Providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 71) establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2018 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2019 through 2027.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I obviously rise in strong opposition to this rule. This can be a frustrating place. So frustrating, that sometimes I want to tear the remaining two strands of hair I have on my head out, because what we do here, in my opinion, is not to advance anything that is good for the American people. This is a frustrating place, because what happens on this House floor is either nothing or you guys make things worse.

On Sunday, we once again witnessed a massacre, the worst mass shooting in American history. People across this country are demanding action, but the response of the Republican leadership in this Congress is nothing. We had a moment of silence, but it means nothing because that is all we do. There are no hearings, no debate, no votes, just absolutely nothing.

It is obvious that too many Republicans have been intimidated and have been frightened or have been bought off by the National Rifle Association. It is shameful and, quite frankly, it is disgusting.

If the Republican leadership of this House is not willing to lead, then move aside. Allow us to bring measures to the floor so we can have a vote, so we can have a debate, so we can enact measures that might save some lives.

Mr. Speaker, what we are considering today, this Republican budget, is an example of the majority making things worse for the American people.

Budgets are moral documents. They show what we value and what we care about. And if this budget reflects Republican values, then shame on Republicans. When you look at the specific programs House Republicans target, it becomes clear just how cruel this budget really is.

Last night, in the Rules Committee, I complained loudly to the distinguished chairwoman of the Budget Committee about the cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program known as SNAP, basically a program that provides poor people food. It helps prevent hunger in this country. In this budget, they call for $164 billion in cuts to this program.

The chairwoman said: Well, I believe that people who get this benefit ought to work.

I pointed out to her last night, and I am going to point out to my colleagues here today, that the majority of people on this program--67 percent of the people who are on this program are not expected to work. Why? Because they are children, because they are senior citizens, because they are disabled.

Of those who can work, the majority work. But you have individuals who are working, who are on SNAP because they earn so little that they still qualify for this program.

So why aren't we demanding that work pay more in this country? Why aren't we coming together to demand an increase in the minimum wage so it is a livable wage, so that people who work don't have to be on public assistance?

Instead, we have yet another attack on poor people in the form of these cuts.

The gentlewoman said: Well, I want to narrow it down to just able- bodied adults without dependents. They all ought to work.

Well, many of these people do work, Mr. Speaker, but many of them don't work, for a number of reasons. Many have limited educational experience, with 80 percent having no more than a high school education or a GED. Some are aging out of foster care. Some have underlying mental health issues, difficult histories of substance abuse, or are ex-offenders with nowhere else to turn.

As many as 60,000 of these able-bodied adults without dependents who have qualified for SNAP initially are veterans. These are brave, courageous men and women who have served our country, who have returned home and are having difficulty reintegrating into the community, getting on their feet. Our gratitude for their service is, we

are going to throw you off the food benefit? I don't know what people are thinking who drafted this in the budget.

The chairwoman of the Budget Committee said: Well, it is important that we constantly review programs to see if they are working, if they are living up to our expectations. I agree. I am a liberal Democrat. I want to make sure that whatever programs are in existence are working, are effective. Nobody is for ineffective government.

I happen to sit on the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Speaker. We have already held 23 oversight hearings on this program--23 on SNAP alone. We have had Republican witnesses, and we have had Democratic witnesses. As my friend from Georgia knows, his party is in control, so Republicans get to have more witnesses than Democrats do. We have had 23 hearings, and not one witness, not one, recommended a $164 billion cut in this program.

In fact, what they recommended, Democrats and Republicans, was that we ought to strengthen wraparound services. That means like you ought to fund fully job training programs so that States can guarantee people a slot in a job training program.

Many argue, Democratic and Republican witnesses, that the benefit is too inadequate, that we need to expand the benefit, because contrary to what you hear oftentimes on this floor about SNAP and about how generous the benefit is and that it is like a gravy train, if you will, the average SNAP benefit is $1.40 per person per meal. That is it. That is the benefit.

That is why when you talk to the heads of food banks all across the country, in every State in this country, they tell you the same thing, that they experience an uptick in people who need to utilize their services in the middle and toward the end of the month because, basically, the benefit is not enough to carry them through the month so they can put enough food on the table for them and their families.

We have 42 million people in the United States of America, the richest country in the history of the world, who are hungry. I am ashamed of that, and I am ashamed because hunger is a political condition.

What I mean by that is we can solve it, but we don't, because for some reason, this population, these people struggling in poverty, never quite rise to the level as the very wealthy in this country.

We have a budget here that not only cuts SNAP but basically cuts a whole bunch of other programs aimed at helping people get out of poverty and helping struggling middle class families.

Basically, this budget, just so everybody is clear, is kind of a blueprint to help pave the way for the Republican tax cut bill that they are going to produce on this floor in the not-too-distant future.

It was interesting last night in the Rules Committee, we heard people talk about, well, we have to make tough choices because we don't want to saddle our children and our grandchildren and great-grandchildren with debt. Well, if, in fact, my Republican friends get their wish and pass this tax cut, we are told that it will add about $2.4 trillion to our debt.

The deal is this, Mr. Speaker. One of the faults in their budget is they have these assumptions that we all know are not true. Like, for example, the Affordable Care Act is going to kind of mysteriously just disappear, and they are going to be able to cut Medicaid by close to $1 trillion to help offset the cost of their tax cut. But the last time I checked, their repeal barely passed this House, and it can't seem to get anywhere in the United States Senate. Their assumptions are fantasy. They are not based on reality.

Mr. Speaker, it is not just food assistance that this budget dismantles. It cuts half a trillion dollars in Medicare and ends the Medicare guarantee. It rips apart the Affordable Care Act, drastically raising healthcare costs for older and low-income adults, and kicks another 20 million people off their health insurance if they get their wish here. It makes higher education more expensive. It cuts veterans' benefits. It reduces our commitment to ensuring that our neighbors have access to affordable housing. It even sticks the American taxpayer with a $1.6 billion bill to begin constructing a costly and stupid and ineffective wall along the U.S. southern border with Mexico.

In case people are scratching their heads, during the campaign, Donald Trump said that Mexico was going to pay for the wall. I guess he didn't mean it because a downpayment was put into their budget.

