tv House Budget on 2018 Concurrent Resolution Part 1 CSPAN July 19, 2017 10:41pm-2:02am EDT
overhaul of the tax code and cuts to entitlement programs. congressional quarterly quotes mark meadows, chair of the freedom caucus saying there should be more cuts in the budget as written does not have the votes to pass. at the news that congressional budget analysts expect them to repeal part of the healthcare law with no immediate plan to replace it would increase the number without health coverage by 17 million next year end 32 million at the end of the decade. the new report also said the legislation would decrease federal deficits by $473 billion over the ten year window. tonight's markup started at 10:00 a.m. this morning. here's a look at some debate from earlier.
>> the committee will now come to order and we will proceed with consideration of fiscal year 2018 concurrent resolution of the budget. i want to thank the ranking member for working with me to develop a structure for this markup that closely resembles and follows what has been done here in the past. our goal is to have an open markup which both sides will have an opportunity to debate the framework for the fiscal year 2018 concurrent budget resolution. we have a long day ahead of us. i think everyone for their cooperation. we will complete our work by midnight and hopefully well before then if we all can work together, that may be possible. i would like to begin by recognizing the distinguished member from indiana. >> morning everyone and thank you madame chairman. with several more votes expected today in other committee markups, i ask unanimous consent that consistence with rule 16 that the chairman be authorized to
clear recess at anytime toda today. >> without objection, so ordered. consistent with the agreement that i reached, i ask unanimous consent that each side be allocated 45 minutes to make presentations in lieu of opening comments. the ranking member and i each will make an opening statement from the allotted time. each side makes presentations out of the remaining time. members have seven days to submit additional statements for the record and after these presentations we proceed to opening presentations on the budget resolution. without objection so ordered. once the opening presentations have concluded, we will have one hour walk-through during which the majority staff will briefly summarize the chairman's mark. members will then have the opportunity to ask questions. after the staff walk-through, we will consider amendments according to the structure that i have worked out with the ranking member. today we have decided to roll votes. we will debate seven
amendments and hold a series of rollcall votes on each of these amendments. i will describe this process in more detail when we get to that point. once the staff walk-through concludes, we will recess to accommodate markups and other committees and for votes. good morning and welcome to our markup of the fiscal year 2018 budget resolution. our budget is called building a better america because we take real tangible steps to balance the budget, build a stronger military and support an economy that creates opportunity for all americans. in the past year, our budget resolution was a vision
document, but this year is different. with the election of president trump, our budget goes from being a vision document to being a governing document that outlines how we build america for our children and grandchildren. the time is over, now is the time for action. excuse me, the time for talking is over and now it's time for action. when i came to congress six years ago i had three priorities. repeal and replace obamacare, balance the budget and reform our tax code. we verily taken the largest step yet to accomplish these priorities and i was proud to sponsor the american healthcare act to bring patient centered reform to our healthcare system. this markup begins the process of tackling a balanced budget by the 2027 reform. balancing the budget by 2027 is a top priority. our national debt stands at $20 trillion with 9 trillion added over just the last eight years. both parties in washington have failed to abide by a simple principle that all
american families and small businesses do and that is that we must live within our means. the congressional budget office all agree our current fiscal path is unsustainable. as the united states comes forward in a recent house budget committee hearing, if we fail to get control of debt and deficit we are putting our country at risk of fiscal and economic crisis. balancing the budget requires us to make tough choices, but the consequences of inaction outweigh any political risk that we may face. doing nothing and continuing the status quo of more spending and more debt jeopardizes this american experiment of 250 years in the making. the budget resolution before us takes real steps to put our country on the sound fiscal path that balances in ten years and will allow us to start paying down our national debt.
building a better america makes a bold reform to strengthen programs that our seniors and most vulnerable citizens rely on. it ensures we continue to serve them for generations to come. while our budget includes reforms to discretionary spending, we also strongly believe that mandatory spending must be addressed in this budget resolution. mandatory spending is already more than two thirds of our federal spending and that number will continue to grow. we address mandatory spending in two ways. first, our budget outlines various reforms to programs that we believe reflect a responsible vision for reforming and saving these programs. these programs would require further legislation and political will to make the tough choices needed to benefit the american people. second, our budget includes reconciliation instruction requiring savings and reforms of mandatory spending
programs. the savings would go toward deficit reduction and cannot be used to pay for tax reform. our reconciliation instructions require 11 authorizing committees to find a minimum of $203 billion in savings and reforms over the ten year window. with the expectation that the reform will be in. [inaudible] this is largest since the 1990s in reconciliation and that's the first step to change the culture of spending in washington. the goal of the budget committee is to return to the traditional budget process and the true purpose of reconciliation, deficit reduction through mandatory spending. this is the first step but it is important. it also promotes tax reform to get the government out of the way and allow our free market economy to thrive. the larger the government, the
less freedom for individuals and businesses to thrive, grow, hire and innovate. the obama economy left millions of people behind with over 14 million people leaving the labor workforce in just the last eight years. the reconciliation, our budget specifically paves the way to pro growth tax reform that will be deficit neutral. this reform will reduce taxes, simplify the tax code and unleash the potential of the american economy to help those who have been left behind. many of our friends across the island in the media have said a 1.9% economic growth is a new normal, we are doomed to continue the economic stagnation of the obama years. they have a pessimistic view of our nation's ability to create jobs and to build the foundation of greater opportunity for all. america has the greatest workers, the greatest innovators and entrepreneur to
far surpass the economic growth of the past eight years, if only the federal government would get out of their way. we believe the policies recommended in our budget will result in higher economic growth, averaging 2.6% over the ten year window because we put our trust in the potential of the american people. a stronger economy is not enough. we must also strengthen our military. the number one job of the federal government is to protect its citizens. over the past eight years, the weak form policy of president obama led to increased threats from all corners of the globe while the funding of our men and women in uniform has failed to keep pace. building a better america invest $625 billion in our military and 75 billion for the global war on terrorism for fiscal 2018.
these resources will help our men and women in uniform complete the mission with which they have been test. we also must rethink how government runs. we have to measure success in government, not by how much money we put in, but by the results that are created for the american people. on the budget committee and full congress have been test to be good stewards of the taxpayer dollar. this means considering the interest, not just of those receiving government benefits, but those who are paying the taxes that fund these benefits. the federal government doesn't just to spend too much money, it simply does too much. as decade after decade, the slow creep of government has encroached on the responsibilities of states, local governments, local communities, families and charitable organizations. returning power back to the states and other components of civil society will allow them
to provide services more effectively and efficiently. our budget also takes serious steps to address improper payment which the u.s. government accountability office estimated to be $140 billion last year alone. building a better america presents us with an opportunity to change the trajectory of our country forever. the election of president trump was a signal to all of us that the american people will no longer accept the status quo. taped to the back of my voting card is a picture of my six grandchildren. i was a nurse for over 40 years and still have my license. government and public service was never an ambition of mine but when i saw was happening in my state in this country, i couldn't sit back and do nothing. every time i put my voting card in that slot i'm reminded how i left a career i love to join the political fray. it's for them and my children and grandchildren and yours as well. i grew up in america where a for girl like me where her
parents only had an ambition to graduate high school could go to college become a nurse and become a member of the united states house of representatives. i grew up in the land of opportunity of strength and compassion but that is slipping away from us for too many people. the opportunity to live the american dream is out of reach. our government that was supposed to be hours by and for the people has left too many behind. building a better america requires a government that spends within it mean, our military with the resources to complete its mission, an economy that creates opportunity for all in a federal bureaucracy that respects the taxpayer. it also requires an understanding that the greatest of america does not lie in the buildings and stone pillars in washington d.c. it lives in the spirit of the people. we designed building a better america to empower individuals to live their version of the american dream. welcome everyone to our markup
for this budget resolution, and with that i yield to the ranking member. >> thank you german black. nearly two months ago in the same room we debated president trump's budget. it was a shockingly extreme document that gave to the rich and took from everyone else. i urged my republican colleagues to see the harm it would bring to american families, the damage it would cause to our chances for a better future and to choose a different path when crafting their own budget. but here we are today with the budget that again displays total indifference to the challenges america's face. the house budget embraces the worst extremes of the trump proposal. tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires at the expense of american families, our economic progress in national security. the budget includes $5.4 trillion in mandatory and discretionary spending cuts and it ultimately reduces nondefense discretionary investments to the lowest level relative to the size of
the economy since the 1960s. my republican colleagues are proud to talk about those cuts in washington, but what they don't want to talk about is how these cuts hurt the american people. the enormity of these cuts and the severity of the consequences for american families cannot be overstated. education, job training, transportation, infrastructure, medical research and veteran services are all at risk. this budget cuts nearly $1 trillion from mandatory spending that helps provide basic living standards for struggling families. it cuts nearly half trillion dollars from medicare and ends the fundamental guarantee of medicare coverage. it then embraces the overwhelmingly unpopular trump care which would strip more than 20 million americans of health coverage and makes nearly $1 trillion in cuts to medicaid. these aren't just programs. they represent people. they are families that have never had a chance to get ahead in there individuals like the woman i met at my town all last week.
