Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me just, again, underscore a couple of key points here. We saw, during the early years of the 2000s, what an economy based on the trickle-down theory looks like, right? Under President Bush, the theory was, okay, we are just going to cut tax rates for millionaires, thinking that the benefits were going to lift up everybody in the economy. What happened in the real world to that economic theory? It crashed and burned. The reality was that people at the top did very well. God bless them; they did great, but everybody else, they were running in place. Paychecks flatlined, wages stagnant, and this has been a chronic problem for some period of time; then we went off the cliff. When President Obama was sworn in, we were losing 800,000 jobs every month. Now, we are coming out of that. Millions of people have gone back to work. We have got a long way to go, but we are coming out. The Republican budget, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, will slow down economic growth in the next couple of years. Why would we want to do that? Again, their theory is let's accelerate economic growth by trying, again, what failed before. Look, the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. They want to cut top tax rates for folks at the top again. They want to eliminate the estate tax that will benefit 5,500 households, run up $269 billion on the deficit. That is what they want to do. The Democratic budget does something very different. We want to empower hard-working American families. We want to change the incentives in the Tax Code to incentivize higher pay. For example, we say that corporations should not be able to deduct CEO and executive bonuses over $1 million unless they are giving their workers a pay increase, right? Pay your CEOs whatever you want, but you don't get a taxpayer subsidy for those deductions if you are laying off workers or you are cutting their wages. Corporations deducted about $70 billion in CEO bonuses over a 3-year period, from 2007 to 2010. We say: Why should the taxpayers be doing that for corporations that are cutting pay for their employees? Our Republican colleagues continue to embrace a tax code that is rigged in favor of folks who have powerful lobbyists here to get special interest deductions. That is why the top 1 percent get 17 percent of the value of all those tax breaks. Let's have a tax system that incentivizes higher pay. Let's invest in our kids' future, not slash our investment in education and innovation. Let's invest in the future of America. That is what the Democratic budget does. I urge adoption of the Democratic alternative. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman just recognized, this is a huge departure from the way this House of Representatives has dealt with our military spending in the past. In fact, it is a departure that the Republican-controlled Budget Committee said violated the integrity of the process. The Budget Committee specifically said it would oppose increases above the levels the administration and our military commanders say are needed to carry out operations. That is what the Budget Committee said last year--Republicans. This year, forget it. Just have some amnesia. Let's play games with our defense spending. Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to an issue that has come up a couple of times during this debate regarding economic growth. As I said, the Congressional Budget Office has indicated that the Republican budget will actually slow down economic growth in the next couple of years. Just after we are regaining momentum, they are going to slow it down. The Congressional Budget Office said something else that is interesting. It says, as you look ahead over the next 10 years, the biggest single factor with respect to growth rates that don't keep up with the past averages are demographic changes; the fact that baby boomers are going to be retiring, and they are not going to be in the workforce. You just have to look at the CBO report from this budget year. So, you would think that one way to deal with that would be to pass immigration reform. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office says that that will help spur economic growth. It will also help add to the solvency of Social Security because you will have more workers today supporting the baby boomers who are retiring over the next couple of years. If you really want a progrowth budget, you would support the Democratic approach that provides help to struggling families working every day, invest in our future by investing in our kids' education, and pass comprehensive immigration reform. There was a bipartisan bill that passed the Senate last year. Over here in the House, what happened to it? It is not that there was a vote on it and it went down. We never even had a vote here in this body on comprehensive immigration reform, one of the things that the budget pros and the economists say could help spur our economy in the years ahead, something that is supported by the Chamber of Commerce, as well as folks in the labor community. No, Republicans didn't want to do that. They didn't even allow a vote on that bill here in the House of Representatives. That would have been a progrowth effort, too. Mr. Chairman, instead of those progrowth efforts, efforts that will help shore up Social Security, all we get is the same old-same old, another budget that refuses to cut a single special interest tax break to help reduce the deficit, provides more tax breaks for folks at the top, and is based on a failed theory of top-down/trickle-down economics. We can do a lot better. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chair, as Leader Pelosi just said, this really comes down to what vision you have for what has helped power our economy. The Republican theory of the case is that our economy is powered by providing tax rate cuts to people at the very high end of the income scale and somehow the benefits of that will trickle down and lift everybody up. The problem with that theory is it already crashed in the real world. Right in the early 2000s, that is what President Bush did. Incomes for folks at the top went up even more, but everybody else was running aground, running in place, or falling behind. That is why we presented a budget based on an economy that accelerates because more Americans are able to make bigger paychecks through harder work, and that is why we proposed to change the Tax Code from one that is currently skewed and tilted in favor of unearned income and simply making money off of money and against people who make money off of hard work. Why is the Tax Code skewed that way today? Probably because a lot of people who could afford to pay a lot of wealthy lobbyists made it that way. Yet the Republican budget doesn't close a single tax break for the purposes of reducing the deficit--not corporate jets, not the tax provisions that perversely encourage American companies to move jobs and capital overseas. We proposed to close those tax loopholes and bring those jobs and that capital back here to the United States to help power our economy, not the economies of our global economic competitors. So I hope that this Congress will reject a view of the economy that is based on the idea that everyone can only do well when the folks at the top get a tax cut as opposed to an economy where we are all in it together. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let's just dispel with a myth from the start, which is that the Republican budget balances. As we have heard, only if you believe in budget quackery does it do this. Even a newspaper like USA Today, which has no partisan bent to it, blew the whistle on all the accounting gimmicks in the Republican budget. Now, let me just say a word about revenues and taxes. The Democratic budget doesn't call for any increase in any tax rate on anybody, unlike the Republican budget that refuses to close one special interest tax break to reduce the deficit, which they say is the primary objective. Rather than close one special interest tax break to reduce the deficit, they don't touch a single one--not for corporate jets, not for hedge fund managers. I want everybody to look at this chart. This is from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. What they say is that each year there are outlays. We spend $1.4 trillion on tax breaks in the United States-- more than on Social Security in any year, more than on Medicaid and Medicare combined. Well, if I give you, Mr. Speaker, a thousand dollars from the government, I can also deliver that same benefit by telling you that of the taxes you owe me, pay me a thousand dollars less. Maybe you have got a great powerful lobbyist who is getting you a special break, so that when the normal person has to pay regular tax rates, you get a special deduction. Now, some of the deductions are for good causes, but many are not. And where do most of those tax breaks go--or should I say a disproportionate amount of those tax benefits, often put there by powerful lobbyists? Again, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that 17 percent of the benefits of those tax breaks, special deductions, 17 percent go to the top 1 percent of income earners. So it is true. The Democratic budget does want to close some of those special interest tax breaks that go to folks at the very top rather than cut our kids' education, rather than slash our investment innovation. And lo and behold, we saw the most recent example of the Republican plan to provide more tax breaks to the folks at the very top end of the income scale just today in the Ways and Means Committee. Right now you don't have any estate tax obligation as a couple if your estate is lower than $10 million. If your estate is lower than $10 million per couple, your estate is exempt. But we do have a tax rate on the amount over $10 million because I thought in this country we do not believe that people should get ahead just by the wealth they inherited from others, but through their hard work and labor. So we proposed to change the Tax Code in a way that rewards work rather than in a way that just rewards inherited wealth of $10 million, an estate that is going to help just 5,000 families. That is why the Democratic budget rewards hard-working families rather than other tax rates for folks at the top. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As we have heard throughout the debate, there is a fundamental difference in how the United States grows our economy. I think if you look, historically, the reason we have grown the economy over time is because, for a long period, especially in the postwar period, as Americans worked harder, they were able to translate that harder work into higher incomes. We are supporting a tax system that rewards hard work. Our colleagues continue to stand by a tax system that actually gives better treatment to what is called unearned income, compared to earned income. In other words, if you earn income simply through making money off of money, you actually get a lower rate than money earned from hard work, like most Americans do every day. When you look at the fact that 17 percent of the tax breaks in the country go to people in the top 1 percent, it is the Tax Code itself that is currently rigged in favor of powerful special interests. Why should it be rigged against working people and in favor of people who can afford to hire powerful lobbyists to get tax breaks for themselves that benefit nobody else? That doesn't make any sense. Today, just today, in the Ways and Means Committee, as I said, the committee that deals with taxes, our Republican colleagues are saying that they want to get rid entirely of the estate tax. Right now, if you are a couple, $10 million of your estate is exempt. You don't pay a penny; but, yes, we do ask people who have accumulated lots of wealth to contribute a little bit to the country that helped them develop such a great lifestyle. I thought we were a country where we wanted to reward people who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps through hard work; yet we have a Republican budget that says we are going to provide 5,500 families with this huge tax break today. At the same time, we are cutting our investment in education, an investment that we know helps millions and millions of American families earn a better living over time; but, no, let's cut that. Let's increase the cost of student loans. Let's give 5,500 families a huge tax break. Teddy Roosevelt would be turning in his grave at this Republican budget. He would support the Democratic budget that lifts up everybody, makes sure everybody gets a fair shake. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton), a terrific new member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross), another of our great new members of the Budget Committee.