Transcripts For CSPAN House Budget Committee Marks Up Budget Resolution 20170723

With consideration for fiscal year 2018 concurrent resolution of the budget. I want to thank the Ranking Member for working with me to develop a structure for this markup that closely resembles and follows what has been done in the past. Openoal is to have it and markup. Besides will have the debate. Ity to we have a long day ahead of us and i think everyone for their cooperation. We will come lead our work i midnight and hopefully well before then. If we can all Work Together that might be possible. I would like to recognize the distinguished member from indiana. Good morning. Latereveral expected today i would ask unanimous consent that consistent with caused floor four of rule 16 the chairman will be authorized to declare recess at any time today. Without objection so ordered. I ask unanimous consent that thats each side b advocated 40 minutes. The Ranking Member will make an Opening Statement out of that a lot of time. Each side then makes presentations out of the remaining 10. Members have seven days to submit additional statements for the record and after these presentations we proceed to opening presentations on the budget resolution. Without objection, so ordered. Once they opening presentations have concluded we will have a onehour stuff walkthrough during which the majority staff will briefly summarize. Members will have the opportunity to ask questions. After the stuff walkthrough we will consider amendments according to the structure i have worked out with the Ranking Members. We will debate seven amendments and hold a series if requested on each of these amendments. I will describe this process in more detail when we get to that point. Once the staff walkthrough concludes we will recess to accommodate markups in other committees andor votes. Once again, good morning. Welcome to the markup of the fiscal year 2018 resolution. Our budget is called building a better america because we take balancengible steps to the budget, build a stronger military, and support an economy that has opportunity for all americans. The past year, our budget resolution was a vision document but this year is different. With the election of President Trump, our bill goes from being a visioning government to a achieving document and how we and vision it for our children and grandchildren. Now is the time for action. The time forome of talking is over, now is the time for action. Three years ago i had three goals. Balance the budget, reform our tax code. This year were taken the largest step yet to accomplish these first priorities. I spoke to sponsor the American Health care act to bring patient centered reforms to our healthcare system. This markup against the process of tackling a balanced budget by the 2020 seven progress reform. Balancing the budget by 2027 is a top priority. 20National Debt stands at trillion with nine trillion just over the last years. If we failed to get control of that and deficits, we are putting our country at risk of crisis. Balancing the budget requires us choices but the consequences of inaction far outweigh any Political Risk that we may face. Doing nothing and continuing the status quo of more spending and the debt jeopardizes american system of government. The resolution before us puts our takes real steps to put our country on a strong fiscal path that allows us to start paying down National Debt, building a better america. It makes bold reform to strengthen programs for seniors and our most vulnerable citizens. Toensures we can continue serve them for a generation to come. Reforms for Discretionary Spending and we agree mandatory spending must he and addressed in this resolution. Mandatory spending is already more than two thirds of our federal spending and that number will continue to grow. Spending inandatory two ways. First, our budget outlines the various reforms to mandatory spending programs we believe reflect a responsible vision for reforming and saving these programs. These programs would require further legislation and the political will to make the tough choices needed to benefit the American People. Second, our budget includes reconciliation restrictions and requires mandatory spending programs. This goes towards deficit reduction and cannot be used to pay for tax reform. Our reconciliation instructions require 11 authorizing committees to find a minimum of two injured 3 billion in savings and reforms over a 10year window with the there would bet significantly higher savings. This package of mentor reforms is the largest since the 1990s through reconciliation and is the first step to change the spending here in washington. To thel is to return traditional budget process and the true purpose of reconciliation, deficit reduction for mandatory spending reform. This is an important step. Promotes tax and Regulatory Reform to get the government out of the way and allow our free market economy to thrive. The larger the government the less freedom for individuals and government to thrive and innovate. The obama economy left millions of people behind with over 14 main people leaving the labor workforce in the last eight years. Through reconciliation, our budget specifically takes away some of the reforms that will be deficit neutral for mandatory spending and reform. This program will reduce taxes and simplify the tax code and unleash the potential of the American Economy to help those left behind. Many of our friends in the media across aisle have said Economic Growth is the new normal but we to continue the economic stagnation of the obama years. They have a pessimistic look. Greatestas the innovators and entrepreneurial at those that far surpass the Economic Growth of the last eight years if only the federal government would get out of there way. We believe the policies recommended in our budget will result in higher Economic Growth , averaging 2. 6 over the 10year window because we put potential ofthe the American People. A stronger economy is not enough, we must also strengthen our military. The number one job of the federal government is to protect citizens. Over the past years, and the of president obama has increased threat across the globe. And we have failed to keep pace. Building a better america invest 21. 5 billion in our military and 75 billion specifically for the global war on terrorism for fiscal year 2018. These resources will help men and women in uniform complete the mission with which they have been tasked. We also take about how government runs. We have to measure success and government not plan much money we put in but the results created for the American People. We on the Budget Committee and in the full context of congress have been taxed to be good stewards. This means considering the interest not just those receiving government benefits but of those paying the taxes that spun these benefits. The federal government does not to spend too much money, it does too much. And decade over decade, the slope creep of government has encroached on the responsibilities of state, local government, local communities, families, and charitable organizations. Returning power back to the states and others, it will allow them to provide services more effectively and efficiently. Stepsdget takes serious to address improper payments which the u. S. Accountability office estimated to be 140 billion last year alone. Building a better america presents us with an opportunity to change the trajectory of our country forever. The election of President Trump was a signal to all of us that people will no longer except he status quo. On the back of my card is a picture of my six grandchildren. I stop my license. Government and Public Service was never an ambition of mine but when i saw what was happening in my state and this country, i could not sit back and do nothing. Every time i put my card and that slot i am reminded how i left a career in love. It is for my children and grandchildren and yours as well. I grew up in america where a poor girl like me whose parents only had an ambition for me to finish high school, which went from college, become a nurse, and eventually become a member of the United States house of representatives. I grew up in america the land of opportunity, strength, and compassion. That america is slipping away from us. For too many people, he opportunity to reach the American Dream is out of reach. By,american that should be of, and for the people is left to many behind. We need a government that spends a militarymeans, with the resources to complete their mission, and economy with opportunity for all, and federal bureaucracy that requires respects the text paper backs taxpayer. The taxpayer. It lives in the tenacity of people. Empowerracticing to americans to live their version of the American Dream. Again, welcome everyone here to our markup for this budget resolution and with that i yield to the drinking member. Thank you german black. Nearly two months gone the same room we debated President Trumps budget. It was a shockingly extreme document that gave to the rich and took from everyone else. I urge my republican colleagues to see the harm it would bring to American Families. The damage it would do to our chances for a Better Future and to choose a different path when crafting their own budget. But here we are today with the budget the displays total indifference to the challenges americans face. The house budget embraces the worst extremes of the trump proposal. Tex cuts for millionaires and billionaires at the expense of American People and our National Security. Includes 5. 4 billion dollars in Discretionary Spending and reduces discretionary investments to the lowest level since he 1960s. Our republican colleagues are proud to talk about those cuts in washington but what they do not want to talk about is how these cuts hurt the American People, so we will. The enormity and severity of these cuts and the severity of the consequences cannot be overstated. Education, jobs training, infrastructure, medical research, and Veterans Services are a lot this. This gets nearly 1 trillion for mandatory spending that helps basic Living Standards for families. Then it cuts nearly half a drain dollars from medicare and ends the fundamental guarantee of medicare coverage. Then it embraces the overwhelming unpopular trumpcare americans oftrip Health Coverage and make nearly 1 trillion worth of cuts to medicaid. These are not just programs, they represent people. They are families who have never had a chance to get ahead and individuals like the woman i met in my town hall last week who told me i think theres a misconception that medicaid dishes for the poor. My husband lost his job of 25 years and were suddenly without Health Insurance or income but we are covered for the 11 months leading up to him finding a new job through the Medicaid Expansion. Medicaid has been a godsend for this women as it has been for so many others across the country. But because of the drastic cuts in this budget, it is an incredibly cold document that willfully ignores the needs and priorities of the American People. It is not just the Economic Security of my is a families at risk in this budget. It is also our National Security. Republican colleagues have put on a display of a narrow worldview where our economy is only the size of our military. Republican budget increases defense spending by an astonishing 72 billion above the current cap and more than 18 billion above even what President Trump requested. We have a responsibility to ensure our men and women in neworm have every resource to safely and securely execute their mission and we will do that but military experts across the board have also stated that diplomacy, foreign aid, and environmental factors like Climate Change are key components of our National Security. It might republican colleagues ignore these facts and funding to the state department in of foreign aid agencies by 11 billion and environmental and Natural Resource protection by 6 billion. Funding our military at the Critical National responsibilities is not a choice my colleagues have to make and certainly not a choice he American People want them to make, which begs the question . Hy are they making it made a the wealthy have commitment to give themselves a tax cut while taking breakfast and lunch away from hungry schoolchildren. They are giving the people with 1 10 of 1 of income a 1. 4 billion tax cut while cutting funding for the elderly and disabled. These are not choices my colleagues and i would make. I upside down priorities is wrinkling. To dispenseur best with as many of them as we can today. We will show a different vision americanountry and the people. We want to invest in the future of American Families, help grow our economy. Democrats support and vestments, health care, National Security, job training, innovation, and infrastructure. We support programs for individuals with lower left to turn and a tax code that helps families get ahead. Those are american priorities and should be deep priorities have this committee. Chairman black, i yield back the balance of my time. Rights i think the gentleman and i yield two minutes to the vice chair of the committee, the gentleman from indiana. Thank you chairman black. I want to thank you three or commitment to produce a responsible american budget. I think our new stuff as well. To get to this budget, our committee had to make some tough decisions. We had to create priorities that elevated those of our fellow citizens who are most vulnerable. You truly new help. And that was President Trumps request and Vice President pences request and date did their job admirably as well. In short, they lead and an short, this committee, at least this Budget Proposal is leading. You on the committee we are familiar with the kind of tough choices and we will continue to make more these today so that we are protected. The mostens that are honorable are protected and that future generations that should be highest on our list are protected from what is now a 20 train dollar debt going to 100 train dollars. It is important that we continue to push this. Budget, thelanced American Dream will continue to slip away. In a president obama we were able to make substantial changes. Because we saw slow Economic Growth, and millions of americans choosing not to even look for a job anymore. We cannot let that continue to fester under our watch. We cannot accept the new normal clause by the failed Administration Borrowing too much from china. Help bring opportunity back to American Families by opening the door for economic and tax reform. This also addresses our growing fiscal crisis by replacing antiquated and bloated programs that are not serving as well. 200 20 billion of mandatory spending has been addressed here so that programs can remain not only for those who need it most but for future generations these programs might still be around to surface who need them. I yield back. Id suggest womans time is expired. I recognize the gentleman from california. Thank you badham chairman. On our current should gently drake, the cbo warns that just 2022,scal years from now, we will begin running that risk in four years. In 2024, the cbo tells us the annual interest cost on our debt simply renting the money would have already spent will reach 664 billion. That is more than we currently spend on our and tired event establishment. You cannot provide for the general welfare if you cannot pay for it. Taxe at the limit of revenue weekend generate. When it is above this, evasion activity increases, revenues fall. The economy falters. We have no choice but to change the spending trajectory and we are running out of time. This budget barely restraints spending growth over the next decade and begins to change that trajectory by using reconciliation ports intended purpose. Every year we delay, the danger gets closer and our job becomes more difficult. I hope everyone will think about this carefully as we begin our work on a budget today. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. I know recognize the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. Kaufman. For four minutes. A every edge it document is compromise. This is a Big Committee with diverse members. First, i want to gather information. The Ranking Member he talked about and 18 billion increase over what President Trump promised. I think it is 28 billion. Over what President Trump requested. Which is frustrating. Like i said, it is a compromise document. I think President Trump tried to propose a very is goalie responsible budget in which he tried to hold Discretionary Spending even. There were increases in this almostt on nondefense of 50 billion and i just mentioned the 20 billion increase in defense. Which makes it a very difficult budget to vote for for stop the way i understand, this is a compromise budget, this is not the last up. There will be a floor vote, Appropriations Bills, and we will eventually see whether those Appropriations Bills appropriate to the max. I would like to think the chairman for having 70 committee meetings. I think this is the third year that ive been part of the budget process and i think she is partisan and worked harder than the last two years. So i went to thank you for that and i hope we have a you know i look forward to taking the votes on this today. The gentleman yield spec the balance of his time and i will recognize the gentleman from ohio. Thank you. As someone with his this experience i have always been a strong advocate that Washington Pass a budget and stick to it. This is something this federal government have far too often have failed to do, get people back home to it everyday. I applaud the government for putting this budget together which outlines policy proposals which may lead to Economic Growth and the interest address the longterm financial obligations of the United States. However, as our nation sits today, settled with trillions in debt, there is no question we have a moral obligation as a congress to take meaningful action to tackle longterm debt by addressing its most serious driver, mandatory spending. While we have a serious commitment to advancing these reforms, i am concerned by this budget we might failed to bring about the savings, particularly in mandatory spending, that are needed to set our country back on a sustainable cores. In addition as chairman of the ways in Means Commission i am conserve concerned about the package. With that said, i look forward with anearing and will open mind. As someone who believes in the process, many times the process requires moving bills knowing this is not the final vote that ultimately it remains vital that the congress advance a budget that is able to pass at the house and the senate. I sincerely hope todays hearings demonstrate what this bill entails. Thank you and i yield back. Spec. Gentleman yield i recognize the gentleman from ohio, mr. Johnson, 42 minutes. Too, am happy this budget will put america back. Not only will it balance the budget within 10 years it also achieves 6. 