let's let the states determine what that kind of help looks like. and finally, how that help is disbursed and received. i trust the states. i trust our local officials and our local community leaders to come up with a system that they know is best for their community. with that, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. molenar. >> thank you very much. and i also want to speak to the issue of flexibility. because as a former state legislator, one of the things we observed in our state was the opportunity to innovate. when the medicaid expansion went into effect in michigan, there was a tremendous opportunity to improve the lifestyles choices, and incentivize healthy behaviors. now, the state had to go to the federal government for a waiver on that. what we're doing here is we're

saying let's give states the ultimate flexibility and to innovate according to our -- to their unique characteristics. in michigan, in the year 2000, we had between 1 and 8 and 1 in 9 michigan residents on medicaid. now we have 1 in 4 on medicaid. as we notice across the country, over 30% of physicians are not even accepting new medicaid patients. and this is at the same time when federal reimbursement rates for medicaid are being cut across the country. so it is not a sustainable program. i think what this does is puts us in a far better path to innovate and to encourage healthy behaviors, and get on a more sustainable path for the future. and i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. i yield the remainder of the time, mr. westmoreland.

mr. westerman, excuse me. >> thank you. i will be brief. and just reiterate some of the things that have already said. in my state, not only do we -- we have not a fourth of the population getting medicaid services, but a third of the population getting medicaid services. and 20% of them are able-bodied working age adults. in my state medicaid not only is more than k-12 education it's more than k-12 education higher education, and corrections combined. it is the single largest expenditure in our state by far. i was told when i got to washington, d.c., that 3% or 4% growth is considered a cut. now i realize that that's the way things are perceived up here. this budget actually makes medicaid sustainable over the future. i yield back. >> time has expired. miss engel is recognized for one

minute to close. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would actually -- i have great respect for all of the gentlemen, especially the gentleman from michigan. we worked together on many things. i tilly would say that the flexibility he talked about is exactly what does exist in this program. and you're all talking about the great amount of money being spent. it is because there is so much need out there. and we have a real crisis in this country. the fact of the matter is that every state in the nation has at least one medicaid waiver. and there are over 350 waivers nationwide. states can already decide who they cover, what benefits they provide, and how they deliver health care services. if states want to experiment with different models, they've got the ability to do it. you all say that people can't have good access to doctors. but through it people don't want to take them. but numerous studies have shown medicaid has improved access to primary care and preventive services. the landmark medicaid study in

oregon found that people with medicaid were 40% likely to have suffered a decline in their -- >> the lady's time has expired. the question is on agreeing to the amendment by miss engel. the nos have it. >> i would ask for a roll call vote. >> the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. akita? >> no. >> mr. garrett? mr. garrett? mr. cole? >> no. >> mr. mcclintock? >> no. >> miss black? >> no. >> mr. woodall? mr. woodall? miss blackburn? miss blackburn? >> no. >> miss hartsler? >> no. >> mr. rice? >> no. >> mr. susman?

mr. susman? mr. stanford? >> no. >> mr. womack? >> no. >> mr. brattt? >> no. >> mr. blunt? >> no. >> mr. mooney? mr. mooney? mr. grossman? >> no. >> mr. palmer? >> no. >> mr. mullnar? >> no. >> mr. westerman? >> no. >> mr. van hollen? >> aye. >> mr. yarman? >> aye. >> mr. passquell? >> aye. >> mr. ryan? >> aye. >> miss moore? >> aye. >> miss caster? >> aye. >> mr. mcdermott?

mr. mcdermott? miss lee? >> aye. >> mr. pockan? >> aye. >> miss lou hanger sham? >> aye. >> mr. lou? >> aye. >> mr. norcross. >> aye. >> mr. molten? mr. molten? mr. garrett? >> no. >> mr. hughes? >> no. >> mr. woodall? >> no. >> mr. buchanan? >> no. >> mr. chairman? >> no. >> have all members voted? any member wish to change their vote? if not the clerk will report

the tally. >> mr. chairman, on that vote, the ayes are 12 and nos are 20. >> nos have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the chair will make a few announcement. now, the chair intends to continue through the remainder of the markup without stopping. we will have a bipartisan meal in the lunch -- well, it will be supper in the room. and we ask members to partake during the time when they're not participating in debate but to be present for all votes. and i apologize for the break that we had before but i think we can finish in good season if we keep rolling through this. at this point we have amendment number 6 up. the staff will distribute copies. >> amendment number 6 offered by mr. passquell relating to health care coverage. >> mr. passquell is recognized for six minutes.

>> a moment? a minute? well, i want to thank the gentleman from new jersey for offering this important amendment to protect tax credits to keep health coverage affordable for american families. you're always looking out for hard working families mr. pass carell, so thank you. the offeredable care act is working. it's working for americans, and now republicans want to throw another wrench into the mix, and eliminate tax credits for families that have been able to buy health coverage in the exchanges. this caught my eye, especially because florida families will be the most impacted if the tax credits go away. despite the political opposition, at home in the state of florida, we have 1.6 million floridians sign up in the exchange. they took the personal responsibility and signed up. and many with the help of the tax credits are finding it very affordable. the average premium with tax credits is $82 per month

premium. meaning life-and-death, means better quality of life for their families. now i really oppose what the republicans are doing in their budget, and that is to attempt to pull the rug out from under them again by saying, we're going to repeal the affordable care act. and in doing so eliminate their tax credit. let me say something about nicole peterson a single mother in my district who got divorced in the past year. you're going to hurt her, and her family. she was able to get a plan for herself and her three daughters. her monthly premium was $468. she received a credit of $150. what she said is it's phenomenal for our family. it enables me not only to afford the policy it helps me stay healthy, not to have the fear of anytime i get sick do i go to the doctor or buy groceries this week. i yield back. >> thank you. from the day the affordable care act became law my friends on

the other side of the aisle have done everything in their power to repeal it. this is very unlike what happens when we passed plan b, the prescription drug plan. we lost you guys won that vote. we went back to our districts and made it work. and then we made a commitment. if we ever become a majority, we would fill in the doughnut hole. that is you don't pay premiums, you get no benefits between $2,300 and $5,200. we were very different, mr. chairman, than you were. i mean, yes. the house has already voted to repeal the aca. we shouldn't be surprised that your budget once again assumes the aca is appealed. however, today's markup gives another opportunity to put into real terms exactly what the repeal means. mr. chairman, my amendment would restore the aca's premium tax

credits which help millions of americans offset the cost of their health care premiums. why are we against this credit when we want to talk about and defend the credit for the 1% to those corporations in this country. i want you to be arguing on behalf of the american people. this year 8 million people received premium tax credit. next year, 15 million will receive these tax credits, according to the congressional budget office. my home state of new jersey 254,316 people receive a tax credit worth an average of $306 per month. the budget is a tax hike on every single one of them. repealing the aca taking away these tax credits for millions of middle class americans will only reverse the progress that this law has made in affordable health insurance. i want you to stand in front of the people in your state and say you no longer have that tax credit, and we're going to raise your tax beside. and i hope you'll vote for me.

the united states uninsured rate has continued to decline, reaching a low of 12.#9%. the uninsured working age adults has dropped from 20.3% to 13.2 % since october of 2013. i think that's progress. now, maybe you don't consider that progress. i consider that progress. when the aca marketplaces opened their business, a 35% drop in the uninsured rate. without the aca, there would be a 17 million more uninsured people this year and 23 more uninsured people next year. and what is your plan to help those people? tell me. america's waiting to hear this. we're waiting. we're waiting. i said this afternoon, the curtain's coming down after two days. this curtain doesn't even go up, for crying out loud. you don't have a plan. many were paying for plans that

didn't provide them for coverage they needed. americans were denied coverage for preexisting conditions. and insurance companies arbitrarily increased their premiums to the point they couldn't afford insurance. people were charged more because insurance companies decided they were too old too sick, or even the wrong gender. wow. what do you know about that. you just discovered that? yet, what was my republican friends' answer? repeal, repeal, repeal. drill, drill, drill. repeal, repeal, repeal. you think that if any republican colleagues cobbled together all of the time they spent trying to undermine the aca, they should have been able to come up with an alternative for this law. they can't find anything good to say about it. but again the budget provides no alternative. we'll get to that. >> the gentleman's time is