I could go on and on and on, but you might ask yourself, Mr. Speaker: Who wins? The answer is simple. If this budget goes through, and they pave the way for their tax cut, it is clear who the winners are: Donald Trump, the Trump family, and all of his wealthy friends. While all these cuts in the budget come from our safety net programs, infrastructure investments, and programs that help middle and working class families, none of the savings in this budget--that is right, not one penny--come from closing tax loopholes that benefit big corporations or the wealthy.

As I said before, the drastic cuts are all being used to try to finance this massive tax cut that disproportionately benefits the wealthiest in this country. Give me a break.

Mr. Speaker, it is galling how indifferent that so many in this House seem to be to those who are struggling in poverty. America's most vulnerable, granted they don't have super PACs, they don't have big lobbyists, their voice in Washington is supposed to be us. The whole purpose of government, in my view, is to make sure that everybody gets a fair shake, and the people who need government the most are the people who are struggling in poverty.

But to listen to my colleagues and to look at this budget that they put together, it is clear that the poorest Americans in this country are being treated as if they don't exist, as if they are invisible, as if they don't matter. I just find that deeply offensive.

President Kennedy said it this way. He said: ``If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.'' It is frustrating. It is just frustrating that here we are with this budget which devastates so much of what I think is important.

If we implemented what this budget asks us to do, this country would become a tale of two cities, and it is already getting to that point. It would truly become a tale of two cities. It would create a government without a conscience, and I think we need to push back and we need to reject that.

Mr. Speaker, this isn't some Ayn Rand fantasy where we can just mess with the numbers and see what happens. We are talking about real people here--people who are counting on us; people who need help. This budget fails by any measure, in my opinion, to be a budget even for Republicans to support.

I think America's hardworking middle class families and all those working to struggle to get in the middle class deserve a heck of a lot better than this.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and certainly vote against this cruel Republican budget, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in opposition to the Republican budget.

United States Conference of

Catholic Bishops,

Washington, DC, August 31, 2017.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: As Congress proceeds with the 2018

budget process, the United States Conference of Catholic

Bishops (USCCB) reaffirms that the federal budget is a moral

document with profound implications for the common good of

our nation and world. The budget requires difficult decisions

that ought to be guided by moral criteria that protect human

life and dignity, give central importance to ``the least of

these'' (Matthew 25), and promote the welfare of workers and

families who struggle to live in dignity.

The Catholic Church teaches that it is the role of the

state to promote the three pillars

of the common good. In May 2017, we outlined these three

pillars: respect for the fundamental and inalienable rights

of the human person, promotion of human development, and

defense of peace. Our Conference has long supported the goal

of reducing future unsustainable deficits that would harm all

citizens, especially those who are poor. However, a just

framework for sound fiscal policy cannot rely almost

exclusively on disproportionate cuts in essential services to

poor and vulnerable persons.

Sharp increases in defense and immigration enforcement

spending, coupled with simultaneous and severe reductions to

non-defense discretionary spending, particularly to many

domestic and international programs that assist the most

vulnerable, are profoundly troubling. The House Budget

Committee's H. Con. Res. 71 proposes increasing defense

spending by $929 billion over the next decade, which is $72

billion above sequester levels. This is coupled with a

proposal to cut $4.4 trillion over the same period from

domestic and international programs that assist the most

vulnerable, potentially impacting health care safety net

programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and CHIP, as well as food

security programs like SNAP. The proposal would also reduce

current funding levels for environmental stewardship by $824

million.

Such deep cuts would harm people facing dire circumstances,

and would place the environment and natural resources at

risk. When the impact of other potential legislative

proposals, including the proposed reduction of spending on

health care by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next

decade and implementation of tax policies that would offer

trillions of dollars in tax cuts to the wealthy over the same

period are considered, the prospects for vulnerable people

become even bleaker.

Our nation should elevate diplomacy, along with

humanitarian and international development assistance, as

primary tools for promoting lasting peace, regional stability

and human rights. The USCCB urges Congress to reject H. Con.

Res. 71's proposed fiscal year 2018 budget authority level of

$41.521 billion for the International Affairs functions of

government. This would represent a $10 billion cut from this

year's appropriations for those functions. Although the USCCB

does not support every individual International Affairs

account, it has repeatedly called for robust diplomatic

efforts to end longstanding conflicts in a range of

countries, including Syria and Iraq, as well as for robust

funding for refugee and humanitarian assistance. It is hard

to reconcile the need for diplomacy, political solutions, and

life-saving humanitarian and development assistance with cuts

to the State Department budget of the magnitude proposed by

H. Con. Res. 71.

At the same time, H. Con. Res. 71 anticipates dramatic

increases in immigration enforcement spending. We fear that

such increases could pave the way for enactment of many of

the destructive proposals contained in recently released

budget plans, including increases in immigrant detention

beds, the construction of a wall along the entire border

between the United States and Mexico, and the expansion of

agreements with state and local governments that threaten

local law enforcement's ability to foster trusting

relationships with immigrants in their jurisdictions. Any

changes to the tax code called for through reconciliation

should include a provision to empower the educational choices

of families. The reconciliation process should not be used to

achieve savings through cutting health care, nutrition,

income security, or other anti-poverty programs. This budget

attempts to use the reconciliation process to fast-track over

$200 billion in cuts to anti-poverty programs over the next

ten years, including Medicaid and Medicare. The bishops have

devoted their efforts to addressing the morally problematic

features of health care reform while insuring that all people

have access to health care coverage.

The human consequences of budget choices are clear to us as

pastors. Our Catholic community defends the unborn and the

undocumented, feeds the hungry, shelters the homeless,

educates the young, and cares for the sick, both at home and

abroad. We help mothers facing challenging situations of

pregnancy, poor families rising above crushing poverty,

refugees fleeing conflict and persecution, and communities

devastated by wars, natural disasters and famines. In much of

this work, we are partners with government. Our combined

resources allow us to reach further and help more. Our

institutions are present in every state and throughout the

world, serving some of the most marginalized communities and

enjoying the trust of local populations.

