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 technology fields. we need more 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 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. moo