expired. >> i happily yield back to you. >> i appreciate that. now i think i'm correct that the gentle lady from tennessee, miss blackburn, is recognized for seven minutes. >> mr. chairman, i appreciate that. and to my friend across the way there, i hope that mr. passkarel would come to me to tennessee. i would love to have him out to hear of the real-life stories of how this is adversely impacting people, individuals. there is a lady down in my district, an accountant. she was in a plan that was deemed unacceptable by obamacare. you know what her insurance cost went up per month? 700%. now, she has been adversely

impacted. you could also go with me to wayne county. and you could talk to employers who will tell you that the impacts of obamacare are very, very real to them. they see them every single day and they want this off the books. you ask what is our plan? let me tell you something. last year the energy and commerce, we had 162 different bills. we had 162 different -- no sir i will not yield to you. no, sir, i will not. we had 162 different bills that were there as replacement bills for obamacare. some great examples across state line purchase of insurance to open up the market to get costs down. guess what happened? cbo said 13 million people would be in there because costs are lower. when it comes to this issue of subsidies, and i will say this, i have to say i'm glad you're looking at what will happen

after king versus burwell, and that decision in the courts. because you know that day is coming. and you know that you are going to see a ruling that will probably not be in your favor. so i give you credit for coming to the table with something. because we've got 36 states that didn't set up their own state-run exchanges. and, you know, you've got to look at what's going to happen. now, when you talk about the subsidies, let me tell you, this is a letter that i got from secretary burwell. and i think this is why insurance is too expensive to afford, and why we do need to get this off the books. while we are confident in our position, a decision against the administration in the king case would cause massive damage. first, millions of people would lose their health insurance subsidies, and therefore, would no longer be able to afford health insurance. we've got a product too expensive to afford.

this is why we need to work together to get the costs of not only health insurance but the delivery of health care, get the cost down and improve the access. that should be a goal that we share. second, without tax subsidies healthy individuals would be far less likely to purchase health insurance, leaving a disproportionate number of sick individuals in the individual insurance marketplace. now, this is from the secretary talking about the plan, and you've got to have the subsidies, because the product is too expensive to afford. so, therefore, i think it behooves us to realize that what we've got here is the president's law made health insurance more costly by requiring plans to include washington, d.c. determined benefits in levels of coverage,

the health insurance exchange subsidies are going to cost taxpayers $1.1 trillion over the next ten years. it is going to adversely impact the taxpayer. because they're paying more. and the subsidies cost a lot more than that however, because americans lose their freedom of choice in the health coverage that they want to purchase. i at this time want to yield to miss blackburn from tennessee for her comments. >> i thank my colleague for yielding. i want to talk about what i'm hearing back in my district. this past saturday, i had a birthday party for my grandmother. one of the grandmothers were there. and she came up to me and said you know this really hasn't helped me at all. because even though my premiums are partially paid for me and she is one of those lower income single ladies that's working

hard, in a factory, where they don't provide insurance, but she said this is what's happening for me. the premiums are high, but i do get some assistance with that. but here's the real problem my co-pays are so high that i can't afford to pay my co-pays in order to be able to get the services that i need. she has high blood pressure and she has diabetes. she cannot afford her medications because the co-pays are so high on getting her medications. also, what i'm hearing throughout my district consistently, consistently, is the fact that i cast use the same doctor that i used to use the hospital that i used to go to does not accept this form of insurance, even though it's blue cross and blue shield. i thought i was getting into a really good program. and then there are other providers, such as maybe their physical therapist they can no longer use that they have that relationship with. i'd like to be able to say that this was the answer. but it's not the answer.

the answer is actually having a more patient-centered program where it's not a washington down program, but a program that comes from the communities and up. where there is affordability, and accessibility and quality and innovation and choice. right now, there's not choice. there's a limited number of programs in each one of these states that people can even choose from. their doctor is not on there their hospital is not on there. what good is it to have insurance that you're paying out of pocket but the insurance is not providing you what you need. you can't get your medicines, you can't use your doctor, you can't use the hospital you're accustomed to. despite all this the reports are saying even though we do have maybe 8 million people 16 million in another report, but that's adding in folks that already, like the students who are in school that are on their parents' plan, so the number is a little foggy, but despite that the reports are saying we're

still going to have 30 million people that are uninsured. we can do better. we can do better by allowing this not to be a washington down program. but being one where we put the patients and their families and their doctors in charge. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> gentle lady yields back. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute to close. >> thank you. i'm waiting anxiously to hear the great plan in the sky. i'm waiting for what the alternative is. my colleagues for their remarks and recognition, the vast importance of the affordable care act and the premium tax credits that the law provides. the reality is mr. chairman that the republican budget would take away affordable health insurance for millions of americans, and drastically increase the number of people without health insurance. and there is no plan to fix this. you cite sir, several cases. i'm talking about the millions and millions who have insurance now that didn't have it before. everybody's important.

don't get me wrong. this is not a perfect thing. we never said aca was the perfect plan. like you said plan "b" was a perfect plan. of course, now it's closer to perfection because we changed it. until last year, republican efforts to repeal the aca were in many respects impactful only in the abstract. today, the major coverage expansion provision have gone into effect. meaning that -- >> the gentleman's time has -- >> can i finish the sentence please? >> how many clauses? >> only 20 more words. thank you, mr. chairman. you've been most gracious. now have health insurance because of this law. and many of them have premium tax credits that help them afford their insurance. i hope you'll vote for this amendment. it makes sense. >> the gentleman's time has expired. i hope that my charity is not a bad omen for the future for activity.

the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered. aye? those opposed no? the nos have it. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. akita? mr. akita? mr. garrett? mr. garrett? >> no. >> gentleman needs to be present. >> i'm right here. >> mr. garrett? >> no. >> mr. dolart? >> no. >> mr. cole? >> no. >> mr. mcclintock? >> no. >> miss black? >> no. >> mr. woodall? >> no. >> miss blackburn?

>> no. >> miss hartsler? >> no. >> mr. rice? >> no. >> mr. stutzman? mr. stutzman? mr. sanford? >> no. >> mr. womack? >> no. >> mr. bratt? >> no. >> mr. blum? >> no. >> mr. mooney? >> no. >> mr. grossman? >> no. >> mr. palmer? >> no. >> mr. mullnar? >> no. >> mr. westerman? >> no. >> mr. buchanan? >> no. >> mr. van hollen? >> aye. >> mr. yarman? >> aye.

>> mr. passkarel? >> aye. >> mr. ryan? >> aye. >> miss moore? >> aye. >> miss caster? >> aye. >> mr. mcdermott? mr. mcdermott? miss lee? >> aye. >> mr. pockan? >> aye. >> miss lou han grisham? >> aye. >> miss engel? >> aye. >> mr. lou? >> aye. >> mr. norcross? >> aye. >> mr. molten? >> aye. >> mr. akilta? >> no. >> mr. stutzman? >> no. >> mr. chairman? >> no. >> mr. chairman, no.

>> have all members voted? any member wish to change their vote? the clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman, on that vote, the ayes are 13 and the nos are 22. >> the nos have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the next amendment is number 7, and the clerk will designate the amendment, and the staff will distribute copies. >> amendment number 7 offered by miss moore to the settlement al nutritional assistance program. >> miss moore is recognized for seven minutes. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. i would yield time -- >> excuse me. i apologize. six minutes and one minute to close. >> thank you. i would yield two minutes each to representative barbara lee, representative ryan, and representative louhan respectively in that order. >> if i may note that the gentle lady controls all the time. >> and i will claim the time for the rebuttal. the one minute.

