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 hook at this final

slide, this is, again, is the graph of the switchover in 2008 or '09 for more businesses closing than starting. if you want to reverse that trend, you'll adopt this republican budget. i yield back the balance of my time. >> i thank the gentleman, mr. ryan's recognized for a minute to close. >> first the slides that go to 2008 and say oh, the world collapsed are like that because the world collapsed. it's not, president obama wasn't even in office at that point. you can't cut taxes enough to keep labor here in the investment here in the united states when you're competing with a country that pays people $1 per hour. you can cut taxes all you want. there's no way you're going to be able to compete with that. what i'm talking about here is how do we grow these new businesses, and it's got to be a public/private partnership. those regulations you're talking about keep us safe. but when you look at a lot of the things that many people here

mentioned, you can't build a railroad with a tax cut. you can't build a highway with a tax cut. you can't spur new growth in these essential technologies with just a tax cut. i agree we probably need to reduce the corporate tax rate, and i stand ready to be with you in order to do that but you also need these public/private the partnerships. even the fracking came out of the department of energy. and we recognize it takes the public/private partnership. >> time's expired. the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by mr. ryan. all those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> mr. yoe kita. >> no. >> mr. yoe kita no. >> mr. garrett. no. >> mr. diaz-balart?

>> mr. cole. >> no. >> mr. mcclintock. >> no. >> ms. black? >> no. >> ms. black no. >> mr. woodall? >> no. >> mr. woodall no. >> ms. blackburn? ms. blackburn. ms. hartsler? ms. hartsler? mr. rice? mr. rice? >> oh, no. >> mr. rice no. mr. stutsman. >> no. >> mr. stutsman no. mr. sanford. >> no. >> mr. sanford. >> no. >> womack. >> mr. womack no. >> mr. bratt? mr. bratt? mr. blum. >> no. >> mr. blum, no.

>> mr. mooney? >> no. >> mr. mooney no. >> mr. grossman. >> no. >> mr. grossman no. mr. palmer? >>. >> no. >> mr. palmer no. >> mr. mole noir. >> no. >> mr. molnar. >> no. >> mr. buchanan. >> no. >> mr. buchanan no. >> mr. van holland. >> aye. >> mr. van holland aye. >> mr. yarmuth. >> mr. yarmuth aye. >> mr. passcell. >> aye. >> ms. moore? >> aye. >> ms. moore aye. ms. caster. >> aye. >> ms. caster, aye. >> mr. mcdermott. >> aye. >> ms. lee? >> aye. >> mr. pocan. >> mr. po can aye. >> ms. lou hahn grisham aye.

>> ms. dingell. >> aye. >> mr. lou. >> aye. >> mr. lou, aye. >> mr. nor cross. >> aye. >> mr. nor 4cross aye. >> mr. chairman. >> no. >> mr. chairman no. >> how was mr. sanford recorded? >> mr. sanford is recorded as no. >> thank you. 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 14, and the nos are 18. >> the nos have it. the amendment is not agreed to. are there further amendments? >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> this is amendment number 14. the clerk will designate the

amendment. the staff will distribute copies of the amendment. >> amendment number 14 offered by mr. lou expressing on the consumer financial protection bureau. >> mr. lou is recognized for six minutes. >> i offer this amendment because we cannot have a weak consumer financial bureau. and let me set the stage for why this amendment is necessary. take you back to years 2008/2009. it wasn't that long ago when our country was opt verge of economic collapse. because of the risky actions of wall street. wall street had flooded our nation with risky loans, loans that they knew couldn't be paid back. loans with no underwriting standards or lax underwriting standards, and companies would push these loans on consumers and sell them upstream to other companies such as bear stearns and lehman brothers.

this nearly collapsed our economy. as a result, congress had to bail out wall street. the american taxpayer had to bail out wall street, one of the most massive spending packages this congress ever did. in order to stabilize wall street so our economy could recover. and then congress asked what happened. and we brought in alan greenspan. and alan greenspan testified to congress and said i believe banks could regulate themselves. i was wrong. and he apologized to the american people. and then congress said never again. we're never going to let this happen again. we're going to create the consumer financial protection bureau so no longer will we have our nation at risk from wall street's risky practices. and this bureau protects consumers from abusive lending practices. it protects wall street from itself and protects our nation from having economic collapse because of risky behavior on wall street.

that's why we need to pass this amendment. and i'd like to now yield my time to representative lee. >> let me first thank the gentleman for yielding and just say how important this amendment is to protect consumers from abusive financial practices. it was only a few years ago that the out of control financial institutions brought about one of the worst recessions in history. i know that in my district and across the country, hard-working families are still recovering from the recklessness and greed of wall street that led to our financial crisis. now let me explain something about how this recession hit african-american and latino americans hard. millions least their homes thanks to the predatory lending practices. these homes and what took place has devastated communities.

