Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 71, currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 71, our budget, Building a Better America. Our budget takes real, tangible steps to balance the budget, build a stronger military, unlock tax reform, and support an economy that creates opportunity for all Americans.

In past years, our budget resolution was a vision document, but this year it is different. With the election of President Trump, our budget goes from being a vision document to being a governing document that outlines how we build a better America for our children and our grandchildren.

Today, we have the opportunity to fulfill our promises to the American people. Balancing the budget by 2027 is our top priority. Our national debt stands at $20 trillion, with $9 trillion added over just the last 8 years. For too long, both parties in Washington have failed to abide by a simple principle that all American families and small businesses do, that we must live within our means.

Balancing the budget requires us to make some tough decisions, but the consequences of inaction far outweigh any political risk we may face.

Unless we take bold steps to bring our excessive spending and debt under control, a sovereign debt crisis is the natural conclusion. Failure to take swift and decisive action is not only inexcusable, it is immoral.

The budget resolution before us takes real steps to put our country on a sound fiscal path that balances in 10 years and will allow us to start paying down our national debt.

Building a Better America also assumes bold reforms to strengthening programs that our seniors and our most vulnerable citizens rely on and ensure that these programs can continue to serve them for generations to come.

While our budget includes reforms to discretionary spending, we also strongly believe that mandatory spending must be addressed in this budget resolution and in budget resolutions to come.

Mandatory spending is already more than two-thirds of all of our Federal spending, and that number will only continue to grow, and that is why our committee felt strongly about addressing mandatory spending programs in this budget through reconciliation.

Our budget requires 11 authorizing committees to find a minimum of $203 billion in savings and reforms over the 10-year budget window with an expectation that the reforms will result in significantly higher savings.

This package of mandatory reforms is the largest since the 1990s, through reconciliation, and it is the first step to change the culture of Washington in our spending.

Our budget also promotes tax reform and regulatory reform to get the Federal Government out of the way and allow our free market economy to thrive. The larger the government, the less freedom individuals and businesses have to thrive, grow, hire, and innovate. The Obama economy left millions of Americans behind with over 14 million people leaving the labor workforce in just the last 8 years.

Through reconciliation, our budget specifically paves the way for progrowth tax reform that will reduce taxes for the middle class Americans and free up American businesses to grow and to hire. It will also simplify the Tax Code, allowing about 9 out of 10 Americans to file their taxes on a simple postcard.

Many of our friends across the aisle and in the media said that a 1.9 percent economic growth is the new normal and that we are doomed to continue the economic stagnation of the Obama years.

They have a pessimistic view of our Nation's ability to create jobs and to build our foundation of greater opportunity for all.

America has the greatest workers, the greatest innovators, and the entrepreneurial ethos to far surpass the economic growth of the last 8 years, if only the Federal Government would get out of the way.

In this budget, we put our trust in the American people. But a stronger economy is not enough; we must also strengthen our military.

The number one job of the Federal Government is to protect its citizens. Over the last 8 years, the weak foreign policy of President Obama has led to an increase in threats from all corners of the globe while the funding for our men and women in uniform has failed to keep pace. Building a Better America invests $621.5 billion in our military and $75 billion specifically for the global war on terrorism for fiscal year 2018. These resources will help our men and women in uniform complete the mission with which they have been tasked.

Building a Better America presents us with an opportunity to change the trajectory of our country forever. The election of President Trump was a signal to all of us that the American people will no longer accept the status quo.

This budget is also a very personal one for me. As I and my committee have gone through the long and arduous process of getting this budget to the floor, I have had to stop and think about not just what we are doing but where we are going.

I have a picture of my six grandchildren taped to the back of my voting card. I was a nurse for more than 40 years and still hold my license today. Government and public service was never an ambition of mine, but when I saw what was happening in my State and in this country, I couldn't sit back and do nothing.

Every time I put my voting card into a slot, I am reminded of why I left the career that I loved to join the political fray. It is for them. It is for my children and grandchildren and for yours as well.

I grew up in an America where a poor girl, whose parents' only ambition was for her to finish high school, could graduate from college, become a nurse, and eventually become a Member of the House of Representatives.

I grew up in an America that was a land of--that is a land of opportunity and was a land of opportunity then of strength and of compassion. But that America is slipping away from us. For too many young people in this country, the opportunity to live the American Dream is out of reach. A government that was supposed to be of, by, and for the people has left them behind.

Building a Better America requires a government that spends within its means, a military with the resources to complete the mission, an economy that creates the opportunity for all, and a Federal bureaucracy that respects the taxpayers.

It also requires an understanding that the greatness of America does not lie in the grand buildings and the stone pillars of Washington, D.C. The greatness of America lies in the spirit and the tenacity of the people.

We designed Building a Better America to put this vision into practice, to empower individuals to live their version of the American Dream. Future generations of Americans are counting on us, and failure is not an option.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the members of this committee for their hard work that they have done, for the months that we have worked tirelessly to come together and build a budget that reflects our principles.

It hasn't been easy, but producing a budget that puts our vision for fiscal sanity into practice will be worth it, and I thank each and every one of you for your hard work.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita), the vice chair of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), who is also a member of our committee and also of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a member of the Budget Committee and also the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chair, I want to remind my colleagues from the other side of the aisle that, during the time of the previous administration, there was $9 trillion added to the debt, 1.9 percent economic growth, and that was the high of that period of time, and there were 14 million people who left the labor workforce. If their policies worked, we wouldn't see these kinds of statistics.

Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), a member of our Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), a member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to remind my colleagues on the other side that we are talking about the budget. We are not talking about tax reform. We are going to have an opportunity to talk about that later.

Our budget does not assume that tax cuts pay for themselves, and our budget does not reflect that claim. Our budget includes a host of pro- growth economic policies, including comprehensive tax reform, as one of those, but regulatory reform; a reform in the improper payments; restoration of incentives for people to work and save and invest.

Most economists believe that this bundle of pro-growth tax policies will lead to a stronger economy than what we have under the current law. But we are talking about the budget here. So I would like for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to speak about the budget, and we will talk about tax reform at another time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), a member of our Budget Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), who is the chairman of the Tax Policy Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bergman), who is a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack), my dear friend.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Ferguson), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I tell you what is cruel. That is doing the same thing over and over again and getting the same results. That is cruel. Especially when we look in our grandchildren's eyes and say: We are really sorry we didn't take 40-year-old programs and reform them so they could be better, so we could reduce the spending, we could give good services and reduce the spending. That is cruel when you don't do that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Lewis), a member of our Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell).

Mr. Chairman, I do want to talk about common sense just for a moment. Common sense is if our other OECD countries have an average corporate rate of 18 to 20 percent and ours is between 35 and 39, and we have companies that now decide to go overseas. It seems to me to be common sense to at least be equal to what other countries are doing.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker), a member of our Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time so we can hear from the Joint Economic Committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I do want to just begin this next section by making a brief comment about my good friend from Kentucky, who has been using some information off of Forbes as he responds to our speakers. I just want to say, I went out to look at Forbes to see what was on Forbes while we were on this brief intermission, and I found this article that was in Forbes just the day before yesterday that does say that the GOP tax framework is a pay raise for middle class families.

I encourage people to take a look at this. It actually does some scenarios for what we know at this point in time. However, I do want to say that what has been put out is a framework. It doesn't really have enough details to give too much on these scenarios, because there are some very important pieces that are missing.

Guessing on these key points really doesn't allow us to do a proper analysis. Things like the brackets have not been definitively defined, and neither have the income thresholds or the enhanced child credit.

I think it is a little bit disingenuous to think that is really where we should be using those numbers right at this point in time to give a definitive scenario. I did want to say that that would be a good thing for people to look at if they would like to get a brief idea.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter that has been signed by 242 agencies and think tanks supporting this budget.

Among those who have signed this letter are the American Bankers Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, Americans for Tax Reform, Business Roundtable, Financial Services Forum, Manufactured Housing Institute, National Association of Manufacturers, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, National Grocers Association, National Retail Federation, Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry, The Kentucky Chamber, and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, among many others.

September 28, 2017.

To The Members of the United States Congress: We urge

Congress to expeditiously pass a budget resolution with

reconciliation instructions so that the promise of tax reform

can be made a reality.

It has been 31 years since Congress last reformed the tax

code. Since then, the code has become an anchor weighing down

the economy, job creation, and wage growth for American

families.

This Congress has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix

the problem. Over the past several years, tremendous work has

been done to prepare for this moment. In the 113th Congress

the Ways and Means Committee conducted a comprehensive look

at tax reform. Last year House Republicans released a

Blueprint for reform. During the last Congress, the Senate

Finance Committee convened bi-partisan working groups that

tackled all the major aspects of reform.

President Trump has outlined his goals for reform, and the

``Group of Six''--consisting of members from the House,

Senate, and Administration--has presented a framework to

guide the drafting and markup of legislation in the Ways and

Means and Finance Committees.

While much work remains to be done, we believe Congress is

well-positioned to move forward with comprehensive, pro-

growth tax reform.

The single-most important next step is for Congress to

adopt a budget resolution with reconciliation instructions

that will permit tax reform to move forward without the

threat of a filibuster.

Just like Members of Congress, each of our organizations

will continue to advocate for specific priorities within tax

reform as the relevant committees and ultimately the full

House and Senate consider tax reform legislation.

But failing to pass a budget resolution now may mean that

tax reform never moves forward. That outcome is unacceptable

to all of us and ought to be unacceptable to every Member of

Congress who has advocated for reform.

Sincerely,

Aerospace Industries Association, African American Chamber

of Commerce of New Jersey, Air Conditioning Contractors of

America (ACCA), Alabama Retail Association, Alaska Chamber,

Allen Fairview Chamber of Commerce (TX), Alliance for

Competitive Taxation (ACT), American Bakers Association,

American Bankers Association, American Council of Engineering

Companies, American Exploration & Production Council,

American Farm Bureau Federation, American Forest & Paper

Association, American Foundry Society, American Gas

Association, American Hotel & Lodging Association, American

International Automobile Dealers Association, American Iron

and Steel Institute, American Made Coalition, American

Petroleum Institute (API).