>> the chair will not stop people after their two minutes. you have to do that. >> can you wind that clock back to six minutes? okay. so in that order, representative lee, ryan, louhan. and i will stop you. [ laughter ] >> i know you will. let me thank you, congresswoman, moore, for once again offering this amendment to protect nutrition assistance. you know from personal experience, i know from personal experience, many know that the majority of people don't want to be on food stamps on or s.n.a.p. they want a job they want to be able to take care of their families and live the american dream. s.n.a.p. helps lift 5 million people out of poverty in 2013 alone, including 2.1 million children. in fact more than 70% of s.n.a.p. participants are families with children. people in every state and in every congressional district experience food hardship. yet this republican budget

continues the trend of decimating food assistance in the long-term, and tinkering with block grants which are really schemes that could endanger food assistance delivery. what's worse and let me just mention the cbo report our democratic seniority and myself requested a cbo request on s.n.a.p. assessments on low-income households. it found cuts would drive the poorest families deeper into poverty. in this report the cbo analyzed three different proposals to reduce aggregate s.n.a.p. spending by 15%. cbo found with each proposal, families earning the least amount of income saw vastly disproportionately negative impacts. under at least one proposal, a family of three with an income below $15,000 per year would see a $600 cut. this report also discusses how

proposals to turn s.n.a.p. into a block grant program, which republicans have put forward in previous budget drafts, could allow for federal s.n.a.p. funding to be diverted to other programs and create the potential for even worse economic conditions for low income families. we know this would only increase hunger in our communities. we cannot allow this vital nutrition lifeline, which is what it is for our most vulnerable to happen. >> thank you miss lee. i yield two minutes to mr. ryan. >> i thank the gentle lady. we've heard the word certainty. i want to make a quick point that we ask how the transportation funding is going to come for the transportation, highway trust fund. we'll figure that out later. how about the health care piece. we'll figure that one out later. how about the tax rate. we'll figure that one out later. this budget is anything but

certain. for anybody. and to speak of uncertainty, we saw the statistics. the top 1% gets 17% of the tax expenditures. the average ceo is making $296 for every $1 that the worker makes. and here we're offering an amendment to make sure that the least among us can have some food. and we're going to get resistance. these deep cuts to the s.n.a.p. program aren't compassionate. they're irresponsible. and quite frankly, they're bad economics. they're bad economics. if we want to start growing the economy, we've got to make sure that the average person has some money in their pocket. i want to make one last point before i know i'll get cut off. the issue of nutrition. this -- earlier amendments were talking about medicaid. we wait until kids get really

really sick, and then we take them into the medicaid program. in the next few years, half the country's going to have either diabetes or pre-diabetes. the issue is healthy food. and getting healthy food to our citizens. this is one piece of it. and we need to do a better job with the s.n.a.p. program. but just to cut these benefits and just wait until they drive up costs because they're eating bad food is not the right approach. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. miss louhan grisham? >> i thank my colleague from wisconsin. my home state, you often hear me talk about this, is one of the hungriest states in the united states. and this budget only makes it worse. it will jeopardize the ability of veterans, seniors, the disabled and children to get the nutrition that they need to be healthy. it's estimated that approximately 900,000 veterans nationwide live in households that rely on s.n.a.p.

in my district at kirkland air force base, they have a permanent line for s.n.a.p. benefits for men and women. nearly 90% of s.n.a.p. beneficiaries live in a household with a senior oi disabled person. half the millions of hard working families across the country, s.n.a.p. is a vital lifeline that helps make ends meet. the cuts in this budget for s.n.a.p. are short sighted ignore the savings that you just heard about, that are achieved by having healthier children in families, on behalf of 442,000 s.n.a.p. recipients. i encourage my colleagues to support this critical amendment. i yield back. >> we yield back. >> i'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from michigan mr. mullnar for seven minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i'd like to make a brief statement, and then also ask mr.

akita and mr. mcclintock to speak to this amendment as well. i would urge a no vote on this. and one of the things that i think is important about our budget is it balances within ten years. another thing that's important about our budget is it promotes growth. i think we could all agree that the best we can do for low-income families in this country is to have jobs, and promote economic growth. one of the most innovative things i've seen is states, you know, it's been talked about over the years, laboratories of the economics at the state level. this is what this proposal does. i agree we want to have people who can live the american dream. i think we can all agree we want to have funds available for those who truly need it. one of the things i learned as a state legislator one day was that someone who had won a $1

million lottery award was continuing to use s.n.a.p. benefits, and was being encouraged to do so by our state department of human services. i found that shocking. and it was because the people who truly need it wouldn't be able to get it if those kinds of things continue. what i found is that there was no asset test. there was no means testing other than an income test that did not consider lottery winnings to be income. what was interesting as we went further into that, and we finally closed that loophole in our state, and i understand in the 2014 farm bill there is an effort to close that loophole as well. however, the secretary of agriculture has not distributed the states the guidelines on what's considered a substantial amount of winning. i say this because i think it's

important that we empower states. because they know their people best. and they know what works best in their state. and rather than having the federal government do a top-down approach, i think it's important that we allow flexibility in the states. and again, the goal is that everyone who needs it would be able to receive it. right now, the states have no incentive, because 100% of the benefits are paid for by the federal government, and the states simply administer the program. with that i would like to invite mr. akita from indiana. >> i thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue. i simply would add to the discussion, the fact that if you include discretionary spending, as well as the mandatory spending, on s.n.a.p. and other poverty fighting programs, the federal government currently spends almost $800 billion a year on 92 different programs,

in what by any objective observation can only be called a poorly coordinated effort to fight poverty. and of course, the figure i just mentioned does not even include state and local spending. you know, so unfortunately, our approach over the last several decades has been built on the premise that somehow -- and this is totally erroneous -- but that compassion is best measured by how much we spend not by how many we can lift out of poverty. and that's exactly what our budget turns on its head. let's find the ways to help people who really truly need it and get them out of the situation they're in. not letting them remain dependent. on a federal program. this week cbo report notes about state flexibility allotments that, quote, given such authority states might be able to define eligibility and

administer benefits that better serve their populations, allowing states more flexibility in operating s.n.a.p. would result in more experimentation and approaches that were successful in some states that could be adopted by others, close quote. so i think we're on -- i know we're on the right track here with our budget. i would just urge my colleagues and all of them to join us in the effort with that. i yield back to mr. molenar. >> i would like to call on mr. mcclintock from california. >> thank you to the gentleman for yielding. s.n.a.p. spending was $21 billion in 2010. west from 21 to $39 billion by '08. to $76 billion in 2014. that means it's roughlying doubling every six years. the s.n.a.p. caseload has increased from 19 million people in 2002 to 28 million people in 2008 to 46 million people in 2014. roughly doubling every eight years. and remember this exponential

increase is occurring while the unemployment rate is very slowly inching down. so if you project out the current trajectory roughly half the population will be on food stamps in 16 years. which by the way is about the same time that we're being warned social security and medicare are bankrupting, and about the same time that our interest costs exceed our defense spending. our democratic colleagues would have us continue down this road that anybody with a lick of common sense can see is completely unsustainable. this budget makes critical course corrections now while there's still time to do so. and with regard to s.n.a.p., the budget follows the successful model of the 1996 welfare reform act. it strengthens work requirements, it restores the states the freedom to innovate and reform. all of the dire warnings we hear from the opposition would have a lot more credibility if we hadn't already heard them in 1996, and if they hadn't already been thoroughly discredited by our actual experiences.

the democratic criticism of this portion of the budget reminds me of the economist who said, well that might work in practice, but i can't see how it could ever possibly work in theory. yield back. >> thank you mr. chairman. with that i yield back. >> gentle lady from wisconsin is recognized for one minute to close. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. let's get straight to the point. freedom, flexibility, federalism, lee atwater would be proud of y'all today. what that means is you're going to block grant the entitlement programs and cut it by $125 billion over ten years. let's keep this thing real, y'all. you talk about uncertainty, uncertainty. let me tell you this. in my district, a quarter of the children are uncertain about with their next meal is going to come from. let's really be clear. this program, two-thirds of the recipients are not able to work. they're babies, they're elders,

and they're disabled people. and this program has work requirements. 80% of the people work who are on this program. you talk about -- we talk about wanting to -- all the 92 programs, there's not one conversation about cutting any of the tax expenditures, $1 trillion a year. let's just keep it real. it's cruel to take food out of the mouths of babes. >> the gentle lady's time has expired expired. all in favor aye? those opposed? the nos have it. >> i would like a roll call. >> the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. akita? >> no. >> mr. garrett? >> no. >> mr. volart? >> no. >> mr. cole? >> no. >> mr. mcclintock?

>> no. >> ms. black? >> no. >> mr. woodall? >> no. >> miss blackburn? >> no. >> miss hartsler? >> no. >> mr. rice? >> no. >> mr. stutzman? >> no. >> mr. sanford? >> no. >> mr. womack? >> no. >> mr. bratt? >> no. >> mr. blum? >> no. >> mr. mooney? >> no. >> mr. grossman? >> no. >> mr. palmer? >> no. >> mr. mulenar? >> no. >> mr. westerman?