The moral measure of the federal budget is how well it

promotes the common good of all, especially the most

vulnerable whose voices are too often missing in these

debates. The Catholic Bishops of the United States stand

ready to work with leaders of both parties for a federal

budget that reduces future deficits, protects poor and

vulnerable people, and advances peace and the common good.

Sincerely yours,

His Eminence Timothy Cardinal Dolan,

Archbishop of New York, Chairman, Committee on Pro-Life

Activities.

Most Rev. Oscar Cantu,

Bishop of Las Cruces, Chairman, Committee on International

Justice and Peace.

Most Rev. Christopher J. Coyne,

Bishop of Burlington, Chairman, Committee on

Communications.

Most Rev. Frank J. Dewane,

Bishop of Venice, Chairman, Committee on Domestic Justice

and Human Development.

Most Rev. George V. Murry, SJ,

Bishop of Youngstown, Chairman, Committee on Catholic

Education.

Most Rev. Joe S. Vasquez,

Bishop of Austin, Chairman, Committee on Migration.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Coalition on Human Needs against the Republican budget.

Coalition on Human Needs,

Washington, DC, October 3, 2017.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the Coalition on Human

Needs, I strongly urge you to vote no on H. Con. Res. 71, the

proposed FY 2018 Budget Resolution, and to vote for the

substitute budgets advanced by the Congressional Progressive

Caucus, Congressional Black Caucus, and the Democratic

alternative budget resolution.

The Coalition on Human Needs is an alliance made up of

human service providers, faith organizations, policy experts,

labor, civil rights, and other advocates for meeting the

needs of low-income and vulnerable people. Our members

understand that the economic security of millions of American

families depends on building on the progress we've made in

health coverage, jobs, basic living standards, and ensuring

that our children are well-prepared for productive lives. But

the majority's proposed budget does not build--it breaks

apart our engines of progress. It will make our nation weaker

for decades to come.

The most recent survey data on poverty in the U.S. shows

the biggest two-year decline since the late 1960's.

Refundable tax credits for working families, SNAP/food stamps

and housing subsidies have lifted multi-millions of people

out of poverty. The decline in the proportion of our

population without health insurance continued its decline in

2016, down to 8.8 percent. More people are working, and in

general, low- and moderate-income households have finally

started to make income gains.

The budget advanced by the House Budget Committee would be

a dangerous backwards plunge, stripping trillions of dollars

from programs that work to reduce poverty and create security

and opportunity. Medicaid, Medicare, working family tax

credits, nutrition assistance, education and housing

assistance: these are just some of the services the budget

would massively cut. The budget takes trillions in funding

that supports economic security and progress and hands it to

the wealthy and corporations in the form of enormous tax

cuts.

The primary goal of H. Con. Res. 71 is to allow huge tax

cuts to be enacted with only a simple majority in the Senate.

These tax cuts are claimed to be a critical element in

increasing economic growth enough to make the tax cuts

deficit neutral. Reputable economists are skeptical that the

proposed tax cuts would boost the economy to the 2.6 percent

average growth projected in the budget and acknowledge that

tax cuts to corporations and the rich deepen the deficit.

History supports this: the economy grew and unemployment

declined more during the Clinton tax increase years than

during the Bush era tax cuts. And the Kansas experience with

tax cuts is cautionary: revenues plummeted, with the tax take

in 2016 $570 million lower than in 2013, even after counting

increases enacted in sales and cigarette taxes. The economic

growth that did occur from cutting taxes was estimated to

bring in about $30 million, leaving the state very deeply in

the hole. The state legislature has recently reversed course,

unwilling to slash education budgets as much as the revenue

hole would have forced. They saw that they were weakening

their state. Congress should not inflict the same dangerous

lesson on the entire nation.

We urge you to reject H. Con. Res. 71 because of its

central choice: paying for tax cuts that overwhelmingly favor

the rich and corporations with cuts to essential services.

Our nation faces major challenges: reducing disproportionate

poverty among children and helping children and young adults

to advance in education so they can meet the challenges in

our economic future, protecting seniors in their retirement,

and rebuilding communities. Both the emergency needs of

communities devastated by natural disasters and the similarly

urgent threats from opioids and other epidemics, decaying

infrastructure and inadequate public health and consumer

protections demand a vigorous federal response. Instead of

making these investments, the House budget would cripple the

federal capacity to respond by slashing domestic

appropriations by 44 percent compared with FY 2010 levels

over the next decade and making similarly extreme cuts in

health care, nutrition, income assistance for seniors, people

with disabilities, and working families. In addition to

trillions of dollars in cuts and structural constraints to

basic mandatory programs, the budget would fast-track $203

billion in cuts to domestic programs over the next ten years

through reconciliation rules. Cuts like these would

recklessly weaken us; they are self-inflicted wounds.

The proposed tax cuts will worsen inequality and reward

businesses that park their income offshore. Instead, Congress

should insist that corporations and the rich pay their fair

share. Please vote against weakening America, and instead

protect and expand investments as called for in the budgets

proposed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus,

Congressional Black Caucus, and the House Budget Committee

Democrats' substitute. These three constructive alternatives

deserve your yes vote.

Sincerely yours,

Deborah Weinstein,

Executive Director.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter to all Members of Congress from the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda against this Republican budget.

National Hispanic

Leadership Agenda,

July 26, 2017.

Re NHLA opposition to House Budget Resolution.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Hispanic

Leadership Agenda (NHLA), the coalition of the nation's 45

preeminent Latino advocacy organizations, we are writing to

express our deep concerns with the budget resolution that

recently passed out of the House Budget Committee and urge

you to vote against passage of the resolution if it comes to

the House floor. The resolution threatens the basic living

standards of tens of millions of Americans in order to

subsidize tax cuts for the wealthy. From education and

scientific research to basic assistance and health programs,

the House budget would cut $4.4 trillion from entitlement

programs and $1.3 trillion from non-defense discretionary

programs over the next decade, crippling the most important

drivers of our nation's economic engine--working families.

For these reasons, and those detailed further below, NHLA

will consider any votes on the budget resolution for

inclusion in future NHLA scorecards evaluating the support of

Members of Congress for the Latino community.