American Supply Association, Americans for Tax Reform, Ames

Chamber of Commerce (IA), Argentum, Arizona Chamber of

Commerce and Industry, Asian American Hotel Owners

Association, Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association,

Associated Builders and Contractors, Associated Equipment

Distributors, Associated General Contractors of America,

Associated Wire Rope Fabricators, Association for Hose and

Accessories Distribution (NAHAD), Association of American

Railroads, Association of Equipment Manufacturers,

Association of Washington Business, Auto Care Association,

Baton Rouge Area Chamber (LA), Battle Creek Area Chamber of

Commerce (MI), Boca Raton Chamber of Commerce (FL), Brainerd

Lakes Chamber of Commerce (MN).

Bristol County Chamber of Commerce (MA), Buckeye Valley

Chamber (AZ), Buffalo Niagara Partnership (NY), Business

Council of Alabama, Business Council of New York State,

Business Roundtable, Cedar Rapids Metro Economic Alliance

(IA), Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association

(CTIA), Central Louisiana Regional Chamber of Commerce,

Chambers of Commerce Alliance of Ventura & Santa Barbara

Counties (CA), Chester County Chamber of Business & Industry

(PA), Coeur d'Alene Chamber of Commerce (ID), Colorado

Association of Commerce and Industry, Colorado Retail

Association, Consumer Bankers Association, Convenience

Distribution Association, Coral Gables Chamber of Commerce

(FL), Council for Citizens Against Government Waste,

Covington County Chamber of Commerce (MS), Crowley Chamber of

Commerce (LA).

Davis Chamber of Commerce (UT), Dayton Area Chamber of

Commerce (OH), Eatonton-Putnam Chamber of Commerce (GA),

Edison Electric Institute (EEI), Edmond Area Chamber of

Commerce (OK), Edwardsville/Glen Carbon Chamber of Commerce

(IL), Energy Equipment and Infrastructure Alliance,

Entertainment Software Association, Financial Services Forum,

Florida Chamber of Commerce, Florida Retail Federation, Food

Marketing Institute, Fox Cities Chamber of Commerce (WI), Gas

and Welding Distributors Association, Georgia Chamber of

Commerce, Georgia Retail Federation, Glenwood Springs Chamber

Resort Association & Film Commission (CO), Granbury Chamber

of Commerce (TX).

Grand Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce (MI), Greater

Bakersfield Chamber (CA), Greater Cedar Valley Alliance &

Chamber (IA), Greater Coachella Valley Chamber of Commerce

(CA), Greater El Paso Chamber of Commerce (TX), Greater

Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce (AZ), Greater Ketchikan Chamber

of Commerce (AK), Greater Lehigh Valley Chamber of Commerce

(PA), Greater Louisville Inc. (KY), Greater North Dakota

Chamber, Greater Oklahoma City Chamber (OK), Greater Phoenix

Chamber of Commerce (AZ), Greater Pittsburgh Chamber of

Commerce (PA), Greater Shreveport Chamber of Commerce (LA),

Greater Springfield Chamber of Commerce (VA), Greater Toms

River Chamber of Commerce (NJ), Greater Yakima Chamber of

Commerce (WA), Grocery Manufacturers Association, Hastings

Area Chamber of Commerce (NE), Heating, Air-conditioning &

Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI), Henderson

Chamber of Commerce (NV).

Hilliard Area Chamber of Commerce (OH), Hillsboro Chamber

of Commerce (OR), Home Furnishings Association, Illinois

Chamber of Commerce, Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers

of America, Independent Office Products & Furniture Dealers

Alliance, Independent Petroleum Association of America,

Indiana Chamber of Commerce, International Foodservice

Distributors Association, International Warehouse Logistics

Association, Iowa Chamber Alliance, Irrigation Association,

ISSA, The Worldwide Cleaning Industry Association, Jefferson

Chamber of Commerce (LA), Jenkins County Chamber of Commerce

(GA), Job Creators Network, Johnson City/Jonesborough/

Washington County TN Chamber, Joliet Region Chamber of

Commerce & Industry (MO), Kalispell Chamber of Commerce (MT),

Kansas Chamber of Commerce, Kingsport Chamber (TN), Kyndle

(Henderson County KY Chamber of Commerce).

Lake Havasu Area Chamber of Commerce (AZ), Lancaster

Chamber (PA), Las Vegas Metro Chamber of Commerce (NV),

Lemont Chamber of Commerce (IL), Lima Allen County Chamber of

Commerce (OH), Little Rock Regional Chamber (AR), Long Beach

Area Chamber of Commerce (CA), Louisiana Association of

Business and Industry, Manufactured Housing Institute, McLean

County Chamber of Commerce (IL), Metals Service Center

Institute, Metro South Chamber of Commerce (MA), Metropolitan

Milwaukee Association of Commerce (WI), Michigan Retailers

Association, Minnesota Retailers Association, Missouri

Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Monroe Chamber of Commerce

(LA), Montgomery Area Chamber of Commerce (AL), Motor &

Equipment Manufacturers Association, Myrtle Beach Area

Chamber of Commerce (SC), National Association of Chemical

Distributors, National Association of Manufacturers, National

Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, National

Association of Professional Employer Organizations.

National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts,

National Association of the Remodeling Industry, National

Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, National Beer

Wholesalers Association, National Black Chamber of Commerce,

National Club Association, National Council of Chain

Restaurants, National Electrical Contractors Association

(NECA), National Grocers Association, National Lumber and

Building Material Dealers Association, National Marine

Manufacturers Association, National Office Products Alliance,

National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, National

Restaurant Association, National Retail Federation, National

Roofing Contractors Association, National Stone, Sand and

Gravel Association, Nebraska Chamber of Commerce & Industry,

Nebraska Retail Federation, NFIB--National Federation of

Independent Business.

North Carolina Chamber, North Country Chamber of Commerce

(NY), North Dakota Retail Association, North Kingstown

Chamber of Commerce (RI), North Myrtle Beach Chamber of

Commerce (SC), North Orange County Chamber (CA), North San

Antonio Chamber (TX), Office Furniture Dealers Alliance, Ohio

Chamber of Commerce, Ohio

Council of Retail Merchants, Oklahoma Retail Merchants

Association, Oshkosh Chamber of Commerce (WI), Oxnard Chamber

of Commerce (CA), PA Chamber of Business and Industry,

Pennsylvania Retailers Association, Plano Chamber of Commerce

(TX), Portland Cement Association, Prattville Area Chamber of

Commerce (AL), Precious Metals Association of North America,

Professional Beauty Association.

Reforming America's Taxes Equitability (RATE) Coalition,

Reno+Sparks Chamber of Commerce (NV), Retail Association of

Nevada, Retail Association of New Mexico, Retail Council of

New York State, Retail Industry Leaders Association,

Retailers Association of Massachusetts, Richardson Chamber of

Commerce (TX), River Heights Chamber of Commerce (MN), S

Corporation Association, Sacramento Metro Chamber of Commerce

(CA), Salt Lake Chamber (UT), San Diego Regional Chamber of

Commerce (CA), San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership (CA),

Schuylkill Chamber of Commerce (PA), Securities Industry and

Financial Markets Association, Service Station Dealers of

America and Allied Trades (SSDA-AT), Silver City Grant County

Chamber of Commerce (NM), South Summit Chamber of Commerce

(OH), Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association.

Southwest Indiana Chamber, St. Cloud Area Chamber of

Commerce (MN), St. Joseph Chamber of Commerce, St. Tammany

West Chamber of Commerce, State Chamber of Oklahoma, Steel

Manufacturers Association, Tampa Bay Beaches Chamber of

Commerce (FL), Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry,

Texas Retailers Association, The Chamber of Commerce of the

Santa Barbara Region (CA), The Chamber of Medford/Jackson

County (OR), The Chamber Grand Forks/East Grand Forks (ND),

The Fertilizer Institute, The Financial Services Roundtable,

The Kentucky Chamber, The Longview Chamber of Commerce (TX),

The Ohio Society of CPAs, The Real Estate Roundtable, Tile

Roofing Institute, Tioga County Chamber of Commerce (NY).

Tire Industry Association (TIA), Truck Renting and Leasing

Association, Tucson Metro Chamber (AZ), Tulsa Regional

Chamber (OK), U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Union County Chamber

of Commerce, United Corpus Christi Chamber of Commerce (TX),

USTelecom--The Broadband Association, Utah Food Industry

Association, Utah Retail Merchants Association, Virginia

Chamber of Commerce, Virginia Small Business Partnership,

West Baton Rouge Chamber of Commerce (LA), Wholesalers

Association of the Northeast (WANE), Window and Door

Manufacturers Association, Wisconsin Manufacturers and

Commerce, WMDA/CAR Service Station and Automotive Repair

Association.

There are 242 different entities that signed this letter to say that passing a budget is what we should be doing and that would lead us to tax reforms.

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

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the Compact for a Balanced Budget Commission, and I will read a portion of this letter. They say: ``Dear Chairman Black: We have reviewed the text of the budget resolution reported by your committee, H. Con. Res. 71, and write to offer our support. That rarest of political outcomes-- sound policy that represents a win-win scenario for normally divergent factions--is possible as the budget process moves forward.

``Our Nation is facing a fiscal crisis. It is essential that the Federal budget returns to balance within the 10-year budget period because runaway Federal debt is not political or partisan--it is an economic, generational, and civil rights issue. We commend you and your committee for reporting a resolution that balances within the budget period; its adoption is very much in the national interest.''

And again, this comes from The Compact Commission, Compact for a Balanced Budget.

The Compact Commission, c/o Compact for America

Educational Foundation, Inc.,

Houston, TX, August 8, 2017.

Re 2018 House Budget Resolution and the Compact for a

Balanced Budget.

Hon. Diane Black,

Chairman, House Budget Committee, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Black: We have reviewed the text of the

budget resolution reported by your Committee (House

Concurrent Resolution 71) and write to offer our support.

That rarest of political outcomes--sound policy that

represents a win-win scenario for normally divergent

factions--is possible as the budget process moves forward.

Our nation is facing a fiscal crisis. It is essential that

the federal budget returns to balance within the ten-year

budget period because runaway federal debt is not political

or partisan--it is an economic, generational and civil-rights

issue. We commend you and your Committee for reporting a

resolution that balances within the budget period; its

adoption is very much in the national interest.

We also commend the Committee for including Section 501 in

the resolution, which endorses adding a balanced budget

requirement to the Constitution.