>> no. >> mr. buchanan? >> no. >> mr. van hollen? >> aye. >> mr. yarman? >> aye. >> mr. paskarel? >> aye. >> mr. ryan? >> yes. >> miss moore? >> aye. >> miss caster? >> aye. >> mr. mcdermott? mr. mcdermott? miss lee? >> aye. >> mr. pockan? >> aye. >> miss lou han grisham? >> aye. >> miss engel? >> aye. >> mr. lou? >> aye. >> mr. norcross? >> aye. >> mr. mullcan? >> aye. >> mr. chairman?

>> no. >> mr. chairman? no. >> all members voted? any member wish to change their votes? the clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman, on that vote, the ayes are 13 and the nos are 22. >> the nos have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the next amendment is amendment number 8. and the clerk will designate the amendment and the stal of distribute copies. >> amendment number 8 offered by miss lee expressing a sense of the house relating to poverty. >> miss lee is recognized for six minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first, i want to say, looking at the budget before you, you can hardly believe that many of our republican colleagues participated in the same series of poverty hearings as the rest of us on this committee last year. once again, we see a budget that seems to ignore the fact that there are still more than 45 million americans living in poverty. this budget is balanced once again by slashing critical

lifeline programs and paring down ladders of opportunities. last year paul ryan agreed we should expand our income tax credits for childless workers. and right from the table there's nowhere in this budget is that provision found. my amendment today lays out the impact of our successful anti-poverty programs on reducing the poverty rate from social security and medicaid, to the supplemental nutrition assistance program and the earned income tax credit. we know that these programs work. even with 45 million people living in poverty, the poverty rate has gone down more than one-third since 1967, when 12 initiatives, including the higher ed act under the war on poverty were passed. we have seen the poverty rates going down. we prevented millions of families from sliding into poverty. once again, my republican

colleagues want to cut or turn programs into block grants which evidence clearly shows are less effective. in fact, this week, and once again i just want to reference the cbo report that shows the effect of s.n.a.p. cuts on those living in poverty. mr. chairman, i'd like to have this inserted into the record ask unanimous consent. >> without objection. >> thank you. this shows once again that block grants could lead to states moving money around and using it for programs other than food assistance. i want to respond to the gentleman who mentioned the fact that the s.n.a.p. benefits continue to go up more people continue to go on them since, what was it, 2008. under the bush economic policies, thank god people did have s.n.a.p. to rely on, because many many people would go hungry had we not had s.n.a.p. in place. and so that to me is just totally outrageous that you would want a block grant something that gives people a lifeline just to eat in this country. also with regard to economic

activity, as it relates to the s.n.a.p. each $1 brings back $1.79 in the economic committee. it is a good economic policy to have. make no mistake, no one is saying these programs are perfect. but that's why my amendment establishes a common sense and comprehensive approach to proven programs through a coordinated national strategy to cut poverty in half in ten years. now, that's 22 million americans lifted out of poverty in the next decade. this comprehensive approach means ensuring a living wage and streamlining state local and federal programs. let me just take a moment and yield 15 seconds from my colleague. >> i just wanted to point out when someone talked about how much s.n.a.p. costs. last year, we as americans spent $61 billion on food for our cats and dogs. >> thank you. let me yield to my colleague

lou han grim ham. >> i want to thank my very good friend from california who offered this amendment and actually received bipartisan support on a voice vote on the floor to cut poverty by half in a decade. and now poverty's become -- it wasn't even bipartisan. i would argue it was a nonpartisan issue. it ought to be a nonpartisan issue today. according to the most recent census data, 45.3 million people, or 14.5% of the u.s. population lived in poverty in 2013. and it doesn't affect everyone in this country equally. african-americans, native americans and hispanics all have poverty rates above 20%. poverty doesn't affect every state or community equally. new mexico, georgia texas kentucky and alabama. states represented by members of this committee on both sides of the aisle have struggled with

persistently high poverty levels. in my home state 22% of the mexicans live in poverty, and 31% of children, the highest in the country. we need a strategy to extend equal opportunity to everyone. i really encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this important amendment. thank you. i yield back. >> thank the gentle lady. mr. mcclintock is recognized for seven minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. this is a debate that's been going on in this country and in this congress, and in this committee for more than 50 years. in other forms it's been going on for thousands of years. it's estimated that when caesar crossed the arubacon, roman citizens were on public relief. in 1766 benjamin franklin wrote, i'm for doing good to the poor, but i differ in opinion of the means. i think the best way of doing good to the poor is not making

them easy in poverty but driving them out of it. in my youth i traveled much and observed in different countries that the more public provisions were made for the poor the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. in 1996, we put that proposition to the test. under president clinton, we in his words ended welfare as we know it. we set time limits on welfare. we required welfare recipients to look or train for work as a condition of receiving welfare. the left wing of his own party predicted this would drive millions of families into poverty. instead the poverty rate among children in female headed households fell from 55.4% in 1996 to 39.3% by 2001. this was a single largest sustained reduction in child poverty in this group since the onset of the great society. in fact the only places where this didn't occur were states

like california, that essentially opted out of the federal welfare reform and the result was one of the highest poverty and unemployment rates in the country. by the way during the clinton years, federal spending was cut by a it provides stronger work incentives to programs like food stamps. they reduce government borrowing. the capital that would be available to small businesses seeking to provide more and better jobs. it removes the obama 30-hour trigger that trapped millions of

americans in part-time work which replaces private investment. we know how to grow the committeeeconomy. we have done so many times before. the problem is this administration and its shrinking band of supporters in congress continue to pursue policies that just have not worked. it's estimated if the obama recovery had simply mirrored the reagan economy millions more americans would be working today and average family income would the thousands of dollars higher than today. this debate has been going on for centuries. it's going to continue to go on for many more until we heed the lessons of history and choose the policies that actually work. this budget does that. i know some of my colleagues have invested trillions of dollars into policies that have not worked and human nature being what it is the more we invest in our mistakes the less willing we have to admit them which is why we're debating this amendment once again today.

with that i'm pleased to yield two minutes. >> thank you. i guess the problem i have with this amendment is it implies that somehow we're not doing enough to fight poverty. i think a lot of problem here is we're doing so much to fight poverty that we are encouraging people to behave in ways that probably aren't the best for themselves or the best for their children. look at the amount of money we're flooding on those programs over the last few years. look at the earned income tax credit, the amount of money has doubled in the last 15 years. look at the snap program. between 2000 and the most recent year, over four times as much money in snap.

i can't vouch for it but it seems like the congressional research people are pretty smart people. they're telling us we're spending $60,000 a year per family that we're helping out here living below the poverty level. if that study is right. i mean the problem isn't that we're trying not enough. we're trying so much but despite all our effort we're getting a situation in which people are, too many of them, behaving in such a fashion they're not going to get out of poverty. if we want to have good stable families, we have to change the approach and not just flood more none at the problem.

look at the amount of money we're spending per child much it's gone up the last 40 years. we're spending more money on education, that would have solved the problem. the huge increase the number of kids going to college. does that solve the problem? no. i'm going to vote no on this amendment. i'm going to vote no because i think we need a new approach designed more to encourage people to work their way out of poverty and a new approach which will encourage more people to raise children this which they are providing a good example and stable environment. i'm going to yield my last minute, i guess i'm just a freshman. a new friend i'll yield the last minute. >> thank you glen. as a career small businessman my companies have always sought out best practices employed by other companies in our industry.

for example, in wisconsin governor tommy thompson enacted work fair programs. in maryland they cut welfare roles by 80% while decreasing poverty. this allows states to experiment with innovative ways to lift americans out of poverty and turn them into tax paying citizens. i yields my time. >> the gentleman yields back. miss lee is recognized for one minute to close. >> thank you. i'm not going to really demonstrate how i feel at some of these remarks that were made. first of all, let me say in terms of behavior, you're talking about your budget that won't raise the minimum wage and we're talking about people making over $7 an hour who are working and taking care of an family who deserve a fair shot at the american dream. the working poor, you're talking about people who care about their children and who want to

have a living wage and this budget won't even raise the minimum wage let alone a living wage. secondly, let me say this economy, yes, to my friend from california, it blossoms for some but it didn't blossom for all. we're talking about one in five children living in poverty. you're talk about one in three in the african-american community. when you look at the fact that we have and you have in your budget now work force training funds cut, education cut. you're cutting all of those path ways out of poverty and those letter of opportunity. >> the time. >> providing ceo with tax breaks and compensation they don't deserve. >> all though in favor will say aye. opposed say no. >> the noes have it. the gentle lady recorded vote. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. garrett? >> no.

