the clerk: the ayes are 13 and the noes are 22. mr. price: the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. the next amendment is number 7 and the clerk will designate the amendment and the staff will distribute copies. the clerk: amendment number 7 offered by ms. moore relating to the bill. ms. moore: i yield two minutes each to representative barbara lee, representative ryan and representative lujan, respectively new york that order. -- respectively in that order. if i may note the gentlelady controls all the time. ms. moore: i will claim the time for rebuttal. mr. price: the chair will not

stop people at their time. ms. moore: so in that order, representative lee, ryan and lujan. i will stop you. ms. lee: we know you will. let me thank you, congresswoman moore, for once again offering this amendment to protect nutrition assistance. you know from personal experience, i know from personal experience, many know that the majority of people don't want to be on food stamps or on snap. they want a job, they want to take care of their families and live the american dream. snap helped lift 5,000 people out of poverty in 2013 alone, including 2.1 million children. in fact, more than 70% of snap participants are families with children. people in every state and in every congressional district experience food hardship. yet this republican budget continues the trend of decimating food assistance in the long-term and hinkering with block grants which are

really schemes that could endanger food assistance delivery. what's worse, and let me mention the c.b.o. report our democratic whip steny hoyer and myself requested a c.b.o. report on the effects of snap cuts on low income households and this report found that cuts would drive the poorest families deep into poverty. in this report, the c.b.o. analyzed three different proposals to reduce aggregate snap spend big 15%. c.b.o. found that with each proposal, families earning the least amount of income saw vastly disproportionately negative impacts under at least -- impacts. under at least one proposal a family of three on snap with an income below $15,000 per year would see a $600 cut this report also discusses how to turn -- excuse me how proposals to turn snap into a block grant program which republicans have put forward in previous budget drafts could

allow for federal snal funding to be diverted to other programs and create the potential for even worse economic conditions for low income families. we know this would only increase hunger in our communities. we cannot allow this vital nutrition lifeline which is what it is, for our most vulnerable, to happen. ms. moore: thank you, ms. lee. i yield two minutes to mr. ryan. mr. ryan: i thank the gentlelady. we've heard the word certainty, how this budget provides certainty. i want to make a quick point that we ask how the transportation funding is going to come for the transportation highway trust fund. we'll figure that out later how much about the health care piece? we'll figure that one out later. how about the tax rates? we'll figure that one out later this budget is anything but certain for anybody and to speak of uncertainty we saw the statistics. the top 1% get 17% of the tax

expenditures. the average c.e.o. 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 snap program aren't compassionate, they're irresponsible and 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. and the -- in the next few years, half the country will have die bee tess or predie bee tess. the issue is healthy food and

-- diabetes or prediabetes. the issue is healthy food and we need to do a better job of it with the snap programs. but to cut these ben fits and wait until they drive up costs because they develop diabetes is not good. ms. moore: ms. lujan grisham. ms. lujan grisham: my state is one of the hungriest states in the country. this will prevent the disabled and children and veterans get the help they need. it's estimated that 900,000 veterans nationwide live in households that rely on snap. in my district, at the air force base they have a permanent line for snap benefits for airmen and women. nearly 90% of snap beneficiaries live in

households with a child a senior, or a disabled person. half of new mexico's snap beneficiaries are children. for millions of hardworking families across the country, snap provides a vital lifeline that helps make ends meet. the cuts in this budget to snap are shortsighted, ignore the savings, as you just heard about that are achieved by having healthier children and families. on behalf of 442,000 snap recipients in new mexico, i encourage my colleagues to support this critical amendment. i yield back. ms. moore: we yield back. mr. price: the gentlelady yields back. i'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from michigan, mr. moolenaar, for seven minutes. mr. moolenaar: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to make a brief statement and ask mr. rokita and mr. mcclintock to speak to this amendment as well. you know, i would urge a no vote on this. you know one of the things i

think is important about our budget is that it balances within 10 years. another thing that's important ability our budget is it promotes economic growth. i think we could all agree that the best thing 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 year, laboratories of democracy, people able to innovate with different programs at the state level. and that's something that this proposal also does. i agree we want to have people who can live the american dream and i think we all can agree that 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 million dollar lottery award was continuing to use snap benefits and was being encouraged to do so by our

state department of human services. i found that shocking. it was because the people who truly need it wouldn't be able to get it if those kind 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 to states the guidelines on how to do that and what's considered a substantial amount of winnings. 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 state simply administers the program. with that, i would like to invite mr. rokita from indiana to speak. mr. rokita: i thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue. i would simply add to the discussion the fact that if you include discretionary spending, as well as the mandatory spending on snap and other poverty fighting programs, the federal government currently spends almost $800 billion a year on 92 different programs and what -- in what can only by any objective observation be called a poorly designed effort

to fight poverty. and that doesn't include state and local spending. so unfortunately, our approach over the last several decades has been built on the premise that somehow, and it is totally erroneous but somehow 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's c.b.o. report notes about state flexibility allotments that, quote given such authority states might be able to define eligibility and administer benefits in ways that better serve their population. moreover allowing state more flexibility in operating snap would result in more experimentation and more

approaches that were successful in states that could be adopted by others, close quote. i think we're -- i know we're on the right track with our budget. i would just urge my colleagues and all of them to join us in the effort with that and i yield back to mr. moolenaar. mr. moolenaar: i would like to call on mr. mcclintock of california. mr. mcclintock: let's go over the numbers here. snap spending was $21 billion in 010. went from $21 billion to $39 billion by 2008, to $76 billion in 2014. that means it's roughly doubling every six years. the snap case load has increased from $19 million in 2002 to $28 million people in 2008, to 46 -- to 28 million people in 2008 to 46 million people in 2013. roughly doubling each five years. and this is why the unemployment rate is inching down.

roughly half the population will be on food stamps in six years which by the way is about the same time 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. with regard to snap, the budget follows the successful model of the 1996 welfare reform act. it strengthens work requirements, restores to 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 experience. 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. i yield back. >> i yield back. mr. price: i yield one minute to the gentlelady to close. ms. moore: let's get straight to the point. freedom, flexibility federalism, lee atwater would be proud of you today. what it means is you're going to block grant this program and cut it by $125 billion over 10 years. let's keep this thing real, y'all. you talk about uncertainty uncertainty, uncertainty. let pe tell you that in my district a quarter of the children are uncertain about where their next meal is going to come from. let's really be clear this program, 2/3 of the recipients are not able to work. they're babies, they're elders, and they're disabled people. and the work -- this program has work requirements and 80% of the people work who are on this program.

