tv House Budget Committee Marks Up Budget Resolution CSPAN July 19, 2017 12:04pm-2:05pm EDT
how do you do that? >> oh, i'll let my chief economist andy -- dr. morton answer that question. it is dr. morton. >> it it is. yes, sir. so this as rick mentioned at the outset, this is a -- >> is your microphone on, mr. morton? >> yes, it is. >> if you'll move it a little closer. >> as rick mentioned this budget -- the committee is -- of this year, it is taking the approach of a post policy budget. >> well, what does that mean? >> well, what we mean by that, this budget assumes a series of what we believe are and expect to be pro growth reforms and that includes the house passed version of the -- the house passed american health care act. welfare reform. comprehensive tax reform. the administration's regulatory
reform. and spending based deficit reduction. the amount of which you have already mentioned and then we -- the economists such as john diamond and a former cbo director who testified before our committee. they both feel that with policies of this type as a package -- >> would that be in the realm then of what's referred to or characterized by neo economists as dynamic scoring? >> well, macroeconomic feedback from stronger economic growth and in addition to those two economists, in a new paper released yesterday john taylor, john hogan, glenn hubbard, kevin wash all distinguished economists who also feel that this type of combination of pro growth policies can help us achieve higher economic growth.
>> so it's dynamic score? what you're proposing to do is take policy actions today, theoretically that will result in future economic growth which is the assumption that you base your deficit elimination on. >> correct. i think -- >> so it's a modern view of -- a latter day view of supply-side economics? in other words, a policy whereby corporations, wealthy individuals, experience tax savings and then that money finds its way back into the economy in new investment and job growth. >> madam chair, and mr. yardmouth, i'm not sure that the committee would agree with that characterization exactly, but i think it's fair to say that as andy described the pro growth
policies of our budget when implemented will generate more economic growth, more job creation, more people -- >> so that by definition is dynamic scoring? i'm trying to get you to that point. >> i think for a budgetary perspective, dynamic scoring refers to a piece of particular legislation or in the spending or revenue world where it is projected that that particular legislation has a macroeconomic feedback effect. we're talking more broadly, it's more than dynamic scoring i.'s more of a pro growth agenda to get more people working, paying taxes, thus more revenue is generated to the federal government. >> but inclusive of dynamic scoring a component? >> we're budget guys so we like to look at things from the budgetary perspective rather than the broader, you know, economic perspective. >> let me tell you what my concern is. >> mr. higgins, we're moving into different territory. we're here not to debate philosophy or policy, but here
to ask questions of the staff about the budget. >> i'll close -- i respect that, but i just -- i mean, if you're making very ambitious budgetary projections as it relates to budgetary deficit elimination over a ten year period, a deep understanding of the assumptions on which those ambitious budgetary goals are made i think are very, very relevant here. >> but we'll have the opportunity to debate that. >> if i may, just to clarify as i said we have $6.5 trillion in deficit reduction over the ten year period. only $1.5 trillion is related to this macroeconomic or more pro growth policies. so it's not the whole thing, but only a small portion. >> i'll get a rocket round in. >> does the gentleman yield back?
thank you. now i recognize the ranking member. >> thank you very much. i have a rocket round now. real quick questions. >> typical yes or no answers? >> that's fine. the budget assumes $700 billion from reducing improper payments across the government. where do those savings appear in the functional disposition? >> funtion 930. government wide savings. >> so there are in the allowances function there are $817 billion in mandatory savings. what do they represent? >> just stand up and say it. >> mostly from the -- oh, what it is is that's a base line adjustment for the most part. cbo will take from mandatory -- the discretionary side, they
provide increases in discretionary spending that are over and above the caps. we take that expenditure out of the base line if you will and most is a base line adjustment for the bca. >> got it. let's see. in the indistributed receipts function, what does the rough $100 billion in savings represent? >> i mean, one of the ways that you can get there is to sell strategic petroleum reserve. that's an option to get there. >> and spectrum savings are also part of to. >> in the discretion, what does it provide for the program integrity funding? >> i don't believe we make any specific assumptions on the numbers. we have the 302 allocation
numbers that we provide to the appropriations committee. >> in the table of mandatory assumptions we have talked through quite a few assumptions today, but they're relative to the cbo base line. you shared a table outlining the pragmatic outlines -- will you do that again? >> i would be glad to. >> does it assume funding from the 2020 census? >> it doesn't preclude funding. >> it does. >> in the function, does the budget assume the elimination of the block grants. >> it does. and as you know, that proposal has been in every republican budget since i have -- since the '90s. >> these are illustrative options. >> what else is assumed within the $7.2 billion cult in 2018
for function 450? >> okay. there's once again there's multiple ways you can multiple options to get there. one example is this is for 450 mandatory or discretionary? >> discretionary. >> okay. one example is to eliminate fema preparedness nondisaster grants. that's an option that can get you savings of about $10.9 billion over ten years. >> thank you. on the question of federal employees how much of the savings in the budget are attributed to cuts to medical employee compensation and benefits? it's $122 billion from oversight and government reform. what policies does that assume? >> just a second. go ahead. >> okay. one example this is for function 600 which is where federal retirees outlay.
first 50-50 match we move the first employees to the 50% of the normal cost of their defined benefit plan. >> okay. almost done. almost done, thank you. this is related to revenues. your estimate that -- you estimate that your proposals will yield enough additional economic growth to reduce deficits by $1.8 trillion and you allocate $100 billion to allocate tax reform. does this mean you won't credit any more to the tax bill as it moves through the process? >> madam chairman, that's one of the misnomers i think a that's been reported. that's -- i'm glad you asked that question. what the -- what that $300 billion represents is simply this. as you just -- as you just alluded to, if you take the 2.6% real gdp growth and apply that to the cbo rules of thumb of projected deficit reduction in
the future you're right. it would create $1.8 trillion in deficit reduction over the ten year period. we are only including -- we are only in calculating $1.5 trillion of that 1.8 as part of our $6.5 trillion deficit reduction. we are not counting that $300 billion not to make a policy decision as to say that the future dynamic effect or macroeconomic effect of tax reform will be $300 billion. we're not saying that. we're just simply saying we wanted to avoid any sort of appearance that we are double counting the macroeconomic effect to help reduce the deficit and also theoretically be involved in any potential scoring of tax reform in the future. i mean, the number is $300 billion. and we've got -- we arrived at that $300 billion number. we went back to look at past
public and private objections of comprehensive tax reform and the average was around the $300 billion. that's why we backed out the $300 billion. but in no way does that imply or create any type of limitation or any type of reserve for macroeconomic feedback from tax reform. because we don't know what tax reform is. again, contrary to some of the comments -- i mean, we don't know what ways and means is going to propose but we know they'll do something and there will be obviously a macroeconomic feedback or whatever they propose. >> well, then my last question, you assume a revenue neutral tax -- >> deficit neutral. deficit neutral. >> yes. since the tax plans that have been out there have estimated to lose between $3 trillion and $7 trillion, does that mean you're not embracing the tax plans put out by house republicans and president trump? >> it doesn't make a value judgment. again as i mentioned that's why i mentioned at the beginning.
we are not the ways and means committee, believe me if i try to tell the committee what ways and means would do, i would get a phone call. the chairman would get a phone call from the speaker's office and that is not what we do. so we do not sort of predict or proscribe to the ways and means it's purely up to them to decide the policies. >> thank you very much. and chairman black, mr. may and the staff, thank you very much for your responses and we have no further questions. >> we'd be glad to answer any others -- >> the gentleman yields back. vice chair is recognized. >> i thank the chairman and the staff as well. it's a pleasure to continue working with you. you do great work. i have a series of questions related to a specific area of the budget and please don't take the questions as a comment on your work, but just i do want to make a recommend. -- make a record. mr. may, you're familiar with hr
2997 the 21st century innovation and reform authorization act. >> yes, we are. >> we take that concept in this budget -- >> we do not accept that concept at all. any of our numbers. so we do provide a deficit neutral reserve fund in the budget tomorrow section. that deficit neutral reserve is there to forgive the -- to give the congress, the house flexibility in regarding the budget score keeping components of whatever the house decides to do regarding -- >> fair enough. so you're not providing a proposal for -- >> no. >> for hr 2997. >> no, we're providing a scoring mechanism or scoring -- >> following up on that the c cbo -- the commercial budget office produced a cost estimate on hr 2997 and for the record i mentioned that this concept or at least the budgetary aspects of the concept were provided for in last year's budget as well. or continuing that on.
so that's not necessarily new. but the july 11, 2017 document from cbo, the cost estimate, are you familiar with that document? >> yes, we are. >> we'll give you a copy as well. without objection i would like to enter it into the record. >> without objection. >> thank you. on page 3 of the cbo cost estimate it concludes that direct spending will increase by $90.7 billion over the ten year window. and it will -- it concludes that revenues will increase by $70 billion, creating a net deficit over the window of $20.70 billion according to cbo. so the cost of this concept according to cbo are $20.7 billion over ten years. do you agree? >> that's a great question. >> you're nodding your head for the record. >> it's not a question of
whether the budget committee agrees or disagrees. we have been working with tni for a number of -- actually several years on this. we have -- the scoring of that -- the scoring that is related to cbo's determination that it is a new mandatory spending will occur, we are -- see the budget committee has been involved in making a reduction in the discretionary caps in the future to do the shift from governmental to -- from governmental to -- >> well, what -- >> cbo is continuing the governmental. omb -- i don't want to speak for omb -- >> the question is not about omb. but under this document in cbo they said they're extrapolating faa costs of running atc over a ten year period.