>> mr. garrett no. >> mr. cole? >> no. >> mr. coalle no. >> miss black. >> no. >> miss black, no. mr. woodall. >> no. >> mr. wood all, no. miss blackburn no. miss heartsler. >> no. >> miss heartsler, no. mr. rice? >> no. >> mr. rice no. >> mr. san ford. >> no. >> mr. san ford no. mr. womack. >> no. >> mr. womack no. mr. brat. >> no. >> mr. brat, no. >> mr. blum. >> no.

mr. grossman. no. mr. palmer. >> no. >> mr. palmer, no. >> mr. muolonard, no. mr. westerman. >> no. >> mr. westerman, no. >> mr. buchanan no. >> mr. vol hol lan aye. >> mr. pascrel aye. >> mr. ryan, aye. miss more. >> aye. >> mr. mcdermott. ms. lee. >> aye. >> miss lee, aye. >> ms. tingle aye.

>> mr. lou, aye. >> mr. multin, aye. >> mr. chairman. >> no. >> mr. chairman, no. >> have all members voted? any member wish the change their vote. the clerk will report. >> mr. chairman on the vote the ayes are 12 and the noes are 22. >> the next amendment is number 9. the clerk will designate the amendment and the staff will distribute. >> amendment number nine offered relating to funding for the national instituted of health. >> recognized for six minutes. >> my amendment bolsters the national institute of health through expanded and investment that i propose to hard wire into

our nation's budget. it takes nih funding out of the annual budget battles, moves it from discretionary to mandatory providing certainty to our talented researchers and hope for families all across the country. as america's commitment to medical research discretionary? no it's not and it shouldn't be. the stagnant funding for nih have taken a serious toll over the last decade. nih budget has not kept pace with inflation. we have all heard dr. francis collins say this.

published a report and recognition. u.s. government declined from 57% in 2004 to 50% in 2012. as did that of u.s. companies. 51% to 41%. meanwhile, asia particularly china, tripled investment. the u.s. share of life science patents declined from 57% in 1981 to 51% in 2011. especially the most valuable patents. what they said to us and policy make irrs is a new investment is required for discovery and improve care. the united states will relynn relinquish its historic lead unless such measures are taken. let's work together to get nih funding back on track. beyond the lip service of saying he all support nih.

let's take action to support nih. let's really tackle alzheimer's. find the cure for cancer, als, the treatments that improve people's lives. biomedical researchers are counting on us and families are counting on us. i yields a minute to the gentleman from kentucky. >> i thank my colleague. i'd like to highlight the remarks of two of our colleagues. first, republican representative kevin yoder of kansas who said why aren't we spending $60 billion in nih research instead of spending over 30 billion. i'm not a big fan of deficit spending. i think i can go home to my 16-month-old daughter and say i borrowed money in your name to cure cancer and she would thank me. representative matt salmon of arizona said i've been recognized by numerous groups as one of the most tight fisted people in the entire congress. that having been said i believe

with all my heart and soul if the federal government doesn't lead the way on conquering cancer that it won't get done. i want to fight this fight. i've lost one too many friends to this dreadful disease. i can say i agree with the member of republican study committees, budget and spending task force and a member who not only signed the contract with america but advocateing for carving ronald reagan's face into mount rushmore. let's pass this amendment and properly fund this important research. >> thank you. i yield amendment to mr. norcross. >> thank you for yielding. early in the 20th century, polio was a national epidemic devastating countless family and a disease that's difficult not impossible to cure. ermier this week i stoods in front of afront of a building where

the vaccine for polio was founded. here we are faced with countless issues standing before us. you heard about cancer and the others. many of these can be addressed through the proper motive and our pharmaceutical companies but they all can't because they won't. the profit won't drive it. that's where we need to be. we need to be there to save those people from these debilitating diseases which there is no cure. the cure they fight might be the one that saves your life also. i yield back. >> thank you. i yields the remaining time to congresswoman lee of california. >> thank you very mump. let me thank the gentle lady for this critical amendment.

federal funding for science medicine is really vital to the health and wellness of our nation. we know research funding creates the jobs of future and enp sures our nation remain at the cutting edge of the global economy. if our republican colleagues continue to cut science funding research then our current skills gap fell by far too many will grow larger. ultimately our young people will be discouraged from joining science and diversity in scientific research. we should be making it for our youth to join critical fields not making it harder. my sister just passed from copd and my sister has multiple sclerosis. you have family member members

who benefit. >> the gentleman from west virginia is recognized for seven minutes. >> thank you. this budget assumes robust funding for nih. it's diskrerscretionary. your amendment language states the important contribution led to a consistent increase in the nih budget from 1977 to 2005. it's tripled from 2007 to 2010. we are robustly funding nih. as we say in our policy statement within this budget america is the greatest most innovative nation on earth.

her people are innovators entrepreneurs, visionaries and relentless builders of the future. americans are responsible for the first telephone, the first airplane, the first computer for putting first man on the moon and creating the first vaccine for polio and for legions of other scientific and medical breakthroughs that have improved and prolonged human health and life for countless people in america and around the world. it is the policy of this resolution to support the important work of medical innovators throughout the country including private sector innovators medical centers and the national institutes of health. our budget calls for strong funding for the agencies that engage in valuable research and development like nih while also urging washington to get out of the way of researchers discoverers and innovators all over the country. in tough budget times every agts

agency that supports must assure the resources are spent in the most effective manner and coordinate the activity toward collective public health. i would like to yield as much time as she may consume to the gentle lady vicky. >> i want to thank the lady from florida for offering this amendment. i consider her a friend, and i look forward working with her on this. this is a very very important subject. we need to make sure that we invest this finding those cures that are so important. i disagree with the path and that i don't think we need to sdart another mandatory program. we've got so many mandatory spending programs now that it's a real problem to our budget.

we do need to address this issue. i know i have supported and called for making sure that we invest. it fully funds nih. that's why we did it. we could have cut it or found savings here. we prioritize it. we do believe it's important. we all are impacted with people who have had cancer of some other issue but something that's near and dear to my heart is alzheimer's. i want to take a minute to share a little bit about that. i lost my mother two months ago with it. my mother-in-law last year. this is something nih needs to spend more money on within their budget. every day there's 10,000 baby boomers that reach 65. of those baby boomers one in eight will develop alzheimer's which is just a devastating

disease and over 45 million americans are living with alzheimer's. as many as 16 million will have this disease by 2050. that means one in three seniors died with alzheimer's. right now it's the costliest disease in america. i think it's imperative that nih spend more of its budge et cetera on that and prioritize it.et cetera on that and prioritize it.cetera on that and prioritize it.etera on that and prioritize it.tera on that and prioritize it.era on that and prioritize it.ra on that and prioritize it.a on that and prioritize it. on that and prioritize it. news reports have come out that taxpayer dollars have been spent by nih on grants examining public health education and campaigns in china. they have used our tax dollars. they funded a grant in

california for nearly $7 million to study tobacco and it's link to the tea party. a nih grant appears on the surface to sponsor an advocacy group for lobbying material and a 1.7 million study is under way with our dollars that i think should be going to alzheimer's to see if doing traditional dances such as salsa can spark more physical activity. this is ridiculous. i call upon nih to spend the money that we give you on the diseases that are devastating families and are breaking the bank of our budget as well.

we do want to continue to prioritize it and that's why we do fully fund it and i do not support the proposal for mandatory but i look forward to supporting the goals of my colleague. i yield back. thank you. >> i yield the remaining time. >> i thank the gentleman for his comments. i associate with them wholeheartedly. i want to direct the committee's attention to this pie graft. as you can see most of the money, over 60% is spent on auto-pilot programs mandatory spending and that's mention was made with mr. yoder and there is what he was talking about i'm

sure. we would love to be spending more and more on nih for the non-commercialize processes but we get crowded out by the mandatory spending going on. i yield back. >> the time has expired. >> colleagues, don't let america's leadership in the world in medical research suffer. we can take action on this together tonight. we always find one amendment during the budget process that we can agree on. i urge you to select this one as the bipartisan amendment. alzheimer's, cancer, heart disease, diabetes. think about the toll these diseases are taking upon families all across your districts. think about the young researchers whose grants are coming to an end because the congress hasn't responded to the call to action. indeed the republican budget would, it's projected lead to

1300 fewer medical research grants. you see the republican budget keeps the sequester in place. it constrains our ability to put dollars into medical research. that's why i urge you move it from discretionary to mandatory. america's medical research and leadership should not be discretionary. >> gentle lady yields back. all those in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed will say no. >> no. >> the noes have it. >> mr. garrett. >> no. >> mr. garrett, no. >> mr. cole, no. >> ms. black. no. >> miss black no. >> mr. woodall. >> no. >> mr. woodall no.

ms. blackburn. miss heartsler. >> no. >> mr. rice, no. mr. stusman. >> no. >> mr. sanford? >> no. mr. mr. womack. >> no. >> mr. womack, no. mr. brat. >> no. >> mr. blum. >> no. >> mr. blum no. mr. mooney? >> no. >> mr. mooney no. mr. palmer. >> no. >> mr. palmer no. >> mr. pascrel.