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting listening to the chairman, since the nonpartisan CBO says the Republican budget will slow down economic growth in the next couple of years. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell), a terrific new member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am putting forward the Democratic alternative budget on behalf of my colleagues. It is based on a very different view of how our economy in this country has grown historically and how it should grow in the future. As we have heard from our Republican colleagues, their theory of the economy is top down, trickle down. They want to cut the top tax rates for folks at the very top, the millionaires, on the hope that the benefits will trickle down and lift everybody up. We tried that under President Bush. It lifted up folks who were already at the top of the ladder. Everybody else was running in place or falling behind. We believe that you accelerate economic growth through more opportunity and more shared prosperity, not from the top down, but by making sure that hard-working Americans can earn a little bit more and go out and spend it at the shopping center and in any way they want to support their families and have a good standard of living. So while the Republican budget helps folks at the very top with additional tax rate cuts and squeezes working families, our budget provides more relief to those working families. How? We adopt, for example, the President's proposed expanded child and dependent care tax credit. So if you are a working family and you want to make sure your child has a safe and secure environment with quality care, like every family would who is working, we provide a much bigger tax credit so that you can ensure that quality and safer environment for your child. Or if you have a loved one at home, an elderly loved one at home, but you are working, we want to make sure that you have a tax credit so that the costs you pay for that care don't come out of your paycheck at the end. The Democratic budget is in stark contrast to the Republican budget, which actually increases the costs on working families. They get rid of the college tax deduction; they get rid of the step-up on the child tax credit; they get rid of the step-up on the Making Work Pay earned income tax credit; and of course they wipe out the Affordable Care tax credits that help millions of Americans have affordable health care. So their budget is squeezing folks in the middle and working toward the middle. They raise the interest rates on college students. We provide additional resources to help make college more affordable, and we adopt the President's plan for income-based student loan repayments. They will immediately increase the cost for prescription drugs for seniors on Medicare and increase the copays for preventive care, for people who have worked hard for a secure environment. We don't do that in our budget. So this is a budget that supports working families in America and invests in our future, not one that squeezes those families harder and disinvests in America. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), a terrific member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), a distinguished member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), a wonderful member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, yesterday, we debated the Republican budget proposal as it came to the floor. We saw that even as Americans are working even harder every day, their budget would squeeze them more. It would squeeze middle class families and those working to join the middle class. It would squeeze students trying to get an affordable college education. It would squeeze seniors by immediately increasing the cost of prescription drugs, immediately increasing the cost of copays for preventive health services. This budget on the floor today squeezes those families even harder, even as both budgets provide another round of windfall tax cuts to the folks at the very top by cutting the top tax rate by over a third as they green light the Romney-Ryan plan. This particular budget actually will slow down economic growth over the next couple of years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Those are the nonpartisan professionals that analyze these budgets. They looked at the Republican budget and said: You know, it will slow down growth in the next couple of years. This particular version of the Republican budget will do so even more. Why would we want to slow down economic growth just as the trends are picking up? Look, we have got a long way to go to get everybody back to work, but we are on the right path, on the right trajectory. Why would we want to put on the brakes, as the Republican budget does, as well as the RSC budget, in the coming years? While the Republican budget we had on the floor just the other day has no answer, no immediate answer to the pending shortfall in the transportation trust fund, this particular budget unreservedly just divests the Federal Government of responsibility for most highways and transit projects that are currently supported by the Federal budget. I will say in closing that there is one redeeming quality to this budget, which is that this budget does not play games with the overseas contingency accounts, like the Republican budget brought to the floor by the chairman does. This does not use the so-called ``overseas contingency account'' as a slush fund. This budget funds defense in the same straightforward way that the President of the United States' budget does. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me and us working together to salute Dr. Elmendorf, who, by all accounts, has done a terrific job at the Congressional Budget Office. He has led that office with great professionalism, and I think he has continued to uphold the integrity of CBO. I think we have all benefited from his wisdom over the years. House of Representatives, Committee on the Budget, Washington, DC, March 24, 2015. Statement by Chairman Tom Price, M.D. and Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen of the Committee on the Budget Recognizing Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director of the Congressional Budget Office Douglas W. Elmendorf is the eighth Director of the Congressional Budget Office who was initially appointed on January 22, 2009, to complete the previous four-year term of office; he was later reappointed to serve through January 3, 2015. Dr. Elmendorf graciously agreed to remain at CBO beyond the end of his term to ensure CBO's smooth and steady operations while the process of appointing his successor was completed. His tenure as CBO Director is the second longest of all CBO's directors, behind only CBO's first director, Alice Rivlin. Before he came to CBO, Dr. Elmendorf was a senior fellow and the Edward M. Bernstein Scholar in the Economic Studies program at the Brookings Institution. He was previously an assistant professor at Harvard University, a principal analyst at CBO, a senior economist at the White House's Council of Economic Advisers, a deputy assistant secretary for economic policy at the Treasury Department, and an assistant director of the Division of Research and Statistics at the Federal Reserve Board. In those positions, he worked on budget policy, Social Security, Medicare, health care issues, financial markets, macroeconomic analysis and forecasting, and other topics. He earned his Ph.D. and A.M. in economics from Harvard University, where he was a National Science Foundation graduate fellow, and his A.B. summa cum laude from Princeton University. While Dr. Elmendorf's credentials clearly qualified him to be the CBO Director, he would probably be the first to say that nothing can really prepare you for the job. We in Congress place heavy and sometimes unreasonable demands on CBO to produce nonpartisan, high-quality analyses in a timely fashion. Under his leadership, CBO has consistently responded to these demands and helped us to understand the budgetary and economic implications of our actions. The legislative issues have been contentious and complex. But throughout his tenure, CBO has remained true to its nonpartisan tradition and has provided the high-quality, cutting-edge analysis that we need under extremely challenging circumstances. Under his leadership, CBO has been a consistent and dependable source of objective information and analysis on a range of critically important issues. For example, as Congress grappled with the aftermath of the fiscal crisis and recession, he enhanced CBO's capacity to perform cutting-edge analysis of the economic effects of various policy responses, and he has continued to strengthen CBO's capabilities in that area and in many others. Along with high-quality analysis, he was worked hard to be sure that CBO provided clear explanations of both the basis and results of those analyses--through the clarity of its reports and, on many occasions, through his clear and cogent testimony before Congressional committees. And he has made himself personally available--at all times of day and night--to Members on both sides of the aisle to receive our urgent requests for estimates, to answer our questions, or to hear our complaints. Dr. Elmendorf has never shied away from delivering tough and sometimes blunt messages to lawmakers about the fiscal challenges that the nation is facing. He has never stepped over the line to tell us what we should do, but he has made very clear that the status quo is not an option over the long term. In the end, his professionalism and conviction are the hallmarks of a strong CBO director. As CBO transitions to new leadership, we thank Doug for his time as director and for the dedication, energy, and commitment he has brought to the position. CBO, the Congress, and the people of this nation have been served well by the outstanding leadership of Douglas W. Elmendorf. Tom Price, M.D., Chairman, House Budget Committee. Chris Van Hollen, Ranking Democrat, House Budget Committee.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, let me start with something, I think, Members who are listening to this debate should know already, which is that the Republican budget does not balance, not by a long shot. It assumes the revenue from the Affordable Care Act even though they claim to repeal the Affordable Care Act. It doesn't account for the costs of additional tax cuts that are coming through this House as we speak, and, if the revenue from that were lost, their budget would be even further out of balance. In fact, just today, in the Ways and Means Committee, they are increasing the deficit by over $250 billion over 10 years by giving a huge tax cut to 5,500 families in getting rid of the estate tax. Now, everyone should understand that the estate tax only applies to couples with estates worth over $10 million. They are saying that people with estates worth $10 million, who have done really well, shouldn't contribute anything toward investments in our country, even toward deficit reduction. That increases the deficit right away and puts their budget even more out of balance, so this doesn't come close to balancing. While it is actually cutting special interest tax breaks for folks at the very high end of the income scale, it actually disinvests in the rest of the country. They dramatically cut the portion of our budget that we use to invest in our kids' futures, in early education, in kindergarten through grade 12. They make it harder for students to afford college. They say they are going to start charging students interest while they are still in college, even though we have record student debt of over $1 trillion in this country. They make it harder on seniors right away. Seniors will pay more for prescription drugs, seniors on Medicare; seniors will pay more in copays for preventive care. If they really got rid of the Affordable Care entirely, seniors would also be paying higher part B premiums. That is what they say they want to do, get rid of it entirely. The Democratic budget which we put forward presents an alternative. We were disappointed that this body voted against that and decided, instead, to support a budget that squeezes hard-working families and is hard on everyone in America except for those who are already at the very top. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, in developing the Democratic alternative budget, we sought and received input from all parts of our Democratic Caucus. The result is a budget that I believe reflects the values and priorities of our Democratic Caucus, and the values and priorities of the American public. While no budget offers each and every idea we might include as individuals, the final product is a powerful vision of how to reward Americans who are working hard to get ahead and to promote economic opportunity for all Americans. Both the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) budgets contain some important ideas and initiatives that are not included in the Democratic alternative budget. I believe that both are far superior to the Republican budgets on the Floor today. The CBC budget contains additional investments in education and other areas that I support and believe are important to our future. While the plan includes somewhat higher revenues and spending than in the Democratic alternative and the President's request, I support the increased investment and revenue levels it provides. The Progressive budget also contains many initiatives and policy changes I support that are not included in the Democratic alternative budget, including a 4 percent cost-of-living pay increase for federal employees to help compensate for years of pay freezes. I also support adding a public option to the ACA exchanges, a proposal that is included in the CBC plan. In addition, I support a financial market trading fee, and have put forward an ``Action Plan to Grow the Paychecks of All, Not Just the Wealthy Few'' that would use the revenue to provide more tax relief to the middle class and those working to join the middle class. The tax relief includes paycheck tax credits for American workers, as well as a number of incentives for apprenticeships and training programs and for employee profit-sharing and retirement savings. One of those incentives would use tax policy to leverage higher pay for hard working employees. Specifically, the CEO-Employee Paycheck Fairness Act, which I introduced, prevents corporations from claiming tax deductions for CEO and executive bonuses and other compensation over $1 million, unless their workers are getting paycheck increases that reflect increases in worker productivity and the cost of living. The action plan also includes a modernized and expanded Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit that goes beyond the President's proposal in important ways, including by making it refundable. Similarly, I strongly support putting a price on carbon, and have introduced legislation--the Healthy Climate and Family Security Act--to create a cap and dividend program to reliably lower carbon emissions and auction off permits to the first-sellers of fossil fuels. I believe it is important, however, to offset potential increases in energy costs for American homeowners, so my bill provides a dividend to every American. Professor James Boyce of the University of Massachusetts-- Amherst has calculated that this approach will leave about 80 percent of American families with more money in their pocket at the end of the day. This legislation has been endorsed by Bill McKibben and key organizations including the Sierra Club, the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, and Communities United (Maryland). In the case of both of these policies, the Progressive Caucus budget spends the proceeds on other program priorities. It has $2.7 trillion more spending than in the President's budget and the Democratic alternative, and $2 trillion more the CBC budget. The Progressive Caucus budget has $5 trillion more revenue over ten years than both the President's budget and the Democratic alternative budget, and almost $4 trillion more than the CBC budget. This is in part because the CPC budget does not rebate all of the carbon tax and does not use revenue from the financial market trading fee to provide tax benefits for low- and middle-income Americans. While I support many of the initiatives in the Progressive Caucus budget, I believe we should use the revenue generated by a financial market trading fee and a price on carbon to more directly boost family incomes and assist those struggling to find work. Like Leader Pelosi and others who share many CPC priorities, I differ on some of the details of their policy changes. But most of all I am very grateful to the CPC for their significant contribution in the development of the Democratic Alternative and for their vision--which I share--of a growing economy with more shared prosperity.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, while we were crafting the Democratic alternative budget we met with organizations representing millions of Americans--from seniors to students to hard-working families. I want to thank the many people who took the time to advocate so passionately for their cause. Many of these groups have written to Congress to publicly state their strong opposition to the Republican budget before the House today, eloquently enumerating the many hardships it will cause to working families, students, seniors and other Americans. I also wanted to thank those who expressed support for the Democratic alternative because of its efforts to ensure broadly shared prosperity, helping middle-class families and those working their way into the middle class, and to invest in the future. I appreciate the support we have received from people working on broad range of issues. This includes groups representing those concerned with educating our children and making college affordable, such as the National Education Association and the Student Aid Alliance. We also heard from those who represent the many federal employees who provide vital services, such as the National Treasury Employees Union. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights also wrote in to share their support for our Democratic alternatives and the policies it reflects. I also want to thank those who are working tirelessly to protect Social Security for the growing number of seniors who depend on the program, including the strong advocacy from the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. I share the Committee's goal of ensuring a livable retirement for all seniors and the importance of Social Security as fewer Americans have defined benefit pension plans. That is why during the Budget Committee's consideration of the resolution I offered an amendment to protect Social Security benefits from the threat of privatization or benefit cuts that could result from the Republican budget. We have heard from many others who strongly oppose the harmful cuts in the Republican budget--groups as diverse as the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, the Coalition for Human Needs, Citizens for Tax Justice, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Service Employees International Union. I appreciate the input, advice, and support of the many people who helped us design the Democratic alternative and work for its passage.