and for example since african-americans especially hold nearly all of their wealth, 92% quite frankly in home equity, all of this wealth was lost. because of this, now, african-american net worth is about 7 cents to a dollar in terms of white americans, and this was all as a result of the greed of wall veet. yet it seems that my republican friends are not concerned about another devastating financial crisis, since their budget this budget threatens the consumer financial protection bureau, which we need desperately to make sure that consumers are protected from what took place in terms of the great recession. we need oversight agencies to protect consumers and their finances. so we've got to ten to protect consumers through the consumer financial bureau and support dodd frank reforms. i don't know if any of you fit

the crisis or if your constituents lost all the equity in their peoples. i don't know if you really understood what took place in communities of color, but let me tell you we need this consumer protection bureau to at least be there now to provide this oversight so that sooner or later people can begin to build more wealth through home ownership which still has not happened. it's estimated that a generation of net worth, net wealth, excuse me, has been lost as a result of this in communities of color. so thank you and i want to thank the gentleman for yielding. >> and let me give you some numbers as to how effective this bureau has been already. as of march 2015, it's received over 558,000 complaints. it has helped over 15 million consumers, returning more than $5.3 billion back to consumers. in addition because of the continuing slog of many

institutions it's ordered penaltying amounting to over $208 million. and this is a bureau that is protecting consumers, and we absolutely immediate to strengthen it and make sure that our nation never again faces what happened to us just a few years ago. and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back. i thank the gentleman. mr. garrett of new jersey is recognized for seven minutes in response. >> in a moment i'll yield to mr. stutsman and mcclintock. both sides of the aisle are concerned about consumer protection, and i don't know if you know how many people in our neck of the woods suffered because of the crisis in '08 how many people in our area suffered because of the crisis and failure in the markets during that time and suffered because of the failed, misregulation that led up to that. but with that being said, i have a question since you promote

the cfpb so strongly. who are they accountable to? who are they answerable to? when the cfpb as you said in your legislation comes up with a new mortgage product and requires that they be sold in the marketplace, who are they answering to? under dodd frank they separated consumer protection from prudential regulation. so now when the cfpb passes a rule that says a certain product has to be sold and that weakens the product to our consumers and that means the institution will not be there when they need it. who is the cfpb in answer to? and when the cfpb puts on so many regulations and saying that consumers no longer have a choice and are limited in their choices as to what three can buy, who are the cfpb answerable to? and when they come up with other restrictions and regulations they know the consumers in your district and my district can no

longer get the mortgage products that they want, can no longer get the financial products that they want and have been used to for years and years and years who is the cfpb answerable to? and when they engage in racial discrimination in their hiring practices, when we hear that they promote people and give them higher and different grades because of race, who are they answerable to? and when they engame in spending money on office buildings without any limitation and we asked that question, can they spend whatever they want to and they answered yes. who are they answerable to? your legislation says reliance on the federal reserve given independence. basically what you're saying is you don't want them to be answerable to anybody. we asked that question. are they answerable to the president? no. are they answerable to the senate? they said no. are they answerable to you?

they said no. we answered are they answerable to the gao? they said no. are they answerable to anybody else, to the federal reserve where the money comes through? they said no. i said are they answerable to anybody, accountable to anybody else to commissioners elsewhere? their answer is no. so you are in favor of abdicating your responsibilities as elected officials creating an entity, basically, which they admit that they are answerable to no one. well, i believe as elected representatives we're responsible to our constituents, and if we want to make sure that consumers are protected that we should have an entity or regulators that combine consumer plex with prudential regulations and do it in a thoughtful way that are answerable to us, the representatives. and with that, i will yield now to mr. stutsman for a little under two minutes. 1:40. >> thank you to the gentleman from new jersey and thank you for your comments.

we serve on a committee together. and here what the cfpb has been up to they don't share everything that they've been up to and we've been trying to get information from them. this is, the cfpb i would describe as the bureaucracy in washington, d.c. that people do not realize the impact that they're having on their every day lives and their frustration with washington, d.c. is so high, but where do they point the finger to? they don't realize the damage that cfpb has caused all of us. as member of congress we don't understand the damage that cfpb is causing the havoc they're causing in the economy. unfortunately, most cfpb regulators and regulations accomplish just the opposite of what we are told is going to do. adding substantial new paperwork.