>> yes. >> mr. pascrel, aye. >> ms. moore. >> aye. >> miss lee. >> aye. >> miss lee, aye. mr. lou. >> aye. >> mr. lou, aye. mr. norcross. >> aye. >> mr. norcross, aye. mr. chairman. >> no. >> mr. chairman no. >> have all members voted? any member wish to change their vote?

the clerk will report. >> mr. chairman, on that vote the ayes are 12 and the noes are 22. >> in noes have it and the amendment is non-agreed to. the next amendment and that's number ten. the staff will distribute copies. >> amendment number ten related to medicaid and medicare. >> dr. mcdermott is recognized for six minutes. >> thank you. this budget fails to address the growing primary care crisis in the country rather than building upon a proven initiatives and programs my republican colleagues have allowed our federal commitment to primary care to fall by the wayside. this is particularly harmful as we work to make sure that access to insurance means access to care. the affordable care act had a tremendous success in reducing the number of americans allowed coverage from 20.3% down to 13.2.

unfortunately, the primary care work force has not kept pace with the growing number of uninsured americans. according to a new study the country will face a shortage of as many as 31,000 primary care doctors by 2025. throughout the country rural and low income urban communities will be hit by the hardest and patients who need care will be the ones who suffer the most. we know why this is happening. for years our medical system has increasingly steered new doctors away from the practice of primary care and the main reason for that is money. specialists earn more than primary care doctors. the median salary is about 220,000. a specialist earns 400,000. this disparity draws many talented doctors away from primary care particularly in poor and rural areas and towards specializations in wealthy urban

areas. educational debt makes this process even more problematic. the median cost of attending a medical school is about $55,000 per year and cost continued to climb. as a result 86% of medical school graduates have pledmedical debt. they are $177,000 in death andbt and a quarter have debt over 250,000. the majority of young doctors choose lucrative specialty training over primary care. the most effective way to get the providers we need is by educating doctors in the way we educate military officers. we should apply the principals of reserve officer training course and provide free medical education in exchange for a five-year commitment to serve as primary care doctors in underserved doctors. this will allow us to place them

where we need them and have them stay. i call the program our"our docs." we have to address how they are compensated for care. my amendment extends and strengthens two initiatives that we have improved compensation for primary care providers. second, it continues the incentive program that provides increased payment to providers for primary care. unfortunately, that was in the affordable care act and my republican colleagues have not showed any interest in continuing these important investments. last year they allowed medicaid payment party toity to expire and

they have done nothing to ensure it continues to through 2015. low reimbursement rates limits the number to participate in federal programs. before the affordable care act, medicaid only paid physicians 58% of what a medicare rate for the same services was. the recent study published in the new england journal of medicine found the medicare bump improved appointment availability without increasing wait times. my amendment would continue these critical initiatives by extending the medicare and medicaid primary care payment bumps. these are smart investments that will directly improve access to care for the american people. those you have who represent rural districts ought to be paying special attention to this because it's you who struggle

with keeping doctors in your districts. i reserve the balance of my time. >> thstat's not accommodated under the rule. if you like to continue, you get another minute at the end. >> i'll save it. >> if you want me to go on. >> you can yield. >> no i'll save it. >> let's take a look at some of the numbers here. this amendment would increase our total medicaid spending by $5.4 billion in fiscal year 2015. pretty big numbers but let's take a look at what we're currently spending. in fiscal year 2016 without this amendment the total spending on medicaid, the combined federal and state shares are expected to

be a $584 billion. the total federal spending on medicaid will be 4.7 trillion. that's with a t, trillion dollars. if it were just money then we would have solved this problem. this problem is not a problem of spending. this amendment does not fix the problem. it just throws more money. that will not take care of the problem. worse, this picks winners and losers among the primary care doctors. wo treat newly eligible medicaid. that live in states that have expanded programs. you can see that it does pick winners and losers. what happens to the rest of those folks? they're just out of luck.

the problem with the medicaid is that it's structural. dead decades of this one size fits all coming down from washington as we have seen with so many other programs leave the patients with less access. i know we have seen this in each one of our states. the answer is to put the states back in charge of their own medicaid programs and to give them the power to design the reforms that fit the unique needs of their population. we can look at some state that is have done this. indiana, for instance, implemented some reforms into healthy indiana plan and a patient centered system that provided health coverage to uninsured residents who didn't qualify for medicaid and have seen significant results in the program. i've heard them brag about this

pilot program. this is really where the innovation should be. it should be back at the state level where it's closest to the population so that it can directly affect those populations in particular. we know there's a lot of fraud waste and abuses out there. we continue to get reports about fraud, waste and abuse. we know medicaid has the second highest improper payment rate of any federal program. about $22 billion in funds are wasted every year instead of serving families that are in need. again, the closer it is to the state, the better control and the less of that fraud waste and abuse it will see. the dollars can really go to taking care of patients. this budget does not cut benefits. it gives states that flexibility and the resources to design those innovative programs that hopefully when they see results will be picked up by other

states and copied. it will be more responsive to their citizens needs rather than a federal one size fits all. i would encourage my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. i yield back mr. chairman. >> gentle lady yields back. the gentleman from washington state is recognized for one minute to close. >> mr. chairman, one minute is a bit hard to answer that. medicaid didn't come into existence because the states were doing such a good job. it came into existence because the states weren't doing anything. the federal government said we'll put up half the money if you put up half the money. here is our half. you can run the program. you can design it yourself. some states did good things and some states did bad things. the fact is that if you live in a rural area, you have a hard time finding a physician. when state of washington state of idaho, we have a program in the northwest called wamiy.

it's hard to get doctors to work out there because if you're paying out $250,000 of debt and you're in a rural area and not getting paid as much as you're getting paid in seattle or boise or one of the big cities, you simply are not going to go out there. you're not going to spend your life in debt in a rural area taking care of people and have to drag that debt. we're trying to help those doctors who do go out there with an additional amount of money and they clearly aren't being paid. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> i'll come back. >> the question is on agreement offered. all those in favor will say aye. opposed, no. >> no. >> gentleman wishes a recorded

vote. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. garrett. mr. diaz. mr. cole. mr. cole. mr. mcclintock. >> no. >> ms. black. >> no. >> ms. black, no. mr. woodall. >> no. >> mr. woodall, no. ms. blackburn. >> no. >> ms. heartsler, no. mr. rice. >> no. >> mr. rice no. mr. stutsman. >> no. >> mr. sanford. >> no. >> mr. sanford no.

mr. womack. >> no. >> mr. womack no. mr. brat. >> no. >> mr. brat, no. mr. blum. >> no. >> mr. blum, no. mr. mooney. >> no. >> mr. mooney, no. mr. growthman. >> no. >> mr. growthman, no. mr. palmer. >> no. >> mr. palmer, no. mr. mulnard. >> no. >> mr. westerman. >> no. >> mr. westerman, no. mr. buchanan. >> no. >> mr. buchanan, no. mr. van holland. >> aye. >> mr. van holland aye. mr. ryan aye. >> aye.