she told me i think there's a misconception that medicaid is just for the poor. in 2014, my husband lost his job of 25 years and we were suddenly without health insurance or income. we were covered for the 11 months leading up to him finding a new job through the medicaid expansion. medicaid was a lifeline for this woman and her family as it has been for millions of americans across the country. all of that is at risk for them and millions of other families because of the drastic cuts in this project. it is an incredibly cold document that willfully ignores the needs and priorities of the american people. it's not just the economic security of millions of families at that risk. it's also our nation security. republican colleagues have put on display and narrow worldview. one where our country security
is only about the size of our military. it increases defense spending by $72 billion above the current cap and more than $18 million above what president trump requested. we have a responsibility to ensure our men and women in uniform have every resource needed to safely and successfully execute their mission, and we will do that, but military experts across the board have also stated that diplomacy, foreign aid and environmental factors like climate change are key components of our national security. my republican colleagues ignore these facts and recklessly cut funding for the state department and foreign aid agencies by $11 million. funding on military at the expensive critical national priorities is not a choice i republican colleagues have to make and is not a choice the
american people want them to make. it begs the question, why are they making it. the answer is as simple as it is disgraceful. so that millionaires, billionaires and wealthy corporations can get a tax cut. they have made the choice to give everyone a top 1%, $240,000 annual tax cut while taking breakfast and lunch away from hungry schoolchildren. they have made the choice to give everyone in the top one tenth of 1% of income a $1.4 million tax cut while cutting health care for seniors and nursing homes, low-income children and the disabled. these are not choices my democratic colleagues or i would make. the list of upside down priorities and irresponsible policies in this document is lengthy and we will do our best to go through as many as we can today. we will show different vision of our country and for the american people. we want to invest in the
future of american families, create good jobs help grow our economy. democrats support investments in education, healthcare, national security, job training, innovation and infrastructure. we support programs that help individuals with nowhere left to turn in a tax code that helps families get ahead. those are american priorities and they should be the priorities of this congress and our committee. german black, you'll back. >> i think the gentlemen. i now yield two minutes to the vice chair the committee, the gentleman from indiana. >> thank you. i want to thank you for your commitment to produce a responsible federal budget. i appreciate your leadership in the effort of her committee members. to get to this budget our committee had to make some tough decisions and we had to create priorities that
elevated our fellow citizens were the most vulnerable and truly needed help. i -- that was the president and vice president's request and they did their job admirably. they led and in short, this committee is leading. here on the committee we are familiar with the tough choices and we will continue to make more of these today so that we are protected in the future generations who should be highest on our list are protected from what is now a 20 trillion-dollar debt. it is critical that we continue our dedication to push this budget through committee. :
kerry trajectory the cbo warns in just four years and now the annual deficit will surpass $1 trillion. economist ward we will run the risk of default or denial of access to credit even venezuela is going to that right now even puerto rico. the pension systems implode. we started to run the risk and two years after that i in 2020 for cbo tells us the annual interest cost simply renting the of many we have already spent would be $654 billion. that is where the recurrence is spent on the entire defense establishment. you cannot provide to
promote the general welfare to cannot pay for it. when tax rates above rise above those of its tax avoidance increase its capital moves offshore and revenues fall. we have no choice but to change the trajectory and we're running out of time. and then begins to change that trajectory. and using those reconciliation for intended purposes. and the options have become more difficult. and i yield back. >> every budget document is
a compromise talking about the $2 billion increase i think it is $20 billion is a compromise document and try to propose a fiscally responsible budget to hold discretionary spending even. the devil lost $50 billion and the increase in defense that makes it a very difficult budget all the way understand this is a compromise budget is in the last step there will be a
floor vote and appropriation bills fell in were those appropriate road like to thank the chairman for those committee meetings this is the third year i have been part of the of budget process so thank you for that is valid for to taking the votes on the amendment today. >> with 30 years of business experience i have then a strong advocate and i stick to it that is something this federal government has far too often failed to do as people back home are required to do it and to
address the long-term financial market but then we have a moral obligation to take meaningful action of mandatory spending. in then to a fancy spell the reforms and that spending that is needed to set the contract to what is a responsible course and with the ways and means committee i a.m. concerned it could make it difficult for congress to pass that package in the near future i
look forward to this hearing and the process of his blueprint many times the process requires moving bills knowing that it is not the final vote in to pass the house in the senate in to move forward with the vital policy changes that we need in the hope that is what this bill entails. i yield back. >> i now recognize the gentleman from wisconsin. >> i am also proud and then to achieve 6.5 trillion for the first time in decades to
ricans have reconciliation with at least 203 billion of mandatory savings and those that live within their means that is irresponsible to risk children and grandchildren financial security but is also the size of the commitment to national security by providing an with gathering threats to their homeland and interest abroad is essential that congress provide men and women with those resources that they need so doing so but at home
this budget calls for increased accountability to make sure the nation's heroes of the benefits and in the services they have learned and are entitled to. i urge my colleagues to support the budget and i yield back. >> the gentleman yield back i now recognize the gentleman from missouri. >> chairman black and thank you for your leadership on this tough issue since the recession we have faced an anemic recovery this malaise is made of hard for those then minnesota to succeed burger would argue with the policies that have over spot
-- overspent and overregulated and under delivered. we are at record levels of budget outlay in tax revenue rainout stimulus plan to stimulus plan had failed to deliver on economic growth is time for washington to refocus and to have sustainable budgets we can have those the economy that grows because we have in the sixties and eighties and nineties but if we do not seriously address the past years any attempt at recovery and with the achievement of the american dream you cannot grow family budgets by massively increasing and to balance in
to rebuild the military and to call for common-sense reform we promote pro-growth policies energize the economy and moving forward with mandatory spending into endears the american people want us to change the culture of washington as we're $20 trillion in debt and $30 trillion by 2027. everyone in this ruth knows the numbers and we cannot tax our way of the problem we have to take spending under control in those that are holding america back.
that is why the work we're doing today is important and i look forward to us moving future budgets like this in the future and i yield back. >> the gentleman yield back and now the gentleman from michigan. >> i am thankful to be here today performing the of a constitutional duty. in with that republican agenda with a stark contrast to the past eight years of shortsighted proposals that will not balance keeping us on a treacherous fiscal path i decided to run for congress because i was concerned of the plane of world war i was leaving my grandchildren. and with those security issues around the world the list goes on.
and those that sent to washington to get wasteful spending under control. and then it is a next to accomplish that. and the two issues that have not been meaningful addressed with 200 plus billion dollars of mandatory savings and it is a floor not the ceiling it is the floor. i am encouraged by that commit it been -- made. wasteful spending can no longer be the prescription for this country's bills or problems. the time is to keep
washington accountable to giving results for the taxpayer. and to make a top priority for the country for all the grandchildren and i yield back. >> now the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> madam chair standing my appreciation and to my colleagues as well for the countless hours of developing the budget. the national debt is spiralling out of control with $20 trillion in debt. the spending policies of recent years did not work for hard-working american families and small businesses. this budget would fill the commitment to the american people and balance the budget to rein in spending
to put this on a sustainable fiscal path while at the same time ensuring the military has the resources it needs. and also an important for step towards a comprehensive tax reform one of the main priorities and i ran a small business for 25 years and to serve the community i grew up then i felt firsthand the tax system is holding back job creation and economic growth. and to enact pro-growth policies will improve the lives of the people that we're here to represent. we have been governing from one funding crisis to the next and this is beginning to restore regular order. it will grow the economy and create more opportunity to
reignite the american genius dream. i yield back. >>. >> my previous public service was in the florida of the legislature for every year we balance the budget and cut spending and turn them the extra money to attacks affairs of our state it was terrible preparation for coming to washington d.c. because now we spend too much the focus is disjointed and we continue to drive the country deeper into debt. there is a fall of the roman empire. and wonder how history will judge as with $19 trillion debt with the lack of a strategy to constrain spending that would cripple the country and those that
should be doing more to ensure that we are meeting those obligations without unnecessarily spending wasteful programs which they needed safety net with an economically destructive gimmickry for to many americans. and to have the historic opportunity to reduce entitlement spending because an absence of those reforms because of those of unfunded liabilities we will hollow of america from the inside and that is tragic. and to set some of those initial markers i would say to those who want to keep spending that only modest reductions are sufficient i would suggest that my comments are not partisan rhetoric gore right we norbert teapartier driven by
just math that will overcome us and the country will be swallowed whole of we do not have a conservative reform the likes i have begin to see in the budget. i yield back. >> the recognize the gentleman from georgia. >> as others have for your dedication and hard work and we had a serious debt problem we had to be serious about solving a. and with the extent of those fiscal challenges to look at the federal budget and future projections it did not take the long to understand the most dire issue facing us is 19. $8 trillion in debt. as we know the cost of this
crisis is the object mandatory spending without reforms that will soon consume all federal revenue to compromise every other education and transportation that will have to be financed. every dollar we barrault will cost us $1.27 to pay back i really should say future generations. not us. the conversatconversat ion is not only about dollars in since it is about people there are many americans who count on these untitled the program to provide a safety net for the elderly and a vulnerable population. resulting in decades of promises but they must we reformed this is why we approach the entire budget with fiscal discipline. we achieved is to prioritize the budget over 10 years of
mandatory savings and providing the military with the much needed defense spending bump up. this resolution lays the groundwork of the conversations we will have to have to keep the promises of the future generations must consider the future for children and grandchildren. i yield back. >> said gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> also like to complement your great work in this process going around to all committee chairs to create new ways of looking at mandatory spending and throughout this process i have said i will be flexible on the top line number and i
think we have done a solid work on that but my major concern of the budget process is the top line number that we are discussing today with a couple of other trillion dollar pieces that transcend the power of this committee in some way that are definitely related to the budget outlook. we got a staggering news on the peace linked to the obamacare tax increases and to seek a resolution we have not received clarity on the $1 trillion peas and moving forward. the major issues and anxiety i have is the relationship between the $2 trillion pieces and a pro-growth policy that everyone around the table just brought up. we need those policies to get this out of $20 trillion in debt and unfunded
liabilities per girl so my fear today unfortunately has been confirm the trend administration just sent out news instead of the corporate rate going down at 50 now around the 20 or 25 range i hope that is the end of the movement. so the worst fears to reach consensus on the health care bill looks like they come to fruition. i am struggling how they get the rates back down for those that cannot find jibs -- jobs for their kids after a school or college. so while we apply the topline of bribes a lasting the leadership to give clarity for those peas and the work of this committee. thank you.
