promull fw promulgated resolutions that restrict the state. at this time, i yield the balance of my time to my colleague from florida. >> thank you. i want to focus a little bit on the medicare portion. i want to remind my friend that medicare is an unsustainable path. as i said earlier at its currents pace, medicare will go bankrupt in 2026. look, it would being a great if we could just provide all sorts of freebies and wonderful and well intentioned benefits, some necessary benefits without kind of, you know, paying for it and not being too concerned about anything but the reality is that frankly adding a new health care benefit to a program that is slated to become insolvent in a decade, would just make that

program insolvent quicker, putting our seniors at great risk. this would only ensure medicare reaches bankruptcy at a faster rate than it's already going do so according to the cbo. there's needed improvements to medicare programs in order to save it. for those who are on it, those who will be on it, those that will secure the programs that's where we need to go so, again, even though it's well intentioned, always well intentioned to just, you know, do more and month, let government do more and more but when you're talking about putting medicare further at risk, i think this is frankly the wrong way to go. with that i yield back part of my time. >> chairman yields back. the gendle lady is yielded one minute to close. >> i yield to my colleague because i have no voice.

>> the reality is given that scenario, and i don't think medicare is what we're talking about leveraging is medicaid. long term care as a priority. make being sure we do something solve a problem. people get sicker longer and are in the hospital which is the number one reason that medicare has solvency issues we spend the bulk of that money in the last two weeks of life. states in a block grant or flexibility situation, i lived through those most states didn't innovate in caregiving supports and in fact they continued to hold which they are not required to nursing homes as a protected priority most expensive, most restrictive care in their states. we've done nothing by virtue of not leading on this issue. and if we lead we can help states create many more solutions to these kinds of problems. >> the question is on teamed offered by ms. dingell.

all those in favor. aye. pose nod. the nos have it. does the gentlelady request a record vote. recorded vote is requested. >> mr. akita. mr. akita no. mr. garrett. mr. garrett no. mr. diaz-balard no. mr. mcclintock. miswoodal no. mr. stessman no. mr. guinta? no. mr. brat, no. mr. blum?

mr. mooney? no. mr. monthly -- molinar no. mr. johnson no. mr. van hollen? mr. van hollen aye. mr. yarmuth? mr. yarmuth aye. mr. pascrell? mr. pascrell aye. mr. ryan? mr. ryan aye. ms. moore? ms. moore aye. ms. castor? mr. mcdermott. mr. mcder moth aye. ms. lee. ms. lee aye. mr. pokane. mr. pokane may.

ms. grisham? ms. dingell aye. mr. norcross? mr. norcross aye. mr. molten? mr. molten aye. mr. chairman? mr. chairman no. mr. chairman on that vote, the ayes are 14 and the nos are 20. >> thank you, so much, mr. the amendment is not adopted. >> amendment number 26 to

prevent cyber attacks. >> our federal government has been and still is vulnerable to cyber attacks. last year the massive breaches at the office of personnel management led to the resignation of the then director as well as release of millions of social security numbers of federal employees and over 20 million security clearance data records stolen. these records have been called the crown jewels of american national intelligence, congressman seth and i had our records stolen as part of a breach and a foreign adversary has them. as a recovering computer sipes major the problem is we have outdated systems in our federal government. they need to be upgraded. some of these systems were written in a language, for example, known as cobalt which is simply not equipped for the 21st century hack attacks but the other problem is you have systems that run across federal agencies. because each agency does their budget individually it is

sometimes hard to upgrade a system that runs across the federal government. the administration has proposed and what this amendment does is fulfill their proposal by putting together the modernization fund, $3 billion that will allow for upgrades across agencies as well as start upgrading legacy and outdated information systems. something we need to do and in the long term it's important for our national security and every time one of these breaches happens not only do we lose security we potentially put our employees and people at risk. with that i will yield the balance of my time to congressman nor cross. >> cyber security represent as clear and present danger to our national security and economy. we can't wait for a cyber 9/11 to act. i sit on the house armed services committee emerging

