this budget is simply a black hole for American families.

I can at least give credit to both the Progressive Caucus and the Democrat Caucus for offering a budget because the President of the United States has failed to do so. As you are aware, on February 4, the President, as required by law, is to give us a budget. It's March 20 now; and the American people, well, we're still waiting. That is the fourth time in 5 years that President Obama has failed to submit a budget on time and failed to abide by the law.

The Senate Democrats, well, they're not much better. It has taken them almost 4 years to produce a budget that basically now increases government spending by $265 billion, taxes up by almost $1 trillion, and cuts health care providers by almost $300 billion. Over the period covered by the budget, deficits under the Senate plan are nearly $4 trillion larger than those under the House plan.

So, today, we have a Progressive substitute on the floor. This budget will do what? It will raise taxes by almost $6 trillion over the next 10 years, including a new tax on carbon. $5.7 trillion in new taxes necessarily means greater tax burdens on who? The American family. These tax cuts put job creators in the penalty box again, and that means more Americans will be where? Without jobs.

These tax policies are deceptively sold under, really, a warped notion of what ``fairness'' is. The reality is this ``fairness'' of theirs is merely a heavy-handed government taking from one pocket and putting in another pocket.

This budget's tax policy is based on the equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. When he's talking about equality, Milton Friedman once pointed out that a society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality, however, will get a high degree of both.

So true fairness is the freedom to manage and direct one's own life and one's own future. Those who take risks giving their all in the pursuit of the American Dream deserve to keep what they've earned. Those who work hard day in and day out, they deserve to keep what they've earned.

But the Progressive budget is nothing but regressive. There's nothing fair about this budget, especially to the risk-taker or to the hardworking American family. Their budget would spend nearly $9 trillion more than the Republican budget. Note, now, when I say those numbers--where does that money come from--that means from our children and our grandchildren. They ultimately will be the ones who will have to bear this burden.

This budget would also establish a government-run health insurance option under ObamaCare and let the government basically set price controls on drugs. What does that mean? That means for those who were around back in 1970s, I think that's most of us, price controls on gasoline. How did that work out for us? Not too long. Waiting lines for gas is one thing. Waiting lines, however, for lifesaving medicine is a whole other story.

This budget would also expand the current, broken, and failed Federal job-training program without any reform whatsoever. This budget calls for even more money for the bureaucrats in Washington with regard to education, and this budget calls for even more

money into the broken-down highway transit system that we have in this country.

And this budget even fails in the government's first responsibility-- providing for the common defense. This budget further goes and guts the Defense Department by calling for almost $700 billion in cuts to the Pentagon compared to our budget.

This Progressive substitute then would put this country basically on the wrong path. For that reason, I urge a ``no'' vote on this budget.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, at this point, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Lankford.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman who played a critical role in fashioning the budget that is before us, the Republican budget, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).

In recognizing that we can create the jobs and the prosperity by not raising taxes at the same time, I yield now 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

I would ask the Chair how much time remains on both sides.

That being the case, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

And just to take a word from the gentlelady from California, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), who has actually walked the walk and created jobs to create more American prosperity.

Mr. Chairman, so here we are at the end of the debate, and where are we?

The Progressive substitute, what would it do? It would raise taxes on the American family. It would increase spending throughout the country. It would put programs such as Medicare, to allow them to go bankrupt, if you will, within the decade, in 2023. It would do all this and put the burden on our children and never, ever balance.

In contrast, before us is the House Republican's Path to Prosperity. What does it do? It takes the first step. It takes the very first step toward reversing this trend, this path to debt and decline that the President and his fellow Democrats on that side of the aisle, and the Senate Democrats as well, have laid out for the American people. See, the Republican budget stops spending money that we do not have. The Republican budget simply does the right things in this area.

The Republican budget fixes our broken Tax Code. It does away with all of those unfair corporate deductions and the like that we've talked about. There is some commonality there. So it fixes our broken Tax Code, and it does so in a way at the end of the day creates jobs, increases wages, and helps the American family. The Republican budget will protect and strengthen important priorities like Medicare and national security, not allowed by the other side of the aisle. The Republican budget will also reform our welfare programs, such as Medicaid, so they can actually deliver on their promise and not go bankrupt.