Section 501 identifies the Compact for a Balanced Budget,

which we represent on behalf of current and future member

states. We believe the most practical, prudent enforcement

mechanism is the state-of-the-art balanced budget amendment

(BBA) being proposed by the Compact. This state-of-the-art

BBA has been specifically designed to overcome concerns

expressed in 40 years of congressional hearings that have

considered how a BBA should be drafted. Such concerns may

have prevented prior BBAs from being proposed.

To advance the policy prescription in Section 501 of the

budget resolution in the House, we recommend: updating this

section to reflect that the concurrent resolution to

effectuate the Compact (House Concurrent Resolution 73) was

introduced on July 26, 2017; and incorporating the language

of House Concurrent Resolution 73 into Section 501. This

could be done as one of several amendments you are probably

already planning to bring up during floor consideration as

the manager's package, and requires only a majority vote as

opposed to the two-thirds required for balanced budget

amendment proposals made by members of Congress.

Taking these steps establishes a strong enforcement

mechanism, sustaining the budget resolution following its

adoption. It would also strengthen the appeal of the budget

resolution to fiscal conservatives in the House and taking

these steps prior to the consideration of legislation to

raise the debt ceiling should expedite approval of that

legislation.

Supermajorities of Americans have demanded a balanced

budget for decades. Our nation's debt threatens future

generations to default or austerity, but we believe there's a

chance here for a third option: principled leadership on the

matter of debt and spending.

We hope you and your Committee members will agree that

there is a path here which acknowledges the need for long-

term fiscal

sanity while also meeting shorter-term political and policy

needs.

Regards,

Chair Mead Treadwell,

Alaska Commissioner.

Vice Chair Paulate Rakestraw,

Georgia Commissioner.

Greg Snowden,

Mississippi Commissioner.

Mr. Chairman, I want to just bounce off of that and take a look at the chart that we have here. When we take a look at interest--and somehow we don't always talk that much about interest here. We talk about borrowing money and raising our debt ceiling continually. I have been here now for 6\1/2\ years, and the conversation is about raising that debt ceiling so that we can pay for our debt, but there comes interest on that.

Just as when we go to a bank and we borrow money, we have to pay interest on that. I remember years ago, when I bought my first house, we were at a period of time when President Carter was the President and the interest rates were outrageous, and our interest rate on our house at that time, when we purchased it as a young married couple, was, I think, somewhere between 14 and 16 percent.

Interest rates now are very much more reasonable for young couples purchasing. And so I want to turn our attention to this chart here to take a look at the outlays in 2027 under the CBO baseline.

If we continue down this path that we are going in, without taking a look at our mandatory spending, the amount of money that we borrow, and the debt that we pile up with an interest to it, just what will that look like?

I think if we look at our own household and we would say that our interest that we are paying on the credit card or whatever, or the car interest or the House mortgage, if it were more than all of the other things like the food and maybe the education for our children and buying books and pencils and things that they need for school, we would be looking at the way in which we were managing our household income and saying, wow, that is not something we want to keep doing. We are going to have to get on some kind of a budget plan and reverse the trajectory of where we would be going.

So here we are. At the end of the period of 2027, if we look at 17 years down the road and we don't do anything about the kind of mandatory spending, which is two-thirds of our budget, currently, and continues to grow, here is what happens:

We see $768 billion being spent on interest alone.

We see the next one down, the defense, at $741 billion. We would actually be paying more in interest than we were in the security of our Nation and supporting our men and women who serve in the military, and all of the supplies and the necessary equipment that it takes to protect them as they protect us.

Look at what happens with Medicaid. We will be spending less on Medicaid that is for people who are the blind, the disabled, the elderly, the children, the pregnant mothers.

We talk about wanting to put our money and our values where we see the values really belong. Is this really where we want our values to be in the money that we spend, $768 billion in interest compared to what we are spending on our military, what we are spending on our Medicaid?

Look at our veterans, our veterans that we talk about how much we honor them: $248 billion as opposed to $768 billion in interest.

Again, we must question where we are going and if this is the right direction. Is this the direction that we can all just raise our hand up and say, yes, we are making good decisions for the future of our country? Because look at where the interest is compared to the other programs that we both, Republicans and Democrats, have said are so important to us.

Over and over again, we have had colleagues on both sides of the aisle go and speak about the importance of what our values are. Our budget is a vision of what our values are.

Transportation, and I have heard more and more times on both sides of the aisle talking about infrastructure, how important that is for our Nation. Look at what our transportation and our infrastructure will be. I don't know that we want to spend only $110 billion on that and $768 billion on interest. Think of how many roads we could build, how many bridges we could repair if we reverse this trajectory.

Then, finally, at the bottom here is science-based technology. We all want to be competitive with those around the world to make sure that we are spending the money where we need to spend the money to stay in front of these other nations with our science and our space and our technology.

I want to recommend here that there are only two other programs, Social Security and Medicare, that exceed that net interest. So we will say Social Security, Medicare, and then our net interest; and from there, everything else that we say, both the Republicans and the Democrats, are so important, that we say are our values, are going to be underneath the interest. I don't think that is really where we want to go.

I have to think, my oldest grandchild right now is 19 years old, soon to turn 20, when he is 30 years old, he might say to me: Mimi, what were you doing when you were in Congress? What were you doing to help us, because now we are paying more in interest than we are all of these other programs that we contend to be so important to us?

So these are difficult decisions to make, I will acknowledge that. But I will also say to you, as someone who--I consider myself to be a policy wonk. As I look at these various programs, I say there is nothing that we are doing in my life that I did 40 years ago that I am doing exactly the same. So if a program has been around for 40 years, should we not want to say maybe we can reform it? Not necessarily cut, but, in the reforming, you may find a way to decrease the spending that you are doing in that program.

Can't we all lock arms, Democrats and Republicans, and acknowledge that there are some decisions that have to be made with programs that have been there for a very long time?

Can we not acknowledge that there are some programs that perhaps have fraud, waste, and abuse that we can take care of, take that money and use it in these places where we really say our values lie?

So I would say that, as we talk about this budget, I am very proud of what we have done in this budget, in the cuts or, as I say, reforms in those programs that would result in $203 billion worth of savings over a 10-year period, that these are programs that we gave the committees of jurisdiction an opportunity to look within their jurisdiction and to make those decisions and do the homework. It is your jurisdiction; it is not mine. We gave them recommendations and suggestions, but it is their jurisdiction.

Let them evaluate where it is that there are programs that can have new and creative ideas, things that can save us money, not necessarily using the word ``cut,'' but in savings. Yes, you may have some cuts that are done, but these are good cuts. These are things that you have spent a lot of time thinking about.

That is really where we want to go. That is what this budget does is it says: Open up your minds. Think differently. Let's not do things the same old way and keep putting the same old programs out there that maybe aren't working.

And you know what? Maybe they are not even working for the people that we give them to. Maybe they are not working for them, because work is dignity.

When we say that someone who is able-bodied and without any dependents should be at work, that is not cruel. Do you know what that is? That is dignity. When people go to work, it is a dignified activity.

I always say, after I ask you what your name is, and we all do it, we say: What do you do? And when someone cannot tell you what they do, they don't feel dignified.

Look, I don't want to be cruel to people who are disabled, people who are having a really tough time and have other circumstances, but we should acknowledge that there is dignity in work; and when we can give people an opportunity to have that dignity, we should be willing to stand up and do that.

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

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

I likewise, would like to just say that the ranking member, Mr. Yarmuth, has just been wonderful to work with, and we may have differences of opinion, but we can do it in a very Southern hospitality way. I just so much appreciate his demeanor, his leadership on the committee, the way he honors the members of the committee, both Democrats and Republicans, and it has just been a joy to work with him. I am going to miss working with him and being able to have lively debate, which is good for this body and it is good for America.

I want to also thank all the members who participated in the debate today, both the Democrats and the Republicans. This is what our democracy is about, being able to voice our opinions and at the end of the day being able to come to a conclusion after that debate. I look forward to continuing discussion and voting on the final passage tomorrow.

As we finish up, I also want to thank our staff for their hard work, and there are many of them, so I am not going to read all of them to you. I do want to mention some of those who are the leaders of the House Budget Committee staff and have just been great to work with.

Rick May, who is the staff director; Jenna Spealman; Andy Morton; Tim Flynn; Mary, who has been here with me at my side the entire time. What would I do without having somebody to pass papers to us? So Mary has been great. Jim Bates, and I am going to leave it at that because I am going to get in trouble if I don't announce all of them.

The staff has just been tremendous to work with, many hours, weekends, and, indeed, even holidays that they have been here helping to gather the information both for the Budget Committee hearings and then, also, for this today.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to a more lively debate tomorrow. I include in the Record the names of the staff of the Budget Committee.

House Budget Committee Majority Staff

Rick May

Jenna Spealman

Andy Morton

Tim Flynn

Patrick Louis Knudsen

Benjamin Gardenhour

Gary Haglund

Chris Hartline

Sarah Corley

Sage Peterson

Jim Bates

Mary Popadiuk

Jonathan Romito

Elise Anderson

Policy Advisors

Jenna Spealman

Steve Gonzalez

Robert Cogan

Eric Davis

Robert Yeakel

Ellen Johnson

Andy Morton

Emily Goff

Brad Watson

Brittany Madni

Steve Waskiewicz

Alex Stoddard

Joe Guillen

Personal Staff (Representative Diane Black, Tennessee, 6th District)

Teresa Koeberlein

Dean Thompson

Heather Douglass

Jon Toomey

Ace Burch

Katie Mitchell

Hillary Lassiter

Zachary Royster

Greg Dowel

Nicholas Ayers

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget we are debating here today is a shockingly extreme document that gives to the rich and takes from everyone else. It calls for more than $5 trillion in spending cuts that threaten our economic progress and our national security, and it willfully ignores the needs and priorities of the American people.

This budget isn't about conservative policy or reducing the size of our debt and deficits. It is not even about American families. This budget is about one thing: using budget reconciliation to ram through giant tax giveaways to the wealthy and big corporations and to do it without bipartisan support.

This budget and the tax cuts it exists to support are built on a foundation of lies. They are part of a dangerous and deceptive three- step process Republicans have used before with serious consequences for our Nation and the American people.

This is what they do. First, my Republican colleagues call for massive tax cuts for the rich, claiming they will generate so much economic growth, that they will pay for themselves. Last week, congressional Republicans announced a $2.4 trillion tax cut plan that benefits the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. Yes, I said trillions with a T.