>> i yield back. >> bid gentleman from south carolina is recognize. >>. >> kudos for your hard work so a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first-ever. you raise a very important point so and tell we get our arms around the issue we will of budgetary problems. i remain concerned about scale on the reconciliation front if you realize the numbers in the framework of the deficits roughly $750 billion per year with the $20 trillion for those kinds of numbers i'm concerned about economic
growth the forecast is rosy you can build that on rosy assumptions but i am open for voting for this based on tax reform which we have not seen in 30 years. it is incredibly important but that having been said i remain concerned what this will look like and i hate to sign off on this for what i don't believe then that includes the border adjustment tax with a tremendous award amount of import and export its i remain concerned of the trillion dollar tax so i just want to say thank you for your hard work bringing the committee together some of the gentleman from texas is recognized.
>> what an honor ted has spent his server and your leadership with my colleagues on this committee to reflect priorities reflected in the majority of the people to rebuild the military to strengthen the national security to become increasingly dangerous and unstable to increase defense spending by 170 billion given the men and women in general for the resources they need to be safe and successful as they prepare to confront the real and imminent threats number two with sufficient funding with a safe and abundant food supply like r&d in the global competitiveness with infrastructure especially in rural america where we produce the food and fiber for fellow americans. number three with a complicated and burdensome
tax codes to get the people back to work. number four most important to reduce the national debt one of the reasons the people were so frustrated and have lost confidence in congress because washington plays by a different set of rules and where is that more prominently displayed in the budget process for too long we operate as we have limited resources really we just spend their inheritance american people have to live within their means and the government half to do the same for gore yield back. >> i recognize the ranking member to be around for wordy presentation for go so ordered. >> i will yield three minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts. >> thank you.
in addition to the massive cuts of programs the budget for resolution puts the national security in jeopardy with defense spending to set up a false choice but to the military such as economic opportunity and diplomacy. diplomacy in foreign aid helps to keep out of conflict around the world addressing the root causes with extremism. that is why i a deeply troubled of of budget resolution will undoubtedly put the numbers at greater risk. this budget resolution cuts by more than 1 billion more than for context $11 billion from fiscal year 2017.
that goodleaf funding to save lives helping to protect americans at home and insure those critical assets are protected overseas the country's investment of foreign aid makes up only one place 6% of the federal budget a small price to pay compared to sending servicemen and women into harm's way and with that i yield back. >> i yield three minutes to the gentleman from california. >> ranking member the budget proposal is full of dangerous revenue gimmicks and draconian cuts critical to programs like medicaid and a snap. while the funding rises from $622 billion in 2018 through
$740 billion in 2027 is simultaneously cut its nondefense funding for the domestic programs including education and food security by $100 billion over the next 10 years. this simply walked away from investments promoting economic security and job creation and innovation. not only a refunding defense at an even higher level but we're doing so at a narrow view of the national security. one part is the environment i sit on the house armed services committee and i have served with many military leaders including the secretary himself with the threat to our military operations. over 30 military sites are all radiant -- already at
risk. due to sea level rise from the west coast wildfire season grows longer and more intense and in my district we have experienced over for significant fires in the last week along. last year in california fire for in as well as the air force base in my district. no question climate change will increasingly impact the nation's military infrastructure here and abroad and ultimately making it more difficult in america's interest for a radically under fang's the agencies dealing with these threats this is irresponsible with what we face and i encourage my colleagues to reexamine their priorities. i yield back. >> i now yield three minutes
to the gentlelady from texas >> i have no doubt of the commitment of the chair of this committee the looking at the comments of the ranking member to erase the worst of the extreme yet with those tax dollars this is what that budget simply wants to do to have tax cuts for millionaires with the tax increase for it for millions of working families these would depend on national security that endanger national security by narrowly focusing on finding you do not make america great if you do not put america first for our everyday americans are an afterthought from the
elimination of the fight against climate change to degreasing of the homeland's security budget and by a including monday for a budget of which no one needs or does not provide security a growing economy is key those policy experts agree that begins with a strong economy but we also must have a healthy population and its former acting director of the cia says on february 28 the health of the nation's economy is the single most determining factor for nation to protect itself. and its national security that involves diplomacy and engagement yet the republican budget increases spending more than the
budget but with its ability to engage in foreign countries to help with humanitarian aid is cut budgets from the state department of international development it is not a budget that embraces his national security or puts americans first simply it focuses on one thing with medicare and medicaid giving those massive tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires leaving those working people of america looking for bigger jobs that were promised by this president and administration looking for good health care in amended revenue service united states military as they go to far places that they be taken care of with housing and health care and education so now this budget
is over bloated and taking care of the american people. >> i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york. >> that proposed budget seeking $621 billion of defense. this proposes to voucher the medicare program to put the medicare program back to the pre-medicare era with private insurance companies did not want to write policies for older americans . today because of medicare 97 percent of americans now have insurance and the vast majority like the coverage they get. of lot of this is predicated trying to grow the american in the economy.
but in the first quarter of this year china's economy grew by 7 percent in the economy grew by 6% turkey's grew by 5% the u.s. economy grew by under 2% since 2000 we have lost 6 million manufacturing jobs and factories have closed. this dismiss this whole notion of investing in the growth of the american economy and record spending is proposed in the budget for afghanistan and iraq and pakistan. it doesn't make any sense but the fact of the matter is since we gauge americans have spent a trillion dollars and we have lost
1600 u.s. soldiers and spend $170 billion rebuilding roads and bridges of afghanistan. where is the budget we were promised for the robust investment of american infrastructure? we were once number one according to the world economic forum and the infrastructure creates jobs in the construction trade but also be recognized it unleashes the private sector perk of you really want to grow this economy beyond the anemic 2% we need to invest in the growth of the economy. china understands that to
open up those 27 asian markets we on the other hand sequin $.6 billion for all of the year told mobiles will pay for an for infrastructure and education and i yield back. >> i now yield three minutes to the woman from washington. >> mr. ranking member with many families and are struggling to our top priority in congress should be helping insure every american succeeds in the 21st century and invest in the foundations we need for long-term economic growth and security. must expand access to build the economy in which anyone willing to work hard can get ahead to build the better future for the next generation.