Every American family, every family in this country understands the necessity of having a balanced budget. The President and the Democrats could surely learn by talking to them across the country. Budgets are more than numbers. Budgets basically come here to Congress and set priorities, if you will; and beyond that, they have real impact on human beings.

Unlike the Progressive substitute that's before us right now, the Path to Prosperity will provide real economic security for workers, for parents. It will ensure security retirement for the elderly and our seniors. It will expand opportunity for the young. For that reason, I urge this Chamber to vote on the side of freedom and opportunity and reject the Progressive Caucus budget substitute.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my friend, Mr. Scott, for bringing forward a budget on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus. I think it's important that we have all sorts of options here on the floor to be able to discuss as they relate to a budget.

I would note a couple of items that he conveniently left out. One is that

the budget that the CBC brings to the floor--this will come as no surprise, Mr. Chairman--never gets to balance, which means it continues to spend more money than the government takes in, continues to spend more money than Washington takes in. The people of this great country understand that we can't continue going down this road over and over and over and over.

A couple of points that Mr. Scott made regarding the Republican budget, which is the budget that is the base budget here that we're bringing to the floor that, in fact, does get to balance in a responsible way:

It saves and strengthens and secures Medicare, as opposed to the misinformation that was provided by the other side;

It makes certain that States have the kind of flexibility so that they're able to provide the highest quality of health care to their Medicaid population;

It doesn't, as a matter of fact, address in a specific way the issue of Social Security because it provides for a reserve fund so that that is able to be addressed in a more specific way through the committee structure, which is also the important thing to recognize about the issue of taxes.

Our friends on the other side are so specific about what they accuse us of regarding taxes, but, in fact, as you know, Mr. Chairman, it's the Ways and Means Committee that will ultimately define that.

A couple of items that he conveniently left out on the budget that he is proposing is that they do raise taxes. In fact, they raise taxes by $2.8 trillion--$2.8 trillion over the next 10 years--and much of that increase in taxes is in the area of those who create jobs. We all know that if you tax something, you get less of it. So by taxing job creators, we'll get fewer jobs, and, Mr. Chairman, that's the last place we need to be heading right now. They spend $5.7 trillion more than the Republican budget that's being proposed, and they add another $2.9 trillion to the debt relative to the base budget that we're working on today.

I also want to address the issue of business taxes. They talk about removing the incentives that move jobs overseas. Well, Mr. Chairman, the biggest incentive to moving jobs overseas is that the United States now has the highest business tax rate in the industrialized world. If you're a business and you're planning on either expanding your business or you're thinking about starting a business here in the United States and you go to the line that says taxes, the other side of that says, no, go somewhere else, get out of here, because taxes are lower elsewhere, which means that jobs are being created elsewhere. We're driving jobs overseas by virtue of our current tax structure, and our friends on the other side of the aisle, especially with the CBC budget, actually increase that as opposed to decrease that.

I do, however, want to commend them, once again, for bringing a budget forward because, as you've heard earlier today and in the conversations around the budget, the President has not. We did find it. I found the President's budget. Here it is. Not a doggone thing on this poster, Mr. Chairman, because the President hasn't brought anything to us.

Now, that might be amusing to some, but the fact of the matter is that the law states that the President of the United States is required to present a budget to Congress by the first Monday in February. That was February 4 this year. We're a little over 6 weeks beyond that. The President has flagrantly--flagrantly--ignored his statutory responsibility to bring to the United States Congress a budget.

Now, some folks on the other side say, Oh, it happens all the time. Don't worry about that. It happens all the time. Well, as a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, in just one term, President Obama has missed the budget deadline more than any other President. He's now missed it four out of five times.

In the 90 years between 1923 and 2013, President Obama is the only President to miss the deadline 2 years in a row. He's the only President who's missed the deadline 3 out of 4 years in his first term, and he holds the record for the longest delay--98 days. Maybe that's the record he's trying to beat, Mr. Chairman.

