tv U.S. House of Representatives 10042017 CSPAN October 4, 2017 4:00pm-6:01pm EDT
ms. wasserman schultz: debating this budget resolution is a partisan and pointless exercise. i'll point out to the chairman, it is october, after the fiscal year has expired and after we have already passed every single appropriations bill out of the house of representatives and i might add, a continuing budget resolution. just as when we considered it in committee this summer this resolution stands as a demonstration of the jerrett's willful and disgraceful neglect of the needs of the american people. with so many critical legislative issues for us to discuss, the majority has decided it's a better use of our time to discuss tax breaks for millionaires and wealthy corporations. taking health care away from 20 million americans. blowing up our deficit with an ineffective, immoral border wall and gutting crucial investments in jobs, education and medical research. instead this house should be they should ban assault weapons to combat firearm violence as we
witnessed the deadliest mass shooting. we should be passing the dream act who dreamers call this nation home. timely, instead of wasting taxpayer dollars and our constituents' time, this house should be re-authorizing chip, the bipartisan-backed health insurance program which expired over the weekend and which is going to leave children who badly need health care insurance twisting in the wind without it. congressional republicans have chosen to bring this irresponsible and extreme bill to the floor in stunning ignorance of reality. it assumes trumpcare will still pass. how many times must the majority be reminded trumpcare will not become law? how many times will the majority try to cut medicaid by $1 trillion, cut medicare benefits and raise insurance costs on elderly and low-income americans.
enough is enough. instead of to pandering the well-connected, this bill should embody our best values. this does not reflect -- mr. yarmuth: i yield to the gentlelady 30 seconds. ms. wasserman schultz: this budget should embody america's best values. sadly this legislation does not reflect our responsibility to care for and invest in the american people. i urge a no vote and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized. brac black i yield two minutes to the distinguished member from north carolina, mr. norman. mr. norman: i rise in support of a proposed budget resolution which will provide the spending cuts that washington needs and gives a pathway to reconciliation for tax reform. our national debt sits at $20 trillion and projected to reach
close to $30 trillion within 10 years. washington out of control spending hinds -- hinders our economy and puts the financial burden on the backs of our children and grandchildren. not only is our debt unsustainable but we need substantial resources and taxpayer dollars must go to servicing our debt. the cost to service our debt will rise 219% meaning we will spend close to $800 billion by 2027 simply to pay the interest on our debt. $5.4 educes spending by trillion and does not expand the federal government or state and local authority. and this will help us accomplish what we came here to do, meaningful tax reform. while i would like to see our government make more wise
choices, this budget resolution puts us on the road to achieving that goal. this resolution is a vehicle for updating our tax code, we can accomplish something that has not been done in over 30 years. i urge my colleagues to support this budget resolution. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. yarmuth: by voting for this budget, he will force 941,000 seniors and disabled individuals to pay more for life saving medicare and the wealthiest person in his state has a net worth of $3 billion can get a massive tax cut. i yield to the gentleman from llinois, mr.
mr. krishnamoorthi:. >> this sets up a tax plan that would harm hundreds of thousands of working families in illinois and millions across the nation. it has been reported that this tax plan enables a budget that would eliminate the state and local tax deduction known as the salt deduction. in my home state of illinois, the salt deduction represents a sizeable portion of taxpayers' income accounting for 6% of the average itemizers' average gross income. within my district, the salt deduction allows families in cook county to save $4,000. page counties, the numbers are greater. simply put, mr. speaker, the salt deduction prohibits double taxation on working families.
that's why numerous bipartisan organizations have spoken out in support of the salt deduction, including the national governors' association and the united states conference of mayors. if this budget passes, the tax structure it creates will cause a dramatic increase on the tax burden on working families. no doubt that our tax code needs to be updated but we need to do so in a way that upholds the president's promise that working families would not see a tax increase. i oppose increased taxes on working families. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized. mrs. black: i yield three minutes to the distinguished the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr.
chairman. i rise in support of the fiscal year 2018 budget resolution and i thank chairman black. our national debt exceeds $20 trillion, while there are many factors are determining our fiscal health, our nation's need to dispose of nuclear fuel. we passed the nuclear policy act and had a waste management program for the federal program and set a 1998 deadline for the department of energy to dispose of nuclear waste. they signed a contract requiring this deadline to be met. the federal government did not meet that deadline and has yet to take title of this material. the federal government has been held liable for not meeting this deadline and the court has awarded damages to utilities. the payments are paid from a
specific department of treasury account, an unlimited fund not subject to budget caps or annual appropriations. since 2009, d.o.e.'s total liability has gone to $30 billion and over $2 billion a day for each delay. the costs were one-third of federal payments. put another way, american taxpayers are paying $2 million every single day in which we neglect our legal and moral obligations to get rid of spent nuclear fuel. introduced h.r. 3053 which passed out of the committee of energy and commercial by 49-4. i look forward to continue to work with my colleagues to address this budget challenge and thank you, chairman black, for your leadership and support of this important issue. i urge support of this budget and i yield back my time.
the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does the gentlelady from tennessee reserve? mrs. black: yes. mr. yarmuth: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized. mrs. black: i now yield three minutes to the distinguished chairman of the ways and means committee, mr. brady. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. brady: first let me thank chairman black for her leadership on this remarkable budget. when i asked my constituents from texas about their biggest concerns for their family and the nation's future, the overwhelming response is about he debt our country faces. our national debt is $20 trillion and without action, our country is facing a terrible
correction. we have to do something about it to tackle our nation's fiscal challenges head on in a two-part approach. this budget provides real fiscal responsibility and balances within 10 years and preserves medicare and returns power to state and local governments owe so they can what is best. these measures move us in the right direction, but fiscal responsibility is one crucial piece of the puzzle. we want a healthier economy in the long-term and need a growing american economy. this lays the groundwork, the runway if you will for pro growth, pro family pro-middle class tax reform. we are delivering a new tax code for a new era of american prosperity. we have released bold ideas to move more jobs and bigger
paychecks for the american people especially our middle class family and united in gettings tax reform legislation to the president's desk this year. if we do not pass a budget, tax reform doesn't move forward. i ask my colleagues where do you stand? are you content with an unsustainable national debt, slow growth economy and broken pro-washington, pro-special interest tax code or do you stand in support of fiscal responsibility and pro-growth tax reform a that allows people to keep more of their paycheck. we don't accept a slow growth future. i thank chairman black for her leadership in bringing this budget forward. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. yarmuth: how much time does both sides have remaining?
the chair: the gentleman from 4 minutes. s 331/ and the gentlelady from tennessee has 37 minutes. plaque black it is my honor to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new mexico, mr. pearce. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pearce: mr. chairman, i'm pleased to rise today in support of the fiscal year 2018 budget resolution on behalf of chairman hensarling and i would like to talk about the instructions given by the chairwoman of the budget committee to financial services committee to find savings of $14 billion. that's what we were sent here to do, to find those places where it makes sense to cut the budget and we don't harm anything and in this case, the financial services is going to help people in rural communities. the -- several years ago, the
democratic majority passed the dodd-frank act and that nshrined too big to fail and earlier this year, the body passeded h.r. 10, the financial choice act. that was trying to prune back the cfpb which were hurting the rural areas. a bank shared with us how it takes them 185 pages to complete a mortgage loan. 185 pages for a small bank for just a simple resolution of buying a home. that is placing many times our community banks are simply stopping to offer that service. no one is willing to come into new mexico and lend into these rural communities. so we are facing very serious problems. sometimes community banks are having to consolidate. that hits rural communities even worse because the consolidation
usually moves the bank's headquarters outside the state or the community and weakens the fabric of the community. by finding the savings in this budgetries like, we not only save the money, but we also stop the encroaching regulations that cfpb is putting out and harming rural communities and hurting rural homeowners. for those reasons i support the budget resolution act and urge its passage and i yield back. the chair: does the gentlelady from tennessee reserve? black plaque i reserve. mr. yarmuth: we reserve. the chair: the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized. mrs. black: i yield three minutes to the the gentleman from alaska, don young. mr. young: i thank you and chairman bishop for including the alaska national wildlife range in the budget process. i'm looking forward to this and
we contribute money to solving some of our national debt. the small area of 1002 in the range is an area of 2,000 acres smaller than dulles apet. at potentially, though, we have 20 billion barrels of oil. think how much money that would bring to this treasury immediately through the bidding process. this is an issue i have been working on for the last 45 years. it's time. we passed it once and went to the senate and president clinton vetoed it because it wouldn't help us with the ell barring we had at that time. now is the time to make sure this nation is independent. it won't happen overnight but only congress can do this. it was designated to be drilled on behalf of the congress for the good of the nation. it will reduce the debt. again, i said i expect bids $10 billion to $20 billion with the
right toll drill. and with the new royalties coming down from the secretary of interior, we will not only have a large amount going into the treasury but 776,000 new jobs created by the discovery of this oil. . we have seen how it controls the opec nations. but this is the area which oil has been developed by god. it's only going to be available to the united states and it's time this congress brings this to the people. now, we'll hear a lot from the other side of those in interest groups that have no knowledge at all about the area i'm talking about. we hear that it will be affected. prudhoe bay produces 17 billion barrels of oil. we have about 31,000 caribou so oil didn't disturb them.