For example, under this tax plan, millions of families making $50,000 a year would be subject to a tax increase, while millionaires get a $230,000 average tax cut. That is not tax reform. That is a shakedown.

In total, individuals will see their taxes go up by more than $450 billion, while corporations, wealthy pass-through entities, and rich estates get a tax cut totaling $2.9 trillion.

One might justifiably ask why anyone would want to do that. After all, the income disparity in the United States is greater than almost every other country on Earth, and it is getting larger. Just a few decades ago, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans earned about one- fourth of all national income. Today, it is close to 40 percent. Yet, once this plan is fully phased in, 80 percent of the entire tax cut in this plan goes to just the top 1 percent, while 45 percent of all households with children see a tax increase.

You could be someone who gets a $1 million salary, owns billions in corporate stock, be a partner in a hedge fund, or just the heir to a massive fortune, no matter the type of millionaire you are, Republicans make sure you will get a tax cut. No matter how many times President Trump, Secretary Mnuchin, or my colleagues across the aisle say it and how much they hope the American people will fall for it, these tax cuts won't pay for themselves.

That is not just my argument. That is the conclusion of the Federal Reserve, the Congressional Budget Office, and respected economists of all stripes.

Conservative economist and former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin said: ``There is just no evidence that the tax cuts actually pay for themselves.''

Even Goldman Sachs, Secretary Mnuchin's former employer, says any growth will be minimal, maybe up to two-tenths of a percent.

Bruce Bartlett, the man who wrote Reaganomics, which codified the trickle-down theory, told Congress last week that he now thinks it is: ``bull.'' Well, that is half of the word he used, but you get the idea.

The historical record is clear. We went through this in the early 1980s, the early 2000s under George W. Bush, and we recently saw it play out to disastrous effect in Kansas. Now congressional Republicans want to try it again.

We all know the truth. The tax cuts in this plan will increase deficits and debt by approximately $2.4 trillion in the first 10 years alone and trillions more in the years after. These aren't special, supernatural tax cuts. They aren't going to magically defy expert analysis, historical precedence, and empirical evidence. This budget will

blow enormous holes in the Federal budget, which brings me to the second part of the Republican deception.

When the growth fails to happen as promised and these tax cuts keep digging our economy down deeper and deeper, Republicans will again bemoan the horrors of deficits and debt.

These cries will lead us to the third and final part of the plan. They will call for congressional action, not to roll back the tax cuts to the wealthy that caused all the damage, but for drastic cuts to important programs that the American people need and support. Education, healthcare, research, infrastructure, and veterans' benefits are already threatened in this budget. It includes an astonishing $5.4 trillion in spending cuts; $1.5 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid alone. It even assumes $49 billion in cuts to veterans' benefits.

The enormity of these cuts and the severity of the consequences for American families cannot be overstated, but more cuts will be coming if my Republicans get their way with this budget. We will see more attacks on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, nutrition assistance, on important benefits and services that help American families get ahead, and on key investments that keep our economy and our Nation strong.

To be clear, and with all due respect to my friend and colleague from Tennessee, by voting on this budget, for this budget, they are jeopardizing meals and food assistance for 515,000 hungry children in Tennessee so that the wealthiest person in that State, who has a net worth of $8.8 billion, can get a massive tax cut.

Democrats have a different budget and a far different vision for our country. Our priorities reflect the priorities of the American people.

We invest in programs that will grow our economy, create good-paying jobs, and provide real support for working families; public investments that lead to a brighter future, such as rebuilding roads, bridges, and other vital infrastructure; retirement security for seniors now and for millions of Americans who fear they will never be able to afford to stop working; affordable education so that young people will be able to compete for the careers of the future; affordable, quality childcare for hardworking parents; and affordable quality healthcare for all Americans.

We believe in a government that helps individuals with nowhere left to turn and a Tax Code that helps families get ahead. Those are American priorities, and they should be the priorities of this Congress.

I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose this budget and support the Democratic alternative.

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

Mr. Chair, I would note for my colleague from Indiana that by voting for this budget, he will force 1,150,553 seniors, disabled individuals, and other seriously ill people in Indiana to pay more for lifesaving Medicare all so that the wealthiest person in his State, who has a net worth of $8 billion, can get a massive tax break.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I want to note for my friend and colleague from Florida that by voting for this budget, he is jeopardizing meals and food assistance for 1,448,000 hungry children in Florida so that the wealthiest person in his State, who has a net worth of $13.2 billion, can get a massive tax cut.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chair, I would note, for my friend and colleague, that by voting for this budget, he will force 678,763 seniors, disabled individuals, and other seriously ill people in Oklahoma to pay more for lifesaving Medicare all so that the wealthiest person in his State, who has a net worth of $10.2 billion, gets a massive tax cut.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield the gentlemen from California an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Chair, I want to note for my colleague that, by voting for this budget, he is jeopardizing meals and food assistance for 2,319,000 hungry children in California so that the wealthiest person in his State, who has a net worth of $62.4 billion, gets a massive tax cut.

Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

I want to note for my colleague that, by voting for this budget, he will force 2,154,337 seniors, disabled individuals, and other seriously ill people in Ohio to pay more for lifesaving Medicare all so that the wealthiest person in his State, who has a net worth of $6.2 billion, can get a massive tax cut.

And just in case my colleagues on the other side are wondering where this information comes from as to the wealthiest person in each State, it is from that notoriously leftwing magazine, Forbes, this year.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee and the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Chair, I would like to note for my colleague that, by voting for this budget, he is jeopardizing meals and food assistance for 809,000 hungry children in Georgia so that the wealthiest person in his State, who has a net worth of $12.6 billion, can get a massive tax cut.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

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

I yield the gentleman from Maryland an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I would note for my colleague that by voting for this budget, he will force 594,596 seniors, disabled individuals, and other seriously ill people in Arkansas to pay more for lifesaving Medicare all so that the wealthiest person in his State, who has a net worth of $38.5 billion, can get a massive tax cut.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee and the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of my colleague from South Carolina, and I certainly have a great deal of respect for his thoughtfulness. But I also must note that if he votes for this budget, he is jeopardizing meals and food assistance for 366,000 hungry children in South Carolina so that the wealthiest person in his State, who has a net worth of $3 billion, can get a massive tax cut.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. Chair, I would note for my colleague from Illinois that, by voting for this budget, he will force 2,066,376 seniors, disabled individuals, and other seriously ill people in Illinois to pay more for lifesaving Medicare, all so that the wealthiest person in his State, who has a net worth of $8 billion, can get a massive tax cut.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), who is the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to note for my colleague that, by voting for this budget, he is jeopardizing meals and food assistance for 2,060,000 hungry children in Texas so that the wealthiest person in his State, who has a net worth of $38.2 billion, can get a massive tax cut.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), who is a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I would note for my colleague that, by voting for this budget, he will force 1,895,558 seniors, disabled individuals, and other seriously ill people in Michigan to pay more for lifesaving Medicare all so the wealthiest person in his State, who has a net worth of $5.9 billion, can get a massive tax cut.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), a distinguished member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and an alumnus of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to note for my colleague that by voting for this budget, he is jeopardizing meals and food assistance for 200,000 hungry children in Arkansas all so that the wealthiest person in his State, who has a net worth of $38.5 billion, can get a massive tax cut.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I yield the gentleman from New Jersey an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I would note for my colleague that, by voting for this budget, he will force 1,519,461 seniors, disabled individuals, and other seriously ill people in Georgia to pay more for lifesaving Medicare all so that the wealthiest person in his State, who has a net worth of $12.6 billion, can get a massive tax cut.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) the Democratic Caucus chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to note for my friend and colleague that by voting for this budget, he is jeopardizing meals and food assistance for 216,000 hungry children in Minnesota so that the wealthiest person in his State, who has a net worth of $5.4 billion, gets a massive tax cut.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters), the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I would note for my colleague that by voting for this budget, he will force 1,895,558 seniors, disabled individuals, and other seriously ill people in Michigan to pay more for lifesaving Medicare all so that the wealthiest person in his State, who has net worth of $5.9 billion, can get a massive tax cut.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I want to note for my colleague that by voting for this budget, he is jeopardizing meals and food assistance for 734,000 hungry children in Pennsylvania all so that the wealthiest person in his State, who has a net worth of $3.8 billion, gets a massive tax cut.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield the gentlewoman from Florida an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I would remind my colleague that, by voting for this budget, he will force 941,169 seniors, disabled individuals, and other seriously ill people in South Carolina to pay more for lifesaving Medicare, all so that the wealthiest person in his State, who has a net worth of $3 billion, can get a massive tax cut.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi), a distinguished member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time both sides have remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman from Washington an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a distinguished member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Oregon an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Fudge), a distinguished member of the Agriculture Committee and a fellow rabid Cleveland Indians fan.

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

Mr. Chairman, we have had numerous letters submitted to us taking a position in opposition to this budget resolution, and I think they are pretty compelling, and I would like to read from some of them.

Here is a letter from the Main Street Alliance:

Main Street Alliance, a network of small business owners

throughout the country, strongly urges you to oppose H. Con.

Res. 71, the fiscal year 2018 budget resolution. This budget,

if enacted into law, would cut $3.4 trillion from Medicaid,

Medicare, Social Security, education, employment and

training, food and housing assistance, and infrastructure

spending over the next 10 years. This will significantly harm

small business owners and their employees, damage local

economies, and decimate State budgets.

We urge you to protect Main Street small business owners,

working families, communities, and economies, and oppose the

House budget resolution. Reject any budget that enables tax

cuts for the very wealthy and large profitable corporations

to lose revenue, since it will force deep cuts in vital

programs that harm small business.

This letter from the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare:

On behalf of the millions of members and supporters of the

National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare,

I urge you to oppose H. Con. Res. 71, the House fiscal year

2018 budget resolution, and the Republican Study Committee

budget. Instead, I ask you to support the Democratic Caucus,

Congressional Progressive Caucus, and Congressional Black

Caucus budgets.

The committee-passed budget resolution would slash funding

to Medicare and Medicaid, repeal the Affordable Care Act, and

make it easier for Congress to cut Social Security, all to

pay for massive tax cuts for the very wealthy and profitable

corporations.