>> thaerjt. reserve funds are included for budget enforcement capabilities or provisions and for things that are yet to be determined. we haven't been making assumptions. >> but from a budgetary standpoint -- >> it's policy neutral. >> you have evidence of $27.7 billion and we're going ignore that in this budget document and just say -- just assume zero. >> we're not making any assumptions one -- >> anything -- >> regarding the atc. we don't assume it as a savings. we don't assume it as a deficit -- >> with regard to other concepts in bills not made into law, do you act the same way? >> same exact way. >> any new consecept that we're adopting -- treat it as a reserve fund. >> yes. the president for example has talked about the budget regarding an infrastructure new program. there's a lot of details. a lot of uncertainty as to how that's going to work.
who's -- you know, the revenue streams, is it a spending, discretionary or a mandatory spending. we simply can't define something that is not sort of kind of -- >> okay. the final question and then i'll yield back. why is this in the budget then? >> because the committee of jurisdiction has asked us to provide score keeping flexibility. it's a flexibility purpose. >> why is it even in the budget? i mean, if you're not going to score it, if it's not law? >> it's a reserve fund. because it just facilitating the ability of the committee and the chairman of that committee to try to address the budgetary issues that are relating to the policy. it's simply a score keeping mechanism. policy neutral. doesn't make any value judgments one way or the other. >> i thank the staff for their quality work and time. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. any other questions?
seeing none i recognize the vice chair. >> madam chairman, i ask unanimous consent that the following letters supporting the budget resolution and our efforts today be entered into the record including letters from the u.s. chamber of commerce, and americans for tax reform. >> without objection so ordered. >> thank you. i yield back. >> if there are no additional questions this includes the staff walk through. i thank all the witnesses. we will now provide with the staff -- we will now proceed with consideration of the fiscal year 2018 concurrent resolution on the budget under committee rule number 9, the committee will consider a document contains ing the budget aggregates and other components of the budget
resolution. amendments may be offered to this document subject to the agreement between the majority and the minority. after this the document has been proofed and it will be incorporated into the text of the concurrent resolution on the budget for the final vote on whether to report the measure to the house. the committee now will proceed to the consideration of the budget aggregate's functional categories and other appropriate matters. this is identical to the tables distributed to the minority and posted on our website on tuesday morning. the ranking member and i have reached an agreement to ensure that there's ample opportunity for members to offer amendments. we will conclude markup no later than midnight to accommodate our floor votes and committee markups. i ask for consent for a roll call vote. without objection, so ordered. we will debate seven amendments and then hold a series of roll
call votes for which a roll call vote was requested. and that will be for those that are requested. we will repeat this process three additional times until all 28 members -- excuse me all 28 amendments have been considered and voted on. consistent with mr. yard mouth i ask for unanimous concept it will be read and open for an amendment at any point. the amendments considered will be submitted with the ranking member, and the amendments be organized into two years, tier one and two tier. and the debate time will be limited to 14 minutes and tier two will be limited to eight minutes. debate time will be evenly divided between the sponsor of the amendment and the member opposed. the proponent of the amendments will have one minute reserve to close. so they must reserve that time
for their close because that is considered in their total. without objection, so ordered. we will now proceed to the amendments. the amendments will be considered in numerical order on the list -- on the dias in front of you. are there any amendments? >> yes, madam chair, i have an amendment. >> the clerk will designate the amendment and the staff will distribute copies of the amendment. does everyone have one? >> number one offered by representative wasserman schultz to reject the american health care act. >> mrs.s with aerm wasserman sc recognized for six minutes. >> thank you. i'm offering this on behalf of
the sick, disabled and those hard working across the country. there was a death blow to the cruel health care plan and yet somehow it includes the insidious repeal of the affordable care act. my amendment will change that. i force my colleagues to face the repeal of the aca simply isn't going to happen. do not go back to the days when health insurance companies could discriminate against those with pre-existing conditions. and we will not bring back out of pocket costs for many services or strip the ability of -- to stay on the parent's insurance until they're 26.
it's time r time for republicans to drop their plans to give massive tax cuts to completely gut medicaid and to give out tax breaks to the wealthiest and most fortunate. instead, my republican colleagues should work with us to update and improve the affordable care act so we can come together and truly make sure that we expand not decrease access to quality affordable health care. every american deserves access to affordable health care and i hope that trump and colleagues will work with us. i yield one minute to mr. jeffreys. >> on the trumpcare every day americans will pay more and get less. trumpcare will increase costs. it will increase co-pays and increase premiums and increase the deductibles.
it will deprive 23 million americans of affordable health care coverage. trumpcare will impose a draconian age tax on people between the ages of 50 and 64 causing them to have to pay up to five times more and it will strip people of protection with pre-existing conditions. the affordable care act has worked for the american people. we should focus on strengthening its, not destroying it which is why i support this amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield one minute to congresswoman dell benny. >> thank you very much and i'm pleased to support ms. wasserman schultz' amendment. it's time to start working with democrats on solutions to give people better coverage at lower costs. the dangerous republican health care repeal which is included in this budget would make people
pay more for less and devastate middle class families across the country. it would move our country's health care system backward, leave tens of millions without coverage and saddle more with skyrocketing costs. the annual and lifetime caps on care, gutting protections for pre-existing conditions is not the way forward. we can and we must do better. let's work together to strengthen our health care system, let's reduce costs for small businesses, expand access to care in rural communities and lower the cost of prescription drugs. i strongly urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. >> thank you. i shared many times and i share again the experience i went through when i spent a year battling breast cancer. i was diagnosed at 41 years old. on one day i was the picture of health. the next day i was a cancer patient. getting diagnosed with cancer is like getting hit with an anvil
or frankly getting diagnosed with any serious life threatening illness is devastating. what is devastating is the realization that you not only before the affordable care act had to fight for your life, but before the affordable care act you had to fight your insurance company to make sure that you got the coverage that you had paid for. too many stories that i have heard where women struggling with breast cancer had to choose before the affordable care act to either get the chemo or the radiation because they couldn't afford the co-pays and deductibles on both. that is a choice that no one should have to face. and if we -- now that we have the affordable care act it's the law of the land, no one does have to face that. so the language this this legislation and this budget would take us back to the nightmarish days that too many people, 129 million americans who live with a pre-existing in this country -- pre-existing conditions in this country have to live with every single day. madam chair, the american people have sent a strong message that
they believe the health care should be a right for all, not a privilege enjoyed only by the wealthy few. now that the efforts to repeal the affordable care act have come to an end, once and for all it's time for republicans to work with democrats in an effort to update and improve it. not scuttle it. thank you. i urge a yes vote on my amendment. i yield back. >> in opposition to this amendment, i recognize myself for seven minutes. you know what democrats won't talk about is how obamacare is harming millions of individuals. health care costs are skyrocketing. we see patients' choices are dwindling. as a matter of fact, in my state of tennessee, premiums for those that are on the exchange have risen by 65% and in some place in this country they have risen by over 100%. there are markets in my own state of tennessee where there's not even a single provider left to provide insurance for people
to seek care under the obamacare. and millions are forced to pay a penalty. and you know with that penalty many times they don't get anything, so they're paying for nothing. americans have health insurance on paper, many times, but they don't have access to affordable care. that's because they may get help with the premiums but the deductibles are so high they can't afford the deductibles. in my state of tennessee that's -- who's making 35 to $40,000 a year can afford a deductible of 8 to $10,000. if the program was working we wouldn't see this happening. there would be more access to care. so instead of expanding the number of individuals by making coverage more affordable, obamacare actually penalizes americans who do not buy health care plans. also, because they can't afford to. that meets the standards of what the washington bureaucrats have set up.