Budget resolutions serve as fiscal blueprints that signal

the priorities of government spending to support all

Americans in their attainment of the American Dream. However,

rather than seek to bolster opportunities for American

working families, the House budget places the burden of

reducing our deficit squarely on the backs of families

struggling to make ends meet in order to give tax breaks to

wealthy corporations and individuals. Rather than investing

in America's future homebuyers, workers, and students, both

the House budget and President Trump's budget undermine the

progress our country has made and prioritize corporate

interests over those of hardworking American families.

The trillions of dollars of cuts in the House budget would

have a catastrophic impact on the millions of Latinos who

struggle to put food on their tables and a roof over their

heads. Recent research by UnidosUS (formerly NCLR) provides

evidence of the strong impact of federal assistance programs

on lifting millions of Latinos, especially children, out of

poverty. In 2015, for example:

Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) lifted about 2 7 million

Latinos out of poverty, including 1.4 million children.

Child Tax Credit (CTC) lifted an estimated 981,000 Latinos

out of poverty, including 560,000 children.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) lifted an

estimated 1.3 million Latinos out of poverty, including

640,000 children.

Rental assistance lifted about 720,000 Latinos out of

poverty, including 270,000 children.

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) lifted an estimated

630,000 Latinos out of poverty, including 140,000 children.

The House budget resolution would threaten the

effectiveness of many of these programs. The budget plan also

calls for cuts to Medicaid and other health programs more

severe than the House-passed bill to repeal the Affordable

Care Act.

Further, the House budget resolution dismantles consumer

and worker protections, jeopardizing the ability of Latino

and all working families to build and maintain wealth. The

budget plan not only guts the Consumer Financial Protection

Bureau--the only agency whose sole mission is to protect

Americans from predatory practices in the financial

marketplace--but also undermines our nation's workforce,

cutting funding for the Wage and House Division in the

Department of Labor more deeply than proposed in the Trump

budget. Additionally, Latino workers cannot afford cuts to

the Environmental Protection Agency, which protects our human

health and environment from toxic chemicals. Working families

need more and better enforcement of consumer financial and

labor protection laws to protect Americans from abuse, and

also ensure law-abiding financial service providers, as well

as employers, are not harmed by unfair competition by

unscrupulous actors.

Simply put, the House budget resolution would harm American

families and workers, especially Latinos, making our nation

more inequitable and less prepared for economic challenges.

We strongly urge Members of Congress to oppose the House

budget plan and instead support a budget that defends the

interests of the American public and prudently spends

taxpayer dollars.

Sincerely,

Hector Sanchez Barba,

Chair, NHLA, Executive Director, Labor Council for Latin

American Advancement (LCLAA).

Bruce Goldstein,

Co-Chair, NHLA Economic Empowerment and Labor Committee,

President, Farmworker Justice.

Eric Rodriguez,

Co-Chair, NHLA Economic Empowerment and Labor Committee,

Vice President, UnidosUS.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters from the AARP, the Main Street Alliance, and the League of Conservation Voters, all in strong opposition to the Republican budget.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that it is clear that, certainly on the Democratic side, we are very much dedicated to trying to lift people out of poverty. That is one of the reasons why we oppose this Republican budget that cuts $211 million from financial aid programs to help people be able to get additional higher education. That is one of the reasons why we have complained loudly about the inadequate funding for job training. You want people to train for employment, you need to make sure that those slots are available so that people can get the training and the assistance they need.

The gentleman says: Don't worry about the debt because the reconciliation instructions will instruct the Ways and Means Committee to do a deficit neutral tax plan.

Well, I mean, there is lots of stuff in here that are assumptions that aren't true, like, you repealed the Affordable Care Act. That didn't happen and it is not going to happen.

And what we are told from the Tax Policy Center and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, according to their analysis, is that what the Republicans are proposing in terms of their tax plan will basically cost well over $2 trillion, and that will be added to our debt.

So I don't--we can debate fantasyland if we want, but the reality is the reality, and this budget is a bad deal for everybody.

Mr. Speaker, this week, our Nation witnessed the deadliest mass shooting in history. We have endured horrific mass killings in Newtown, San Bernardino, Orlando, and now Las Vegas, among many others, all without any congressional action. The killings happen every single day on our streets, at public events, and even in our homes.

Mr. Speaker, my heart broke when the children of Sandy Hook were killed, and I remain absolutely stunned that this Congress has done nothing about it, nothing.

Now 59 people lost their lives in Las Vegas during what was supposed to be a celebratory event, a concert, and this is only 16 months after the last deadly mass shooting in Orlando. Gun violence in this country is out of control, and all we have done is cater to the gun lobby.

The United States Congress is a legislative body, Mr. Speaker. We are not a think tank or a church or a synagogue. Thoughts and prayers are not what this country expects from us, and it is not what it needs from us. The people of this country need us to act, to pass laws that protect their lives and their children's lives.

As my colleague in the Senate, Senator Chris Murphy, has said: ``This must stop. It is positively infuriating that my colleagues in Congress are so afraid of the gun industry that they pretend that there aren't any public policy responses to this epidemic. There are. And the thoughts and prayers of politicians are cruelly hollow if they are paired with legislative indifference.''

For this reason, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Mr. Thompson's bill, H. Res. 367, which I am a cosponsor of, which would establish the Select Committee on Gun Violence Prevention.

Mr. Speaker, let me explain what I mean when I say ``defeat the previous question.'' We are here debating which bills will come to the House floor this week, the agenda for the House of Representatives. The majority chose to consider their misguided budget. Fine. We can do that.

But what I am saying is that we should also take the first step in at least setting up a committee to look at gun violence in America. So if we say no to ending debate on this rule, by defeating the previous question, we can then debate whether or not to create this committee. This is the least we can do.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I include in the Record letters from the UAW, the SEIU, The National Treasury Employees Union, AFSCME, the American Federation of Government Employees, and NARFE.

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace &

Agricultural Implement Workers of America-UAW,

Washington, DC, October 3, 2017.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the International Union,

United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement

Workers of America (UAW), I am writing to strongly urge you

to oppose H. Con. Res. 71, the House Fiscal Year (FY) 2018

budget resolution. The federal budget is a moral document as

well as a fiscal blueprint, and H. Con. Res. 71 fails

spectacularly on both fronts. This draconian budget would be

a disaster for our economy, the middle class and our most

vulnerable citizens.