threats subcommittee and if all of you sat in that committee i think you would all pass this amendment tonight. to put it bluntly we're under attack. the vulnerabilities are every where. we herd congressman lu talk about hits the we took. everyone in this room is susceptible and i bet every one of you your information is one of our enemy's hands because that's what we're facing on a daily basis. the theft of u.s. trade secrets are all across the board. we can see it in the very airplanes that are flying. the f-35 looks very much like the russian or excuse me the chinese fighter. our electrical grid, they took a shot at israel just a few weeks ago. ukraine is well documented how they almost shut them down. we are in that same effort. this is common sense area that we should vote for to prevent

that cyber 9/11. i urge my members or all our members to vote yes. >> gentleman's time has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we will stipulate to the fact that cyber security is an ever increasing threat to the homeland as it is to the rest of the world. we know who the players are that are doing this. but when you offer the amendment you make it sound as though we are operating with some 20th century type equipment. i understand the term was legacy systems and i would understand also that there should be a cross pollenization among teasing that deal with cyber crime but the fact is the federal government spends a lot of money on cyber security. as a matter of fact, in fiscal '16 alone congress provide a billion dollars to address cyber

concerns. so once again we have a classic case of taking a populace problem issue like cyber security and we're going to throw a lot more money at it. in a perfect world, there would be money to do all of these things. but it's an imperfect world. as has been mentioned in this hearing over the span of hours. the federal deficit in excess of half a trillion dollars and $19 trillion debt that is on the shoulders of a lot of young people that are standing in the back of this room requires that this congress be judicious about the way it appropriates money for various problems. so i agree in the case of a cyber security issue, this issue is going to be with us for a long time, throwing another $3 billion at it today in a program like this i don't think is going to be the panacea for the issue.

with that i'll yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from ohio, mr. johnson. >> i thank my colleague for yielding. i'm actually surprised at how much agreement there is with what you gentlemen had to say. i'm a 30 year i.t. professional myself. i'm sure we could have some very entertaining conversations that our colleagues would get bored with talking about the four division of a cobalt program. because we could do that. and i agree with much of what you said. cyber security is an issue that is not going to go away. not only are we -- have we been under attack, we are under attack, we're going to be under attack as long as we have networks and as long as computers work off of series of ones and zeros. the bad guys are going to be out

there trying to figure out how to get into it. we already know that some of the rogue nations like china and iran have entire agencies and buildings full of people trying to figure out how to break into our networks. and like you said, we don't need another -- we don't need a cyber 9/11. for that reason and because i came from corporate america as an i.t. executive, i can tell you that i.t., if not properly handled can be one of the biggest sink holes for money and misappropriation of funds as there ever has been. it's dangerous because there are so few people that understand it. moving cyber security to mandatory spending and paying for it with tax increases is not the right way to go. i would love network with you

gentlemen to find some real solutions to this and that's an honest offer to sit down and talk about this. we can do it better, we have to do it better. but i don't believe that this is the right approach and i urge a no vote. >> gentleman's time has expired. mr. lu is recognized for one minute to close. >> i look forward networking with you on a bipartisan basis to attack this issue. it is, as you all mentioned something that would continue to be faced with. it is true that the government does spend money on cyber security. it is also true we do not spend enough because of the nature of their attacks, increasing sophistication and because we just have outdated systems that do need to be upgraded as well as modernize across our federal government and i vote on this amendment and with that i will yield back. >> gentleman yields back. all those in favor will say aye.

posed say no. the no, sir have it. unless the gentleman would like a roll call vote? the gentleman would like a roll call vote. [ roll call vote being and the ]

[ roll call vote being taken ]

[ roll call vote being taken ] >> the clerk will report. >> mr. chairman, on that vote the ayes are 14 and the nos are 22. >> the amendment is not adopted. next up in order of business is amendment number 27. number 27. the clerk will designate the amendment. >> amendment number 27, offered by mr. norcross to prevent gun violence. >> mr. norcross is recognized for three minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

my common sense amendment would prevent terrorists to buy guns. legally to buy guns and bombs to kill americans. i would hope we would agree we should keep guns out of the hands of terrorists. in addition to serving on the house budget committee i do sit on the emerging threats. as a committee i describe that's sleeping with one eye open. we can't predict when or where terrorists will attack but we can make some common sense prevention. we don't need any more san bernardinos out there and we don't need them to have access to this. gao reported a u.s. terror watch list those who tried to purchase guns or explosives 2233 times since 2004. 2043 of them were successful. let me do the math for you.