so let's take a look at this. according to the irs in 2016, 6.5 million americans paid $3 billion for a penalty. and did not receive any care for that. $3 billion and received no care and more than 12.7 million claimed an exemption from the penalty. that means they didn't feel that what they could buy was even worth it. that's roughly 20 million people who decided that obamacare is not worth the trouble or the price. so the plan passed by the house moves from the top down government mandate, forces individuals into health care that they don't want to a plan that gives them a choice. something that they decide that they want or coverage that they can afford and a plan that suits their needs. i'd like to now yield two minutes to the gentleman from
ohio, mr. johnson. >> thank you, madam chair. i can certainly empathize with my colleague, ms. wasserman shultz on her health condition. i'm a cancer survivor, my mother is, my brother is. and i've got thousands and thousands of people in my district that are as well. unfortunately, many of those people have been the victim of a failed law that no longer is protecting them. i know we talk about coverage for pre-existing conditions often, but i wonder what the people in the 18 counties in ohio who have been informed that anthem is pulling out and that they will have no choice of an insurance carrier on the exchange. i wonder what those people are going to do that have
pre-existing conditions when they don't have a choice? for a health care provider. the news just continues to get more dire it seems like day to day. and it's important that we as lawmakers take the important steps to repeal and replace this failing law with one that's going to work for all americans. i can tell you that the cbo confirms that most of the -- as it pertains to the american heat care act, most of the drop in coverage is attributed to the repeal of the mandate and those millions of people that are not going to choose to buy a product that they don't want, that they don't need and that they might not be able to afford.
the house passed the american health care act on may 4th and this is the official position of the house at this time regarding obamacare repeal and replace efforts and our budget -- the budget that we're working on today reflects that. so i joan my -- so i join my chairwoman black to oppose this amendment and remember that ultimately what we're trying to do and what we did with the american health care act and our budget reflects that is to give the american people more choice to higher quality access to affordable health care. there's a big difference between coverage and access because i have heard it mentioned already when you've got an $18,000 a
year premium and a $9,000 a year deductible, that's $27,000 out of a couple's pocket before the insurance pays a dime. that's unacceptable and that's what we're trying to rectify. so i urge a no vote on this budget, madam chair and i yield back. >> i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from georgia, mr. ferguson. >> thank you, chairwoman black. we hear stories back home at what the affordable care act doing to middle class families. i'll share an example. i have a friend of mine back home who's a consultant. his wife is an educator and they now spend two-thirds -- two-thirds of her salary on health insurance. they pay more for health insurance than they do their house. and this is not a wealthy couple. he's an entrepreneur. i hear this from every small business owner. i hear this across the board. we have got to keep fighting to
repeal the affordable care act. and we have got to make sure that we don't continue to grow the mandatory spending in this nation in an unchecked manner. we have to reel that in. we have to be fiscally responsible. if not, we will continue to destroy middle class families and their incomes because of the law. most importantly we'll continue to put the most vulnerable in our nation at risk and that is something we have to recognize because fiscal calamity puts those most vulnerable in the most precarious positions. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. ms. wasserman schultz you're recognized for one minute to close. >> i want to yield my time. >> i thank you for yielding and i want to say how strongly i support this amendment. we have seen that the american people have rejected trumpcare. they rejected attempts at health care that don't actually provide
better quality, affordable care for millions of americans across the country. that's why the bill failed in the senate. that's why republicans in the senate would not vote for this bill because if we are going to take away benefits that americans need, pre-existing conditions, the ability for seniors to be in nursing homes, the ability for people to get medicaid, then the american people don't want it. regardless of whether you're republican or a democrat. regardless of whether you live in a red state or a blue state so this amendment is a common sense amendment that reflects the will of the american people to get affordable and quality health care. i hope that we will all pass this amendment so that we can serve the american people. i yield back. >> the gentle lady's time has expired. the question on the -- all those in favor say aye. all those opposed. no. >> request to record the vote. >> the record of the vote is
requested. and we will postpone the recorded vote until we have finished the debate on this stack of second amendments. are there other amendments? >> madam chair i have an amendment at the desk. >> number two. >> okay, thank you. this is amendment number two and the clerk will designate the amendment and the staff will distribute copies of the amendment. >> number two offered by representative jackson lee relates to medicaid. >> ms. jackson lee, you're recognized for six minutes. you're recognized for six minutes. then one minute to close. >> thank you so very much. let me thank the claire and the ranking member. i urge adoption of the jackson
lee amendment which restores federal funding to medicaid. tragically a vote is pending in the united states senate to repeal the life line of the american people. i would argue as a good boy scout and girl scout would not do, this is like throwing gasoline on a campfire in the forest. and literally burning the entire forest down. this will provide major upheaval to the american people and the life line that they expect to provide them with the health care will be absolutely gone. today medicaid provides coverage to more than 74 million americans including children, pregnant women and seniors. in addition to doctor and hospital visits the long term services like nursing homes and community based services. number two on the jackson lee amendments rejects cuts in policies harmful to vulnerable
populations. the republican budget reflects the american health care aca which drains roughly $1 trillion over ten years. two policies drive this massive funding cuts, capping the federal payment and cutting $774 billion from medicaid, just to do tax cuts for the rich. the jackson lee amendment should be passed because it rejects converting medicaid to a per capita block grant. listen to this story. 9/11 tax dollars were supposed to be used on resources and they were sent to the states and they used it for other things. that's what block grants will be doing. number four reason to support the amendment it rejects ending the medicaid expansion under the aca. a young lady named brittany who lives with autism who depends
wholly on the idea of medicaid to give her quality of life so she can buy food and have housing, that will be dashed because of the bill that is underlying the budget that cuts so much for the rich. the jackson lee rejects adding a work requirement to medicaid. able-bodied persons are on medicaid. what about matthew who has a chronic illness that caused him $73,000 in the last six months and $700,000 over a two year period? a young man who looks able-bodied but is suffering from chronic illness. this is what the cutting of medicaid will do to all. and what about the idea of those preemie babies or maternal help that will be voided? one with the repeal, one with the proposal that was represented in this room as trumpcare of which the president of the united states himself says that the house bill was mean. the jackson lee amendment provides the opportunity to
balance the budget by reducing tax expenditures for the top 1% of income earners. that's how we pay for the jackson lee amendment. cancel the tax breaks for corporate -- restrict the egregious ceo bonuses when employees don't get a raise and employees get raises from corporate america that are doing quite well. wages are not stagnant. corporations can make humanitarian decisions that impact the stockholders as well. let americans work for good salaries. pay them the good salaries. close loopholes in the international corporate tax system that encourages companies to invert and shift jobs and profits overseas. close the carried interest loophole taxing hedge fund managers. talk to the hedge fund persons. this is a way to create dialogue to provide an option to the draconian budget that wants to slash and burn and follow the
senate's pathway of repealing -- repealing health care as a life line for the american people. i would ask that my colleagues support the jackson lee amendment and i would like to reserve my time. >> is there a member that would claim time and opposition to this amendment? >> chairman -- >> i'd like to yield to the gentle lady from washington state. >> i apologize. ms. jackson lee, you still do have time. i apologize. you are recognized. >> thank you, madam chair, thank you for yielding. i rise in strong support of the amendment. in the many cruel assumptions that the budget is relied on, the most cruel is relying on trumpcare to gut health care while transferring nearly $1 trillion in tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations. i think we heard from republican governors and republican senators about the need for this incredible program. two-thirds of all seniors in our country depend on medicaid
funding and 60% of all kids with disabilities actually rely on medicaid coverage. what's more 11 million americans across 31 states have benefitted under the affordable care act. madam chair, nearly half of the majority side of this committee comes from a state that has accepted medicaid expansion. in my home state of washington under this budget resolution 613,000 residents will lose medicaid coverage. it is unacceptable and i urge our colleagues to adopt this amendment and make sure we protect our medicaid recipients across the country. i yield back. >> madam chair, if i may take the remaining few seconds. to point to someone's neighbor, someone's mother, someone's friend, a senior citizen, who will be devastated by this budget and the loss of dollars to medicaid. the vulnerable children, working families and senior citizens