5 train dollars in deficit reduction. Trillion in deficit reduction. Also mandatory savings and reforms. Families have to balance budgets and live within their means. It is time for washington to do the same. It is unacceptable to risk our childrens and grandchildrens futures with crushing debt. This also emphasizes our commitment to our National Security by providing 621 . 5 billion in defense Discretionary Spending. Were living in a dangerous time of gathering threats. It is essential that congress provides men and women who wear our uniform and defense of our country the resources they need to be successful in their mission. Doing so will also provide assurance to our allies and send a message to our enemies that america will not lead from behind. Rather will we remain the force for peace and stability. At home, this calls for increased accountability at the department of Veterans Affairs and works to ensure that our nations heroes received the care and benefits they have earned and are entitled to. I encourage my colleagues to support this budget and i yield back the balance of my time. I now recognize the gentleman mr. Lewis from misery. Missouri. Thank you term in black and thank you for your leadership on this issue. Ever since the recession, our nation has faced an anemic recovery. This has made it harder for people all across the United States to succeed. I would argue this is because of policies that have overspent, over regulated, and under delivered. We are at record levels of budget outlays and tax revenue right now. Stimulus plan and stimulus plan have failed to deliver. It is time for washington to refocus on the significant policy changes that will restore economic policy, a rising tide standard ofeighten living, and lead to a sustainable budget. The bottom line is we can have family incomes a grow and an economy the gaza 3, 4, 5 . We have before. In the 19 60s, 1980s, 1990s. If we dont seriously address the debt that has doubled over the past eight years, we will hinder any attempt at recovery. Will also hurt the future generations ability to achieve the American Dream because you cannot hold family edges by massively increasing federal budget. This is important i would argue, while this budget is not perfect, in many ways and still spends too much, it takes faith never get stuff in the right direction by balancing and 10 years and addressing the largest driver of our problems, mandatory spending. This is important, our budget provides reconciliation a section that puts us on a path for significant reform that will make america more competitive and drive the growth i just spoke about. I urge all of my colleagues to support this budget and i yelled back. The element from minnesota yield spec. The gentleman from missouri, mr. Smith, is no recognize. Thank you term in black and thank you for your hard work and dedication. The American People are tired of business as usual. Fast last week they sent that message to washington loud and clear. This budget, we begin rebuilding our military. We bring alans in 10 years we bring balance and 10 years. We promote probirth policies that will progrowth policies. Moving forward with the largest cut in spending in 20 years. The American People one is to change the policies in washington. Our nation is projected to be 30 trillion in debt i 2027. Everyone in this room knows these numbers. Everyone knows we cannot tax our way out of this problem. There is no way our current fiscal state we consists nation. We have to take action now to get our spending under control. To promote Economic Growth. To remove the government regulations Holding America back. That is why the work we are dont today is on point. I look forward to moving this budget out of committee and i look forward to us moving future budgets like this. Thank you chairman black. I get back. Id the gentleman yield spec. I now recognize the gentleman from michigan. Thank you madam chair for your proactive leadership. I am thankful to be here today. Im a freshman member of the house. Fulfilling our constitution duty. This is a strong marker for our republican agenda which stands in stark contrast to the past eight years of short sighted proposals that never balanced and kept us on a treacherous fiscal path. I decided to run for congress because i was deeply concerned about the kind of world we were leaving my grandchildren. The trillions dollars of debt. National security issues. The list goes on. I probably represent folks from i probably represent folks from michigan and i hope to get wasteful spending under control. This proposal is the first step to accomplish that. It includes important reconciliation instructions for tax reform and the visit reduction. Two issues that have not then meaningfully addressed for far too long. Billion or more in mandatory savings, that is what we are for today and that is just a floor. Not a ceiling. I believe we can do more. Begin to change our current path. Wasteful spending can no longer be the prescription for this countrys ills and problems. The time is now for us as a congress to make these difficult decisions to keep washington accountable and produce results for the american taxpayer. For all of our constituents in our communities, to ultimately build a better america for all of our grandchildren. I yield back. The german yield spec. The gentleman now yields back. I would like to start by extending my appreciation to you for your leadership. Into my colleagues for the countless hours of work that went into developing this. Debt is spiraling out of control. 2020 in debt is a number we are 20 trillion we are at. A number this puts us on a sustainable fiscal path while ensuring our military has the resources it needs to keep our homeland safe. It is an important First Step Towards conference of tax reform. That is one of the main priorities of many of my colleagues and eight priority of mine. I ran a Small Business for 25 years and one of the main reasons i wanted to serve the country the community i grew up in was where i saw firsthand how our texas to him was holding back job creation and Economic Growth. Time for the United States and at progrowth policies that will improve the lives of the people we are here to represent. We have been going from one Funding Crisis to the next and i am glad the committee with this budget is beginning to restart regular order. This is a step toward fiscal sanity. It will reignite the American Dream. Two wide madam chair. The german yield spec. The gentleman from florida, mr. Gates is recognized for two minutes. Thank you. My previous experience was in the florida legislator. Ways, it was terrible preparation for coming to washington, d c, because in this town we spend too much, our focus is often disjointed, and we continue to drive our nation into debt. There has been much written world. He roman our lack of strategy to constrain spending will cripple our country. I believe histories will judge most harshly the young people in the Congress Today who should be doing more to ensure that we are meeting the fiscal obligations we need to without unnecessarily spending on wasteful programs that are converting a needed safety net into a destructive hammock for far too Many Americans. Im grateful we have the historic opportunity to reduce entitlement spending because in the absence of those reforms or in the absence of curtailing the unfunded liability we have in this country, we will hollow out the inside and it will be deeply tragic. So i am glad the leadership has set those initial markers and those who want to keep spending, who think only modest reductions are sufficient, i would suggest that my comments are not partisan rhetoric. They are not right wing or partydriven. They are simply driven by math. Math that will overcome us and swallow our country whole if we do not enact reforms in this budget. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. I would like to thank the chair as others have for your dedication and hard work. This has really been an enlightening process. Thank you for your leadership. When i first came to washington i knew we had a serious that problem. What i did not appreciate was the full extent of the challenges we faced. The federal budget, its processes, future rejections come it did not take me long to understand the most ire issue facing us is our 19. 8 train 19. 8 trilliont dollars in debt. Without , it will soon consume revenue. National defense, veterans health, education, transportation, research. It will have be financed on borrowed money. And every dollar that we borrow will cost us 1. 27 to a back and it will cost not just us but future generations. This is a conversation about people. Many americans count on these programs. These essential and title programs provide a safety net andour nations elderly vulnerable population. They represent decades of promises but to keep these promises it must be reformed. This by prioritizing a budget that balances in 10 years and contains two injured billion dollars in mandatory savings and provides our military with a muchneeded and. Overdue a lot of work has been done by this committee. It lays the groundwork for the conversations we have to to keep the promises to future generations. We must consider the future of our madam chairman, i yield back. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. Thank you, madam chair. I would also like to compliment your great work and this entire process. You for the first time have created new ways of looking at mandatory spending and have made tremendous progress on that. I throughout this process have said i will be flexible on the top line number and i think weve done solid work on that. My major concern in this budget process has always been the linkage of the top line number with a couple other trillion dollar pieces that transsend sendtranscend the power of this committee in some ways. Yesterday, we got staggering news on the health care piece thats a trillion dollar piece linked to the Obamacare Tax increases. Theres also the issue of the border piece. We have not received clarity on that trillion dollar piece and how we should move forward. A major issue and anxiety i have had is the relationship between those two trillion dollar pieces and the progrowth policies that everyone around this table have just brought up. We need those progrowth policies to get out of the debt and the hundred trillion in unfunded liabilities. My fears today unfortunately have been confirmed a little bit. The Trump Administration just sent out news instead of the corporate rate going down to 15, now theyre looking at the corporate rate being in the 2025 range. I hope that is the end of the movement up on tax rates. So my worst fears about our ability to reach consensus on the Health Care Bill and border adjustable look like theyre coming to frufruition. In todays news i am struggling with how we get those rates back down. Without that the American People will not be able to find jobs for their kids after high school and college. Wage rates will not go up as we need them to do. While i applaud the top line number and the hard work this committee has done, im still asking our leadership to give us clarity between the health care, the trillion dollar piece, the border adjustable piece. The gentleman from south carolina, mr. Sanford is recognized for two minutes. I thank the chair and i would echo my colleague from virginias comments with regard to kudos for your hard work and for that of the committee. I guess the saying is that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a first step. I think that to his point you raised a very important point in pushing this issue of mandatory savings. Until we get our arms around that issue, were going to have profound budgetary problems. That being said, i remain concerned about scale on the reconciliation front there. If you annualize the numbers, were looking at 20 billion a year in the framework of deficits. You wont solve this 20 trillion debt problem we have with those kinds of numbers. I remain concerned about Economic Growth. I think some of the forecasts are still rosy and i dont think you ever build a household or business budget on rosy assumptions. But im ultimately voting for this based on it being a vehicle for tax reform, which we have not seen in 30 years. I think it to be incredibly important. That having been said, i remain concerned about what tax reform will look like. What id hate to do is sign off on this is a vehicle for tax reform but were going to get tax reform that i dont believe in. For me, that would include the border adjustment tax. I represent charpsleston. We see a tremendous amount of export and inport outmport out of our city. The gentleman from arrington, texas s recognized for two minutes. Then world has become increasingly unstable. Lets give our men and women in uniform the resources they need to be safe and successful as they confront these real and eminent threats. Number one, ensure sufficient funding for our national priorities. Like a safe and abundant food supply like investment in r d and the United States global competitiveness, like infrastructure, especially in Rural America where we produce the food, fuel, and fiber for our fellow americans. Number three this will pave the way for reforming our complicate and burdensome tax code so can he can grow our economy and get our people back to work. Number four and finally and i believe most importantly, reduce the National Debt, one of the main reasons the American People are so frustrated and have lost confidence in the United States congress is because washington plays by a different set of rules. Nowhere is that more prominently displayed than in the budget process. For too long weve operated as if we have unlimited resource whens in reality were spending our childrens inheritance. The American People have to li within their means and their government ought to do the same. I yield back sblt gentleman i yield back. The gentleman yields back the baffle his time and i again recognize the Ranking Member and that he be allowed to yield time for the minoritiess presentation. Without objection or so order ed. Thank you, chairman black pit would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. Molten. Madam chairman. In addition to the massive cuts to programs that keep americans healthy and prosperous, this budget res louisiana puts our National Security in jeopardy by making shortsighted investments in defense spending that set up a false choice between the military and other sources of National Strength security such there is a small price to pay compared to sending our servicemen and Service Women into harms way. With that, i yield back. I yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. Carbajal. Thank you. Todays republican Budget Proposal is full of dangerous revenue given revenue given its revenue gimmicks. Rises inenses funding in 2027,740 billion stays proposal cuts nondefense funding for the domestic programs, including education and Food Security by over 100 billion over the next 10 years. This budget simply walks away promotingtments Economic Security, job creation and innovation. Not other we funding defense at an even higher level than the president requested, but we are doing so with such a narrow view of our National Security. One source of National Security we leave out is the environment. I also sit on the House Armed Services committee and ive heard from many military leaders, inlewding secretary mattis himself, about the threat Climate Change poses to our military operations and institutions. Over 30 military sites in the United States are already at risk facing elevated risks because of sea level rise. On the west coast, wildfires season continues to grow longer and more intense. In my district, weve experienced over four significant fires in the last week alone. Last year in california fires threatened Camp Pendleton as well as van denberg air force base in my district. Theres no question Climate Change will increasingly impact our nations military infrastructure here and abroad. Ultimately, making it more difficult to fend americas interests. This budget resolution dramatically underfunds agencies dealing with this threat. This is irresponsible with the threats that we face and i encourage my colleagues to reexamine their priorities. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. I now yield three minutes to the the woman from texas ms. Jackson lee. I thank the Ranking Member. I have no doubt of the commit meant of the chair of this committee, but i have to embracing the comments of the Ranking Member that says that this budget embraces the worst, the worst of the extreme of the trump budget. Yes, we are stewards of the American Peoples tax dollars, but this is what this budget simply wants to do. It wants to have massive cuts, tax cuts for millionaires while increasing tax increases for millions of working families. These are the working families that depend upon National Security. In the fy 2018 budget endangers National Security by narrowly focusing on defense spending. You do not make America Great if you do not put americans first. Every day americans many this budget are an afterthought from the horrible elimination of the fight against Climate Change to the decreasing of the Homeland Security budget by 3 billion, and as well by including monies for budget for a border wall of which no one needs or does not provide any form of security. A growing economy is key to our National Security. Foreign policy experts from both sides of the aisle agree that our National Power begins with the strong economy. But it also means we must have a healthy population and as michael morale, the former acting director and dept Deputy Director of the kraimt stated on february 28, 2016, the health of a nations economy is the single most important determinate in ability to protect itself. The sing the most important determinate is an ability to project power and its National Security. National security involves diplomacy, it involves engage meant but yet the republican budget increases defense spending 72 billion more than the president s budget but it decreases the ability for diplomacy, its ability to engage with Foreign Countries to hope in humanitarian aid. This budget ig norz the experts and cuts budgets for the state deptd and u. S. Agency for international development. This is not a budget that supports and embraces National Security, this is not a budget that puts americans first. This is a budget that is simply focused on one thing, cutting medicare and medicaid we know drastically, but giving those massive tax cuts for billionaires, millionaires who do not ask for it and leave the working people of america dragging themselves through the streets looking for good jobs that were promised by this president and this administration, looking for good healthcare, and looking for the men and women who serve in the United States minimum tear to be comforted as they go to foreign places that their families here in the United States will be taken care of with housing and healthcare and education. National security is more than pumping up a 72 billion budget that now is overbloated, if you will, it is taking care of the American People. With that, i yield back. The gentlewoman yields back. I now yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, higgins. Thank you, mr. Chairman. The proposed budget seeks to spend 621 billion in defense and 511 billion domestically. It proposes to voucher rise the Medicare Program which would put the Medicare Program back to premed care era when private Insurance Companies didnt want to write policies for Older Americans 56 of Older Americans didnt have insurance. Today, because of medicare, 97 of americans now have insurance, Older Americans and the vast majority like the coverage that they get. But a lot of this is predicated on trying to grow the American Economy. I would remind my colleagues that in the First Quarter of this year chinas economy grew by 7 . Indias economy grew by 6 . Turkeys economy grew by 5 . The u. S. Economy grew by under 2 . The United States economy has collapsed for a lot of americans. Since 2000 weve lost 6 Million Manufacturing jobs and 70,000 factories have closed. This seems to dismiss the whole notion of investing in the growth of the American Economy. And record spending is proposed in this budget for afghanistan, iraq, and our great ally in that region pakistan. It doesnt make any sense. Fact of the matter is, since we engaged in these wars, americans have spent 4. 8 trillion for iraq, afghanistan, and pakistan. Weve lost 6,800 u. S. Soldiers and weve spent 170 billion rebuilding the roads and bridges of afghanistan and iraq. Wheres the budget that we are promised for a robust investment in american infrastructure . Our infrastructure is an embarrassment. We were once number one, according to World Economic forum. Were at about number 23 today in the world in the kwauflt our in our infrastructure. Infrastructure creates jobs in the construction trades and supply and materials industry. If you want to grow this economy beyond the anemic 2 which weve experienced over the past 17 years, each year, we need to invest in the growth of the economy. China understands that by investing a trillion dollars by 27 asian markets in that economy. We seek 1. 6 billion for a wall that were told somebody else was going to pay for. We need to get our priorities straight, invest in the growth of the American Economy. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. I know yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from washington, ms. Dell bennie. Thank you, mr. Chair. Thank you madam chair and mr. Ranking member. With many working families and businesses still struggling in a rapidly changing economy, our top priority in congress should be helping to ensure that every american can succeed in the 21st sent trip and invest in the foundations we need to sustain longterm Economic Growth and security. To spur robust job growth we robust activity and build an economy to which anyone willing to work hard can get ahead and build a Better Future for the next generation. We should make investments in our Education System to provide the training and skills workers need to be prepared for the jobs of today and tomorrow. We should support our colleges and Technical Schools that can help prepare the next generation of farmers, manufacturers and innovators. Thats why i strongly oppose this destructive budget resolution. The majority had an opportunity to work on a in a bipartisan way to create jobs, build an economy that works for everyone, and our communities. Instead, this budget leaves the middle class behind by gutting funding for basic necessities like healthcare and education. This reckless budget cuts investment in Early Childhood k12 and Higher Education programs, but it is our responsibility taupe sure that every child in the United States has access to a world class education no matter where they live or how much money their family makes. Thats why i strongly support increasing federal funding for Core Education programs, like head start. We all benefit when every child gets the opportunity to succeed and we must invest to give our most Vulnerable Children that chance. This budget also continues the destructive cycle of knee our crumbling infrastructure. This budget would cut transportation spending by over 250 billion over ten years, a 25 cut. We know our roads, bridges and transit systems are in disrepair and fail to move as many goods and people as the economy demands. At a time when so Many Americans are ready to work, it makes no sense to defer these investments any longer. The longer we wait the more cost lit repairs will be in the future and the more Economic Opportunities we forego that our communities desperately need. Every dollar we spend is a reflection of our values. Im deeply disappointed that this partisan extreme budget demonstrates utter disregard for middle class americans and a cleat lack of vision for what our future could look like with smart, targeted investments in the people and projects that truly lift up hardworking americans that we should be helping. Slashing programs that help families trying to get ahead in order to slash taxes for the wealthy has never led to jobs and it never will. I yield back. I now yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. Jeffries. Thank you. Thank the distinguished gentleman from kentucky. The House Republican budget is reckless, regressive, and reprehensible. It seeks to balance itself on the backs of working families, middle class folks, Senior Citizens, the poor, the sick, the afflicted, and Rural America all to promote a deep tax cut for the wealthy and for the well off. Instead of trying to advance the interests of the middle class, the House Republican budget simply promotes the lifestyles of the rich and shameless. The republican budget fast tracks massive tax cuts to the wealthy shifting the burden to the middle class and working families. The budget clearly shows that House Republicans are not interested in working on behalf of Everyday Americans. Like the trump budget, the republican version here in the house shamelessly takes away hope and opportunity for millions of families while showering millionaires, billionaires, wealthy corporations with unnecessary and counterproductive tax cuts that will do nothing to help average Everyday Americans pursue American Dream. Instead of bringing jobs back to communities that have fallen on hard times. In inner city america, sa bush , ruralrban america america, the heartland of america, the republican budget hollows out these investments that are necessary to build a strong competitive economy again simply to provide tax cuts to the wealthy and to the well off. The budget recycles the stale, repeatedly discredited myth that tax cuts for the wealthy will somehow magically generate an economic boom that will solve all of our nations problems. There is no evidence that this failed, discredited, trickle down economic theory will result in helping average, everyday, middle class americans and those who aspire to be part of the middle class achieve the American Dream and yet we continue to return time and again to the effort promoted in this budget simply to advance tax cuts for the wealthy and for the well off. It is reckless, it is regressive, it is irresponsible, and it should be rejected by this committee. Gentleman yields back. I now yield three minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. Boyle. Thank the gentleman from fellow Common Wealth, Common Wealth of kentucky. Were obviously going to be spending a lot of time with one another today, and in all of that time well be spending today we will hear a lot of numbers and a lot of statistics thrown around. I really think the most important number that youll hear today is 99. 6. Thats 99. 6 . Benefit of the House Republican tax plan goes to the wealthiest 1 . 99. 6 . Not to be outdone, the House Republican blueprint for tax reform provides a 3 trillion tax cut to the wealthy, and almost nothing to everyone else. The average person in the wealthiest one tenth of 1 will get a one and a half Million Dollars tax cut. And the middle income household, not the very poor, not the very rich, the median household in this country will get 60. But its actually worse than that. Because this budget also raises taxes on low income working families. And it does that in two ways. This budget cuts the Child Tax Credit and the eitc, the earned income tax credit about a combined 40 billion by changing requirements on who is eligible. These tax credits help millions of americans support their families and lifts millions of children out of poverty every year. So a cut to these is a tax increase on lowincome, working families. An analysis of a similar proposal by House Republicans on cutting the just the Child Tax Credit found that 3 million children would be harmed. And this is such a betrayal of past accepted economic theory on the republican side. It is a fact that one of the greatest eadvantageists for the greatest evangelists for the earned income tax credit was Ronald Reagan. He called it the single best Poverty Program in government today. And here we are with a budget in 2017, 99. 6 of which goes to the wealthiest wealthiest 1 and a massive tax increase on the working poor. It is wrong. I will oppose this budget. And with that i yield back. Gentleman yields back. I now yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. Khanna. Thank you, Ranking Member. Thank you, madam chair. The colleagues on the other side, the republicans have said we democrats are pessimistic, that somehow we dont believe in Economic Growth or 3 growth. And thats simply not the case. We just have a very different view about how you grow the economy. If you believe that the challenge of growing the economy is the investor class, that the people who need help to grow this economy are people who are speculating on wall street or ceos of hospitals making 3 million, 6 million, and that corporations which have record profits need more tax credits and thats how were going to grow the economy, then i suppose you should vote for the republican budget. If you believe, as colleagues on on our side do, mr. Jeffries and mr. Higgins, mr. Boyle, ms. Della bean, that the way you grow the economy is by putting your faith in ordinary americans who start Small Businesses, who are manufacturers, who are nurses, who do the hard work that has built this country, then you would have a view that you get to Economic Growth by helping the middle class. That the tax cuts shouldnt be geared towards people who are already invested in the stock market but the problem isnt that our dow isnt growing fast enough. The problem is that 50 of americans are working harder and wages have stagnated for the last 30 years. Our belief is we cant have that Economic Growth if we provide tax relief for the working families who deserve it and not the speculators. If we invest in their job training programs, if we invest in programs like medicaid and medicare which, by the way, arent just moral programs but according to mckenzie are going to lead to the most jobs in the 21st century on elder care, on child care, and jobs for the middle class. So that is the philosophical difference. Do you believe that americas greatness lies with wall street speculators and ceos or do you believe americas greatness lies with ordinary, hardworking americans . Small Business Owners and people who actually do the jobs. Democrats are for the belief that we are great because of ordinary individuals and the republican budget says lets put all our faith in the executive investor class. Thats the real difference. My final point is i want to commend congressman sanford for really indicating whats at stake. Because if you wanted revenue neutrality as the republican budget says on the tax appropriate posal, theyre only way of getting there is a border adjustment tax. A border adjustment tax would be the largest tax increase on the middle class probably in the last 50 years. And i would urge this committee to join congressman sanford in a bipartisan basis and say no to the largest tax increase in the last 50 years, lets make it clear were against a border adjustment tax. Gentleman yields back. I now yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from washington and the advice Ranking Member of the committee ms. Jiea paul. Thank you to the gentleman from kentucky and our Ranking Member for your leadership and for yielding. Madam chair, i agree with some of our colleagues who have said that our budget is a document of our priorities. And unfortunately, though, i am disappointed that this budget resolution does not insfleft in workingst families. And it does so little to help millions across our country who are struggling. Why . As youve heard from many of my colleagues, this budget prioritizes putting millions of dollars towards tax cuts for the very wealthiest in our country, the 1 , the wealthiest corporations. And it does not have to be like this. We, on the Budget Committee, have the obligation to define the Spending Priorities that lead to robust Economic Growth that reaches all americans. But the blind ideological pursuit of tax cuts for the wealthiest that are contained within this budget and honestly all of us know that these are failed policies of the past, they are not the kinds of tax cuts that lead to the growth of the economy, that is going to cost the american taxpayers greatly. This budget slashes Corporate Tax rates from 3515 costing from 35 to 15 , costing american taxpayers 2. 4 trillion in revenue over the next ten years, and that is equivalent, what could you pay for with those dollars . Thats equivalent to the fiveyear cost of medicaid ant d the childrens Health Insurance program that serve nearly 75 million seniors, people with disabilities, and families in need. We know that Large American Companies hold 2. 6 trillion in offshore profits and i believe theres bipartisan consensus we should bring those dollars back into america. But unfortunately this tax this budget promises a big tax break for the companies to bring those profits back and it forgoes 600 billion of the money ode in u. S. Taxes by corporations that have taken their profits outside. Madam chair, these are policies that put the interests of the corporations and the wealthiest 1 ahead of working families and they just dont work. Just most recently in the state of kansas, this is a state where republicans increased rolled back, you know, put forward tax cuts for the wealthiest and they have had to roll those tax cuts back. Those were 2012 tax cuts. They werent working. They didnt provide enough for the people of kansas. And the brookings institution, this was their quote, they said led to an anemic avenue ef revenues which led to short falls causing significant cutbacks be in vital programs such as medicaid, education, tan any of, and infrastructure. So, madam chair, we cannot pass this budget if we want to take care of working families in this country. I urge my colleagues to reject this budget resolution and work across the aisle to actually put together a budget that increases opportunity for all americans. I yield back. Gentlewoman yields back. I now yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from new mexico. Thank you, Ranking Member and thank you chair woman black. What youve heard from all of my colleagues is, while our job is to figure out a balanced approach to a federal budget that is meaningful and makes the most sense for all americans, what we have again is a budget that is imbalanced and, frankly, inappropriate. The really tough part for me is that its not surprising sansd and since ive been on this committee its certainly nothing new. Its a reflection now of both the president s budget and the now defeated aca repeal in that it undermines our commitment to every single middle class priority. So instead of investing in education and job training, transportation, veterans care, medical research, or the healthcare system, this budget signs a massive check, again, as youve heard, to the wealthiest americans and corporations. And i have constituents in new mexico who dont know where their next meal coming from, how theyre going pay for college and still cant afford go to the doctor. 