>> miss caster. >> aye. >> aye. >> mr. lou. >> aye. >> mr. lou, aye. >> mr. norcross. >> aye. >> mr. molten aye. mr. garrett in. >> no. >> mr. garrett, no. mr. diaz. >> mr. cole? >> mr. cole, no. >> mr. chairman? >> no. >> mr. chairman no. >> have all members voted? any member wish to change their vote? clerk will report. >> mr. chairman on that vote

the ayes are 12 and the noes are 21. >> the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. next amendment is amendment number 12. the clerk will designate the amendment and staff will distribute. >> amendment number 12 relating to immigration reform. >> mr. yarmouth is recognized for six minutes. >> thank you. while we gather to discuss the many differences we may have over the budget and our priorities, there's some issues we can all agree need to be addressed immediately. i think it's safe to say that every single one of us believes that our current immigration system is broken. what is often missing from the reform debate is the economic impact enacting comprehensive reform legislation. according to the cbo, the comprehensive bipartisan reform legislation passed by the senate in the last congress would have reduced our deficit by $900 billion over the next two

decades. also boosting our economy by 5.4% and increasing production. who knows maybe the bill that my good friend mario diaz and i helped draft is part of the gang would have made more significant progress economically. social security actuary estimates immigration reform would reduce the social security shortfall and extend the life of the program by years. that's because under comprehensive immigration reform millions of relatively young citizens working paying into social security and medicare but not collecting benefits for several dedicates. stabilizing the program while the baby boomers receive their benefits. yet, once again this year's budget proposal before us today does nothing to address the problems with our immigration system. more importantly it doesn't take advantage of the positive economic impact of reform.

our current system keeps families of legal immigrants and u.s. citizens separated for decades. allows for the exploitation of undocumented workers to the detriment of all workers. that's why we see everyone from the u.s. chairman of commerce labor unions, law enforcement, the agriculture community and countless other organizations agree that immigration reform is key to our nation's future. i'm introducing this amendment to include comprehensive immigration reform as part of the budget. we should take this opportunity to secure or borders, expantd the size of our workers ensure that everyone individual working here is paying taxes and contributing fully to our society all while we boost our economy and reduce the deficit. this amendment is the right thing to do. the need to address this issue is real and it's been delayed for far too long.

the majority of american people support reform and i believe we have a moral economic and national security mandate to act. i now yield as much time as she shall consume to the gentle lady from california miss lee. >> thank you very much. i want to thank the gentleman for yielding and introducing this amendment. we do have a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill. we had that legislation since to 2013. it has the broad support of the american people. once again house republicans have refused to take it up. just last month they could barely pass the homeland security bill to protect our nation thanks to this anti-immigrant sentiment, i would say. it's comprehensive immigration reform not only is morally right thing to do but as the gentleman from kentucky said it's the

right thing to do for our economy. the economic benefits are clear. now the is time to pass a fair immigration plan that reunites families and helps grow our economy and that provides a clear pathway to citizenship. the senate passed immigration reform two years ago. the house should act. i urge passage of this amendment. let's get on record in a bipartisan way in this budget on something that makes sense for our economy and people who deserve to live the american dream. i want to thank the gentleman. >> thank you. i want to re-emphasize that immigration reform will make a significant positive impact on the budget that we're also concerned about. if we want to grow the economy, if we want to reunite families

and reduce deficits, immigration reform is one of most obvious steps we can take right in front of us. let's accept this opportunity and not pass it by. with that i yield back. >> i thank the jegentleman. >> thank you. i want to yield to mr. brad of virginia. >> thank you very much. immigration reform if we reform in the right way. all of us would agree one of key components has to be securing the border as a pre-condition for a broader package of agreements. i think it's good to look at the bay basics. we're talking about economics and why this is good for the country. it's good to look at why the folks want to come to the united states of america. it's because we're the wealthiest nation on the earth. if we look back at how we get to be that way. it didn't just fall out of

heaven. the reason we're the wealthiest nation is two-fold. we have a strong commitment to the rule of law and secondly we have a commitment to the free market system. both of those are under severe challenge today in washington, d.c. and around the world. if you care, if you truly care about the poor, i think the pope came out on this matter this week. if you truly care about the poor what you would try to do is get the rule of law going across the globe and spreading free markets a across the globe. that would be your policy position. instead, last week we had the final conclusion to an illegal, unconstitutional amnesty by the president of the united states. the very reason that folks want to come into the country is for the rule of law and our success and we're undermining that at present. the last thing you want to do if you want to have economic growth in the future when it comes dos and economics love every one in

the world rkts everyone wants to come into this country because we're a generous nation but you can do the basics, one family comes in from south of the border and makes maybe $20,000 a year, that's probably the upper bound. they have two kids in public school. that's 24 grand. do the math. make 20. cost 24. without getting into any other programs. we need to have a discussion of that. they skip state and local. you're already negative four grand after one program. reform is all great. the basic reform i urge efb everybody before we get ideas of grandeure is first follow the law in our country. with that i yield. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding back and appreciate his

comments. i do oppose mr. yarmouth's amendment. there's a couple of things here. as the gentleman from virginia said we need to get it right. we need to be certain the rule of law is followed. what we see before is a process where the rule of law is not followed and we have an immigration system that yes, it is broken and our laws are not being enforced and there's been in the last few years this process where by the administration says let's enforce that one but let's not enforce this one. that tight picking and choosing and trying to have a situational relevance is not what our constitution and the rule of law is about. i think what we need to do is decide that as we approach

immigration it's going to be something that is constitutionally based. members of the house will handle this. members of senate will handle it. it's not going be delegated to the senate. take a little bit of issue. i don't think the reason to do immigration reform is so we can add millions of young workers to the payroll to pay for older workers and retirees. i think that sets up social security. i think that's inappropriate. the talk about it in that regard. that's part of what is broken with social security right now. that is why social security in and of itself needs to be addressed.

let's not push that as a reason to do immigration reform. i think that's a little bit unfair. i think there's a tremendous amount of unfairness that's in the immigration system right now. in my district in tennessee i have many constituents who have legally immigrated to this country. indeed earlier this week mr. van holland and i met with the kurds kurds. i've got the largest community of the kurds in the country. to have been accepting them as refugees over since the early 80s. this is something our community has done for quite a period of time. what i hear when i talk to those legally immigrating here is that they are very frustrated with what is going on with

immigration services. they have people that are working, i guess part-time. they're not returning phone calls. they're not processing paper work. you can't get answers to what is happening unless you call down there and make an inquiry. that's wrong. they are paying their fees and it's taking years to legally process and get permanent residency or get citizenship. all of that is wrong, and it's not fair. i tell you what else they don't see as fair. they don't think it's fair to take the fees they are paying and then pay for a program for those that are illegally entering the country by choice. they really have a problem with that. the money they are paying for fees being used to offset a program for those that are coming in. let's agree on some things. let's agree the border does need

to be secured. we need to find way to end trafficking. we need to find a way to end illegal entry. what we need to do is build on a system that is going to be fair to those that are legally immigrating into this country and with that mr. chairman, i yield back. >> i thank the gentle lady. mr. yarmouth you're recognized to close for one minute. >> we just heard seven minutes to approve my amendment. the speakers on the other side talked about rule of law that we ought to pass the law. that's what this amendment asks us to do, to pass comprehensive immigration reform. that's what the senate did in 2013. that's what our bipartisan group was working toward last year. for miss black burn to talk about not using the rationale that we need more young people to support social security, that's one of problems we have. we have fewer people working to

support too many beneficiaries. that's exactly wa we need. we have enormous problems. i agree. let's fix them. the senate did that. we can do that in the house as well. let's make it a part of the budget so we can reap the benefits of a sane rationale and legal immigration system. i yield back. >> thank the gentleman. all time is expired. are there any amendments? gentleman has an amendment. excuse me. tried to sneak it in there. the question is agreeing to the amendment offered. all those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> opposed say no. >> no. >> in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. a record of vote is requested.

the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. okita. >> no. >> mr. garrett. >> no. >> mr. diaz. mr. cole. >> no. >> mr. cole no. mr. mcclintock. >> no. >> mr. woodall. >> no. >> ms. blackburn. >> no. >> miss heartsler. >> no. >> mr. rice. >> no. mr. sanford. >> no. >> mr. sanford no. mr. womack. mr. womack, no.

mr. mooney no. >> mr. growthman, no. mr. palmer. mr. palmer. mr. westerman. >> no. >> mr. westerman no. mr. buchanan. >> no. >> mr. van holland. >> aye. >> mr. van holland, aye. mr. yarmouth. >> aye. >> mr. ryan. >> aye. >> mr. ieryan aye. ms. moore.

