the table because a well child visit is covered. by august of this year, more preventive services will be provided without cost sharing. preventive services such as annual well women visits to guard against ovarian cancer and domestic violence counseling. for two years now, insurers will be prohibited from charging women more for their policies simply because of their gender. the health insurance exchanges will allow women to find ain orderable coverage that includes maternity care. and for these reasons and many more, i encourage you to pass my amendment. it reaffirms our amendment to this budget that will ensure all women can finally have access to quality, affordable, camp hence i have care, not only for themselves but for their maems as well. mr. share, i would like to yield a minute to ms. bonamici.

>> thank you so much for your amendment. it's essential we protect the accomplishments of the affordable care act. health reforms impact can already be seen in the way women's health care is changing. before women could be discriminated against by service providers. they faced increased kos and barriers. it's astonishing to see so many preventive tools for screenings along with pace basic maternity coverage were often not accessible to women who needed them the most. this resulted in health problems for many, but it also increased the long-term cost on our health care system. in just two years, the affordable care act has reduce ed -- my kol lesion's amendment

is essential to ensuring this remains true and we reject any attempts to roll back the clock on women's access to health care. being a woman is no longer a pre-existing condition and we have the affordable health care act to thank for that. >> women are often the caregivers if their family's health. they make the appointments and they pick up prescriptions and accompany aging parents. streningen women's access to health care impacts the health of all families. i would like to yield with the gentlewoman from wisconsin for a minute. >> i would like to thank the lady for yielding. this is an extremely important amendment, i think, because there are so many obvious ways the assists women. but women are twice asme to bde spouses for chair insurance.

if they face divorce, they're much more likely to find themselves without health insurance. i had a constituent contact me to share her story of being divorced after 35 years, thought she was happily married, middle class. but found that the affordable care act, because of the provisions that required insurance companies to give her basic preventive care like mammograms and pap smears and a colonoscopy, able to maintain vital health care. so this affordable care act, those provisions are especially important to women and i would yield back to my colleague. >> america's women cannot afford to return to a broken health care system. i would like to yield the remaining time. >> i thank my kol leak league. i understand some of the colleagues on the other side don't agree with the affordable health care act, even though

many were republican ideas. by repealing all of the affordable care act, this budget allows insurance companies to once again deny women coverage if they've ever kbn pregnant, had a c section or been a victim of domestic violence. it allows insurance companies to drop a woman if she's had breast cancer and cervical cancer and replace a lifetime cap on coverage. it also allows insurance companies to charge 85% more in the market for women than it does with men with the same characterist characteristics. in fact, one situation mentioned in a new york times article, the insurance company charged more than 50% more for a man of the same age who smoked than woman who didn't smoke. all of these things would be allowed again if this amendment is not passed. so this is something that is an important sense of fairness. you really stand with women's rights on this amendment or you

don't. you're either willing to allow discrimination against women with this amendment or you don't. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes and appreciates that. with that, the gentle lady yields back with 90 seconds. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i can't agree with you more as a woman, we deserve our health care. i knee the thing that women really want is choice. unfortunately, those decisions will be made not by families but by bureaucrats at 159 new agencies and boards in washington that are established by the patient affordability act. that will control our health care system. so it will not be the woman that is making those decisions. it will be the bureaucrats set up underneath the affordable care act. a recent survey said that as many as 46% of the doctors are planning to leave medical

practice when the affordable health care act kicks in. when speaker pelosi said that you needed to pass the bill to know what was in it, we certainly do see that that is coming true as we see more and more of the bill being rolled out. we recognize that there are less andless choice there. the doctor shortage will be huge and women and their families will find it harder and harder to find a doctor to see them. giving them less and less choice about who can see them. now, there are some solutions that are -- serve women by patient sceptered reforms. women should have a choice of the policies that offer the benefits they want and they need. for instance, across state purchasing of health care insurance, we give them more choices of more affordable insurance, defined contributions for health insurance would allow both spouses to combine funds to buy the plan of their choice that would be portable and they