requirements for community banks and credit unions. we had a young gentleman in to testify in a financial services, a fifth generation family banker in central kentucky. and as he shared with us he said, you know our small family bank serving rural america, rural kentucky has survived a lot of things. we've survived the recession, wars world war i, world war two, the depression. we even survived the civil war. but we don't know if we're going to survive dodd frank. and that's the sort of impact this legislation is having on businesses throughout the country. so with that -- >> when it comes to our colleagues on the other side that the financial crisis of '08 was because of a lack of regulation. exactly the opposite is true. government regulation specifically the amendments to the redevelopment act compelled lenders to make loans to people who couldn't possibly pay them back, then we shifted the loss of these risky loans to

taxpayers by fannie may and freddie mac. this created a "house of cards" that collapsed catastrophically. they said you reap the ploftsrofits and fannie and freddie will take care of it. it used to be if a bank made a bad loan they ate the loss and went away sadder but wiser. and if a homeowner took out a bad loan they lost the collateral but went away sadder but wiser but in any case they left the rest of us alone. the damage was limited to the responsible parties. rather than returning to a market system where lenders and borrowers are free to negotiate their own terms analyze their open risk and make their own decisions with their own money. we institutionalized every folly that lid to the collapse by adopting dodd frank.

this is the classic definition of insanity, doing the sail thing and expecting a different result. this budget starts to move us back toward the sensible mechanism of a free market. yield back. >> does the gentleman yield back? >> the gentleman yields back. mr. lou you're recognized for one minute to close. >> i'll answer who the cfpb is answerable to. they're answerable to congress the same way any agency is answerable to congress. if we don't like something they do we can pass a law reversing it. so if you don't like something in ard o you can pass a law reversing it. there are multiple independent agencies that are in existence. it as not as if this is a new conseptember. >> will the gentleman yield on that? >> yes. >> isn't if a new concept inasmuch as this is the only entity that does not have appropriations, go through appropriations? it is the only one it does not have commissioners on --

>> will the gentleman yield? >> that is a -- >> will the gentleman you only have 20 seconds. listen i'm on the financial services -- >> order, order it's the gentleman's time. he yielded. >> i yield. >> thank you. you know, it's accountable. if is independent, which it should not be subjected to the appropriations process. it has dealt with balloon payments predatory loans, excessive fees and points. >> the yeah's time's expired. >> negative amortization and interest-only payments. >> the gentleman's time is expired thank you. >> well, yeah. he consumed his time. >> all those in favor say aye? >> aye. >> those opposed say no. >> in the opinion of the chair the nos have it.

recorded vote is requested. >> mr. joe kita. >> no. >> mr. yoe kita, no. >> mr. garrett. >> no. >> mr. garrett, no. >> mr. diaz-balart? mr. diaz-balart? mr. cole? >> no. >> mr. cole, no. mr. mcclintock. >> no. >> mr. mcclintock no. ms. black. >> no. >> ms. plaque no. mr. woodall. >> no. >> mr. woodall no. ms. blackburn? ms. blackburn? ms. hartsler? >> no. >> ms. hartsler, no. mr. rice. >> no. >> mr. rice no. mr. stutsman. >> no. >> mr. stutsman no. mr. sanford. >> no. >> mr. sanford no. mr. womack. >> no. >> mr. womack no. >> mr. bratt. >> no. >> mr. bratt no. mr. blum. >> no. >> mr. blum no. mr. mooney.

>> no. >> mr. mooney no. >> mr. grossman. >> no. >> growthman no. mr. palmer. >> no. >> mr. palmer no. >> molnar. >> no. >> mr. molnar no. mr. westerman. >> no. >> mr. westerman no. mr. buchanan. >> no. >> mr. buchanan no. mr. van holland? >> aye. >> mr. van holland aye. >> mr. yarmuth. >> aye. >> mr. yarmuth, aye. >> mr. pass krel. >> aye. >> mr. passkrel aye. >> ms. moore? >> aye. >> ms. moore aye. ms. caster. >> aye. >> ms. lee? >> aye. >> ms. lee aye. mr. pocan. >> aye.

>> mr. po can, aye. ms. lou hahn grisham. >> aye. >> ms. dingell. >> aye. >> ms. dingell aye. mr. lou? >> aye. mr. nor cross? >> aye. >> molten yao. >> aye. >> ms. blackburn? no. mr. chairman? >> no. >> mr. chairman, no. >> are that are any members wishing to vote or change their vote? hearing none the clerk shall report. >> mr. chairman, on that vote the ayes are 14 and the nos are 21. >> the nos have it, the amendment is hotnot agreed to. we're about to move into tier two agreements. it's further agreed to by the majority minority the time set for these tier two amendments will be six minutes, equally

divided. the proponent of the amendment will have the first two minutes. the opponent or response to the amendment will be three minutes. and then one minute time per close. are there any amendments? ms. lou hahn grisham is -- excuse me. this amendment is number 15. offered by ms. lou hahn grisham. >> amendment number 15 offered by ms. lou hahn grisham related to medicare. >> ms. lou hahn grisham is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. now i've already spoke and bit about medicare, but this budget does more than turn it into a voucher program. it actually repeals all of the affordable care act supports and protections. enjoyed by millions of americans

on medicare. the aca has allowed more than 105 million americans to receive free preventive services in 2013 alone. this saves people money, and it saves the federal government money by catching problems earlier and preventing costly emergency room visits. since the law was enacted, the prescription drug doughnut hole began closing $1,598 each savings averaged. and it is expected to reach $2,000 per beneficiary by 2022. lastly, it would eliminate the affordable care act for millions of americans. it would restrict access to preventive care and allow discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, age rating and particularly hurt our nation's seniors.