91% of people on the terrorist watch list that can't fly were able to purchase guns. one thing members in congress can do is deny those on government's terror watch list a legal opportunity to buy the gun. our policy can be summed up very simple. with no-fly no buy. i would like to yield the remaining of my time to barbara lee from california. >> i thank the gentleman for this very important amendment which aims to prevent gun violence by increasing mental health funding to over $500 million over two years and increase the criminal background check system of 35 million. we know gun violence really is a public health epidemic that's raging the country including in my home district in the east bay of california. statistics are clear each year there are more than 30,000 gun deaths nationwide yet this budget does absolutely nothing

to address this epidemic. i want fails to address comprehensive background checks, to improve mental health services by increasing funding for victims and does not provide new research into gun safety. as members of congress our most important job is to protect and defend the american people. by refusing to address this ongoing epidemic of gun violence in our nation congress has failed their sacred duty. what we need is common sense gun reform and measures to help prevent gun violence. this amendment does just that. it's a very modest amendment. hopefully we can get support, some bipartisan support for it. and thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. >> we yield back. >> gentleman from arkansas is recognize recognized. gentleman from ohio is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

you know this is another example where we have a lot of agreement with what mr. norcross said. i too do not want to see guns in the hands of terrorists. i too do not want to see guns in the hands of the mentally ill. i too want to see a more comprehensive national conversation and movement towards addressing the mental health crisis that we have in our country. especially in light of recent events. however, the disagreement we have is again on process, not on the ultimate goal. the disagreement is on how we're going to pay for it. we are deeply, deeply in debt, and we just heard from our cbo director just a few weeks ago

that tells us that our problem is not a revenue problem, our problem is a spending problem and moving programs like this and creating new mandatory funding streams only exacerbates that problem. these are funding streams that should be appropriated on the discretionary side with due diligence and oversight by the house every single year. federal dollars should not be squandered on antiquated programs that fail to meet mental health patients needs and we have in our budget resolution prudent investments to improve mental health care and awareness especially in light of recent events. i urge a no vote and with that i yield to my colleague.

>> thank you very much. i want to just quickly read a portion of the amendment. it says increase mandatory budget authority for the criminal background check system and providing additional resources to the substance abuse and mental services health administration to improve mental health access services. this is a very personal issue for me. i would call people's attention to "the washington post" article back on december 3rd where they reported that gun crime has been on the decline for the last 20 years except for the high-profile mass shootings in gun free zones. that's a particular concern of mine. 60% of those perpetrators of mass shootings in the united states since the 1970s have displayed some sort of diagnosis within the mental health arena. i have a family member with a mental illness. i'm a direct caregiver for the last 20 years to that individual. this is an emotional issue for me and a personal one for me.

i want to do everything we can and this congress should to make sure access to mental health treatment is clear. that's not happening in this country right now. i blame states and some of the decisions that they've made. i look to samsa for more honest assessment of their programs. they have programs supporting individuals with serious mental illness but found there's no or little lacking interagency cooperation for those programs and i have seen that firsthand. i've seen it firsthand where if someone who has a mental diagnosis is in a hospital, in an emergency room, sits in a waiting room which looks like a jail cell for days in some circumstance. then gets to the state local facility and could be there after they are maintained with their medication, therefore weeks on end wasting money in the system. that has to be changed.

i would love to work with you on it. >> mr. norcross is recognized for one minute to close. >> thank you. this isn't about the responsible law-abiding citizens who own guns and we know and they enjoy hunting and all the things that go along with this. how can somebody who pledge allegiance to isis still be allowed to purchase a gun in this country? i don't think founding fathers had terrorists in mind buying ar-15s when they created the second amendment. i'll tell you how we'll pay for this. we'll either pay for it with dollars or pay for it with blood. with that i yield back our time. >> gentleman yields back. all those in favor will say iowa. all opposed to no. t the nos have it. [ roll call vote taken ]

[ roll call vote taken ] [ roll call vote being taken ]

[ roll call vote being taken ]