20 of new mexico ans flifg in20 of new mexicans live poverty and my state has the second highest Unemployment Rate in the nation. This budget prioritized benefits for the richest americans instead of these constituents who are working hard every day to provide for their families and make ends meet. I want to introduce you to a contich went of mine, la nay letwo a constituent of mine, nae havens. Shes a single mother of a young son connor who is working full time and most recently in describing to me about how she manage a child care benefit for a snap benefit to make ends meet so that she can continue to work full time because shes doing everything right to care and support her family. She was recently offered a 53cent an hour wage increase. Now her kmois is to take that wage increase, to continue to try to move into the middle class, to get out of poverty, but in doing so she will lose approximately 600 in public benefits. And the most note able is she will lose that food assistance, snap. These are the choices that this budget not only endorses, but it exacerbates by even removing the safety net so that my contich my constituent would have no hows, no snap, no child care and no hope for the future of her family. This is fundamentally unjust and, quite frankly, its bad policy if were trying to get america working. This is an America First budget only for americans that are already well connect rrd wealthy wellconnected, wealthy and powerful. I understand the goal of my colleagues to enact, i think, a fiscally responsible budget. But the recordsetting cuts to medicaid, medicare, snap and other programs that provide basic Living Standards to some of the most vulnerable constituents in my direct and yours is a devastating effort to a system thats already stretched too thin. This is shortsighted, arrogant, and its an insult to my constituents to struggle to find jobs, pay their bills and provide their kids with a Better Future. I urge my colleagues to oppose this i credibly irresponsible budget and i yield back. Gentlewoman yields back. I now yield myself three minutes. The theme is unmistakable on the democratic side. We look at this budget and see a total list of backward priorities. I have a brother whos in the barbecue Restaurant Business and hes done very, very well in the Restaurant Business for a number of years. And he always tended to vote republican because he thought republicans would have him pay less tax. Back in 2008, in the middle of the president ial campaign, he called me and he said, john, i have some interesting news for you. Judy and i, thats his wife, judy and i are voting for obama this year and all democrats. And i said, thats great, bob, what was your epiphany. He said i finally figured out if you nobody can afford barbecue it doesnt matter what my tax rate is. And i think that says a lot about where we are as a country. We have far too many people in this country who cant afford to support the economy the way we have traditionally had it. 1 of the people in this country cant support a robust economy. And i think this budget goes in the completely wrong diction r direction of giving more and more to that 1 and less and less to the people we need to have better lives. So i thank my democratic colleagues for their participation. As you can see, the republican budgets, in our opinion, could do irrelevant represent paper damage to our kurt and economy and health and hapsness to millions of families. This is not what the American People asked for. They did not ask for tax cuts for millionaires and wealthy corporations. They did not ask for the dramatic cuts in programs to support basic Living Standards. They did not ask to see our country left behind by a lack of investment in infrastructure and science. They did not ask to see our security imperiled by the republicans narrow world viewer. What they want is to see real improvement in their lives, and this republican budget does just does not do that. My democratic colleagues and i will shortly offer amendments that moves this budget towards a better place and i encourage my republican colleagues to accept them. But even these amendments cannot undo the rot at the core of this budget. That it embraces the worst extremes of the trump budget and is an immoral document that displays an uptder indifference to the challenges americans face today. I hope that my republican colleagues will bend in this path. And with that, we yield the balance of our time. The gentleman yields the balance of his time. And we will now proceed with the staff walkthrough for the fiscal year 2018 concurrent budget resolution. We had the witness at the table, rick may, our staff director general spellman, our policy director andy more the ton our chief economist. The staff will briefly summarize the chairmans mark and then will be available to answer questions members may have. I would urge members to be ask factual questions. Madam chair, were waiting for the policy director to come so bear with us. Thank you, mr. May. You may begin when youre ready. Madam chairman and mr. Yar moth, its our honor and pleasure to provide to you a walkthrough for the next 60 minutes regarding the provisions of the chairmans mark. Before we get started, i would like to stress that my appreciation and i know the chairmans appreciation to the staff on both sides of the aisle for working on the markup. Its a lot of work and we would like to thank and commend the staff for their hard work, particularly on the republican side. Weve been working on this budget since last october. I think no ones more thrilled than we are that were in this markup today, so were trying to move forward. I also would like to start out by provide a little bit of a background on what the budget resolution is first before we go in, so for the new members of the committee. The budget resolution say house concurred resolution that is not signed by the president and we are not making statutory changes to the law. The basic components. Budget resolution are a series of budgetary numbers, a title on budget enforcement, and numerous provisions what we call policy statements. In other words, policy statements that express the will of the committee on a whole range of issues. Thats what the budget resolution is. We are not the Appropriations Committee, we do not dictate what each individual programs are provided for in the waive funding. In the way of funding. We are not the ways and means committee. We do not dictate specific policies, tax rates, et cetera, relating to tax reform, and weapon are not the authorizing committees that relate to the policies that they have to do to fulfill reconciliation instructions. We are the Budget Committee, the budget resolution rrgs we are the architect, if you will, of the federal budget. The appropriators, the authorizing committees, et cetera, theyre the general contractors. We decide sort of the basic framework of the budget, theyre the ones who decide kind of where the nails go, where the Ceiling Tiles go, where the floor tiles go. We provide the framework, they provide the details. So some of the questions im certain were going to get in a few minutes are going to be asking about some details that simply are outside the purview of the budget resolution and the Budget Committee. Just want to provide that sense of context. So the chairmans mark before you is a post policy budget resolution. We are making assumptions in a number of areas to to take into account what we will argue is a pro growth agenda of tax reform, Regulatory Reform, welfare reform, and repeal and replace of obamacare. All of those functions we believe as well as deficit reduction have an effect on the economy. If the members will recall we had a hearing several weeks ago with various distinguished economists talking about those progrowth policies and this budget resolution incorporates a lot of that testimony from the economists of that hearing as well as several outside Economic Experts that wed be glad to discuss, i guess, further in the q a process. The chairmans mark gets to balance over the next ten years. Were project a Budget Surplus of 9 billion by 2027, the tenth year of the tenyear window. In each of the years we are based upon the cbo january baseline each of the years our projected deficits are below the cbo projection for those years, visavis the january baseline projection. We do that through a number of ways. We make numerous changes on Discretionary Spending and weapon are assuming many changes on the mandatory side. On the discretionary side, for the fiscal year 18, which, again, the basic one of the basic functions of the budget resolution is provide 302 allocations to the Appropriations Committee. The budget resolution calls for 621. 5 billion for 050 for or national defense. It provides 75 billion in g watt funding. It provides approximately 511 billion for nondefense discretionary and approximately 2012 billion for gwatt on the noun nondefense discretionary. Of mock approximately 20 billion for gwatt on the noun nondefense discretionary. Those numbers are being reflected by other actions by other committees. For example the defense number is exactly matched by the recent ndaa that was approved by the House Armed Services committee and approved by the full house. Appropriations committee is moving through their various 12 appropriation bills and theyre fulfilling both the defense appropriation number, the 621. 5, plus the 75 billion in gwatt funding. Theyre fulfilling that number. Appropriations committee taking final steps this week to fulfill the 511 billion number in appropriation bills. So thats moving in tandem with the budget resolution process. On the mandatory side were making a number of assumptions on a whole range of various programs within the federal budget. We are assuming a 203 billion reconciliation instruction for 11 authorizing committees. Those instructions are designed do two things. One is to provide ways and means do deficit reducement tax reform and also 2 to 300 well dollars in Debt Reduction over the next ten years. Over the course of the last several weeks the 203 billion number say floor, not a ceiling. And i think it is the hope of the chairman and members of this committee that the authorizing committees as they fulfill and meet that target that the actual savings will be greater than 203 billion over ten. As everybody whos been around in the Budget Committee for a while understands, the authorizing committees have maximum flexibility in reaching those numbers. It is not in the purview of the Budget Committee, not within the pur you too the reconciliation instructions that we can provide a policy directive to the committees that they have to achieve a budgetary savings, deficit reduction savings by any particular policy approach. They have maximum flex ability to reach that number. You will notice in the instructions part of the budget resolution there is just a number for each of the 11 committees and that is to fulfill the requirements of the congressional budget act. They only call for a number. We also do, as i mentioned, we do a number of assumptions within a whole range of mandatory programs. We do make deficit reduction saves in medicare, Additional Savings from the house passage of the American Healthcare act. We have been working with cbo to come up with, shall we say, the 11 am year of the savings, the numbers that cbo has been providing us thus far on the healthcare bill is based upon fiscal year 17 through 26. Our budget year goes through fiscal year 18 through 27. So weve been working with cbo coming up with an estimate of 204 billion in deficit reduction over the next tenyear period from repeal and replace obamacare as it was passed by the house. We are also making some additional assumptions to get the balance in the waive medicaid. Were assume something Additional Savings out of medicaid of approximately 114 billion over ten years. Those savings are in addition to the savingsing that were in the American Healthcare act. Were also making some assumptions regarding all the other areas of the mandatory spending. One of the principles of this budget is to ask every program, every major component of the federal budget to participate in the balanced budget exercise, therefore were suggest a number of savings in the welfare reform area, a number of savings in federal retirement programs, we are making a number of savings with veterans, Student Loans reform programs were making changes in agriculture suggesting savings in agriculture programs, and on and on and on. On the revenue side, we are assuming, as i said, the housepassed version of the American Healthcare act. Embedded in that say 1. 1 trillion reduction in revenues based upon the various taxes that were part of the aca. Those items have been represent moved from the revenue baseline so our revenue baseline is now 1. 1 trillion lower than the current law baseline as estimated by cbo and joint tax. We also are asupering something new as well, we are assuming 700 billion in additional budgetary savings from reducing by 50 over the next ten years the amount of improper payments that the federal government provides. As a Committee Members may recall, we had a very good hearing from the controller general of gao who identified for the committee that in tine teen in 2016 there were over 141 billion in improper payments provided to various recipients by the federal by the federal government. If you extrap pew late that 1. 4 trillion over ten years, thats approximately 1. 4 trillion in improper payments. In fact, the controller general commented that that 1. 4 trillion number is probably an understatement so the real number is closer to maybe 1 foint 5, maybe 1. 6 trillion over the next ten years. Were assuming that we reduce that amount by 50 . If we started from a base of 1. 4, it would generate 700 billion savings over ten years. On the economic assumptions and ill end because i promised ten minutes, we are assuming an average gdp growth rate over the next ten years of 2. 6 . We are counting 1. 5 trillion of that economic macroeconomic feedback as part of our deficit reduction efforts. If you add up our policy changes on the mandatory and discretionary side along with the higher Economic Growth we have approximately 6. 5 trillion in deficit reduction as compared to the cbo baseline over the next ten years. Ill leave of it at that ive gone a little over the ten minutes but i think that provides a very good overview of how the chairmans mark gets to balance some of the major provision dollars and wed be glad to answer any questions. On my left is jenna spielman whose our policy director and on my right is andy more the ton whos our chief economist. In the room are other staff members, jim baits is our chief counsel and others, theyre also available to answer any questions that if we cannot answer those wed be glad to do so. Thank you, mr. May. And i understand 01 31 48 Suzan Delbene Suzan Delbene that that ms. Albana has sought time for question. The lady is recognized. Madcam chair. Thank you very much, madcam chair. I have some questions about supplemental nutrition assistance programs and other income security kind of whats looked at as function 600. The mandatory savings and function 600 total 896 billion. So my question, first question is does the resolution assume turning snap into a block grant as in previous years or does the resolution assume the president s plan to convert the program into one that requires a state match . Madam chairman, representative, i think its fair to say that you will notice in the Committee Report that we plan to file sometime on friday, there will nobody reference in the Community Report to block grant. Weve been working very closely with the House Agriculture Committee and theyve requested that we just leave that issue to be open and flexible. So we are assume a number of savings from snap reforms. But you dont know about the state match. We are not necessarily using the phraseology of black grants. And so how much does the budget assume from these changes to snap . Approximately 150 billion over the next ten years. And when would that start . I believe sometime about the midst tenyear period, somewhere i believe five years if im correct. About five years . Yeah, most of the savings are after the fifth year, so be mostly savings in the sixth, seventh, 8th, ninth and tenth year. Okay. How much savings did the budget assume from changes to snap work requirements . Approximately 12. 5 billion, 13 billion. There are other policy assumptions that are made with snap with respect to the budget . I think theres other changes that are assuming but i think primarily its sort of this flexibility giving states more authority to help administer the the socalled old block grant approach or state flex e flexibility approach that were using today. Thats the primary driver. And how much of the savings does the budget assume from federal employee or military retirement . I think approximately if i could take my glasses off and read, approximately about 230 billion over ten. 230, okay. And how much of the savings does the budget assume from changes to the earned income tax credit for to the Child Tax Credit . I believe its somewhere approximately 20 billion, but thank you for asking that. 20 for eitc or both, eitc and the Child Tax Credit. Combined . Combined. Okay. I think im glad you asked that question because there was some misinformation. The republican budget, the chairmans mark does not in any way he at all reduce those benefits. The policies that are assumed in those afgz is an idea thats been considered by ways and means and other committees or ways and means in the past of requiring a Social Security number for each recipient of the tax credit therefore there is a need to improve the administration and the waste for abuse profit gram. Theres no specific plan of how that would happen youre just assuming theres going to be a Dollar Savings there. If i may, representative, as you may recall, the testimony from the controller general, this program has been identified by the irs, i believe, to have somewhere around 35 or 25 of the outlays for these two programs have been viewed to be going to people who are ineligible for the tax credits. Thank you for the number, im just saying theres no plan, right now it looks like we just have a number. Does the resolution assume any changes to child new transition programs like the School Lunch Program . Go ahead. No, go ahead, stand up. Community eligibility for vision 1. 