in my opening statement i said that the poverty rate for americans 60 and older was about 9%. and that's true, but it doesn't quite tell the whole storie the u.s. census released a second poverty measure called the supplemental poverty measure. this counts for several expenditures including out of pocket. it increases to 15%. over the next several decades if these out of pocket increases, poverty is likely to increase because these health expenses are not optional. do you know what else are often non-discretionary? taxes. it's not merely a collection of devastating cuts but the imposition of new taxes on the most vulnerable americans thank you. >> the gentle lady's time is expired. ms. black you're recognized for

three minutes. >> thank you, mr. thayerman. and there's that little saying, now the rest of the story. the doughnut hole provision has the effect of raising drug prices. so there are a lot of statistics here. but what we don't see in these statistics is what our former chairman, chairman ryan requested an analysis of a specific provision from cbo. and cbo confirmed that these new requirements will drive up health care costs at odds with the claims that are being made. the cbo's letter to chairman ryan specifies that manufacturers will have a incentive to raise drug prices. and, as a result health care costs will increase for some seniors. and for those who are uninsured. so let he read you a couple highlights from the letter. and i quote the increase in prices would make federal costs for medicare's drug benefit and the cost faced by some beneficiaries slightly higher

than they would be in the absence of those provisions. goes on. the legislation also imposes an annual fee on manufacturers and impedes excuse me, on manufacturers and importers of the brand-name drugs. cbo expects that the fee will probably increase the price of drugs purchased through the medicare and the prices of the newly introduced drugs purchased through the medicaid and other federal programs by about 1%. those increases will be in addition to the ones described above that stem from the new requirements for discounts and rebates. just 1%. it doesn't sound like a lot. but when we're talking about medications that our seniors need, and in many cases are costly, just 1% is significant to them. it may be so significant that they need to make that decision about whether they have the dollars for it or whether they just decide not to take their

medication. in other words, the president's health care law spent billions of dollars on the provision that will increase drug costs for all seniors, those that are covered in the program and those that are uninsured. with this being said, i urge a no vote on this amendment. and i yield back. >> the gentle lady yields back. i think the gentle lady is recognized for one minute to close. >> i appreciate that my colleague highlighted the cbo letter and identified that they said a slight increase, about 1%. they also mentioned in that same letter that that would be recouped not by the beneficiary but as those drug manufacturers were negotiating for premium status. prescription drug companies continue to be the those profitable companies in america. the proposal, then, is instead of managing any increase of cost due to increase in access let's go back to the current way, which removes prescription drug

protections for seniors. if you want to talk about an increase in cost, let's go back to the days where seniors were purchasing one pill for their high blood pressure medication, can't afford the whole prescription, and then are in the hospital costing medicare thousands of dollars and costing the lives of the people that we love. i urge my colleagues to vote yes. it is short-sighted and completely inappropriate to provide less access to the beneficiaries who now have health care coverage. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by ms. lou hahn grisham. all those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. >> no. >> in the opinion of the chair the nos have it. >> i want -- >> oh. >> a rohreported vote is requested. >> mr. okita. >> no. >> okita no.

mr. garrett. >> no. >> mr. garrett no. >> mr. diaz-balart. >> no. mr. diaz-balart no. mr. cole. >> no. >> mr. cole no. >> mr. mcclintock. >> no. >> mr. mcclintock no. ms. black? >> no. >> ms. black no. mr. woodall. >> no. >> mr. woodall no. ms. blackburn. >> no. >> ms. blackburn no. ms. hartsler. >> no. >> ms. hartsler no. mr. rice. >> no. >> mr. rice no. mr. stutsman. >> no. >> mr. stutsman no. mr. sanford. >> no. >> mr. sanford no. mr. womack. >> no. >> mr. womack no. mr. bratt. >> no. >> mr. bratt no. mr. blum. >> no. >> mr. blum no. >> many. >> no. >> mr. mooney no. mr. growthman. >> no. >> mr. growthman no.