in -- >> the gentle lady's time is expired. >> i ask for the support of the jackson lee amendment. >> a member who would like to claim time and opposition to the amendment? >> i claim time. >> the gentleman is recognized for seven minutes. >> i think the chairman -- the gentle lady just used the term vulnerable. in fact, that's the term used in the title of the amendment. and that's exactly what medicaid is supposed to be. it's health care for the most vulnerable. for our poor. it's become not that. and that's what our budget aims to correct. medicaid was created in 1965 as an open ended entitlement program and it hasn't been changed since. now, there's no one here who thinks that how things were done in 1965 or how we live -- anywhere related hardly to how
we operate today. medicaid doesn't work for states who administer it. in fact, every one of our 50 states has some sort of waiver for the medicaid program that the gentle lady is talking about. if every state has some kind of waiver, that's definition that it doesn't work. we ought to be block granting these funds to the state and let them decide who is poor. who really needs the help. what kind of help they need and how they should best get it. why are we so arrogant, some of us, up here in washington to think that we know what's best for everybody? if you truly care about the most vulnerable, then you would care about making sure there's no waste, fraud and abuse in this system. so that those funds can get to the most vulnerable. the government accountability
office has designated the medicaid program that the gentle lady defends as a quote high risk unquote program and they have been doing it since 2003. if current trajectory the program's total spending will cost $1 trillion every year. we should be measuring our success by how many people don't need medicaid anymore, how many people we can successfully get off the program, not how many more people we can trap inside it not working. with that i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from arkansas, mr. westerman. >> thank the gentleman from indiana. madam chair, as we look at this issue with medicaid, i agree with the comments from my colleague that it is for the most vulnerable, but if we take a step back and look at what the affordable care act did for medicaid, it expanded medicaid
services not for the blind, the disabled, the elderly, it expanded and provided free healthcare for 18 to 64 year olds who are able bodied, working age adults who simply fell below an income threshold. some of these people actually need help but they also need help getting back into the job market. we have in this budget proposal -- or in resolution to require work requirements for able bodied working age adults not in that medicaid expansion population. not for age, blind or disabled. this is a program that's modeled after president clinton signed into law, similar for the program. if we truly want to help americans we will help them to get jobs that are better paying. we see examples where maine
instituted welfare reform that required work requirements in 2014 and within a year the adults that had these work requirements experienced 114% income rise. that's on average. kansas experienced similar results. incomes rose on average of 127% in the first year. we have a labor problem across our country. if we look at my home state we have record low unemployment. even with record low unemployment we have less people employed than we had eight years ago. the labor participation rate has dropped all across the country. employers want to expand, the jobs are out there, we just have to get people motivated to work and we can use these programs with sensible work requirements to get people back in the job market. with that i yield back. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. i recognize the gentleman from florida, mr. gates, for two
minut minutes. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. it's not every day that the sponsor of this amendment find herself at odds with former president clinton but there are two circumstances in which that is the case today. it was former president clinton no called obamacare crazy and i think he was right. this amendment would restore features of obamacare. moreover presumably the gentle lady would have us believe that an open-ended uncapped medicaid system is what's best for the vulnerable. again, former president clinton disagrees having stated, and i quote, a per capita cap approach guarantees that the elderly, disabled and pregnant women and children meeting certain criteria will continue to be eligible for health benefits. the truth is that the cruelty in healthcare is telling people that they have coverage and then not providing them access to a physician. now in america we've got one in every four americans on medicaid. it's totally unsustainable.
states that have embraced obamacare it's one out of every three that are on medicaid. that means a hard working american has got to pay for the whole cost of their own healthcare and then half of the cost of somebody else's. medicaid is important for the vulnerable, for the disabled, for seniors, for children, and we do nothing for the vulnerable when we jam more people into a system that is already failing them. and so that's why i support the republican approach in this budget. let's go ahead and accept the fact that washington has utterly failed at managing the medicaid program. uncontrolled costs, no evidence of better healthcare outcomes, meanwhile our states are doing better. all across this country when states are able to innovate they are showing better healthcare outcomes, lower costs and more access. and that's why i strongly support block granting medicaid so that we can truly have a federalist system where the 50 laboratories of democracy that
we have the opportunity to try different things, to succeed and to actually deliver a higher quality healthcare product to the people of their states. that is the federalism that our founders promised and it's the very principles that the republicans on this committee will continue to defend. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman and i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. >> the gentleman yields back. >> the gentle lady miss sheila jackson is recognized for one minute to close. >> i heard this morning that a number of members said i will keep an open mind and i believe that though intentions are well, the words are misguided. states are not responsibly handling healthcare. they're begging for help as the governors who met were begging for help. the [ inaudible ] will be harmed by the underlying budget and as i indicated, this person, young
babies and senior citizens will be harmed. as the individual -- as the gentleman said, with certain rules. let me be very clear to the american people. certain rules will mean that you will not have medicaid for the vulnerable, senior citizens who are in nursing homes, young mothers, those who have chronic illnesses like young brittany with autism. you will not have healthcare, you will have a state that will take block granted medicaid dollars -- >> the gentle lady's time has expired. >> i believe the jackson-lee amendment can be fiscally responsible but it will save lives and i ask for the support of the jackson-lee amendment. >> the gentle lady's time was expir expired. the question is agreeing to the amendment offered by ms. jackson lee. all those in favors, say aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed.
>> no. >> a recorded vote is posted. we will postpone the recorded vote until we have finished debating this batch the seven amendments. are there other amendments? >> madam chair, i have an amendment i would like to offer. >> the amendment number is number 3, the clerk designate the amendment, the staff will distribute copies of the amendment. >> amendment number 3 offered by representative boyle to insert a policy statement on preventing tax increases on low income and middle class families. >> mr. boyle is recognized for six minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. the goal of this amendment is very straightforward. this amendment opposes any tax increase on middle class or low income families including any reduction in refundable tax credits. madam chair, i would hope that
we can actually have some bipartisan support for this amendment because certainly probably all members of this committee at one point or another have claimed to oppose tax increases on middle class and low income families. let me list a few reasons why i would ask all am ebbs to support this amendment. for middle class and low income families have seen their wages stagnating for decades for 35 years low income and middle class families have seen little if any increase in their economic well being. it's been a problem through both democratic and republican administrations. by almost any measure even as the wealthy are getting witch richer and richer, wealthier than at any point in american history, most everyone else is being left behind. for example, from 1979 to 2013 real after-tax income for the wealthiest 1% grew by about
200%. but for those in the bottom 80% it grew just over 40%. this understates the stagnation for many americans as household and the lower half of the income scale have seen no real increase in their average income for 35 years. the last thing these families need is a tax increase. while these families have seen their wages stagnate they are struggling with growing costs in child care, housing and education. the very last thing they need to see on top of all of this is lower take-home pay through higher taxes. the trump campaign tax plan would raise taxes on millions of low income and middle class families. during the 2016 presidential campaign then candidate trump released a tax plan that included eliminating the personal exemption and eliminating the head of
household filing status. an analysis found that even in combination to changes to the standard deductions repealing these two provisions would raise taxes on more than 8 million families. that encompasses more than 26 million americans. by repealing the personal exemption the trump's plan would raise taxes on many families that have more than two children and by repealing the head of household filing status the trump tax plan would raise taxes on families that are led by a single parent. even accounting for other changes, the result was that large or single-parent families making low or middle incomes would actually see their taxes increase, even as millionaires and billionaires would be getting massive tax cuts. i want to remind this committee what i mentioned a few hours ago in my opening statement, the cuts to refundable tax credits will raise taxes on low income
families. the president's budget cuts the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit by a combined $40 billion by changing the requirements on who is eligible. so those are millions of families, again, that are working, that would be paying higher taxes as a result of this budget. so please join with me in sending a large, loud, bipartisan signal that we will not accept higher taxes on the working poor and the middle class and please support me in this amendment. with that i would reserve for my close. >> the gentleman he yields back. is there a member who would like to claim time in opposition to this amendment. >> i'd like to claim time, madam chair. >> mr. palmer is recognized for seven minutes. >> thank you, madam chairman.