to provide the training in skills that workers need for the jobs of today and tomorrow and those that help to prepare the next generation of farmers and manufacturers. that is why i strongly oppose the budget resolution and. the majority had an opportunity to work in a bipartisan way to create jobs build an economy that works for everyone. instead it leaves the of middle-class behind with the basic necessities like health care and education. with k through 12 and higher education programs it is our responsibility to ensure that every child in the united states has access to a world-class education and no matter where they live or how much money their family makes. that is why i strongly support increasing federal
funding for like headstart as we all benefit when every child has the opportunity to succeed in must invest to get our children the chance. the budget also continues that destructive cycle of neglecting the the crumbling infrastructure with spending overturn the 50 billion of a 25 percent cut mindoro's and bridges in transit systems aren't as repair and at a time when so many are ready to work it makes no sense to delay these any longer. but the more economic opportunities that is a reflection of the value with other disregard with middle-class american with a complete lack of vision with
smart targeted investments that truly lived of hard-working americans that we should be helping slashing programs of families trying to get ahead has never led to jobs or economic growth and it never will. i yield back. >> three minutes to the gentleman from new york. >> the house republican budget is reckless and reprehensible. it seeks to balance itself on the backs of working families middle-class and senior citizens and the port, a sick, afflicted, and roll america all to promote a deep tax cut for the wealthy and the well-off and trying to finance the interest of the middle class the house republican budget promotes the lifestyles of
the rich and shameless it fast tracks massive tax cuts to the wealthy shifting the burden to the middle-class and the budget clearly shows house republicans are not interested on working on behalf of everyday americans the republican version here in the house takes away hope and opportunity from millions of families row showering millionaires and billionaires and corporations with unnecessary and counterproductive tax cuts to help average everyday americans pursue the american dream. instead of those and fallen on hard times suburban
america and the heartland of america the republican budget paul will sell these investments that is necessary to build simply to provide tax cuts to the of wealthy recycles the stale discredited myth that the tax cuts for the wealthy will several magically generate a problem to solve all of the nation's problems there is no evidence that this failed discredited economic theory will result in helping average everyday middle-class americans and those who aspire to be a part of a middle-class to achieve the american dream the yet we continue to
return time and again to the efforts simply to read grants tax cuts to the wealthy and well-off is regressive and irresponsible and should be rejected by this committee. >> the gentleman yells back and i give three minutes to the gentleman from california. >> from of uh, well above kentucky. >> we will be spending a lot of time with one another today and we also will hear a lot of members and statistics from around. the number 99.6 though some of the house republican tax
plan 99 .6%. not to be outdone they provide a $3 trillion tax cut and almost nothing to everyone else. the average person in the wealthiest 110 of 1% get 1.$5 million tax cut in the middle income households in this country will get $60. but it is worse than that because the budget also raises taxes on low income working families to ways. this budget cuts the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit by a combined $40 billion by
changing the requirements on the household is refundable tax credits help millions of americans support their families and lift millions of children out of poverty every year so were cut to these is a tax increase of low-income working families. so on the child tax credit down at 3 million children would this is such a betrayal of past accepted economic theory on the republican side that one of the greatest evangelist for the earned income tax credit was president ronald reagan who called it the single best anti-poverty program in government today and here we are in 201799.6 percent goes to less than 1% and a
massive tax increase on the working poor. it is wrong and i will oppose the budget. >> the gentleman yield back to the gentleman from california. >> the republicans say that we are pessimistic that somehow we don't believe in economic growth but that is simply not the case we just had a very different view of how to grow the economy. if you believe the challenge of growing the economy is the investor class the people that need the help our people who are speculating on wall street or part of the hospitals making 3 million or $6 million or corporations
with record profits need more credit so that as we grow the economy then i suppose he should follow for the republican budget but if you believe as our colleagues believe that the way you grow the economy is by putting your faith in ordinary americans who were manufacturers or nurses to do the hard work that has built this country then you could help the middle class. and should not be geared toward people that were already invested in the stock market's it is in the problem the dow was not growing fast enough but 50 percent of americans are working harder with wages that stagnated over the last
30 years. we can have that economic growth for those working families that deserve it if we invest in their job training programs through medicaid and medicare and according to mckinsey most jobs are elder care and child care or jobs for the middle class. that is the philosophical difference you believe america's greatness lies with wall street speculators ? or with ordinary hard-working americans for people who actually do the job? savas believe we're great because of ordinary individuals but the republicans say let's get the executive investor class.
that is the real difference. my final point indicating what is at stake so as the republican budget says on this tax proposal the only way to get there is the of border adjustment tax the largest tax increase on the middle-class over the last 50 years of order to this committee in a bipartisan basis to say no to the largest tax increase over the last 50 years against that border justin attacks -- adjustment tax. >> now to the gentleman from kentucky and. . . your leadership. i agree with their work colleagues whose said the
budget is a document of our priorities but unfortunately i'm disappointed this budget resolution does not invest in working families and it does so little to help millions across the country were struggling. why? as you have heard the budget prioritizes millions of dollars towards tax cuts for the very wealthiest in the country, the 1% the corporation said it does not have to be like as we have an obligation to define that spending priorities. but the blind ideological pursuit of tax cuts for the wealthy contained within the budget and honestly all of us know the failed policies of the past do not lead to the growth of the economy will cost american taxpayers gravely.
this budget slashes corporate tax rates costing american taxpayers 2. $4 trillion of revenue over the next 10 years. that is equivalent to the five-year cost of medicaid in the children health insurance program serving 75 million seniors with families in need. we know large american companies hold trillion dollars of offshore profits with a bipartisan consensus to bring those back into america. but this promise is a big tax break and forgoes 600 billion of those $650 billion from those corporations taking their profits out to they put the interest of the corporation's ahead of
working families and they don't work in the state of kansas where republicans increased to put forward tax cuts for the wealthy and they had to bulldoze back -- will those back and did not provide enough. they said that led to the anemic level of revenue of vital programs of medicaid and education and infrastructure. but we cannot pass the budget if we want to take care of working families i urge my colleagues to reject this budget to put together a budget that increases opportunity for all americans. i yield back.
>> thanks to the ranking member and the chairwoman we have heard that our job is to figure out a balanced approach to a federal budget meaningful and making the most sense for all americans so what we have is a bad -- a budget in balance and inappropriate the tough part and it isn't surprising and nothing new is the reflection of the president's budget with the now defeated hca to undermine our commitment of every single middle-class priorities so instead of investing in education and job-training transportation medicare or medical research for the health care system this budget signs a massive
check to wealthy americans and corporations. final people in mexico don't know where their next meal is coming over it not go to college or still cannot afford to go to the doctor. one out of every four new mexico children are food and secure my state has the second highest unemployment rate in the nation this budget prioritizes for the richest americans instead of these constituents who were working hard every day to provide for their families to make ends meet i will introduce you to a constituent of mine who is a single milkman negative single mother who was working full time and most recently describing how she manages the child-care benefit to make ends meet so
she can continue to work because she is doing everything right to support her family for recently she was offered $0.53 increase in wages so she could take that but in doing so she would lose approximately $600 of public benefits the most notably is that food assistance these are the choices the budget not only endorses but exacerbates so that my constituent has no housing or snap or child care or food for the future of her family. this is fundamentally unjust and bad policy. this is the america first budget only for those that are well connected and
wealthy and powerful industry and the goal of my colleagues for a fiscal even responsible budget that the cuts to medicaid and medicare that provide basic living standards to those constituents in my district is a devastating effort on what is already stretched too thin and it is an insult to my constituents to struggle to pay their bills and provide their kids with a better future i urge my colleagues to oppose the responsible budget and i yield back. >> yield myself three minutes. the theme is unmistakable on the democratic side with this budget with a list of backward priories. i have a of brother in the
barbecue restaurant business and he has done very, very well for a number of years for row he thought republicans would have him pay less tax but in 2008 in the middle of the presidential campaign he said i have some interesting news for you. we are voting for obama this year and all democrats. vice and what was your epiphany? he said finally figured out if nobody can afford barbeque doesn't matter about my tax rate so we have far too many people in this country who cannot afford to support the economy we have traditionally. 1% of the people cannot support a robust economy and this budget goes in a
completely wrong direction and less to those really need to have better lives i think my democratic colleagues with a republican budget could do damage to our security and the economy and health and happiness. this is not with the american people last four they did not ask for tax cuts for the dramatic cuts up programs to support basic living standards or to see the country left behind for lack of investment of the infrastructure for to see our security in peril what they want is to see real improvement in their lives in this does not do that i will offer amendments to move the budget toward a better place and encouraged by colleagues to except them
the we are waiting for the policy director to come, so bear with us. you may begin when you are ready. madam chair it is our honor and pleasure to provide you a walk-through for the next 60 minutes regarding the provisions of the chairman's mark. before we get started i'd like to stress that my appreciation
and the chairman's appreciationn to the staff on both sides of the aisle working on the markup is a lot of work and we would like to thank and commend the staff for their work particularly on the republican side working on the budget since last october i think no one is more thrilled than we are that we are in this market so we are trying to move forward. i would like to start by providing a background on the resolution for the new members of the committee. it is a house concurrent resolution that is not assigned by the president and we are not making statutory changes to the law. the basic components are a series of budgetary numbers, a title on budget enforcement and numerous provisions for the recall policy statements or in other words, policy statements that express the will of the
committee on a whole range of issues. that's what the budget resolution is. we are not the appropriations committee. we do not dictate what is provided for, we do not dictate specific policies etc. relating to tax reform and we are not the authorizing committee that relates to the policies to fulfill reconciliation structures. we are the architect if you will of the federal budget, the appropriators, the authorizing committees etc.. they are the general contractors. we decided the basic framework of the budget and they are the ones who decide kind of where the nails go and where the four titles go. we provided the framework and they provided the details. some of the questions will be asking about the details that are simply outside of the purview of the resolution
committee so if you want to provide that context. the marks before you is a post-policy budget resolution. we are making assumptions and a number of areas to take into account what we argue as a progrowth agenda of tax reform, regulatory reform, welfare and repealing an replac a place of . all of those functions have a progrowth effect on the economy. if the members recall, we had a hearing several weeks ago with a distinguished economist talking about those progrowth policies in this budgeand this budget ren incorporates a part of the testimony from the economists of that hearing as well as several outside economic experts that we would be glad to discuss in the further q-and-a process.