The proposed budget forces working people and retirees to

pay for enormous tax cuts to the wealthy. Despite claims to

the contrary, by 2027, roughly 30 percent of households

earning between $50,000 and $150,000 would see an increase in

their taxes. H. Con. Res. 71 cuts $1.5 trillion from Medicare

and Medicaid and ends the programs as we know them. Medicaid

and Medicare are literal lifelines for many of our most

vulnerable citizens--especially children and the elderly.

Medicaid is the largest provider of nursing home and long-

term care.

This radical piece of legislation creates fast-track

procedures to implement the tax cuts that will overwhelmingly

benefit the wealthy and multinational corporations. The

average tax cut for millionaires would be $230,000 a year by

2027. It eliminates the estate tax, which currently only

applies to the top two tenths of one percent of estates,

giving the ultrawealthy $239 billion in tax cuts. By 2027,

80% of tax cuts will go to the top one percent.

It also uses these procedures to make at least $203 billion

in cuts to mandatory programs that are important for working

families and our most vulnerable citizens. In

total, this budget assumes $5.4 trillion in spending cuts.

Cuts of this magnitude would almost certainly lead to

slashing funding for Legal Services Corporation, federal

employee pensions, nutritional assistance infrastructure, and

unemployment compensation, to name a few. It also repeals the

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and the Affordable Care Act.

This budget resolution takes America in the wrong

direction. We have tried ``trickle down'' economics several

times in the past; it did not work then and it will not work

now. These tax cuts will not pay for themselves. Instead,

they will come at the expense of hardworking every day

Americans--many of whom have trouble affording basic

necessities today.

We strongly urge you to oppose H. Con. Res. 71 and instead

work on a federal budget that invests in our country and

works for ALL Americans.

Sincerely,

Josh Nassar,

Legislative Director.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my colleague from Georgia, thanks for reminding us that the Republicans have been working on the budget for 10 months; but according to your own Republican Budget Committee website, the budget was supposed to be presented and finished by April 15, so you are a little late.

In any event, I also want to remind the gentleman, because I know he is on the Rules Committee, so I know he knows this, that the rule sets the agenda for the House. Yes, if one of the things that the Republicans want to bring up is their terrible budget, that is fine. You can do that. But the rule can also be an opportunity for us to bring up the bill that Mr. Thompson has offered, to set up this commission to deal with gun violence. We can do both.

You can walk and you can chew gum at the same time. This is not a radical idea. But this is our only way to be able to bring something to the floor, because the leadership of this House has said no to everything. They have said no to everything. We can't get hearings. We can't get votes. We can't get debates. We get nothing.

Don't be startled by us trying to defeat the previous question. It is a perfectly legitimate way to try to expand the agenda, and I hope that some of our Republican friends will vote with us to defeat the previous question. We can still do the budget, but we can also do the Thompson bill as well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.

I just want to tell my colleague from Georgia, if he hasn't read what we are trying to propose here, we are suggesting that they bring up the Thompson bill to the floor under an open rule, and even get a motion to recommit, but under an open rule. Take us up on this offer because we have had no open rules in this Congress. Try it; you might like it. It might be contagious. We might see more open rules where Democrats, Republicans, liberals, and conservatives can offer their ideas. We suggest they bring it up under an open rule.

I would urge all of my colleagues to think about that before they cast their vote on defeating the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I began by saying the frustration I have with this place is that we either do nothing or we make things worse for people. Going back to this issue on creating a commission to deal with gun violence, there are a lot of things I would like to do, but maybe this is a way to get some bipartisan buy-in to actually try and figure out how to respond to this epidemic of gun violence.

There have been 26 bills on gun safety introduced in this Congress sponsored by Democrats and Republicans. I include that list in the Record.

Gun Safety Bills in the 115th Congress

1. H. Res. 367 Establishing the Select Committee on Gun

Violence Prevention.

2. H.R. 2841 Title: Disarm Hate Act

3. H. Res. 361 Supporting the goals and ideals of

``National Gun Violence Awareness Day'' and ``National Gun

Violence Awareness Month''.

4. H.R. 57 Accidental Firearms Transfers Reporting Act of

2017

5. H.R. 62 Gun Violence Reduction Resources Act of 2017

(200 additional ATF Agents)

6. H.R. 1982 To authorize funding to increase access to

mental health care treatment to reduce gun violence

7. H.R. 370 Amending the Rules of the House of

Representatives to require that a standing committee (or

subcommittee thereof) hearing be held whenever there is a

moment of silence in the House for a tragedy involving gun

violence

8. H.R. 630 National Statistics on Deadly Force

Transparency Act of 2017

9. H.R. 445 Buyback Our Safety Act (gun buyback program)

10. H.R. 1079 Campus Gun Policy Transparency Act

11. H.R. 163 Gun Manufacturers Accountability Act

12. H.R. 2033 Undetectable Firearms Modernization Act

13. H.R. 3013 Help Communities Fight Violent Crime Act

14. H.R. 1111 Department of Peacebuilding Act of 2017

15. H. Res. 90 Expressing the sense of the House of

Representatives that gun violence is a public health issue

and Congress should enact by the end of the 115th Congress

comprehensive Federal legislation that protects the Second

Amendment and keeps communities safe and healthy, including

expanding enforceable background checks for all commercial

gun sales, improving the mental health system in the United

States, and making gun trafficking and straw purchasing a

Federal crime.

16. H.R. 1475 Title: Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2017

17. H.R. 1612 Title: Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2017

18. H.R. 1708 Firearm Risk Protection Act of 2017

(insurance for gun owners)

19. H.R. 1832 To authorize the appropriation of funds to

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for conducting

or supporting research on firearms safety or gun violence

prevention.

20. H.R. 2380 Handgun Trigger Safety Act of 2017

21. H.R. 1832 To authorize the appropriation of funds to

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for conducting

or supporting research on firearms safety or gun violence

prevention.