This from the American Public Health Association:

On behalf of the American Public Health Association, a

diverse community of public health professionals who champion

the health of all people and communities, I write in strong

opposition to the House FY 2018 budget resolution, H. Con.

Res. 71. This proposal does not eliminate sequestration and

would drastically cut nondefense discretionary spending. Such

cuts would devastate our Nation's public health and safety

net system and would have a disproportionate impact on our

Nation's most vulnerable citizens.

The proposal also includes the House passed repeal of the

Affordable Care Act that would force millions to lose

coverage, end the Medicaid expansion, drastically reduce

Federal funding for the Medicaid program, and lead to

increased cost and fewer benefits for millions of Americans.

This letter from the AFSCME, American Federation of State and County Municipal Employees:

On behalf of the 1.6 million members of AFSCME, I urge you

to oppose H. Con. Res. 71, the fiscal year 2018 budget

resolution approved by the House Budget Committee and

scheduled to be considered in the full House.

This budget would impose considerable hardship on many

Americans in order to slash taxes for the wealthy and

corporations to boost defense spending. Rather than

increasing revenues for investment that creates jobs and

spurs economic growth, the proposed budget creates a fast-

track process for tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit

corporations and the wealthy.

In fact, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center,

the Trump GOP tax cut would largely benefit the richest 1

percent. The budget also relies on the gimmicks of dynamic

scoring and sham accounting, hiding the true cost of

unnecessary and harmful tax cuts.

And this, from AARP:

Proposals creating a defined contribution premium support

program, restricting access by raising the age of

eligibility, or allowing hospitals and providers to

arbitrarily charge customers higher prices than Medicare can

make healthcare unaffordable for older Americans. These

proposals do little to actually lower the cost of healthcare

but simply shifts cost from Medicare on to individuals, many

of whom cannot afford to pay for their care.

Efforts to reduce or cap Medicaid funding could endanger

the health, safety, and care of millions of individuals who

depend on the essential services provided through this

program.

Furthermore, caps could result in significant cost shifts

to State governments unable to shoulder the cost of care

without sufficient Federal support.

Proposals to block grant the program or impose work

requirements will make SNAP less responsive and accessible in

times of need, and without clear work requirement exemptions

for the elderly and disabled, would bar these individuals

from receiving SNAP benefits.

We ask you to reject the cuts proposed in H. Con. Res. 71.

We stand ready to work with you to develop proposals that

protect and improve Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas.

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

Mr. Chairman, this has been a robust debate. We had a robust debate in the Rules Committee yesterday, and we have had robust debates in the committee markup and during hearings, as well, over the priorities of this country.

As we close this debate tonight, recognizing there will be a few minutes tomorrow for comments, I just want to say that, since this could very well be the last time that I get to appear in Budget Committee business with Chairman Black, I have truly cherished the 9 months that we have spent working together.

The chairman is a gracious, fair, thoughtful, and very, very collegial individual, and I wish her the best in her campaign, at least through the primary. I thank her and her very, very competent and professional staff for all of the courtesies they have shown us during this year and this process.

I also want to pay tribute to the Democratic staff, people who work very, very hard every day and are brilliant in their fields and make me sound smarter than I probably am, but I would like to read their names: Jon Antista; Erika Appel; Ellen Balis, the staff director; Hayden Flanery; Jon Goldman; Elliott Grantz; Jocelyn Harris; Najy Kamal; Sam Lau; Sheila McDowell; Diana Meredith; Farouk Ophaso; Kimberly Overbeek; Scott Russell; and Ted Zegers.

They do terrific work, and I want them to know how much I and all the members of the Budget Committee, the minority, appreciate their work.

I would also like to thank my personal staff, led by my chief of staff, Julie Carr, for the work they contribute to this process as well.

In closing, there are a few comments I want to make about this debate.

We heard several times during the day that it is really not fair to talk about the consequences of the tax proposal that will be the end result of this process because the details haven't been ironed out yet. That is, you know, fair enough as it goes, but there were enough details in the outline that we saw last week to make a pretty good guess as to what the impact of these tax cuts would be.

Now, we have read over and over, as Republican speakers spoke, the fact that they were willing to jeopardize the health and safety and nutrition of their citizens to give the wealthiest people in their State tax cuts. Most of these numbers that we read were in the billions of dollars: $38 billion, $16 billion. These are individuals with net worths of astounding amounts.

The outline that was publicly released last week said that the Republicans intend, under this tax proposal, to eliminate the estate tax. If they eliminate the estate tax, much of that money is not going to be taxed. They will get to keep it. I don't think that they are going to be out there creating new companies. Maybe their children will do it if they inherit it. Maybe they have given some of it away so those estates aren't quite as big. I suspect many of them have.

The point is, when you are talking about wealth, collectively, the wealthiest persons in the 50 States, collectively, have $750 billion in net worth, which means that, if they paid the estate tax, there would be over $300 billion in money that they would save if you eliminated the estate tax.

So while, yes, we may be off plus or minus 3 percent or 5 percent or 10 percent, the fact is that this is an enormous break for the people who have been the most fortunate in this country. I think it is more than fair to say, if you say you are going to eliminate the estate tax, if you say you are going to eliminate the AMT, the alternative minimum tax, and we can go look at President Trump's 2005 tax return, which said he paid $31 million in tax because of the alternative minimum tax, it doesn't take any details to know that he would have saved $31 million in that year if you eliminate the alternative minimum tax.

So, yes, the rates may vary. Ultimately, the tax bill that we have presented to us may not lower the highest rate from 39.6 to 35 percent, but if it does, we know the impact that that will have. We know who will benefit most from that. It is the wealthiest 1 percent of this country.

As I will say tomorrow when we close this debate, I am in the top 1 percent. Half of this body are millionaires. They are all going to benefit. We are all going to benefit. Meanwhile, the people who rely on many of the programs that will be slashed under this Republican budget will suffer. That is not fair.

Now, Republicans will make the argument, as they always do because this is a matter of religious faith to them, that if you give people more money, they will magically create all this growth. Well, has that really happened?

Out of the Fortune 500 companies, I think, in a recent study, 92 of them paid 20 percent or less in corporate tax. Collectively, they eliminated 300,000 jobs over a 5-year period. So they had more money than corporations paying 35 percent. Did they use it to create more jobs, more wealth among middle class and working families? No. They used it to pay dividends, to buy back stock, and to increase the wages of their CEOs.

That is what has happened in modern history every time we lower corporate tax rates or we let them bring taxes in from overseas. They do not create more jobs with the money that they save.

So I think it is very, very fair for us to look at this entire process, the budget proposal, which does anticipate a tax cut--which they claim is revenue neutral, but it is a tax cut--and the outline that we saw last week and say: Who, really, is this going to help?

It is not going to help the people who need the help. It is going to give more money to the people who already occupy one of the strongest economic positions in a country with the greatest disparity of wealth in the world.

So as we conclude this debate, I urge my colleagues to carefully consider the alternatives that will be proposed by the Democratic Caucus, by the Congressional Black Caucus, and by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and compare the values and the priorities of those budgets to those that the Republican budget represents.

I think, on balance, anybody in good faith will say that those budgets, not the Republican budgets, are the budgets that will create a stronger, fairer society in this country, and those are the ones that we should proceed to adopt.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend, my fellow alum, for his leadership. I recognize and thank the chairwoman of the committee.

To my good friend that was on the floor, I think he wants limited government when disaster is not in his district.

So I think it is important as a member of this Budget Committee of which I am so very proud of its service, as the Democrats have worked so hard, and as a member of the Homeland Security Committee, a committee called upon

for domestic tranquility and domestic security, might I just add that we are now marking up a bill just a few floors away from this House that is asking for $15 billion to pay for a border wall in the midst of the horror of tragedy and in the midst of a lowering number of individuals even coming to the United States across the border, the very border wall that was told to us would be paid for by the people of Mexico.

But I think the important point is that my good friends who are supporting this dastardly budget that tears at the fabric of America are, as well, supporting a tax cut for the wealthy that will provide $2.9 trillion of debt to the American people and increase the debt as well as the deficit. It will mean that working and middle class families will have taxes raised on them by $470 billion. We will see the heavy brunt of this budget on low-income families, students struggling to afford college, seniors, and persons with disabilities.

Just a few hours ago, I said the American people do not need to have the government step on them; and I can assure you, with this budget, which cuts more than $1.5 trillion from Medicaid and Medicare, we will step on the American people.

We will end the Medicare guarantee, and it will narrowly shortchange soft power by cutting and decimating the State Department, the very partner that we need to continue the security of the American people, raising defense, of whom I support all of our military. Texas is a military State. But it is $72 billion above cap, and that is not giving our military personnel their due. It is going above the needs of the military.

We need to be prepared, but this skinny budget will undermine education and the workforce at $326 billion, energy and commerce at $1.56 billion, homeland security by $25 billion, justice and the needs of civil justice by $67 billion, and veterans by $49 billion.

It will cut the Community Development Block Grant, and it will hurt Virgin Islands U.S. citizens, Puerto Rico U.S. citizens, and Texas, that is still struggling.

Before I came to this floor, I was engaging with my State about more disaster food stamp sites because I have people who are unhoused in the 18th Congressional District, who are needing the resources.

Mr. Chairman, I have individuals who our wonderful first responders had to drag out of the raging waters in Hurricane Harvey. I have homes that were underwater that need disaster relief. I have individuals who are walking along highways like oceans, and then I have children who are with families who do not have jobs because of Hurricane Harvey, who need the Children's Health Insurance Program or need the disaster food stamps.

This is a budget that steps on the American people. It steps on our disaster relief, and it does not recognize what the United States Government is. It is a refuge and a relief for the American people.

Vote ``no'' on the Republican budget.

Mr. Chair, as a member of the Budget Committee, a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, and the proud representative of the 700,000 residents of 18th Congressional District of Texas who are still coping with the devastation caused by Hurricane Harvey, I rise in strong and unyielding opposition to H. Con. Res. 71, the Congressional Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2018.

Why do I urge every Member of this House to vote against this Republican budget resolution, laughingly called the ``Building a Better America Budget,'' but which more accurately should be named the ``Nightmare on Capitol Hill Budget''?

Let us count the ways; here are eight to start.

