Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 580, I call up 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, with the Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Senate amendment to H. Con. Res. 71, the budget resolution for fiscal year 2018.

Passing a budget is never easy, and it has, once again, been a challenge this year. But I am encouraged with where we are now, and I am pleased that the Senate did its work by approving a budget, one that we can support in order to unlock tax reform for the American people.

Without question, there are plenty of things that I wish were included in what the Senate passed, ideas that the House put forward earlier this month when we approved our budget. For example, I still feel strongly about addressing unsustainable mandatory spending, and that hasn't changed. The growing burden of debt caused by mandatory spending is a real problem that cannot be ignored.

We owe it to the American people to do something, to offer serious reforms that ensure government programs are financially sustainable and working well for generations to come, and I think we will tackle this important issue in the future. Really, we don't have a choice.

But despite any shortcomings of the Senate-passed budget, I am encouraged that it does reflect the shared priorities of both Chambers. Moving forward with this budget is also supported by our President.

I want to remind my colleagues that before final passage last week, the Senate did include numerous provisions previously passed by the House, and I was proud to be involved in those negotiations with the leaders of the House, the Senate, and the White House.

For example, the Senate-passed budget creates a mechanism that would permit the Budget Committee chairman to adjust the budget allocations if there is future legislation signed into law that revises the BCA spending caps.

The Senate-passed budget also includes numerous improvements to the House budget's enforcement that are designed to strengthen fiscal discipline. Because we worked together to find a common ground, we can move ahead toward tax reform and expand upon the ideas in the conservative framework unveiled last month.

Throughout my nearly 7 years as a Member of the House, Republicans have talked about modernizing our outdated and overly complicated tax system, and today, we have the opportunity to take that next big step to unlock tax reform for the American people, fulfilling the promise that we made long ago to our constituents.

By advancing tax reform, we can help Americans keep more of their hard-earned paychecks; we can make it possible for most Americans to file their taxes on a simple postcard; we can level the playing field for business and help them compete better globally; and we can empower entrepreneurs and small businesses, encouraging them to create more jobs.

This budget acknowledges that our economy is in desperate need of a jolt, and the tax cuts included in the Senate-passed budget hold that promise of doing just that. Put simply, we have the opportunity to make history by reforming our tax system for the first time in nearly three decades.

President Trump is with us on this, and I agree that we must move quickly, and that is why I urge my colleagues to pass this budget today.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is now my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, it is now my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, it is now my honor to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I just must make a comment on what went on in Kansas and the attribution that this was Mr. Laffer's idea.

I know Mr. Laffer personally and have had a conversation with him about his plan and suggestion. It was not followed. So I do want to lift up his good name and say that his plan was not followed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), a member of both our Budget Committee and the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that the Devil is in the details. And those details have not been released yet, so it is difficult for me to understand how my colleagues on the other side of the aisle make assumptions on just what this tax plan will do, calling it things such as snake oil, when I can assure you that, as a member of the Ways and Means Committee, it is our goal and intent that the people in the middle- and low-income categories will see tax relief.

I also want to remind them that what we know was the Devil in the details is the details given to the American people a number of years ago on the Affordable Care Act--which is neither affordable nor caring, in my opinion--was that people would see a return of about $2,500 on the average in their pocket as a result of the Affordable Care Act's policies, and what we saw and what we are seeing now is a big increase in those premiums. Certainly they have not received $2,500 in their pocket.

They were told they could keep their doctor, which we knew wasn't true, and the other kinds of things that were done that caused people to lose their insurance in my very own State, because we had a plan the people liked and people wanted to keep but could not because of the mandates that were put on by the Affordable Care Act.

I want to remind my friends from the other side of the aisle that maybe the thing to do is to wait and see what really is in the plan, because the devil is in the detail, and I think you may like it enough that you perhaps will even vote for this tax plan that does give a jolt to the economy and does help the American people, especially in the lower- and middle-income, to keep more of their hard-earned dollars in their pockets.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker), who is the chair of our RSC.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Ferguson), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

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

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

I almost can't sit here and not make a comment on my colleagues' budget on the other side of the aisle. All of a sudden, they seem to be very concerned about deficits when, as a matter of fact, their budget assumed almost $1 trillion worth of deficits in their budget.