the mark is to balance over the next ten years and we are projecting a budget surplus of $9 billion by 2027, the tenth year of the window. in each of the years, we are based upon the baseline each of the years the budget deficits are below the deficit projection for those years like the january baseline projection. we do that in a number of ways. we make numerous changes on the discretionary spending and we are assuming many changes on the mandatory side. on the discretionary side for the fiscal year he teamed much again one of the basic functions is to provide the reallocation to the appropriations committee, the budget resolution calls for $621.5 billion for the national defense and it provides a
75 billion-dollar funding and approximately 511 billion for the nondefense discretionary and approximately $12 billion on the nondefense discretionary. those numbers are being reflected by other actions and other committees, for example the defense number is being matched by the house armed services committee and the full house. the committee is moving through their various bills and they are fulfilling both the defense appropriation number, the 621.5 plus the 75 billion-dollar. the appropriations committee also takes final steps this week to fulfill the 511 billion appropriation bills. so, that process is moving in tandem with the budget resolution process. on the mandatory side we are
making a number of assumptions on a whole range of various programs in the federal budget. we are assuming a 203 billion-dollar reconciliation structures for the authorizing committees. those instructions are designed to do two things. one is to provide for the ways and means to do deficit neutral tax reform and also at least $203 billion in deficit reduction in the next ten years. as the chairman stressed over the last several weeks but hundred 3 billion-dollar number is a feeling it's the hope of the members of the committee to the authorizing committee is to fulfill and meet that target and the actual savings will be greater than 200 billion over ten. as everybody that has been around for a while understands, the authorizing committees have maximum flexibility in reaching those numbers.
it's in the purview of the budget committee, not within the purview of the reconciliation structures that we can provide a policy directive to the committee that they have to achieve the budgetary savings by any particular policy approach. they have maximum flexibility. you will notice the instructions in part of the budget resolution there is just a number for each of the 11 committees and that is to fulfill the requirements of the congressional budget office call for a number. we also do did a number of assumptions in the mandatory programs. we do make deficit reduction savings in medicare and approximately 487 billion over ten. we have additional savings from the passage of the american healthcare act and we've been working to come up with the 11th
year of savings. the healthcare bill is based on the 17 through 26. our budget goes through 18 through 27 so we've been working on coming up with an estimate of approximately $204 billion of deficit reductions over the next ten year period from the repeal and replace as it was passed by the house. we are also making additional assumptions to seek the balance in the way of medicaid we are assuming additional savings at approximately 114 billion over ten years. the savings are in addition to the savings that were in the american healthcare act. we are also making assumptions on all of the other areas of the mandatory spending. one of the principles of the budget is to ask a free program, every major budget to
participate in the balanced budget exercise. therefore we are suggesting a number of savings in the federal retirement programs and we are making a number of savings for veteran, student loan reform programs, we're making changes in agricultural programs and on and on and on. on the revenue side, we are assuming as i said the house passed version of the american healthcare act on a $1.1 trillion reduction in revenue based upon the various taxes that were a part of the aca. those items have been removed from the revenue base line, so it's now $1.1 trillion lower than the current law baseline as estimated in the joint tax. we also are assuming something new as well, $700 billion in
additional savings from reducing by 50% over the next ten years the amount of improper payments. as committee members may recall, we have a very goo had a very gm the comptroller general of the gao which identified for the committee that in 2016, there were $141 billion of improper payments provided to various recipients by the federal government and if you extrapolate that, that sucks muchly 1.4 trillion improper payments in fact commented the 1.4 trillion is probably an understatement, so the number is probably closer to 1.5 or 1.6. we are assuming we reduced debt by 50%, plus we started from 1.4
and of course the generated $700 billion over ten years. on the economic assumptions we are assuming an average growth rate over the next ten years of 2.6% and we are counting $1.5 trillion of that feedback as a part of the deficit reduction efforts so if you add up the policy changes on the discretionary side along with the economic growth we have $6.5 trillion of deficit reduction as compared to the baseline so i think i will leave it at that. that is a very good overview of how the chairman's markets to balance some of the major provisions and we would be glad to answer any questions. we have the policy director in
on my right to have our chief economist. in the room we have other staff members available to answer other questions if we cannot answer those we would be glad to do so. >> thank you very much madam chair. i have some questions about supplemental nutrition assistance program and other security kind of like the mandatory savings function of 600 total $896 billion. so, my question is does the resolution assume turning it into a block grant in the previous years where does the resolution assume the plan into one that requires a state match?
>> you will notice that we planned to file sometime on friday there would be no reference to the report of the block grant. we have been working very closely with the committee and they've requested that it be open and flexible so we are receiving a number of savings in reforms. >> but we are not necessarily using the phraseology. >> how much does it assume? >> approximately 150 billion over the next ten years. >> and when would that start? >> sometime in the ten year period, five years i believe. >> most of it is after the fifth year. >> how much savings does the
budget assume in the work requirements? >> approximately 12.5 to $13 billion. >> are there other assumptions made with respect to the budget? >> i think there's other changes but primarily it is this sort of flexibility giving states more authority to help administer the so-called block grant approach that we are using today. >> how much does the budget assume from the federal employee or military retirement? >> about 230 billion. >> and how much from the earned income tax credit or the child tax credit? >> about $20 billion a.
i think there was some misinformation. the policies assumed in the savings is an idea considered by the ways and means requiring a social security number for each recipient of the tax credit therefore there is a need to improve the administrations and waste fraud and abuse in the program. >> so you are just assuming there's going to be a dollar savings? >> if i may ask you may recall the testimony from the comptroller general this program has been identified by believed to have somewhere around 35% or 25% of the outlays for these programs that are viewed for people that are ill --
ineligible. >> does the resolution assume changes to the programs like the school lunch program? >> b. eligibility provision -- >> what is the remaining difference because if i add all of these that i don't get to the 896. >> there are some assumptions that we make -- [inaudible] >> that is a pretty big difference between these and the total number to determine the funding level in the resolution.
>> i now recognize the ranking member >> i have a series of questions. first of all let me say off yor initial comments i want to thank the majority staff and the minority staff for the work that has been done not just on this markup throughout the year we appreciate the professionalism on both sides. i have a series of questions on medicare. the budget assumes 487 million medicare mandatory spending cuts over ten years. i want you to walk us through the components that make up the 487 billion. i will start with what is described in the blueprint. first is converting medicare into the premium support system for new beneficiaries starting in 2024. what is the total amount of savings assumed in the budget from that policy?
>> this is about the premium support system for the new beneficiaries starting in 2024 what is the total amount of savings in the policy. >> right now our savings between the structural reform is a combination. >> do you have specific policy parameters associated with that estimate with the plan in particular held up support
amount is determined? is it linked to the average and what happens to the premium support payment over time is it tied to a specific index such as medical inflation or does it float with do you have any details on that? >> do you have an estimate of how the plan would affect the solvency of the trust fund were the projected data of the trust fund exhaustion? >> knono we don't further reasod that ultimately the flexibility to determine how it would directly affect. >> i assume the answers are
going to be the same for these other areas but i want to ask anyway. so, you have the medicare policy change promoting the digital advanced care program. does the budget estimate estimate any savings associated in this policy and how much? the >> we don't have a specific. getting to the means testing for high income seniors, from those related premiums i guess the answer is the same.
>> every form o reform of liabiy liability insurance is it equal to the cbo score of 1215 which was 43.9 billion if you assume different savings, what accounts for the different savings? >> we assume the reforms. >> are you carrying all of the savings in the function or are some of them carried in the health jim >> we don't put that in the medicare function. we could provide some of these details to the staff about the various components.
the malpractice reform crosses so many different things and that's why we don't put it into medicare. what policies account is the budget assume savings in the affordable care acts such as the provision of closing the coverage gap? >> we do not specifically included that within our savings number. also some of the other provisions, these are again, just illustrative options to
equalize the eligibility of that but social security gradually over time into streamlining the medical education funding as well is another illustrative options that we include as part of the savings. >> i was going to ask you about raising the age, so you've already answered that. this is going back to the coverage gap that out of the committee assumed roughly 38 billion-dollar medicare spending reduction from revealing that policy. iis that consistent with this year? >> we do not specify that as an option. >> does it assume savings from the restructuring party including establishing a unified deductible from the catastrophic
of pocket cost making changes to the supplemental coverage? >> yes sir, it does. >> what kind of a savings do you have? >> it's the policy in the solution an in a week. this into the budget to simplify the program as opposed to how it currently is. >> i want to move to medicaid and some other health question is.