you talk about -- we talk about wanting to -- the 92 program, there's not one conversation about cutting the tax expenditures $1 trillion a year. this is cruel to take food out of the mouths of babes. mr. price: the question is on agrees to the amendment offered by ms. moore. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair this the noes have it. -- of the chair the knows -- the noes have it. mrs. ms. moore: i request a roll call. mr. price: clerk will call the roll. caller: mr. rah ro keita. no. mr. diaz-balart, no. mr. cole. mr. cole, no. mr. mcclintock. mr. mcclintock, no. mrs. black. mrs. black, no. mr. woodall. mr. woodall, no.

mrs. blackburn. mrs. blackburn, no. miss hartzler. mrs. hartzler, no. mr. rice. mr. rice no. mr. stutzman. mr. stutzman new york. mr. sanford. mr. sanford, no. mr. womack. mr. womack, no. mr. brat. mr. brat, no. mr. blum. mr. blum, no. mr. mooney. mr. mooney, no. mr. grothman. mr. grothman, no. mr. palmer. mr. palmer, no. mr. moolenaar. mr. moolenaar, no. mr. westerman. mr. westerman, no. mr. buchanan. mr. buchanan 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. ms. castor, aye. mr. mcdermott. mr. mcdermott, -- ms. lee. ms. lee, aye. mr. pocan. mr. pocan, aye. ms. lujan gri ham. ms. lujan grisham, aye. mrs. dingell. mrs. dingell aye. mr. lieu. mr. lieu, aye. mr. norcross. mr. norcross, aye. mr. mowl ton. mr. moulton, aye. mr. chairman. mr. chairman, no. mr. price: have all members voted? any member wish to change their

vote? the clerk will report the tally. caller: mr. chairman, on that vote the ayes have 13 and the noes are 22. mr. price: the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. next amendment is amendment number eight and the clerk will designate the amendment and staff will distribute copies. caller: amendment number eight offered by ms. lee expressing a sense of the house relating to poverty. mr. price: ms. lee is recognized for six minutes. ms. lee: first, let me just say, looking at the budget before you it's hard to 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. 24 budget is balanced once again by slashing critical lifeline programs and tearing down ladders of opportunity. last year, former chair paul ryan agreed that we should expand the earned income tax credit for our childless

workers and yet here we are with that conversation wiped from the table. there's -- nowhere in this intudget 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, out of the -- we prevented millions of families from sliding into poverty. yet once again my republican colleagues want to cut or turn program into block grants which evidence shows are less effective. in fact this week i want to reference the c.b.o. report

that shows the effects of snap cuts on those living in poverty. mr. chairman, i'd like to have this inserted into the record, i ask unanimous consent. mr. price: without objection. ms. lee: this shows once again block grants could lead to states moving money around to use money for things other than food assistance. i want to respond to the gentleman who mentioned that snap 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 snap to rely on because many, many people would go hungry had we not had snap in place. and so that, to me, is just totally outrageous that you would want to block grant something that gives people a lifeline just to eat in this country. also with regard to economic activity as it relates to snap, each dollar brings back $1.79 in economic activity. it's 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 commonsense and comprehensive approach to improving programs through a coordinated and national strategy to cut poverty in half in 10 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 to my colleague from wisconsin. congresswoman moore. ms. moore: thank you for yielding. i wanted to point out when someone talked about how much snap costs. last year, we as americans spent $61 billion on food for cats and dogs. ms. lee: thank you congresswoman. let me yield a minute to my colleague, congresswoman lujan grisham. ms. lujan grisham: i want to thank my good friend from california who has 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 has become, it wasn't even bipartisan, i would argue it's a nonparking lot san issue and it ought to be a nonpartisan issue today. according to the most recent census data, 45.3 million people were -- or 14 1/2% of the population lived in poverty in 2013. and it doesn't affect everyone in this country equally. african-americans, native americans and hispanics have poverty rates above 20%. poverty doesn't impact 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 new mexicans live in poverty and 31% of new mexico children, the highest rate in the country. we need a national strategy to

eradicate poverty in this country and extend equal opportunity to everyone. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this important amendment. thank you and i yield back. mr. price: thank the gentlelady. mr. mcclintock is recognized for seven minutes. mr. mcclintock: thank you, mr. chairman. this is a debate that's been going on in this country and in this congress and this committee for more than 50 years. in fact, in other forms it's been going on for thousands of years. it's estimated that when caesar crossed the rubicon, about 300,000 roman citizens were on some form of 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 leading or 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 peer. 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% in 2001. this was the 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 amy rack louse 4% of g.d.p. the result was a profound period of economic growth and prosperity. john f. kennedy was right a rising tide drifts all boats. kennedy cut tax rates and the economy blossomed. so the good news is, we know what works. we know how to reduce poverty and grow the economy. it is prepre-sicely the policies called for in this budget. it provides stronger work incentives for programs like food stamp, reduce government borrowing that crowds out capital that would otherwise be strible small businesses seeking to provide more and better jobs, it removes the obamacare 30-hour trigger that's trapped millions of americans in part time work, reduces federal spending, which ultimately replaces private investment so we know how to grow the economy, we know how to lift people out of poverty because 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. in fact it's estimated that if the obama recovery mirrored the reagan economy, millions more americans would be working today and average family incomes would be thousands of dollars higher than they are today. so this debate has been going on on for centuries and will 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 lessing with we are to admit them. . which is why we're debating this amendment once again today. with that, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to mr. grothman. mr. grothman: thank you. i guess the problem i have with this amendment is it implies that somehow we're not doing

enough fight poverty. i agree with mr. mcclintock, i think a lot of the problem is we are doing so much to fight poverty that we are in essence encouraging people to behave yo ways that probably not the best for themselveses or their children. look at the amount of none we're flooding into anti-poverty programs over the last few years. look at the earned income tax credit. the amount of money we're shoveling out the door on the earned income tax credit has doubled in the last 15 years. look at the snap program. between 2000, the most recent time, over four times as much money in snap. a few years ago the congressional research service did a study not just showing the amount of money families are getting, but the amount spent, i assume some goes to government employees to oversee the program. i can't vouch for it but it seems like the congressional research people are sharp people. they're telling us we're spending $60,000 per year per

family that we're helping out here $60,000 a rear if that study is right. i mean so the problem isn't that we're trying not enough. we're trying so much but despite our effort we're getting a situation in which people are, too many of them, behaving in such a fashion in which they are not going to get out of poverty. if we want to have good, stable families. if we want to have people working as hard as they can. we have to change the approach and not just flood more money at the problem. right now if you look at the numbers, we flooded money in the past. other things that they talk about here, i think, you know, they say spend more money on education. look at the amount of money we're spending per child how much it's gone up in the last 40 years. through the roof. spending more money on education would have solved the problem, that would have solved the problem. the huge increase in the number