I want to also say that our committee did a really good job in having a balanced budget, and we are, obviously, looking at a budget from the Senate that we are going to be taking up so that we can do tax reform.

But they also, in addition to that, had $2 trillion worth of new taxes that they placed on the American people. So all of a sudden, this purity of worrying about these deficits just makes me scratch my head, and about raising taxes on the people when their own plan did the very opposite of what we are trying to do is cut taxes. They added $2 trillion worth of taxes.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my extreme honor to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), our majority whip, who is a wonderful member of our Conference.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mooney).

Mr. Speaker, it is now my delight to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), who is the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, in 30 seconds, I want to once again say thank you to my colleague from the other side. I have enjoyed working with him. This is history. We are going to make history.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in their support of the budget because doing so means that we can truly benefit the American people, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this budget substitute, which is, put simply, an abdication of our fiscal responsibility as a governing body.

Our country is $20 trillion in debt, with $9 trillion added to the national debt during the Obama years. We have the responsibility to our children and our grandchildren to stop this Congress' addiction to spending. It is a responsibility that I take seriously; it is a responsibility that the members of my committee take seriously; and it is a responsibility that Republicans in the House take seriously.

Clearly, it is not a responsibility that our friends across the aisle take seriously. Our budget works to end the addiction to spending that has dominated Washington for far too long.

The House budget, passed out of committee with unanimous Republican support in July, begins to address our spending addiction by balancing the budget over 10 years so that we can start paying down our national debt, and it addresses mandatory spending in a significant way for the first time since 1997.

This budget substitute does quite the opposite. The Democrats' budget raises taxes by $2.7 trillion, which would be the largest tax increase in U.S. history. It increases spending by $6.2 trillion, compared to the budget passed by my committee. It never balances, with a deficit in 2027 of $852 billion.

What we hear from the other side of the aisle and what we see in this budget is simply more of same: more spending, more tax increases, and more debt. I don't think that is acceptable, and neither do the American people.

Since we began this budget debate yesterday, my counterparts on the other side of the aisle have been throwing out misleading numbers about our budget and our tax reform effort in order to hide the fact that they offer no new solutions to the most pressing problems our country faces.

Here is a number that they should keep in mind while they discuss this fiscally irresponsible substitute. The national debt for every person is over $63,000. Every man, woman, and even child in our country has a $63,000 weight hanging over their heads. Our budget takes real steps to fix this crisis. This budget substitute does not. Honestly, it is as simple as that.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this Democrat substitute, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Francis Rooney).

Mr. Chairman, I do want to say to my good friend and colleague from Tennessee that I think the D stands for debt for Democrats, and I think the R stands for Republicans and recovery.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee and the Appropriations Committee.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arkansas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), who is a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I look into my children's and grandchildren's eyes, and I say: I want you to know that right now you owe $63,000 for your part of the debt of this country.

What we are doing in Congress right now, if we were to vote on and accept this amendment, we would be increasing that burden on our children and grandchildren.

I, for one, cannot do that, and I think that we have got to be responsible. We have got to look at how we in this country can get back to the place, as has already been said, that we ask families and businesses to do, and that is to live within their means.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer), who is a member of the Budget Committee.

Madam Chairman, I am going to be brief in my closing comments.

I do want to ask my colleague to consider this: Are we proud of a country where we are leaving our children and grandchildren in further and further debt?

During our discussion in this Chamber, we have shared our ideas for building a better America, an America that we would be proud to entrust to future generations. While it requires confronting real challenges along the road ahead, it is, undoubtedly, worth the journey.

First, our budget forces the Federal Government to live within its means, just like hardworking Americans and small businesses do on a daily basis.