1. Republican budget mandates $5.4 trillion in spending cuts to top priorities like disaster relief, education, infrastructure, research, veteran benefits, and programs that expand opportunities for American families.

2. Republican budget provides $2.9 trillion in tax cuts to millionaires, billionaires, and wealthy corporations, while raising taxes on working and middle class families by $470 billion.

3. The budget includes fast-track reconciliation procedures to push through cuts to programs that tens of millions of Americans count on totaling $203 billion across 11 House committees.

4. The steep reductions in program investments proposed in this Republican budget fall most heavily on low-income families, students struggling to afford college, seniors, and persons with disabilities.

5. Republican budget immediately guts investment critical to expanding economic opportunity by lowering the already inadequate austerity-level spending caps by an additional $5 billion in 2018 and by even more in subsequent years.

6. Republican budget adopts Trumpcare but does even more damage because in addition to depriving more than 20 million Americans of healthcare, denying protection to persons with preexisting conditions, and raising costs for older and low-income adults, cuts more than $1.5 trillion from Medicaid and Medicare.

7. Republican budget ends the Medicare guarantee and calls for replacing Medicare's guaranteed benefits with fixed payments for the purchase of health insurance, shifting costs and financial risks onto seniors and disabled workers; this represents a $500 billion cut to Medicare over ten years.

8. The Republican budget focuses too narrowly on the military, shortchanging American soft-power and other essential elements of national security by increasing defense spending by $72 billion above the cap and hollowing out the State Department and foreign aid agencies with cuts of $11 billion and environmental and natural resource protection by more than $6 billion.

Mr. Chair, the federal budget is more than a financial document; it is an expression of our values and priorities as a nation.

Sadly, this Republican budget, just like the President's ``skinny budget'' fails this moral test of government.

America will not be made great by stealing another $1.5 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid, abandoning seniors and families in need, depriving students of realizing a dream to attend college without drowning in debt, or disinvesting in the working families just to give unwanted tax breaks to wealthy corporations and the top 1 percent.

America will not be positioned to compete and win in the global, interconnected, and digital economy by slashing funding for scientific research, the arts and humanities, job retraining, and clean energy.

Even a cursory review leaves the inescapable conclusion that this budget represents a betrayal--of our values as a nation, and of the promises made by the President during the election campaign.

This Republican budget is not a budget for the real world that real Americans live in but is as much a fantasy budget as the Trump ``Skinny Budget'' in that it pretends to achieve balance by assuming that painless spending cuts can and will be made by the following standing committees of Congress in the following amounts:

1. Agriculture Committee: cut $207 billion

2. Armed Services Committee: cut $33 billion

3. Education and Workforce Committee: $326 billion

4. Energy and Commerce Committee: $1.656 trillion

5. Financial Services Committee: cut $124 billion

6. Homeland Security Committee: cut $25 billion

7. Judiciary Committee: cut $67 billion

8. Natural Resources Committee: cut $59 billion

9. Oversight and Government Reform Committee: cut $282 billion

10. Transportation and Infrastructure Committee: cut $3 billion

11. Veterans Affairs Committee: cut $49 billion

12. Ways and Means Committee: cut $800 billion

13. Unassigned (i.e., Intelligence; Foreign Affairs; Small Business; Science, Space, and Technology Committees: cut $747 billion

14. Total Cuts: $4.38 trillion

To put these reckless, irresponsible, and draconian budget cuts in perspective, it is useful to examine what they mean when applied to the programs depended upon by Americans to rise up the economic ladder, plan for the future, provide for their families, and strive to achieve the American Dream.

The elimination of funding for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) drains resources from communities, even in times of disaster because CDBG provides flexible grants to local communities for a wide range of unique needs, including Meals on Wheels, housing programs, and community infrastructure improvements.

The Republican budget targets disaster grants made by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which help families and businesses when their disaster-related property losses are not covered by insurance.

The Republican budget makes higher education more expensive by cutting $211 billion from student financial aid programs, like Pell Grants, over ten years.

The Republican budget also eliminates subsidized loans, making it difficult for students, particularly low-income students, to afford college and compounds the damage by making it more difficult to repay student loans by eliminating the Public Sector Loan Forgiveness and Teacher Loan Forgiveness programs.

The Republican budget's solution to the affordable housing crisis currently facing cities large and small all across the country is to convert all discretionary spending on affordable housing into a block grant, which means there will be even less assistance to help the 71 percent of extremely low income renter households who spend more than half their income on housing.

The Republican budget cuts $154 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) over the next ten years by essentially converting it to a block grant, cutting off funding for eligible individuals and requiring cash-strapped states to either fill in the gap or take away food assistance from millions of working families, children, and seniors.

Mr. Chair, as economists and policy experts have documented time and again, immigration reform would expand the size of the U.S. workforce, and in turn would increase the size of the economy and reduce deficits.

The Republican budget, however, again rejects comprehensive immigration reform that would bring clear and just rules for those seeking citizenship and help secure the nation's borders.

In doing so, the Republican budget squanders an opportunity to reduce deficits by an estimated $900 billion over the next two decades, boost the economy by 5.4 percent, and extend the solvency of Social Security.

Mr. Chair, none of us can forget the President's favorite boast and central campaign promise that he would build a wall on our southern border and guarantee that Mexico would be made to pay for it.

The Republican budget deprives the President of the opportunity to make good on his foolish boast by forcing American taxpayers to foot the bill for President Trump's $1.6 billion border wall that will do nothing to stop unauthorized entry into the country and will not fix our broken immigration system.

The Republican budget continues to target federal employees by cutting their compensation and benefits by at least another $163 billion over ten years, which comes on top of the $182 billion in cuts federal employees have already absorbed in the form of higher retirement contributions, pay freezes, and furloughs.

The Republican budget puts U.S. transportation network on the road to ruin by slashing transportation spending, by $254 billion over ten years, or 25 percent below current estimates.

The Republican budget cuts hurts veterans by cutting veterans benefits by nearly $50 billion over the next ten years, with newly eligible veterans experiencing cuts in programs that pay for education benefits as well as loan guarantees.

Finally, Mr. Chair, it must be pointed out that the Republican budget's pretension to balance is based on reliance on trillions of dollars in budget games and gimmicks to rig the numbers.

The Republican budget counts a dubious $1.8 trillion ``economic dividend'' from cutting taxes and taking away consumer protections that is not backed up by any credible analysis and assumes $1.5 trillion of this ``dividend'' will go toward deficit reduction.

The Republican budget assumes, despite all precedent and evidence to the contrary, that tax reform will be revenue neutral, even though Republican tax plans are projected to lose between $3 trillion and $7 trillion.

Given these budgetary shenanigans, never could it more truly be said that ``figures don't lie, but liars figure.''

As the late and great former senator and Vice-President Hubert Humphrey said:

The moral test of government is how that government treats

those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who

are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are

in shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped.

It is for this reason that in evaluating the merits of a budget resolution, it is not enough to subject it only to the test of fiscal responsibility.

To keep faith with the nation's past, to be fair to the nation's present, and to safeguard the nation's future, the budget must also pass a ``moral test.''

The Republican budget resolution fails both of these standards.

Because the American people deserve to know exactly what ills Republicans have in store for them, I strongly oppose H. Con. Res. 71 and urge all Members to join me in voting against this reckless, cruel, and heartless measure that will do nothing to improve the lives or well-being of middle and working class families.

Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman for his leadership. It has been more than a pleasure to serve as the vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus for the number of years that we have had to put forward the people's budget.

I simply want to say what a budget is, Mr. Chairman. A budget is a roadmap for the American people. It is a question of whether America cares about the most vulnerable and whether or not, in our caring, we are prepared to do deeds to insist upon their success.

The Republican budget takes $2 trillion and provides a big, wealthy tax cut for the rich, and it creates, in essence, a deep hole in affordable care for healthcare. It does not provide justice and fair elections. It takes away educational opportunity from students, and, of course, it does not bring the most vulnerable out of poverty and enhance the lives of the middle class.

The people's budget provides for supporting the Affordable Care Act. It provides for giving fair working tax cuts for others, and it provides fairness and justice.

I rise to support the people's budget. It invests in the American people. I ask my colleagues to vote for the Congressional Progressive Caucus' budget.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the top ten reasons to support the Congressional Progressive Caucus' budget.

Top Ten Reasons To Support The People's Budget

(Supported by over 60 organizations including: AFT, NEA, Planned

Parenthood, Communications Workers of America, Sierra Club, AFSCME,

AFGE, Vote Vets, Social Security Works, NARAL)

(1) The People's Budget invests $2 trillion in America's

crumbling infrastructure while promoting job growth and

strengthening our commitment to sustainability. This is an

investment in America which will transform our fossil-fuel

energy system, overburdened mass transit, deteriorating

schools, lead-contaminated water systems, and crumbling roads

and bridges through local hiring and livable wages.

(2) The People's Budget enacts comprehensive immigration

reform which permanently protects Dreamers and their families

and opposes immigration bans on Muslims and refugees. Our

country needs an immigration system that honors our values of

inclusion, diversity, and equality. Our Budget prohibits

funding to Customs and Border Protection to implement

President Trump's discriminatory Muslim and refugee bans.

(3) Our budget takes bold action to fight climate change

and rebuild our local communities recently devastated by

hurricanes. The People's Budget requires polluters to pay for

their reckless behavior while eliminating tax breaks that

incentivize fossil fuel energy over cleaner energy. It

invests $200 billion to ensure families in Texas, Louisiana,

Puerto Rico, Florida and U.S. territories have the immediate

assistance they need to begin the stable road to recovery. It

also provides funding for climate change research, mitigation

and adaptation to protect those most at risk from future

environmental disasters.

(4) The CPC budget delivers on the promise of child care

for all and Pre-K for all. It ensures that families will not

have to pay more than 10 percent of their income for child

care, whether that care is at home or at a child care center.

Our budget also expands pre-k for children across the

country.

(5) We make debt free college a reality for all students by

overhauling the student loan system which currently leaves

college students saddled with unmanageable levels of debt.

The People's Budget creates a federal matching program that

supports state efforts to expand investments in higher

education, bring down costs for students, and increase aid to

students to help them cover the total cost of college

attendance without taking on debt.