6 billion we increase the threshold from 40 to 60 . Okay. Thank you. And so whats the remaining difference. Because if i add all of these up , i dont get to the 896. Well, think theres some assumptions that we make that we dont share all the assumptions underlying the budget these are just some options on how you can hit that target. Okay. So thats a pretty big difference, though, between these and the total number, but. Its ultimately up to the committees jurisdiction to determine how to hit the funding levels provided in the budget resolution. Okay. Thank you. I yield back. Gentlewoman yields back i reno now recognize the Ranking Member. Thank you. I have a series of questions. First of all, let me say, mr. May, and to segue off your initial comments i want to thankt majority staff and minority staff as well for the work thats been done on not just this markup but throughout the year. We appreciate the professionalism on both sides. I have a series of questions on medicare. The budget assumes 487 billion medicare mandatory spending kulgts over ten years. I want to you walk us through all of the components that make up the 487 billion. Ill start with questions about the four medicare policies described in the blueprint. The first is converting medicare into a premium support system for new beneficiaries starteding in 2024. What is the total amount of savings assumed in the budget from that policy . Steve, you want to answer those . Go ahead, steve. Introduce yourself. Steve waskiewicz smith here, sir. Can you repeat the question . This is sbt premium support system for new beneficiaries starting in 2024. Whats the total amount of savings assumed in the budget from that policy . So we dont sfesk speskpecifically break out our savings. We sort of view all of the savings between both Structural Reforms and our nonStructural Reforms as a as a combination of various reforms that in total get you to the total 7 billion over the tenyear window. So you have specific policy parameters associated with with that estimate and with the plan in particular how the premium support amount is determined . Is it linked to the average plan bid or the Second Lowest bid . What happens to the premium support payment over time . Is it tied to a specific index such as medical inflation or does it float with plan bids . Do you have any details on that . All of the federal 2013 report they used options. Okay. Do you have an estimate of how the plan would affect the solvency of the Medicare Trust fund or the projected date of trust fund exhaustion . No, sir, we dont. And for the reason that ultimately the authorizing committees have the flexibility to determine how this particular would be structured would directlyi affect a lot of the questions that youre asking okay. I assume the answers are going to be pretty much the same for these other areas, but i want to ask them anyways. So youve got one the medicare policy change, the promoting personal digital advanced care plans. Did the budget estimate any savings associated with this policy and how much . Obviously youve already answered the how much, you dont know. We dont have a specific savings target associated with that. Thats in the policy proposal. Now, getting to means testing for highincome seniors, again, i wanted to ask about the tenyear savings assumed from that from those related premiums but i guess the answer is the same. Its the same answer. I would point out that we follow basically the proposal put forth by president obama in his previous budget for increasing good, that was my next question so youve answered that already. The last one, reform medical liability insurance, does the budget assume outlay savings equal to cbo score of hr 1215 this was 43. 9 billion . And if you assume different savings what accounts for the difference there . Yes, sir, we do assume the reforms associated with hr1215. Thank you. And are you carrying all of the savings in the medicare function or is some carried in the health function . , weadam chair, mr. Yarmouth dont put that in the medicare function, we put that i think in 920. What or 9030. 920 or 930. We dont count and we can provide some of these details to your staff about the various, you know, various com pon nentsz are going to save x number of dollars. Well be glad to provide that to you. Weve got that. Thank you. And what go ahead. Its a medical 01 41 38 john its a medical practice reform its a medical practice reform crosses so many Different Things thats why you dont put in the medicare. But that 47 or 48 billion is. Affordable care act such as the provision closing the part d coverage gap . Well, sir, we do not specifically include that within within our savings number. We also some of the other provisions we do include just and these are again just illustrative options, but to equalize the medicare eligibility age with that of Social Security gradually over time and also streamlining graduate medical Education Funding as well is another illustrative option that we include as part of the savings in 570. The i was going to ask you about about raising the age, so youve already answered that. My understanding is this is going to back to the part d coverage gap that last years budget reported out of the committee assumed roughly a 38 billion in medicare spending reductions from repealing that policy, is that consistent with this year . We dont we do not specify that as an option within 570. Okay. Does the budget assume savings from restructuring part a and part b cost sharing including establish a unified deductible in cat traffic cap on out of catastrophic out of pocket costs and making changes to media gap supplemental coverage . Yes, sir, it does. And if so, do you have what kind of a savings assumed in your budget from these . Again, we dont put a specific number associated with that policy. However, its the policy of this resolution we felt that and weve carried this in four past republican budgets to simplify the program and mold it will very similar to how insurance is as opposed to how it currently is. Okay. Thank you. I want to move to medicaid and some other health questions. Im going to let mower member another member ask those. Actually, recognize mr. Carbajal for a question. If i may interject here and wed be glad to provide some of those numbers that you asked but think its important, as steve just mentioned, we make the budget resolution is based on a series of policy assumptions that we make to meet our number. But, again, those are not binding on the committees. I understand. We provide illustrative examples. There are many, many different ways that ways and means, energy and commerce, jurisdiction on medicare, that they could theoretically at some point in the future meet those numbers. So its not so much the fact that were driving a particular policy or a particular policy but its an outline or a blueprint, if these get the balance these are the approximately savings that we believe is fair and reasonable way of getting to balance within the ten year period. So i mean, were not trying to were not trying to hide anything. But some of the details really are i want to say irrelevant, but its not really a policy driven process. Its a numerical effort to show how we can get the balance. Thank you for that. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman, mr. Car have a hall is recognized. Thank you. Building the better america document on page 31 and 32 states that the budget includes more funding for Border Security and construction. Does that include President Trumps border wall . And if so, how much is assumed for 2018 . Its the same amount thats being assumed or being implemented by the House Appropriations committee through the Homeland Security appropriations bill. Do we know it accommodates it accommodates, which i think i read somewhere and representative, dont quote me on this, but i think its approximately 1. 6 billion in fiscal year 18. And what about for the years beyond that . It doesnt necessarily make any specific assumptions beyond that. Because again the key number is the 302 allocation for fiscal year 18. Thats why we dont necessarily make an assumption for the out years. Its ultimately up to the appropriators on how they decide to disburse the 302 allocation. Thank you. Does the gentleman yield back . Yes, i yield back. Sorry about that. The gentleman yields back. The gentle lady from illinois is recognized. Shes coming. [laughter] thank you, madam chairman. So the budget assumes 1. 5 1. 504 trillion savings in for medicare and other Health Programs over ten years so i want to walk through some of that. The budget assumes the house passed American Health care act in making its making its projections so how much in savings are you assuming from the ahca . Are you carrying all of the savings in the health function . These are two questions. How much are you assuming in savings and are you carrying all of the savings in the health function or is some carried in other functions . Madam chairman, representative, its all in the health function. Heres the numbers i think how we can help show you how were getting our deficit reduction savings. The its obviously a simple mathematical subtraction of revenues from outlays. So if we are reducing outlays by approximately 1. 335 trillion we are reducing revenues by 1. 13 trillion. The net of that is 204 billion in savings. So you have you reduce spending, you reduce revenues because the tax provisions, the net the net of spending and revenue comes to 204. Its 1. 35 . Its 1. 35 net. Okay. Thats with all the various changes of the subsidies. Medicaid savings. Thats all rolled into the 1. 335 trillion over ten years. The ahca effectively ends the acas Medicaid Eligibility expansion, converts medicaid to a per capita cap or block grant and makes other changes to the program. How much in medicaid savings are you assuming then from the ahca . I think its approximately 830 billion or approximately is 8 what is its . Its approximately 830 billion over ten we can get you the exact the exact number. Okay. We assume what was given from the house passed version of the ahca. Right. Everything is from the ahca passed version. Extrapolated out for one more year, like the 11th year. Thats why the numbers may seem unusual because were used to seeing the fiscal year 17 through 26 number which is approximately 119 billion. Why youre seeing the 204 is because we have extrapolated that to the extra year of 2027. So its a score thats over a different ten year period than the one that everyone is aware of. All right. This is about work requirements. The budget goes beyond the ahca and supports a mandatory work requirement for certain adults on medicaid. How much savings are you assuming from this change . Approximately 110 billion, over ten. The budget goes beyond the ahca and encourages states to institute changes like cost sharing for working age adults and medicaid among others. How much in medicaid savings are you assuming from this policy . I dont think i dont think weve got that number. Will you get that . Wed be glad to. Sure. Okay. The budget goes beyond the ahca and purports to restore quote unquote parity for medicaid payments. How much in medicaid savings are you assuming from this policy and what are the policy assumptions generating the savings . Maam, sorry, my name is brittany madny, i handle this function for the Budget Committee. We assume approximately 2 billion in savings give for medicaid recipients. Well, if you can share the data that you achieve by talking to energy, enc and cbo that would be helpful in responding to this question. Yes, maam. Thank you. Does the 1. 35 trillion figure reflect savings from other changes to medicaid . How much, are there savings from things like the childrens Health Insurance program and if so how much . No, theres no savings within the again, the American Health care act. There are no s chip savings included in that number. So theres no change in policy in s chip . Theres a change of policy but its not included in the health care the Health Care Reform act. Its not included the number i read you 1. 335 trillion theres nothing in that number related to s chip. Is there some way we get what you you get for the savings . Yeah. Were making reforms in s chip but its separate from oka. Can that be provided to us . Yes. That would be helpful. I yield back. I recognize the Ranking Member. Thank you. Moving to the education function for a minute, the budget proposes a total of 210 billion in cuts to mandatory function 500 programs over ten years. What assumptions are behind that estimate . Madam chair, and mr. Yarn mouth, most are on the student loan reforms. We have emily goff that can provide some of the details but its primarily on the student loan section. Doing reforms, trying to does that touch pell grants as well . No, because the this budget like past republican budgets is putting pell grant in a discretionary not a mandatory program. Okay. The budget is focusing on investment in career and technical career programs. Is it fair to assume that your budget increases funding for School Choice and career and technical programs . If so, by how much . We dont make any assumptions regarding School Choice at all. Now moving to the veterans function. The budget has savings of 49 billion over ten years in mandatory veterans programs. What policies does that reflect and do you assume the president s policy regarding changes to individual unemployability . Our budget does not accept the president s proposal on the unemployability, but we make a number of other policy changes that wed again i mean, again, those numbers are something that is at the discretion of the Veterans Affairs committee as to how to actually meet them. But its a whole range of policy assumptions to get to that number. All right. This relates to the crown victims fund. What is the 16 billion reduction in mandatory Budget Authority in the justice function in 2018 . That is simply related to a recision of a buildup surpluses that are in there, in the Crime Victims Fund that wont be spent anyway. The deficit reduction the committee will have a whole they have consistently used savings to provide an offset in their bills . No, i dont believe we grabbed the whole surplus. There are still i believe, you know, we can verify but i think theres still some surplus funds in that trust fund. Okay. Or Crime Victims Fund. Mr. Higgins . Mr. Higgins from new york is recognized. Thank you, madam chair. Sir, you had indicated that your budget blueprint achieves 6. 5 trillion in deficit reduction, resulting in a 9 billion surplus in the year 2027, approximately ten years from now. Thats correct. Okay. How does the budget propose to get there . Well, madam chairman, thats a great question. Its through the hard work of every member in our committee. We met for, oh, geez, i mean we have been working i think two or three times a week since january on this budget with the members of the committee. So its a series of decisions, its a series of compromises. Its a series of changing economics. Its change of looking at various programs where we can save money from a lot of reforms. Sir, i dont question the work ethic. Im just saying its a whole series of decisions. Right. But projecting budget growth and thus in your plan deficit reduction what are the assumptions that go into a very bold statement about eliminating budgetary deficits entirely and the amount of 6. 5 trillion in ten years . Whats your Economic Growth projection . Oh, the Economic Growth projection as i mentioned in my opening overview is that we believe that we want to improve upon the cbo projections. Cbos projecting 1. 9 real gdp growth and our budget assuming 2. 6 of real gdp. That generates 1. 5 trillion in deficit reduction. Okay. Let me just i appreciate that. So in the last 17 years, the American Economy has grown on average each year about 2 . Youre projecting over the next ten years that youre going to improve that Economic Performance by 0. 6 each year. How do you do that . Oh, ill let my chief economist andy dr. Morton answer that question. It is dr. Morton. Yes, sir. So this as rick mentioned at the outset, this is a is your microphone on, mr. Morton . Yes, it is. If youll move it a little closer. As rick mentioned this budget the committee is of this year, it is taking the approach of a post policy budget. Well, what does that mean . Well, what we mean by that, this budget assumes a series of what we believe are and expect to be pro growth reforms and that includes the house passed version of the the house passed American Health care act. Welfare reform. Comprehensive tax reform. The administrations Regulatory Reform. And spending based deficit reduction. The amount of which you have already mentioned and then we the economists such as john diamond and a former cbo director who testified before our committee. They both feel that with policies of this type as a package would that be in the realm then of whats referred to or characterized by neo economists as dynamic scoring . Well, macroeconomic feedback from stronger Economic Growth and in addition to those two economists, in a new paper released yesterday john taylor, john hogan, glenn hubbard, kevin wash all distinguished economists who also feel that this type of combination of pro growth policies can help us achieve higher Economic Growth. So its dynamic score . What youre proposing to do is take policy actions today, theoretically, that will result in future Economic Growth which is the assumption that you base your deficit elimination on. Correct. I think so its a modern view of a latter day view of supplyside economics . In other words, a policy whereby corporations, wealthy individuals, experience tax savings and then that money finds its way back into the economy in new investment and job growth. Yarmouth,hair and mr. Im not sure that the committee would agree with that characterization exactly, but i think its fair to say that as andy described the pro growth policies of our budget when implemented will generate more Economic Growth, more job creation, more people so that by definition is dynamic scoring . Im trying to get you to that point. I think for a budgetary perspective, dynamic scoring refers to a piece of particular legislation or in the spending or revenue world where it is projected that that particular legislation has a macroeconomic feedback effect. Were talking more broadly, its more than dynamic scoring i. s scoring. Its more of a pro growth agenda to get more people working, paying taxes, thus more revenue is generated to the federal government. But inclusive of dynamic scoring a component . Were budget guys so we like to look at things from the budgetary perspective rather than the broader, you know, economic perspective. Let me tell you what my concern is. Mr. Higgins, were moving into different territory. Were here not to debate philosophy or policy, but here to ask questions of the staff about the budget. Ill close i respect that, but i just i mean, if youre making very ambitious budgetary projections as it relates to budgetary deficit elimination over a ten year period, a deep understanding of the assumptions on which those ambitious budgetary goals are made i think are very, very relevant here. But well have the opportunity to debate that. If i may, just to clarify as i said we have 6. 5 trillion in deficit reduction over the ten year period. Only 1. 