Second, our budget identifies wasteful spending and finds much-needed savings and reforms for unsustainable mandatory spending. In fact, our committee has put forward the largest reform package for mandatory programs that has been seen in 20 years.

Third, it calls for a robust funding of our military, ensuring the resources that will allow us to be ready and protect our mainland. It also starts the process of restoring our military readiness, which suffered dramatically during the Obama administration.

Finally, our budget is the golden key that unlocks progrowth tax reform and takes us one step further to the great ideas unveiled in the framework last week.

Without question, our budget plan reflects American values and shared priorities. I urge my colleagues to join me in their support for a win for all Americans, because doing so will begin to ensure a brighter and better future for generations to come, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.

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

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 reserve the balance of my time.

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

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 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.

Madam Speaker, it is difficult to imagine what could be more important than establishing who is protected under the law and who is not; who is given a chance of life and who is denied it.

As technology continues to evolve, the more we can celebrate the ability we have to save a baby at just 20 weeks after conception is truly remarkable. I remember when I first became a nurse some 40 years ago. I vowed to devote myself to the welfare of those committed to my care, whether they were born or unborn. I am still committed to that today. And 40 years later, the science tells us that after 20 weeks of pregnancy, unborn babies are able to feel pain inside the womb.

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act protects those who cannot protect themselves when handed a death sentence.

Madam Speaker, there are currently seven countries in the world that allow elective late abortions, countries such as North Korea and China.

Why in the world is the United States on a list of countries characterized as human rights abusers?

Our Nation can do better than that.

I have seen how special care is given to reduce the pain of these precious premature babies at 20 weeks in the NICU. Unborn children in the womb at this stage should be protected, too, and we must pass the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to give these unborn children a chance to see the light of day.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to voice my concerns about this amendment.

I think everyone in this House has a lot of issues, as has already been talked about, with the current modeling that is used by the Congressional Budget Office, and I am certainly one of these people, but this amendment is not the best way to accomplish our goal of obtaining better information and analysis from CBO.

The CBO is an important organization that provides vital information that Congress does need to make the best decisions. However, the modeling and scoring methods they currently are using need to be scrutinized, especially their behavioral predictions.

For example, in 2010, the CBO projected that 21 million Americans would be covered by ObamaCare in 2016, when, in reality, less than 13 million Americans have actually obtained coverage. In fact, during their scoring of the House Republican healthcare plan, CBO described their own estimates, which rely on behavioral predictions, as extremely uncertain.

That is why the House Budget Committee plans to hold a series of hearings this fall on CBO to gain a better understanding of their methods and how we can work to improve their ability to give Congress better information, which we obviously need. As chairman of the Budget Committee, I take this responsibility very seriously, and we will approach these hearings in the pursuit of truth and accuracy so we can make laws that better serve the American people.

We all realize that CBO has room for improvement, but this amendment being offered tonight is not the best way to achieve that. Instead, we need to have a deliberative discussion in the Budget Committee and amongst everyone in the House, and I look forward to doing exactly that in the coming weeks and months.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me time on this very important issue.

I also want to thank my colleagues for working with me on this--Mr. Meehan, Mr. Thompson, and Ms. DelBene--for working on a really important piece of legislation that is included in this package, which will improve the quality of life for seniors on Medicare across the country.

As has previously been said, I am a nurse. I have worked in the field for over 45 years, and I am proud to sponsor a bill that enhances patient care for those patients who are suffering from end-stage renal disease.

You know, we have made tremendous advances in technology over the last decade, and now it would be almost something we couldn't have thought of 45 years ago. Physicians can remotely monitor patients in their dialysis treatments through telehealth to reduce the number of medical visits that are necessary, to ensure that the treatment is efficient and effective, and to also catch signs of complications early, which would cause not only a decrease in quality of care for the patient, but also a cost.

Telehealth provides patients an important component in the comfort of their own homes--think about being sick and having to get in the car to travel--while physicians now have a new tool to treat their patients' whole health.