>> we would be glad to provide some of those numbers but i think it's important as just mentioned, the budget resolution is a series of policy assumptions that we make to meet our number but those are not binding on the committees for the illustrative examples. there are many different ways the ways and means energy commerce could theoretically have some point in the future meets those numbers. it's not so much the fact we are driving a particular policy or policies. it's simply an outline or blueprint to if we did the balance these are the approximate savings that we believe is a fair and a reasonable way of getting to balance within the ten year period. we are not trying to hide anything it's just some of the details are i don't want to say
irrelevant, but it's not a policy driven process. it's a numerical effort to show how we can get to balance. >> thank you for that. >> the gentleman is recognized. the building a better america document on page 31 and 32 states that the budget includes more funding for border security and construction. does that include president trumps border wall plaques and how much is assumed for 2018? >> it is the same amount that is being implemented by the house appropriations committee through the appropriations bill. i read somewhere, and don't quote me on this but i think it's approximately $1.6 billion in fiscal year 18.
the budget assumes a 1.504. the budget assumes the house passed american healthcare act making its projections so how much in the savings are you assuming and are you carrying all of the savings and health te health functions of these are two questions how much are you assuming in savings and are you carrying a weapon in the health function or is some. in other functions? >> it's all in the health function. here's how we can help show you how we are getting that deficit reduction savings.
it's obviously a simple mathematic goal subtraction of revenue outlays. if we are reducing the outlay by approximately $1.35 trillion we are reducing the revenue by 1.3. the net of that is 204 billion savings to reduce the spending and revenue and spending and revenue comes to 204. >> and its 1.35. that's with all of the various changes in the subsidies that is all rolled into that over ten years. >> effectively ends than eligibility expansion and converts medicaid to a per capita cap or block grant.
how much are you assuming them from the ahca? >> approximately $130 billion. approximately $830 billion a. we assume what was given from the house passed version. >> everything is from the house passed version just out for one more year it's like the 11th year that's why the numbers may seem a little unusual because we are all used to seeing the fiscal year 17 through 26 member which is 119 billion why you see the 204 because we extrapolated that to the extra year 2027 so it is a very different ten year
period. >> as the budget goes beyond and supports a mandatory work requirement how much savings are you assuming? >> approximately 110 billion. >> the budget encourages the states to institute changes like cost-sharing among others. how many are you assuming from this policy? >> i don't think we got that number. >> the budget goes beyond and purports to restore for medicaid payments. how much are you assuming from this policy and what are the policy assumptions generating in
the savings? >> we still approximately $2 billion of savings give or take. we don't go into the particular specific policies associated to come up with an approximate so that we can approximate some policies. the idea behind i that is to institute purity for the medicaid recipients. >> if you can share that data that would be helpful in responding to this question. does the 1.35 trillion or reflect savings from other
changes to medicaid, how much are the savings from things like the children's health insurance program and if so how much? >> there is no savings included in that number. there is a change of policy but it is included in the health care reform act it is a separate policy. the number i read, there's nothing related. we are making some assumptions that separate.
>> is that something that can be provided? thank you madam chair i will yield back. >> moving onto the education function the budget proposes 210 billion in cuts. what assumptions are behind epistemic? >> most of them are on the student loan reforms. it's primarily on the student loan section. >> this budget is transferring the pell grant to a purely discretionary program not a mandatory program.
the budget encourages innovation and education while focusing on investment and technical education programs. is it fair to assume it increases budget for the technical programs and did so by how much? >> we don't make any specifics regarding school choice at all. >> the budget is a savings of 49 billion over ten years a mandatory veterans programs. what policy does that reflect and do you assume it changes to an unemployed ability? >> it does not accept the president's proposal on employability but we make a number of other policy changes. those numbers are at the discretion to meet them but it's a whole range of policy
assumptions. >> what is the 16 billion-dollar reduction in the authority in the function and 2018? >> that is related to the surpluses that would likely not be spent anyway. does that mean the appropriations committee will provide an offset in the bill? >> i don't believe we would crowd the surplus in the lead. we can verify that but i think there are still some surplus funds in the trust fund >> you indicated 6.5 c-charlie
and in deficit reductions resulting in a $9 billion surplus in the year 2027 approximately ten years from n now. how does the budget proposed to get their? >> that is a good question. it's through the hard work and every member of the committee. we met for -- we had been working two or three times a week since january on this budget with the members of the committee so it is a series of decisions and compromises and changing economics and looking at the programs where we can save money from the reforms.
>> but projecting the budget growth what are the assumptions that go into a bold statement about eliminating budgetary deficits entirely in the amount of $6.5 trillion continuous? >> we believe we want to improve upon the projections. it's averaging the next ten years. our budget assumes 2.6% of gdp and that is $1.5 trillion of deficit reduction.
>> in the last 17 years, the american economy has grown on average each year about 2%. you've are projecting over the next ten years you're going to improve the economic performance by six tenths of a percent next year. how do you do that? >> i will let my chief economist answer that question. >> it is a post-policy budget.
new paper released yesterday. they feel this type of progrowth policy will help achieve higher economic growth. so what you are proposing to do is take the policy actions today theoretically that will result in future economic growth which is the assumption that you base the deficit elimination on a. it is a modern view of supply-side economics. >> whereby corporations, wealthy
individuals experienced tax savings and new investments in job growth. >> we believe when implemented it will generate more job creation. from the budgetary perspective it refers to a piece of particular legislation in the spending or revenue world where it is projected that particular legislation has a feedback effect. more broadly it's more than dynamic scoring. it's more of a progrowth agenda that is designed to get more people working and paying taxes.
>> we are here to ask questions of the staff of the budget. >> if you are making very ambitious projections as it relates to the budgetary deficit elimination over a ten year period a deep understanding of the assumptions the budgetary goals are made. >> there are $6.5 trillion of deficit reduction over a ten
year period and only 1.5 is related to this macroeconomic feedback is more progrowth policies so it's only a portion of a. [inaudible] >> improper payments across the government where did the savings appear in the functional distribution. there are 817 billion mandatory savings. what do they represent?
employee benefits that includes 32 billion reconciliation changes from oversight and government reform. for the 5050 match we moved the employees to 50% of the cost of the defined benefit plans the proposals will yield enough economic growth to reduce the deficit by 1.8 trillion reallocate 300 to offset tax reform. the misnomers that have been
reported in glad you asked that question. with the 300 billion represents is this as huge as the alluded to if you take the 2.6% real gdp growth and apply that it would create $1.000000000000 in the ten year period. we are only calculating 1.5 trillion as part of the deficit reduction. >> it's not to make a policy decision as to see the future dynamic affect or macroeconomic effect of tax reform will be 300 million beer simply saying we want to avoid the
since the tax plans that have been out there between 3 trillion to 7 trillion does that mean you're not embracing the plans put out by house republicans. are not the ways and means committee. i would get a phone call, the chairman and market a phone ca call. we give them a number they've got to be deficit reduction and it's up to them to decide the policies. >> thank you for your responses to.
so it's not a proposal for 2997. >> it is a mechanism were scoring. it produced a cost estimate on hr 2997. for the record, i mentioned this concept or the budgetary aspect of the concept that was provided for lester's budget as well. on page three of the cost estimate, it concludes that the fact spending will increase by $90.7 million. it's creating a net deficit over the window of 20.70 billion.
not a governmental. >> they say they are extrapolating the cost of running over ten years and that has come out. no one is saying it's going to save money. they are giving control over airspace to the interested parties so that's going to be the airlines. they took the revenues out of the 70 billion they don't start calculating increased revenues until halfway through or so.
i'm sure that's why there is a deficit over the logic. it is a reserve fund so we have cbo saying $20.7 billion of the deficit and the budget document project doesn't reflect any deficit. capabilities and provisions for things that are yet to be determined. this $20.7 billion we are going to dig it out and just say to just assume zero. >> we are not making any assumptions. >> [inaudible] >> we don't assume that it is a
savings or increasing. >> it is a bill not get made into law. any concept we are adapting in this budget is treated as the reserve fund. it's the discretionary and mandatory spending and we have the reserve infrastructure as well. why is this in the budget? >> because they've asked us to provide scorekeeping flexibili flexibility. spent why is it even in the budget? >> it's a reserve fund because
it facilitates the ability of the committee in the chairman of the committee to try to address the budgetary issues relating to the policy. it doesn't make the value judgments one way or another. >> i think the staff for their quality time. >> any other questions? i recognize the vice chair. the budget resolutions on the effort be entered into the record including whether that's from the u.s. chamber of commerce and americans for tax reform. >> without objection, so order
ordered. we will now proceed with consideration of the 2018 concurrent resolution on the budget under the committee containing the budget aggregates categories and other components of the budget resolution. amendments may be offered to the document subject to the agreement between the majority and minority into the document has been approved and incorporated into the concurrent resolution on the budget for the final vote on whether to report the measure to the house. the committee now will proceed to the consideration of the budget aggregates functional categories and other appropriate measures. ..