>> aye. >> mr. mcdermottcdermott. >> aye. >> miss lee. >> aye. >> mr. pocan aye. mr. lou. >> aye. >> mr. lou, aye. mr. norcross. >> aye. mr. molten. >> aye. mr. diaz. ms. black. >> no. >> ms. black no. mr. palmer. >> no. >> mr. palmer, no. mr. chairman. >> no. mr. . >> mr. chairman, no. >> are there any members wishing to vote or change their vote? if not the clerk shall report. >> mr. chairman on that vote

the ayes are 13 and the noes are 21. >> the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed popto. are there further amendments. >> i have an agreement at the desk. this is number 13. the clerk will designate. >> amendment number 13 offered by mr. ryan related to manufacturing program. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. ryan is recognized for six minutes. >> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to offer this amendment accelerating growth in u.s. manufacturing. i think this is an issue that i hope we can establish some bipartisan support for this. manufacturing is critical in the united states and critical to our base. we know that one in seven u.s. private sector jobs depend on u.s. manufacturing. i think there's a general sense in the country we need to make sure we start making things again in the united states. we cannot have an economy based

solely on technology or service. we do need manufactured products. every one dollar in sales of manufactured products supports $1.33 in output from other sectors. it's the largest ripple effect we can get and we're leading the world in cutting edge technology if manufacturing. accelerating growth in u.s. manufacturing attracts the kind of well paying jobs that will help drive middle class economic security. i think a lot of discussion today has been what's that first wrung on a the economic ladder that somebody can grab. in manufacturing i believe is that wrung. we talk about these other programs and suppressed wages and in this budget the other side does not want to support medicaid expansion and does not want to support credits to help people get health insurance, does not want to raise the

minimum wage. i don't think, quite frankly, there is an economic plan from the other side on how we grow these high paying jobs. this amendment amendment offers this plan. so this scaling up manufacturing initiative ensures our nation's ideas and inventions are developed and produced here in the united states. this initiative launches a public/private investment help reach commercial vie lablt. and start-up companies produce goods they have developed. this helps entrepreneurial firms to scale from idea to prototype and into full commercialization. manufacturing institutes, like the one president obama started transformed communities into world-leading innovation centers. the revitalize american innovation act passed the house with bipartisan support in december 2014. it authorized mafing innovation

institutes to come together in a shared network and codifies authority from the department of commerce to coordinate this multi-agency initiative. by leveraging the strengths of a particular region, manufacturing institutes bring together companies, universities, community colleges and the government to co-invest in the development of world-leading technologies that u.s.-based manufacturers can apply in production. this helps develop our manufacturing base. this amendment builds on the success of the first manufacturing innovation institute, america makes in youngstown youngstown ohio. it's based on reducing the cost of 3d printing and training american workers to master these sophisticated technologies. in its third year of operation, the institute has reached,

research under way that will help metals and 3d printers is going to provide over 1,000 schools with access to 3d printers and trained over 7,000 workers in the fundamentals of 3d printing. in addition to filing new patents, there are filing of patents already under way. the institute is serving as a magnet for investment in the region. if you want economic development, you need public/private partnerships. you need a strong infrastructure, basic investments and the government to play a role in convening and bringing people together in order to grow certain sectors of the economy. if we don't do this, in manufacturing these cutting edge, we will lose out. the chinese are putting billions of dollars into these technologies and are pulling to

the some very sophisticated things. i'd like to yield the balance of my time to the gentle lady from michigan. >> i just want to commend the gentleman from ohio for introducing this and telling him, telling all that i strongly support this amendment. manufacturing's the backbone of the american economy, the michigan chi. business and labor working together we can compete with any country in the world. but other countries have a government that helps support this. we were lucky to just get one of these institutes in michigan. you see the innovation coming online. when universities, economic development agencies, suppliers and employees work together it's what makes this nation successful. it's why investing in this is important so that we continue to create jobs, and we get ourselves back at the forefront of manufacturing in this world. expanding these centers nationwide will build on the

suck tess, and i hope this amendment is adopted in a bipartisan manner. thank you. >> gentleman yields back. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for seven minutes in response. >> let me say i agree much of what you say, mr. dingell. we can compete with any one in the world if only we la get out of the waflt our government with its outdated, uncompetitive and burdensome tax code with our overbearing regulations stifle economic progress in this country. i think business is telling us very clearly what they want, and it's not more government programs. if you look at this slide, once again, this is about 35 oecd countries, we're on the far right, the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. if you look at the first ten or so, they're on ragt at about

half the rate we are. so what you're telling our american manufacturers is if you want to continue to operate here, you're going to have to carry double the tax burden. your government costs twice as much if you operate here as if you operate in any one of a these other ten oecd countries. next slide please? if you'll look here this is the small business index. these are the these are manufacturers and other businesses. small businesses create 70% of the jobs in this country. and if you look at this gallup poll from the fourth quarter of 2014 and you look at the ten biggest concerns expressed by small business owners, number three, government regulation. number four health care, obamacare. number eight taxes. and number nine, government general. if you add all those up, it's

about 30%. it's double the next highest concern, the government standing in the way. we don't need more government programs. if we want our industry to expand. if we want manufacturing to expand, if we want our businesses to employ more american people instead of our companies deciding hey, we can't afford to operate in america. we're going to have to open this division in some other part of the world we've got to get our government out of the way. you know, and our, and the republican budge thet here is a very strong beginning, lays out a policy to do that. revenue neutral tax reform simplifies the code and lowers the rates. economists across the board agree that this is a very viable way to make this country more competitive. government regulation, obamacare, listed as number four

concern here. we're vipstripping that away. government regulation. a study found it cost $10,000 per employee per year for our small businesses to comply with our government regulation. if we expect to for manufacturing to come back to this country, if we expect to build new manufacturing in this country, we have got to make ourselves competitive and this budget goes a long way to doing that. and it does it not by creating new government programs, not by expanding existing government programs, but getting out of the way. and at this point, i'll yield so much time as he can send to my friend mr. sanford. >> i thank the gentleman from south carolina. i, too, would concur that the gentleman from ohio is right in his sentiment that we need more in the way of manufacturing, but i concur with the gentleman from south carolina in how you get there. i think the prescription in many ways is well laid out with the model we've seen in south carolina. south carolina is actually number one in the united states, continental united states in

direct foreign investment, based on a fairly simple formula. it's based on right to work, based on a reasonable regulatory load limited government and tax load and good infrastructure. i think it's interesting. the daimler opened up a sprinter plant, a van plant just this last week, announced that, you have bmw, boeing bosch, a whole host of other high-tech manufacturing facilities that have come to south carolina based on that formula. i would also add two other things. one is it seems to me that more money in a market-based economy is key to having those very industries make the choices in where investment allocation decisions are made as opposed to those of us in government. and two, there's a fair a i think reasoned research that points to the fact that when you get up around 90% debt to gdp

numbers, you begin to see a drag on the agate economy which then impacts manufacturing. so it seems debt load is important, tax load is important, and the fundamentals if you will are also key, all of which we've seen there in south carolina. all of which we see as contributing to elements of this republican budget. and with that, i'd yield back to the gentleman from south carolina. >> i'll yield to mr. palmer. >> if we want to accelerate growth, we need to focus on major regulatory reform. my friend from south carolina has it exactly right. section 810 points out that regulations are costing our economy about $15,000 per household. just during the obama administration, that burden has increased by $494 billion with another $88 billion on the way. i regularly talk with business owners who tell me that the

regulatory burr has become so onerous they cannot stay in business. during the obama administration, for the first time in 35 years for the first time since the carter administration, more businesses are closing than starting up. until 2008, start-ups outpaced closings by 100,000 per year. now closings outpace start ups by 70,000. these are small to medium-sized companies. today the united states ranks 12th, 12th among developed nations in terms of business start up activity. i'm all in for innovation, but innovations do little good unless there's an economic regulatory environment in which people are able to start and sustain new companies. appreciate mr. ryan's desire to do something to promote manufacturing, but this amendment does not address the real challenges faced by u.s. manufacturing. therefore i cannot support this amendment. i yield the balance of may time. >> if you'll ho