Our seniors deserve access to this innovative care, and it can save money. It can help to ensure that Medicare can be there for seniors who most need the care.

So I urge my colleagues to take a vote for your constituents and for Medicare beneficiaries across the country and support this bill.

I also look forward to continuing this work. This is certainly not the end of what we can do for our patients who are homebound and need care in the home. I will continue this work with Members on both sides of the aisle, which is being done now, for our Nation's seniors to have access to these kinds of innovative telehealth technologies that will improve care and also, more importantly, help to lower the cost of treatment.

I urge passage of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, across the country, more than 300 municipalities have adopted policies to limit local law enforcement cooperation with Federal authorities, making it harder to keep our families and communities safe.

Back in my home State of Tennessee, the Nashville City Council has recently been advancing legislation to become one of these sanctuary cities. Giving Federal funds to sanctuary cities defies logic and it demands attention.

Yesterday, I offered an amendment to expand the bill before us today so that sanctuary cities would no longer have access to Community Development Block Grants and certain other economic development grants, as well, that send more than about 300 billion taxpayer dollars a year to local communities.

On its website, the Community Development Block Grant program says its purpose is to provide services to vulnerable communities and address issues that ``pose an immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community.''

What population is more vulnerable than a 6-year-old girl in Lebanon, Tennessee, who was sexually molested while she was sleeping? Just last month, charges were brought against a criminal illegal immigrant for repeatedly breaking into her room at night and making videos while he assaulted her. The evil individual had been in police custody before.

For Kate Steinle, who has been talked about many times on the floor, her killer had a criminal record of not one, two, or three, but seven felonies. He had been deported not once, twice, or three times, but five times. Is that who liberal legislators around the country want to give ``sanctuary''?

We need more communication and cooperation between local, State, and Federal law enforcement officers who are trying to keep our communities safe, not less. It is time to stop giving taxpayer dollars to these cities. I am voting for this bill today to do just that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker), my colleague and friend, the chair of the RSC, for hosting this Special Order tonight to highlight

some of the recent victories that this Republican-controlled Congress has secured to ensure that every American enjoys freedom and opportunity for which our Nation was founded.

I rise today to thank my colleagues in the House and the Senate for passing my resolution of disapproval, H.J. Res. 43, which used the authority of the Congressional Review Act to overturn the Obama administration's eleventh hour rule forcing States like mine, Tennessee, to fund abortion providers.

Mr. Speaker, I also rise to thank Vice President Mike Pence, who cast that tie-breaking vote in the Senate. Tennesseans appreciate his courageous leadership.

Now, abortion is not healthcare, and vulnerable women seeking true comprehensive care deserve better than abortion-centric facilities like Planned Parenthood.

For over 45 years, States like Tennessee had the authority to direct their family planning funds to the healthcare providers that best suited their needs. Yes, they had that decision to decide what is best for their unique communities. Sadly, in a parting gift to the abortion industry, President Obama stole this freedom and flexibility and forced his own political agenda on States across the country like my very own State of Tennessee.

While I am unapologetically pro-life, this bill is simply about states' rights.

Mr. Speaker, when President Trump signed this bill, he put the American people, not the bureaucrats here in Washington, back in the driver's seat of empowering States like Tennessee to steer their title X dollars away from abortion-centric facilities like Planned Parenthood and to give the right back to the State to make that decision about which facilities provide the most comprehensive care for women in their State.

It was an honor to work with Senator Ernst and the pro-life community to help this life-affirming legislation reach the President's desk.

Mr. Speaker, I want to once again thank President Trump for his leadership on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the House chamber for votes Wednesday, May 24. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 277, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 278, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 282.

Mr. Speaker, at the time of votes yesterday, I was unavoidably detained in my district. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on both H.R. 1862 and H.R. 1842.

Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 269, and YEA on Roll Call No. 270

Mr. Speaker, I am always amazed when I start hearing conversations about the Affordable Care Act and how it is working so well today.