oil is not evil. it's the necessity for this nation socially. to create jobs. to make a healthier economy. so i'm asking my colleagues, again, to consider this legislation. it is necessary for this nation. it's necessary very frankly for the good of this congress. with $20 trillion in debt i haven't heard anything that will create new wealth. you can cut whatever you want to cut. i'll cut whatever i want to cut. you have to create new wealth. you have to bring it to the full general budget process and for the economy of this nation. let's not keep putting our heads in the sand and oh, we don't need to do this. it's not the time to do it. now is the time, the good of the nation and because we are in debt. i again, mr. chairman, urge my colleagues to consider this budget. i compliment mrs. black and her work, her chairmanship on the budget. it's a very difficult process but we have the time to do it and with that, mr. chairman, i don't have any more time so
i'll yield back what i have. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from tennessee reserves. and the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. yarmuth: we reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized. mrs. black: mr. chairman, i believe now we will yield time to j.e.c. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the chair: the gentleman from
ohio, mr. think beery, and ms. mali will control on the issue of economic goals and policies. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr.ty beery: thank you, mr. speaker -- mr. tiberi: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. tiberi: we can choose a future of more deficits and more debt piled on to our children or we can continue having a weak economy where people in their primary working years can keep leading the job market. or we can choose a future where america's job creators, people who go to work every day decide that they'll be better off starting or moving their business overseas. or we can choose the future of more of the same and it's not the wealthy who will suffer more of the same. it's the most vulnerable. low-income americans trying to climb out of poverty. it's the middle class, families
who find it harder and harder to keep up, to get ahead. people like my dad, a machine operator, who's now retired as a united steelworker. it's and our children and grandchildren will have to pay tomorrow for the mistakes we make today. but we can and ibin stead choose a better future, mr. speaker -- instead, choose a better future, mr. speaker, where the government learns to live within its means and move forward towards balanced budgets. a future where small businesses aren't punished by our tax codes where they succeed. a future where we have lower tax rates, where workers can finally get the pay raises they deserve, more money in their pockets and more practices parity is widespread, not just concentrated on our coasts and a few large urban cities. we'll be voting soon on a budget that restores fiscal responsibility and paves the way for a world-class tax code
built for growth and a better future for our kids and our grandkids. yesterday at the joint economic committee, mr. speaker, we held a hearing on the decline in business startups. the engines of job growth and innovation in america and the role tax reform could play in reversing this downward spiral. among other things, here's what we heard yesterday at the hearing. first, simplify the tax code. entrepreneurs spend way too much time and way too much money complying with the tax code instead of focusing on growing their businesses. second, lower the tax rates that our companies and employers pay. that's something that foreign governments around the world, both friends and foes, have already done to attract more jobs, more businesses. third, let companies of all sizes write off the cost of their growth-producing investments immediately. this is called expensing. instead of deducting them slowly from the taxes over many years under a very complicated
depreciation rules. fourth, stop punishing our businesses for investing overseas. profits bringing them back home to america. move away from the system that double taxes american companies that do business overseas. these steps will boost economic growth, growing markets will give entrepreneurs the confidence the risks starting a business which many won't even do today as we've seen more and more startups not making it to the starting line. more startups create more jobs. an average of six new jobs per startup. and more economic growth means continuing to spread that prosperity. ipe' happy to report these recommendations are a large part of our tax reform framework much that's just recently been unveiled. simplicity, lower tax rates, expensing, stop double taxing
our american businesses that do business abroad, reward investment in america and boost economic growth. we need a tax code that makes america the best place in the world to do business and grow your business and keep your business. our job creators who are corporate taxpayers now face the highest tax rate in the developed world while other countries aggressively lower their tax rate, mr. speaker, to attract new businesses, we left our businesses standing still. mr. speaker, the tax reform framework would slash our corporate rate from the highest in the world at 35% to a competitive 20%. instead of the worst, we get much better, a global economy, that's not just a luxury, that's a necessity. our tax reform framework will not only help american companies compete with foreign ones, but it will invest and grow jobs here at home. look at how the taxes are
punishing small businesses, not with just complex -- complex taxes but also high tax rates. when main street business owners went to sleep on december 31, 2012, their highest tax rate was 35%. when they woke up the following year, in january, 2013, mr. speaker, their top rate spiked to 44.6% due to obama administration policies. now, many on the other side of the aisle will say that most small businesses don't pay the top rate. but taxpayers who do pay the top rate, those small businesses in many cases, are responsible for much of our economic activity in our employment as pass-through businesses. every small business owner dreams of being successful, and the high top rate punishes the very success we want them to achieve in america. adding to the federal rate the tax rate, the local rate, many of these small businesses pay
over 50% in taxes. the tax reform framework not only slashes rates for american employers but our small businesses as well. the top rate for pass-throughs will be 25%. another feature of the tax reform framework, mr. speaker, would allow businesses of all size to deduct their business investments, their investments immediately through expensing. this would encourage companies to make the kind of investments like buying state-of-the-art equipment that will lead businesses to grow, create authorize jobs, pay better wages, higher economic growth and the best part of all, larger paychecks for workers. mr. speaker, we have a choice to make. we can turn our backs on the most vulnerable americans and doom them to more of the same, subpar growth, stagnant wages, more debt, less opportunity, a complex and outdated tax code that punishes job creation and investment in america, or i hope we choose a better path
forward, a better future for americans, bigger paychecks and it starts today with the passing of this budget. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. vote loney: i urge a no on this budget. ultimately a national budget is like a deal between the american taxpayers and congress . excuse me. ultimately, a national budget is like a deal between the american taxpayer and congress about how this country will spend their money, and anyone who looks at the fine print in this budget plan can tell with a glance that the american
eople want, need and deserve a wetter deal. in the republican tax plan that goes with this budget, 80% of the republican tax cuts go to the top 1%. he top 1% gets an average of $200,000 in tax cuts. a better deal would drop plans to slash medicare and medicaid to pay for massive tax cuts for the wealthiest few. a deal that instead would be a bipartisan effort to bring middle-class tax relief, badly needed investments and greater opportunity. but what we have instead is a budget that cuts $5.4 trillion in spending over 10 years,
including $4.4 trillion in cuts to the mandatory programs that help average americans get and stay ahead. and these aren't just paper cuts. these are huge cuts, cuts that would cause enormous damage in the lives of children, students, veterans and other americans. about half of these cuts in nondefense spending are in programs that help people who need the help the most. cuts in programs that provide food to those in need. programs that help students from low-income families afford a college education. and they even have cuts in the badly needed disaster relief that is helping so many in our country. in fact, by 2027, more than 1/3 of the resources for low and
middle-income people would be gone. struggling americans deserve a better deal than that, and who pays under the republican tax plan? seniors, single parents and middle-class families, it goes up. nondefense discretionary is already at its lowest level since the category has been tracked. but republicans want to cut even more. and so they target senior citizens and health care. this budget cuts half a trillion dollars from medicare, replacing medicare's guaranteed benefits with a voucher-like system and increasing its eligibility age to 67. c.b.o. estimates that these cuts would cause part b remiums to increase 25% by 2020. and this budget claims that it,
quote, saves $1.5 trillion by repealing the affordable care act. even though they have already tried to repeal it about 60 times on this floor without success, thank god, and the american people have made it clear that they don't want it repealed. and they still have they still have no replacement plan for the affordable care act and threatening the coverage with all those with pre-existing conditions and chronic illnesses and leave millions facing huge premium increases. their plan also cuts $114 billion from medicaid ripping away coverage from low-income and seniors. our seniors deserve a much
better deal than that. andry reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. tiberi: i would like to recognize a member of the joint economic committee, mr. rooney, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rooney: thank you for the opportunity to speak here about the tax reform opportunities that we are seeing now. some people don't like to admit it, but there's a proven ines cable between tax treatment, capital investment and job korea age. investment shows of capital with economic change, when you have more money put in, you get more jobs and more economic growth. and some people don't like to admit that connection. it's ines cable. and we have a second chart that
hows the -- the second chart shows the post-world war ii g.d.p. change, average of 3.1. the american middle class was built on opportunity, lower taxes, economic sometime lie and growth. wasn't built on this 2.3 to 1.6 unless we get back to tax reform. there is another ines capable fact and tax treatment is ungible. just look at texas, look at my home state of florida. when the tax climate is nurturing and favorable for investment, you get money put in and jobs created and economic growth.