would own and take with them from job to job. or even in that case, if it is across state line from one state to the other. so the biggest threat to women is the status quo. and the worst thing we can do for women is rob them of the coverage they planned on their whole lives. so i do not support this amendment and i would encourage my colleagues to do the same. thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back my time. >> the gentlelady yields back. t remaining one minute? >> the biggest health to women's health is the status quo. if you want to end rescissions directed by insurance companies, if you want to end lifetime limits that insurance companies impose, if you want to end annual caps that insurance companies have, if you want to have insurance companies continue to be the guardian as to whether or not a woman can see a gynecologist when she feels the need too, by all

means, vote against this amendment. but if you want women to be treated equal and to know that they will not be discriminated against based on their gender, for heaven sakes, vote for this amendment. let's put an end to discrimination for our daughters, our daughters, mothers and our aunts. with that, i yield back. >> all those in favor say aye. those oppose say no. the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. >> roll call vote is requested. mr. garret? no. mr. simpson, no. mr. campbell? no. mr. calvert? no. mr. akin? mr. cole? mr. cole, no. mr. mcclintock? no. mr. affe?

mr. sututzman? no. mr. langford, . black? no. mr. ribble, no. mr. flores? mulvaney, no. mr. heulskamp? no. mr. young, no. mr. amash? no. mr. rokita? no p. mr. ginta? no p. mr. woodall? no. mr. van hollen? >> aye. >> aye. ms. captor? aye. mr. doggett? aye. mr. blumenauer, aye.

ms. mccollum? aye. mr. yarmouth, aye. mr. honda? aye. mr. ryan of ohio? aye. ms. wasserman shultz? ms. moore? >> aye. >> ms. castor? aye. mr. schuler? aye. ms. bass? aye. ms. bonimici? aye. mr. chairman? >> no. >> mr. chairman, no. >> any other members who need to vote? if not, the clerk shall report. >> mr. chairman, on that vote the ayes are 14, the nos are 20.

>> the gentle lady from wisconsin is recognized. >> thank you very, very much, mr. chairman. >> do you have an amendment at the desk. >> yes, sir, i have an amendment at the desk. >> an amendment offered by ms. moore related to nutrition. >> the gentlelady is recognized for seven plns. >> i don't envy your job as the budget chair. to try to figure out how to reduce to a balanced budget when you have so many strictures that you've put in place. you can't tax the rich, you want to lower corporate taxes. you can't raise taxes in the middle class by ending the bush era tax cuts for them. that's not feasible.

you can't stop sacred dough cows like defense. so you have to cut $7 billion out of programs that help the elderly, disabled, women, children and the infirm. th that's why we have to block grant medicaid, voucherize medicare and block grant things like food stamps. i call your attention to page 14 of the path to prosperity under bullet three. prioritizing assistance for those in need, the welfare reforms of the 1990s, despite their success were never expended beyond cash welfare to other means tested programs. this budget completes the successful work of transforming welfare by reforming other areas of america's safety net to ensure that welfare does not entrap able-bodied citizens into lives, complacency and dependcy. i want to disabuse this body of the notion, both democrats and republicanings who walk around

all the time talking about how ending welfare somehow, you know, unentrapped people from poverty. as you can look at my charts up here, the poverty rate fell precipitously after we formed welfare because the economy was booming and by the what i, bill clinton raised tacks during that time. and now it's just on a steady climb. we have not reduced poverty. there's another chart to show you we have not reduced poverty in general. we have not reduced the poverty rate among children. i want to disabuse you of this idea that somehow block granting and voucherizing, cutting out more money from safety net programs will somehow help people climb out of poverty. i want to focus on food. food stamps. because here again, we are talking about repairing the social safety net, ending dependcy, strengthening the safety nets, how entitlements undermine freedom. and this is a washington

mandated program. we have cradle to grave dependcy, we need flexibility, one size doesn't fit all. we need limited government. we're about to emulate european style socialism. we need to trust people and not unelected, unaccountable federal bureaucrats and on and on and on. and so -- oh, yeah, i was listening. and all this is is just an excuse to throw poor people and half of all americans are poor people now. they're not bums, they're not welfare recipients, they are people who are poor because of the recession and because of the economic addition of this country. food stamps. only 8% of the people who receive food stamps receive any other benefit. 61