i appreciate the passionate support the gentleman from pennsylvania, my friend, offers for this emd ament it's unfortunate that most of it is inaccurate. this amendment suggests that republicans would raise taxes on families and single-parent households. this is disingenuous and false. the budget calls for comprehensive tax reform and pro-growth policies that would benefit all americans. in regard to the earned income tax issue that he raises, our budget would reduce improper payments out of the earned income tax credit by $40 billion. he calls that a cut of benefits. i have a copy of the gao report which we had a hearing with comptroller general gene dough dare row pointed out that the earned income tax credit the improper payments was $16.8 billion in 2016 alone. so basically we're trying to cut one-fourth of the improper payments through fraud by simply
requiring that individuals who get the earned income tax credit show proof that they are eligible by submitting the social security number for their children. by the way shlgts the earned income tax credit has a 24% error rate. so these are issues that we're trying to address. we are in a situation where the federal go of the is operating at a deficit, we're having to borrow money to send out fraudulent payments and pay interest on fraudulent payments. so i don't think it is improper for this committee to pursue necessary measures to reduce that. at this point i'd like to yield two minutes to my friend, the gentleman from minnesota. >> i would thank the gentleman. let me just assure my colleagues on the other side that no one on this side wants to raise taxes on anybody. that is the whole point of this exercise. and this rather strange amendment assumes that that's
the case and yet our budget resolution and the tax reforms call for increasing the standard deduction from $6,300 to 12,000 through individuals and $12,600 to $24,000 for married couples filing jointly. so that's going to lower the rates on everyone, remove a whole lot of people from the code and simplify the code. now, we can stick with the same if we want, we can continue down this misguided path of high marginal tax rates for some folks but give the loopholes to the politically connected. we think having much lower rates for more people but everybody being treated the same way. now, as to, at thats, fairness and economic growth, let me remind my colleagues or i should say let me just reiterate that some of my colleagues seem to be surprised that tax reductions are actually going to those folks who have had their taxes raised under the fraaffordable e act, under the last administration. so undoing those tax hikes is
all of a sudden this great give away. it went a give away when john f. kennedy slashed the top marginal rates in the early 1960s leading to a decade of economic growth. it wasn't a give away when bill clinton slashed the capital gains taxes and pushed for welfare reform. that was not a give away because those democrats were not plagued by partisanship. they saw an economy growing which benefits everybody. it is a function of risk. the high tax rates that my colleagues on the other side constantly promote discourage risk. i would urge my colleagues to vote no and i fieyield back. >> i now recognize the gentleman from ohio for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. palmer. i would also agree the gentleman from pennsylvania has used ideas coming out of the trump budget not the budget that's in front of us and i think that's important. i am a member of the ways and means committee and this budget really says that we are supposed to enact pro growth, simplify
tax reform, deficit neutral, budget neutral. it doesn't talk about many of the issues that the gentleman from pa is talking about, and i understand his concerns, but as a cpa and someone who spent nearly 30 years in the business world creating more than 1,000 jobs i do know how complicated our tax code s that's why it's important that congress does work closely with the white house to enact simplified pro growth tax reform. it would allow hard working americans that congressman boyle was talking about to keep more of their hard earned money with them instead of having to spend it on compliance. we should be striving for that to help all americans by spurring economic growth and creating more job opportunities. i suggest that we look at the simplification and i know in the ways and means committee we will be. just some of the issues, we have a tax code that is more than 100 pages of irs instructions to
explain tax benefits related to higher education, 218 words to define what married mean and more than 80 line items on form 1040. we should be working together for simplified pro growth tax reform and i urge a no vote on this amendment. >> i thank the gentleman. i just want to point out on the wage stagnation the bureau of labor statistics puts out a category called labor productivity and cost. that includes total compensation and since 1973 total compensation as measured by the bureau of labor statistics has gone up 30%. when players compensate employees they include the cost of things like healthcare and since 19 -- since 2009 that has increased from $590 per cloi to $1,121 plus another $458 per month that employees are identifying that they are having to provide in compensation for healthcare-related costs.
the last thing i want to point out, madam chairman, is the 1967 household earning an annual income of $50,000 constituted 58.2% of all americans. by the end of 2014 that fell to 46.8%. while only 8.1% of american households in 1967 earned $100,000, by 2014 that had gone up to 24.7%. rather than a collapsing middle class i think what we have is a growing up middle class and the key that i want to get across here is that we can argue over these issues but we need to argue from facts and the facts are that total compensation being provided by businesses to employees has actually gone up. i yield back and i urge my colleagues to vote no. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. boyle was recognized for one minute to close. >> thank you, madam chair, i thank the former football star
from alabama for his comments. since he said we need to work from facts let me correct a couple misstatements that were mentioned on the other side. reference was made to the kennedy tax cut in the early 1960s. marginal tax rates were significantly higher than they are today. that kennedy tax cut even after the tax cut took place rates were significantly higher than they are today. even taking the top rate at 39.6% during the eisenhower and kennedy years they were in the 70, 60% range. even the reagan tax cut cited in the 1980s brought the tax rates down to a level that are higher than where tax rates are today. so those are the simple facts and need to be pointed out when we're talking about -- talking about tax cuts. i can't imagine anyone on the other side would want to go back to the tax rates as they were during the kennedy years. i'd also point out, i'm not sure where i am on the minute, nothing was really addressed
with respect to the earned income tax credit. a mention was made about fraud but i see a lack of support or enthusiasm for the actual program which, again, incentivizes work, especially for those who are the working poor. this is one of the smartest tax credits that we have, used to have bipartisan support on the other side and we can signal support for it by supporting this amendment. thank you and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the question is agreeing to the amendment offered by mr. boyle. all of those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed. >> no. >> a recorded vote is requested pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement we will postpone the recorded vote until we have finished debating this batch of seven amendments. >> mr. -- >> yes, i have an amendment at the desk. >> this is amendment number 4. the clerk will designate the
amendment, the staff will distribute copies of the amendment. >> amendment number 4 to insert a policy statement on defense and non-defense funding increases. >> mr. yarmuth you are recognized for six minutes. >> thank you, chairman black. we have been playing a game in this congress for several years now with statutory caps on spending. these caps were brought into play in the budget control act of 2011 when they were thought to be so unattractive and so outrageously imprudent that they would spur negotiators would action to create a budget agreement. of course, that budget agreement never happened and we were stuck with the whole notion of sequestration and budgetary caps. we shouldn't be curtailing important services through arbitrary restrictions. we have never allowed these caps to go -- to fully go into
effect. in the past bipartisan agreements have eased these limits so we could adequately fund government programs and we have done so in the spirit of the original budget control act with a commitment to parity for defense and non-defense spending. it's time for us to get to the negotiating table and find a way forward. we democrats are not adverse to lifting the defense cap but we object to leaving non-defense behind or worse lowering the non-defense cap to help pay for defense. as a matter of fact, that's exactly what happened with the trump budget proposal for 2018 when the administration proposed $54 billion increase in defense and $54 billion cut in non-defense. non-defense discretionary funding provides resources for hundreds of programs that affect americans every day, programs that range from producing innovative research to advance the quality of our lives to making sure americans drink clean water, breathe clean air, travel safely and maintain our
status as the world's economic leader. the 2018 cap for non-defense spending matches the lowest levels in history as a percentage of the economy, but the chairman's mark brings that level even lower cutting $5 billion more. over ten years cuts under this budget get even worse, non-defense discretionary funding will decline from $511 billion in 2018 to $424 billion in 2027. that's an 18% cut in actual dollar amounts. for 2017 that's an ndd cut of more than $200 billion from cdl's baseline while defense sees an increase in that year of more than $50 billion. that's a far cry from the parity envisioned by the budget control act. my amendment would call on congress to do the responsible thing and raise the spending limits with parity for defense and non-defense investments as soon as possible. with that i yield as much time
as she consumes from my remaining time to miss paul. >> thank you, ranking member. i rise in strong support of this amendment. i think what we have to understand is that national security is intricately linked with economic security and i think that is really what we're talking about when we talk about increasing and having parity between non-defense discretionary spending and defense spending. we can't increase defense spending at the expense of our non-discretionary defense. what we're talking about are essential programs like education, infrastructure, job training, state department investments, cancer research and just as one example, you know, we're cutting 19% of the state department budget in this proposed budget resolution. this is something that, for example, our military commanders, our generals, over
110 generals have written a letter and said please don't decrease the spending for diplomacy and development because we will need more bullets if you do that. so the idea of parity is really about making sure that we understand that, yes, defense spending is important but we have to continue to invest in the economic opportunity that actually provides economic security for millions of americans across this country and my fear is that with the spending caps that we have if we continue down this path we are going to dramatically reduce the investments that we have, the investment dollars we have to invest in our communities and to actually make sure that we can provide people with opportunity, provide people with education, provide people with healthcare, job training and all of the things that are so essential to our economic security. so i thank you for allowing me to support this amendment with these words and i yield back.