investment goes where it's most favorably treated. 25% will unleash capital investment. rapid capital recovery by expensing capital asset purchases will attract massive investment and make our manufacturing companies do better and buildup the capital stock of our country again like we used to do. this is going to create one thing job creating economic growth. and that's what we need and that's what the republican reform program offers. it offers one more thing and changes treatment of foreign income, and it will incentivize companies to keep their income here and that's a good thing for america. i might mention about what they say and what we say. they say tax cuts for the wealthy. no, it's not a tax cut for the
wealthy and lowers taxes on corporations and middle-class america caps. they say rising brackets. this is a falsehood. we are taking the 10% rate to zero and 15% rate to 10% -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. tiberi: i yield an additional minute to the gentleman from florida. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rooney: they say it will explode the deficit but economic growth shrinks deficit and ronald reagan proved that in spades. when we eliminate these narrowly crafted interests credits and deductions, we will save enough money especially when we eliminate the state and local tax deduction and save a couple of dollars. and then they say, loss of itemized is a bad thing. when we double, no one is going to need to itemize.
they can have charitable deduction. but they can pay their taxes on a post card and the frustration of americans with the i.r.s. is related to the fact that nobody can fill out a tax form anymore. we have great progress here and i appreciate the opportunity to speak. and i yield my time. the chair: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: thank you. according to the nonpartisan tax policy center, 80% of the republican tax cuts go to the top 1%. and the top 1% gets an average of 200,000 in tax cuts. and what we see in this budget is a slashing of investments in the future strength of our country. nd instead of slashing, we
should be increasing our spending to fill the giant infrastructure pot hole that republican policies have left us with. we have arptse that feel third world. we have bridges that are crumb pling, tunnels that need replacing, roads that need fixing. failing to do so costs all of us in time, money and economic development. this budget totally fails to recognize the value of infrastructure investment. t cuts $254 billion from transportation over 10 years. funding would drop from $92 billion next year to just $65 billion in 2002. it eliminates the transportation investment generating economic recovery grant program used for infrastructure development and
repair progress jects for interstate highways, bridge improvements and ports. this is incredibly short sided. according to a study by the american society of american engineers failing to close the infrastructure gap brings serious economic consequences, $3.9 trillion by 2025. $7 trillion in lost business sales in 2025 and $2.5 million lost american jobs in 2025. i have seen what a infrastructure development can mean to business development and the quality of life in the city that i serve. the second avenue subway built with the help of federal funds opened in january and has already had a huge economic impact. stores say their business is up 20% to 30% along that line and
has cut overcrowding and reduced traveling times. new york's old bridge which was first opened in 1939 was originally designed for 10,000 vehicles a day. it was carrying 18 times that and had become an accident choke point. thanks to federal funding, it has been replaced in the biggest city of the country will have a brand new 21st century bridge soon. because these kinds of investments boost productivity and bolster our economy with each dollar in infrastructure investment generating up to $1.80 in additional economic activity. the american society of civil gears gives our national infrastructure an overall grade b-plus and transit system d-minus. it is just plain irresponsible to slash spending on our
crumbling bridges and highways because if we don't make needed investments today, we will jeopardize our competitiveness tomorrow. let's be clear, we're already significantly underinvesting in infrastructure. as you can see from this chart, public investments in infrastructure and other public fixed assets have fallen over the last few years, dropping to low of 2 -- $274 billion in 2014 to more than $357 billion in 2009. we have created a giant infrastructure spending pot hole that you see right here. all told, it cost our nation more than half a trillion in lost investment over five years. the people of this country deserve modern infrastructure. they deserve a better deal.
and this budget also cuts $154 billion from nutrition, from the supplemental nutrition assistance program, ignoring the more than 40 million low-income families including children, the working poor, the elderly and the disabled to say nothing of the eight million people including four million children it lifts out of poverty. the hungry children of america deserve a better deal than that. and i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. tiberi: it's with great pleasure that i recognize a senior member of the joint economic committee as well as a senior member of the ways and means committee, good friend from minnesota, mr. paulsen for five minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. paulsen: mr. speaker, the budget that is being considered here today sets in motion the process of the first major tax
reform that we will have been able to see in three decades. we are on the cusp of an exciting opportunity to give americans what they deserve, a tax code that works for them, not gns on them. on the house ways and means committee we spent many months holding hearings and discussing ways to craft a tax plan that is simpler and fairer for all americans. the framework takes that into account and lays out a plan that will lead to more jobs and bigger paychecks. you know, the economic recovery since the great recession hasn't worked for a lot of americans and the people of minnesota that i represent. economic growth has been anemic and we remain far competitive. many are living paycheck to paycheck and many are at risk of having a lower standard of living than their parents. young people like my daughter's
generation will go backward if this country is not more competitive. they feel like they can't get ahead. seniors and baby boomers who will soon become seniors are also at great risk. their savings and the government's ability to fulfill its commitment could be undermined if we don't grow our economy at a higher rate. both republicans and democrats agree, it's time to fix our broken tax code. no one is defending the status quo, mr. speaker. our current tax code punishes american workers and manufacturers. it is a maze that is unfair to hard-working americans. it burdens small businesses with compliance costs creating frustration each and every tax season throughout the year. that's why nine out of 10 americans either pay someone to do their taxes or have to buy
the financial software to do their taxes. our tax code is holding our country and economy back. we have a stark choice, we can either grow the economy and put ourselves back on the path to real prosperity or continue with weak economic growth which only benefits the few and will do nothing for the rest of us when the next economic downturn happens. tax reform is about restoring the hope for a prosperous future for ourselves, our parents and our children. it's about like paula in my district who said the tax code is hurting her small business and preventing her from hiring more employees and than an owner of a company that i just spoke and said he would invest in new equipment and machines if this tax plan passes. it's about lowering rates for all americans and small
businesses to keep more. tax reform means incriesing the personal income for average americans and reducing the cost of living so day-to-day expenses are more affordable. families can save for their future and retirement. and will allow people to take control of their lives and finances so they can spend and invest their hard-earned money as they see fit. this is an important opportunity that we cannot let split away to help families and small businesses. passing this budget puts us on a path for tax reform to unleash and grow our economy to the across f families america. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, in 2001, some of our colleagues across the aisle said many of the same things we're hearing
today about the miracle of tax cuts, that huge tax cuts for the most fortunate would pay for themselves and would help grow our economy by trickling down through the miracle of so-called dynamic scoring. but as we know from history, that was not the case. one year after the bush tax cuts in 2002, here's what brookings institute said was happening in real life. quote, i suggest that bush tax cuts will reduce the size of the future economy, raise interest rates, make taxes more regressive and increase tax complexity and prove fiscally unsustainable and then a year after that in 2003, the brookings institute said, over the past two years, our country has experienced a dramatic deterioration in the budget outlook. in january of 2001, when
president george bush took office, the congressional budget office projected surpluses of $5.6 trillion, as in t, trillion from 2000 to 2011. but in 2011, nearly a decade after the g.o.p. promised their budget would unleash the economy through tax cuts to the wealthy and budgets that cut services to the vulnerable, this is what we found. from national public radio, and i quote. conservatives often promote tax cuts as a way to stimulate economic growth. but the years after 2001 were marked by the slowest growth since world war ii. and all of us remember when president obama came to office, his country was shedding 800,000 jobs a month and it was
a long time to dig ourselves out of that big republican hole and get us moving in the right direction with job growth. . so let's not go down that road again. i reserve the balance of my time and i call upon my colleagues to remember history. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. tiberi: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd just like to again point out this little chart that shows facts, and at the bottom of the chart, if the viewers can see, is the united states with our corporate tax rate and all these other countries, most of whom are our friends, even france is lower than the united states. spain, canada, netherlands, austria, turkey, you can go on
and on and on, italy, new zealand, japan. mr. speaker, we have the highest corporate rate in the industrialized developed world. facts are a stubborn thing to deal with, mr. speaker. this budget, and congressman paulsen said, is the first step in dealing with something we haven't dealt with in 31 years. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: i yield five minutes to my distinguished colleague from the great state of virginia, congressman buyer. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. beyer: thank you, mr. chair, very much. i appreciate the opportunity to address the house on this issue. and i hear so much from my friends on the other side that i agree with and very much would like to work closely with them. i point out to the chairman of the joint economic committee, my friend from ohio, while we have the highest corporate rate in the world, 35%, which is