60% of them were working. only three months out of three years can they receive tandem. 80% had an elderly member in the family. 2/3 had kids and disabled people. and i don't care what the blueprint says, food stamps has one of the best -- the lowest error rate that there is. 1 in 7 households have responded that they have food and security. there are 45 million people who use food stamps and that is not nearly the numbers of people who are eligible for it. so this whole lexicon that we have built up around food stamps to vilify the poor, you know, to try to justify, you know, ripping up the social safety net by having people believe that people who need social security

and medicare and medicaid and food stamps are misfits is something that we're trying to promote mass public hallucinations in order to accomplish our task of maintaining the wealth for corporations and not for people. i would yield some time to my colleagues if thank you. i would just point out that 40% of those seeking hunger relief in minnesota are children. school lunches are served to 101,000 public nonprofit and private school and child care ins fusion tugss. and for some of those children, that's the only meal that they receive. and on behalf of the children in my district and my state in this country will go home hungry tonight, i support ms. moore's amendment.

>> thank you ms. mccollum. if we got rid of the bush tax cuts, that would give us $14 trillion over ten years. but we don't want to get rid of our sacred cows and cut defense. we don't want to -- we want to lower the corporate tax rate. and so we have decided, we have decided that the people who are the most defenseless, kids who get w.i.c., infants 1 through 3, that's the easiest place to take the money from. we're going to take $133 billion out of food for people who are hungry. and i just think it's a shame. and i would yield and wait for my one minute to defend -- to rebut what i know they're going

to say. >> the clairvoyant senator from milwaukee yields. >> thank you, mr. chairman. wow. it's like groundhog's day in here. the idea that anybody and the insinuation that anybody in this congressman, woman, republican, democrat, independent, libertarian, whatever label or brand you put on wants to vilify the poor is stunning to me. i have been here for 15 months. i know i haven't been here for 50 years looic -- well, never mind. but i haven't seen it. i haven't seen it on your side and i haven't seen it on my side. let me tell you what really does vilify the poor, tax codes that attacks businesses and they don't hire people. that vilifies the poor. a tax rate put on by barack

obama, nancy pelosi and harry reid's majority that removed tacks for corporate jets. get rid of that 1/10 of 1% that buys corporate jets. i don't really care. but what you'll get at is the men and women who are building the corporate jets. you're not going to get at the rich this way. you want to add more people to s.n.a.p.? you want more children to go hungry? steal a job from their mom and dad. go ahead. give them more regulations. go ahead, we want more regulations. who do you think pays taxes? corporations don't pay taxes. customers pay taxes. and that's just the harsh reality of it. i ran a corporation. and we added our taxes to the bill. and that raised our prices. an

and so if you really want to get at helping the poor in this t t that, and i think in this country, and i think we all, all of us want to do that. we have to crack policy in this the country that will create w think this budget will do, it simplifies the tax code, reduces the corporate rates, it products more cost competitive, not just here, but around the globe, it will cause american businesses to hire and pull this is how you create jobs. this is how you reduce poverty. you lift people up, that's the i'll yield some time to the gentleman from indiana. >> thank you, gentleman from wisconsin. and i agree with the comments that are made by mr.ruble.