of kids going to college. does that solve the problem in no. so 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 in which they are providing both a good example and a more stable environment. i'm going to yield my last minute i guess i'm just a freshman, i don't know if i've been here long enough to say a really good friend, but a new friend, mr. blum i'll yield the last minute to him. mr. blum: thank you. as a career small businessman, my companies have sought out best practices in our companies. we have 50 incubate yoffers best practices in america today. they are called states. for example in wisconsin, gompor tommy thompson enacted work fair programs, cut welfare rolls by 60% and decreased

poverty. in maryland they cut welfare rolls by 0% and decreased poverty this budget allows states to experiment with innovative ways to lift americans out of poverty and turn them into tax paying citizens. i yield my time. mr. price: the gentleman yields back. ms. lee is recognized for one minute to close. ms. lee: i'm not going to really demonstrate at some of the remarks that were made but first of all let me say in terms of behavior, you're talking about your budget that won't raise the minimum wage, we're talking about people making a little over $7 an hour who are working who are taking care of a family, who deserve a fair shot at the american dream. and the working poor, i mean, you're talking about people who care about their children and who want to have a living wage. this budget won't even raise the minimum wage, let alone a living wage. secondly, let me just say this economy, yes, my friend from

california, it blossomed for some, but it didn't blossom for all. we're talking about one in five children living in poverty. in the african-american community, you're talking about one in three living in poverty. so when you look at the fact that we have you have in your budget now work force training funds cut, education cut, you're cutting all those pathways out of poverty and those ladders of opportunity that you're providing c.e.o.'s with the type of tax breaks and composition they don't deserve. mr. price: the question is on -- agrees to the amendment offered by ms. lee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the gentlelady requests a recorded vote, the clerk will call the roll. caller: mr. row key tasm mr. rokita, no. mr. garrett. mr. garrett, no. mr. diaz-balart. mr. diaz-balart, no. mr. cole. mr. cole, no. mr. mcclintock. mr. mcclintock, no.

mrs. black. mrs. black, no. mr. woodall. mr. woodall, no. mrs. blackburn. mrs. blackburn, no. mrs. hartzler. mrs. hartzler, no. mr. rice. mr. rice, no. mr. stutzman. mr. stutzman, no. mr. sanford. mr. sanford, no. mr. schock womack. -- mr. womack. mr. womack, no. mr. brat. mr. brat, no. mr. blum. mr. blum, no. mr. mooney. mr. mooney, no. mr. grothman. mr. grothman, no. mr. palmer. mr. palmer, no. mr. moolenaar. mr. moolenaar, no.

mr. westerman. mr. westerman, no. mr. buchanan. mr. buchanan, 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. ms. castor, aye. mr. mcdermott. mr. mcdermott. ms. lee. ms. lee, aye. mr. pocan. mr. pocan. ms. lujan grisham. ms. lujan grisham, aye. mrs. dingell. mrs. dingell, aye. mr. lieu. mr. lieu, aye. mr. norcross. mr. norcross, aye. mr. moulton. mr. moulton. aye.

mr. chairman. mr. chairman, no. mr. price: have all members voted? any member wish to change their vote? if not, the clerk will report. caller: mr. chairman, on that vote the ayes have 12 and the noes have 22. mr. price: the noes have it, the amendment is not agreed thosme next amendment is amendment number nine. the clerk will designate the amendment and staff will distribute. caller: amendment number nine offered by ms. castor relating to funding for the national institutes of health. mr. price: ms. castor is recognized for six minutes. ms. castor: my amendment bolsters the national institutes of health through an expanded and sustained investment that i propose to hard wire into our nation's budget. it takes n.i.h. out of the annual budget battles, moves it from discretionary to mandatory, thereby providing

certainty to our talented medical researchers and hope for families all across the country. because after all as america's commitment toed me -- is america's commitment to medical research discretionary? no, and it shouldn't be. my amendment recommits america to looking for cues and dreams. the sequester and stagnant funding for n.i.h. have taken a serious toll over the last decade. n.i.h.'s budget has not kept pace with inflation. this has led to a decline in purchasing power. we have all heard dr. frances collins say this. it's been especially acute in the last few years despite the democrats giving n.i.h. a great shot in the arm under the recovery act. now in january this journal of american -- journal of the american medical association published a report and recommendations. they said the u.s. government research funding declined from 57% in 2004 to 50% in 2012 of

the global coe towal as did that of u.s. companies from 50% to 41%. meanwhile, asia, particularly china, tripled investments. the u.s. share of life science patents dekinded from 57% in 1981 to 51% in 2011, especially the most valuable patent. what they said to us in policymakers is that a new investment is required in order to realize scientific discoveries and improve care. they said given international trends, the united states will relinquish its historical international lead in the next decade unless nudge measures are undertaken system of colleagues, let's work together to get n.i.h. funding back on track. beyond the lip service of saying we all support n.i.h., let's take action. to support n.i.h. let's really tackle alzheimer's, find the cure for als, the treatments that improve people's lives.

biomedical researchers across the country are counting on us and families are downing on us. i yield one minute to the gentleman from kentucky, mr.iar mutt. mr. yarmuth: i would like to highlight the remarks of two speakers who spoke about needing to increase funding at yesterday's stand up 2 cancer event. first, republican representative yoder said we should increaseed me sal research. i'm not a fan of deficits but i feel like i could go home to my 16-month-old daughter and say, i borrowed money in your name for research and she would be happy. and another representative said, if the federal government doesn't lead the way on conquering cancer it won't goat done. i've lost one too many friends to this dreadful disease and i

don't want to see another person succumb to this. though i'm a progressive member of this house i can say i agree whole heartedly with both a member of the republican budget and spending committee task force and a member who not only signed a contract with america but advocated for carving ronald reagan's face into mount rushmore. let's embrace this bipartisanship and properly fund this important research. ms. castor: i yield to. >> earlier this week i stood in front of a building where a doctor found the vaccine for polio. how much that has changed our world.