[ roll call vote being taken ] all members voted. clerk will report. >> mr. chairman, on that vote the ayes are 14 and nos are 22. >> the amendment is not adopted. there are two more amendments remaining. next amendment is number 28, the clerk will designate the amendment. >> amendment number 28 offered by mr. molten for national community service. >> gentleman is recognized for three minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. since its creation more than two decades ago the corporation for national and commune service cncs has bean model of

public-private partnership. working with thousands of local organizations cncs helps to expand economic opportunity, strengthen civic and faith-based organizations and foster innovation. cncs has engaged millions of americans in service to tack tell greatest challenges we face as nation. through teach for america programs it is improving our education system. it supports military families and veterans and remember building on the legacy of the civilian conservation corps of the 1930s. most recently when a state of emergency was declared in flint due to water contamination, cncs deployed and began assisting with outreach and installation of water filtration systems within a month.

much like the gi bill which has been called the most successful piece of legislation congress ever enacted because it has returned $7 in benefits for every $1 in cost. numerous studies show the economic benefits these programs produce far out strip the cost. they are exactly the kind of smart investment my business minded republican colleagues say they want the government to make. even greater than what these volunteers are doing in our communities is how they are doing it. we cannot monetize the way in which their service fosters in communities. cncs programs engage millions of americans in service in volunteerism at more than 50,000 urban and rural locations across the country like the city of lynn in my district. i struggle to think of an issue, perhaps beyond taking care of our veterans that enjoys more enthusiastic, wide ranging and

completely bipartisan support. that's at least when i talk to people out there in america. if it's bipartisan out there, it ought to be bipartisan in here. the amendment that i'm offering today adds a reserve fund to accommodate deficit neutral legislation for mandatory funding. cncs provides vital services in each and every one of our drigts. instead of giving more tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires we should be investing in the thousands of americans who are serving their country every day, to improve our communities and strengthen our democracy for the future. i strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment. mr. chairman, i yield my time. >> gentleman from new jersey is recognized for four minutes. >> so about 150 some-odd years ago i guess it was, a person came to america and found out why we were prospering and why europe was in turmoil.

when he went back he wrote about it and what he said was by visiting river hamlet and town and borough and village he said he saw when a need arose in a community people would spontaneously rise up and collectively get-together and volunteer their services to address that need. well that was 150 years ago. where are we today? we're at the ironic phase of where we now have to have the federal government pay volunteers. pay volunteers. the words just don't seem to make sense which i guess is a like a lot of federal programs. programs administered provide funding to students and others who work in public area who are otherwise volunteering except they are being paid to volunteer. not based on need. where we need to we do have need based programs that look at low-income students and such from provide them with

assistance. this is a program that runs counter to the american principle and also if i went into it runs counter to basic fiscal responsibility and the program doesn't even follow basic federal guidelines for proper payments and such and other accountability issues. with that i yield to the gentleman from california who can speak on the oxymoronic nature of paying vice-presidents i'm sure as well. >> it comes down to this. the republicans want to pull the plug on cncs. the democrats just told us that it's a quote model of public-private partnership. so let's put that claim to the smell test. this agency and its subsidiaries have between target of volumes of inspector general reports that document improper payments, lack of oversight, complete absence of compliance analysis, misappropriations and outright violations of law. this agency was responsible for

channelling million was taxpayer dollars to the disgraced and disbanded a.c.o.r.n. organization which was engaged in widespread voter fraud. it was accused of sexual abuse of young women. it's been repeatedly cited by government watchdogs for using taxpayer money for political advocacy. in june of 2014 the inspector general condemned this agency for quote, shocking waste of taxpayer funds, lacks oversight, unauthorized contractual commitments and widespread noncompliance. the gao said their performance didn't measure performance and their spending was poorly aligned with goals that they lacked any quality control and that their achievements were based on self happen reported data that had no credibility. you know every billion dollars we throw around is paid for with

an average of about $8 from every family. now the democrats on this committee think that's great and if anything we need to shovel still more money at it. my republican colleagues do not and i think that sums it up. enough said. >> with that i would thank the gentleman and would just ask the sponsor in light of those facts does the gentleman withdraw his amendment? >> gentleman has ten seconds remaining. >> hearing no. >> gentleman yields back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my colleague from california, his comments sound more like a description of the party's presumptive nominee for president than they do this organization. based on the widespread support and very bipartisan support that this enjoys throughout the