>> gentle lady yields back. is there a member who would like to claim time in opposition to the amendment? >> i'd like to claim time, chair. >> you're recognized for seven minutes, mr. smucker. >> thank you, madam chair. i'd like to thank the ranking member for his comments in regards to this amendment. you know, i'm new here and it was hard for me to understand exactly what sequestration is, exactly what this spending budget control act of 2011 was. it was hard for me to believe that congress would allow an arbitrary limit to stand in place rather than making decisions on our budget based on what we really believe met the needs, but the ranking member's description of the budget i've come to understand is exactly
correct. and so in regards to congress as the amendment states must begin negotiations to raise the limits in a reasonable manner i would agree with. we will need to get to that point and i also agree that the defense level spending in this budget is a better response to the needs we have than the limits that are set by the control act. you know, the first duty of our federal government is to keep our family safe, this includes protecting our nation against threats both foreign and domestic. this budget reflects the needs that we are seeing today. our country faces larger, more complex threats from all across the globe than they did -- than it did back in 2011. we're seeing threats from north korea, isis, russia and iran and
the responsibility to promote this security at home and assert our strength abroad is one that this committee takes seriously and is reflected in this budget. the budget provides or nation's servicemen and women with the tools, resources and the pay that they need to keep our homeland safe. where i disagree with this amendment and why i rise in opposition is that the idea that we have to tie arbitrarily any particular areas of the budget to another does exactly what the budget control act did. it takes the responsibility away from us to evaluate exactly what the needs are. so in the same way that our defense spending number is based on our needs and the same way we make that decision, we should be doing that on any area of the budget and not just based on a
spending level in another area. in fact, that is exactly what was done in the last omnibus appropriations bill that was signed in 2017 and agreed to by former president obama. so he rejected the idea that there had to be a one to one spending or parity between defense and non-defense. so again, i rise in opposition, i ask members of the committee to oppose this bill for that reason and i'd like to yield two minutes of my time to representative bergman. >> thanks, mr. smucker, thanks, madam chairman. i'm going to use a visual example based upon what i think this amendment means. we have a non-discretionary dollar, so we just take it and split it 50/50.
to me that doesn't reflect anything in the reality of prioritization of a limited resource. you have to remember i'm a marine, we deal with things very simply. but i would suggest to you very strongly that debt and defense are related very deeply because as former chairman of the joint chiefs admiral mullin said, debt, our national debt, is the single biggest security threat to our country. defense dollars in this budget are not plus up funds. instead they are catch up dollars after eight years, sorely needed after eight years of underfunding the department of defense. we have servicemen and women who are tired, we have equipment that is broken, that wasn't recognized for too long. it is our congressional responsibility to provide for the common defense.
said another way, to guarantee the safety and security of all of our citizens. you know, there is an old saying that says sometimes it's tough to remember what your priorities were in the swamp if the alligators got you up the tree. well, in this particular case i would suggest to you the alligator is the debt and we need to make sure that we focus on what comes first. we need to have the strong defense. and it's not at the risk of other things, it's a balancing on a prioritization which is our congressional responsibility to prioritize these very limited resources. so in making those tough decisions regarding the prioritization and the allocation of limited fiscal resources, i strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and i yield back. >> thank you, madam.
i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman needs back the balance of his time. mr. yarmuth, you're recognized for one minute to close. >> this reinstates the budget control act for defense and non-defense spending increases. we recognize and i pray at least that we have a bipartisan agreement on the fact that the defense caps are too low and need to be increased. unfortunately the other side seems unable to accept that non-defense programs also play a vital role in keeping our nation and economy strong. as a matter of fact, i remember when former chairman hal rogers of my state was chairman of the appropriations committee and he made the case very strenuously that the non-defense discretionary caps were too low and you could not appropriate funds adequately with those levels. we have already gone over what these funds include, homeland security, education, research,
transportation, much more. these are programs that the american public need and will help support a robust economy. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment to raise the cap so we can invest in our national priorities. i yield back. >> the question of agreeing to the amendment offered by mr. i can't remembermuth all those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> opposed no. >> no. >> in the opinion of the vote the nos have it. >> we will postpone the recorded vote until we have finished debating this batch of seven amendments. are there other amendments?
and so a break now as the house budget committee continues consideration of the 2018 budget resolution. lawmakers will be reviewing the bill, offering amendments and voting on the plan throughout the day. this is all expected to last well into the evening with the hope of ending at midnight. again, committee members taking a break for lunch and to attend other committee meetings and when they come back we will have live coverage here on c-span 3. the senate is still in session today, but right now most of the republican senators are heading to or are planning to go to the white house. president trump says that he invited them this afternoon for lunch and to talk about
healthcare. this morning the president tweeted that the republicans never discuss how good their healthcare bill is and it will get even better at lunchtime. the senate dems -- the dems screamed death as o care dies. the lunch was scheduled to start at 12:45 eastern. we are expecting to get some reaction from senators after that gathering and we plan to get that to you here on c-span 3. and a reminder that you can follow the healthcare debate online on our website at cspan.org. c-span recently sat down with white house deputy press secretary sara sanders huckabee and she talked about how she got into politics, her life as the daughter of governor mike huckabee and why she joined the trump for president campaign. you can watch the interview with sarah huckabee sanders this coming friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. i sat in my wagon with my dog and i watched the riot.
it was right directly across from my paper station a clothing store called jack's place. i saw a guy come out of the clothing store with ten hats on his head literally in a stack and carrying bundles of things, of clothes, with him. >> the 50th anniversary of the 1967 detroit riots sunday at noon eastern. american history tv is live from the detroit free press newsroom. hear firsthand accounts of the riots. >> they gave the order not -- don't shoot, be cool, just let it go. that was the order they gave them. and word got out. word got out and suddenly there's 50,000 people on 12th street just helping themselves to everything. >> the 1967 detroit vriots live
sunday on c-span 3. a look now at the house budget committee as they marked up the 2018 federal budget. this begins with opening statements from committee members. >> once again, good morning. 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 years 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. when i came -- excuse me. the time for talking is over,
now is the 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. this year we've already taken the largest step yet to accomplish these first of these priorities and i was proud to sponsor the american healthcare act to bring patient-centered reforms to our healthcare system. this markup begins the process of tackling a balanced budget by the 2027 and pro growth 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 and outside experts all agree our current fiscal path is
unsustainable. as the united states general gene dodaro put it in a recent budget committee hearing, quote, if we fail to get control of debt and deficits 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 far 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 a 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 and ensure that we can continue to serve them for a generation
to come. while our budget includes reforms to discretionary spending we also strongly believe that mandatory spending must be addressed in this budget resolution and in the budget resolutions to come. mandatory spending a 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 mandatory spending 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 instructions requiring savings and reforms in mandatory spending programs. these 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 reforms will result in significantly higher savings. this package of mandatory reforms is the largest since the 1990s through reconciliation and it's the first step to change the culture of the spending here 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 reforms. this is the first step but it is an important one. our budget also promotes tax and regulatory reform to get to the federal government out of the way and to 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. through reconciliation our budget specifically paves the way to pro growth tax reform that will be deficit neutral and independent of reconciliation instructions for mandatory spending and reforms. this pro growth reform will reduce taxes, it will 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 aisle and in the media have said that a 1.9% economic growth is the new normal, that we are doomed to continue the economic stagnation of the obama years. they have a pessimistic view of our nation's ability to create jobs and to build a foundation of greater opportunity for all. american has the greatest workers, the greatest innovators and entrepreneurial ethos to far surpass the economic growth of the last eight years. if only the federal government would get out of their way.