mr. norcross: here we are facing an issuing you heard about cancer and others. many of these can be addressed through our pharmaceutical company bus they all can't because they won't. 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 for which have there is no cure. remember the cure that they find might be the one that saves your life also. i yield back. ms. castor: i yield the remaining time to congresswoman lee of california. ms. lee: thank you very much. let me thank the gentlelady for this amendment to protect our nation's critical science jobs and provide for national investments in biomedical research. from the national science foundation to the national institute of health, federal funding for science, medicine and public health research programs are really vital to the health and to the wellness of our nation. we know that research funding creates the jobs of the future and ensures that our nation

remains at the cutting edge of the global economy. but if my republican colleagues continue to dramatically cut science funding research, then our current skills gap felt by far too many will grow even larger. ultimately, our young people will be discouraged from joining science and technology fields fields that are already low with women and women of color and we need more diversity in scientific research biomedical research. we should be making it easier for our youth to join critical fields to help shape and inform our nation, not making it harder system of our investments in biomedical research are extremely important. on a personal note, my sister has multiple sclerosis, my mother just passed with copd and i have family members, you all have family members who benefit from n.i.h. medical research. i urge an aye vote. mr. price: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mooney is recognized for seven minutes. mr. mooney: thank you. i'd like to immediately put our

colleagues on the other side of the aisle at ease. this budget assumes robust funding for n.i.h. n.i.h. funding is, however discretionary and therefore the final amount of funding provided to n.i.h. will ultimately be decided by the committee on appropriations. your amendment language states the importance of contribution -- the important contributions of n.i.h. led to an incress in the n.i.h. fwrudget 1977 to 1995 with the budget doubling under both republican and democratic presidents. it does not state that in addition to that, the n.i.h. spending nearly tripled from twovepb 20 10. so we are robustly fuppeding in n.i.h. as we say in our policy statement, america is the greatest, most innovative nation on earth. our people are innovators, entrepreneurs and relentless builders of the future. americans are responsible for the first telefone, the first airplane, the first computer

for putting the first man on the moon for 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 n.i.h., while also urging washington to get out of the way of researchers discoverers and innovators all over the country. however in tough budget times, every agency that supports public health research, including the department of health and human services, collectively must work to ensure all these resources are spent in the most effective manner to avoid duplication and

waste and to coordinate the activity toward collective public health or research goals and objectives. i would like at this time to yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlelady, the congresswoman, vicky hartzler. mrs. hartzler: thank you. i want to thank the gentlelady from florida for offering this amendment. i consider her a friend and i look forward to working with her on this. because this is a very, very important subject. we need to make sure that we invest in finding those cures that are so important. i disagree, though, with the path and that i don't think we need to start another mandatory program. we've got so many mandatory spending programs now that that is a real problem to our budget. but we do need to address this issue, i know i have supported and called for making sure that we invest. and think good thing about our budget is that it does not cut funding to the n.i.h.

it fully funds n.i.h. and that's why we did it. we could have cut it. we cuff found savings here, but we prioritized it because we do believe it is very, very important and while -- we mentioned a lot of different decides and we all are impacted with people who have had cancer or some other issue but something that's near and dear to my heart is alzheimer's and i want to share about that. i lost my mother two months ago with it. my mother-in-law last year. and this is something that i think n.i.h. needs to prioritize and spend more money on within their budget because 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 five million americans are living with alzheimer's, as many as 16 million will have this disease by 2050, that means one in three seniors dies with

alzheimer's and right now it is the costliest disease in america and it is very costly to the taxpayer. and so i think it is imperative that n.i.h. spend more of its budget on that and prioritize it but the thing that concerns me is some reports coming out of n.i.h. of how they're allocating the money we have already given them. and let me share some of those examples. news reports have come out that taxpayer dollars have been spent by n.i.h. recently on grants examining public health education and campaigns in china. they've used our tax dollars these precious dollars that i think should be going to alzheimer's, cancer, muscular dist phi, you name it, the things impacting our constituents they funded a grantee in california for nearly $7 million to study tobacco and its link to the tea party. n.i.h. has funded grants of half a million dollars a year to the national opinion

research center to evaluate the impact of actual and potential government policies in thailand on a local thai family's ability to save for future health and well being concerns. an n.i.h. grant appears on the surface to sponsor an advocacy group for the illegal development of lobbying type material. and finally 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 and the chacha can spark more physical activity. now this is ridiculous. so i call upon n.i.h. 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. but 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 and i yield back. thank you. >> i yield to the gentleman mr. rokita. mr. rokita: i agree with the gentleman's statements and those of mrs. hartzler. i want to direct your attention to this pie chart. as you can seing most of the money, every 06 -- over 60% is spent on auto pilot programs, mandatory spending. that's that -- that large piece of the pie will only go up in future years leaving less and less for discretionary spending including n.i.h. mention was made of mr. yoder, a couple of minutes ago. i know kevin yoder, this is what he was talking about, i am sure, we would love to be spending more and more on n.i.h. for the noncommercialized process bus we get crowded out by the mandatory spending going on.

that's what we need to fix. i yield back. mr. price: the gentlelady's time has expired, ms. castor is recognized for one minute to close. ms. castor: don't let america's leadership in the world suffer. we can take action on this together tonight. we always find one amendment in the budget process 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 district and mine. think about the young researchers whose grants are coming to an end because the congress hasn't responded to the call to action. and indeed, the republican budget would, it's projected lead to 1,300 fewer medical research grants because you see the republican budget keeps the sequester in place. it constrains the -- 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 in the world should not be discretionary. i yield back. mr. price: the gentlelady yields back. the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by ms. castor. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentlelady asks for a recorded vote. the clerk will call the roll. caller: mr. row coo ta. mr. rokita, no. mr. garrett. mr. garrett, no. mr. diaz-balart. mr. diaz-balart, no. mr. cole. mr. cole, no. mr. mcclintock. mr. mcclintock, no. mrs. black. mrs. black, no. mr. woodall. mr. woodall, no. mrs. blackburn. mrs. blackburn -- mrs. blackburn. mrs. hartzler. mrs. hartzler, no. mr. rice. mr. rice, no.

mr. stutzman. mr. stutzman, no. mr. sanford. mr. sanford, no. mr. womack. mr. womack, no. mr. brat. mr. brat, no. mr. blusm mr. blum, no. mr. mooney. mr. mooney, no. mr. grothman. mr. grothman, no. mr. palmer. mr. palmer, no. mr. moolenaar. mr. moolenaar, no. mr. westerman. mr. westerman, no. mr. buchanan. mr. buchanan, 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.

ms. castor, aye. mr. mcdermott. mr. mcdermott, aye. ms. lee. ms. lee, aye. mr. pocan. mr. pocan. ms. lujan grisham. ms. lujan grisham. mrs. dingell. mrs. dingell, aye. mr. lieu. mr. lieu, aye. mr. norcross. mr. norcross, aye. mr. moulton. mr. moulton, aye. mrs. blackburn. mrs. blackburn, no. mr. chairman. mr. chairman, no. mr. price: have all members voted? any member wish to change their vote? the clerk will report. caller: mr. chairman, on that vote the aye are 12, the noes are 22. mr. price: the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to.