country. but i do want to address tissue of paid volunteers because this is a phrase that the tea party has used to decry these programs. i was a volunteer in the united states marine corps. i was paid. now i was paid below market rates as these volunteers are paid as well. do you think that i shouldn't be paid? do you think i shouldn't have been paid for my service? are your saying we should cut all pay to the united states military volunteers who they themselves are serving the country in the same way that volunteers for cncs are serving as well? hearing no response i yield my time. >> gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered to the gentleman. all those in favor say aye. the nos have it. gentleman requests a roll call

vote. [ roll call vote being taken ] [ roll call vote being taken ] [ roll call vote being taken ]

[ roll call vote being taken ] [ roll call vote being taken ]

[ roll call vote being taken ] the clerk will report. >> mr. chairman on that vote the ayes are 14 and the nos are 22. >> the amendment is not adopted. we are now on our final amendment which is republican amendment number 2, the clerk will designate the amendment. >> republican amendment number 2 offered by mr. garrett to modify the procedure to consider mandatory savings in the chairman's mark. >> i recognize the gentleman from new jersey for three minutes. you may start the clock and i'll

just make it an opening comment and then turn to the gentleman. i just want to thank the gentleman tore his work on the committee and the contributions that he's made for moving this legislation forward and i support his amendment and urge my colleagues and all members of the committee to do the same and i yield to the gentleman from new jersey. >> i thank the chairman. i began this meeting nine hours ago by referencing we have a spending debt problem and they talked for the last nine hours continues that understanding that there's a problem in this country, in this congress is spending driven. the history here is this budget committee actually did good work last year in trying address that and begin the process reigning in it. unfortunately that was turned on its head in september of october when a majority of the majority said no to a proposal that would

increase spending. despite that we did something anyway, we passed the bba which did an uptick in spending. a report from the cbo came out in january of this year which shows the consequence of that. when you want to rein in spending and decrease your deficits you don't increase spending because the deficit because of that increase by $130 billion, 1.5 trillion over ten years. how do you address that? you don't address it by continuously increasing spending, spending more money this area than you did last year. unfortunately that's where we are right now. what can we do. the amendment would pertain to the mandatory savings package as included in this budget and working with the chairman who put together a package that would save $30 billion often years because these savings are mandatory spending programs, the return compound over time achieve 150 billion often years.

these would be permanent not one time. over the chairman's mark only calls for house to passing this as a standalone bill. my concern the senate will not act. my amendment provide physician the senate doesn't do which it should do which is par for the course and doesn't consider the standalone bill house to will look to other legislative measures to get the senate to consider this a priority in our budget. so i recommend that we pass this amendment, do what we said we are ultimately going to do a year ago, do what i think the majority of the gop conference said back in october and that is not keep on increasing spending but begin to rein in in both on discretionary and most importantly on the mandatory side as that. with that i yelled back. >> mr. van hollen is recognized for four minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i oppose this amendment. as we said at the outset of this

budget markup, we had activities going on in other committees that made very deep cuts in important investments for our country, including some that target the most vulnerable, i mention most specifically the social services block grant program which is one of those programs that our former chairman said had the kind of flexibility in it that republicans liked. well they liked it so much today in the ways and means committee they got rid of it entirely. half of the funds from that block grant go to kids, the other half go to seniors and people with disabilities, including things like meals on wheels or the most vulnerable among us. also provisions that eliminated the child tax credit for millions of american kids. and so this is an attempt to try

to expedite that. the gentleman is right the senate won't take up this budget that comes out of this gathering this evening. i can assure the senate won't pass the $30 billion in cuts. i do think it's important for the american public to see the important difrpgss and values and priorities that are reflected in this budget process and, again, i just want to stress that as we've talked about budgets and. deficits, this committee today has refused to cut one single special interest tax break to help reduce the deficit. instead, cuts in programs that help seniors, about $450 billion cuts in medicare, trillion dollar cuts in medicaid, deep, deep cuts in the area of the budget that we make investments in education and infrastructure and even nieinnovation and openp of that $30 billion here.

