Transcripts For CSPAN Capitol Hill Hearings 20130314 : compa

it eliminates pell grants for students and provides a harsh squeeze for millions more. the key to a good job and opportunity is that college degree. but republicans turned a blind eye to the fact that college costs continues to escalate. they will say hell grants -- pe ll much harder to come by in america. research strings under the ru republican project. this includes alzheimer's, cancer, and aides. we rely on those dollars for jobs at the ke diversity and research and businesses that are growing and innovation. the heart of american ingenuity over our history has been in manufacturing and the ability to build ridges, roads, railroads, and a community. it attracts private investment. the government dollars we provide for transportation and infrastructure are in supply exponentially. it attracts private investment. but in the face of the desired to build and grow, republicans cut such investment by 32%. the republican budget is not consistent with american values. it is not fiscally responsible. it puts american jobs at risk. it ignores the fact that job creation and economic growth are the most effective ways to reduce that debt and the deficit. it is a plan for economic weakness. it is a receiving vision of american greatness and innovation. it is a harsh vision for our great country. i yield back to my colleague. >> i yield to an half minutes. -- two and a half and it's. >-- minutes. >> thank you. i own a business. i understand the tough choices needed to balance a budget. i understand the tough choices it takes to grow jobs. i have to say you're not making tough choices when you produce a budget that hurts middle-class families and slashes programs for middle-class. you're making a dangerous choice that will have real impacts on families across the nation. the economic policy institute found that the he was a planned release to date will result in two american jobs next year alone and stalled economic recovery. that is on top of sequester cuts in jobs we will see this year. the biggest threat to our long- term economic security at this time is not the deficit. it is the economy. it is the lack of jobs. it is a future where the u.s. cannot compete with its global peers. this will bring us closer to that scenario. chairman ryan and i share wisconsin. this is a blue-collar county where people are proud of the work they do and they want to be working. but they are struggling. four years ago, 2000 employees lost their jobs. a company announced they were shutting down. we do not help them or america when we keep tax incentives for companies to ship jobs overseas instead of incentivizing companies to hire in wisconsin and in america. we do not help them when we cut programs and raise taxes on the middle class so we can lower the tax rates for the top earners in this country. that seems to be what we received in the budget that is on our guest today. budget should reflect values. what we need to do is focus on economic growth and how to get the people of america back to work. we need a real path to prosperity. when we invest in infrastructure, research, development, small business loans, we can increase competitiveness globally and support small business owners and create jobs. i want to work with all my colleagues on the budget committee on a balanced budget that focuses on job growth and can responsibly reduce the deficit. instead of resorting to recycled policies that have been rejected by the public and congress, we need to focus on ways we can work together to move our economy forward. i yield back the balance of my time. >> in conclusion, we know you generate -- to generate a strong environment economy, we need to invest and not cut. the ryan budget cuts in all the wrong places. i yield back. >> thank you. i yield myself five minutes to discuss the implications of the ryan republican budget on medicare. the federal budget is a priority. there is quite a contrast for the way we would implement our priorities and values are. a budget should be responsible and reduce the deficit. it should make investments to grow the economy. it is also an obligation to seniors and our future. the republican budget fails to meet all those challenges. it undermines commitments and shifts the financial burden to middle class americans. it fails to make the investments in education and infrastructure necessary to ensure competitiveness, opportunity, and economic growth. and yes, it feels to meet -- it fails to meet obligations. they talk about how much their parents need and use medicare. they know they are paying into the medicare now. but the republican budget ends medicare for senior. they want to shift the costs of health care to seniors and their families. many seniors and disabled americans count on medicare. medicare is a promise to all seniors in this country. house republicans are yet again proposing to break that promise. republicans plan to end the day care as we know it. there is a wide array of choices in medicare. over 90% of physicians participate in medicare and seniors a choice of their doctors and medicare advantage a new delivery models and seniors value those choices and access to doctors. the republican budget hands over those choices to insurance companies. we are working hard to engage in new ways to reduce the costs of health care under medicare, we are seeing a lower rate of increase in medicare. what the republican budget would do is raise the health and safety and financial security of our seniors by undermining those innovations and cutting costs in medicare. baby boomers are coming into medicare. 10,000 new ones per day. we want to make sure we demand efficiency and quality. we have to do it the right way. let's do that. let's reject the republican budget and make sure we have a balanced approach in these commitments. we need to meet our obligations to seniors and not through a voucher program, but finding a way to sustain the commitment we have made. with that, i will yield to my colleague from california to also speak about how important medicare is to seniors. utes.nd a half min >> thank you. excuse my voice. i'm recovering from a cold. thank you for your unwavering leadership and protect in seniors. there are bush policies i cannot forget. in 2005, there was a rising tide of poverty under failed economic policies. millions of americans are still struggling to recover from the massive financial crisis this administration inherited. republican budget extends and even expand these terrible economic failures of the bush administration. but under the clinton administration, they brought in revenue with higher taxes. we created more jobs. we balance the budget. we have the revenue we need to maintain a stronger safety net. in stark contrast, this republican budget protects the wealthy and the powerful while medicare and medicaid and the safety net for children and seniors and the disabled and the vulnerable. this budget would put seniors at the mercy of private insurance companies and dramatically increasing their healthcare costs and limits in the choice of others. this budget comes at a time when congress has cut spending by 1.5 trillion dollars and an additional $85 billion cuts in the sequester. even though programs have a child tax credit and medicaid support families and promote economic recovery, this republican budget continues the misguided effort to punish the poor, vulnerable, and senior citizens. we want to create jobs and opportunities for everyone, but we cannot shred the safety net for our seniors as this budget does. it threatens to shatter our fragile recovery while recanting pentagon -- protecting pentagon spending. they encourage corporations to send american jobs offshore. i think we all agree that a budget is a moral document, or at least it should be a moral document. i have in my hand a letter from a little girl. she wrote to me. she is six years old. she lives in oakland, california. she has a simple message for our committee. she says, "please help hungry children. it is the true measure of our nation of how we treat our war, seniors, and especially children like this little girl. she gets it. if there is one hungry child in america, this committee, this budget has failed to do its job. helpudget will not only - hungry people, but that more people at risk of being hungry. it'll put seniors at risk. this is not who we are. >> thank you. now to talk about how this budget protects special interests at the expense of the middle class, i will recognize senator blumenthal for five minutes. >> thank you. this should be a discussion we are focusing on areas of agreement and progress. healthcare reform not only -- i'm pleased that the chairman has agreed that we will have a hearing later in the year dealing with the infrastructure deficit that this country faces. as i go through the material, i see not one word that references infrastructure and its opportunities. we are seeing a relentless assault on the middle class. if enacted, it would costs 2 million jobs, 750,000 middle- class jobs. it would freeze things like pell grants and a lemonade -- you can listen to your own state universities and community colleges. incorporated in this is the ongoing tax shuffle that we have been dealing with for the last couple of years. there is no hint of how there will be tax loopholes cut that would provide for a 25% top rate. we have been listening to that for years with the centerpiece of a residential campaign that one of us was involved with. no one gave a sense of how that would be possible without dramatic reduction but the middle class depends on like a home interests tax reduction. we have been reluctant to see people close special interest. we have tried repeatedly to deal with the oil and gas subsidies of 100 years that long ago ceased to be an incentive to produce oil and is merely a tax subsidy to their autumn line. we can and must -- to their bottom line. i look forward to an opportunity for the democrats to offer their alternative. in the meantime, we get to hear from my colleagues. >> thank you. i agree with my friend from oregon. the tax code is overly complex. it has hundreds of tax breaks and not only distort economic hit year, but also do that for consumers as well. you can see from chart 18 that these tax expenditures amount to a lot of money. over $1.1 trillion per year just shy of the amount of all discretionary spending, including defense. many of these tax breaks are simply wasteful spending through the tax code. how else can you characterize special tax breaks for corporate jets and big oil? it is a shame that challenging this wasteful tech spending seems to break down along party lines. i have no doubt that it is tax picks for social spending programs, my republican friends would be howling about government waste and corruption. but these tax giveaways for some of the wealthiest and most powerful in this country seem to be of no concern. one of the most egregious examples is the special tax preference that this budget gives to oil companies. these are companies that have profited over $1 trillion in profits over the last 10 years. you can see it from chart 17. those profits are aided by a couple of billion dollars that they receive annually courtesy of code. -- of the tax would. exxon and shell were ranked as the top profiting companies. they were not helping the average american by providing more jobs or providing lower prices at the pump. four of the five companies shed a total of 15,000 jobs over the previous five years. there's no doubt about it that big oil has been making big profit while gouging consumers with the gas prices and pocketing the tax breaks, yet they get a big tax under this republican budget. you can call it the path to prosperity, but it is really the path to prosperity for big oil and the road to perdition for the rest of us. there are better ways to spend tax dollars. subsidizing big oil fix our country in the wrong direction on energy policy. we should not increase dependence on fossil fuel that is expensive. there's nothing is fully responsible about climate change denial or pursuing tax and energy policies that maximize profits for big oil while pushing the costs off on children and future generations. i don't the balance of my time. -- yield the balance of my time. >> thank you. we should talk about ways we can do a better job. i yield 10 minutes. >> i yield myself to and a half minutes. the highest priority for democrats on this committee since we inherited this economic crisis that is creating jobs -- last month we got good news. the economy created 36,000 jobs in february. none of limit rate drop to 7.7%. the lowest since 2008. -- the unemployment rate dropped to 7.7%. that is the lowest since 2008. can we please put the slide on the monitors? there you have it. the unemployment rate what it could be and should be. it has been the story of our recovery. what are the consequences of not having enough police, firefighters? teachers? as you can see from this slide on the monitor, according to the household survey, there are 950,000 fewer people employed by state, local, and local governments -- federal governments since 2009. you have never put before the american people what the consequences are of the layouts. shame on you. these are not the faceless government bureaucrats the other side likes to demonize. the are the teachers in your children's classrooms and the cops and the firefighters keeping your communities safe. that is why this is fundamentally flawed. what happened? we lost 8 million jobs. why are we doing this again? why? look at what is happening in europe with austerity. the way debt has been described on this panel is totally, totally unrealistic. why in god's name would be one to follow down the path of europe? that is the only place this roadmap will take us. creating economic growth by investing in our country is the best way to reduce our deficit. the first thing we need to do is replace the looming sequester. that is 750,000 jobs. our ranking member was offered an amendment to eliminate the shortsighted way. we must invest in job creation. with that, i will yield 2.5 minutes to the gentleman from rhode island. >> i thank the gentleman from new jersey. the single most effective way to bring prosperity and well- being to our country is to get people back to work. rhode island has been hit by the economic downturn. we have the highest unemployment rate in the country. we understand the importance of developing a budget proposal that creates new opportunities for middle-class families. if we are serious about keeping our economic recovery going, we need a budget that supports small businesses and is everything possible to help them succeed. we need to make things in america. we need to stop exporting american goods -- we need to start exporting american goods and not jobs. there is a serious legislative effort to give manufacturers and businesses the courage they need to compete in the global economy. then make it in america manufacturing act would help build partnerships in our states and regions to ensure they are getting the target resources they need to retrain workers and campy in the marketplace of the 21st century. -- and compete in the marketplace of the 21st century. it will help businesses and communities and support american workers. we need to make sure companies have incentives to grade jobs in the united states rather than moving them to other countries as our current tax code provides. that is why we support the ring jobs home act -- bring jobs home act. it will end tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas and create incentives to keep jobs in the united states. many continue to struggle in this economic kirby. we need to rebuild the housing sector and ensuring that we have the roads, bridges, schools that will make american businesses more competitive and allow communities to thrive. these are the priorities that are not reflected in the budget that we have before us today. they are sensible and urgent priorities that ca democrats wil continue to fight for. i yield back the balance of my time. >> two minutes to the representative from new mexico. >> i thank my colleagues from new jersey and rhode island. i'm concerned about this impact on jobs. it is both arbitrary and harmful to middle-class families, disabled, and seniors. this is a plan to austerity and not to prosperity. it will flush economic growth and costs jobs. the writing budget will result in 2 million fewer american jobs in 2014 a loan. this is on top of the 750,000 jobs we will lose -- in 2014 alone. this is on top of the 750,000 jobs we will lose in the sequester. the bureau of labor statistics study says the health sector will be a leader in job growth throughout the rest of this decade. the health sector will create 4.3 million jobs by 2020. 