the next amendment is amendment number 10. the clerk will designate the amendment and staff will distribute copies. caller: amendment number 10 by mr. mcdermott related to medicaid and medicare. mr. price: dr. mcdermott is recognized for six minutes. mr. mcdermott: this budget fails to address the growing primary care crisis in this country. rather than building on 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 tremendous success in reducing the number of americans with coverage from 20.3% to 13 ppt 2%. unfortunately, the primary care work force has not kept pace with the growing number of insured americans. according to a new study, the country will face a shortage of

as many as 33 -- as 31,000 primary care doctors by 2025. throughout the country rural and low income communities will be hit the hardest and patients who need care will be the ones who suffer the most. we will no -- 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 for primary care doctors is $220,000 while a specialist earns a median salary of $400,000. this disparity draws -- draws many talented doctors away from pie prie mare care, particularly in rural and poor areas and toward specializations in wealthy urban areas. educational debt make this is process even more problematic. the median cost of attending a medical school is about $55,000 per year and costs continue to

climb. as a result, 86% of medical school graduates have educational debt. the average medical graduates are $170,000 in debt and a quarter have debts over $250,000. burdened by that kind of debt, the majority of young doctors choose lucrative specialty training over primary care. now there are two ways we should adress that crisis. the single most effective way to get providers we need where we need them is by educating doctors and the way we educate -- in the way we educate military officers. we should apply the principles of reserve officer training corpses and provide free medical education in exchange for a five-year commitment to serve as primary care doctors in underserved areas. this will allow taos place primary care doctors where we need them and most importantly have them stay. i call the program our docs. we also have to address how providers are compensated for primary care.

and that conversation starts with strengthening reimbursements through our federal health programs. my amendment extends and strengthens two initiatives that we have improved compensation for primary care providers. it continues the policy of medicaid payment parity which has placed reimbursements for primary care providers within medicaid on an equal footing with reimbursements under medicare. second, it continues the incentive program that provides increased payments to providers for primary care services through medicare. unfortunately, that was in the affordable care act and my republican colleagues have not shown any interest in continuing these important investments. last year they allowed medicaid payment parity to expire and so far they have done nothing to ensure that medicare primary karin sentiv payment program continues through 2015. low reimbursement rates for primary care limits the number of providers willing to

participate in federal health programs. that is why both of these initiatives are both so important. before the affordable care act, medicaid only paid physicians 58% of what a medicare rate for the same services was. a recent study pub mished in the -- published in the new england journal of medicine found the medicare pry tear -- primary care bump improved the availability of appointments without increasing wait times. my amendment would continue these critical initiatives by expending -- extending both the medicare and medicaid primary care bumps. these are short investments that will directly improve access to care for the american people. those of you who represent rural districts ought to be paying special attention to this because it's you who struggle with keeping doctors in your districts. and i reserve the balance of my time.

mr. price: that's not accommodated under the rule. mr. mcdermott: i get another minute? if you want me to go on. mr. price: i'm happy to have you yield back. mr. mcdermott: i'll wait for my one minute. mr. price: i yield to the gentleman from -- the gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. black. mrs. black: this would increase our total medicaid spending by $5.4 billion in fiscal year 2016 and $54 billion over the next 10 years. pretty big numbers. but let's take a look at what we're currently spending. so in fiscal year 2016, without this amendment, the total spending on medicaid to combine twalened -- federal and state shares, are expected to be $584 billion and over the next 10 years, c.b.o. expects that 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. but this problem really is not a problem of spending. even with all the spending, medicaid continues to have access problems and with all due respect, this amendment does not fix the problem. it just simply throws more money. so that will not take care of the problem. worse, amendment actually picks winners and losers. among the primary care doctors. because, this amendment provides only enough funding to increase payments to those primary care doctors who treat newly eligible medicaid and that live in the states that have expanded programs. so you can see that it does pick winners and losers. what happens to the rest of those folks? well, they're just out of luck. the program -- the problem with medicaid is that it is structural. decades of this one size fits all mandate coming down from

washington as we've seen in so many other programs leave the patient with less access and oftentimes worse hell problems. i know we've all seen this in each one of our states. the answer instead is to put the states back in charge of their own medicaid programs and to give them the power to decide -- design the reforms that fit the unique needs of their population. we can look at some states that have done this, actually i'm going to raise up one that is, right here, our co-chairman, indiana, for instance, they implemented some reforms in the healthy indiana plan and a patient-centered system that provided health coverage to uninsured residents who didn't qualify for medicaid and they have seen significant results in their program. i've heard them brag about this pie pilot program. this is 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 also know that there's a lot of fraud waste, and abuse that's out there. we continue to get reports about fraud, waste and abuse. we know that medicaid has the second highest estimates 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 we'll see. so those dollars can really go to taking care of patients. this budget does not cut benefits. instead, 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. so i would encourage my

colleagues to vote no on this amendment. and i yield back mr. chairman. mr. price: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from washington state is recognized for one minute to close. mr. mcdermott: mr. chairman, one minute is a little hard to answer that. medicaid didn't come into existence because the states were doing such a good job. medicaid 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's our half. you can run the program, you can design it yourself. some states did good things and some states did bad things. but the fact is that if you live in a rural area, you have a hard time finding a physician. the state of washington, the state of idaho, we have a program in the northwest called washington alaska, montana, idaho and wyoming, all these states have big rural areas. it's hard to get doctors to

work out there because if you're paying off $250,000 worth of debt and you're out in a yurel area -- rural area and you're 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, so what we're trying to do is help those doctors who do go out there with an additional amount of money and they clearly aren't being paid. mr. price: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mcdermott: yes. i'll come back on something else. mr. price: the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by dr. mcdermott. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman wishes a recorded vote. the clerk will call the roll. mr. rokita: no. mr. garrett: --

mr. mcclintock: no. mrs. black: no. mr. woodall: no. mrs. blackburn: no. mrs. hartzler: no. mr. rice: no. mr. stutzman: no. savensaven no. womewome no. -- mr. womack: no. mr. brat: no.

moon moon no -- mr. mooney: no. palm palm no -- mr. palmer: no. mr. westerman: no. buchanan: no. mr. van hollen: aye. mr. yarmuth: aye. mr. pascrell: aye. mr. ryan: aye. ms. moore: aye. ms. castor: aye. mr. mcdermott: aye. ms. lee: aye.