i'll yield a little bit of time to ms. castor. >> here's another example of how the gop budget targets children while trying to safeguard the wealthiest all across the country and special interests. remember a year ago a little less than a year ago we pass ad repeal of the sgr. it was called the medicare access and children's health insurance program re-authorization. that was really good news for kids across the country because it set a policy through 2019 of 0 higher matching rate so children across the country could see a doctor. it was a nice bipartisan achievement. we were taken aback when out of the blue the republicans proposed to renege on that agreement from last year. to the detriment of kids in your districts back home. this republican bill appeared out of the blue. at the insistence of tea party

members who said we're okay with pulling the rug out from under our kids and families and states because states have relied on it. many states are through their budget for the year. the florida legislature just finished the legislative session last friday. this is no way to chart important health policy for our kids. noits way to treat american families. it's no way to treat states that are supposed to be our partners. this is just an incite into what shenanigans are under way and how far the gop will go from text special interests, the wealthiest among us, they won't find one special interest tax break in the code and instead they are going to go and renege on the medicare access and children's health insurance program bipartisan bill we passed less than a year ago. i yield back. >> doubling speak, doubling think. we're is going to then poor by eliminating the social services block grant.

congratulations. >> the lady's time has expired. >> the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute to close. >> i'll yield to the chairman. pulling out the rug from under our kids as long as we don't have money. we're not pulling the rug we're pulling the bed, piggy bank that he has. each time you spend money you don't have money to spend you're going into your kid's bedroom saying give me your money. that's what an over zealous spending pattern that we've had for the last eight years. i yield to the chairman of the committee. >> i appreciate your work on this. i appreciate the amendment. this notion that the budget doesn't result in any reduction or cessation of special tax break is just nonsense. and the gentleman knows it. the fact of the matter that's

not the role of the budget committee that's role of the ways and means committee. this budget assumes and direct a pro growth tax policy that will most definitely result in a significant simplifying of the tax code and consequently i look for the gentleman's support as we bring those bills through committee and floor of the house. time has expired. [ inaudible ] . >> time has expired. the question is on agreeing to teamed of mr. garrett. all those in favor say aye. opposed no. >> in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it the clerk will call the role. [ roll call vote being taken ]

[ roll call vote being taken ] [ roll call vote being taken ]

[ roll call vote being taken ] [ roll call vote being taken ]

>> the clerk will report. >> on that vote, the ayes are 22 and the nos are 14. >> the amendment is adopted. there being no further amendments, the recognize the gentleman from indiana. >> mr. chairman, i move the committee adopt the budget aggregates and other appropriate matters. >> it's on adoption of the aggregates and other appropriate matters. all those if favor will say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes have it. pursuant to committee rule nine ish , i call up the text, incorporating functional level as previously agreed to. i recognize the gentleman from indiana to order the resolution reported to the house. >> i move the committee on the budget order the resolution on

the budget reported to the house with the recommendation with the resolution do pass. >> is question is on ordering the budget to be favorably reported to the house. all those if favor aye, all those opposed no. the ayes have it. the clerk will call the roll. [ roll call being taken ]

[ roll call being taken ] [ roll call being taken ]

[ roll call being taken ] >> the clerk will report. >> mr. chairman, on that vote the ayes are 20 and no is 16. >> the motion is agreed to and

the resolution on the budget for fiscal year '17 is ordered reported. a kwquorum is present. before folks leave, i want to take this opportunity to thank all the members of the committee for working i think we have completed this in record time. i want to thank the staff on both republican and democrat side for doing incredible work as we work to get up for this. i recognize mr. van hollen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to underscore your compliments for the staff and to members of the committee. with that, i ask for the customary amount of time to file minority views. >> so ordered. i recognize the gentleman from indiana. >> mr. chairman, i move pursuant to clause one that you may be able to go to conference for

fiscal year 2017. >> without objection, so ordered. >> i recognize the gentleman from indiana. >> i ask consent the staff be authorized to make technical and conforming corrections. >> so ordered. that concludes today's business. this committee stands adjourned.

[ no audio ] [ no audio ]

[ no audio ]

[ no audio ]