clearly not desirable, i served in switzerland for four years where there were 700 american companies serving because the corporate tax rate was so much lower and yet that 35% rate in actuality turned out tore 14% less and a quarter of the american corporations paid zero. as we look at refining this, it's not just about dropping that rate, it's making sure every american corporation pays their fair share of taxes to the u.s. citizens. i rise in opposition to the republican budget resolution. budget resolutions by their nature are political documents. this one also has an instrumental purpose because the only reason this budget resolution is on the floor is to pave the way for the partisan process for the tax bill which will significantly increase the deficit in order to give tax breaks to those who need them least. i think everyone in this body agrees that the average american taxpayer, those who've had virtually no raise for 30
years, deserve and need tax breaks. if we can give them that tax relief, the economy will grow faster. but the senate reconciliation instructions that will ultimately pass, are written to allow for $1.5 trillion increase in the deficit. and that's assuming that fuzzy math and the rosey expectations actually -- rosy expectations actually work out. i appreciate the chart my colleague, mr. rooney, showed which pointed out we'd like to get to 3.1% economic growth. i hardly agree. if we look at the period right now that we now have the worst disparity in wealth and the worst disparity in income that we had in a long time, that tracks this decline from 3.1% to 1.6%, 1.8%, 2%. when i started off in my family business, the corporate tax rate was 7.5% and our economic growth was a lot higher. -- 78%, and our economic growth
was a lot higher. putting the money in the top 1% is not going to make this economy grow more quickly. looking at the critical programs in this republican budget gives almost a handy guide of more effective ways to spend money. for example, this budget cuts transportation spending by 25% at a time when we have a d in our infrastructure by the american society of engineers. when president trump and candidate hillary clinton both campaigned hard on more infrastructure investment, not a cut. this budget cuts student aid by $211 billion when we know from our joint economic hearings that the student debt is one of the reasons they don't start new businesses, one of the things that suppresses the growth of new businesses in meaveraget we also know human capital is the key to economic growth all through history and today. it contains a massive cut to medicare and medicaid, making health care more expensive,
those who can least afford it and it's not a way to grow the economy. we have an opportunity to enact fiscally responsible, sustainable bipartisan tax reform that focuses on the americans whose wages have been stagnant for 30 years and i believe that democrats are prepared to engage in real reform. yes, it should be simpler, it should be fairer, it should be -- we should absolutely do away with the special deals and credits and gimmicks, but we need a lower rate for most americans and not make sure that 80% of the tax benefits that go to the people who need them the least, who have the smallest propensity to spend and to invest. there are many other things wrong with this budget. let me just point out two particular problems. number one, the budget attacks the national arctic wildlife refuge so it essentially sacrifices wildlife to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest. it encompasses millions of acres. it's essential that we protect
this wild and spectacular land. the government briefly opened an with a to seismic testing in the 1980's and the damage from that activity is still visible today. truck tracks still scar the expansive tundra where the permafrost never healed. it has protected anwr because of concerns about the impact on species like polar bears, caribou. mr. chair, there are 37 land mammal species, 42 fish species, more than 200 migratory birds inhabit the anwr. seismic testing could do lasting damage to the fragile ecosystem way before drilling. seismic activities send shock waves overwaves, harming polar bears. the impact on caribou -- mrs. maloney: i grant the gentleman 30 additional seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds.
mrs. maloney: i grant the gentleman two additional minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. beyer: thank you. the caribou are food source to alaskan indigenous groups who lived off the land for thousands of years. all of this will do very little in the short run to reduce the deficit. the oil prices are so low that no one will attempt to extract fossil fuels at this time. we just believe the anwr must be protected from the budget for future generations, the wildlife and the native people that inhabit it. part two, mr. chairman, the budget attacks federal government employee retirement and benefits. it reduces the deficit by $32 billion. it's clearly -- it clearly targets federal employee retirement benefits because that's the substantial mandatory spending within o.g.r.'s jurisdiction. by slashing these benefits, the budget will eliminate any sense of security that current employees have. we should be protecting their
rights and benefits. this is the original bargain they may have. much gave up lucrative careers in the private sector for the opportunity to serve all americans and for a small but secure federal pension. it's also going to make it more difficult for us to recruit and retain the quality employees who make america great. so i urge my colleagues to reject this budget and let's work together to create a tax code that really does stimulate our economy and that works for all americans. i yield back, mr. chair. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. . tiberi: it's a pleasure to recognize one that represents parts of central illinois, mr. lahood is recognized for three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lahood: thank you, mr. chairman, for yielding the time. i rise today in support of h.con.res 71, the fiscal year 2018 budget resolution. this bill makes necessary and responsible funding determinations by reducing the
size and scope of government. cutting federal spending by $5.4 trillion over 10 years and balancing the federal government in fiscal year 2027. given our nation's $20 trillion in debt, it's past time to get serious about our federal spending so that important programs are able to be sustained long term. in addition, this bill sets the stage for much-needed tax reform. small businesses and farmers are the bedrock of the american economy. and for decades, we have allowed our tax code to balloon with loopholes and tax breaks for special interests, hurting our local economies and middle-class workers. that is why it is so crucial we pass this commonsense budget as the first step in reforming our nation's outdated tax code. our current system continues to fail small business owners, farmers and middle-class families with its overwhelmingly complex system. that is why over 90% of
americans have to pay for help with filing their taxes every year. not only does this cost people their hard-earned money but also costs us our valuable time. ery year we spend a combined $88.9 billion hours filing our taxes -- 8.9 billion hours filing our taxes. for businesses, that's time they could use expanding and growing our economy. the solution here is not to defend the status quo as some on the other side of the aisle continue to do but to simplify our tax code and lower the rates for businesses and the middle class. another crucial part of reforming our tax code must be the elimination of the death tax. which harms farmers like those in the 18th district of illinois. family-owned businesses and farms who use their hard-earned dollars to invest back in their businesses are often forced to sell off parts or all in order to pay the death tax.
there is nothing fair about penalizing our job creators and the drivers of our economy for investing in and growing their business. in fact, it is estimated that repealing the death tax would grow our economy by .9% over 10 years. these small business investments are often necessary for small businesses and farmers who depend upon expensive machinery to earn their living. our current tax code, however, encourages business owners to put off their investments as they are only able to deduct the cost of equipment over many years. by allowing full expensing, businesses and farmers can fully invest in the tools they need to become more productive. all the while earning more savings. according to the tax foundation, full expensing would save businesses money leading to nearly 5% -- nearly incomes ease for the -- the chair: the gentleman's time
has expired. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. la high school: leading to a nearly 5% increase for low and middle-income workers. tax reform is about getting our economy back -- back to working for the middle class and for our small businesses. growing it from the inside out. this budget is the necessary first step in that process and i am proud to support it and it will help bring relief to those who need it most and with that i yield back. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. maloney: just to remy colleagues, the nonpartisan tax policy -- just to remind my colleagues, the nonpartisan tax policy center, the tax cuts go to the top 1%, but in this budget resolution that we're discussing, it slashes education funding, putting the dream of a college education for average americans even further out of reach. it asks the american people who
already experience crippling student loan debt to reach even deeper into their pockets for their education by cutting $211 billion from student financial aid programs. it freezes the maximum level awarded by a pell grant at $5,900, covering just 23% of an education. compared to the 77% it covered in 1980. in addition it also cuts $3.3 billion from the pell grant surplus, which provides a much-needed reserve to cover the cost of future education. and if that's not enough, after students graduate, this budget makes it increasingly difficult to pay off student loans and steers graduates away from public service and teaching jobs by eliminating the public sector
loan forgiveness and teacher loan forgiveness programs. our students and our teachers deserve a better deal than that. and i must say that we are suffering from three hurricanes. devastating hurricanes. yet this budget eliminates three programs that play very key roles in disaster relief. the community development block grant program, americorps and the legal services corporation are all eliminated. but this budget abolishes these programs that are literally supporting our relief efforts from harvey, irma and maria. and our nation's veterans, our nation's veterans, our bravest, are not spared the carnage of this heartless proposal. the g.o.p. budget proposes $50 billion in cuts to mandatory spending on veterans' programs. over 10 years, including
education benefits and loan guarantees. so after we have already asked so much of our men and women in uniform, this budget refuses to give them the tools they need to transition to civilian life. our veterans deserve a better deal than that from the country that they have served so honorably. and cuts to research. research is the future of our country. this budget would also cut investments that are directly tied to our country's future prosperity, by slashing basic research funding. in 1996, i want to point out how important research funding is to our country. in 1996, two stanford graduate students took a $4.5 million
research grant from the national science foundation and developed a new algorithm called page rank. two years later these same students took page rank and launched a new internet search engine we now call google. today google is worth over $600 billion. and employees over 72,000 americans. and it all began with a federal basic research grant of $4.5 million. google is just one example on a long list of technological advancement companies and, most importantly, jobs that trace their roots to basic research investment. it's what's kept this country on top. according to the brookings institution, 2/3 of the most influential technologies over the past 50 years were supported by federal research grants.