>> >> the time is evenly divided between the sponsor of the amendment and the member opposed so they must reserve one minute for their clothes because that is part of their total. without objection and so ordered we will now proceed to the amendment they are considered and put in front of you. are there any amendments?. >> madam chair i have an amendment. >> amendment number one and
the staff will distribute copies. amendment number one to reject the american health care act. >> madam chair i offer the amendment of those hard-working americans all across the country to a nights ago to approve term care to take health care away from of millions of americans and how that include the insidious a peal of the affordable care act and force my colleagues and the field will not happen once and for all we will not go back to the days to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions
and we will not bring back those costs with those young adults to be on their parents' insurance to do otherwise that we would lead with so much really get tired of winning. and then to have mass the tax cuts to give wilt is to the most fortunate instead my republican colleagues should work with us to improve the affordable care are to truly make sure we expand to affordable health care. we're ready to do get to work for every american deserves access now that donald trump and his friends and colleagues and i yield
one minute to mr. jefferies. >> paying more and get blast to increase the co pay and premiums and deductibles. so with 23 million americans oh affordable health care coverage. so causing them to pay up to five times more for those from pre-existing conditions the affordable care act has worked for the american people to focus on strengthening it which is why i support this amendment.
>> it is long past time through the of threats a repeals are working with solutions about solutions that lower cost the repeal which is included in the budget will make people pay more for less and move the country's health care system backward and then with those projections of pre-existing conditions is not the way forward. and those to expand access to care to lower the cost of
prescription drugs as a strongly urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. >> i have shared many times the experience of went through to be diagnosed of 41 years old on one day i was the picture of health and a stab was a cancer patient. that was like being hit with an anvil llord diagnosed with any seriously illnesses devastating. but the realization in then to fight for your life but before that you had to fight your insurance company to get the coverage to you before so many theories where they have to choose for the affordable care act
to a for those copays and deductibles. , with that affordable care act so the language in this legislation takes us back to those nightmarish days that too many people have to live with every single day. and to send a small message now that the efforts to repeal the affordable care act come to an end it is time for republicans to work and improve it i urge a yes vote. >> so an opposition to the amendment would democrats won't talk about is how they're harming millions of individuals and our
skyrocketing b.c. that in my state from tennessee those have risen by 65 percent by over 100 percent and with those dwindling choices not even a single provider to provide insurance for people who seek care under obamacare. and without penalty so they pay for nothing. to have health insurance on paper to have access to affordable care because the deductibles are so high a dose of making read $35,000 a year with a deductible levator $10,000.
so to save these kinds of things so instead of explaining obamacare actually penalizes americans because they cannot afford to with those standards of what the washington bureaucrats have solved. so in 2016 6.5 million americans pay $3 billion for a penalty. and do not received any care for that. 12.7 million claim that exemption from the penalty. that is roughly 20 million people that is not worth the trouble to move from the top
down government mandate what they don't want to a plan that gives them a choice that they decided that they want her coverage that they can afford for a plan that best suits their needs. i will now yield to the gentleman from ohio. >> and i can empathize with my colleagues on her health condition and i am also a cancer survivor. my mother and my brother also and i have thousands and thousands of people in my district that are as well. unfortunately many of those people have been the victim
of a law that is no longer protecting them with pre-existing conditions but why the people in the 18 counties is an ohio is pulling out with a of the man they will have no trace of the insurance carrier on the exchange. i wonder what those people will do when they don't have a choice for a health care provider. the news just continues to get more dire day to day and it is important that we as lawmakers take the important steps to read peel and replace this law with one that will work for all americans. i can tell you the cbo
confirms as it pertains to the american health care act most of the drop is to is the repeal of the individual mandate and those millions of people that will not choose to buy a product that they cannot afford. of the house passed the american health care act on may 4th then this is the official position regarding the repeal everyplace efforts and the budget reflects that. so i joined the chairman to oppose this amendment and remember ultimately will we're trying to do is give
the american people were choice for higher-quality and access to affordable health care. is a big difference between coverage and access if you have the $18,000 per year premium end of $9,000 deductible that is $27,000 before the insurance pays the diamond that is unacceptable and we try to rectify. i yield back. >> mr. ferguson?. >> all too often we hear stories back home about what the affordable care act is doing to middle-class families.
as a consultant and educator they spend two thirds of her salary on health insurance they pay more than they do their house. i hear this from every small business owners across the board we have got to keep fighting to repeal the affordable care act to the half to make sure for that mandatory spending in the unchecked manner. and to continue to destroy a middle-class families most importantly there will continue to put the most will burble in the nation a risk that is something we have to recognize because fiscal calamity in the most
precarious positions. i yield back. >> you are recognized for one minute. >> i will yield my a minute. >> i want to say how strongly i support this amendment. and with those attempts at health care to provide better quality affordable care for millions of americans across the country . this is why republicans in the senate would not vote for the bill because if we take away benefits that americans need like pre-existing conditions but regardless if you are a republican or democrat. read state or blue status is
common sense. and i hope we all pass this amendment to serve the american people. i yield back. >> all those in favor? o post? a recorded vote is requested we will postpone until we have finished the debate after this batch of seven amendments. are there others?. >> what is the number on the amendment?. >> number two. >> representative jackson
lee?. >> you're recognized for six minutes. >> thinking of the chair and the of a ranking member. and to repeal that health care lifeline there's boy scout and girl scout it is like throwing gasoline on the campfire in the forest and literally bring the entire force down this provides major upheaval to the american people and the
and those were to be used on a phone system of those resources and then use those dollars to improve the 911 call system and use the money for other things for girl and with that medicaid expansion. >> one lady who lives of optimism who depend solely on medicaid to give her quality of life and give her housing but that would be negative with the bill that cuts so much for the of rich and add a work requirement to medicaid is a barrier to health care coverage is a myth to say able-bodied people are on medicaid. at the cost of $73,000 so a
young man this is what cutting medicaid will do. so all of these premature babies one with a repeal or a proposal represented in this room by president of united states himself. that provides the opportunity to balance the budget with those tax expenditures so cancel that tax break with the employees don't get the raise in to get from corporate america. and those then impact the stockholders as well.
and close the alzheimer's in the corporate tax system into kerry bade it hedge fund managers talk to the hedge fund person this is of way to create dialogue to provide an option to the draconian budget to slash and burn to repeal the health care as a lifeline for the american people. i ask my colleagues supported the amendment and i will reserve my time. >> is there time and opposition?. >> i yield to the lady from washington state. >> apologize you still have time.
>> i rise in strong support of of budget resolution county non trumpcare to get medicaid while transferring $1 trillion of tax cuts. in for this incredible program two-thirds of all seniors depend on medicaid funding 60 percent of all kids with disabilities rely on medicaid coverage. and nearly half come from a state from medicaid expansion. the 630 residents it is unacceptable and they're urging colleagues to adopt this amendment to make sure
we protect our recipients across the country. i yield back. >> will take the remaining few seconds point to somebody's neighbor or friend or senior citizen who was devastated. >> your time is expired. i am in support of the amendment. >> if there is the person who would claim time an opposition?. >> i claim time. >> the gentle lady used the term of gold ruble and that is exactly what medicaid is supposed to be is health care for the most avoidable
-- vulnerable. isn't that that is what the budget aims to correct. created in 1965 as an open-ended as the entitlement programs and it hasn't been changed since. and with 1965 medicaid does not work for states to read minister. to have some sort of wafer that the gentlelady is talking about. that is not going to work. to block grant funds to the state and let them decide who is for and who will need the help. what kind of help they need
and how they should best get it. and then to care about there is no waste fraud were abused in the system the gao has what they defend the is a high-risk program doing that since 2003 if medicaid remains on a trajectory it will cost $1 trillion every year we should measure our success by how many people don't meet need medicaid or how many successfully could get off the program not how many more we could trapped inside of it.
>> and to agree with my colleagues to take a step back with what the affordable care acted expanded medicaid services for the blind and disabled and elderly to provide free health care those that are able-bodied that fall below the income threshold. ossa to get in and said the job market. so with this budget proposal
for able-bodied adults if they are blind or disabled. but if we truly want to help americans with those that our better paid we see examples in with those work requirements in 2014 and within one year the adults experience 114% in colorized -- arise and and tom. and we have a labor problem. and with record low unemployment was simply been
the years ago. and it has dropped all across the country to expand those jobs and help their regions have to get people motivated with sensible work requirements. i yield back. >>. >> it is not every day to find themselves at odds with former president clinton so of course, president clinton called obamacare crazy and was right it will restore futures of obamacare and and captives was better before the president clinton and disagrees with fat her space
cap guarantees that the pregnant women and children will continue to be eligible for benefits. by the cruelties to tell them they have coverage cannot provide access. this is totally unsustainable to embrace obamacare that means they are hardworking american paying for the cost of their own health care and half of the cost of symbiosis. medicaid is important for the affordable and disabled in seniors and children and we do nothing for the affordable with the gm more people into a system already feeling then that is why i support the of approach in the budget so washington has
failed at managing the medicaid program with uncontrolled cost meanwhile states to doing better all across this country when they're able to innovate the show better health care outcomes and more access that is why i strongly support block grant medicaid to have a federalist system with those laboratories of democracy have the opportunity to try different things to deliver a higher-quality product to the people of their states. and i yield back. >> you're recognized for one and a.