we believe that the pro growth 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. but a stronger economy is not enough, we must also strengthen our military. the number one job of the federal government is to protect its citizens. over the last eight years the weak foreign policy of president obama has 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 and that's $621.5 billion in our military and $75 billion specifically for the global war on terrorism for the fiscal year of 2018. these resources will help our men and women in uniform complete the mission with which they have been tasked. 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. >> we on a budget committee and in the full congress have been tasked to be good stewards of the taxpayer dollars as omb director mulvaney outlined in his most recent hearing this means considering the interest not just of those that are receiving government benefits, but also those that are paying the taxes that fund these benefits. the federal government doesn't just 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 payments 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 what was happening in my state and this country i couldn't sit back and do nothing and every time i put my voting card in that slot i'm reminded of how i left a career that i love to join the political fray. it's more them, it's for my children and grandchildren and yours as well. i grew up in america where a poor girl like me whose parents only had an ambition for me to finish high school could graduate from college, become a nurse and eventually become a member of the united states house of representatives. i grew up in america that was a land of opportunity, of strength
and compassion, but that america is slipping away from us for too many people in this country the opportunity to live the american dream is out of reach. a government that was supposed to be of, by and for the people has left too many behind and building a better america requires a government that spends within its means, a military with the resources to complete its mission, an economy that creates opportunity for all and a federal bureaucracy that respects the taxpayer, but it also requires an understanding that the greatness of america does not lie in the grand buildings and stone pillars here in washington, d.c., the greatness of america lives in the spirit of the tenacity of people. we designed building a better america, put that vision in practice to empower individuals to live their version of the american dream. again, i welcome everyone here to our markup for this budget resolution and with that i yield to the ranking member, mr. yarmuth. >> thank you, chairman black. nearly two months ago in this 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 a budget that again displays total indifference to the challenges that americans 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 and our national security. the budget includes $5.4 trillion in mandatory and discretionary spending cuts and it ultimately reduces non-defense 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.
so we will. 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 veterans services are all at risk. this budget cuts neither $1 trillion from mandatory spending that helps provide basic living standards for struggling families. then it cuts nearly a half a 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 and they are individuals like the woman i met at my town hall last week. she told me, quote, i think there is 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. but 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 all across the country, but all of that is at risk for them and millions of other families. because of the drastic cuts in this budget. it is an incredibly cold document that willfully ignores the needs and priorities of the american people. but it's not just the economic security of millions of families that's at risk in this budget, it's also our nation's security. my republican colleagues have put on display a narrow world view, one where our country's security is only about the size of our military. the republican budget increases defense spending by an astonishing $72 billion above the current cap and more than $18 billion above what even
president trump requested. we have a responsibility to ensure our men and women in uniform have every tool and 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. yet my republican colleagues ignore these facts and recklessly cut funding for the state department and foreign aid agencies by over $11 billion. environmental and natural resource protection by over $6 billion. funding our military at the expense of critical national priorities is not a choice my republican colleagues have to make and it's certainly not a choice that the american people want them to make, which 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 at the top 1%, a $240,000 annual tax cut while taking breakfast and lunch away from hungry school children. 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 healthcare 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 of them as we can today. we will show a different vision of our country and for the american people. we want to invest in the future of american families, create good jobs and 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 and a tax code that helps families get ahead. those are american priorities and they should be the priorities of this congress and our committee. with that, madam chair. sorry. chairman black, i yield back the balance of my time. >> i thank the gentleman and i now yield two minutes to the vice chair of the committee, the gentleman from indiana. >> thank you, chairman black. i want to thank you for your commitment to produce a responsible federal budget. i appreciate your leadership and the efforts of our committee members, especially the new ones and our new staff as well. you know, to get to this budget our committee had to make some tough decisions and we had to create priorities that elevated those of our fellow citizens who are the most vulnerable, who truly needed help. and that was president trump's request and vice president pence's request and they did their job admirably as well.
in short they led and in short this committee, at least this budget proposal is leading. here on the committee we are familiar with the kind of tough choices and we will continue to make more of these today so that we are protected, the citizens that are our most vulnerable are protected and that the future generations who should be highest on our list are protected from what is now a $20 trillion debt going to $100 trillion. it is critical we continue our dedication to push this budget through committee then on to the house floor because without a balanced budget the american dream will continue to slip away. under president obama we were able to make substantial changes and because we were not able to make substantial changes and because of it we saw slow economic growth, stagnant wages and millions of americans choosing not even to look for a job rainy more. we can't let that mentality, that opportunity has been lost, continue to fester under our watch now.
we can't accept the new normal caused by the failed policies of the past spending that goes way beyond our nation's needs and borrowing too much from china. this budget will help bring opportunity back to american families by opening the door for economic growth and tax reform. this budget also addresses our nation's growing fiscal crisis by reforming antiquated, bloated government programs that aren't serving us well anymore. $203 billion worth of mandatory spending has been addressed here so that these programs can remain not only for those who need it most, madam chairman, but for future generations these programs might still be around to serve those who need them. i yield back. >> the gentleman's time has expired. i now recognize the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, for two minutes. >> thank you, madam chairman. on our current trajectory the cbo warns that just four fiscal years from now, 2022, our annual deficits will surpass a trillion
dollars. that's where economists warn we run the risk or even loss of our access to credit of a sovereign debt crisis. venezuela is going through that right now even within our own territory, the commonwealth of puerto rico is going through that. pension systems implode, basic services falter and the committee collapses. we will begin running that risk in four years on the path we are on. two years after that in 2024 the cbo tells us that the annual interest cost on our debt, simply renting the money we've already spent, will reach $654 billion. that's more than we currently spend on our entire defense establishment. you cannot provide for the common defense or promote the general welfare if you cannot pay for it. we are at the upper limits of tax revenues that our economy can generate. when tax rates rise above this
natural limit tax avoidance activity increases, capital moves offshore, the economy falters and revenues fall. we have no choice but to change the spending trajectory and we are running out of time. this budget barely restrains spending growth over the next decade and begins to change that trajectory by using reconciliation for its intended purpose. every year we delay the danger gets closer and our options become more difficult. i hope everyone will think about this carefully as we begin our work on the budget today. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. i now recognize the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. groffman for two minutes. >> well, every budget document is a compromise, obviously this is a big committee with diverse members. first of all, i want to correct and maybe we will get other
information, the ranking member yarmuth i think you talked about an $18 billion increase in defense over what president trump promised. i think it's a $28 billion increase over what president trump requested which is frustrating. like i said, it's a compromise document. i think president trump tried to propose a very fiscally responsible budget in which he tried to hold discretionary spending even. there were increases in this document on non-defense of almost $50 billion and i just mentioned the $28 billion increase in defense, which makes it a very difficult budget to vote for, though i understand this is a compromise budget. this is not the last step on the process. there's going to be a floor vote on this budget, there's going to be appropriation bills coming out and we're going to eventually see whether those appropriation bills appropriate
to the max or whether somewhat less than the max. but i'd like to thank the chairman for having so many committee meetings. i think this is the third year that i've been part of the budget process and i think she's brought us in and worked harder than the last two years. so i'd like to thank you for that and i hope we have, you know -- i look forward to taking the votes on the amendments today. >> gentleman yields back the balance of his time. i now recognize the gentleman from ohio, mr. ranaci. >> thank you, madam chairman. as someone who has come to congress with 30 years of business experience i've always been a strong advocate for the need for washington to pass a budget and stick to it. that's something that this federal government has far too often failed to do, yet people back home are required to do it every day. i applaud this committee for putting forward a budget that actually balances over the next ten years and which outlines policy proposals that may lead to economic growth and begin to
address the long-term financial obligations of the united states. however, as our nation sits here today saddled with more than $20 trillion in debt, there is no question that we have a moral obligation as moral obligation in congress to tackle our long-term debt by addressing its most serious driver, mandatory spending. and while encouraged that our committee has expressed serious commitment to advancing these badly needed reforms, i'm concerned that through this budget we might fail to adequately bring about the savings, particularly in mandatory spending, that are needed to set our country back on a sustainable and responsible fiscal course. in addition as a member of the ways and means committee i'm concerned that the construction side to this package may make it difficult for congress to pass a tax reform package in the near future. with that said i enter today's hearing with an open mind and look forward to its hearing and the process and merits of this budget blueprint. i'm someone who believes in the process and many times the process requires moving bills