22. H.R. 1478 Gun Violence Research Act

23. H.R. 3613 Safer Neighborhoods Gun Buyback Act of 2017

24. H.R. 3361 SECURE Firearm Storage Act

25. King-Thompson Background Check Bill (closes gun show

and Charleston loopholes, not yet reintroduced)

26. No Fly No Buy (not yet reintroduced)

Mr. Speaker, people have their ideas. Some of them are maybe not so good ideas; some of them may be very good ideas. But let's begin to talk about what our response should be. That is at least doing something. That is better than a moment of silence or offering your thoughts and prayers to people who were victims in this terrible latest massacre.

We have got to do something, and nothing is no longer sufficient. We can't keep on doing that. People are horrified that Congress seems indifferent. We can't even have a hearing on this issue, never mind a debate on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can bring up the Thompson bill, and maybe we can start coming together and coming up with some ideas that might save some lives. That is the least we can do.

Mr. Speaker, to my other point that we either do nothing or you guys do things that make life worse for people, it brings us to the budget. This budget basically, in my opinion, is a cruel budget that targets, disproportionately, those who are poor and those who are in the middle class.

It is astounding to me where some of the savings are sought. The idea that you would cut SNAP by $164 billion, a program that provides food to people; a program where 67 percent of the people on the benefit are children, are senior citizens, or people who are disabled; a program where those who can work, the majority of them work, but they earn so little in the workforce that they still qualify for that program. You want to take that benefit away, a benefit that is $1.40 per person per meal.

Come on. What are people thinking when they make those kinds of suggestions?

By the way, we all know what this is. It is basically a pretext to move forward on your tax cut plan, which benefits Donald Trump, Donald Trump's family, and Donald Trump's friends.

This idea that somehow this would be deficit neutral is laughable. The OMB Director, Mick Mulvaney, stated: ``If we simply look at this as being deficit neutral, you're never going to get the type of tax reform and tax reductions'' that you guys are looking for. That is the former colleague and the OMB Director.

So we all know what is going on here. But people ought to think long and hard before they cast their vote for this Republican budget. Budgets basically indicate what we value, what we think is important.

I have got to tell you, I just don't believe that if people read this budget, that a majority of my friends, we have disagreements on lots of issues, but I just don't believe that deep in your heart you actually believe this stuff. I mean, this is offensive.

We ought to be talking about lifting people up and not putting them down. We ought to be talking about all of the citizens of this country with respect and treating them with dignity. We ought not treat people who are in poverty as if somehow they are invisible, and that is what this budget does.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote down this Republican budget. I urge them to defeat the previous question so we can bring up, under an open rule--under and open rule, which nobody in this Congress has seen--a bill that would allow us to create a commission, a bipartisan commission to examine gun violence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 553 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all of my colleagues may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, it is going to be a great day. I don't know how your Wednesday has gotten started, but we are now in the throes of budget day.

Budget day only happens on the floor of this House once a year, and it is one of those times where I would tell you the House operates as every man, woman, and child across this country believes the House should operate every day.

I have the great honor as a member of the Rules Committee and as a member of the Budget Committee of bringing this structured rule to the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 71, the rule that we will be debating for the next hour, makes in order every single budget substitute that was offered in the Rules Committee. Now, let me tell you what that means in practical terms.

Over the next 2 days, we are going to hear visions laid out for what the American government should spend, what American policies should look like, what the Federal budget should include.

Over the next 2 days, we are going to hear visions laid out from every single Member or group in this institution that cared enough about this process to craft a budget of their own.

Mr. Speaker, I serve in the Republican Study Committee. I was once chairman of the Budget and Spending Task Force on the Republican Study Committee. I had the honor of crafting a substitute budget to bring to the floor to offer for my colleagues' consideration.

Over the next 2 days, any Member who has a voice that needs to be heard

has had the opportunity. We put out the call last week. My friend from Massachusetts and I, we sit on the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker. We send out the call to the membership in advance to say this is what we expect to happen in the Rules Committee, this is what we are going to be considering in the Rules Committee. We sent out the call for any Member of this House to craft their substitute amendment, and we received four.

We received one from the Congressional Black Caucus, we received one from the Progressive Caucus, we received one from the Republican Study Committee, and we received one from the Democrats on the Budget Committee. Every single one of those has been made in order by the rule that I will ask my colleagues to support today.

We are going to debate those. We are going to vote on those each individually, allowing everybody to have their say. That budget that this House ultimately agrees on collectively, collaboratively after these days of debate, we will then send to the United States Senate for its consideration.

Mr. Speaker, they say that budgets are a reflection of values. I believe that to be true. We are going to have budgets on the floor of the House to consider that cut taxes, budgets that believe that the economy has not grown to its full potential, budgets that believe that the American workforce participation rate is still at historically low levels. We have to get men and women back into the workforce. We have to reward that dignity of work. We have budgets that are going to cut taxes in an effort to stimulate that job growth across this land.

We have other budgets that are concerned that we are not bringing enough revenue into the government coffers. It is true, Mr. Speaker. I know you are thinking it. We are bringing in more tax revenue today than we have ever brought in in the history of the United States of America. That is true, but we are still running budget deficits. So we will consider those budgets today that don't necessarily believe that spending is the problem; they think it is tax collection that is the problem.

We will consider budgets that raise taxes by about $2 trillion. We will consider other budgets that raise taxes by about $4 trillion. Mr. Speaker, I think we will even consider budgets that raise taxes by $9 trillion.

Mr. Speaker, there are only two things that can happen in this institution. We either have to raise more revenue, or we have to cut spending, or we have to mortgage our children's future. Three things: raise taxes, cut spending, mortgage our children's future.

Over the next 2 days, we are going to have that debate and we are going to have that discussion.

I know where my constituency lands, Mr. Speaker. There are tough decisions that have to be made, and they believe they sent men and women to Congress to help make those tough decisions. We sit on the Budget Committee. That is what we do.

If you have not gotten a chance to work with her this season, Mr. Speaker, Chairwoman Diane Black on the House Budget Committee, if there is a more patient and more persistent Member of this body, I don't know who that would be. She has worked tirelessly to move this process along, to get us to this point where we are today, trying to bring people together around a unified vision of what we can do and what we should do not just as an institution, but as a nation.