and i don't agree that there's no one in congress who wants see a child go hungry. i didn't know we were poor until the government told us we were poor. i think the worst thing we can do right now is to continue to lull people into government handouts, let's focus on the economy, let's make sure that companies can provide jobs, let's not make liorompanies out there that want to create jobs. they want to -- they would be creating jobs if they knew that there was certainty. snap has grown from $18 billion in 2001 to over $80 billion today. what that reflects is obviously

the recession, but also to me, it reflects an ever growing federal government that continues to want to take care of people from cradle to grave and we have to get back to the principals that made this country great where people work and take advantage of opportunity and i yield back. >> two minutes for the gentleman from kansas. >> thank you, reid, i appreciate the opportunity and i appreciate the emotion of my colleague on the other side of the aisle here today and certainly i agree with my colleague about what our desires are here and we certainly have a different approach. but the numbers are pretty clear. currently in america, i don't know whether half a amera poor, poor, we need to be job creating legislation. we need to make people not poor

by giving mom and dad a job. i disagree with the former speaker of the house. the best way to get the economy going again is a paycheck from the government. plus a paycheck from a job. we currently have 47 million americans on food stamps, i probably disagree with my colleagues. i don't think it's a sign that we're charitable, it's a sign that this economy is messed up.d to be eliminated. like the corporate jet tax deduction, by the way, that was the idea of the president, that was in the stimulus ll. why was that put in it? i come from kansas, we make a lot of planes, make it fair and equal to others. the main reaso to helping the poor. america's approach is we're going to have the fastest growing kmiz in the world. don't forget just a few years

ago, it was only 26 million people. and the idea that if we don't keep it at 45 million, keep it harnessed to the government check that somehow we're not being charitiable, charity begins at home. charity also deals with making sure there's opportunity in america. this bill provides for economic community and progress and for helping families. because of the failure of this administration. we have an unemployment rate of 8.3%. the president promised us with this stimulus package, the rate today would be 6%. that's equivalent of about 11%, 13 million americans without a job. because of failed economic policy. and throwing more money into a program doesn't create jobs. in the long-term, if you really want to be human tarn,f want to be charitable, let's get our economy going again.

>> i know that the gentle lady from wisconsin, i know your heart's right, i really do know your heart's right. i know all your hearts are right, we just have a disagreement on how. i yield back my time. >> thank you so much mr. chairman, and i do appreciate the comments on the other side. and i appreciate the fact that vilify the poor, they haven't heard the people call the pell grant recipients socialist. they haven't heard comments about our having a food stamp president. they haven't heard, they talk about, if you need a cradle to grave -- if you have a cradle to grave depen didn't si, you need medicaid when you're born, medicaid when you're old, it makes our country great. and what makes our country great

is to be independent. you think i'm emotional when i make these arguments, but i do get emotional when you cut $11 million out of wic. i do want to see you all create jobs as well. which is why i think you all will pass a decent transportation bill. but in the meantime, people need to eat. >> the question is on the amendment offered by tgentle lay from wisconsin, aye. >> mr. garrett no. mr. campbell, no. mr. calvert, no. mr. akin. mr. cole. mr. cole, no. mr. price, mr. price no.

mr. mcclintock, no, mr. steszman, mr. stuszman no, mr. languafor langford, mr. langford no, ms. black, no. mr. ripple, mr. ripple no. mr. flores. mr. flores no. mr. heels camp no. mr. young, mr. young no. mr. morn. mr. mosh, no. mr. oak compete that. mr. ginta, no. mr. woodall, mr. simpson, no, mr. van holland. mr. van holland. aye. ms. schwartz, ms. captor, aye.

mr. doggett. mr. mccollum. mr. yarmith. mr. pascarell. mr. honda, mr. honda, aye. mr. ryan, aye. ms. wasserman schultz. mr. schuler, aye. mr. bass, aye. mr. chairman. >> no. >> mr. dharm. no. >> any other members looking to vote or to change their vote. if not the clerk shall report. >> mr. chairman, on that vote, the ayes are 13 and the nos are

20. >> the matter is voted downing. >> mr. ryan. >> i have an amendment another the desk. >> the amendment and the staff will distribute copies of the amendment. >> the generous gentleman will be recognized for four minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, this amendment will end the tax subsidies to the bill oil and find the commodities future trade commission in order to more effectively enforce some of the gambling that's going on in the commodities market now, this will repeal tax subsidies into the integrated oil and gas companies and the lion's share of this money will end up going to deficit reduction, but it will also go to fully fund the dodd-frank