5 trillion is related to this macroeconomic or more pro growth policies. So its not the whole thing, but only a small portion. Ill get a rocket round in. Does the gentleman yield back . Thank you. Now i recognize the Ranking Member. Thank you very much. I have a rocket round now. Real quick questions. Simple yes or no answers . Thats fine. The budget assumes 700 billion from reducing improper payments across the government. Where do those savings appear in the functional disposition . Function 930. Government wide savings. So there are in the allowances function there are 817 billion in mandatory savings. What do they represent . Just stand up and say it. Mostly from the oh, what it is is thats a base line adjustment for the most part. Cbo will take from mandatory the discretionary side, they provide increases in Discretionary Spending that are over and above the caps. We take that expenditure out of the base line if you will and most is a base line adjustment for the bca. Got it. Lets see. In the indistributed receipts function, what does the rough 100 billion in savings represent . I mean, one of the ways that you can get there is to sell Strategic Petroleum reserve. Thats an option to get there. And spectrum savings are also part of to. In the discretion, what does it provide for the Program Integrity funding . I dont believe we make any specific assumptions on the numbers. We have the 302 allocation numbers that we provide to the Appropriations Committee. In the table of mandatory assumptions, we have talked through quite a few assumptions today, but theyre relative to the cbo base line. You shared a table outlining the pragmatic outlines will you do that again . I would be glad to. Does it assume funding from the 2020 census . It doesnt preclude funding. It does. In the function, does the budget assume the elimination of the block grants. It does. And as you know, that proposal has been in every republican budget since i have since the 90s. These are also illustrative options. What else is assumed within the 7. 2 billion cult in 2018 for function 450 . Okay. Theres once again theres multiple ways you can multiple options to get there. One example is this is for 450 mandatory or discretionary . Discretionary. Okay. One example is to eliminate fema preparedness nondisaster grants. Thats an option that can get you savings of about 10. 9 billion over ten years. Thank you. On the question of federal employees, how much of the savings in the budget are attributed to cuts to medical Employee Compensation and benefits . Its 122 billion from oversight and government reform. What policies does that assume . Just a second. Go ahead. Okay. One example this is for function 600 which is where federal retirees outlay. First 5050 match we move the first employees to the 50 of the normal cost of their defined benefit plan. Okay. Almost done. Almost done, thank you. This is related to revenues. Your estimate that you estimate that your proposals will yield enough additional Economic Growth to reduce deficits by 1. 8 trillion and you allocate 100 billion to allocate tax reform. Does this mean you wont credit any more to the tax bill as it moves through the process . Madam chairman, thats one of the misnomers i think a thats been reported. Thats im glad you asked that question. What the what that 300 billion represents is simply this. As you just as you just alluded to, if you take the 2. 6 real gdp growth and apply that to the cbo rules of thumb of projected deficit reduction in the future youre right. It would create 1. 8 trillion in deficit reduction over the ten year period. We are only including we are only in calculating 1. 5 trillion of that 1. 8 as part of our 6. 5 trillion deficit reduction. We are not counting that 300 billion not to make a policy decision as to say that the future dynamic effect or macroeconomic effect of tax reform will be 300 billion. Were not saying that. Were just simply saying we wanted to avoid any sort of appearance that we are double counting the macroeconomic effect to help reduce the deficit and also theoretically be involved in any potential scoring of tax reform in the future. I mean, the number is 300 billion. And weve got we arrived at that 300 billion number. We went back to look at past public and private objections of comprehensive tax reform and the average was around the 300 billion. Thats why we backed out the 300 billion. But in no way does that imply or create any type of limitation or any type of reserve for macroeconomic feedback from tax reform. Because we dont know what tax reform is. Again, contrary to some of the comments i mean, we dont know what ways and means is going to propose but we know theyll do something and there will be obviously a macroeconomic feedback or whatever they propose. Well, then my last question, you assume a revenue neutral tax deficit neutral. Deficit neutral. Yes. Since the tax plans that have been out there have estimated to lose between 3 trillion and 7 trillion, does that mean youre not embracing the tax plans put out by House Republicans and President Trump . It doesnt make a value judgment. Again as i mentioned thats why i mentioned at the beginning. We are not the ways and means committee, believe me if i try to tell the committee what ways and means would do, i would get a phone call. The chairman would get a phone call from the Speakers Office and that is not what we do. So we do not sort of predict or proscribe to the ways and means its purely up to them to decide the policies. Thank you very much. And chairman black, mr. May and the staff, thank you very much for your responses and we have no further questions. Wed be glad to answer any others the gentleman yields vice chair is recognized. I thank the chairman and the staff as well. Its a pleasure to continue working with you. You do great work. I have a series of questions related to a specific area of the budget and please dont take the questions as a comment on your work, but just i do want to make a recommend. I have a series of questions related to a specific area of the budget. Aease dont take this as comment of your work. But i do want to make a record. Mr. May, youre familiar with hr 2997 the 21st century innovation and reform authorization act. Yes, we are. We take that concept in this budget we do not accept that concept at all. Any of our numbers. So we do provide a Deficit Neutral Reserve Fund in the budget tomorrow section. That deficit neutral reserve is there to forgive the to give the congress, the house flexibility in regarding the budget score keeping components of whatever the house decides to do regarding fair enough. So youre not providing a proposal for no. For hr 2997. No, were providing a scoring mechanism or scoring following up on that the cbo cbo the commercial Budget Office produced a cost estimate on hr 2997 and for the record i mentioned that this concept or at least the budgetary aspects of the concept were provided for in last years budget as well. Or continuing that on. So thats not necessarily new. But the july 11, 2017 document from cbo, the cost estimate, are you familiar with that document . Yes, we are. Well give you a copy as well. Without objection i would like to enter it into the record. Without objection. Thank you. On page 3 of the cbo cost estimate it concludes that direct spending will increase by 90. 7 billion over the ten year window. And it will it concludes that revenues will increase by 70 billion, creating a net deficit over the window of 20. 70 billion according to cbo. So the cost of this concept according to cbo are 20. 7 billion over ten years. Do you agree . Thats a great question. Youre nodding your head for the record. Its not a question of whether the Budget Committee agrees or disagrees. We have been working with tni for a number of actually several years on this. We have the scoring of that the scoring that is related to cbos determination that it is a new mandatory spending will occur, we are see the Budget Committee has been involved in making a reduction in the discretionary caps in the future to do the shift from governmental to from governmental to well, what cbo is continuing the governmental. Omb i dont want to speak for omb the question is not about omb. But under this document in cbo they said theyre extrapolating faa costs of running atc over a ten year period. [ please stand by ] the reason is because of this concept called a reserve fund. Thaerjt. Reserve funds are included for budget enforcement capabilities or provisions and for things that are yet to be determined. We havent been making assumptions. But from a budgetary standpoint its policy neutral. You have evidence of 27. 7 billion and were going ignore that in this budget document and just say just assume zero. Were not making any assumptions one anything regarding the atc. We dont assume it as a savings. We dont assume it as a deficit with regard to other concepts in bills not made into law, do you act the same way . Same exact way. Any new consentcept that were adopting treat it as a reserve fund. Yes. The president for example has talked about the budget regarding an infrastructure new program. Theres a lot of details. A lot of uncertainty as to how thats going to work. Whos you know, the revenue streams, is it a spending, discretionary or a mandatory spending. We simply cant define something that is not sort of kind of okay. The final question and then ill yield back. Why is this in the budget then . Because the committee of jurisdiction has asked us to provide score keeping flexibility. Its a flexibility purpose. Why is it even in the budget . I mean, if youre not going to score it, if its not law . Its a reserve fund. Because it just facilitating the ability of the committee and the chairman of that committee to try to address the budgetary issues that are relating to the policy. Its simply a score keeping mechanism. Policy neutral. Doesnt make any value judgments one way or the other. I thank the staff for their quality work and time. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. Any other questions . Seeing none i recognize the vice chair. Madam chairman, i ask unanimous consent that the following letters supporting the budget resolution and our efforts today be entered into the record including letters from the u. S. Chamber of commerce, and americans for tax reform. Without objection so ordered. Thank you. I yield back. If there are no additional questions this includes the staff walk through. I thank all the witnesses. We will now provide with the staff 02 18 34 Diane Lynn Black Diane Lynn Black we will now proceed with consideration of the fiscal year 2018 concurrent resolution on the budget under Committee Rule number 9, the committee will consider a document contains ing the budget aggregates and other components of the budget resolution. Amendments may be offered to this document subject to the agreement between the majority and the minority. After this the document has been proofed and it will be incorporated into the text of the concurrent resolution on the budget for the final vote on whether to report the measure to the house. The committee now will proceed to the consideration of the budget aggregates functional categories and other appropriate matters. This is identical to the tables distributed to the minority and posted on our website on tuesday morning. The Ranking Member and i have reached an agreement to ensure that theres ample opportunity for members to offer amendments. We will conclude markup no later than midnight to accommodate our floor votes and committee markups. I ask for consent for a roll call vote. Without objection, so ordered. We will debate seven amendments and then hold a series of roll call votes for which a roll call vote was requested. And that will be for those that are requested. We will repeat this process three additional times until all 28 members excuse me all 28 amendments have been considered and voted on. Consistent with mr. Yard mouth i ask for unanimous concept it will be read and open for an amendment at any point. The amendments considered will be submitted with the Ranking Member, and the amendments be organized into two years, tier one and two tier. And the debate time will be limited to 14 minutes and tier two will be limited to eight minutes. Debate time will be evenly divided between the sponsor of the amendment and the member opposed. The proponent of the amendments will have one minute reserve to close. So they must reserve that time for their close because that is considered in their total. Without objection, so ordered. We will now proceed to the amendments. The amendments will be considered in numerical order on the list on the dias in front of you. Are there any amendments . Yes, madam chair, i have an amendment. The clerk will designate the amendment and the staff will distribute copies of the amendment. Does everyone have one . Number one offered by representative Wasserman Schultz to reject the 02 21 36 debbie Wasserman Schultz debbie Wasserman Schultz American Health care act. Mrs. S with aerman Wasserman Schultz is recognized for six minutes. Thank you. Im offering this on behalf of the sick, disabled and those hard working across the country. There was a death blow to the Cruel Health Care plan and yet somehow it includes the. Insidious repeal of the Affordable Care act. My amendment will change that. I force my colleagues to face the repeal of the aca simply isnt going to happen. Do not go back to the days when Health Insurance companies could discriminate against those with preexisting conditions. And we will not bring back out of pocket costs for Many Services or strip the ability of to stay on the parents insurance until theyre 26. Its time r time for republicans to drop their plans to give massive tax cuts to completely gut medicaid and to give out tax breaks to the wealthiest and most fortunate. Instead, my republican colleagues should work with us to update and improve the Affordable Care act so we can come together and truly make sure that we expand not decrease access to quality Affordable Health care. Every american deserves access to Affordable Health care and i hope that trump and colleagues will work 02 23 30 Hakeem Jeffries Hakeem Jeffries with us. I yield one minute to mr. Jeffreys. On the trumpcare every day americans will pay more and get less. Trumpcare will increase costs. It will increase copays and increase premiums and increase the deductibles. It will deprive 23 million americans of Affordable Health care coverage. Trumpcare will impose a draconian age tax on people between the ages of 50 and 64 causing them to have to pay up to five times more and it will strip people of protection with preexisting conditions. The Affordable Care act has. Worked for the American People. We should focus on strengthening its, not destroying it which is why i support this amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield one minute 02 24 26 Suzan Delbene Suzan Delbene to congresswoman dell benny. Thank you very much and im pleased to support ms. Wasserman schultz amendment. Its time to start working with democrats on solutions to give People Better coverage at lower costs. The dangerous Republican Health care repeal which is included in this budget would make people pay more for less and devastate middle class families across the country. It would move our countrys Health Care System backward, leave tens of millions without coverage and saddle more with skyrocketing costs. The annual and lifetime caps on care, gutting protections for preexisting conditions is not the way forward. We can and we must do better. Lets Work Together to strengthen our Health Care System, lets reduce costs for Small Businesses, expand access to care in Rural Communities and lower the cost of prescription drugs. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. Thank you. I shared many times and i share again the experience i went through when i spent a year battling Breast Cancer. I was diagnosed at 41 years old. On one day i was the picture of health. The next day i was a cancer patient. Getting diagnosed with cancer is like getting hit with an anvil or frankly getting diagnosed with any serious life threatening illness is devastating. What is devastating is the realization that you not only before the Affordable Care act had to fight for your life, but before the Affordable Care act you had to fight your Insurance Company to make sure that you got the coverage that you had paid for. Too many stories that i have heard where women struggling with Breast Cancer had to choose before the Affordable Care act to either get the chemo or the radiation because they couldnt afford the copays and deductibles on both. I have shared many times and i will share again the many times i have gone through when i spent a yield a year battling Breast Cancer. I was diagnosed at 41 years old. On one day i was the picture of health. The next day i was a cancer patient. Getting diagnosed with cancer is like getting hit with an anvil or frankly getting diagnosed with any serious life threatening illness is devastating. What is devastating is the realization that you not only before the Affordable Care act had to fight for your life, but before the Affordable Care act you had to fight your Insurance Company to make sure that you got the coverage that you had paid for. Too many stories that i have heard where women struggling with Breast Cancer had to choose before the Affordable Care act to either get the chemo or the radiation because they couldnt afford the copays and deductibles on both. That is a choice that no one should have to face. And if we now that we have the Affordable Care act its the law of the land, no one does have to face that. So the language this this legislation and this budget would take us back to the nightmarish days that too many people, 129 million americans who live with a preexisting in this country preexisting conditions in this country have to live with every single day. Madam chair, the American People have sent a strong message that they believe the health care should be a right for all, not a privilege enjoyed only by the wealthy few. Now that the efforts to repeal the Affordable Care act have come to an end, once and for all its time for republicans to work with democrats in an effort to update and improve it. Not scuttle it. Thank you. I urge a yes vote on my amendment. I yield back. In opposition to this amendment, i recognize myself for seven minutes. You know what democrats wont talk about is how obamacare is harming millions of individuals. Health care costs are skyrocketing. We see patients choices are dwindling. As a matter of fact, in my state of tennessee, premiums for those that are on the exchange have risen by 65 and in some place in this country they have risen by over 100 . There are markets in my own state of tennessee where theres not even a single provider left to provide insurance for people to seek care under the obamacare. And millions are forced to pay a penalty. And you know with that penalty many times they dont get anything, so theyre paying for nothing. Americans have Health Insurance on paper, many times, but they dont have access to Affordable Care. Thats because they may get help with the premiums but the deductibles are so high they cant afford the deductibles. In my state of tennessee thats whos making 35 to 40,000 a year can afford a deductible of 8 to 10,000. If the program was working we wouldnt see this happening. There would be more access to care. So instead of expanding the number of individuals by making coverage more affordable, obamacare actually penalizes americans who do not buy health care plans. Also, because they cant afford to. That meets the standards of what the washington bureaucrats have set up. So lets take a look at this. According to the irs in 2016, 6. 