mr. pocan: -- mrs. dingell: aye. mr. lujan: aye. mr. norcross: aye. mr. moulton: aye. mr. garrett: no. mr. cole: no. mr. price: no. have all members voted? any member wish to change their vote? the clerk will report the the clerk: mr. chairman, on that vote the ayes are 12 and the noes are 21. mr. price: the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. the next amendment is amendment number 12 and the clerk will designate the amendment an

staff will distribute. the clerk: amendment number 12 offered by mr. yarmuth relating to immigration reform. mr. price: mr. yarmuth is recognized for six minutes. mr. yarmuth: thank you very much, mr. chairman. while we gather in this room today 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 believe hads that our current immigration system is broken. but what is often missing from the reform debate is the economic impact of enacting comprehensive immigration reform legislation. according to the c.b.o., the comprehensive, bipartisan immigration 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. and who knows, maybe the bill that my good friend, mario

diaz-balart about a lart, and i helped -- and i would have made more significant progress economically. the social security actuary estimates that 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 will be working, paying into social security and medicare, but not collecting benefits for several decades. thereby stabilizing the program while the baby boomers receive their benefits. but 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, and actively discourages legal immigration. that is why we see everyone from the u.s. chamber of commerce, labor unions, law enforcement, the faith community, the agriculture community, and countless other organizations and interest groups agree that immigration reform is key to our nation's future. so i'm introducing this amendment to include comprehensive immigration reform as part of the budget. we should take this opportunity to secure our borders, expand the size of our work force, ensure that every 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 dire need to address this issue is real. and it has 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 gentlelady from california, ms. lee. ms. lee: thank you very much. i want to thank the gentleman for yielding and for introducing this amendment. let me remind you, we do have a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill. we've had that legislation since 2013, it has the broad support of the american people. yet once again house republicans have refused to take it up. just last month they could barely pass a homeland scurelt bill to protect our -- security bill to protect our nation, thanks to this anti-immigrant, real anti-immigrant sentiment, i would say. comprehensive immigration reform not only is the morally right thing to do, but as the gentleman from kentucky said it's the right thing to do for our economy. last year the congressional budget office found that passing the senate's bipartisan immigration bill would reduce the deficit by $900 billion over the next two decades.

the economic benefits are clear. now's the time to pass a fair immigration plan that reunites families, that helps grow our economy and provides a clear pathway to citizenship. the senate-passed immigration reform -- the senate passed immigration reform two years ago. the house should act and i urge passage of this amendment. at least let's get on record in a bipartisan way in this budget on something that makes sense for our economy and for people who deserve to live the american dream here in our own country. i want to thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. yarmuth: i thank the gentlelady and i want to re-emphasize that immigration reform aside from its humanity, will make a significant positive impact on the budget that we're all so concerned about. if we want to grow the economy, if we want to reunite families, if we want to reduce deficits, immigration reform is one of the most obvious steps that we can take, right in front of us. let's accept this opportunity

and not pass it by. with that i yield back mr. chairman. mr. rokita: i thank the gentleman. mrs. blackburn: i want to yield to mr. brat of virginia. mr. brat: thank you very much. immigration reform is good if we reform it in the right way. i think all of us would agree one of the key components has to be securing the border, as a precondition for a broader package of agreements. but i think it's always good to look at the basic -- we're talking about economics here. and why this would be good for the country. it's good to look at why so many folks want to come to the united states of america. it's because we're the wealthiest nation on the earth and if you look back at that, how we get to be that way? it didn't just fall out of heaven. the reason we're the wealthiest nation on the face of the earth is roughly twofold. 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. so 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 flobe and spreading free markets 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. so the very reason 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 to costs and economics, love everyone in the world, everyone wants to come into this country because we're a generous nation but you can just do the basics. one family comes in from south of the border, makes maybe

$0,000 a year, that's probably -- $20,000 a year, that's probably upper-bound. they have two kids in public school, that's $24,000. right? so do the math, make $0,000, costs $24,000, without getting into any other programs. so we need to have a discussion of that. when c.b.o. scores these things, they score just the federal costs. they skip state and local. you're already negative $4,000 after one program. so reform is all great. but the basic reform, i'd urge everybody first, before we get ideas of grandeur, is to first of all follow the law within our own country and if we enforce and execute those laws, then everyone can move forward in good faith. with that i'll yield. thank you. mrs. blackburn: i thank the gentleman for yielding back and appreciate his comments and i do oppose mr. yarmuth's amendment. and there are a couple of things here. as the gentleman from virginia said, we need to get it right.

we need to be certain that the rule of law is followed. and what we see right now before us 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 even has been, in the last few years, this process whereby the administration says, let's enforce that one, but let's not enforce this one. and that picking and choosing and trying to have a situational relevance is not what our constitution and the rule of law is about. so, i think what we need to do is decide that as we approach immigration, it is going to be something that is constitutionally based. and that members of the house will handle this, members of

the senate will handle it, it's not going to be delegated to the senate. now, i take a little bit of issue, i don't think the reason to do immigration reform is so that 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 just inappropriate. to talk about it in that regard. that's part of what is broken with social security right now. and that is why social security in and of itself needs to be addressed. and the situation needs to be stabilized. but let's not push that as a part a reason to do immigration reform. i think that's a little bit unfair. and i will tell you, i think there's a tremendous amount of unfairness that is 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 hollen and i met with the kurds. i have the largest community of kurds in the country. that are in my district. our church and others have been bringing them in. to have been accepting them as refugees over -- since the early 1980's. i mean this is something that our community in nashville has done for quite a period of time. what i hear when i talk to those that are legaly 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 paperwork. you can't get answers to what is happening unless you call

down there and make an inquiry. that is 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. and i tell what you 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 that -- for those that are coming in. so let's agree on some things. let's agree the border does need to be secured. we need to find a way to end trafficking. we need to find a way to end illegal entry. and what we need to do is build on a system that is going to be

fair to those that are legaly immigrating into this -- legally immigrating into this country and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. mr. rokita: i thank the gentlelady. mr. yarmuth, you're recognized to close for one minute. mr. yarmuth: thank you, mr. chairman. what we just heard was seven minutes of reasoning to do -- to approve my amendment. the speakers on the other side talked about rule of law, that we ought to pass a law. that's what this amendment asks us to do. to pass comprehensive immigration reform. not rely on executive actions of the administration. that's what the senate did in 2013 that's what our bipartisan group was working toward last year. and for mrs. blackburn to talk about not having -- not using the rationale that we need more young people to support social security that's one of the enormous problems we have. we now have fewer people working to support too many beneficiaries. that's exactly what we need. so social security, i mean, immigration reform to get it right we all agree as i said at the outset, we have enormous

problems, mrs. blackburn mentioned some of them. i agree. let's fix them. senate senate did that. we -- the senate did. that we can do that in the house as well. let's make it a part of this budget so we can reap the benefits of a sane rational and legal immigration system. i yield back. mr. rokita: i thank the gentleman. all time is expired. the gentleman has an amendment. [laughter] tried to sneak it in there. the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by mr. yarmuth. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. mr. yarmuth: i request a recorded vote. mr. rokita: a recorded vote is requested. the clerk will call the roll. mr. rokita: no. mr. garrett: no.

mr. cole: no. mr. mcclintock: no. mr. woodall: no. mrs. blackburn: no. mrs. hartzler: no. mr. rice: no. mr. stutzman: no. mr. sanford: no. womewome no. -- mr. womack: no. mr. brat: no. mr. blumenthal: no. mr. mooney: no.