(6) The People's Budget strengthens the Affordable Care

Act, while pushing towards a single payer system. It

prioritizes reforms to increase access, equity, and

affordability. Maintaining the positive reforms from the ACA

are critical as Republicans attempt to gut the health care

system and leave millions of Americans stranded without

access to critical insurance coverage. The People's Budget

protects Medicare's integrity and improves its long-term

solvency. It protects children and low-income Americans and

gives states the freedom to transition to a single payer

system. It also makes two significant policy changes to

reduce the costs of prescription drugs: allows Medicare Part

D to negotiate drug prices and ends ``Pay for Delay''

practice which keeps generics out of the market.

(7) The CPC Budget creates a fair tax system for working

Americans. In order to make these bold, necessary investments

in working families, we must rewrite the rules of a rigged

economy that favors billionaires and big corporations. The

People's Budget closes tax loopholes that corporations use to

ship jobs overseas, and stops CEOs from receiving millions in

tax-free bonuses. Our budget tackles inequality through fair

tax rates for all Americans, leveling the playing field for

working people.

(8) Our budget protects the right to vote and supports

criminal justice reforms which strengthen public safety and

avoid over-criminalization. Our budget calls for rebuilding

trust in the justice system by funding community oriented

policing reforms. It also strengthens Department of Justice

voter protection programs, protects voting rights by

increasing funding to voter protection agencies, and funds

public financing of campaigns to curb the influence of

special interests in politics. Additionally, the budget makes

key investments in America's electoral integrity by upgrading

our voting systems.

(9) The People's Budget creates pathways out of poverty by

expanding proven anti-poverty programs and initiatives and

restoring vital programs to our nation to provide prosperity

for all. These include a national strategy to reduce poverty

in half in ten years and $12.8 billion investment to end

family homelessness. The People's Budget restores cuts made

to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and

permanently adopts the enhanced levels established in the

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It also provides an

additional $10 billion for child nutrition programs and

allows those who have lost a job through no fault of their

own to claim up to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits for up

to two years.

(10) We make veterans a priority by increasing funding for

veterans supportive housing to eliminate veterans

homelessness and expanding access to mental health care for

all veteran and service members. Our budget also invests in

job training opportunities for transitioning service members

and veterans.

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

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this budget.

Ultimately, a national budget is like a deal between the American taxpayers and Congress about how this country will spend their money. Anyone who looks at the fine print in this budget plan can tell, with a glance, that the American people want, need, and deserve a better deal.

In the Republican tax plan that goes with this budget, 80 percent of the Republican tax cuts go to the top 1 percent. The top 1 percent gets an average of $200,000 in tax cuts.

A better deal would drop plans to slash Medicare and Medicaid to pay for massive tax cuts for the wealthiest few--a deal that instead would be a bipartisan effort to bring middle class tax relief, badly needed investments, and greater opportunity.

But what we have instead is a budget that cuts $5.4 trillion in spending over 10 years, including $4.4 trillion in cuts to the mandatory programs that help average Americans get and stay ahead.

These aren't just paper cuts. These are huge cuts--cuts that would cause enormous damage in the lives of children, students, veterans, and other Americans. About half of these cuts in nondefense spending are in programs that help people who need the help the most--cuts in programs that provide food to those in need, programs that help students from low-income families afford a college education. They even have cuts in the badly needed disaster relief that is helping so many in our country.

In fact, by 2027, more than one-third of the resources for low- and middle-income people would be gone. Struggling Americans deserve a better deal than that. And who pays under the Republican tax plan? Seniors, single parents, and middle class families, it goes up.

Nondefense discretionary is already at its lowest level since the category has been tracked. Republicans want to cut even more, and so they target senior citizens and healthcare.

This budget cuts half a trillion dollars from Medicare, replacing Medicare's guaranteed benefits with a voucher-like system and increasing its eligibility age to 67.

The CBO estimates that these cuts would cause part B premiums to increase 25 percent by 2020. And this budget claims that it ``saves'' $1.5 trillion by repealing the Affordable Care Act, even though they have already tried to repeal it about 60 times on this floor, without success, thank God, and the American people have made it clear that they don't want it repealed.

They still have no replacement plan for the Affordable Care Act. So that means that they would just be leaving millions without health insurance and threatening the coverage of all those with preexisting conditions and chronic illnesses, and would leave millions facing huge premium increases.

Their plan also cuts $114 billion from Medicaid, ripping away coverage from low-income families and the disabled. This is just plain wrong. Our seniors deserve a much better deal than that.

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

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

According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, 80 percent of the Republican tax cuts go to the top 1 percent, and the top 1 percent gets an average of $200,000 in tax cuts. And what we see in this budget is a slashing of investments in the future strength of our country.

Instead of slashing infrastructure spending, as this budget does, we should be increasing our spending to fill the giant infrastructure pothole that Republican policies have left us with.

We have airports that feel Third World. We have bridges that are crumbling, tunnels that need replacing, roads that need fixing. Failing to do so costs all of us in time, money, and economic development.

This budget totally fails to recognize the value of infrastructure investment. It cuts $254 billion from transportation over 10 years. Funding would drop from $92 billion next year to just $65 billion in 2022.

It eliminates the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery grant program used for infrastructure development and repair projects for interstate highways, bridge improvements, and ports. This is incredibly shortsighted.

According to a study by the American Society of Civil Engineers, failing to close the infrastructure investment gap brings serious economic consequences: $3.9 trillion in losses to the U.S. GDP by 2025; $7 trillion in lost business sales in 2025; and 2.5 million lost American jobs in 2025.

I have seen with my own eyes what infrastructure development can mean to business development and the quality of life in the city that I serve. The Second Avenue Subway, built with the help of Federal funds, opened in January and has already had a huge economic impact. Stores say their business is up 20 to 30 percent along that line and it has cut overcrowding and reduced traveling times.

New York's old Kosciuszko Bridge, which was first opened in 1939, was originally designed for 10,000 vehicles a day. It was carrying 18 times that and had become an accident choke point.

Thanks to Federal funding, it has been replaced, and the biggest city in the country will have a brand-new, 21st century bridge soon because these kinds of investments boost productivity and bolster our economy, with each $1 in infrastructure investment

generating up to $1.80 in additional economic activity.

The American Society of Civil Engineers gives our national infrastructure an overall grade of D-plus and our transit system a D- minus. It is just plain irresponsible to slash spending on our crumbling highways and bridges now, because if we don't make needed investments today, we will jeopardize our competitiveness tomorrow.

Let's be clear: we are already significantly underinvesting in infrastructure. As you can see from this chart, public investments in infrastructure and other public fixed assets have fallen over the last few years, dropping to a low of $274 billion in 2014, from more than $357 billion in 2009.

We have created a giant infrastructure spending pothole that you see right here. All told, it costs our Nation more than half a trillion dollars in lost investment over 5 years.

The people of this country deserve modern infrastructure. They deserve a better deal.

This budget also cuts $154 billion from nutrition, from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, ignoring the more than 40 million low-income families, including children, the working poor, the elderly, and the disabled, to say nothing of the 8 million people, including 4 million children it lifts out of poverty. The hungry children of America deserve a better deal than that.

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

Mr. Chairman, in 2001, some of our colleagues across the aisle said many of the same things we are hearing today about the miracle of tax cuts: that huge tax cuts for the most fortunate would pay for themselves, and that they would help grow our economy by trickling down through the miracle of so-called dynamic scoring.

But as we know from history, that was not the case. One year after the Bush tax cuts in 2002, here is what Brookings Institute said was happening in real life:

Our findings suggest that Bush tax cuts will reduce the

size of the future economy, raise interest rates, make taxes

more aggressive, increase tax complexity, and prove fiscally

unsustainable.

A year after that, in 2003, the Brookings Institute said: ``Over the past 2 years our country has experienced a dramatic deterioration in the Federal budget outlook.''

In January 2001, when President George Bush took office, the Congressional Budget Office projected surpluses of $5.6 trillion--as in ``T,'' trillion--from 2000 to 2011.

But in 2011, nearly a decade after the GOP promised their budget would unleash the economy through tax cuts for the wealthy and budgets that cut services to the vulnerable, this is what we found, from National Public Radio: ``Conservatives often promote tax cuts as a way to stimulate economic growth, but the years after 2001 were marked by the slowest growth since World War II.''

All of us remember when President Obama came to office that this country was shedding 800,000 jobs a month and it was a long time to dig ourselves out of that big Republican hole and get us moving in the right direction with job growth.

So let's not go down that road again. I call upon my colleagues to remember history.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to

the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer), my distinguished colleague.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia.

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

Mr. Chair, just to remind my colleagues, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center points out that 80 percent of the Republican tax cuts go to the top 1 percent.

But in this budget resolution that we are discussing, it slashes education funding, putting the drain of a college education for average Americans even further out of reach. It asks the American people who already experience crippling student loan debt to reach even deeper into their pockets for their education by cutting $211 billion from student financial aid programs.

It freezes the maximum level awarded by a Pell grant at $5,900, covering just 23 percent of an education by 2026, compared to the 30 percent it covers today or the 77 percent it covered in 1980. In addition, it also cuts $3.3 billion from the Pell grant surplus, which provides a much-needed reserve to cover the cost of future education.

If that is not enough, after students graduate, this budget makes it increasingly difficult to pay off student loans and steers graduates away from public service and teaching jobs by eliminating the Public Service Loan Forgiveness and Teacher Loan Forgiveness programs. Our students and our teachers deserve a better deal than that.

I must say that we are suffering from three hurricanes, devastating hurricanes, yet this budget eliminates three programs that play very key roles in disaster relief. The Community Development Block Grant program, AmeriCorps, and the Legal Services Corporation are all eliminated. This budget abolishes these programs that are literally supporting our relief efforts from Harvey, Irma, and Maria.

Our Nation's veterans--our Nation's veterans--our bravest, are not spared the carnage of this heartless proposal. The GOP budget proposes $50 billion in cuts to mandatory spending on veterans programs over 10 years, including education benefits and loan guarantees. So after we have already asked so much of our men and women in uniform, this budget refuses to give them the tools they need to transition to civilian life. Our veterans deserve a better deal than that from the country that they have served so honorably.

Cuts to research, where research is the future of our country, and this budget would also cut investments that are directly tied to our country's future prosperity by slashing basic research funding.