5 million americans paid 3 billion for a penalty. And did not receive any care for that. 3 billion and received no care and more than 12. 7 million claimed an exemption from the penalty. That means they didnt feel that what they could buy was even worth it. Thats roughly 20 Million People who decided that obamacare is not worth the trouble or the price. So the plan passed by the house moves from the top down government mandate, forces individuals into health care that they dont want to a plan that gives them a choice. Something that they decide that they want or coverage that they can afford and a plan that suits their needs. Id like to now yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. Johnson. Thank you, madam chair. I can certainly empathize with my colleague, ms. Wasserman shultz on her health condition. Im a cancer survivor, my mother is, my brother is. And ive got thousands and thousands of people in my district that are as well. Unfortunately, many of those people have been the victim of a failed law that no longer is protecting them. I know we talk about coverage for preexisting conditions often, but i wonder what the people in the 18 counties in ohio who have been informed that anthem is pulling out and that they will have no choice of an insurance carrier on the exchange. I wonder what those people are going to do that have preexisting conditions when they dont have a choice . For a health care provider. The news just continues to get more dire it seems like day to day. And its important that we as lawmakers take the important steps to repeal and replace this failing law with one thats going to work for all americans. I can tell you that the cbo confirms that most of the as it pertains to the american heat care act, most of the drop in coverage is attributed to the repeal of the mandate and those millions of people that are not going to choose to buy a product that they dont want, that they dont need and that they might not be able to afford. The house passed the American Health care act on may 4th and this is the official position of the house at this time regarding Obamacare Repeal and replace efforts and our budget the budget that were working on today reflects that. So i join my chairwoman black to oppose this amendment and remember that ultimately what were trying to do and what we did with the American Health care act and our budget reflects that is to give the American People more choice to Higher Quality access to Affordable Health care. Theres a big difference between coverage and access because i have heard it mentioned already when youve got an 18,000 a year premium and a 9,000 a year deductible, thats 27,000 out of a couples pocket before the insurance pays a dime. Thats unacceptable and thats what were trying to rectify. So i urge a no vote on this budget, madam chair and i yield back. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from georgia, mr. Ferguson. Thank you, chairwoman black. We hear stories back home at what the Affordable Care act doing to middle class families. Ill share an example. I have a friend of mine back home whos a consultant. His wife is an educator and they now spend twothirds twothirds of her salary on Health Insurance. They pay more for Health Insurance than they do their house. And this is not a wealthy couple. Hes an entrepreneur. I hear this from every Small Business owner. I hear this across the board. We have got to keep fighting to repeal the Affordable Care act. And we have got to make sure that we dont continue to grow the mandatory spending in this nation in an unchecked manner. We have to reel that in. We have to be fiscally responsible. If not, we will continue to destroy middle class families and their incomes because of the law. Most importantly, well continue to put the most vulnerable in our nation at risk and that is something we have to recognize because fiscal calamity puts those most vulnerable in the most precarious positions. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Wasserman schultz, youre recognized for one minute to close. I want to yield my time. I thank you for yielding and i want to say how strongly i support this amendment. We have seen that the American People have rejected trumpcare. They rejected attempts at health care that dont actually provide better quality, Affordable Care for millions of americans across the country. Thats why the bill failed in the senate. Thats why republicans in the senate would not vote for this bill because if we are going to take away benefits that americans need, preexisting conditions, the ability for seniors to be in Nursing Homes, the ability for people to get medicaid, then the American People dont want it. Regardless of whether youre republican or a democrat. Regardless of whether you live in a red state or a blue state. So this amendment is a common sense amendment that reflects the will of the American People to get affordable and Quality Health care. I hope that we will all pass this amendment so that we can serve the American People. I yield back. The gentle ladys time has expired. The question on the all those in favor say aye. All those opposed. No. Request to record the vote. The record of the vote is requested. And we will postpone the recorded vote until we have finished the debate on this stack of second amendments. Amendments. Are there other amendments . Madam chair i have an amendment at the desk. Number two. Okay, thank you. This is amendment number two and the clerk will designate the amendment and the staff will distribute copies of the amendment. Number two offered by representative jackson lee relates to medicaid. Ms. Jackson lee, youre recognized for six minutes. Youre recognized for six minutes. Then one minute to close. Thank you so very much. Let me thank the claire and the Ranking Member. I urge adoption of the jackson lee amendment which restores federal funding to medicaid. Tragically a vote is pending in the United States senate to repeal the life line of the American People. I would argue as a good boy scout and girl scout would not do, this is like throwing gasoline on a campfire in the forest. And literally burning the entire forest down. This will provide major upheaval to the American People and the life line that they expect to provide them with the health care will be absolutely gone. Today, medicaid provides coverage to more than 74 million americans including children, pregnant women and seniors. In addition to doctor and hospital visits, the Long Term Services like Nursing Homes and Community Based services. Number two on the jackson lee amendments rejects cuts in policies harmful to vulnerable populations. The republican budget reflects the American Health care aca which drains roughly 1 trillion over ten years. Two policies drive this massive funding cuts, capping the federal payment and cutting 774 billion from medicaid, just to do tax cuts for the rich. The jackson lee amendment should be passed because it rejects converting medicaid to a per capita block grant. Listen to this story. 9 11 tax dollars were supposed to be used on resources and they were sent to the states and they used it for other things. Thats what block grants will be doing. The states will be using the money for other things. Number four reason to support the amendment it rejects ending the Medicaid Expansion under the aca. A young lady named brittany who lives with autism who depends wholly on the idea of medicaid to give her quality of life so she can buy food and have housing, that will be dashed because of the bill that is underlying the budget that cuts so much for the rich. The jackson lee rejects adding a work requirement to medicaid. Ablebodied persons are on medicaid. What about matthew who has a chronic illness that caused him 73,000 in the last six months and 700,000 over a two year period . A young man who looks ablebodied but is suffering from chronic illness. This is what the cutting of medicaid will do to all. And what about the idea of those preemie babies or maternal help that will be voided . One with the repeal, one with the proposal that was represented in this room as trumpcare of which the president of the United States himself says that the house bill was mean. The jackson lee amendment provides the opportunity to balance the budget by reducing tax expenditures for the top 1 of income earners. Thats how we pay for the jackson lee amendment. Cancel the tax breaks for egregious ceo bonuses when employees dont get a raise and employees get raises from Corporate America that are doing quite well. Wages are not stagnant. Corporations can make humanitarian decisions that impact the stockholders as well. Let americans work for good salaries. Pay them the good salaries. Close loopholes in the international Corporate Tax system that encourages companies to invert and shift jobs and profits overseas. Close the carried interest loophole taxing hedge fund managers. Talk to the hedge fund persons. This is a way to createdialogue to provide an option to the draconian budget that wants to slash and burn and follow the senates pathway of repealing repealing health care as a life line for the American People. I would ask that mycolleagues support the jackson lee amendment and i would like to reserve my time. Is there a member that would claim time and opposition to this amendment . Chairman id like to yield to the gentle lady from washington state. I apologize. Ms. Jackson lee, you still do have time. I apologize. You are recognized. Thank you, madam chair, thank you for yielding. I rise instrong support of the amendment. In the many cruel assumptions that the budget is relied on, the most cruel is relying on trumpcare to Gut Health Care while transferring nearly 1 trillion in tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations. I think we heard from republican governors and republican senators about the need for this incredible program. Twothirds of all seniors in our country depend on medicaid funding and 60 of all kids with disabilities actually rely on dicaid coverage. Whats more 11 million americansacross 31 states have benefitted under the Affordable Care act. Madam chair, nearly half of the majority side of this Committee Comes from a state that has accepted Medicaid Expansion. In my home state ofwashington under this budget resolution 613,000 residents will lose coverage. It is unacceptable and i urge our colleagues to adopt this amendment and make sure we protect our medicaid recipients across the country. I yield back. Madam chair, if i may take the remaining few seconds. To point to someones neighbor, someones mother, someones friend, a senior citizen, who will be devastated by thisbudget and the loss of dollars to medicaid. The Vulnerable Children, working families and Senior Citizens in the gentle ladys time is expired. Is there a member who would like to claim time and opposition . I claim time. The gentlelady used the term vulnerable. What medicaid is supposed to be. Health care for the most vulnerable, for our poor. It has become not that. Budget aims tor correct. Medicaid was created in 1965 as an openended Entitlement Program and has not been changed since. Theres no one here that thinks that how things were done in 1965 is anywhere related hardly how we opened operate today. Every one of our 50 states has some sort of waiver for the Medicaid Program that the gentlelady is talking about. If every state has some kind of waiver, as definition it does not work. We ought to be block granting these funds to the stain and let them decide who is poor. Who really needs the help. What kind of help they need. And, how they should best get it. There we so arrogant, some buzz, up here in washington to ink that we know what is best for everyone. If you truly care about the most honorable, then you would care nout making sure there is waste, fraud, and abuse in the system so those funds can get to the most vulnerable. The Government Accountability office has designated the agency thatedicaid the gentlelady defends as a High Risk Program and they have been doing it since 2003. If medicaid stays on its trajectory, total spending will cause 1 trillion every year. We should be measuring our success by how many people do not need medicaid and anymore. How many people we can successfully get off the program. Not how many more people we can trap inside of it not working. Without i would like to yield to minister the gentleman from arkansas. Thank you for gentleman from indiana. Madam chair as we look at this issue with medicaid i agree with the comments from a colleague. It is for the most formidable. But if we take a step back and look a with the Affordable Care act is for medicaid, they have it expanded Medicaid Services not for the blind, the disabled, the elderly. They provided Free Health Care 1864yearolds who are ablebodied, working age adults who simply fell below a threshold for income. These people need help but also need help getting back into the job market. We have in this Budget Proposal or resolution to work requirements for ablebodied aged,g aged, not for blind, or disabled. This is a program not unlike what president clinton signed into law. If you truly want to help americans, we will help them to goodpain. At are we see examples where maintenance is due to welfare changes int required 2014 and within one year the adults that had these work requirements experienced 114 income rise on average. Kansas had similar results. In comes rose on average 127 in the first year. We have a labor problem across our country. Record low unemployment. Even with record low unemployment, we have less people employed than we had eight years ago. Labor Participation Rate has dropped all across the country. Employers want to expand. The jobs are out there. We just have to get people motivated to work and we can use these programs was sensible work requirements to get people back in the job market. With that, i yield back. I yield back. I think the gentleman. I recognize the gentleman from florida, mr. Gates, for four minutes. It is not every day the sponsor this amendment find yourself at odds with former president clinton but there are two circumstances where that is the case today. President clinton who called obamacare crazing and i think is right. This amendment would restore features of obamacare. Resume monthly the gentlelady would have us believe in a opened im capped system is what is best. The former president disagreed reads having stated, a per capita cap approach guarantees the elderly, disabled, and pregnant women and children meeting certain criteria the dust criteria will continue to be eligible for benefits. The truth is the cruelty and health care is telling people they have coverage and then not providing them access to a physician. Now, in america, we have one in four of every american on medicaid. One out of every three are on medicaid with obamacare. That means a hardworking american has got to pay for the whole cost of their own health care and then half of somebody elses. Medicare is important for the disabled, vulnerable, seniors, children. We do nothing for the vulnerable when we jam more people into a system that is already failing them. That is why i support the republican approach in this budget. Lets go ahead and accept the fact that washington has utterly failed in managing the Medicaid Program. No benefits. Our states are doing better. Across his country when states are able to innovate they are showing Better Health care outcomes. Costs. More access. That is why i strongly support block medicaid so we can have a strong system where in the laboratories of democracy we have the opportunity to try Different Things to succeed and actually deliver a Higher Quality Health Care Product to the people of their states. That is the federalism our forefathers promised in the very principles the republicans on this committee will continue to defend. I think the gentleman in i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. Representative Sheila Jackson is represented for one minute until close. Jackson i heard this morning in a number of members said they would jackson i heard this morning a number of members said they would keep an open mind. States are not. The vulnerable will be harmed by the underlying budget and as i person, youngs babies, Senior Citizens will be harmed. Let me be very clear to the American People, certain rules will mean you will not have medicaid for the vulnerable. Senior citizens who are in Nursing Homes. Young mothers. Those have chronic illnesses like young britney with autism. You will not have health care. You will have a state that will take block granted medicaid dollars. Crenshaw time is expired. I believe an amendment can be fiscally responsible but it will save lives and i ask for support. Amendment offered by mr. X, all this in favor say aye. The nose have it. Nos have it. We will postpone the recorded wrote. Vote. Are there other amendments. Madam chair, i have an amendment i would like to offer. At your amendment number is number three. We will distribute. Amendment number three offered on preventing tax increases on low income and middleclass families. Mr. Boylans recognize for six minutes. Thank you madam chair. The goal of this amendment is very