>> mr. palmer. >> no. >> mr. palmer no. mr. molnar. >> no. >> mr. molnar no. mr. westerman. >> no. >> mr. westerman no. mr. buchanan. >> no. >> mr. buchanan no. pla van holnd. >> aye. >> mr. van holland aye. mr. yarmuth? >> aye. >> mr. yarmouth aye. mr. pass krel. >> yeah. >> mr. pass krel? >> yes? yes. >> mr. passkrel aye. mr. ryan. >> mr. ryan aye. ms. moore? >> aye. >> ms. moore aye. >> ms. caster. >> aye. >> ms. caster aye. mr. mcdermott? >> aye. >> mr. mcdermott aye. ms. lee? >> aye. >> ms. lee aye.

mr. pocan. >> aye. >> mr. pocan aye. ms. lou hahn grisham. >> aye. >> mr. dingell. >> aye. >> mr. lou. >> aye. >> mr. nor cross? >> aye. >> mr. molten. >> aye. >> mr. molten aye. mr. chairman. >> no. >> mr. chairman no. >> are there any members wishing to vote or change interest vote? if not, the clerk shall report. >> on that vote the ayes are 14 and the intonos are 22. are there further amendments? >> mr. chairman i have amendment. this is amendment number 17. the clerk will designate the amendment. >> the amendment number 17 offered by mr. van holland relating to social security. >> mr. van holland is recognized

for two minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. this amendment is straightforward. the budget resolution presented by republican colleagues has some language to establish a process that could fast-track social security proi posals, that could privatize social security. what this does is recognize that social security's a program that benefits more than 59 million americans. currently. that, as more americans do not have access to defined benefit retirement plans, social security benefits become even more important now than they were before. and it says very simply that we should not be cutting social security benefits, and i yield time to my colleague mr. passkrel from new jersey. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i support the amendment. i'm very disappointed this seeks to manufacture a crisis in the

social security disability trust fund by prohibiting routine transfers. social security and ssdi are critical lifelines for the elderly and the disabled. they are not an entitlement. you pay in over your lifetime. they are not in crisis. they do not add to our debt. i'm proud to be a co-sponsor of the social security act, a bill that expands solvency and increases benefits. it does all this without raising the retirement age, reducing colas or privatization which i will never vote for. thank you mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you. yield back the remainder of the time and reserve the one minute. >> gentleman yields back. i recognize the gentleman from south carolina mr. sanford for three minutes. >> i thank the gentleman and my

colleagues in new jersey and maryland for their opinion on this. what this republican budget does is to one, recognize that doing nothing ensures cuts within social security. i think it's also important to recognize that it sets up a bipartisan commission so that folks of all political perspectives can come together and look at ways in which we preserve social security for the long run. i think it's equally important to remember that we operate on a junefied budget. and what matters are cash flow. for instance by the year 2030, excuse me, by the year 020 social security will be running shortfalls of $254 billion. that means that in essence you set up a generational war between young folks and older on where cash gets distributed ultimately within the congress. and i think that that is awfully awfully important. finally, i think what this budget is attempting to do in

firewalling disability from old age is awfully, awfully important because what the president is doing with his budget is borrowing from peter to pay for paul. and as we all know problems generally grow worse with time. the old saying is when you're in a hole, quit digging, and yet that's what the president's budget does. it borrows to bail out disability in the short run but ultimately causes the longer run life of those trust funds to run shorter. it also does not ask for a reform, which i think to be very very important. for instance, when money was moved back in 1994, for instance, there was a cut-off to folks with alcohol or drug addictions, what the president's made clear through the social security administration, he wants none of those caveats in fund transfers that might be contemplated with what he proposed in his budget. what i might do in the minute i have remaining is yield to either of my colleagues

congressman palmer or black if they have additional comment. >> thank you. one of the reasons disability programs running out of money is that the disability roll's been increasing at an exponential rate. more are getting back on their feet. despite the fact there's supposed to be a three-year review for them to stay enrolled. according to, as a result of social security administration's inability to supervise their administrative law judges, there's $2 billion in waste and fraud on the program that was designed to prekts the truly disabled. in 2013, the gao uncovered $1.3 billion in overpayments. in the same year, cbs news reported that there are areas of the country where 10% to 15% of the country are on disability income. it's not just medical diagnosis driving this. >> yeah's time has expired.

>> thank you. a couple points. first, if you look at the report from the social security trustees. they treat the trust funs as combined trust funds, they always have, which is why presidents on a bipartisan basis have fixed the shortfall in one fund or another exactly the way that president obama is proposing to deal with the shortfall. that was done by president nixon, reagan as well as clinton and carter. so to create an artificial crisis at this point doesn't make sense. finally, there are a lot of proposals out there to actually extend the solvency of social security. one was introduced today by congressman john larson from connecticut which actually takes the cap off the, with respect to social security payments at the higher end of the income scale. so there are lots of ideas out

there. we even heard in the budget debate today that immigration reform would help sustain social security. so there are lots of positive ideas out there, but an expedited process to cut social security benefits does not make sense. >> all those in favor say aye? >> aye. >> all those opposed say no? >> no. >> it appears the nos have it. roll call vote is requested. >> mr. okita. mr. garrett? >> no. >> mr. garrett, no. >> mr. diaz-balart mr. diaz-balart? mr. cole. >> no. >> mr. cole no. mr. mcclintock? >> no. >> mr. mcclintock no. ms. black. >> no. >> ms. black no. mr. woodall. >> no. >> mr. woodall no. ms. blackburn. >> no. >> ms. blackburn no. ms. hartsler? ms. hartsler?