it has brought us life-saving vaccines, the laser, touch screen, g.p.s., and even the internet. technology that has served as a launching pad for cutting-edge medical treatment. sadly the chart behind me reflects a sharp decline in the federal share of funding of basic research, dropping from 2% in 1967 to 44% in 2015. this g.o.p. budget proposal follows that same trend with instructions to cut $41 billion from science, space and technology. precisely at a time when we should be increasing investments in these sectors. it's important to the future prosperity of america. cuts now mean fewer jobs and
economic growth in the future. it means less innovation and less prosperity. so if my colleagues across the aisle want to grow the economy, turning this trend around is an important way to do it. now, i've heard all day from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle how very, very concerned they are about the deficit. but the g.o.p. tax plan makes it worse. the tax framework released last week by the white house and republican leaders would add $2.4 trillion to the deficit in the first 10 years, and another $3.2 trillion in the next 10 years. so the republican budget -- this is just totally unacceptable.
this budget flat-out ignores the reality. so if you're concerned about the deficit, you should really rewrite your budget proposal. so in conclusion, look at the fine point of this proposed deal and imagine the harm it would cause to millions of american families, to our children, to our seniors, to our sick and ffering, to our disabled and our destitute, to our economy, to our research, and to our infrastructure. and it is clear, clear beyond any and all doubt, americans deserve a better deal. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from ohio is rised. >> mr. speaker, i'd like to
yield one minute to the distinguished chairman of the agriculture committee, the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conaway: i thank the gentleman and the chairman. i rise today in support of the house budget. as a legislator and a father and a grandfather, i'm southeasternly concerned about the mountain of debt our -- i'm seriously concerned about the mountain of debt we're passing on to future generations. think about it, as the leader of the free world and driver of global innovation and entrepreneurship, over the next 10 years we expect to reach a point where annual interest payments to our creditors will exceed the amount we spend on defending our nation. it's imperative that we change that trajectory and i commend chairwoman black and her colleagues on the budget committee for providing a blueprint for tackling the problem. while congress has many hard decisions ahead of us to rein in mandatory spending, this budget is at a critical -- is a critical starting point. not only is budgeting a fundamental present -- principle of good governance, it ensures
the tax is sirmer. as a c.p.a. with a current license, i look forward to the real prospect of fundamental tax reform. this budget is the vehicle that can make that happen. i urge my colleagues to support this budget and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: -- mrs. maloney: i request the amount of time that's remaining. the chair: the gentlewoman has four minutes remaining. mrs. maloney: i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. >> i inquire how many minutes we have. the chair: the gentleman has 10 1/2 minutes remaining. >> i'll reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: i just would like i believe that this proposal that's before us is an absolute disaster. we should be charting a
fundamentally different course. and when you listen to people around their dinner table in america tonight, they would be talking about their concerns in education, infrastructure, jobs, health care, security, environment, disaster relief. but this plan delivers instead our deep and sometimes disabling cuts to badly needed programs for millions, in order to give away benefits to a fortunate few. this is just plain wrong. budgets are about values and priorities and the people of this country deserve better. we should not be cutting our education spending. failing to train the world's most highly educated work force is irresponsible. and puts our entire economy at a disadvantage. we should be investing more in education at every level, early
education, high school, motivating students to become engaged in science, technology, math and engineering. we should be leading the way in developing new and improved technical and trade training programs for those who would prefer it. and we should be doing more, not less, to make college and postgrad study affordable once again. to do anything less is to fail in our obligation to the rising generation. we already trail much of the economically advance world when it comes to health care. we get sicker, die sooner, pay more for our care than most developed nations. millions are just one serious illness away from financial ruin. but this budget plan would cut spending for health care and this budget would weaken the pillars of financial security for our seniors. the proposed cuts to medicare and medicaid will come at the
expense of seniors, the disabled and the middle class. we cannot afford this budget. i urge my colleagues to reject it and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. america's at a crossroads and this budget is about choices. mr. speaker, there are moms and dads, single moms, elderly folks sitting at the kitchen table every night making choices on what to buy and what to pay for. mr. tiberi: and they have to live within their means, mr. speaker. the federal government for too long hasn't lived within its means. and this budget is about that. this budget is about tax reform. this budget is about growing our economy, which we haven't seen the growth in this recovery that we've seen in others. mr. speaker, i remember when i got my first job at mcdonald's.
in my immigrant mother and my -- and my immigrant mother and my immigrant father sat me down and talked to me about the taxes that i would pay coming out of my first pay check -- paycheck. i clearly remember my dad saying to me, don't let the taxes that you pay stop you from saving most of this money. because in america, not only do you get taxed when you earn it, you'll get taxed when you save it and if you save enough, you'll get taxed when you die. that was my immigrant father with a fifth grade education. he was a steel work. mr. speaker, -- he was a steel worker. mr. speaker, it's ined creditably sad in america -- it's incredibly sad in america when an entrepreneur will pay 50% of what he or she makes in taxes at the federal, state and local level. it's been 31 years since we reformed our outdated tax code. and now is the time, now is the
the gentlewoman from tennessee as 33 minutes remaining. the gentleman from tennessee has 33 -- the gentleman from kentucky has 33 1/4 minutes remaining. the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized. mrs. black: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. black: i thank the gentleman. i do want to just begin this next section by making a brief comment on my good friend from kentucky, who has been using some information off of forbes. as he responds to our speakers. i just want to say, i went out to look at forbes, to see what
was on forbes while we were on this brief intermission. and found this article that was just in forbes, just the day before yesterday. that does say g.o.p. tax framework is a pay raise for middle class families. i encourage people to take a look at this because it actually does some scenarios for what we know at this point in time. however i do want to say that what has been put out is a framework and it doesn't really have enough details to give too much on these scenarios, because there are some very important pieces that are missing. so guessing on these key points really doesn't allow us to do a truly proper analysis. things like the brackets have not been definitively defined and neither have the income thresholds or the enhanced child credit. . i think it's a little disingenuous to be using those numbers at this point in time to give a definitive scenario.