So I want to commend, again, my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus for bringing forward a budget. As I say, I think it's extremely important that we have all sorts of different ideas out here on the floor to be able to debate and have people take a perspective on and have the opportunity to vote ``yea'' or ``nay'' on. I would respectfully suggest, however, that their budget moves this country in the wrong direction, not the right direction, and we'll urge opposition to their budget proposal.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, what's the time remaining on each side?

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita), a member of the Budget Committee.

I would just point out to the gentlelady that, in fact, multiple economists have looked at the budget that Republicans have brought forward, and a couple from Stanford had an editorial, I believe, in The Wall Street Journal this week and noted that their review, their study, their evaluation of the Republican budget actually demonstrates that 500,000 jobs would be produced in the first year in the Republican budget and 1.7 million jobs in the 10th year.

So if you want jobs, there's a way to get jobs created in this country, and it is to reward those individuals who are creating jobs. That's what the Republican budget does.

I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to another new member of the Budget Committee and a member of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains on each side, please?

May I inquire of my friend how many more speakers he has?

I have one more speaker outside of myself, and then I will be pleased to close.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a senior member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Chairman, I would, once again, remind my friends on the other side of the aisle and those listening that the Republican budget creates 500,000 jobs by the end of the first year, and it will result in over 1 million jobs in the 10th year. It's important to appreciate that. And I agree with my friend on the chart that he has about the jobs decreasing, the deepest and longest period of poor job growth in any recession. He's absolutely right. He's correct on that.

But what this budget does that he proposes is doubles down on policies that don't work. Spending money that we don't have is not a prescription for more job creation. A little honesty, Mr. Chairman, on this: only in Washington, as the American people know, is spending at a lower rate a cut. More spending at a lower rate in this town is a reduction, is a cut accused by the other side.

The fact of the matter is that the Republican budget increases spending on average 3.4 percent each year over the next 10 years. It's a responsible budget. It's a budget that actually gets to balance, which means that we don't spend money at the end of this budget that Washington doesn't have, and gets us on a path to paying off the debt.

It's that way that we realize that we can create jobs for the American people, we can ensure that young people in this country will be able to get out of college and be able to find a job in their sphere of education, and we can make certain that seniors have the kind of services that they need, the kind of things that have been destroyed by the current administration and by the budget being proposed on the other side. The Republican budget is a responsible budget.

I urge that Members of our party vote down the budget.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the radical Republican budget, which will increase unemployment and savage Medicare and Medicaid and other programs that families depend on, mostly to finance tax cuts for the rich and partly to fix the deficit crisis that we have already tamed. In 2009, the deficit was 10.1 percent of GDP. Next year, it will be down to 5.3 percent. This is the largest and fastest reduction in deficits since the demobilization after World War II.

To add insult to injury, the Republican budget would make sweeping, regressive changes to the Tax Code, which would raise taxes on middle class families by up to $3,000. Millionaires, however, would actually see a tax cut averaging $245,000 a year. This is just wrong. Working families should never have to pay more just so the rich can pay less.

We no longer, if we ever did, have a deficit crisis. With 12 million people searching for employment and with almost 5 million Americans without jobs for more than 6 months, we do have a jobs crisis. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the net effect of the Republican budget would be to decrease the gross domestic product by 1.7 percent, resulting in 2 million additional jobs lost in 2014 alone.

If budgets are truly a reflection of our values, then what does it say about the priorities of House Republicans when their budget increases health care costs for seniors, cuts 2 million jobs, and hits middle class families with a tax increase in order to subsidize another tax cut for the rich?

In contrast, the Back to Work budget addresses the jobs crisis head on by creating nearly 7 million jobs in the first year, by making stark investments in our infrastructure, schools, and transits. It protects Medicare, Medicaid, education, and family support systems.

Conservative governments in Europe have instituted the same austerity policies offered by the Republican budget. The result has been a double-dip recession and 12 percent unemployment. We should learn from their stupidity.