straight forward. Opposes any tax increase on middleclass or low income families. Including any reduction in refundable tax credits. Madam chairman, i hope we can actually have some bipartisan support for this amendment. Certainly, probably on members of this committee at one point or another have claimed to have opposed tax increases on the class and low income families. Allou reasons i would ask members to support this amendment. First, middle class and low income families have seen their wages stagnating for decades. For over 35 years, middle income and low income families have seen little if any increase in their economic wellbeing. It has been a problem for both chronic and republican administrations. Even as the wealthy are getting richer and richer, wealthier than at any point in American History, most everyone else has been left behind. For example, in 1979 from 19792013, real income for the wealthy rosen about 200 . For those the bottom 80 , it grew just over 40 . This understates the stagnation those inamericans as the lower half of the income scale have seen no real increase in their average income for 35 years. The last thing these families need is a tax increase. While these families have seen their wages stagnate, they are child caregling with costs, housing costs, and education. The very last thing they need to see his lower takehome pay through higher taxes. The Trump Campaign tax plan would keep would raise taxes on millions of lower income and middleclass families. During the 2016 president ial campaign, thencandidate trump released a tax plan eliminating the personal exemption and eliminating the house of household head of household status. Even in culmination with the standard deduction, repealing these two deductions would raise taxes on more than 8 million families. That encompasses more than 26 million americans. By repealing the personal exemption, the trump plan would raise taxes on many families that have more than two children and by repealing the head of household filing status, the trump plan would raise taxes on families raised by a single parent. Even accounting for other changes, the result was large or singleparent families making lower middle income would see their taxes increase even as millionaires and billionaires would be getting massive tax cuts. I also want to remind this committee when i mentioned a few hours ago in my Opening Statement, the cuts to refundable tax credits will raise taxes on low income families. The president s budget cuts the Child Tax Credit and the earned income tax credit by a combined 40 billion by changing the requirements on newly eligible. Those are millions of families that would be paying higher taxes as a result of this budget. So please join with me in large, loud, bipartisan signal that we will not accept higher taxes on the working poor and the middle support me inse this amendment. But that, i would reserve for mike close. Close. Opposition . I claim time. The gentleman. Recognize for seven minutes. I just, madam chairman. Recognized for seven minutes. Chairman. Dam it is unfortunate most of what he said is inaccurate. This suggests it would raise taxes on families and single point parent households. This is disingenuous. This calls for tax reform policies. In regard to the earned income tax issue he raises, our budget would reduce improper payments by about 40 billion. He calls that a cut. I have a copy of the gao report, which we had earrings with the comptroller general who pointed out the earned income tax credit billion dollars in 2016 alone. So basically we are trying to cut one fourth of the improper payments through fraud by requiring the individuals who get these earned income tax credits show proof they are eligible by submitting the Social Security number for their children. In the way earned income tax error rate. 24 these are the issues we are trying to fix. We are having to borrow money to send out fraudulent payments and pay interest on fraudulent payments. So i do not think it is improper for this committee to pursue necessary measures to reduce that. I would like to yield two minutes to my friend jason lewis, the gentleman from minnesota. Let me a my colleagues on the other side that no one on this side wants to raise taxes on anybody. That is c whole point of this rather strangeis amendment assumes thats the case and yet our budget resolution calls for increasing and thatard deduction is going to lower the rates on everyone. Code. Fy the you could stick with the same and continue down this misguided path and leave the loopholes to the political connected. With think having lower rates for more people with everybody being treated the same way. Remind my colleagues or i should say, let me reiterate that some of my colleagues seem to be surprised that tax reductions are actually going to had their taxes raised under the Affordable Care act under the last administration. Those tax hikes all of a sudden is a great giveaway. It was not a giveaway one john f. Kennedy the marginal rates in the early 1950s leading to a decade of growth. It wasnt a giveaway when bill built taxashed and reform. Note him across were plagued by partisanship. They saw an economy growing the benefited everybody. But this not a function of more government spending. It is a function of risk and the high task rates on the other side constantly promotes and discourages risks. I vote no and i yield back. Thank you and i agree with the gentleman from pennsylvania has used ideas coming out of the trump budget, not the budget in front of us and i think that is important. This budget really says were supposed to an act program simplified tax reform. Deficitneutral, budgetneutral. It does not talk about many of the issues the gentleman from pennsylvania is talking about but as a cpa and someone who has than time creating more 2000 jobs i do know how born a tax code is. And that is why we have to progrowth protax tax reform. To assure hardworking americans to keep more of their hardearned money instead of how anything to spend it on compliance. Having to spend it on compliance. To help all americans by spurring Economic Growth and providing more job opportunities. I suggest we look at the simplification. Of the issues, we have tax codes, more than 100 pages of irs instructions. 218 words and more than 80 line items on form 1040. We should be working together to simplify progrowth tax reform. I urge a vote of no on this. Thank you. I want to point out the bureau of labor statistics put out a category called productivity and cost. That includes composition. Since 19 the new three, total compensation this measured by the bureau of labor statistics and has actually gone up 30 . Employers include things like health care. Since 2009, that has increase from 509 per employee to 1121 plus another 458 per month than employees are identifying their having to providing competition for healthcare related costs. The lesson no one to point out is in 1967, a manual income annual income by the end of 2014, that fell. Only 8. 1 of american households in 1967 and 100 thousand dollars, by 2014 that has gone up to 24. 7 . I think what we have is a growing up middleclass and the key that i would get across here is that we can argue over these argue fromwe need to the facts and the effects are the total conversation being provided by businesses to employees has actually gone up and i urge my colleagues to vote no. Id see gentleman yields back. Recognize for one minute to close. Asked to i madam chair. Madam chair. Ou i want to clarify a few statements mentioned on the other side. Reference was made to the kennedy tax code in the 1960s. Tax rates worsen definitely hired in the art today. That kennedy tax cut, even after the tax cut took place, rates were significantly higher than they are today. Even taking the top right. Even than the eisenhower, kennedy years they were in the 6570 rate. Even the Ronald Reagan taxes brought the taxes down to a level higher than they are today. So those are the simple facts and needed to be pointed out when we are talking about tax cuts. I cannot imagine being anyone anyone would want to go back to tax rates being as they were during the kennedy years. Nothing was really addressed with respect to the earned income tax credit. Mention was made about fraud but i see a lack of support or enthusiasm for the Actual Program which again incentivizes work, especially those in the working poor. This is one of the smartest tax credits we have. And you step tax bipartisan support on the other side. To i and i yield back. You and i yield back. Recorded vote is requested pursuant to the unanimous agreement we will put a recorded finished thishave batch of seven amendments. I have an amendment at the desk. This is amendment number four. Four offerednumber by representative yarmouth. Mr. Yarmouth, you are recognized for six minutes. Thank you. Weve been playing a game in this congress for several years now with statutory caps on spending. In tocaps were brought play by the budget control act of 2011 when they were thought to be so unattractive and so that theyly imprudent would spur negotiators into action to create a budget agreement. That budget agreement never happened and we were stuck with the whole notion of sequestration and budgetary caps. We should not be curtailing Important Services is for arbitrary restrictions. We have never love these caps to fully going to affect. The past, agreements have eased these amendments that we can adequately Fund Government funding in spirit of the original budget control act with a commitment to parity for defense and nondefense spending. To us to get to the negotiating table and find a way forward. We are not averse to lifting the defense cap but we are averse to leaving defense behind. That is exactly what happened with the trump Budget Proposal for 2018 went the administration billion a 50 400 andease and a cut nondefense. Nondefense discretionary Funding Provides resources for hundreds of programs that affect americans everyday from producing Innovative Research to enhancing the quality of our lives to make sure americas drinking clean water and breathing clean air and staying the worlds economic leader. The cap for defense spending matches the low for history as a percentage of economy. The chairmans mark brings that even lower. Over 10 years, i it gets worse. Billion in 2027. That is 18 cut in actual dollar amount. That is a cut of more than 220 billion from cbos baseline. An increase of more than 50 billion is a far cry from the parity and visioned by the budget control act. My memo would call on congress my amendment would call on congress. With that, i yield as much time as she consumes from my remaining time. Thank you. I rise in strong support of this amendment. We have to understand National Security is intricately linked with Economic Security and that is what were talking about will we talk about increasing and having parity between Discretionary Spending and defense spending. We cannot increase defense spending at the expense of our nondiscretionary because for everybody might be listening out there, what were talking about likescension of programs education, infrastructure, job screening, state department investment, research. One example, were cutting 19 of the state Department Budget in this proposed engine resolution. This is something that for military commanders, our generals, over 110 generals have been a letter and said, please dont increase the budget for diplomacy and development because we will need more bullets if you do that. So the idea for parity is really about making sure we understand that yes, this is important but we have to continue to invest the Economic Opportunities actually provide Economic Security for onions of americans across country and my fear is this spending cap have, if we continue down this path were going to dramatically reduce the investments we have. The investment dollars we have to invest in our communities and make sure we can provide people with opportunity. Provide people with education. Job training. All of the things that are so essential to our Economic Security. I thank you for allowing me to sport this amendment with these words and i yield back. Ask the gentlelady yield spec. As our member who would like to claim time in opposition to the amendment . There a member who would like to claim time in opposition to the amendment . You are recognize 48 minutes. Thank you madam chair. I would like to thank the Ranking Member for his comments in regards to this amendment. You know, i am new here and it understandr me to exactly what sequestration is, budget what the spending control act of 2011 was. It was hard for me to leave congress would allow arbitrary limits to stand in place rather than making decisions on our budget based on what we really believed met the needs. But the Ranking Members description of the budget is exactly correct. Congressn regards to as the amendment states, must again that negotiations to raise the limits and racy whole matter , i would agree with. We will need to get to that point. That defense level spending in this budget is a better response to the needs we have than the limits set are set by the control act. You know come the first duty of our federal government is to. Eep our families safe this includes protecting our nation against threats both foreign and domestic. This budget reflects the needs we have today. The budget is larger. More complex threats across the globe than in 20 11. Threats from north korea, isis, russia. The responsibility for drugs at home. Asserting our strength abroad. Is that withst provide our people the tools, resources, and pay they need to keep our country safe. Where i disagree with what this amendment and rise in opposition tiehe idea that we have to arbitrarily any particular areas of the budget to another. It does exactly what the budget control act did. It takes responsibility away from us to evaluate exactly what the needs are. So, in the same way that our defense spending number is based on our needs, the same way we make that decision, we should be doing that for many area of the budget and not just based on a spending level in another area. But in fact that is exactly what was done in the last omnibus appropriations bill that was byned in 2017 and agreed to former president obama. So, he rejected the idea that onetooneo be a spending or parity between defense and nondefense. In opposition. Se i asked members of the committee to oppose this bill for that reason. And i would like to yield two minutes of my time to representative bergman. Thank you mr. Chairman. Im going to leave an example here based upon what i think this means. We have nondiscretionary shall we just taken and split it 5050 . To me, that does not reflect anything in priority of a limited resource. Remember, i am a marine and we deal things very simply. Related. Defense are very deeply. Deputy of former defense general mullen said, our National Debt is the single biggest Security Threat to our country. Defense dollars in this budget are not just a fund. Instead, they are catchup dollars after eight years, sorely needed after eight years of underfunding the department of defense. We have servicemen in women who are tired, we have equipment that is broken. Recognized fort too long. It is our responsibility to provide for the common defense. Said another way, we guarantee the safety and security of all of our citizens. You know, there is an old saying that says, sometimes it is tough to remember what your priorities were in the swamp if the up a tree. Got you in this particular case i would say the alligator is the debt and we need to make sure that we are fully on what comes first. We need to have a strong defense. Not at the risk of other things. Balancing a prioritization which is our congressional responsibility to paradise these very limited resources. Limiteditize these very resources. Allocation of limited fiscal resources, i strongly encourage my colleagues to vote no on this back. Ent and i yield thank you. I yield back. The gentleman yield spec. You are recognized. This amendment reinstates the budget control act. The guiding principle of parity for defense and nondefense. A bipartisanhave agreement on the fact that the defense caps on too low, they need to be increase. Unfortunately the other side annot i remember when former chairman of the Appropriations Committee made the case very, very strenuously that the nondefense discretionary caps were too low fundsd not appropriate adequately at those levels. So we have already been through what these funds include. In americanograms people need and overwhelmingly support. I urge my colleagues to raise the cap so we can invest in our national priorities. I yield back. A question wass the amendment be accepted. All this in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The opinion of the chair, the no havent. Vote is requested pursuant to the unanimous current sent agreement we will abstain from event to we have finished debating the seven amendments. Are there other amendments . Have ms. Jackson lee here. We will recess to vote and will resume immediately after the vote. Announcer join us on cspan3 today for an American History tv live special, the 1967 detroit riots 50th anniversary. Heather Grant Thompson of the university of michigan and Detroit Free Press Editorial Page Editor stephen henderson. At 1 00 p. M. Eastern, former former detroitd free press journalist. The 50th anniversary of the 1967 detroit riots live today at noon eastern on cspan3. , journalist Cheryl Atkinson reports on house mirror tactics are used to influence public opinion. She is interviewed by washington whipple. A critic eric you hammer the Washington Post, who you feel is not properly reporting on this incident as opposed to saying, donald trump why are you smearing john mccain . You but thet Washington Post ever about. Not doing this for mccain or donald trump, i am criticizing media behavior. It does not mean i support donald trump or am cheering him on. I see those as separate things. But it is read most often as, you must be supporting him because you said this. It has nothing to do with looking at what i said before or after video coverage and i have spoken out very often about that. Afterwardstch booktv cspan2. The president talked about creating manufacturing jobs. Senator patty murray delivers the democratic response talking about health care. President trump my fellow americans. On monday i signed a