reserve the balance of my time. re-- the jot gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. yarmuth: i yield to the gentlewoman from washington, ms. jay apal. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jayapal: i thank mr. yarmuth for yielding and also for your tremendous leadership. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this deeply flawed republican budget resolution. when we considered this resolution in july, democrats offered 28 amendments. the amendments that we offered were meant to help set a course away from the disastrous path that republican majority and the trump administration are steering us down. we offered amendments on a broad range of issues important to our communities and our families. these included protecting our communities from the effects of climate change, preserving
health care, investing in public health, research and diplomacy, and investing in our nation's work force and infrastructure. not surprisingly not a single one made it through. instead, we have this resolution. a love letter to millionaires, billionaires and corporations and nothing but a manifesto of contempt for america's working families. mr. speaker, the resolution we will be asked to vote on is based on the same faulty assumptions as the bill that came through committee. these included assuming that repeal of the affordable care act happened, which it did not, and an unrealistic economic growth of 3%. the republican budget resolution does little but hurt millions of american families in order to fast track fax cuts for millionaires, billion -- tax cuts for millionaires, billionaires and corporations. in addition, after all the republican talk of deficit reduction, this cruel budget resolution massively increases the federal debt by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years
and $3.2 trillion in the 10 years after. where does putting the interests of corporations and the wealthiest ahead of working families get us? well, we've seen where this ends. earlier this summer, the republican-dominated kansas legislature was forced to roll back its 2012 tax cuts. in fact, a recent brookings institution analysis found that the tax cuts resulted in -- and i'm quoting -- an animesa level of revenues which led to ballooning shortfalls causing cutbacks in medicaid, education, temporary assistance for needy families, court funding and infrastructure. mr. yarmuth: i yield the gentleman another minute. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. jayapal: i thank the gentleman. this republican budget resolution will lead us into that same hole. yet, we know this will only give republicans license to call for further cuts to critical programs like medicare, social security and
education. and we know who wins under this budget resolution. it paves the way for a republican tax proposal that gives a huge tax cut to the wealthiest in our country. consider this, 80% of the republican tax cut goes to the top 1% by 2027. the average tax cut for the top 1% would be $207,000, and for millionaires, the tax cut would provide $230,000 a year. 42 million middle-class households would face a tax increase, including those people earning between $50,000 and $150,000. mr. speaker, this budget resolution is unfair to working families and to our country's future. i urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution. let's work together on a moral budget blueprint that supports all americans. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky
reserves. the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized. mrs. black: i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. yarmuth: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, a distinguished member of the committee, ms. chu. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. chu: mr. chair, typically a budget is a blueprint of how our nation meets its obligations to its people but not this time. by including reconciliation instructions for their tax plan, the republicans are using this budget as a blueprint to give tax cuts to the wealthiest few without requiring bipartisan support. under this bill, a family making $50,000 a year could see their tax burden go up while millionaires will save $230,000. and who will pay to make the richie incognitoer? our working families, children and seniors. this budget slashes priorities
like education, infrastructure and veterans' benefits and even guts medicare and medicaid by $1.5 trillion. -- the thing is, you can make guarantees. if this republican budget moves forward it will guarantee that inequality gets worse while the rest of us pay to help make millionaires into billionaires. i reject this budget and ask my colleagues to oppose it. mr. yarmuth: we reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized. a mrs. black: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky. mr. yarmuth: i yield the gentlelady from connecticut, a distinguished member of the committee, two minutes, ms. delauro. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes.
ms. delauro: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this budget resolution. a budget is a moral document. it reflects our values. this budget is a stark reminder that the majority and the trump administration are waging a war on the middle class, eviscerating the social safety net programs that help our most vulnerable citizens. the social safety net was built on a bipartisan basis. why is the majority hell-bent on destroying it? older americans will suffer under this budget. it cuts $1.5 trillion from medicare and medicaid. it betrays middle-class job seekers by cutting job training, education programs and other nondefense programs by 34% over the next 10 years. nd it decimates the food stamp, snap benefits, and assumes the repeal of the affordable care act. targeting american families who are struggling to get by.
if we were serious about addressing the problems that face middle-class families, we would be voting on a budget resolution that invests in their priorities -- job training, apprenticeship, equal pay for equal work. instead, we are considering a budget that's merely a means for the majority to jam through their tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations. the biggest economic challenge of our time is that too many people are now in jobs that do not pay them enough to live on. we should be growing the middle class, looking for solutions that work for america's prioritizing. we should help the ones that entrusted us to come to washington to fight for them and to fight for their families. instead, this budget puts corporate profits first. it caters to those with the most lobbyists. this budget is a disgrace to
the promises that we made to the american people, and i urge my colleagues to oppose it and i yield back the balance of my ime. mr. yarmuth: we verve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized. mrs. black: i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. yarmuth: i yield to the ranking member on the infrastructure and transportation committee, mr. defazio, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. defazio: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in strong opposition to the republican budget proposal. as ranking member on the transportation committee, i just want to focus in on what they do to transportation. now, we heard great promises from president trump. rillion dollars of new
infrastructure. now, they will cut transportation funding by $254 billion. that's right. no, no new trillion dollars of new spending. we are going to spend $254 billion less. they are going to isolate rural america. they are going to eliminate all long track, all long route trains, isolating rural america. they are going to lose essential air service in rural america. and oh, by the way, the republicans want to toll your interstate. if you live in rural america, you can get in your car to go somewhere but now you have to pay to use the highway you already paid for. now, secondly, it eliminates the critical funding for our urban areas, the economic engines of this country. eliminates tiger grants. it eliminates new investment in transit, new start projects. eliminates all new high speed rail and bicycle and pedestrian projects. republicans just hate bicycles. it just goes on -- this is
totally amazing. seriously, seriously you are going to cut funding for the federal emergency management agency? haven't you been watching television? i think they're already out of money and in a deficit. you are going to cut funding. oh, because we want to do away with the programs that might mitigate the disasters of future floods and hurricanes. oh, you are going to cut grants for firefighters. oh, then, that's not enough. we will roll back davis-bacon protections for people who work on federally funded projects. we are going to roll back buy america. really? so buy chinese in the republican budget. buy chinese. so, you know -- and they want to devolve the obligation to fund federal highways to the states. got news for you, guys. we tried that. this is -- mr. yarmuth: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the chair: the gentleman has another minute. mr. defazio: this is kansas and oklahoma. kansas before we had eisenhower. they built their turnpike.
oklahoma said they would build theirs. they didn't get it. they only did it once they got the 80% match. let's go back to the good old days. will dvolve, knitting our country together, getting people out more efficiently but we will do it on a state-by-state basis. this is nuts. there is another little trick. the chairman of my committee wants to privatize the airspace in the united states and reduce the ticket tax which pays for air traffic control. and that would be a $10 billion windfall to the airline industry because they'll raise prices. oh, they'll charge you a head fee to get on the plane. even better, it creates $100 billion of new deficit. so this nifty little thing here, it contains a reserve fund of $100 billion to try and make up for the fact and hide the fact they're cutting $100 billion of taxes that pay for the current system. how are you going to pay for the next system? the airlines will determine
that, not congress. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized. mrs. black: thank you, mr. chairman. and i want to for the record submit to the record a letter from the -- that has being signed by 242 agencies and think tanks supporting this budget and among those who have signed this letter are the american bankers association, the american farm bureau federation, the americans for tax reform, the business roundtable, financial services forum, manufactured housing institute, national association of manufacturers, the national black chamber of commerce, national grossers association, national retail federation, the tennessee chamber of commerce and industry, the kentucky chamber, the u.s. chamber of commerce, among many others. there are 242 different
entities that signed this letter to say that passing a budget is what we should be doing and that would lead us to tax reform. so i want to submit this for the record, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman's request will be covered by general leave. the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. yarmuth: thank you, mr. chairman. i now yield two minutes to the gentlelady from ohio, a distinguished member of the agriculture committee and a fellow rabid cleveland indians fan, ms. fudge. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. fudge: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. chairman, i rise today in strong opposition to the republican budget. as vice president biden stated, don't tell me what you value. show me your budget and i'll tell you what you value. the republicans' so-called building a better america budget shows us they do not value education, infrastructure, research and development, veterans' benefits and other programs which expand