I expect we will have some disagreements over the next 2 days, Mr. Speaker. It won't surprise me at all. In fact, I think this institution is characterized by the things that we disagree about. Certainly that is what the media would like to focus on. But at the end of this process, what will have to be said is that we have considered every idea, that we have considered every point of view, that we have made room for every voice, and that we have now come together on a common pathway forward. That is what is ahead of us, Mr. Speaker, if we support this rule that we are debating now.

Again, I urge my colleagues to support this rule. I hope you will find that budget that meets your constituency's needs, support that underlying budget, and then let's move a budget to the United States Senate and speak with one voice for the American people.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, you heard the passion of my friend from Massachusetts, and I have had an opportunity to work with him on the Rules Committee for 7 years now. I can tell you that every bit of that passion is sincere.

So often I think folks turn on C-SPAN, they look at a group of politicians talking, and they think it is all for the cameras and it is all for show. I will tell you that while I sometimes have that same suspicion when I turn on a program of folks I don't know, with folks I do know, I can tell you that that passion is sincere.

What I can also tell you is that many of those concerns are misguided, and I think that is important. What happens here in this institution matters. Our ability to have that debate with one another matters. The truth is, as you know, Mr. Speaker, most of that debate doesn't happen here on the House floor.

My friend from Massachusetts and I are here today because it is time to vote. We are here to bring the rule, we are here to bring the substitutes, we are here over the next 2 days to vote. The conversation has gone on not for a day, not for a week, not for a month, but for the better part of this year on what the budget is going to look like.

I happen to have a copy of the budget report right here, Mr. Speaker. It captures all the votes we have taken. It

captures all the debates we have had. It captures what the intent of the institution is.

Now again, we are going to have a choice of which budget we want to support. If you think taxes are too low, you can vote to raise taxes. If you think taxes are much too low, you can vote to raise taxes a whole lot. If you think the tax code as it exists today is a ridiculous compilation of confusing provisions stitched together by a patchwork of Congresses over the last 40 years, you can vote for fundamental reform.

If you are tired of the fact that America used to be number one in the world in terms of tax competitiveness and now we are at the bottom of the list and you want to take America back to being number one, you can vote for that, too. I happen to put myself in that category.

I want to read, if I may, Mr. Speaker, from the budget report. The fact is, I can't. I imagined myself a younger man when I grabbed that report.

If I can now read from the budget report. ``The resolution's reconciliation instructions,'' that is what is in the budget, Mr. Speaker. That is what allows us to take a tax package from the House to the Senate. You have heard about how the Senate is having a tough time getting anything done because it requires a supermajority. It requires 60 votes. Through reconciliation, you can get things done with less than 60 votes. That is how the Affordable Care Act was passed, with less than 60 votes. You can get the tax bill passed with less than 60 votes.

It says this. ``The resolution's reconciliation instructions that the Committee on Ways and Means will develop will be a deficit-neutral tax reform legislation and report such legislative language to the Committee on the Budget.'' Deficit neutral. Nobody wants to blow a hole in the budget, Mr. Speaker.

What the discussion is, is can we do better than today's tax code? Candidly, Mr. Speaker, if any Member of this body wants to take the position that we can't do any better, the IRS is as good as it can be in implementing the American Tax Code today, the Tax Code that is twice as long as the Bible is absolutely as concise and succinct as it can possibly be, those Americans who spend dozens of hours, even dozens of days, even dozens of weeks trying to put together their taxes, that is just the best we can do.

Mr. Speaker, I have seen it happen. Sometimes folks throw their hands up and think: We can't do any better. Not me. Not today.

We can all agree that we can do better than what we are doing today. Passage of this budget gives us that opportunity.

You heard my friend from Massachusetts speak from the heart, Mr. Speaker, about the ability we have as a government to care for one another. I would tell you that responsibility isn't uniquely a government responsibility. I would say it is a faith responsibility, it is a family responsibility, it is a community responsibility. It is a responsibility that begins at home. It doesn't begin here, it begins at home, but it is a sincere responsibility, and it is one that we want to do better at every day.

I am sure you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the labor force participation rate in America is the lowest it has been since the President from my great State of Georgia, Jimmy Carter, was in office. The labor force participation rate. There is not one of us in this body who can drive down the street without seeing a ``help wanted'' sign. There is not one of us in this body who can go out to a business without seeing someone asking folks to come in and help, yet fewer Americans are working today than ever before. Why? It is a hard question.

Fewer Americans are working today than since the 1970s. Why? It is important that we ask that question.

The budget is not designed to answer it. The budget can't answer it. I sit on the Budget Committee. I don't have the jurisdiction to answer it, but I know this: you will find in this budget a discussion of whether it is better to support people in poverty or lift folks out of poverty.

It doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. I would tell you that we can support people until we can lift them up, but that lifting them up must be our goal. Supporting them is not enough.

You will find it here, Mr. Speaker, in these pages. This is a vision document. This is what we are gathered together to do today, and we will have legitimate disagreements about when we are doing enough in a particular area and when we are doing too much.

There are those in this body, Mr. Speaker, who believe passionately in education. I am one of those people. I come from a district with amazing school systems.

You can go to any public school in my district, Mr. Speaker, if you work hard and apply yourself. I don't care what your background is, I don't care where your family is from, I don't care what you have stacked against you; if you work hard and apply yourself in our public schools, you can be anything you want to be.

I know everybody wants that for their constituency back home; and I have colleagues who believe that only Washington, D.C., is successful enough, has a track record of success strong enough to implement that vision back home.

I don't come from that camp. I see a lot of failure come out of Washington, D.C. I see a lot of bureaucracy come out of Washington, D.C. I see success come out of parents and teachers and principals back home raising taxes, supporting those institutions, making sure every child has a chance. We do that together as a community.

The discussion that we might have in this institution, Mr. Speaker, is not: Do you believe in education?

It is: Do you believe educators in Washington, D.C., have the best answers, or educators back home in your district have the answers?

The truth is that we don't have many educators in Washington, D.C. We have bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., who oversee educators. I side with my educators back home. It is a legitimate disagreement that we are welcome to have.