I want to talk about two situations in my home State of Tennessee.

When the Affordable Care Act went into place in the State of Tennessee, we had a risk pool. The risk pool covered about 28,000 people. They were happy with their care, they were happy with their providers, and they were happy with the cost. It was patient centered. They determined what best fit their needs. These were people with preexisting conditions, happy with where they were.

In 1 day, because the Federal Government said, You don't meet this and you don't meet that and you don't meet this, they lost their insurance. They were in the marketplace.

I want to tell you about two situations that are very close to me, but they only represent a number of the many calls that I get in my office.

One is a good friend of mine who has lupus. She went on the marketplace. For the first year, she did pretty good. Her premiums were pretty low; her deductible was reasonable. But here is what she found: she couldn't keep her doctor.

Can you imagine someone who has had lupus for a number of years, it is being controlled, and now she is told she cannot keep her doctor? She had to find other doctors. She was not happy with that because she had a relationship. They didn't use the same treatment and care that she had received before. So she has not felt very healthy.

In the meantime, every year that it is renewed, she calls me to say: My premiums have gone up, my deductibles have gone up, and now it is more than what I was paying before when I liked what I had and I couldn't keep it, opposite of what the President told everyone: If you like what you have, you can keep it.

The second one is someone who has myasthenia gravis. Again, on that same risk pool. She lost her opportunity to get the medication that she was receiving, an IV medication. She has myasthenia gravis. She was very controlled, able to work, living a healthy lifestyle.

She lost her opportunity to have that medication because that medication was $400 a month, now

it is $3,400 month, and no longer can she get her medication.

When the other side talks about how wonderful this system is, I implore them to come to our State and talk to the people in our State.

I am a registered nurse. I know what it is like to take care of people who have healthcare conditions who need to be in a risk pool. But let's do it the right way. Let's give it to our States. Let's allow this now to be used in a way that is patient-centered, the way it was working in my home State of Tennessee.

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill, and I am looking forward to the vote later on this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1628, the American Health Care Act of 2017.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favor of the American Health Care Act, a bill that repeals the worst parts of ObamaCare and begins to repair the damage it has caused. This bill brings choice and competition back into the healthcare marketplace and puts healthcare decisions back into the hands of patients and doctors where it belongs.

It has been a winding road to get to this point, but we are here today to fulfill the promise that we made to the American people. I will point out right now to those who say we should have just moved on from healthcare reform, American families and individuals are suffering from rising costs and barriers to getting the care that they need right now.

Under ObamaCare, the situation is getting worse every day. In Iowa, just yesterday, one of the last remaining insurers announced that it will pull out of the ObamaCare exchanges, leaving nearly all of the State's residents with no--and, yes, I will say again, nearly all of the residents with no available health insurance plan for the purchase under ObamaCare.

And in a few of the Iowa counties which are the remaining insurers, even that company is saying it might stop offering plans, leaving the entire State without an insurance plan available under ObamaCare. That is happening this very week. We can't wait a moment longer than necessary to provide relief for the American people by repealing and replacing ObamaCare.

I applaud the Members of this body who stuck with us during this process and worked hard to make the bill better. I, myself, had concerns about the bill as it was introduced. I worked hard to make sure that the bill truly reflected my ideals and the views and desires of my constituents. And when the bill came before the Budget Committee, which I chair, I urged my members to stay in the fight and work to improve the bill rather than stop it in its tracks.

And do you know what? Our members did just that, making some recommendations that were eventually included in the various amendments. That message was heard loud and clear by all of the members of our Conference who have worked tirelessly to finalize a bill that truly reflects our vision for healthcare reform.

Throughout this process, our commitment to undoing the damage done by ObamaCare has remained steadfast. Day after day, my constituents call my office begging us to do something to save them from ObamaCare, and it is because ObamaCare is collapsing.