30% increase while the rest of the economy creates jobs at 13% rate. simply put, healthcare services and deliveries is where jobs are. unfortunately, republicans in this congress will put job growth in jeopardy. the policy priorities estimates that the ryan budget will cut $2.5 trillion from health care by 2023. it does a by turning medicare into a voucher program. this forces health care providers to jobs and reduce services or their patients. with an aging population, we can be investing in critical infrastructure like the health care system and not cutting. we can have positive job growth and create jobs this year with basic investments. this bill repeals affordable care act, but it is still below the land. -- the law of the land. there can be assistance that help small businesses and individuals select any role in health care plans. this infrastructure investments create jobs we need. in new mexico alone, it will reverse the negative job growth. the rhyme proposal is bad policy. it harms the most vulnerable citizens and is a job killer -- the ryan a proposal is bad policy. it harms the most portable citizens and is a job killer. i yield back. >> i yield my time to the representative from california. >> thank you. i went to point out that this republican budget does not invest in the working people of america for the future workforce of america. this budget eliminates over one million kilograms to students. it does not invest in the badly needed stem teachers. our country needs at least 100,000 of these teachers. this does nothing to just this needed investment. once my republican colleagues -- investing in students is not spending in washington. educating the future workforce is local investment in every community across america. i agree that the budget is about priority. this budget makes it a priority to abandon the education of future workforce. this budget makes it a priority to preserve the tax loopholes for the largest corporations in america. it raises the income tax by over $2000 per american family. in my 16 years of legislating, i have never experienced a document where the rhetoric spoken about the document is completely opposite of the language in that document. this budget is not good for the current work worse of america. it is not invest in them or retrain them. we talked about the millions americans who are out of work. and the same time, this budget does nothing to help them get back to work. this budget is a priority of protecting loopholes for the largest corporations and costing over $2000 or african american when they do their taxes. >> during an evening session, the budget committee took up amendments to the bill dealing with taxes, healthcare, job training programs, and the medicare voucher program. this is two hours and 15 minutes. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> this is an amendment offered to protect the american middle class from tax increases. >> the gentleman is recognized for nine minutes. >> thank you. both parties are committed to reducing the deficit. we need to strengthen the economic future. we have significant differences on how to accomplish these goals. i believe there are budgets to reflect our values and priorities and real-life circumstances. we have a chart i would like to show. here are the facts. the 21970 nine in 2007, take on paper the top 1% of income earners grew 278%. in contrast, the take him pay of the middle 20% of families grew only 25% and incomes of the poorest 20% grew only 18.2%. the amendment i bring for consideration is simple. it asked that everyone pays their fair share and prioritize , thosetasclass families making $250,000 and less. there is a $1.1 trillion shift to the middle class and the budget for us. these priorities are not expressed in the budget we are considering today. the tax policy center has estimated that trillions of funds would offset the cost for top individual and corporate tax rate by 25%. the gop budget will be to repeal tax reductions that benefit working american such as the mortgage reduction and exclusion for -- and the child care credits. raising taxes on working families by eliminating their tax code will play a serious consequence, including making it harder for working families in wisconsin across the country to make ends meet. this would represent a $2000 increase to the average middle- class family. it would costs the economy millions of jobs over the coming years by reducing consumer spending. it will weaken economic world. third, it will hurt homeowners and deliver a blow to the housing industry by reducing the mortgage interest where real estate tax reductions that middle-class families receive in support of owning a home, which is a cornerstone of the american dream. for my first job after college, it was a realtors association. i know firsthand about how important homeownership was and what it does for neighborhoods and safety in the community and what it does. jeopardize will jeopardize the biggest investment those people will make in their lifetime. medical care that middle-class families presently enjoy, it would weaken the child tax credit, including military families. i think we can all agree the tax code is overly complex. we need to make it simpler and smarter so it benefits all- americans and making sure everyone is paying their fair share. it overhauls the individual and corporate tax codes and favors the wealthy and the powerful and no one else. who pays for this benefit for millionaires? middle-class families who rely on the tax credit and mentioned above. c mitchell and medicaid and medicare and nursing homes -- seniors rely on medicaid and medicare and nursing homes. keeping this tax rates for corporations and oil companies -- let's look at the facts. during the clinton administration, the tax rate was at 39% and the economy grew by more than 20 million jobs. during the bush administration, the top tax rate was reduced to 35% and the economy last half one million jobs. what we need to do is focus on how to jumpstart the economy and promote job growth. we need to keep the tax cuts for the middle class in place and invest in infrastructure and research and development so we can create an environment where companies can expand and grow jobs. it comes down to priorities. support job growth and the middle class. support strengthening medicare and medicaid. i know in wisconsin it is a common choice people would make. i yield tuber presented chris van hollen. -- representative chris van hollen. >> thank you. here is a sentence. that is the purpose of this amendment. for the last figures with respect to the affordable care act, we have been hearing it does not just a repeal. this is the third year we have seen in this budget proposal to drop the top tax rate down to 25%. this time we have a little more context in which this debate has taken place. it took place during the presidential campaign when governor romney put forward a plan that was more modest than this plan. we were able to look at consequences for the middle- class families for that line proposed by governor romney. the independent tax policy center that has been used by many people now is including governor romney before he got the answer that he not want. he was quoting tax policy center for this when he did like them. they concluded that if you're going to drop the tax rate from 35% to what he was proposing, 28%, you would have to make up approximately 5 trillion dollars in lost revenue to keep it revenue neutral. that is what you propose to do in this budget. $5 trillion by eliminating deductions and exemptions. we know the three biggest deductions are mortgage interest, charitable, state and local. healthcare. we know the distribution of those exemptions and to the most impact. as you eliminate the mortgage reduction, you will have a disproportionate negative impact on middle-class families. $5 trillion. we have never seen a proposal like this. how will you do it? never. we keep asking, can you do this without hurting the middle class? we know that you cannot. that is what the tax policy center showed. to make up for that $5 trillion, it if you start by taking way exemptions for high income people, you do not make up nearly enough to recapture that $5 trillion and make it revenue neutral. you can only do it by hitting middle income taxpayers. if you are a high income individual and making $5 million per year, your deductions and exemptions are a relatively small portion. you're getting a huge tax cut today. this would take you from 39%- pray five percent. -- 39%-29%. -- 25%. net tax cuts averaging at least $250,000 for incomes in the top 1%. as he said, when you provide another windfall tax break for folks at the top and cling to do in a deficit neutral way, which you have to do, you would have to sock it to the middle class. simple math. if that is not the case, we would like to see a study that shows how you would do it. we would like you to support us in this amendment this time around. >> time for the gentleman has not expired. -- now aspired. >> the gentleman is recognized. will the gentleman yield in the beginning? >> yes. >> i'm familiar with the statistics the gentleman from maryland mentioned. the $5 trillion figure was debunked. but tax policy center did not measure the romney plan. they made up their own assumptions about it. it has been concluded that the claims -- you could lower the base about hurting the middle class so all of those claims to the contrary about the plan that was in the campaign --the tpc not even studied the plan. you can lower the base without hurting middle-class taxpayers. more to the point, it is in the ways and means committee. they wrote the bill. that is their job. we do not write tax legislation in here. this amendment tries to write tax legislation. the goal is not to raise taxes on anyone. with that, i yield back. >> thank you. the arguments that are put forth on what the tax plan is reminded me of the sequester argument that we heard that the white house. tsa will have long lines and the only thing is that we have some prisoners that are let go. we've heard a lot of the sky is falling. it has not fallen. we heard the sky will fall on our tax plans. ladies and gentlemen, ways and means is working on a tax plan. you do not have the facts to say the sky will fall when you do not know what is in it. we do not even know what is in it. the ranking members talked about where the $5 trillion come from. program tax reform has been shown to reduce more revenues. perhaps part of that $5 billion of it if it is true will come from more people getting more paychecks and a healthier and happier wealthier middle class and we have ever had in this country before. perhaps that'll be the solution. we agreed that we should not raise taxes on the middle class. we should not raise taxes on anyone. everyone should pay their fair share. we think the way to do it is to have a fairer and simpler system. again, the best thing we can do to turn the economy around and do ensure that everyone is paying their fair share is to have program tax reform. a budget resolution calls for comprehensive tax reform to broaden the tax rate into a simple two bracket. the rest of the details we are leaving to the ways and means committee. these reform would make the code there -- fair and allow americans to keep more of the money that they earned and entrepreneurship. with this, i will yield about three minutes to my friend from wisconsin. >> thank you. i appreciate the time. welcome to the budget committee. he had the opportunity to get to know each other a little bit. you can never have enough of wisconsin in my opinion. if it had a couple of more, we would have the right mix here. slide number 11 for me. i was struck by some of the data that was shown on previous graph. there is a gap between the top 1% and middle-class is getting broader. it would show the gap started in the 1990s when you had the higher tax rates on everyone. there is not a correlation between tax rates and whether the top 1% does well or does not you well. -- do well. i do not really understand it from that standpoint. [laughter] i went to look at this slide here. all of the tax expenditures they were the middle class when -- favor the middle class when they don't. it takes tax expenditures away from the rich and not affecting the middle class. i wonder whether you have read the bill. we hear a lot about reading the bills. i will read this part. line 15. closing loopholes to fund spending does not constitute reform -- i agree with that. tax reform should be revenue neutral. it should not be used to raise taxes on american people. we are in agreement in that regard. page 73, line 11. consolidating is 10%. most middle tax payers would see their tax rate go down. but to be quite a bit of reduction depending on where you are in the tax bill. i do not see anything in here. i read the entire bill. i do not see anything the home mortgage reduction or charitable giving. i do not say those things in here. i do not know what the ways and committee will do with this instruction. i'm not sure what and not a resolution of let's not raise taxes on the middle class effectively does. i would encourage my colleagues at his point to impose the amendment and just adopt a budget as written. i yield back. >> thank you. i yield 10 minutes to my friend from indiana. >> thank you. i do not believe there should be tax increases on anyone the matter their income levels. the best thing we can do is turn the economy around and create jobs and poor money back into this economy. our budget -- and pour money back into this economy. additional taxes on anyone damages the economy. let me see a quick story about my area in indiana. when i go home and i have conversations with auto workers and mechanics were looking at hiring and small businesses, they are not going to do that if washington raises their taxes. i have someone close to me who is looking at closing because the taxes are too hi. we should not -- to ohigh. we should not be talking about raising taxes on anyone. we should find a way to create good jobs for anyone who wants one. our budget does that. it makes the tax code fairer for everyone. it decreases tax rates and allows americans to keep more of their money instead of higher taxes. i urge my colleagues to approve this budget. i yield back my time. >> thank you. let me conclude by saying this. all the heard is that we need to raise taxes on other people. that is what we have heard from the other side. that is not a solution to fix what is wrong with the fiscal situation. higher marginal tax rate hurt economic growth. we saw this. he lowered the tax rate in a created an economic boom. reagan lowered rates to 50%. we had another economic boom. lowering tax rates, under the reagan tax reform, we had economic activity. that is where revenues will come from. program tax reform and not by trying to raise taxes. that is not what we are proposing. the point was laid out early. there is nothing in this budget that does that. the ways and means committee needs to come up with the way to produce program tax reform in a manner that does not raise taxes on anyone. we all want a healthier middle class. i don't that the balance of my time. >> 42 seconds to spare. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for a one minute close t. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm going to sponsor the amendment. when that comes up, assignee on. we will have some bipartisanship for sure today. sorry. i hit the wrong button. ok. thank you. nevermind. there is $1.1 trillion shift. this budget says nothing about getting rid of corporate jets are companies that send jobs overseas, but makes the assumption we will come up with this money and i tell you it will be on the backs of the middle class. the fact that we are assuming we will get rid of the affordable care act all of the revenues, there are so many assumptions in here. we might as well hire people to tell them to grab rainbows. i hope you will support the middle class and the sentiment. >> all those in favor, say aye. >> aye. all those opposed to, say no. >> no. >> rochon requested. quested.call [clerk calling role] >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. > no. >> no. >> no. no. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> mr. chairman, the ayes are 16 and no's 21. the amendment is agreed to. any other amendments? >> i have amendment number four at the desk. uhan?ersholo >> mr. chairman, i amendment is offered relating to the health care of seniors. >> the gentle lady is recognized for nine minutes for her amendment. >> i amendment regards cuts to medicaid. it covers primary care for persons with disabilities, children, senior citizens, and the poor. it ensures that senior citizens will not lose coverage for their care. it will also ensure one in five medicare beneficiaries like my mother who are eligible for medicaid receive help paying their premiums and out-of-pocket costs. this amendment rejects the repeal of the benefits for seniors provided in the affordable care act. the law granting medicaid that affords states to ration care for the sickest. this is the only way the budget is able to save more than 800 billion in medicaid. this approach is misguided. many to strengthen medicaid and not cut it. this would put seniors at reader risk and losing critical health services and posts special health care to those who need care. they could lose her health care coverage. this budget preserves tax for the wealthiest americans will ever die seen health and financial security -- will jeopardize health and the financial security of evil who rely on medicaid. we all know that funding levels would not to keep these overtime with healthcare costs, nor do the keep pace and increasing beneficiaries. elderly population will grow faster than the population as a whole. as a result, the block grant funding levels will fall further behind. block grant hunting would not reduce underlying healthcare costs. shifting those costs and risk to state providers and beneficiaries. they could reduce the size of the programs by reducing deficits. slashing funding would have devastating consequences for the millions of seniors and nursing homes. people with disabilities and pregnant women and low income families that rely on medicaid for life-saving care. seniors and those with disabilities make up 25% of those who rely on medicaid and account for nearly two thirds of the medicaid costs. without medicaid support, more than responsibility for caregiving falls on families families and primary caregivers like myself. we need to provide that care. funding falls further behind. the need for services for seniors living on limited income will likely face serious difficulties getting the care that they need. in new mexico, the most recent person to receive medicaid services under the medicaid waiver program was on the list for eight years. hoople getting on the list today can expect to wait for 11 years. these are people in desperate need of services. which of the current entity hospice for personso with cancer or his occult therapy for someone like my mother -- or physical therapy for someone with a mother who was sent home without the ability to care walk for herself? should services be eliminated or she people wait for years to get the care they need? turning this into block grant will result in a state bidding to make such severe choices. this budget wreaks havoc on healthcare in this country. this would lead to an increase in uncompensated care. in my state, medicare accounts for about 25% of all healthcare expenditures for hospitals hospitals, nursing homes, doctors, and community health centers. it would become more difficult for these providers to maintain adequate staffing and upgrade equipment and keep up with necessary facility maintenance. some hospitals and other healthcare providers in new mexico, this is devastating. these cuts would strain the healthcare infrastructure at a time when we should be investing in healthcare infrastructure that is called for in the affordable care act. block grant medicaid shifts healthcare to the states, dividers, caregivers, and patients. this is bad medicine. i asked for your support of my amendment. i yield to the gentlewoman from florida. >> i thank her colleague for offering this important amendment. since 1965, medicaid has provided that fundamental safety net for american families. it allows them to see a doctor for sto. it allows all families across the country to live in dignity when they have a parent or a grandparent at the end their life that needs to go into a nursing home or medicaid provides services for them to stay out of the nursing home. when i think of medicaid, i think of an older couple that i have visited a couple of months ago in tampa. married for 60 years. they keetake care of each other. they have a therapist that comes by every day to make sure that they eat. when i think of medicaid, i think of the older couple on my street. the gentleman was diagnosed with alzheimer's. with alzheimer's. they could not take care of him in the home. so thank god for medicare, that it was there to ensure he got into a nursing home where he could be taken care of. she did not have to lose the house. it is a lifeline. many of your neighbors, nearly half of all people 85 or older have alzheimer's. medicare pays for long-term care services. you are removing that lifeline from families across this country. i think it is shameful. this vision for america under your budget cuts that lifeline for our older neighbors, the blind, the infirm. think about this important investment keep them out of nursing homes. that will not be there for millions of american cammies. these are not our values in this country -- that will not be there for millions of american families. these are not our values in this country. these are costs of long-term care what it is a last resort. this amendment corrects this problem. it is one the most fiscally -- this policy to block grant medicaid and cut it, it is one of the most fiscally irresponsible portions of this budget. i urge you to adopt the amendment. i yield back. >> i yield to the gentleman from -- to the gentleman from wisconsin. >> this is where the rubber hits the road on this amendment. this document describes medicaid as yet another welfare program. over half of them on this program are kids. the rest are elderly or disabled. only 15% of this possible chordal eligible -- of this -- of these are dual eligible. if the straw men attack on the poorest, youngest, oldest and most vulnerable citizens and to say -- to characterize them as welfare recipients who need to come out of the ham hock, this is an example of the doublespeak this committee speaks to when they make these deep cuts in medicare. >> the time has expired. if the gentleman will yield briefly, to add clarity to this, the medicaid expansions on affordable care have not occurred yet. no one who is currently under the medicaid program is affected by this. state flexibility gives states the ability to customize the plans to meet the needs of their populations. but the increase in eligibility has not occurred yet. the discussions about taking away -- is about giving the states more flexibility to make their programs work better. with that, i yield. i find this a compelling comment about the budgetary i believe our state has found a way to deal with this. when you talk about taking care vulnerable populations, our budget is providing more care, leaving nobody out. this budget does not even cut services or benefits. a kiss states flexibility to design -- it gives states flexibility to design programs. this budget increase is funding medicaid. the solutions will never be found in washington. my home state of indiana enacted a popular proposal that serves unique needs of people in our state. it is rated high the amongst consumers of the plan. i have met with many health care centers and in my district who have been -- who have backed me to make sure when it comes to providing medicaid, that we asked for the program to be expanded. because they love the hip program. it protect the vulnerable. it is compassionate. it works. it is a shame and the administration shows [indiscernible] this budget corrects the president mistakes and gives states the flexibility to better target medicates resources. the result will be better access. the vulnerable populations of children and women -- that is how we have done it in our state. we are asking for the same flexibility and this budget provides more protection for ball will people than anything in your amendment. i would like to yield back to my colleague pierre >> i associate with everything the gentlewoman has said in this regard. i would add that we have the same goal that this amendment describes. i think we have a better way to do it. it is arrogant for us to sit here and think that we know best what to do with the people's money. the people know best what to do with their money. when you give the states and local government the flexibility to determine these three things -- who is poor, what the poor need in health care and how the poor should get it, you could go further with the dollars allocated for these kinds of programs and get better results. that is what happened in indiana with the help the indiana plant. cover for because more people without adding one said the extra cost. medicaid is for the poor. medication not be for the middle class terry it should be for the elderly and children who cannot afford it. when i talk to middle-class families in my district, i hear it will be their highest honor to take care of their parents in their old age. at their expense. not put them off on some federal program run by unnamed bureaucrats. that is the wrong thing to do. let's give the people the flexibility to handle health care for the poor the way they see fit. this amendment discusses the doughnut hole. that was supposed to be patched by the affordable care act. i could prove it here that the provision has the effect of increasing drug prices. i would like to enter a 2010 letter from the congressional budget office to the chairman of this committee in response to his questions about cost. without hearing objection -- [laughter] the chairman requested analysis of the specific doughnut hole provision from cbo and cbo confirm these requirements will drive up health care costs. one prostrating, the premiums of drug plan will increase along with the increase in net drug prices. >> ideal freeman its to mr. woodall -- i yield three minutes to mr. woodall. >> i was visiting with one of the primary-care doctors in georgia recently. i appreciate your frontier state. we would like to be role -- to be a rural frontier state, too. he said i'm the only doctor in the county could fix medicaid. you folks in washington can put as many people on medicaid if you want to but i cannot fit any more folks to my front door. i do not think this budget schists costs to states, providers -- this but it shifts costs to states and providers. unless the but it will double medicaid spending -- unless the budget will double medicaid spending, there will still not be any doctors in rural the georgia taking those patients. at issue with my colleague who called it is honorable and shameful. -- i take issue with my colleague to call the this honorable and shameful. this is an opportunity for people to get care they cannot get today. to have talked -- folks talk about how they know better how to take care of my neighbors and my neighbors and i did. i understand the president is trying to do this through waiver programs and i appreciate the flexibility he is offering. this goes one step further to offer complete state flexibility gary for those left in scene -. we will serve them better with this state flexibility then this committee could ever hope to do. i have to oppose it. >> i wanted to make a final point. it's the threat to seniors health care. the real threat is that medicare is going bankrupt. the president's health care law raids more than $100 billion from medicare. we are dealing with these issues that impact seniors. i see my mom and my vote, i am voting for my mom. seniors are getting ripped off. coverage is being cut. premiums are increasing. the president's health care law remains in place, only lead to further rationing of care for seniors and. i appreciate the intent offer by my colleagues. it preserves traditional benefits. and saves medicare for the next generation. i see the seniors in my district every weekend when i go home. i am how the house republicans produce a budget that will protect the programs they rely on. i ask my colleagues to defeat this amendment. >> mrs. grisham is recognized for a minute. >> i appreciate the comments of my colleague but i will assure you that is a promise he will not able to keep, mr. wall -- mr. woodall. i am sure you never had to tell the parent with children with a disease that -- >> will the gentleman yield. >> no, i i am going to finish my comment with thank you for asking. this is less money, less support. i assure you with that means is doctors have no real it -- no reimbursement for patients who still need them. in the doctors i've talked to, they are interested in their dream -- interest in fair reimbursement, not less. >> all time has expired. all those in favor say aye, those opposed say no. the nos have it. roll call vote is requested. [roll call] >> mr. chairman, on the vote, the ayes are 16, nos 22. >> the nos have it.'the amendment is not agreed to. the clerk will report the yarmuth amendment. >> an amendment related to the health insurance for those with pre-existing conditions. >> the gentleman is recognized for nine minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment expresses repeal of the affordable care act, protecting benefits for americans are include in the protections against discrimination based on pre- existing conditions. kim atkins is a constituent of mine in kentucky. after the supreme court affirmed the affordable care act, she shared her family's story. here is what she wrote -- my daughter is one of several young adults now on our insurance until she is 26 years old. she is still unemployed and looking for work. the affordable care at sarah -- save a life. whenever kidneys shut down. if she was not on our insurance, she would have waited or not gone to the hospital at all. the doctor told her if she waited an hour later, she would've lost a kidney or die. jessica is also a constituent, born with congenital heart defect that went undiagnosed until she was 24. her condition is a result of arteries being too short and then to affect of the pump blood to and away from her heart. as a result, she has been diagnosed with cardiomyopathy. she's been hospitalized 30 times the past three years. she is 27 years old and. next year because of the affordable care act, and sure as companies can no longer deny her care. but by repealing the affordable care act, republican budget seeks to destroy it and and i heard that care. for thousands with pre-existing conditions and millions of americans, the republican budget would strip them of the promise that comes with knowing you are no longer a prisoner to your medical bills. billions of dollars have been already been spent preparing for the affordable care accurate 26 years old -- affordable care act. up to 26 years old. but it would take away our -- take away their care. i go to many of them. i cannot tell you all last year's the relief i have seen the disappearance eyes -- seen in parents eyes in that their children and friends will never have to worry about being reinsured again in their lives. sherman has said this budget -- the chairman has said this budget is a replacement that would deal with these issues. we have dealt with 7000 lobbyists and probably the most complicated legislative process ever in this body. the idea we could bet on a replacement for this is something that if i were one of these constituents, somebody suffering from acquired disease -- suffering from a disease, i would not want to count on this congress coming up with adequate protection for those people. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and reject this very dangerous provision. i yield three minutes to the ranking member. >> thank you. thank you for offering this amendment. we have heard for three years it will repeal and replace. as we looked in his budget document this year during the walk-through, there is no place in here. three years later, it has been all talk. the result of it being all talk is that millions of americans will lose their ability to get affordable health insurance. as the bottom line. he has spelled out the human side of that discussion. could dirty little secret in this budget is that while it gets rid of the benefits -- the dirty little secret in this budget is that while it gets rid of the benefits, he keeps the savings in medicare and keeps the trillion dollars in revenue from obamacare. i am not the only source for that. every penny is in that base line come from those provisions in obamacare -- taxes on higher income folks of providers who will benefit as well as penalties on those who do not take personal responsibility. where are you going to get a trillion dollars to make it up? i keep hearing about the medical the bat -- medical device tax. and what taxes are you reason to replace it? they are all potential there. -- they are all in there. here is the other part of the story. this is 2023. this budget would not be hopper in balance without -- this budget would not be in balance without [indiscernible] it would not be in balance if you just had one of them. revenues from obamacare, not in a balanced. the bottom line of the budget is it cannot be said it is imbalanced and repeals all of obamacare. it repeals the part double help those kids -- the part that will help those kids. doughnut hole, it will repeal of those protections. but it balances the budget with the other parts of obamacare. >> . a yield a minute and a half -- i yield a minute and a half. >> this is a critical component to health care that are cheap -- our kids need and expect and that millions of americans as deserve with pre-existing conditions. up to half of non elderly americans have a pre-existing condition. older americans between 55 and 64 are particularly at risk. 86 & of them -- 86% of them have some sort of pre-existing condition. this is poor policy. there are 3 million young adults attain coverage as a result of this. this portion of the bill -- insurance companies have recorded a 5% increase several years ago. this shouldn't these remained. the fact they are getting rid of all obamacare means this goes. and they have the revenues they're going to keep. without the benefits that we heard -- that we work hard to get for our citizens here. this is really bad policy. americans will be very upset when they see this. >> the gentle lady from tennessee is recognized for chemistry will shield for a couple seconds? >> no one is disputing what is car not in the baseline. our budget last year did the same thing and the same thing the before. when you're writing tax reform, you write to hit as search and revenue levels. the revenue level is the current law in the baseline. as we do that, the entire goal is to replace the current tax code, the one we do not like. the woman the medical device tacked. -- the one with the medical device tax. with respect to the savings from medicare, do not take it from medicare and spend it on another program. make sure it goes toward solvency of medicare. and number of providers being cut in obamacare said go ahead and do it. we can afford it. they supported obamacare. saddam hussein we cannot. that is beginning to occur. we have to sort through where is savings legitimate that does not deny access and where is it not? that is why we have a reserve fund to deal with it just let him have done with the physicians. the ama asked for it. the republican congress wrote it and pass it. everybody thought it was great. what do we do? put a reserve fund in our budget and say let's deal with it. .et's cut spending some routes -- let's cut spending summer house -- somewhere else. one of the reasons why we're able to balance the budget is because of the new baseline. it is a function of arithmetic. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. prior to the supreme court ruling on obamacare, four of our largest insurers announced they would continue to cover young adults under the age of 26. they were committed to covering preventative care without providing co. insurers were committed to providing these services. about the purposes of this amendment. our budget does not tell private insurers the cannot cover those under the 26. i do not understand the necessity of this amendment. our budget repeal the president's health care law that does three things -- drives up the cost, forces millions of americans to lose the health care coverage they already have and raise the medicare fund by more than $700 billion. the me talk about three ways it threatens -- let me talk about three areas it threatens. the employer based insurance. if you talk to businesses, they are uncertain about whether they will keep the insurance. as they look at the numbers they currently have, they do not see a way to keep insurance so they will pay the penalty. cbo estimates to million americans will be forced out of employer provided insurance. if the trend continues by 2018, 8 million will have lost their employer provided insurance. in the ad want a trillion dollars in new government spending to the federal budget sheet. it threatens the health security of american seniors. and for some 40% of medicare providers out of business according to medicare trustees. in the paz bureaucrats to cut medicare in ways that will deny care and restrict assets -- restrict access. it fails to make the program solid. loomingicts medicare's bankruptcy will lead to reduced access to care or diminished quality of care. not good for our seniors third area, threatened state and budgets. i have a personal experience with this because i am from tennessee where we had 10 care. we tried to do this kind of program and it almost broke our state. it is nonexistent because of the extreme costs will eat up 96% of our budget. that meant no education, and a transportation three resolved 10 care. it is no longer there. i was like to yield to my colleague from georgia. >> thank you so much. i want to commend the gently from tennessee from observations for it. i will table this dangerous, have an washington peake the entity that decides what your health care is -- i will describe what is dangerous, have in washington speak to and decide what your health care is. that is what we believe is the heart of the problem with the president's health care law. the vast majority of individuals in this country gained their coverage to an insurance entity that does not exclude them for pre-existing conditions or illnesses. there are about 80 million people for whom they are exposed. but only 18 million people in the small market and individual market . the pool is large enough in other covered mechanisms. for those covered in this self insured problem, the pool is large enough. how the mechanics of the 18 million people are not challenge with pre-existing ellises and injustice -- pre-existing illnesses? allow them access to it, large enough so anyone individual's health status does not increase the cost of the provision of coverage for anybody else in the pool, as a very simple way to do it. it works for patients. >> ideal dot of my time to the gentle lady from tennessee. >> -- i yield to the rest of my time to the gentle lady from tennessee. >> thank you. one of the things we should be concerned about under the -- with the under the 26 years old group, health insurance costs for young people are going to escalate between 145% and 189%. due to the taxes and fees being put in place. many talk about job creation and the fact that you have 50% under 30 years of age are either under employed or unemployed, there are $1 trillion in taxes coming on to obamacare. the ten care program in tennessee was supposed to be $200 billion. look and with your program has already done here with obamacare. it was going to be under $1 trillion terry what we find out? it is already $1.80 trillion. i yield back the balance of my time. >> we have the whole the clock. we are doing it with everybody. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for a minute to close request thank you, mr. chairman. ms. black said protection for the ability of 26 year-old spent under to be on their policy was in place before the supreme court decided. but they were not doing that before the affordable care act passed. if we repeal the affordable care act, they would continue to cover up to 26 is unreasonable. they have been raising deductibles and co-payments and we ended up with -- we now have options for our citizens. the ability of people to be guaranteed coverage regardless of their employment and pre- existing condition. do you what to look out for the most trouble in society? this amendment does that. cox time has expired. the amendment -- all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. a roll call vote is requested. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] >> on that vote, the ayes are 16, nos 22. >> the amendment is not agreed to. are there other amendments? >> yes, i have an amendment. no. 6, creating jobs that helps didn't. -- that help students. >> the gentle lady from florida as recognized for nine minutes to request i am pleased to offer an amendment that will help close the student achievement gap across america, brings public schools and to the 21st century and boost jobs across our country. to many of american school r. denton is repaired. a report released yesterday -- too many american schools are in disrepair. a report released yesterday -- they had to let teachers go, italy maintenance. beyond that, some schools are simply plain old. i know back home, we have schools htey avthey have tried o keep up to par but many of the scientific requirements of today did not sit back into the schools of 50 years ago. a yaer 2000 study reported most shape. are in bad 50% of schools in recorded a least one building characteristics such as the roof or ventilation was inadequate. 76% of school needed funding for repairs and innovation. billions of dollars. the american society of civil engineers davy degrades a in assessing our nation's public school at the structure -- civil engineers gave a degrade in assessing our nation's public school infrastructure. try and many staff do a great job but it is time to focus in national effort of building and renovating some of our schools. my amendment is similar to one of the most popular pieces in the american jobs act proposed by president obama. although the republicans blocked the action, it -- the school modernization peace should find bipartisan support. especially since it is paid for in my amendment. it is offset by eliminating tax loopholes and deductions for special interests. one of my colleagues defended the tax loophole for corporate jets go when you weigh the equities here and think of all we stand to gain by renovating our schools with 21st century, that continued tax loophole for corporate debt, there is simply no comparison. >> will the gentleman yield? >> you have your time in just a moment. i also pay for this school modernization initiative by reducing subsidies to the big oil companies starting in 2014. this was killed back or eliminate subsidies to the major integrated oil companies making enormous profits. is it a park with the taxpayers continue to subsidize big oil companies -- is it fair for taxpayers to continue to subsidize big oil companies? the close some other loopholes and tax breaks going to millionaires. this is an important piece to create jobs and help our students succeed. i would like to yield. >> thank you to my colleague from florida for yielding on this amendment. i strongly support this amendment which seeks to present -- to prevent up to 280,000 teacher layoffs and put americans back to work. what could be more important than supporting the great equalizer in our country, our education system? given sequestration, our public education system is under siege. sequestration is estimated to cut to above $4 billion from program with her in the department of education-- from programs within the department of education. we cannot ignore the great need in this area. the largest school district in mexico has a $4 billion capital improvement need. approximately 80% of the need is for vertical construction, with more than 20 million americans unemployed or underemployed, and one critical step we can take to put people back to work as provide our school districts with the resources to make needed improvements to their school facilities. investing will create jobs and strengthen the economy and boost teacher has to the moral performance. i urge a yes vote. i yield back. >> at this time i will yield. >> thank you for yielding. the across-the-board budget cuts implemented through sequestration represent a serious threat to our public schools and states and cities that rely on federal education funding. the kind of education that will allow them to compete successfully and to the global world economy. that means potential job losses for teachers, affecting thousands of students. we cannot afford to lose one job. in the name of protecting egregious tax breaks for the favored few. it is also an opportunity to provide support for construction trades as we rebuild our country's crumbling schools. while insuring kids can spend their days in safer, more modern schools. it is a smart, targeted investments that create jobs and helps our school districts save resources and allow them to focus tight, local budget directly on learning. i urge my colleagues to support this. i yield back. >> i yield back. >> all right. opposition. >> still learning how to use the mic. pardon me. thank you, mr. chairman and the gentle lady from florida hearing her amendment. the all want our kids to be in great schools. i think we have very different visions about what the best way to provide that opportunity is. on this side of the aisle, we believe the best place to make those decisions in local level as with families and teachers and students were together to make those things happened. several mentioned cuts in that education. this budget does not cut education. in the first year of our baseline, we spent $1 billion more than the prior year. in the testier, we spent $16 billion more than we did the first year. this amendment is an example of how our nation got into our current debt crisis. you pick a compelling cause, one that is hard to disagree with and tell everybody if you throw billions of dollars at it, we will make a difference. we can all feel good about ourselves that we go home. the problem is that thousands of these decisions lead us into a set tuition where we have a debt crisis. talkingoon you're bought real money. this amendment represents a massive and unprecedented shift in the un -- education funding dynamic. with the federal government threatening to take over one of the most fundamental responsibilities of state and local communities. such federal intrusion could have severe unintended consequences, including possibility that states and local communities and investors