What can't be said, though, Mr. Speaker, is that there are any disagreements over these next few days that we are not going to be allowed to have. I have said it before, and I will say it again because it makes me so proud. We don't always have time or make room for all the voices in this institution, Mr. Speaker. You know, sometimes we pick and choose winners and losers, whose voice is going to be heard. Not today. Any Member of Congress could submit their budget to the United States House of Representatives Committee on Rules.

It is a hard thing to produce a budget. I told you I have done it before, Mr. Speaker. It takes a lot of time, a lot of effort, a lot of commitment. But if you believe that you have a better idea, you can do it. And if you did it, we made it in order in the Rules Committee last night and we are going to debate it on the floor and we are going to vote on it on the floor.

We can't always say that every single idea, every single substitute is going to make it to the floor for a vote. We can say that today. I am proud that we can.

It is not going to stop the disagreements, Mr. Speaker, but what it is going to do is air those disagreements; what it is going to do is allow us to talk about our differing visions; and what it is going to do is allow us to come together on a common vision at the end of the day.

I hope my colleagues will support this rule so we can begin that process, and I hope my colleagues will support the underlying budget of their choice.

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

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

If you have not tuned in to this debate until just these past few minutes, you might not know that this is the budget debate today. We have been prepping for the budget debate today for about 10 months now, and we are ready today not just with one budget, but with a variety of budget choices. And what is wonderful about this process is it has been such an open process.

You can come down to the House floor and air absolutely any idea that is on your mind. That has not just been true today, Mr. Speaker, but that has been true throughout this entire budget process. In fact, I have a letter signed by literally hundreds of groups that support not just voting on the rule to bring the budget to the floor, but groups that support passing the budget as we passed it out of the House Budget Committee.

Now, if my colleagues have any concerns about that, I hope they will come and knock on my door, Mr. Speaker, because I promise you that one of these groups is going to be from their part of the country.

Certainly, in Georgia, the Georgia Chamber of Commerce is on that list. So our folks back home are supportive. If you are from Alabama, I have got Alabamans on here. If you are from Baton Rouge, I have got Baton Rouge. If you are from Battle Creek, I have Battle Creek, because what we are working on here isn't a Republican budget, Mr. Speaker.

What we are working on isn't a regional budget. What we are working on here is the national budget for the United States of America that can be transformational for absolutely every citizen in absolutely every corner of this country.

We have that opportunity. I think we are going to seize that opportunity, but we can't do it until we move this rule to get to the underlying bills. I encourage my colleagues to do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from Massachusetts that I have no further speakers remaining. I would be happy to close when the gentleman is prepared.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, what I love most about budget day is the fact that we do get to talk about our competing ideas. I do reject some of the implications that we have heard that what we are talking about is whether we love people or not. That is actually not the debate today.

I want to stipulate that I know the men and women of this Chamber on a personal basis, and each and every one of them that I know personally loves and cares for their constituency back home. The debate that we have is not whether we love people; it is how to love people best.

Do you love people best by giving them a check or giving them a job? That is a legitimate debate.

Do you love people best by leaving their children with them or taking their children away from them? That is a legitimate debate.

I believe in families. I believe in the dignity of work. I want to have those debates.

I think we do ourselves a disservice when we describe what is going on here today on the floor of the House as anything other than our absolute legal and governmental responsibility to pass a budget for the United States of America. Wherever you sit on the continuum, the political continuum, the economic continuum, the regional continuum, there is a budget for you today.

If what you believe, Mr. Speaker, is that the problems we have in this country are because taxes are not high enough, there is going to be a Democratic substitute coming out of the Budget Committee that will raise taxes about $2.4 trillion. If you think taxes are too low, we can raise them $2.4 trillion. That budget never balances. That budget never stops borrowing from our children and our grandchildren. That budget never stops mortgaging America's future. But it is a legitimate debate because folks are taking those funds and they are investing them in America. They are prioritizing that investment over balancing.

If you believe $2.4 trillion is not enough, Mr. Speaker, we will have a budget from the Congressional Black Caucus today that will raise taxes by $4.2 trillion. We can raise taxes by $4.2 trillion. Again, that budget never balances. It spends all that money and more, but it is a legitimate debate about where those dollars come from and where those dollars are going. I am glad we are going to be able to have it.

If raising taxes by $4.2 trillion isn't enough for you, Mr. Speaker, we have the Congressional Progressive Caucus' budget on the floor. It raises taxes by just over $10 trillion. Again, the budget never balances. It spends all of that money and more and continues to borrow from our children and grandchildren, but it is a legitimate debate and it is a conversation worth having. I am proud that the Rules Committee made that debate in order.

To describe what is happening on the floor of the House today, Mr. Speaker, as anything other than what is exactly expected of this institution is to do us all a disservice.

I talked about making taxes higher. Let me talk a second about making taxes lower.

I talked to some friends back home; I talk to constituents; I talk to folks for whom I work, and some of them might say: ``Rob, I have enough to feed my family, and if it means paying down the debt and deficit, I am willing to pay a little bit more.'' Other members in the community, Mr. Speaker, say: ``For Pete's sake, I am trying to grow a business here, Rob. I am trying to employ your friends and neighbors. I am trying to keep the community working. I am plowing everything I have back into the business. If I don't have to pay as much in taxes, I am going to be able to hire more people.''

The Republican budget, Mr. Speaker, takes a shot at once-in-a- generation tax reform--once in a generation. This isn't what we talked about last year or the year before that or the year before that. This is a conversation we have not had since Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill had it in 1986. This is a conversation that we have not had since America slipped from number one in the world to almost last in the industrialized world in terms of tax competitiveness. This is a conversation that America has longed for and that we can deliver today.

Mr. Speaker, let's have these debates about what our priorities are. Let's have these debates about whether or not we can do better. At the end of the day, let's agree that we, in fact, can do better, that our bosses back home expect us to do better, and that by supporting this rule and supporting one of the underlying budgets, we, in fact, will do better.

I encourage my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, support this rule, begin this debate. Let's pass this budget. Let's fulfill our promises. Let's make the difference that we all came here to make.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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.