mr. grothman: no. palm palm no -- mr. palmer: -- mr. buchanan: no. mr. van hollen: aye. mr. yarmuth: aye. mr. pascrell: in honor of my grandfather and grandmother, yes. aye. mr. ryan: aye. ms. moore: aye. ms. castor: aye. mr. mcdermott: aye. ms. lee: aye.

mr. pocan: aye. mrs. dingell: aye. mr. lujan: aye. mr. norcross: aye. mr. moulton: aye. mrs. black: no. mr. palmer: no. mr. chairman. mr. price: no. mr. rokita: are there any members wishing to vote or change their vote. if not the clerk shall report. the clerk: mr. chairman, on that vote the ayes are 13 and the noes are 21. mr. rokita: the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. are there further amendments?

mr. polis: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. mr. rokita: this is amendment number 13. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 13 offered by mr. ryan relating to manufacturing programs. mr. ryan: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. rokita: mr. chairman is rised for six minutes. mr. ryan: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the opportunity to offer this amendment. accelerating growth in u.s. manufacturing. i think this is an issue that i hope that we can establish some bipartisan support for this. manufacturinging is critical in the united states. it's critical to our defense industrial brails. we know that one in -- base. we know that one in seven u.s. private sector jobs depend on u.s. manufacturinging. i think there's a general sense in the country that 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 $1 in sales of manufactured products supports

$1.33 in output from other sectors. it's the largest ripple effect that we can get and our nation thrivings when we are leading the world in cutting-edge technology in 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 the discussion today has been what's that first rung on the economic ladder that somebody can grab? and manufacturinging, i believe, is that wrung. we talk about these other programs we talk about suppressed wages and then obviously in this budget the other side does not want to support medicaid expansion, does not want to support credits to help people get health insurance, does not want to support supplemental nutrition, does not want to raise the minimum wage. so i don't think quite frankly there is an economic plan for -- from the other side on how we grow these kind of high-paying jocks.

this amendment offers this plan. so this scaling-up manufacturinging initiative ensures our nation's ideas and inventions are developed and produced here in the united states. this initiative launches a public-private investment to help emerging manufacturing technologies reach commercial viability. and startup companies produce goods that they have developed, these funds assist entrepreneurial firms to secure capital, to scale from idea to prototype and into full commercialization. manufacturing institutes like the one president obama started transform community into world leading innovation centers. they revitalize american manufacturing and innovation act passed the house with bipartisan support in december, 2014. it authorized manufacturing innovation institutes to come together in a shared network and codifies authority from the department of commerce to coordinate this multiagency

initiative. by leveraging the strengths of a particular region, manufacturing institutes bring together companies, universities community colleges and the government to could invest in the development of -- co-invest in the development of world-leadinging manufacturing technologies and capabilities that u.s.-based manufacturers can apply in production. this helps develop our manufacturinging base. this amendment builds on the success of the first manufacturing innovation institute in youngstown, ohio. the first institute is focused on reducing the cost of 3-d printing, connecting small business with new opportunities and training american workers to master these sophisticated technologies. in its third year of operation, the institute has reached -- has research under way that will help accelerate the speed of 3-d printing in metals by a factor of 10. it's partnering to provide over 1,000 schools with access to 3-d printers and has launched

new work force training programs that have trained over 7,000 workers in the fundamentals of 3-d printing. in addition to launching new products and filing new patents from the research already under way, the institute is hembing -- is serving as a -- as a magnet for investment in the region. if you want economic development you need public-private partnerships. you need a strong infrastructure. you need basic investments. and you do need the government to play a role of convening and bringing people together in order to grow certain sectors of the economy. if we don't do this, in manufacturing, cutting edge, we will lose out. the chinese are putting billions of dollars into these technologies. and they're pulling together some very sophisticated operations that will leap frog us in the very, very near knewture. it's important that our government takes a -- future. it's important that our government takes a rule -- role. i'd like to yield the balance of my time to the gentlelady

from michigan. mrs. dingell: i want to commend the gentleman from ohio for introducing this and telling all that i strongly support this amendment. manufacturing's the backbone of the american economy, it's the backbone of the michigan economy. business and labor working together, we can compete with any country in the world. but other countries have a government that helps support it. with this we were lucky to get one of these institutes in michigan, you see the innovation coming online. when universities and 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 manufacturinging in this world -- manufacturinging in this world. expanding these centers nationwide will build on the something and -- success and i hope this amendment is adopted in a bipartisan manner. thank you.

>> i agree with a lot of what you say. particularly i agree with the fact that we can compete with anybody else in the world. our businesses can, if only we will get out of the way. our government unfortunately, with its outdated, uncompetitive and unburdensome -- 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. mr. rice: if you look at this slide once again this is about 35 oecd countries and you see we're on the far right with a red line. the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. if you look at the first 10 or so, they're operatinging at about half the rate that 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 operated in any one of these other 10 oecd countries. next slide, please. if you look here, this is the small business index. 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 10 biggest concerns expressed by small business owners, number three, government regulation, number four, health care obamacare, number eight, taxes and number nine, government in general. if you add all those up, it's about -- 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 manufacturinging to expand, if we want our businesses to employ more american people, instead of our companies deciding harkse, 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. our republican budget here is a very strong beginning, lays out a policy to do that. revenue-neutral tax reform that 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 the number four concern here. we're stripping that away. government regulation, a c.b.o. study recently found that it costs $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 in 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 do that. it does it not by creating new government programs, not by expanding existing government programs, but getting out of way. at this point i'll yield so much time as he may consume to my friend, mr. sanford. mr. sanford: i thank the gentleman from south carolina. i too concur that the gentleman from ohio is right in the sent thament we need more in the way of manufacturing -- sentiment that we need more in the way of manufacturing but i concur with the gentleman from south carolina in how you get there. the prescription in many ways is very well laid out with the model we've seen in south carolina. south carolina's actually number one in the united states , continental united states in direct foreign investment, based on a fairly simple formula. it's based on the right to work, it's based on a reasoned regulatory load, it's based on limited government and tax load

and good infrastructure. i think it's interesting there was a plant just this last week, announced that, you have b.m.w. boeing, you have 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 amount of, i think, reasoned research that points to the fact that when you get up around 90% debt to g.d.p. numbers, you begin to see a drag on the aggregate economy which in turn impacts manufacturing. it would seem debt load is important. tax load is important. and the fundamentals, if you will that michael porter talks