opportunities for america's families. this budget is immoral. it provides trillions of dollars in tax money to millionaires and wealthy corporations while shifting the burden onto the middle class. it cuts $5.4 trillion from programs that american families rely on, programs like snap, pell grants, social security and health care. the budget ends the medicare guarantee. it cuts medicare alone by almost $500 billion over 10 years. a vote for this budget destroys american families in favor of a select few. this budget does not build a better america. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this budget and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized. mrs. black: i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. yarmuth: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i shall consume. the chair: the gentleman is
recognized. mr. yarmuth: we have had numerous letters submitted to us taking a position in opposition to this budget resolution and i think they're pretty compelling and i'd like to read from some of them. here's a letter from the main street alliance. main street alliance, a network of small business owners throughout the country, strongly urges you to oppose h.con.res. 71, the fiscal year 2018 budget resolution. this budget if enacted into law would cut $3.4 trillion from medicaid, medicare, social security, education, employment and training, food and housing assistance, and infrastructure spending over the next 10 years. this will significantly harm small business owners and their employees, damage local economies and decimate state budgets. we urge you to protect main street small business owners, working families, communities and economies and oppose the house budget resolution. reject any budget that enables tax cuts for the very wealthy
and large profitable corporations to lose revenue, since it will force deep cuts and vital programs that harm small bills. this letter from the national committee to preserve social security and medicare. on behalf of the millions of members and supporters of the national committee to preserve social security and medicare, i urge you to oppose h.con.res. 71, the house fiscal year 2018 budget resolution, and the republican study committee budget. instead i ask you to support the democratic caucus, congressional progressive caucus and congressional black caucus budgets. the committee passed budget resolution would slash funding to medicare and medicaid, repeal the affordable care act, and make it easier for congress to cut social security, all to pay for massive tax cuts for the very wealthy and profitable corporations. this from the american public health association. on behalf of the american public health association, a diverse community of public health
professionals who champion the health of all people and communities, i write in strong opposition to the house f.y. 2018 budget resolution, h.con.res. 71. this proposal does not eliminate sequestration and would drastically cut nondefense discretionary spending. such cuts would devastate our nation's public health and safety net system and would have a disproportionate impact on our nation's most vulnerable citizens. the proposal also includes the house-passed repeal of the affordable care act that would force millions to lose coverage, end the medicaid expansion, drastically reduce funding for the medicaid program and lead to increased costs and fewer benefits for millions of americans. his letter from the american federation of state and county municipal employees. on behalf of the 1.6 million members, i urge you to oppose h.con.res. 71, the fiscal year
2018 budget resolution approved by the house budget committee and scheduled to be considered in the full house. this budget would impose considerable hardship on many americans in order to slash taxes for the wealthy and corporations to boost defense spending. rather than increasing revenues for investment that creates jobs and spurs economic growth, the proposed budget creates a fast track process for tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit corporations and the wealthy. in fact, according to the nonpartisan tax policy center, the trump-g.o.p. tax cut would largely benefit the richest 1%. the budget also relies on the gimmicks of dynamic scoring and sham accounting, hiding the true cost of unnecessary and harmful tax cuts. and this from aarp. proposals creating a defined contribution premium support program, restricting access by raising the age of eligibility, or allowing hospitals and providers to arbitrarily charge
customers higher prices than medicare can make health care unaffordable for older americans. these proposals do little to actually lower the cost of health care but simply shift cost from medicare onto individuals. many of whom cannot afford to pay for their care. efforts to reduce or cap medicaid funding could endanger the health, safety and care of millions of individuals who depend on the essential services provided through this program. furthermore, caps could result in significant cost shifts to state governments unable to shoulder the costs of care without sufficient federal support. proposals to block grant the program or impose work requirements will make snap less responsive and accessible in times of need. and without clear work requirement exemptions for the elderly and disabled, would bar these individuals from receiving snap benefits. we ask you to reject the cuts proposed in h.con.res. 71. we stand ready to work with you to develop proposals that
protect and improve medicaid, medicare, social security and snap. this from the alliance for retired americans. on behalf of the more than 4.3 million members of the alliance for retired americans, i'm writing to urge you to vote against h.con.res. 71, the budget resolution for f.y. 2018. this budget blueprint cuts spending by $5.4 trillion over 10 years, decimating knew -- decimating numerous domestic programs, including ones that benefit older americans. it is shocking that the same budget that cuts services for many low-income americans and raises taxes on the middle class will also carry instructions to provide $2.4 trillion in tax cuts to corporations and wealthy americans. these tax cuts, which will increase the deficit, set up the perfect scenario for congress to slash medicare and medicaid. we are not fooled by the house leadership's tax giveaway to the wealthy at the expense of
ordinary americans. and urge you to oppose this draconian budget. we will be watching how you vote on this important issue. this from the coalition on human needs. on behalf of the coalition on human needs, i strongly urge you to vote no on h.con.res. 71, the proposed f.y. 2018 budget resolution. and to vote for the substitute budgets advanced by the congressional progressive caucus, congressional black caucus and the democratic alternative budget resolution. our members understand that the economic security of millions of american families depends on building on the progress we've made in health coverage, jobs, basic lesking -- living standards and ensuring our children are well prepared for productive lives. the majority's proposed budget does not build. it breaks apart our engines of progress. it will make our nation weaker for decks -- for decades to come. the budget advanced by the house budget committee would be a dangerous backwards plunge, stripping trillions of dollars from programs that work to
reduce poverty and create security and opportunity. medicaid, medicare, working family tax credits, nutrition assistance, education and housing assistance. these are just some of the services the budget would massively cut. the budget takes trillions in funding that supports economic security and progress and hands it to the wealthy and corporations in the form of enormous tax cuts. and now i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, a member of the ways and means committee, mr. doggett. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. doggett: i thank the gentleman. republicans have chosen to lavish huge tax breaks on large multinationals and the top wealthiest few in our country. instead of growing our economy by investing in all americans, investing in our work force, in
our fiscal -- in our physical infrastructure, in entrepreneurship, that's the way to really grow the economy. not these retread republican tax policies that offer all the benefits to the top and hope something will eventually , ckle down to everyone else that only grows the national debt as has been shown time and time again. our republicans today call their budget a vision for our country. and what a grim vision it is. for anyone who does not count themselves among the top 1%. republicans would only widen income inequality with massive tax breaks for the few, while slashing trillions from initiatives that give more americans the chance to get ahead. and while at the same time strengthening our overall economic future. for seniors this is a budget that breaks trump's promise not to cut medicare to the tune of
about half a trillion dollars in cuts. and it would slash an additional trillion from medicaid upon which so many seniors rely. for students and families that are struggling to get a college education, the ticket into the middle class and into economic competitiveness, this budget will make it harder to climb the economic ladder with major cuts to pell grants and other student assistance programs. and it will limit our investment in education and job training for american workers that are already out there trying to upgrade their skills. what does the republican budget do with all the money they've saved? cutting the middle class and working class and seniors and those who are trying to get ahead? it stuffs the pockets of those at the top, in the large million -- and the large multinationals. what president trump and his republican could he horts say their -- cohorts say their plan is it isn't. only last week trump said that his tax plan, quote, i don't
benefit, i don't benefit. in fact, very, very strongly as you see, i think there's very little benefit for people of wealth. well, the analysis of the one tax return that leaked out suggests that president trump will benefit to the tune of more than $1 billion. 80% of the tax breaks in this proposal go to the top 1%. that is people that are making more than $730,000 a year. while one in four americans could actually see a tax increase. that's why you can understand that they say they can't guarantee that taxes won't go up for middle -- many people in the middle class. and overall this is a budget that is dripping in red ink. mr. yarmuth: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. doggett: we gonzalo: understand why trump calls himself the -- we begin to understand why trump calls himself the king of debt because
there's plenty of debt that will be added under this plan. for trump and his cohorts, fiscal responsibility is just a political slogan that they use to undermine those education and social service programs they were never for in the first place. the republican budget is not just numbers. it has a real human cost. by slashing investments in our economic future, it is a recipe for weakness, not strength. i urge my colleagues to side with the middle class, with working folks all over america, and reject this budget. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized. mrs. black: thank you, mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from the compact for a balanced budget commission, and i'd like to read a portion of this letter. they say, dear chairman black, we've reviewed the text of the budget resolution reported by
your committee, house con.res. 71. and write to offer our support. the rarest of political outcomes , sound policy that represents a win-win scenario for normally divergent factions is possible as the budget process moves forward. our nation is facing a fiscal crisis. it is essential that the federal budget returns to balance within a 10-year period. because runaway federal spending is not political or partisan. it is an economic, generational, civil rights issue. we commend you and your committee for reporting a resolution that balances within a budget period. its adoption is very much in the national interest. and again, this comes from the compact commission, compact for balanced budget. i just want to bounce off of that and take a look at the chart that we have here. when we take a look at interest.