mr. rice. >> no. >> mr. rice no. mr. stutsman. >> no. >> mr. stutsman no. mr. sanford. >> no. >> mr. sanford no. mr. womack. >> no. mr. womack no. mr. bratt. >> no. >> mr. bratt? mr. blum. >> mr. blum no. mr. mooney? mr. mooney? mr. growthman. >> no. >> mr. growthman no. mr. palmer? >> no. >> mr. palmer no. mr. molnar. >> no. >> mr. molnar no. mr. westerman. >> no. >> mr. westerman no. mr. buchanan? >> no. >> mr. buchanan no.

>> mr. van holland. >> aye. >> mr. van holland aye. mr. yarmuth. >> aye. >> mr. yarmuth aye. mr. passkrel. >> aye. >> mr. passkrel aye. >> mr. ryan? >> aye. >> mr. ryan aye. ms. moore. >> aye. >> ms. moore aye. ms. caster. >> aye. >> ms. caster aye. mr. mcdermott. >> aye. >> mr. mcdermott aye. ms. lee? >> aye. >> ms. lee aye. mr. pocan. >> aye. >> mr. pocan aye. ms. lou hahn grisham. >> aye. >> ms. dingell. >> aye. >> mr. lou? >> aye. >> mr. lou aye. mr. norcross? >> aye. >> mr. norcross aye. >> mr. molten? aye.

mr. okita. >> no. >> mr. okita no. >> mr. diaz-balart. >> no. >> ms. hartsler? >> no. >> ms. hartsler no. mr. bratt? >> no. >> mr. bratt no. mr. mooney? 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 14, and the nos are 21. >> the nos have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. next amendment is number 18. the clerk will designate the amendment and staff la distribute. >> amendment number 18 offered by ms. caster related to transportation infrastructure. >> the young lady from florida's recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the republican budget would have a devastating impact on our

ability to fund transportation and infrastructure in america and lift wages. mr. van holland, i listened very carefully today of your questioning of the budget staff. they said they have no plan. and the problem is we're facing another cliff for the highway trust fund. highways transit systems, airports and seaports drive economic growth in america. and in this global economy, the countries with modern transportation networks will compete best and grow. and the jobs often pay higher wages. in fact, the american society of civil engineers i'd like to ask yew nan muss consent endorsed this amendment. maybe this is the bipartisan amendment we could agree on. in the president's proposed budget he had a detailed plan. you might not like how he did t but the republican budget is going to send a ripple of fear and concern because we're facing a cliff in the next few months and the republicans have no plan on the table.

and their budget demonstrates that. so i urge you to adopt my amendment that rejects the republican cuts, and let's focus on raising wages and transportation. >> thank you. the american civil engineers has also given this nation a d plus. 16% of the bridges in this country are old muff to be eligible for med characteristic although maybe we'll change that in the budget as well. but we need to invest in these. these are good family-supporting jobs. we need to repair or crumbling infrastructure. i yield back. >> i recognize the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett for three minutes. >> and i thank you, mr. chairman. and yes, we do need to restore the crumbling infrastructure in our system, reliable transportation infrastructure is important to families, to businesses to economic growth of

this country. the question is how do we facilitate that. well, for one thing we need to reassert some fiscal smonbility on the federal government on how they handle these matters and we have to restore some degree and completely flexibility to the states. no one knows better how to maintain the roads and bridges in your back yard in your back towns and cities and states than your local engineers and elected officials and we should do away with the system where we have to come to washington with hat in hand asking permission to make repairs. i think the people in new jersey in my county, in my town are in the best position to do so. perhaps the people on the other side do not have enough faith in their officials to do so. i will yield one minute to mr. sanford and one to mr. woodall. >> i thank my friend from new jersey. i serve on the transportation

committee, and i care deeply about this issue. i love the user fee that we have in place today, and i'm really concerned about breaking that social contract that we've had in place for these very many years. i hope in the transportation committee we're going to be able to find a way to keep that user fee in place. it's so easy to always go somewhere else to look for tax revenue. roads and bridges are something that we're all invested in at an individual level and namly level. back home i don't want to take the chance of again, breaking that connection that folks hold dear. we also had testimony last week with the national league of cities. where they said, you know what? it's just crazy that this nepa process doesn't take 18 months to get approved. it can take six year, seven years, eight years. it's an open question whether we don't have enough money or whether we're not spending that