I rise today to oppose the radical Republican budget, which is merely a repackaging of the same extreme agenda that the American people rejected last fall.

Simply put, this bill is a disaster.

The House Republicans' budget would again try to end Medicare as we know it by replacing the guarantee of health coverage with a private voucher program that would reduce benefits. This throws seniors back onto the mercy of the private insurance market, while every year giving them less and less of the health benefits they have earned through a lifetime of hard work.

The Republican budget would not only make permanent the arbitrary, across-the-board budget cuts known as `sequestration,' it would go further--making even more savage cuts to domestic programs. Critical social services like food stamps, college assistance for low-income families, Section 8 housing, home heating assistance, and Medicaid--all would face drastic cuts. Under the Republican proposal, our transportation investments would be cut by 20% over the next 10 years, exacerbating the challenges posed by our outdated roads, bridges, and airports. The bill also completely eliminates support for PBS, NPR, AmeriCorps, and the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities.

The Republican budget makes all of these cuts while refusing to cut a dime of military spending. What's worse, the Republican plan actually reverses planned reductions to military spending by increasing cuts to vital social programs--a callously unfair proposal that will have terrible consequences for millions of American families.

To add insult to injury, the bill before us today would make sweeping, regressive changes to the tax code which would raise taxes on middle class families by up to $3,000. Millionaires, however, would actually see a tax cut that averages $245,000 a year. This is just wrong. Working families should never have to pay more just so the rich can pay less, which is just one more reason why we must defeat this bill.

We no longer, if we ever did, have a deficit crisis. What we have is a jobs crisis, with 12 million people searching for employment, and almost 5 million Americans without a job for more than 6 months.

In contrast with the Republican spending plan, the Back to Work Budget addresses the jobs crisis head-on by creating nearly 7 million jobs in the first year by making historic investments in our infrastructure, schools, and transit. It would enable States and local governments to hire laid-off teachers, cops, and firefighters, putting them back to work in strengthening our communities.

The Back to Work Budget would preserve our commitment to seniors by making no cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security, while reducing health care costs by negotiating drug prices, increasing competition in the health care marketplace, and reducing fraud.

Our budget would also adopt a common-sense tax system that asks the wealthiest to pay their fair share while lowering the tax burden on middle class families. We would also extend the Making Work Pay tax credit to help low-wage workers get back to work and providing for their families.

According to the Economic Policy Institute, the net effect of all of these policies would decrease GDP by 1.7%, resulting in 2 million jobs lost in 2014 alone. If budgets are truly a reflection of our values, then what does it say about the priorities of House Republicans when their budget increases health care costs for seniors, cuts 2 million jobs, and hits middle class families with a tax increase in order to subsidize another tax cut for the rich?

The American people rejected this extremist ideology last fall, and I hope that my colleagues follow their lead and reject this bill today.

But the larger problem with the Republican budget is that it will increase unemployment and savage Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs that families depend upon, in order to fix a deficit ``crisis'' which we have already tamed. In 2009 the deficit was 10.1% of GDP. By next year, it will be down to 5.3%. This is the largest and fastest reduction in deficits since the demobilization after World War II.

Basic economics tells us that government should pay off debt during good times while protecting jobs and middle class security during bad times. By balancing revenues with investments and creating millions of new jobs, the Back to Work Budget would produce significant economic growth while reducing the deficit by $4.4 trillion over 10 years.

But callous, unbalanced cuts to domestic programs, particularly of the magnitude that House Republicans are proposing, would spell disaster for our economic recovery.

While GOP leaders claim to be making tough choices when it comes to our spending priorities, again and again they seem to only be making the wrong choices. They choose tax breaks for millionaires and the largest corporations over tax fairness for the middle class. They choose to reduce access to health care by voucherizing Medicare instead of protecting the benefits that seniors have earned through a lifetime of hard work. They choose to avoid required reductions in military spending by instead cutting programs that feed hungry children, heat family homes, and make college affordable.

Conservative governments in Europe have instituted the same austerity policies offered by the Republican budget. The result is a double-dip recession and 12% unemployment. We should learn from their stupidity.