come back away from the responsibility to build a maintain safe and models. the federal government has chosen to maintain a limited role of the fiscal contraction and focus on adequately funding programs that increase student achievement. that limited role and school construction should be maintained. beyond that, this bill is a veiled stimulus package wrapped in pretty clothing. it provides $47.5 billion of the $55 billion in the first two years. the last to molested not work. we should not be doing it. with those comments >> we cannot allow or afford to lose a generation due to inadequate schools or underfunded schools. speaking as someone who went to public school -- i understand the importance of making sure our schools are adequately funded. we like the parents in other areas want out children to be above average. how did we achieve this? talk to any teacher and you will realize not only do they need their own compensation, a condition not the one thing -- they should not go wanting with supplies. who is closest to the kids? the parent. after that, the teachers, the classroom, administrators. this is where the decision should be made and where we should put the emphasis. but the gentleman yield for a question over here. >> in just a moment. how do we do this? local -- the learn act. that would allow startes to reclaim the money they are now sending to washington. they would be in charge, the parents, the teachers and community. with that, i yield back. >> the gentleman from texas, mr. flores. >> thank you. i want to correct one of the statements made. i did not defend corporate jets. i never said anything like that. what i did was the fun of people that build them, fly them, maintain the very those are middle-class workers. the should not target one particular industry over another. thank you. i yield back. but the gentleman from oklahoma. >> thank you. let me tell you a story on this. 10 years ago, oklahoma city saw our schools were crumbling, saudi infrastructure falling apart. we made a decision to reinvest in the community. those schools were rebuilt and over the last 10 years, we have watched a metamorphosis of oklahoma city school turnaround. as our community took care of our facility. what made a difference? a decision made by local folks to invest in our community and turnaround our schools. it is made a huge difference, in our community. i am a big believer in this. my mother is an educated. my older brother is in. my degree in college was secondary education. i'm very passionate about these issues and people in zacarias taking care of the issues and empowering parents to make the decision close to their stated. this is a huge amount of money. a breakdown to $857,000 for each school. n to $857,000down 80t for each school. example happened during the stimulus. we wanted healthier kitchens in school through the rural districts in my area came back immediately and complained they would like to go after that money but were unable to do it because you have to have a full kitchen in every school. i understand the intent of it but i think we are the wrong approach to do it. the moment we take it on, we treat strings that should not be there from the federal level. i yield back. >> the provision was paid for to the closing the loopholes. i know of no one defending our current tax code. with that, i yield the balance of my time to mr. calvert from california. >> i thank the gentleman. >> we cannot take on another federal program here. this could have severe unintended consequences, including state and local communities thinking the feds are going to take this responsibility on and we cannot. we just cannot afford it. one of the troubling things to me, it will be subject to the davis-bacon act. some states may have let the many states do not -- some states may have its but many states do not. offices have found those requirements increase the costs of school buildings, costing taxpayers building -- billions of dollars. bliss amendment as cause more problems than the -- this amendment has caused more problems than they [indiscernible] >> colleagues, my amendment is to create jobs by modernizing and renovate schools across the country. to give us a real shot in the arm, bring our schools into the 21st century. provide the tools for our student debt they deserve. it is a four. -- it is paid for. that is the difference in vision. it is far more important to the future of america to redesign high schools to focus more on science and technology, engineering and math. is it a federal program? no. this gives money into the hands of families, parents, teachers clamoring for it. we can help reduce the deficit by boosting our small businesses in jobs now when they are needed. >> thank you. time has expired. all those in favor say aye. those oppose say no. roll call cote is requested -- call vote is requested. [roll call] doubt that will be on the topic of discussions. >> order. questions to the prime minister. >> number one mr. speaker,. >> the prime minister. >> and whether this morning i had meeting with minister colleagues and others and in addition to my duties in this house i shall have server, further such meetings later today. >> we'll know the prime minister believes there is an alternative to his deb and is loss of the aaa credit rating. but is he aware that his backbenchers and some of his cabinet believe there is an alternative? to him. [shouting] >> what this government is delivering is 1 million private sector jobs, fastest rate of new business creation in this country's history. we are paying down the deficit by 25%. we've got immigration by a third. we have a long hard road to travel but we're going in the right direction. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm sure the prime minister will wish to add his condolences to the family and friends of christine atkins who was murdered on a bus in my constituency last thursday morning. the government is right to introduce minimum custodial sentences for people convicted of threatening someone with a knife. but with the prime minister agree with me that it is time to introduce a legal assumption that people carrying a knife can potentially use it and should attract a prison sentence so that we can redouble our efforts to rid our communities of the scoue of guides? >> i think my honorable friend speaks for the whole house and a beautiful country for his absolute repulsion at the truly horrific crime big a whole house i know will wish to join in sending our sincere condolences to christine atkins hi family. we do take knife crime extremely just a. that is why we change the laws of any adult who commits a crime with a knife can be expected be sent to prison. and for a series should expect a very long since. i will happily look at what you suggest and into my right honorable friend is currently reviewing the powers available to the courts to do with a knife possession and you'll bring forth proposals in due course. >> ed miliband. [shouting] >> mr. speaker, in the light of his new view on alcohol pricing can the prime minister tell us is there anything he could organize in a paris? [laughter] -- in a brewery? >> i -- i have -- [shouting] i would like t organize in the brewery in my constituency a party to which he would be very welced to celebrate the shadow chancellor should stay for a very long time on the front bench. [shouting] >> ed miliband. >> he obviously couldn't tell us about his policy on alcohol, minimum unit pricing, mr. speaker, but i think the reality is he has just been overruled by the home secretary on this one. [laughter] let's turn to another thing the prime minister said we can't trust it in his speech last thursday he said and i quo, the independent office of budget reform are clear that the deficit reduction plan is not responsible for low growth. this is not what they say and will be acknowledge that today? >> first point just returned to his or her question, the interesting thing -- i will answer his question to the interesting thing about british litics right now is i've got the top team i wanted and he's got the top team that i want, too. and long may they continue. now, on the issue, on the office for budget responsibility, the point of the obr is that is independent and everyone should accept everything that it says. and i do. but should look at what he says about why growth has turned out to be lower than it forecast it and it said this, we concluded from an examination of the data that the impact of external financial shocks the key reading export markets, and financial sector and eurozone difficulties were the more likely explanations. that is what disappear into be fair, to be fair to the shadow chancell, in his wn press release he said that the obr is and i quote, yet to be persuaded by the case that he makes. and after telling, his plans are more spending, more borrowing and more debt, the country will never be persuaded. [shouting] >> mr. speaker, the prime minister is clearly living in a fantasyland. he wants us to believe, he wants us to believe that the head of the office for budget reform wrote him an open letter the day after his speech because he enjoyed it so much. because he agreed with him so much. actually we believe fiscal consolidation measures can reduce economic growth over the past couple of years. and yesterday, mr. speaker, we learned that industrial production is at the lowest level for 20 years. that set alarm bells ringing for everyone else in this country. why doesn't it for the prime minister? >> the first point is that manufacturing decline is a share of our gdp faster under the government that he was a member than at anytime since the industrial revolution. that is what happened. the decimation of manufacturing industry under 10 years of a labour government. that is what happened. he quotes from the office for budget responsibility and i accept everything that they say. but let me quote from the introduce of fiscal studies institute of fiscal studies that says that borrowing under labour would be 200 billion higher because he accept that forecast? >> ed miliband. >> it is good to see of this second week when he's getting in -- he had nothing to say can has nothing to say about industrial producti. has nothing to say about what's happening and usher production by his own business sector, a guy who's supposed to be in charge of these issues is going around telling anyone who will listen to the plan isn't working. this is what he says. we are now in a position where the economy is not growing in the way it had been expected. and he goes on, we don't want to be japan with a decade of no growth. mr. speaker, when his own business secretary calls for them to change course, is he speaking for the government? >> let me tell him what is happening in the industrial production. we are now producing more motorcars in this country than we have at any time in our history. exports to all the key markets in terms of goods like india, china, russia, brazil are all increasing very rapidly. none of things things happen on a labour government in the trash our economy, racked up the debt and nearly bankrted the courage. when it comes to capital spending i think we should spend more money on capital and that's why we're spending 10 billion more than the plans of the government of which he is a member. i think we should be using the strength of the government balance sheets to encourage private-sector capital, and that's why for the first time in its history the treasure is providing those guarantees. the fact is he read the economy. he put in place plans for pital cuts and we are investing in the country's infrastructure. >> ed miliband. >> mr. speaker, nevermind more car production. and look, and i think, things are so bad they sent out bareness over the weekend tsay and i quote, she has full confidence in the prime minister. [laughter] and that he has and i quote, support from large parts of his party. [laughter] mr. speaker, mr. speaker, -- [shouting] may be he's even got a support from a large part of its cabinet. and just a week from the budget, the home secretary goes out making speeches about the economy. i think the part-time chancellor should talk to him about the budget. and then she gets told off by the children secretary who is hiding down there for jockeying for position. isn't the truth it's not just the country that has lost confidence in the chancellor and his economic plan, it's the whole cabinet? >> the weakness in his argument is that my party has yet in the support for his leadership. as long as he keeps, as long as he keeps the shadow chancellor. but i have to say -- >> order. it is courteous for members to -- let's hear his answer. >> we are again is the argo welfare? he's got no argument on welfare. where is he argued at the deficit? he has nothing to say about the deficit. we are his plans for getting the economy moving? he's got nothing to say. that is what is happening under his leadership. out to be nothing apart from debt, debt, and more debt. >> ed miliband. >> mr. speaker, is absolutely hopeless and today's exchange is showing. a week out from the budget ago and economic policies than, a prime minister that makes aut as he goes alone. a gvernment that is falling apart and all the time it's a country th is paying the price. [shouting] >> six questions, not a single positive suggestion for how to get on top of the deficit that he left. not a single suggestion for how to deal with a massive welfare bill that was left. noticing suggestion for how to improve standards in our schools. but mr. speaker, i do know what he has been doing. over these last months. i do know what he has been doing, because i didn't -- >> order. this answer must be heard. the prime minister spin and it is a particular one because i have here a copy of this diary, and i know what he has been up to. these are the tennessee is held to raise money for the trade unions in the last few weeks. we have had the gmb, the tsf a, 2.7 million pounds, dinosaur after dinosaur, dinner after dinner. they pay the money, they get the policies but the country would end up paying thprice. [shouting] >> thank you, mr. speaker. it's national apprenticeship week. over 1500 businesses are now offering apprentices and will be coming and apprentices of people the prime minister join in -- taking on apprentices carefully, offering the vocational trade, training and praising all the great young people that are going to see a positive future for our great nation? >> i will surely join audible for an invoice is about national apprenticeship week, and it is an important moment for our country because over the last two and a half years we've seen 1 milln people start apprenticeships. the run rte is that over half a million a year. i think this is very important for our country. what i want to see is a new norm where we recognize that people who leave school should either be going to university or taking part in an apprenticeship. that is the agenda and ambition we should suffer young people as that for our country. >> dianna thompson. >> isn't it the case the couple who separate could still at the nursing home without begging tax rule of wine? given this glaring loophole discouraging marriage, shouldn't his -- [inaudible]? spent first of all let me just say once again, it is only the labour party that could call welfare reform a tax. a tax is when you are money and the government takes away some of your money. what this is is a basic issue of fairness. there is not a spare room subsidy for people in private rented accommodation in receipt of housing benefit. so we should ask why is there a subsidy for people living in council houses getting housing benefit. it is a basic issue of fairness and this government is putting it right. >> thank you, mr. speaker. [inaudible]. tomorrow, open their brand-new state-of-the-art bussing plant. does my right honorable friend agree with me that a significant investments show that this government is making britain well-equipped to win the global race? >> and i think honorable friend is right. we do see investment taking