money wisely. six years of delay is six years of expense that drains those transportation coveruld have cough -- coffers. >> will you yield? never, go ahead. get back in your roll. >> i yield back. [ laughter ] >> yeah yields back. >> well, transportation infrastructure is so important to my republican colleagues then you've got to show it. if you like the user fee put it in the budget. what happens is your budget does nothing to address the nation's crumbling infrastructure. meanwhile, the president put forward a detailed plan to make significant investments in repairing and modernizing america's infrastructure by closing loopholes that allow u.s. companies to ship jobs to

tax havens. the republican budget lacks any plan to resolve the transportation trust fund. it establishes a phantom fund. that's not good enough for america. i yield back. >> all those in favor say aye? >> aye. >> the opposed no? >> no. >> in the opinion of the chase the nos have it. i will say, how much, that the ayes are much more vocal in support of their amendments than the nos are in opposition, so a recorded vote is ordered and the clerk will call the role. >> mr. okita? mr. okita? mr. garrett? mr. garrett? no. mr. diaz-balart. >> no. >> mr. diaz-balart no. mr. cole. >> no. >> mr. cole no. mr. mcclintock. >> no. >> mr. mcclintock no. ms. black. >> no.

>> ms. black no. mr. woodall. >> no. >> mr. woodall no. ms. black burn. >> no. >> ms. blackburn no. >> ms. heartsler. >> no. >> ms. hartsler no. >> mr. rice. >> no. >> mr. rice no. mr. stutsman. >> no. >> mr. stutsman no. mr. sanford. >> no. >> mr. sanford no. >> mr. womack. >> no. >> mr. womack no. >> mr. bratt. >> no. >> mr. bratt no. mr. blum. >> no. >> mr. blum no. >> mr. mooney. >> no. >> mr. mooney no. mr. growthman? >> nope. >> mr. growthman no. >> mr. palmer. >> no. >> mr. palmer no. mr. molnar. >> no. >> mr. molnar no. >> mr. westerman. >> no. >> mr. westerman no. mr. buchanan. >> no. >> mr. buchanan no.

mr. van holland. >> aye. >> mr. van holland aye. mr. yarmuth? >> aye. >> mr. yarmuth aye. mr. passkrel. >> aye. >> mr. passkrel aye. mr. ryan. >> mr. ryan aye. >> ms. moore. >> aye. >> ms. caster. >> aye. >> ms. caster aye. mr. mcdermott. >> aye. >> mr. mcdermott aye. ms. lee. >> aye. >> ms. lee aye. mr. pocan. >> aye. >> mr. pocan aye. >> ms. lou hahn grisham. >> aye. >> ms. lou hahn grisham aye. ms. dingell. >> aye. >> mr. lou? >> aye. >> mr. norcross. >> aye. >> mr. nor cross aye. mr. molten. >> aye. >> mr. molten aye. >> mr. okita. >> no. >> mr. okita no.

>> mr. chairman. >> no. >> mr. chairman no. >> all members voted? any member wish to change their vote? >> mr. chairman on that vote the ayes are 14, and the nos are 22. >> and the amendment is not adopted. the next amendment is number 19. >> amendment number 19 offered by ms. moore relating to the earned income tax credit. >> the young laiddy of wisconsin is recognized. >> i am fortunate to introduce a bill. the earned income tax credit was enacted in 1975 by republican president ford, expanded by republican hero ronald reagan in 1986. it's a good welfare reform program and encourages work.

you can't get this refundable tax credit without working. data are concruisive. people attribute the 1996 quote-unquote success of the welfare program to ending welfare as we know it, but it really was because of the earned income tax credit. it reenforces labor force attachment, and it even promotes marriage as some people believe is the end all be all. i would now yield time to barbara lee. >> thank you very much. i want to once again thank my colleague for yielding and for continuing to keep hope alive in terms of trying to get some bipartisan support for her amendments. again, this amendment is important, because both republicans and democrats have seen this as one of the most effective anti-poverty program. nevertheless, under current law, childless workers are the only people who can be taxed into or deeper into poverty.