I want to point out how important research funding is to our country. In 1996, two Stanford graduate students took a $4.5 million research grant from the National Science Foundation and developed a new algorithm called PageRank. Two years later, these same students took PageRank and launched a new internet search engine we now call Google. Today Google is worth over $600 billion and employs over 72,000 Americans, and it all began with a Federal basic research grant of $4.5 million.

Google is just one example on a long list of technological advancement companies and, most importantly, jobs that trace their roots to basic research investment. It is what has kept this country on top.

According to the Brookings Institution, two-thirds of the most influential technologies over the past 50 years were supported by Federal research grants. It has brought us lifesaving vaccines, the laser, touchscreen, GPS, and even the internet, technology that has served as a launching pad for cutting-edge medical treatment.

Sadly, the chart behind me reflects a sharp decline in the Federal share of funding of basic research dropping from 72 percent in 1967 to 44 percent in 2015. This GOP budget proposal follows that same trend with instructions to cut $41 billion from science, space, and technology precisely at a time when we should be increasing investments in these sectors.

It is important to the future prosperity of America. Cuts now mean fewer jobs and economic growth in the future; they mean less innovation and less prosperity. So if my colleagues across the aisle want to grow the economy, turning this trend around is an important way to do it.

Now, I have heard all day from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle how very, very concerned they are about the deficit, but the GOP tax plan makes it worse. The tax framework released last week by the White House and Republican leaders would add $2.4 trillion to the deficit in the first 10 years and another $3.2 trillion in the next 10 years.

So the Republican budget is just totally unacceptable. This budget flat-out ignores the reality. So if Republicans are concerned about the deficit, then they should really rewrite their budget proposal.

In conclusion, look at the fine print of this proposed deal and imagine the harm it would cause to millions of American families, to our children, to our seniors, to our sick and suffering, to our disabled and our destitute, to our economy, to our research, and to our infrastructure. It is clear--clear--beyond any and all doubt that Americans deserve a better deal.

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

Mr. Chair, I request the amount of time that is remaining.

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

Mr. Chair, in closing, I believe that this proposal that is before us is an absolute disaster. We should be charting a fundamentally different course.

When you listen to people around their dinner table in America tonight, they would be talking about their concerns in education, infrastructure, jobs, healthcare, security, environment, and disaster relief. But this plan delivers, instead, deep and sometimes disabling cuts to badly needed programs for millions in order to give away benefits to a fortunate few. This is just plain wrong. Budgets are about values and priorities, and the people of this country deserve better.

We should not be cutting our education spending. Failing to train the world's most highly educated workforce is irresponsible and puts our entire economy at a disadvantage. We should be investing more in education at every level--early education and high schools--motivating students to become engaged in science, technology, math, and engineering. We should be leading the way in developing new and improved technical and trade training programs for those who would prefer it. We should be doing more, not less, to make college and postgrad study affordable once again. To do anything less is to fail in our obligation to the rising generation.

We already trail much of the economically advanced world when it comes to healthcare. We get sicker, die sooner, and pay more for our care than most developed nations. Millions are just one serious illness away from financial ruin. But this budget plan would cut spending for healthcare, and this budget would weaken the pillars of financial security for our seniors. The proposed cuts to Medicare and Medicaid will come at the expense of seniors, the disabled, and the middle class.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford this budget. I urge my colleagues to reject it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I thank her for her leadership on this important issue.

Mr. Chairman, for the first time in many years, this budget uses reconciliation for the purpose it was intended: to bring mandatory spending under control.

The appropriations that dominate so much of the debate comprise less than one-third of our total spending, and that is called discretionary spending. The budget sets a level; the appropriations process spends to that level. That is everything from general government to defense.

We have actually been able to bring that under control, but the other two-thirds of spending is called mandatory spending. It is beyond the annual control of Congress. It continues automatically until and unless the statutes that call for it are actually changed.

It is the mandatory spending that is eating our country alive. Mandatory spending is supposed to be controlled by reconciliation. Instructions are sent to the various authorizing committees to make whatever changes are necessary in current law to stay within our means. But this powerful fiscal tool has been ignored or squandered in past budgets, and this neglect is undermining the solvency of our country.

For the first time in many years, the House budget finally restrains mandatory spending by instructing our committees to find at least $200 billion in savings over the next decade. That means this budget will get us back to balance within the decade, and this is why it is so important.

If the Democrats had their way and we maintain our current path, the Congressional Budget Office warns that in just 4 years, in 2022, our deficits will surpass $1 trillion a year. That is where economists warn we run the risk of damage or even loss of our access to credit, a sovereign debt crisis.

If you want to know what that looks like, Venezuela is going through it right now, and within our own territory, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico--pension systems implode, basic services falter, the economy collapses.

Two years after that, in 2024, 6 years from now, the CBO warns that the annual interest cost on our debt will reach $654 billion. That is more than we currently spend on defense.

I would remind my friends on the left that you cannot provide for the common defense or promote the general welfare if you can't pay for it, and the ability of our country to do so is being undermined by our spending trajectory.

At the same time, we charge the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world, sending trillions of dollars of capital and hundreds of thousands of jobs to other countries. In the last 8 years, we have averaged only half of our postwar economic growth.

I remind my friends that corporations do not pay corporate taxes. Corporate taxes can only be paid in one of three ways: by consumers through higher prices, by employees through lower wages, by investors through lower earning. Cutting corporate taxes means lower prices for consumers, higher wages for employees, and higher earnings for investors.

Tax relief is absolutely vital to reviving the economy, but experience does warn us that revenue growth only partially offsets revenue lost to tax reductions. Indeed, when we are told that the choice is between taxes and debt, those are two sides of the same coin.

Taxes and debt are the only two possible ways to pay for spending. Once we have spent a dollar, we have already decided to tax it. We either tax it now, or we borrow it now and tax it later. Either way, it is entirely driven by spending. By restraining spending, this budget makes possible the tax relief that our economy desperately needs to grow.

Frankly, we could do much more if we summon the political will, and I will be presenting such a budget tomorrow on behalf of the Republican Study Committee.

But this budget moves us a long way in the right direction. It sets in motion the policies that Presidents from Calvin Coolidge to John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan have all used to revive and expand our economy. It brings us closer to that day when families will awaken to a new and prosperous morning for America.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, even though I disagree heartily with the budgets advanced by

the Progressive Caucus, they do us an invaluable service in the budget debate by bringing into sharp relief the two very different visions of governance advanced by the two parties.

The Progressive budget is a sincere and bold document. Unfortunately, it is also wrong. It would hike taxes by $10.1 trillion over the next 10 years relative to the Republican budget.

Now, think of every trillion dollars that we throw around here as $8,000 from an average family, because that is what it comes to. So $10.1 trillion in new taxes ultimately translates as $81,000 from an average family over the next decade taken either as direct taxes or as tax-driven price increases or as lower wages or as lower earnings as businesses pass on their burdens to consumers or employers or investors. Remember, investors are largely your 401(k) or your pension plan.

It also runs up $2.6 trillion more in debt than the Republican budget over the next 10 years. That means another $21,000 of debt added to that family's obligations that they will have to pay as future taxes just as surely as if it appeared on their credit card statement this month. And they have got to pay that back before they pay back their credit card statement. The IRS can get very insistent that they do.

And don't believe for a moment that only the rich will pay these taxes. It turns out that the so-called rich people aren't rich and they aren't even people. Many are struggling small businesses filing under subchapter S, small businesses that create two-thirds of the jobs in our economy.

We are told: ``Don't worry. We are using that money to create wealth and jobs.'' Well, the problem is government does not create jobs because it cannot create wealth. Government cannot inject a dollar into the economy until it has first taken that dollar out of the same economy.

As Bastiat warned, we see the job that government creates when it puts the dollar back in the economy. What we don't see as clearly is the job that is lost when government first takes that dollar out of the economy. We see those lost jobs as stagnating wages and workers giving up and leaving the job market, or as it is also known, the Obama economy.

Here is what government can do and what the Progressive and Democratic budgets propose. It can transfer jobs from the private sector to the public sector by taxing one and expanding the other. It can transfer jobs from one sector of the private market to another by taxing one and subsidizing the other. That is precisely the difference between Apple Computer and Solyndra. It is the difference between FedEx and the post office. It is the difference between the Reagan recovery and the Obama recovery.

Reagan, like Coolidge and Kennedy before him, reduced the tax and regulatory burdens on the economy and produced one of the longest economic expansions in our country's history. It truly felt like morning again in America. That is the Republican approach, and it works.

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

Mr. Chairman, my friend reminds me of a story when Ronald Reagan was pushing his tax reductions a generation ago that produced the biggest expansion in our Nation's history. He was approached one day by a working class fellow on a stop that the President was making, and the man looks at him and says: Mr. President, the Democrats say that you Republicans want to cut taxes on the rich. Is that right?

Reagan says: Well, that is what they say.

And the man says: Well, you go ahead and do that, Mr. President, because a poor person never gave me a job.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer), a former director of the State Policy Network.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close when the gentleman from Arizona is finished, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, have my friends on the left learned absolutely nothing over these past 8 years? If massive government spending, higher and higher

taxes, and deeper and deeper debt produced economic growth, the Obama years should have been the golden age of our economy. Instead, we suffered prolonged stagnation. We averaged 1.5 percent annual growth, only half the average economic growth that our Nation has enjoyed in the postwar era. The Progressive and Democratic budgets promise more of the same.

We choose a different path, the Reagan path that produced an average of 3.5 percent growth year after year, higher wages, better jobs. Not just a Republican policy, John F. Kennedy did the same thing. He reminded us that a rising tide lifts all boats. These are the policies that create prosperity.

The government cannot create jobs because it cannot create wealth, but what it can do is create the conditions where jobs multiply and prosper or where they stagnate and disappear. That it can do very well. We have very consistent experience with the policies that create these conditions.

If you increase the burdens on the economy as the Democrats again propose, the economy contracts. If you lighten the burdens on the economy, it grows and prospers. No nation has ever taxed and spent its way to prosperity, but many nations have taxed and spent their way to economic ruin and bankruptcy.

We know what works and we know what doesn't work because we have tried both paths many times before. The House Budget Committee's budget follows principles that have, time and again, consistently and rapidly produced economic expansion and prosperity.

The House Democrats' budget and the Progressive budget before us now double down on policies that have impoverished and bankrupted nations wherever they have been employed down through history.

That is the choice before us today. Let us choose wisely. Our future depends on it.

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