place by large multinational companies like natalie recommend that one of the most competitive tax systems anywhere in the world. kpmgrecent report that in just two years we've gone from having one of the least competitive corporate tax systems in the world to have one of the most competitive corporate tax systems at work of what is change is the right of this chancellor and discovered that has put ride the mess made by the ty opposite. >> order. question five. closed question. >> question five spent i'm glad to be leaving -- leadingn what should be the goals when expire in 2015. in my view we should put the strongest possible emphasison attempting to banish extreme poverty from the world and is the focus on extreme poverty that should come first and foremost. i also hope in replacing and enhancing the millennium development goals we can for the first time look at what i called the golden thread of things that help people and countries out of poverty which includes good government, lack of corruption, the presence of law and order, justice and the rule of law. these things can make a real fference. >> mr. speaker, india proceeding so far i didn't expect to hear myself saying this, but can i commend the prime minister on the work that he is doing on the panel and seeking to hold to the international development budget, at a moment when we're asking people this weekend to give generously through comic relief? can identify there's one group of people ho were not included in the millennium development goals who are often excluded from society as well as education, and that is those very disabled young people who face grinding poverty, the face ill health and the disadvantage of those disabilities? will give priority to them in the development in terms of the next two years? >> he makes it a good point about helping disabled people across the world and we should make sure that the framework we look at properly includes the people he says. on the wider issue of our aid budget i know it is contingent i know it is difficult but i believe we shouldn't bre a promise we made to the poorest people in our world. and i would also say to those who have their doubts, then, of course, there is a strong moral case for our aid budget but there's also a nation security ca. it is remarkable that the broken countries, countries affected by conflict, they have not met one single millennium development goals between them. by helping and in these countries offer this feature to work as well as aid work, we can help the poorest in our world. >> thank you, mr. speaker. in 1997 the window excess deaths in the mortality data. but as early as 2002, there were 120 excess deaths. that figure only rosier upon your and yet labour health secretary after labour health secretary did nothing apart from all the -- in total, 1119 excess deaths occurred, some of those arwere patients who died in ther own feces. does the trick for not putting that the scandal underlying the fact that labour supposed place to be part of the nhs is the greatest lie -- [shouting] >> order, order. members major the first of all the queson was too long mr. canseco asked the treasury to bear in mind what is his was built and what is it with a very brief onto and then we can move on. prime minister spitting my response but is to respond quickly and i commend for what he did. but it's important to remember that it is this government has set up a proper independent inquiry into the disgrace is that happened at and instead that everyone has to learn their lesson, including minister in the government opposite from what went wrong. but i think we should listen when he says we should not seek scapegoats. but what we do need to do right across politics, right across thiacrossthe south, right acrosr country is in any culture of complacency. they do some fantastic said -- many to many parts we do see as he said very that figures and we needo deal with them. >> naomi long. >> aie duke we will be -- since the signing of the good friday agreement. there are significant challeng challenges. [inaudible] does the prime minister a greater must be renewed urgency? can be explained in light of this positive engagement, there are -- both governments as joint custodians of the agreement and moving the source because it is again too long. the prime minister spent thank the honorable lady for question at harvard constructive work in northern ireland under the whole house wants to wish her well with the difficult that she and her office have faced in awaits. >> here spent i think there's responsibility for the british partnership to work together and we had a very good set pieces we. i think the greatest possible responsibility lies with the institutions and it's great they are working and the agreement has been together but i would appeal to first minutes of the data minister, all of those involved in the assembly is put away the conflicts of the past, work on a shared vision for the people of northern ireland, start to take down the segregation from the peaceful, the things that take people apart inorthern ireland. i'm the savings from those ings invest in a better future for everyone in northern irela ireland. >> question eight. >> [inaudible] >> sorry, i look for to visiting soon. [laughter] i did very much enjoy my recent visit when i went to the toyota factory in which many of her constituents work. and i'm sure i will be back there, soon. >> i know my right honorable friend is quite rightly taking a proactive role in leading trade mission to india and other countries. does he agree with me that the small manufacturing companies like those based should also be given the chance to play their start in driving britain's exports to emerging markets like india, china, and the rest of? >> my honorable friend is right, we have improved our performance in terms of exports and goods as i said earlier to these key emerging markets, but the real challenge is to get smes exporting to if we could increase i think the figure is from one in five to one in four would wipe out our trade deficit, which create many jobs and a lot of investment at the same time. i've led tde missions every single g20 country apart from argentina and other forward to doing more in the future. i will certainly include smes and perhaps some from her constituency. >> and the slaughter. >> [inaudible]. there'll be replaced by private health clinics. some of those leading to the closure program have already -- the[inaudible] >> i don't think he's right any part of this question. the first point i would make is the nhs in northwest london is going to be getting 3.6 billion pounds this year. that is 100 million pounds more than a year before under this government we are increasing the investment. the changes that he talks about, if you refer to the health secretary, he would of course consider whether the canges are in the best interest of patients. that is the right process to follow. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the prime minister will i am should be aware of the strong contributions the british economy be made by the inbound tourism industry in this country. does he therefore share my concern as expressed by the torrentslliance changes to the does are likely to this press the number of visitors coming particularly from brazil? what we did to ensure the border agency does not become a gross suppressant to the uk? >> i'm happy to say o my friend of the national security council met recently to consider some of these border issues. and has decided not to put the pieces onto brazilian national. we want to welcom the brazilians to make sure we enhance border security. but actually in defense of the home office, the time spent in terms of processing visas has been great improvement there, and we're looking at a number of steps to make sure we attract tourists from the fastest-growing markets, including china and elsewhere. >> thank you, mr. speaker. does the prime minister except that families face a triple whammy in childcare, costs are going up, the averge family has lost over 1500 pounds a year in support? therefore does he also except that he may e made announce next week to help with the cost of childcare will be small remedy to a crises of his own making? >> i don't except with the audible that he says. it was this, that extended the number of hours to three and four-year-olds that if introduced for the first time childcare payments for nder two years old. we've lived too many people out the tax altogether. someone on a minimum-wage working full-time have seen their income tax bill cut in half. i know that she wants to try and put people off to a very major step forward where we'll be helping people who work hard, want to do the right thing, the want of child care for the children but that is what will be announcing and i think it will be welcomed. >> thank you, mr. speaker. britain is in the global race not justwith our traditional competitor economy but with countries like brazil, russia and india and china. ahead of the budget next week and mright honorable friend of the house what assessmt he has made of whe we are likely to finish in the race? if we abandon our deficit reduction program over but on some magical faraway money, as the party opposite recommends? >> my friend makes a very important point. one of the most important reasons for continuing to get our deficit down isit is essential to have those low interest rates that are essential for homeowners and essential for businesses. and if we abandon those plans, if we listen to the party opposite would have more spending, more borrowing, more dead comics at the things that got us into this mess in the first place. >> mr. nigel dodds. >> tnk you, mr. speaker. the rising price of petrol and diesel at the pumps which is set to rise to near record levels in the very near future is causing real problems for our constituents in terms of the cost of living. that, we know what the primers and the government of already done. but can he reassure that tells -- the house today about further action to cut the toxic tax and bring petrol and diesel prices down to help hard-pressed motorists, families and industry? >> of course i will listen carefully to what the right honorable gentleman says. what i would say is that petrol and diesel prices are 10 p. a liter lower than they wouldn't be had we stuck to the absolutely toxic plan that were put in placeby the party opposite. so we have taken action and we doing everything we can to help people with the cost of living. that is why we're listening to get people onto the lowest gas or electcity tariff, why we've taken 2 million people out of text of my we are frozen the council tax in the hope that we can do more to help people. >> the prime minister is right. britain does have a good record. but the rising price of fuel is causing real problem. i hope there will be good years in the budget. fuel duty increase inherited from labour will be canceled. spent i'm very grateful for what my honorable friend says about what the government has already done on fuel duty to he did admit to say that also we took the step to help ireland committees like some of those that he represents with special conditions to try and help with what is a very major aspect, people live in his constituency don't have a choicin many ses but to use a car. we have to respect that. >>hank you, mr. speaker. will be prime minister benefit personally from the millionaire's tax cut? [shouting] >> let me say to the honorable gentleman, i will pay all of the taxes that i am into. but let me just point out one small point. let me point out one small point. i had a letter this week -- [shouting] i had a letter this week, i thought people might enjoy. it's from ed who lives in camden and it says this, i ama millnaire. i lie in a house where two main pounds woody guthrie combination of inheritance and property speculation. i am worried that if i sell my house and i buy another one, i will have to pay the 7% stamp duty that the wicked tories have introduced. under labour, what we are talking of them is we never made the rich pay more. what should a champagne cialist like me do? [shouting] [laughter] >> i know that the prime minist recently visited the ceer in oxford, and i'm sure he shares my view that they did fantastic job of helping disabled people people committee more effectively. what guarantees can the prime minister give that communication aids will be able to more young people that is currently the case to everyone w could benefit to do so? >> i'm really grateful to my honorable friend for raising this issue, because the center which has been now in my constituency briefly in oxford has done incredible work for people with disabilities over many years. they are making the most of extraordinaire changes in technology. when i visited them recently we look at hold draft of ways which we to make sure the nhs is making these things available to more people and a very committed to working with him and the center to make sure that happens. >> russell brown. >>hank you very much, mr. speaker. prime minister conjugated promise to protect and defend budget in its entirety. that you didn't. the defence secretary who promised to balance the budget at the national dioffice said he failed. prime minister, will you now guaranteed that there will be -- >> order, order. the honorable gentleman has been here 16 years. he shouldn't use the word you injury. sorry buddy makes the rules. quickly, fish the question. >> will a commitment be given at defense budget would be protected for the in this parliament? >> the commitment i can give him is that the 38 billion black hole that we inheritedas been got rid of and freeze the budget across this part at 33 billion pounds gives us the fourth largest defense budget in the world. but we're determined to use that money to make sure we equip our forces with what they need for the future and that is a massive contrast to the record of the government which he supported. you can't be a good nurse without the things. i think we needto return to the sorts of values. jim? >> thank you. prime minister i don't expect you to know the full detail. we must get out of the bad habit of members using the word refer togeer chair. >> mr. speak, i don't expect the prime minister to know the full detail on the responsible but against the background of all of those together. 1% increase in the over 5%. it's a matter for the -- it's not a matter for me. the point i would make is tht public sector pay -- we have frozen at 1%. we do think that is fair. i think the extraordinary thing about the position of the party opposite. they support the 1% icreas for public to workers. they think the people on welfare shld be getting more than 1%. at seems to be an extraordinary set of priorities. >> more people die. i know, the prime minister wants to reduce avoidable early mortality and cut violent crimes. will he meet with me and urge him and understand the evidence based behind minimum policy and it will critically undermine the future of effort of doing something with this. >> i would be happy to. we have had many addition discussions over the issue. there's a problem with deeply discount alcohol with supermarkets in other stores. i'm determined we'll deal with this. we published proposals and looking at the consultation of the results we have to deal with the problem of having 20 cans of lagger available in supermarkets. it has got to change. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm sure the prime minister is aware of the tension -- today we are meeting with them outside 12:30 and we would like to invite the prime minister to join the party group who will be meeting them on the important date, the fourth anniversary. >> yeah. when i look at the honorable lady says, i have a meeting almost straight after with the leader of the party to propose the proposal. it may not be possible to arrange my diary. but i my say we must support people in old age. [inaudible conversations] would with the prime minister agree with me that the results of labor failed to gain anything? at all? the leader of the opposition -- are completely and utterly have completely utterly without any support in the country as whole. [cheers] >> and i welcome the honorable gentleman, welcome the honorable gentleman. i think you'll get alo at any time today? >> without objection, so ordered. >> all right. welcome, everybody. i want to start by thanking the members of this committee. as you know, writing a budget is a tough job. because you have to make choices. everybody pitched in and i'm grateful for the help of our members of the committee. we sat around a table for a number of weeks just like families and businesses do assembling a balanced budget. i'm also grateful to ranking member chris van hollen. this committee has a long tradition of bipartisan cooperation which he and his staff continued. we have a good working relationship even though we have very, very spirited debate on the issues that we don't agree on. i know we will have spirited debates in the hours ahead but we'll hold these in the spirit of good will that has defined this committee for a long time and we should. we owe it to the country. after years of trillion dollar deficits, we owe the american people a responsible balanced budget. and for the third year in a row, we in this committee will be delivering it. this time our planned balance of the budget in ten years without raising taxes. how do we do it? >> lukken where we are going. our national debt is bigger than our entire economy. unless we change course we will add another 12 trillion dollars to our debt. that will weigh as down like an anger. lenders will lose confidence. they will demand higher interest rates. when they do, interest rates will skyrocket on car loans and families. as interest rates rise, and debt payments will overwhelm all other payments in the budget and that will overwhelm the economy. the most vulnerable, but that is who suffers. the debt crisis will be the most predictable in our history. i could go back like it was yesterday. i remember seeing all that was happening amongst our eyes. i remember the panicked meetings. at the moment it was a crisis that hit us by surprise. look what happened in the meantime. look at the trillions of dollars of wealth loss. look at the millions left out of work. look at the perils that have gone empty. that caught us by surprise. this coming debt crisis is the most predictable effort. we know what it will do. we have a moral obligation to prevent it from happening in the first place. we will collect courses much revenue as last year. the deficit will be nearly one trillion dollars. clearly, spending is the problem. it is more than an economic problem. by living beyond our news we are stealing from our children. but it is immoral. wrong. unfair. when not only balance the budget in 10 years by putting their right reforms in place, prepaid down our debt. the last creditors, the more of our future we will control. the truth is our debt is a sign of over a week. our government is doing too much. when the government does to marja does not do anything well. it returns death -- the government to its proper limit. we believe there is no clear role for the federal government. we wanted to be -- to do its functions well. when it does too much and tries to do everything it does that do anything very well. if by balancing the budget we will promote a healthier economy and help to promote jobs. it would increase the deficit. if we were to decrease the deficit and out it would have immediate positive results for jobs. it will guarantee a secure retirement for seniors. it will expand opportunity for the young. for a bad economy, no chance to get to pay those lane -- those lay -- those loans back. they deserve better. we want to get out of the business of cronyism. picking winners and losers in washington. it will keep our country save. as part of our plan, we cut wasteful spending. i know some friends will object but on the current pact we will spend 46 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. under our current path we will increase spending 5 percent every year. under our proposal 3.4% each and every year under this budget. because the qana group will grow faster than spending, the budget will balance by 20203. the debt will drop to over half the size of our economy, and a path to get this debt paid off. the most important question isn't how but why we balance the budget. it budget is nothing more than a means to the end. it is not be tied the spreadsheet. not an accounting exercise. it is the well-being of our people. i look at this as a citizen, a husband, a dad. it is not fair to take more to spend more in washington. it is not care if -- it is not right to let medicare fall apart. medicare is going broke. if a grant. i understand not everyone shares our views and i respect that difference of opinion. all i ask is that you join in the effort. if you do not like your plan, offer your own. we are to be able to agree to abolish the budget. it is a reasonable goal, one we should share. for the balance panic -- a balanced plan that never balances is not balanced. i look forward to the debates i had. when we hear the word on its being thrown around, for if it has more spending fueled by higher taxes that never balances death is not do justice to our economy. it is unfair to the people. i want to yield to the ranking member. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to thank the members of the committee. thanks to the ingenuity and resilience of the american people and the actions taken by the president and the congress four years ago, we are continuing to recover from the worst recession since the great depression. we still have a long way to put people back to work and accelerate small-business hiring. we must and can steadily reduce our deficits and reduce and stabilize the debt. we should do that in a way that reduces the jobs deficit rather in a budget that immediately makes that the deficit worse. this republican budget failed that very simple test. the nonpartisan independent budget office has shown the approach taken in this budget will result in 750,000 fewer american jobs by the end of this calendar year. it will reduce economic growth this calendar year by one-third. we cannot afford to do that. they estimate the next year, 2014, it will cost 2 million jobs. the issue is not whether we should were seduced the deficits but how we should do that. we believe budget should be a blueprint for economic growth that leads to greater economic mobility ensure prosperity. we believe we should share responsibility for reducing the deficit rather than providing tax breaks while balancing the budget on the backs of our middle " -- of the middle class. this republican budget takes an uncompromising approach to addressing that approach. we were told that the presidential election was going to give the american people the opportunity to approach the balance. their shares to reject the lopsided approach reflected in this budget. the american people rejected the idea that we will give additional tax cuts to the wealthiest americans at the expense of middle class taxpayers and vital in busman's and an infrastructure that helps provide the heart -- the hard wiring for our economy. investments that have helped to make the u.s. and world powerhouse. let's take these one at a time. these will finance tax cuts for the wealthiest are raising the tax cuts on the middle class. the budget calls for dropping the tax rate from 39% to 25% and cutting the rate for millionaires are more than one- third beholding all other revenues constant. just last fall the non-partisan tax policy center analyzed if phar-mor moderate plan to reduce the tax plan to 28%. it would raise the tax burden on individuals making under two and $2,000 per year. this budget proposal which provides even bigger tax cuts will raise the taxes on the average family by $2,000 but does not pose does not close -- does not close one tax cut local for corporate jets, big oil companies to help reduce our deficit. while providing this windfall to the wealthy, this proposal that's investments that are vital to upward mobility and rising middle-class wages. it protected pentagon spending of more than doubles cuts in non-defense discretionary. it takes it down and doubles them. those are the funds that help our economy. shortchanging that will result in national decline but until those in the past. this also violates our commitments to our seniors. it reopens the prescription drug donut hole. did the house large prescription bills on seniors. it slashes medicaid by $810 billion over 10 years. two-thirds good as seniors with disabilities. for everyone under 55 rustan paying all their life into medicare insurance they will receive a decline in value, leaving them to eat the difference. let's look at how this hits the political targets in 10 years. it uses the revenue by the new highest tax rates, a measure that was opposed by the overwhelming majority of house republicans. it is ironic that new revenue could not make a measurable difference in reducing our deficit. that revenue is essential to bring this to the political balance. fisa this would not balance without obamacare. it is simply wrong to say that this budget but balances and tenures and repeals the obamacare. this does eliminate important benefits and patient protections in obamacare. it will eliminate the provisions to deny it based on pre-existing conditions. and will limit the benefits and the tax credits for people to abort health care in the exchanges. it will eliminate tax credits for small businesses but keeps the rest. it keeps all the parts that reduce the deficit. yeah remember the savings that we achieved in the affordable care act like ending overpayment and modernizing the system without reducing benefits? remember that? we were told that would result in hospital shutting down and nursing staff -- and nursing home shutting down and other consequences. those scare tactics were not true ben puhn board today. that is why those savings are included in this budget for us today. remember the tax revenues for obamacare is that we heard about? those on the higher income individuals and the fact that obamacare will expand coverage and those penalties -- all of those are included in this republican budget. the dirty little secret is this would not balance if not for their revenue savings in obamacare. look at this chart appear. in the 10th year -- that is from obamacare. another hundred billion dollars is from the fiscal agreement in january. half a trillion dollars is from obamacare. i want to point out once serious consequence of having it both ways. by eliminating the obamacare benefits you will civilians -- you will severely undermine the health care system. many will go belly up. that is because the budget reduces the budgets to those providers wallow eliminating what provides them with more insured payments for that care. that formula, taking what you want and discarding what you do not, is a recipe for chaos. mr. chairman, the election is over. the american people reject the uncompromising approach in this budget. next week, democrats in the house will present an alternative budget that meets the priorities in a balanced way. i hope as we move through the budget process over the next months, we will make the hard twits is necessary to make a balanced agreement that is good for the country, one that does accelerate economic growth now and in the future. one for shared prosperity. >> thank you. before i yield, i want to make a couple points for the record. you have to use the base line you get from the cbo. does the baseline raise the revenues because of current law? yes. what we say is get rid of the ugly tax code with all the obamacare tax increases and such. with the talks tax rate going up -- with the top tax rate going up on small businesses, you replace all of that with the obamacare cat -- taxes with a better tax system. and get rid of loopholes to a lower rate. that is what tax reform is. with respect to the spending issues, the medicare provision, here is what obamacare does. it takes $716 billion from medicare to spend on obamacare. we and the rate of the program so all of those dollars go to extending the dollars of obamacare. we have witnessed testimony after testimony, whether it was cbo or cms, tell us you cannot spend the same dollar price. we say do not take that money from medicare and put it in obamacare. goes towards medicare. one more point. we have learned through the past that price controls are not working. we put reserve funds in our budgets to address these inadequacies. last year, a reserve fund. you come up with money to save in other places and present -- prevent from getting cut. they did that and they did not get cut. we sent up the same process for other medicare providers from that that we believe those price controls will damage. this has not been held out yet. all of these changes have not occurred yet. we want to see what happens. some of the providers asked for this to happen as they supported it. we are setting up the same kind of process to make sure all the medicare dollars can be addressed if we have network problems, just like we addressed -- the point is this. we do not like the president's healthcare law. we think it will do great damage to health care. we proposed to repeal it but replace it. our medicare plan is a lot better than 15 people telling seniors what they can and cannot have. this will be a long debate today. i look forward to it. i would like to yield two minutes on the importance of actually doing a budget. >> thank you. a budget is about priorities. there are priorities the american people overwhelmingly support. some include getting federal spending zero at -- under control. danny the economy moving again. getting our debt crisis under control so we may preserve the american dream. these are precisely the priorities that are incorporated in our house republican budget. american families know the federal of rigid federal government should not be spending more than it has. the budgets that have been proposed by the president in the past have never gotten a balance. -- gotten to balance. the president missed the legal deadline of february 4 to send in a budget. past experience tells us when he gets around to it, it will likely not balance, either. american families cannot live this way and neither should the federal government. democrats have not adopted a budget in four years. they will do one this year because of the no budget, and no pay bill. we look for to see in that budget. the test is to see whether or not they can pass that budget out of their own committee and chamber. we're which it will enough democrats be willing to endorse a plan with more so washington can spend more? that is not working. the house republican plan puts an end to special-interest deals. the house republican plan will create a healthier economy. more american families will realize their dreams. a path to prosperity ensures we are honoring our commitments to america posses priorities. -- america's most important priorities. the republicans care for the poor and the sec by report -- and the sec. -- and the sick. i am proud to join my colleagues in this plan. with that, i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey. >> two minutes to the john in new jersey. >> thank you. >> the static -- status quo is unacceptable. our budget stops the spending money we do not have and advances common-sense changes to strengthen our nation. this budget will finally restore an open america for business again. to say democrats have failed to lead would be a drastic understatement. every second grader in this country is on the hook for nearly $53,000 of national debt. the president and the senate democrats continue to overspend every day, increasing that burden on their children. there is a cost to debt, and that is interest. this year we will spend $224 billion on interest. senate -- senate democrats have not been in the debate, failing to pass a budget for 1400 a spirit with the president, back on february 4, by law, his budget was due. now, guess what? we are still waiting for it. democrats' failure to budget is unacceptable and unconscionable. every family in america understands the necessity of a balanced budget. the president and senate -- senate democrats could learn. from families across america. families do not have the luxury of waiting for the next election cycle. neither does washington. it is time for responsible -- -- for responsible action. >> you talk about why it is necessary to tackle the debt crisis. what the consequences of the debt crisis are. i would like to yield two minutes to the senior kemp -- senior member of the committee. >> any of you have ever been to spain? i have. it's a really nice place. nice, hard-working people. great food. at one time, it was a very prosperous and growing economy. spain does not have a prosperous economy today. half of all people under 25 years old cannot find a job. the unemployment there is what hours was in the depth of the great depression. there's -- people on government provided health care go and because they have had to cut back hours of service and operation, people cannot get the health care they need when they need it. why did this happen? they did what we should not do. they spent too much, borrowed too much, and let it go on until they had a debt crisis. when that hit, they had to make corrections in all of this stuff overnight. now, they have this economy. we cannot let that happen here. balancing this budget is not about making cpas like me feel good. it is about not having what happens in spain or greece or japan. this is not speculation. what has happened is out there and we can see it. a balanced budget is about creating prosperity. it is about creating jobs, having the health-care promises we have made to the people something we can fulfill. under which our young people can find a job. under which people can prosper and live the american dream. that is why balancing the budget is so important. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> two minutes from -- for the gentleman from california. >> thank you. i am generally an optimist. our growing debt crisis gives me and should give all americans real concerns about our future prosperity. all you have to do is calculate the complex fiscal challenges before us. truly understand the consequences for american families if we fail to act. during the clinton years, spending per capita was $8,175. testing for inflation, spending per capita during obama's tenure has been $11,822, a 45% increase. have the american people benefited from the increased spending? we ask 46 millions -- million americans living in poverty, they would say no. government spending as a portion of gross domestic -- gross domestic project has reached 24.42%. as we have seen with european nations, there seems to be a tipping point in the spending to gdp ratio. we are very close. what effect does this level of debt have on our economy? greece, the unemployment rate is 26%. this is real stuff. it is not going away. this budget puts the brakes on non sustainable spending levels and will allow our economy to grow. balanced budget by reducing the rate of spending, increase is not a radical ideal, but it is possible. botched it is not a radical ideal. it is responsible. i look forward to today's debate. the american people deserve their president and election -- and elected officials to have a comprehensive and frank discussion. >> no question today. we know we face at a historic challenge. the debt is expanding rapidly. neither the president nor our friends on the other side of the aisle have offered a solution. if you look at the budgets we have seen and the budgets we fully expect to see, there are only three things in them certain. the first is ever higher taxes. the second is ever larger government, bigger, bigger, bigger. finally, expanding debt. and budgets that never come into balance. the republican plan offers something novel, a budget that actually bounces in 10 years. -- balances in 10 years. in the following decade, it begins to fade down the enormous debt and we wrap up. that is the solution we ought to take. not a radical budget. it still allows for increases in spending over the next decade. 3.4% every year. most americans would like to have a race that size. -- a raise that size. but it comes into balance. if our friends will work with us, i think we will achieve that. the choice is clear and the time is now. the american people expect us to act. i yield back. >> thank you. i would like to expand to the german from california. osh to the gentleman from california, mr. mclain talk -- mr. mcclintock. >> thank you. this budget reflects a great struggle between american families and their governor over whether they or the government can best spent the money they have earned. it is that simple. this budget bands the struggle slowly back in favor of the families by returning to them the freedom to spend more of their own money and make more of their own decisions. every billion dollars spent in washington, $9 is taken from the average family. either in direct taxes or indirect increases. it is about time we started thinking about these norris in family-sized terms. ultimately, the numbers have a very real impact on those families who are struggling to balance their own budget. set their own priorities, and look at their own. -- and look after their own needs. only what a government spends, either now or in the future. today, we passed out more than one-third of a cost to our children and financed the remainder through a tax system in which politicians pick winners and losers through an appallingly unfair and distorted tax code. this would do away with those distortions that ship capital away from economic expansion in into the service of political objectives. this budget calls for flattening and lowering tax rates than to insure no american family plays a quarter of earnings to the federal government. -- pays a quarter of earnings to the federal government. those nations that have adopted similar reforms have been rewarded with explosive growth. in short, freedom works. it is time we put it and america back to work. this budget does not. -- this budget does that. >> thank you. i would like to yield. >> thank you. families balance their budgets each and every year. we believe washington should do the same. to balance the budget, we need spending cuts and economic growth. balancing your budget is not extreme. it is common sense. most of us would agree with that. as would our constituents. after four straight years, there are still about 23 million americans looking for work and the economy is barely growing fast enough to keep pace with the increase of population. it is time we take a look at our spending. if government spending were really the key to growth, we would be in the midst of an economic boom. clearly, that is not the case. in addition to our reckless fiscal policy,another huge obstacle to our growth rate now is the complicated tax code. it would be interesting to note every year, americans spend about 6 billion hours and $160 billion filing tax returns. the tax code is ripe for reform. it is a bipartisan consensus in favor of lowering tax rates and running the base -- and broadening the base. to ensure we have fairness, simplicity, and economic growth for families and small businesses. the purpose of tax reform is not to take more money just to spend more, but to create jobs and increase wages for working families and promote upward mobility. i look forward to working with my colleagues here on the budget committee to advance and do a comprehensive tax reform. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. >> two minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma. >> a pleasure to have the opportunity to sit and have this conversation about the future of the nation. it is very important back home. we understand words have meeting. -- meaning. if we think certain people -- if we raise taxes on certain people we do not like or make it so every family can succeed. this has meaning last home. -- back home. a family had a conversation. they said we need tax reform and have stability. they are a small family owned truck company. one request was, can we simplify and stabilize our tax code so we have predictability to look at it in the long term. it's not big multinational corporations. this is a family-owned trucking company. they want the same thing every other business wants. it is the same thing with a small manufacturing company. they have manufacturing and it provides energy supplies to companies all of the world. one big request is some kind of stability in our tax code. we have the highest tax rate for businesses in the world. it makes it difficult for businesses to complete globally. we live in a global economy but we ignore global realities of where we are in our tax code. it is important we fix that. it is important we fix our code not just to grab more revenue from the american people, but to increase american economic activity. we lose track of the fact that this year is now forecast to be the highest amount of revenue coming into the federal treasury in history. no other year receiving more money into the treasury than this year. this is a moment for us to look seriously at our spending. let's look at families and family owned businesses. >> next, i would like to yield to wisconsin to talk about how the budget is designed to provide upward mobility and give the states the tools they need to craft these programs to help those closest to them in need. >> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to talk about something i am passionate about. that is our nation's core. i would like to make one response about some of the comments earlier. there are a lot of misperceptions. a lot. i heard earlier because president obama was reelected, that was a rejection of the budget here. when i glanced to my left, i see mr. ryan in the chairman's seat and the same americans put you back in place. it is not necessarily a rejection of what we are trying to do here. i would like to speak about another misperception among the american people that conservatives necessarily really do not care much about the court. the idea of taking care of the poor is to throw a lot of additional money at them. money is not the solution here. we do not help a starving child by creating policies that keep the starving child's father or mother out of work. this budget does the very types of things that will help create and spur economic growth to put that family member back to work, to pull the child out of poverty and to give the mom and dad the self-respect and dignity of a job they so rightly deserve in our economy. we do it by the very types of things we have heard in this room that claim do not happen in this budget. we stopped capitalism and reduce and get rid of loopholes for corporations. that is often the discussion about capitalism and whether we support it. i'd support capitol's and. osh capitalism. i do not support phonies and. -- support cronyism. republicans can find agreement on that. to the degree that we take a look at what we can do, not necessarily throwing money at it. throwing money at it does not often get the result. to the degree we can find a way to come together in this room and in this chamber, to come together with a logical, clear thinking solution to put americans back to work is the fastest way to end child poverty in this country. it is a goal i really feel that both sides want to see happen. our differences are not that we do not want children to have food. or poor people to eat. our difference is how we get to that. i think this budget takes us the fastest way to a permanent record -- permanent cure. and with that, i yield back. >> i want to thank you for your leadership and commitment to produce a budget that balances in 10 years. that is an excellent accomplishment. i know many of us are pleased to be a part of it. i look forward to its passage. the solutions this budget has are built on the premise that every american family understands. we cannot keep spending money we do not have. even under this budget, the federal budget will spend $41 trillion over the next 10 years. i know i certainly cannot visualize what that looks like. it is a lot of money. we have to be good stewards of that kind of money. step of asking how much we can show -- we can throw it these programs. we should be asking, are these programs working. one thing that is not working in america today is medicaid. recipients are having a trouble finding doctors. medicaid pays half of what a doctor can give for his or her services in the private sector. the result, the health outcomes, are poor. studies suggested there were 13 more -- 30% more likely than those without insurance at all to die. who is proud of that? the program is also pushing our states closer and closer to the brink of fiscal collapse. states spend more on medicaid than any other expense. obamacare is only making the problem worse. we should look at what reforms are working on the ground. i point to two states, rhode island in indiana. -- and indiana. rhode island, the flexibility, they agreed to cap medicaid expenses for five years. they put recipients in a managed-care program and it is working. in indiana, we were able to cover 40,000 more people in the help -- healthy indiana program. without adding expense to our budget. let's put these funds to the state. get the federal government out of the way and let's follow the examples of rhode island, indiana, and many other states with ways to make the program work. we can do what was suggested and help those who need it. i yield back. >> i am emphasizing how this budget focuses on establishing a secure retirement for our seniors by saving the medicaid program. but like to deal to georgia. -- i would like to yield to georgia. >> thank you. as pleased as i am this is a budget that takes on challenges we agree have to be taken on. that is a survey they took a few years back where they found that more college-aged americans believed they would see a ufo than a social security check. as you know, the program is in march from their shape -- in much stronger shape. than is the medicare program. my mom and dad just went on medicare. there is a real concern about what the future of the program is and every single of the -- member of the body knows if we fail to take on that challenge, the program will be destroyed. this budget goes into that challenge knowing troy's can make all the difference in the world. getting my mom and dad involved in part of the solution could make all the difference in the world. it is absolutely time to stop measuring our success by how much we put into a profit -- a prospect and begin measuring it by what we are getting out of the process. the challenge it talked about for medicaid patients, it is becoming true in the medicare segment of the population, as well. it does not matter what kind of car you give to the american citizens if they cannot find a health-care provider willing to take it, they have no access to care. kicking the can down the road has been popular for decades upon decades. the committee has taken on the challenge of addressing it, solving it, and taking it off the list of american seniors more than any other body in this town, i am grateful to fail this town, i am grateful to fail to

Related Keywords

Denton , Texas , United States , Brazil , China , California , New Mexico , Russia , Washington , District Of Columbia , Mexico , India , Ireland , South Korea , Spain , Greece , Japan , Tampa , Florida , Germany , Oakland , Argentina , Kentucky , Rhode Island , Indiana , Wisconsin , Georgia , Oregon , Oklahoma City , Oklahoma , Northern Ireland , Craigavon , United Kingdom , London , City Of , Tennessee , New Jersey , Saudi Arabia , Maryland , Paris , Rhôalpes , France , Italy , Brazilians , Americans , America , Saudi , Britain , Brazilian , German , British , Han , American , Kim Atkins , Russell Brown , Dianna Thompson , Nigel Dodds , Chris Van Hollen , Christine Atkins ,