In my State of Tennessee, families are suffering. Premiums have increased by 60 percent, while deductibles are so high that, even if someone has an insurance card, it doesn't mean they have guaranteed care.

There are parts of my State in Tennessee that don't have a single insurance provider in the marketplace, and two-thirds of the counties have only one provider. That is not competition. That is called a monopoly.

While no legislation is perfect, this bill makes some important changes to help American families get quality, affordable health insurance: It zeros out the mandates, it repeals the taxes, and it repeals the subsidies; it allows people to choose health insurance plans to meet the unique needs of their families instead of purchasing a one-size-fits-all plan mandated by a Washington bureaucrat; and it modernizes Medicaid, a once-in-a-lifetime entitlement reform.

Ending Medicaid's open-ended funding structure will play an important role in addressing our future budget deficits and our growing national debt.

This is a particularly proud moment for me. I was working as a nurse in Nashville in the 1990s when the Clinton administration pushed a single-payer pilot program in Tennessee called TennCare. I saw firsthand the negative impact government-run health care has on patient care. I saw costs rise and the quality of care fall. It inspired me to get involved in public service.

When in 2009 and 2010 I saw those same principles being debated and, eventually, implemented on the national level, I thought my experience in Tennessee could be valuable in the national debate; so, in 2011, I sponsored the first piece of legislation that repealed a part of ObamaCare. Today, we take the largest step yet in rescuing the American people from this damaging, government-run healthcare system.

I, and many other Members of this body, have worked hard to make sure that this bill truly reflects our visions for healthcare reform. I, for one, cannot sit idly by and let this opportunity go to waste. Governing is hard, but our constituents did not elect us to do what is easy. They elected us to do what is right.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the American Health Care Act to rescue the American people from ObamaCare.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe), a physician and the chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, who has worked tirelessly on this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the other side that if they read the bill, they will see under section 137 it says:

No limiting access to coverage for individuals with

preexisting conditions. Nothing in this act shall be

construed as permitting health insurance insurers to limit

access to health coverage for individuals with preexisting

conditions.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), our distinguished whip.

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to myself.

The American Health Care Act has gone through many fits and starts over the last few months. This bill begins to fulfill our promise to the American people by reducing costs for American families. It eliminates ObamaCare's burdens on small businesses and families and protects those with preexisting conditions. We must continue to work to build on this.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), our majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it really is my privilege now to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the Speaker of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 4001(b)(1) of the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2017 (S. Con. Res. 3, 115th Congress), I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record the 302(a) allocation to the Appropriations Committee of the House consistent with that concurrent resolution. Allocations for authorizing committees were previously filed on March 24, 2017.

Section 4001(b) of S. Con. Res. 3 authorized the House Committee on the Budget to file 302(a) allocations consistent with the budgetary levels established in S. Con. Res. 3. This filing authority was necessary because there was no joint statement of managers accompanying S. Con. Res. 3. Under section 301(e)(2)(F) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the allocations are to be included in the report accompanying the concurrent resolution on the budget.

This allocation is enforced by section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which prohibits the consideration of appropriations measures that would cause the applicable allocation of new budget authority to be exceeded for the budget year, fiscal year 2017.

This allocation applies to bills, joint resolutions, and amendments thereto or conference reports thereon, considered by the House subsequent to this filing.

A corresponding table is attached. If there are any questions on this allocation for fiscal year 2017, please contact Brad Watson or Jim Bates.

Mr. Speaker, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record revisions to the budget allocations and aggregates of the Fiscal Year 2017 Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, S. Con. Res. 3.

These revisions are designated for the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 244, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2017. The revisions designated are made pursuant to section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

These revisions represent an adjustment for purposes of budget enforcement. These revised allocations and aggregates are to be considered as the aggregates and allocations included in the budget resolution, pursuant to S. Con. Res. 3, as adjusted. Pursuant to section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act of

1974, these revisions to the allocations and aggregates shall apply only while the House Amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 244 is under consideration or upon its enactment. Corresponding tables are attached.