somehow we don't always talk thatch about interest here. we talk about borrowing money and raising our debt ceiling, continually. i've been here now for 6 1/2 years and the conversation is about raising that debt ceiling so that we can pay for our debt. but there comes interest on that. just as when we go to a bank and we borrow money, we have to pay interest on that. i remember years ago when i bought my first house, we were at a period of time when president carter was the president and the interest rates were outrageous and our interest rate on our house at that time when we purchased it as a young married couple was, i think, somewhere between 14% and 16%. interest rates now are very much more reasonable for young couples purchasing. so i want to turn our attention to this chart here to take a look at the outlays in 2027 under the c.b.o. baseline, if we continue down this path that
we're going in, without taking a look at our mandatory spending, the amount of money that we borrow and the debt that we pile up with an interest to it. just what will that look like? i think if we look at our own household and we'd say that our interest that we're paying on the credit card or whatever, the car interest or the house mortgage, if it were more than all of the other things like the food and maybe the education for our children and buying books and pencils and things that they need for school, we would be looking at the way in by we were managing our household income and saying, wow, that's not something we want to keep doing, we're going to have to get on some kind of a budget plan and reverse the trajectory of where we would be going. and so here we are at the end of the period of 2027, if we look at 17 years down the road, and we don't do anything about the kind of mandatory spending which is 2/3 of our budget currently
and continues to grow, here's what happens. we see $670 billion. we see defense at $741 billion. we would be paying more in interest than we would in the security of our nation and supporting our men and women that serve in the military and all of the supplies and necessary equipment that it takes to protect them as they protect us. look at what happens with medicaid. medicaid is less -- we would be spending less on medicaid. that is for people that are the blind, the disabled, the elderly, the children, the pregnant mothers. we talk about wanting to put our money and our values where we see that the values really belong. is this really where we want our values to be and the money that we spend, $768 billion in interest compared to what we're spending on our military, what
we're spending on our medicaid? look at our veterans. our veterans that we talk about how much we honor them, $248 llion as opposed to $768 billion in interest. again, we must question where we're going. and if this is the right direction. is this the direction that we can all just raise our hand up and say, yes, we're making good decisions for the future of our country because look at where the interest is compared to the other programs that we have both, republicans and democrats have said are so important to us? over and over again we had colleagues on both sides of the aisle go and speak about the importance of what our values are. our budget is a vision of what our values are. transportation, i heard more and more times on both sides of the aisle talk about infrastructure, how important that is for our nation. look at what our transportation and our infrastructure will be. i don't know that we want to
spend only -- excuse me -- 110 billion dollars on that and $768 billion on interest. think how many roads we could build, how many bridges we could repair if we reverse this trajectory. finally at the bottom here is science, space, technology. we all want to be competitive with those around the world to make sure we're spending the money where we need to spend the money to stay in front of these other nations with our science and our space and our technology. and i want to recommend here that there are only two other programs that social security or medicare that exceeds that net interest. so we'll say social security, medicare and then our net interest and from there everything else that we say, both republicans and the democrats, that we say are so important, that we say are our values are going to be underneath. i don't think that's really
where we want to go. and i have to think my oldest grandchild right now is 19 years old, soon to turn 20, that when he's 30 years old that i can say to him and he says to me, mimi, what were you doing when you were in congress? what were you doing to help us? because now we're paying more in interest than we are all of these other programs that we contend to be so important to us. so these are difficult decisions to make. i'll acknowledge that. but i will also say to you as someone who i consider myself as i a policy one and look at these policy i say there is nothing i'm doing in my life that i did in 40 years that i am doing the same. should we not want to say, maybe we can reform it? not necessarily cut but in the reforming you may find a way to
decrease the spending that you're doing in that program. can't we all lock arms, democrats and republicans, and acknowledge that there are some decisions that have to be made with programs that have been there for a very long time? can we not acknowledge that there are some programs that perhaps have fraud, waste and abuse we can take care of? to take that money and use it and say these are where our values lie? and so i would say as we talk about this budget -- and i am very proud of what we have done in this budget. in the cuts or as i say reforms in those programs that would result in $203 billion worth of savings over a 10-year period, that these are programs that we gave, the committees of jurisdiction, an opportunity to look within their jurisdiction and to make those decisions of do the home work, it's your jurisdiction, it's not mine.
we gave them recommendations and suggestions but it's their jurisdiction. let them evaluate where it is there are programs that can have new and creative ideas, things that save us money, not necessarily using the word cut but in saving that, yes, you may have some cuts that are done. but these are good cuts. these are things you've spent a lot of time thinking about. and that's really where we want to go. that's what this budget does. it says, open up your minds, think differently, let's not do things the same old way and keep putting the same old programs out there that maybe aren't working. and you know what, maybe they are not even working for the people we give them to. maybe they're not working for them because work is dignity. and when we say that someone who is able-bodied without any dependents should be at work, that's not cruel. you know what that is, that's
dignity. when people go to work, it is a dignified activity. i always say after i ask you what your name is, and we all do it, we say, what do you do? and when someone cannot tell you what they do, they don't feel dignified. so able-bodied people, look, i don't want people who are disabled, people who are having a really tough time and have other circumstances, but we should acknowledge that there is dignity in work and when we can give people an opportunity to have that dignity we should be willing to stand up and do that. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. yarmuth: mr. chairman, may i inquire if the majority has any further speakers? if they don't, i am prepared to close. mrs. black: no, we don't have any other speakers. i'm ready to close. mr. yarmuth: thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. yarmuth: thank you very much, mr. chairman. this has been a robust debate.
we had a robust debate in the rules committee yesterday, and we've had robust debates in the committee markup and during hearings as well over the priorities of this country. as we close this debate tonight, recognizing there will be a few minutes tomorrow for comments, i just want to say since this could very well be the last time that i get to appear in the budget committee business with chairman black that i have truly cherished the nine months that we have spent working together. the chairman is a gracious, fair, thoughtful and very, very collegial individual. and i wish her the best in her campaign, at least through the primary, and thank her and her very, very competent and professional staff for all the kurt cisthey've shown us during
this year and this process. i also want to pay tribute to the democratic staff, people who work hard every day and make me sound smarter than i am but i'd like to read their names. john, erika, ellen, the staff director, hayden, john, elliott, jocelyn, naji, sam, sheila, diana, if a rook, kim berle, -- farooq, kimberly, they do terrific work and i want them to know how much i and all the members of the budget committee, the minority, appreciate their work. and also like to thank my personal staff led by chief of staff julie carr, for the work they contribute to this process as well. in closing, there are a few comments i want to make about this debate. you know, we heard several times during the day that don't -- it's really not fair to talk
about the consequences of the tax proposal that we'll -- will be the end result of this process because the details haven't been ironed out yet. and that's, you know, fair enough as it goes. but there were enough details in the outline that we saw last week to make a pretty good guess as to what the impact of these tax cuts would be. we've read over and over as republican speakers spoke the fact they were willing to jeopardize the health and safety and nutrition of their citizens to give wealthy -- the wealthiest people in their state tax cuts. and most of these numbers that we read were in the billions of dollars. $38 billion, $16 billion, these are individuals with net worth of astounding amounts. the outline that was publicly released last week said that the republicans intend, under
this tax proposal, to eliminate the estate tax. if they eliminate the estate tax, much of that money is not going to be taxed. they will get to keep it. i don't think they are going to be out there creating new companies. maybe their children will do it if they inherit it. maybe they've given some of it away so those estates aren't quite as big. but the point is when you're talking about wealth, collectively the wealthiest person in the 50 states ollectively have $750 billion. $750 billion in net worth which means if they paid the estate tax, there would be over $300 billion in money that they would save if you eliminated the estate tax. so while we may be off plus or minus 3% or 5% or 10%, the fact
is this is an enormous break for the people who have been the most fortunate in this country. and i think it's more than fair to say, if you say you're going to eliminate the estate tax, if you say you are going to eliminate the a.m.t., the alternative minimum tax, and we go look at president trump's 2005 tax return which said he paid $31 million in tax because of the alternative minimum tax, it doesn't take any details to know that he would have saved $31 million in that year if you eliminate the alternative minimum tax. so, yes, the rates may vary. ultimately, the tax bill we have presented to us may not lower the highest rate from 39.6% to 35%, but if it does, we know the impact that that will have. we know who will benefit most from that. it's the wealthiest 1% of this
country. and as i will say tomorrow when we close this debate, i'm in the top 1%. half of this body are millionaires. they are all going to benefit. we are all going to benefit. meanwhile, the people who rely on many of the programs that will be slashed under this republican budget will suffer. that's not fair. now, republicans will make the argument, as they always do because this is a matter of religious faith to them, that if you give people more money they will magically create all this growth. well, has that really happened? of the fortune 500 companies, 90 -- i think a recent study, 92 of them paid 20% or less in corporate tax. collectively they eliminated 300,000 jobs over a five-year period. so they had more money than
corporations paying 35%. did they use it to create more jobs, more wealth among middle class and working families? no. they used it to pay dividends, to buy back stock and to increase the wages of their c.e.o.'s. that's what's happened in modern history every time we lower corporate tax rates, we let them bring taxes in from overseas. they do not create more jobs with the money that they save. so i think it's very, very fair for us to look at this entire process, the brightful which does anticipate a -- budget proposal which does anticipate a tax cut which they claim is revenue neutral but it's a tax cut, and the outline that we saw last week and say, who really is this going to help? it's not going to help the people who need the help. it's going to give more money to the people who already
occupy one of the strongest economic positions in a country with the greatest disparity of wealth in the world. so as we conclude this debate, i urge my colleagues to carefully consider the alternatives that will be proposed by the democratic caucus, by the congressional black caucus and by the congressional progressive caucus and compare the values and the priorities of those budget to those that the republican budget represents. and i think on balance anybody in good faith will say that those budgets, not the republican budgets, are the budgets that will create a stronger, fairer society in this country, and those are the ones that we should proceed to adopt, and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentleman from kentucky has closed for the