knowing that this is not the final vote. but ultimately it remains vital that this congress advance a budget, able to pass both house and senate and allows for congress to move forward with these vital policy changes we need. i sincerely hope today's hearing demonstrates that is what this bill entails. thank you, and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back balance of his time. i now recognize the gentleman from ohio, mr. johnson, for two minutes. >> thank you, madame chair. i too am proud of this committee's work to present a budget that will put america back on a path of fiscal responsible. not only does this budget proposal balance within ten years without raising taxes on hard working americans, but also achieves $6. 5 trillion in deficit reduction. furthermore, for the first time in decades this budget proposal requires reconciliation instructions to achieve at least $203 billion in mandatory savings and reforms. american families have to balance their budgets and live
within their means. it's time for washington to do the same. it's unacceptable and irresponsible to risk our children's and grandchildren's financial security with crushing debt. while improving america's economic security, this budget also emphasizes our commitment to our national security by providing $621.5 billion in defense discretionary spending. we're living in a dangerous time with gathering threats to our homeland, our allies and our interests abroad. it's essential that congress provide the men and women who wear our uniform in defense of our country the resources they need to be successful in their mission. doing so will also provide needed assurance to our allies and send a strong message to our enemy that america will not lead from behind. rather, we will remain a global force for peace and stability. at home this budget calls for increased accountability at the department of veterans affairs
and works to ensure that our nation's heroes receive the care, the benefits and the services that they have earned and are entitled to. so i encourage my colleagues to support this budget. and i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. i now recognize the gentleman, mr. lewis, from missouri. >> thank you, chairman black, and thank you for your leadership on this very, very tough issue. since the recession our nation has faced an anemic recovery with only 1% or 2% growth. the second malays made it harder for families in minnesota, my home state and all across the united states to succeed. i would argue this poor growth is due to policies that have overspent, overregulated and underdelivered. in fact, we are at record levels of budget outlays and tax
revenue right now. stimulus plan to stimulus plan have failed to deliver on economic growth. it is time for washington to refocus on the significant policy changes that will restore economic prosperity, a rising tide of income, hike in the standard of living and lead to sustainable and responsible budget. bottom line is we can have family incomes that grow and an economy that grows at 3%, 4%, 5%, because we have before in the '60s, in the '80s and in the '90s. but if we do not begin to seriously address the debt that's doubled over the past eight years, we will hinder any attempts at recovery. we will also hurt our future generations' ability to achieve the american dream because you cannot grow family budgets by increasing massively increasing federal budget. just as important i would argue while this budget is not perfect and many ways still spends too much, it takes a significant
step in the right direction by balancing in ten years and addressing the largest driver of our spending problem mandatory spending. just as important. our budget provides reconciliation instructions that puts us on a path for significant tax reform that will make america more globally competitive and drive the growth i just spoke about including job creation and rising median incomes. i urge all of my colleagues to support this budget and i yield back. >> gentleman from minnesota yields back. gentleman from missouri, mr. smith is now recognized. >> thank you, chairman black. and thank you for your hard work and dedication over the last several months for this budget. the american people are tired of business as usual. and last year they sent this message to washington loud and clear. well, this budget certainly isn't business as usual. with this budget we begin rebuilding our military. we bring balance in ten years by reducing spending and calling
for common sense reforms to government and welfare programs. we promote pro-growth policies that will energize our economy and bring back jobs. and we are moving forward with the largest cuts to mandatory spending in 20 years. the american people want us to change the culture in washington. our country is $20 trillion in debt and projected to be $30 trillion in debt by 2027. everyone in this room knows these numbers. everyone in this room knows we can't tax our way out of the problem. there's no question our current fiscal state weakens this nation. we have to take action now to get our spending under control to promote economic growth and to remove the government regulations that are holding america back. that is why the work we're doing today is so important. i look forward to moving this budget out of committee. and i look forward to us moving future budgets like this in the
future. thank you, chairman black. and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. i now recognize the gentleman from michigan, mr. burkman. >> thank you, madame chair, for your proactive leadership. i'm happy to be here today as a freshman member of the house fulfilling our constitutional duty. what we're doing today sets a strong marker for the republican agenda, a budget that stands in stark contrast to the past eight years of short sided proposals that never balance and kept us on a treacherous fiscal path. i decided to run for congress because i was deeply concerned about the kind of world we were leaving my grandchildren. the trillions of dollars of debt, misguided spending priorities, national security issues at home and around the world, the list goes on. i proudly represent the folks from michigan's first district who sent me to washington to make tough decisions and get wasteful spending under control. this budget is the next first
step to accomplish that. it also includes important reconciliation instructions for tax reform and deficit reduction, two issues that have not been meaningfully addressed for far too long. $200-plus-billion in mandatory savings, that's what the republicans in this committee and in our conference are calling for today. and that's just the floor, not a ceiling, a floor. i believe we can do more. but i'm encouraged by the commitment made in this budget to begin to change our current path. wasteful spending can no longer be the prescription for this country's ills, its problem. it's time for us as a congress to make the difficult decision to keep washington accountable to and produce results for the american taxpayer. let's empower our constituents in our communities, make
economic priority for this country and build a better america for all our grandchildren. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. i now recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> thank you, madame chair. i like to start by just extending my appreciation to you, madame chair, for your leadership on this committee and to my colleagues as well for the countless hours of work that went into developing this budget. our national debt is spiraling out of control. we're a staggering $20 trillion in debt, a number we're quickly approaching. and the spending policies of recent years just simply did not work for hard working american families and for the small businesses that employ them. this budget fulfills our commitment to the american people to balance the budget and to reign in our spending. it puts us on a sustainable fiscal path while at the same time ensuring that our military had the resources it needs to keep our homeland safe. it's also a first important
first step towards comprehensive tax reform, one of the main priorities of many of my colleagues', a priority of mine in this committee and the house, i ran a small business for 25 years and one of the main reasons i wanted to serve the community i grew up in was because i saw firsthand how our tax system was holding back job creation, holding back economic growth. it's past time for congress to enact pro-growth policies that will improve the lives of the people that we're all here to represent. for far too long we've been governing from one funding crisis to the next. and i'm glad that the budget committee with this budget is beginning to restore regular order. this budget is a step towards fiscal sanity. it will grow our economy, create more opportunity for working families and reignite the american dream. thank you, madame chair. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida, mr. gates, is recognized for two
minutes. >> thank you, madame chair. my previous public service was in the florida legislature where each and every year we balanced our budget, we cut spending and we returned any extra money that we collected to the taxpayers of our state. in many ways this was really terrible preparation for coming to washington, d.c., because in this town we spend too much, our focus is often disjointed and we continue to drive our country deeper into debt. there have been millions of pages written about the fall of the roman empire. they spent too much. had too many interventionist wars. and i wonder how history will judge us with a $19 trillion debt, heading to a $28 trillion debt with what i fear is the lack of a strategy to constrain the spending that will cripple our country. i believe that history will judge most harshly the young people in the congress today who should be doing more to ensure that we're meeting the fiscal obligations that we need to without unnecessarily spending on wasteful programs that are
converting a needed safety net into an economically destructive hammock for far too many americans. i'm grateful that in this budget we have the historic opportunity to reduce entitlement spending, because in the absence of those reforms, in the absence of curtailing the unfunded liabilities that we have in this country, we will hollow out america from the inside and it will be deeply tragic. so i'm grateful for the chair's leadership in setting some of those initial markers. and i would simply say to those who want to keep spending, who think that fully monoished reductions in our entitlement outlays are sufficient, i would suggest that my comments are not partisan rhetoric, they're not right wing or tea party driven, they're simply driven by math. math that will ultimately overcome us and swallow our country whole if we do not enact bold conservative reform of the likes of which i begin to see in this budget.
and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. i now recognize the gentleman from georgia. >> i'd like to thank the chair, as others have, for your dedication and hard work. this has really been an enlightening process and thank you for your leadership. when i came to washington, i knew we had a serious debt problem and i knew we had to get serious about solving it. what i didn't appreciate is the full extent of the challenges we face. once i joined this committee and looked at the federal budget, its processes and future projections, it didn't take me long to understand that the most dire issue facing our $19.8 trillion in debt and the looming debt crisis of trillions more. as a lot of us know, the cause of this crisis is our unchecked mandatory spending. without reforms, mandatory spending will soon consume nearly all federal revenue, which compromises every other
government promise like national defense, veterans help, education, transportation and research that will have to be financed on borrowed money. and every dollar we borrow to cover our out of control spending will cost us $1.27 to pay back. and when i say us, i really should say future generations. i don't want to seem like this conversation is only about dollars and cents. it's not. it's actually a conversation about people. there are many americans that count on these programs, these essential entitlement programs provide a safety net for our nation's elderly and our vulnerable population that represent decades of promises to americans, but to keep these promises in the future these programs must be reformed. this is why we have approached this entire budget with the intent of fiscal discipline. we achieve this by prioritizing a budget that balances in ten years and obtained $200 billion in mandatory savings and provides military with a much-needed and