so by increasing the maximum credit amount and expanding the eligible age group to include young adults, age 21, this amendment would help close that gap and provide support during that crucial period of early adult hood. finally, this amendment makes the right choice by encouraging employment and shared prosperity rather than on special tax breaks for corporations and their kroemts and our former chairman mr. ryan supported this. it's the right thing to do for workers, the right choice for our country. i urge our colleagues to vote for this. and once again i want to thank the gentle woman from wisconsin for continuing to try. >> mr. mcclintock is recognized for three minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my colleagues are right. it was initially called the negative income tax and it was offered as a vastly more efficient replacement for the top-heavy bureaucratly bloated

mess. but instead of replacing the welfare system, it became one of some 92 federal anti-poverty programs that now spend a total of $800 billion a year. now let's get a quick lesson in billions here. divided by households, a billion comes to about $8 per household. arms about $6400 out of the taxes of every family in america on average. so that's what it costs, $6400 per family. now let's have a little more fun with math here. you remember from earlier discussion there are 46 million americans who are on food stamping. you divide that into $800 billion. that comes to more than $17,000 perry sip yents, if that was getting to the recipient, which it is not. so it is a good idea if it were replacing this massive welfare state. we could get much more money to

the poor. we could remove the disintensives that trap people in poverty. we could save an enormous sum for taxpayers, but alas that is not before us. we have another repetition of the mantra we've heard from the other side all day, throw more money at every problem under the sun. the problem with that of course is you run afoul of maggie thatcher's maxim. the problem with socialism is keeps running out of other people's money. i yield my time. >> here we are, okay. well we're going to go forth here a little reluctantly when i agreed to contest this one it would be my good friend from wisconsin. >> very good friend. remember that. >> we'll charge ahead anyway. no this is a bad amendment. i wanted to say it

congresswoman, there are three problems with the earned income tax credit. first of all we're broke. the amount we're putting in the earned income tax credit more than doubled over the last 15 years. to me, when you're broke and you have a program that more than doubled you wouldn't up it again. secondly it's a fraud-ridden program. the irs came out with a thing about two years ago estimating that about a quarter of the payments are fraudulent. and i think in general if you have a program in which you're trying to help people and a quarter of the payments are fraudulent, on the face of it, you'd say this is not the way we want to go. the final problem with the program is that while it's true, it encourages you to earn that first dollar what goes up must come down. and it may encourage you to earn that first $5,000 or $6,000. pretty soon you get at the point where you have a very very high -- >> the gentleman's time. >> marginal income tax rate. and for that reason it's a bad amendment.

>> gentle lady from wisconsin ms. moore's recognized for one minute to close. >> thank you so much mr. chairman. first of all, the earned income study that says that the program was wrought with fraud was very flawed. and i don't have time to go into it, but it's flawed. secondly, i brought up the marriage stuff glen because i knew that would be attractive to you. and data are i have concruisive that this is something that would help family formation. and, you know, paul ryan president obama, both have agreed, they have almost an identical program and approach to expanding the earned income tax credit. so it answer's enjoying moderate bipartisan support. when you start talking about we're broke. why don't we look at the trillion a year we spend on oil

companies and private jets and offshore stuff instead of a tried, tested, anti-poverty program that lifts people out of poverty. >> gentle lady's time has expired. the question on ms. moore, all those in favor say aye? >> aye. >> those who say no. >> no. >> in the opinion of the chair the nos have it. roll call vote is requested. >> mr. okita. >> no. >> mr. okita no. mr. garrett? mr. garrett? were diaz-balart. >> no. >> mr. diaz-balart no. mr. cole. >> no. >> mr. cole no. mr. mcclintock no. >> ms. black. >> no. >> ms. black no. >> mr. woodall. >> no. >> mr. woodall no. ms. blackburn. >> no. >> ms. blackburn no. >> ms. heartsler. >> no.

>> ms. hartsler no. >> mr. rice? >> no. >> mr. rice no. mr. stutsman. >> no. >> mr. stutsman no. mr. sanford. >> no. >> mr. sanford no. mr. womack? >> no. >> mr. womack no. mr. bratt. >> no. >> mr. bratt 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. molnar. >> no. >> mr. molnar no. >> mr. westerman. >> no. >> mr. westerman no. >> mr. buchanan. >> no. >> mr. buchanan no. mr. van holland. >> aye. >> mr. van holland aye. >> mr. yarmuth. >> aye. >> mr. yarmuth aye. mr. passkrel.

>> yes. >> mr. passkrel? >> yes. >> aye. mr. ryan? >> aye. >> mr. ryan aye. ms. moore. >> aye. >> ms. moore aye. ms. caster. >> aye. >> ms. caster aye. mr. mcdermott? >> aye. >> mr. mcdermott aye. ms. lee? >> aye. >> ms. lee aye. mr. pocan. >> aye. >> ms. lou hahn grisham. >> aye. >> ms. dingell. >> aye. >> ms. dingell aye. mr. lou. >> aye. >> mr. lou aye. >> mr. norcross. >> aye. >> mr. norcross aye. >> mr. molten. >> aye. >> mr. molten aye. mr. garrett. >> no. >> mr. garrett no. >> mr. chairman? 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 14 and the nos are 22. >> and the amendment is not adopted. next up is amendment number 20. the clerk will designated amendment and the staff will pass out the amendment. >> amendment number 20 offered by mr. pocan.