>> -- minute i heard this morning member said i will keep an open mind and i believe those words are misguided. states are not responsibly handling health care it will be harmed ready underlying budget and as indicated this person young babies and senior citizens but the be very clear to the american people certain rules mean you will then have medicaid for the vulnerable or those senior citizens young mothers like young brittany with autism.
for those block grant medicaid dollars. >> your time is expired. you could be fiscally responsible and save lives and ask for support of the amendment. >>. >> all those in favor?. >> the no's have it. >> a recorded vote is requested we will postpone until we have finished debating the batch of seven amendments. >> i have an amendment of a bite to offer. >>. >> ran to with tax increases
with middle-class families. >> the goal of this amendment is very straightforward opposing any tax increase for low income families including any reduction of refundable tax credits i would hope we could have bipartisan support for this amendment because certainly to have lower income families. so those reasons the rest to support this amendment so they have seen wages stagnate but for over 35 years they have seen little
so the very last thing they need is lower take-home pay but that trump campaign tax plan of those middle-class families with that presidential campaign candidate trump through the state's tax plan on personal exemptions with that head of household filing status. now even in combination changes with the standard deduction with these two provisions would raise taxes on more than a million families. by repealing the personal exemption it would freeze taxes on those with more than two children in this would raise taxes on families led by a single
parent the result was larger single parent families with sec taxes increased leaders and leaders of the getting tax cuts. but the cuts to refundable tax credit still raise taxes but by a combined $40 billion by changing the requirement on who is eligible. allocating at higher taxes. so please join with me that
they will not accept higher taxes with the middle class please support me in this amendment. >> the gentleman yield back as their member would like to claim time in opposition and?. >> and is recognized for seven minutes. >> i appreciate the support from pennsylvania that most of this is inaccurate is a just they would raise taxes on single parent households it is disingenuous calling for a comprehensive tax reform that in regards to that earned income tax that budget would reduce payments
that of the earned income tax credit payments out of $40 and cut benefits for i have a copy of the gao report which we had a hearing that the earned income-tax credit of 2016 alone one-fourth of those improper payments to inquire the second the tax credits show that they are eligible by their social security number for their children and has a 24% error rate. so in those situations but to pay interest fraudulent
payments for this committee to pursue those measures to reduce that. i will yield two minutes to my friend from a minnesota. >> no one on this side wants to raise taxes on anybody that is the whole point of this exercise. in this rather strange amendment with that budget resolution and calls for increasing the standard deduction of $6,300 for those individuals and 12,600 for married couples filing joint lead so that will lower their rates and then to simplify the code. and then give the live close to the politically connected.
and then to be treated the same way. but let me reiterate some to be seen to be surprised under the affordable care act so undoing those tax hikes is the giveaway. in the into a decade of economic growth and then push for welfare reform. based with the economy growing that benefits everybody growth is not a function of spending or we would be really buying gave investors but it is the rest.
irish red colleagues to vote no. i yield back. >> so tuesday's ideas coming out of the trouble budget. so this really does say to simplify tax reform. and with those issues that they talk about and i am understand his concerns. so i do know how complicated the tax code is. with a simplified pro-growth tax reform. in what they are talking about with their hard-earned
money and then is suspending the noncompliance of then to help all-american its bid to get more job opportunities. so i know we will be. and then to explain those tax credits and 218 status and more then 80 line items. we should be working together to simplify pro-growth reforms. i urge you to vote no. >> the bls puts out a the category of the banks is a total composition.
and ashley has gone up 30%. and since 2009 it has increased. m per month. then have to provide compensation for health care relieved. but in those households earning the annual income of $50,000 but at the end of 2014 but only eight-point 1% of american households earned one budget thousand by 2014 it whenever a 27%.
and then what i want to get across is we already have these issues but we need to argue from facts. and then to be provided by businesses and i yield back the urge my colleagues to vote no. >> and since they said we need to work from facts that we would mention on the other side from the early '60s marginal tax rates were set definitely higher than there were today. per rates were significantly higher to take that top rate at 39.6% e then the reagan
tax cuts cited in the '80s brought this down to low-level where they are today. and this is what needs to be pointed out go back as they were during the kennedy years. i also point out that nothing was addressed with respect to urge income-tax credit. but i see a lack of support to incentivizes work for the working poor. to have bipartisan support if weakened signal support by supporting this amendment i yield back.
>> all those in favor?. >> a recorded vote is requested we will postpone until we've finished debating this batch of seven amendments. >> i have an amendment at the desk. >>. >> amendment number four. >> we have been playing a game over several years with this spending were brought into play with the budget control act ended is thought
to be so attractive they would spur negotiators with the budget agreement. read the whole notion the sequestration and that we should not curtail services for restrictions. but in the past those bipartisan agreements but then they have done so in the original budget control act with a commitment to parity and then to find a way for word there is a defense cap. and then what happened with
the trump budget and then $54 billion increase but non-defense discretionary funding for hundreds of programs everyday to produce innovative research to make sure they drink clean water and travel safe to maintain the status as the economic leader. but that brings to the even lower and with non this aggression and refunding and the $24 billion and 2027.
in through 2027 from that base line that is a far cry from that parity from the budget control lacked my budget would call congress to do the responsible thing with parity in non parity investments as soon as possible with that i yield as much time as assumed. >> i rise in strong support this amendment. we have to understand national security is intricately linked with economic security in that is of the talk about with parity of non-defense discretionary spending. we cannot decrease defense spending at the expense of non discretionary because of
everybody listening those are the essential programs like education, infrastructure, j ob training, a cancer research, and as one example the cat 90 percent of the state department budget in this proposed budget resolution and but that the of military commanders that said please don't decrease because we will leave more bullets so that idea of parity is to make sure we a understand defense spending is important but we have to continue to invest in the economic opportunity for millions of americans across this country and with the spending caps that we have if we continue we will
dramatic reduce the investment dollars that we have been in job training all of those things that are so essentials to economic security for. i support this amendment and i yield back the sarah number who would like to claim time in opposition?. >> i will claim time. >> i'd like to thank the ranking member for his comments. i n new here and it was hard
to understand exactly what sequestration is for the budget control act was or hard to believe congress would allow the arbitrary limit to stand in place rather than make those decisions based on what we believe as the budget has come to understand. so in regard to congress with those negotiations raising the limits and a reasonable manner we will need to do get to that point. i also agree the defense level spending in this budget is a better response to the needs we have been the limits set from the
control act. the first duty of the federal government is to keep her family safe this includes protecting our nation from threats foreign and domestic reflecting then need we see today the country faces a larger and more complex threats from across the globe we see threats from north to react, isis, russia and iran and pressed to research and our strength abroad we take that seriously and is reflected in the budget providing the tools and resources and the paid a need to keep the homelands safe. where i disagree and rise in opposition is the idea
arbitrarily we have to have any areas of the budget to another and that is what the budget control act did to take the responsibility away from us to evaluate exactly what the needs are. so in the same way the defense spending number is based on our needs, we should do that on in the area not just based on a spending level in another area. that is exactly what was done with the last omnibus appropriations bill signed in 2017 and agreed to by former president obama. he rejected the idea there had to be parity between defense and nondefense spending.
so i rise in opposition to ask members to oppose this bill for that reason and i will yield like two minutes. >> i will use day visual example. we have an on discretionary dollars and split that 50/50. that does not reflect anything of a limited resource. remember i am a marine and we deal with things simply. so debt and defense is related very deeply because as the chief admiral said it is the single biggest security threat to our country. defense dollars in this budget they are catching up
dollars after eight years sorely needed after underfunding the department of defense. we have service men and women who are retired and equipment that is broken and that was not recognized purport is our congressional responsibility to provide for the common defense to guarantee the safety and security of all of our citizens. there is an old saying that says it is tough to remember what your priorities were in the swamp is the alligators have you up the tree but in this particular case the alligator is the debt and many to make sure we're focused on what comes first.
we need to have a strong defense is bouncing up prior juries asian to prioritize these limited resources. so to make those tough decisions and the allocation of limited fiscal resources i strongly urge my colleagues to vote no and i yield back. >> i yield back. >> derecognized one minute to close. >> this has led guiding principle of parity and we recognize with a bipartisan agreement that those defense caps are too low a need to be increased but together side say they play a vital role to keep the economy strong.
i know when the former chairman was chairman of the appropriations committee and made the case that non-defense discretionary cap was too low into could not appropriate funds adequately so we have already gone over what they include with transportation and health care and much more this is what they overwhelmingly support. so we can invest in a national priority and i yield back. >> all those in favor of the amendment? those opposed? in the opinion of the chair she -- the no's have it we will postpone the recorded vote until the debate the