about in competitive analysis, are also key, all of which we see there in south carolina. all of which we see as contributing to elements of this republican budget. with that i'd yield back to the gentleman from south carolina. mr. rice: i yield such time as he may consume to mr. palmer. mr. palmer: thank you, mr. rice. if we want to accelerate growth in u.s. manufacturing, we need to focus on major regulatory reform. my friend from south carolina has it exactly right. section 810 of the budget resolution points out that regulations are costing our economy over $2 trillion per year. that's about $15,000 per household. just during the obama administration, that burden has increased by $494 billion with another $ billion on the way -- $88 billion on the way. i regularly talk to business owners who say that the regulatory burden has become so onerous they can't 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, startups outpaced closings by 100,000 per year. now closings outpace startups by 70,000. these are small to medium sized companies. today the united states ranks 12th, 12th among developed nations in terms of business startup activity. i'm all in for innovation, but innovation does little good unless there's an economic and regulatory environment in which people are able to start and sustain new companies. i 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 back the balance of my time. mr. rice: if you'll look at this final slide, this is, again, the graph of the switchover in 2008 or 2009 from more businesses closing than starting and if you want to

reverse that trend, you'll adopt this republican budget. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. rokita: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman's time has expired. mr. ryan is recognized for a minute to close. mr. ryan: first, the slides that go, the 2008 and say, oh, the world collapsed, are like that because the world collapsed. president obama wasn't even in office at that point. you can't cut taxes enough to keep labor here in the -- and the investment here in the united states when you're competing with a country that pays people $1 an 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 businesss? and it's got to be a public-private partnership. those regulations you talk about, those keep us safe. but when you look at a lot of things that many people here mentioned, you can't build a railroad with a tax cut. you cabinet build a highway with a tax cut. you can't spur new growth in these essential technologies with just a tax cut. i grow we need to probably

reduce the corporate tax rate. i stand ready to be with you in order to do that. but you also need these public-private partnerships. you can't cut taxes and get to the moon. even the fracking that's happening now is a public-private partnership that came out of the department of energy that's been 30 years in the making. and we did it because we recognized it takes that public-private partnership. mr. rokita: the gentleman's time has expired. i thank the gentleman. the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by mr. ryan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. a recorded vote is requested. the clerk will call the roll. mr. rokita: no. mr. garrett: no. mr. cole: no. mr. mcclintock: no. mrs. black: no.

mr. woodall: no. mr. rice: no. mr. stutzman: no. mr. sanford: no. womewome no. -- mr. womack: no. mr. mooney: no. mr. grothman: no. mr. palmer: no.

mr. moolenaar: no. wevtwevt -- mr. westerman: no. mr. buchanan: no. mr. van hollen: aye. mr. yarmuth: aye. mr. pascrell: aye. mr. ryan: aye. ms. moore: aye. ms. castor: aye. mr. mcdermott: aye. ms. lee: aye. mr. pocan: aye. ms. lujan grisham: aye. mrs. dingell: aye. mr. lujan: aye. mr. norcross: aye.

mr. moulton: aye. mr. price: no. mr. rokita: how is mr. sanford recorded? the clerk: mr. sanford is recorded as no. mr. rokita: thank you. are there any members wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the clerk shall report. the clerk: mr. chairman, on that the ayes are 14 and the noes are 18. mr. rokita: the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed. to are there further amendments? -- are there further amendments? >> i have an amendment at the desk. mr. rokita: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 14 offered by mr. lieu, expressing a sense of the house on the consumer financial protection bureau. mr. rokita: mr. lieu is

recognized for six minutes. mr. lujan: thank you, mr. chair. i -- mr. lieu: thank you, mr. chair. i offer this amendment because we cannot have a weak consumer financial protection bureau. 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 on the 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 then they would sell them upstream to other wall street companies such as bear stearns and lehman brothers and those companies would just be wreckless and greedy enough to buy the loans, they're why they no longer exist. 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 can regulate themselves, i was wrong. and he apologized to the american people. 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 it 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.

lie mr. lee: let me first thank the gentleman for -- ms. lee: let me first thank the gentleman for yielding and say how important this is. 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, hardworking families are still recovering from the wrecklessness and the agreed of wall street that led to our financial cry sills. now, let me explain -- crisis. now, let me explain something in terms of how this great recession hit african-americans, latinos and asian americans particularly hard. millions lost 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-americans' net worth is about seven cents to a dollar in terms of white americans. and this was all as a result of the agreed of wall street. 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 grea recession. we need oversight agencies that protect our consumers and their finances. and so wove got to continue to protect -- we've got to continue to protect consumers through the consumer financial bureau, protection bureau, and support dodd-frank reforms to avoid another crisis. i don't know if any of you felt the crisis and if your constituents lost all of their equity in their homes, i don't know if you all really understand what took place in communities of color, but let me tell you we need this consumer financial 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, egscuse me, has been -- excuse me, has been lost as a result of this in communities of color. thank you and want to thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. lieu: let me give you some numbers as to how effective with bureau has been already. as of march 2015, it's received 558,000 complaints. it has helped over 15 million consumers, returning more than $5.3 billion back to consumers. and in addition, because of the continuing fraud of many institutions civil penalties amounting to millions. this is a bureau that is effective, is protecting consumers and we absolutely

need to strengthen it and make sure that our nation never again faces what happened to us just a few years ago. with that i yield back the balance of my time. mr. rokita: roke the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. i thank the gentleman. mr. garrett of new jersey is recognized for seven minutes in response. mr. garrett: thank you. in a moment i'll yield to mr. stutzman and then mr. mcclintock. i think we can agree on both sides of the aisle, we're concerned about consumer protection and i do not know if you know how many people in our neck of the woods suffered because of the crisis of 2008, how many people in our area suffered because of the crisis and the failures in the markets during that period of 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 is the cfpb accountable to? who are they answerable to? when the cfpb, as you said in your legislation, here comes up with a new mortgage product and requires that they be sold in

the marketplace, who are they answering to? under the dodd-frank and the creation of the cfpb, they separated consumer protection from prudential regulation. and so now when the cfpb passes a rule that says a certain product has to be sold, that weanings the underlying institution that sells that product to our consumers and that means the institution will not be there when they need that who is the cfpb in answer to? and when the cfpb puts limitations on financial institutions saying consume no longer have a choice and are limited in their choices as to what they can buy who are they answerable to? and when the cfpb comes up with other regulations and restrictions in such that they -- your consumers in your district and my district can no longer get the mortgage products that they want, 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 the cfpb engages in

racial discrimination in their hiring practices, as we've heard in multiple hearings, 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 engage in spending money on office buildings without any limitation, and with asked them that question, can they spend whatever they want to, and they answered yes, who are they answerable to? let's look at what your legislation says. it says the bureau's role relies on the federal reserve operation to give independence from efforts to interfere with that mission. basically what you're saying is, you don't want them to be answerable to anybody. we asked them that question. are they answerable to the president? no. are they answerable to the senate? they said no. are they answerable to you? had who are elected to be overseeing of them? they said no. we asked them, are they answerable to the g.a.o.? they said no. i asked them, are they answerable to anybody else, to the federal reserve, where the money comes through? they said no. i said are they answerable to

anyone, are they accountable to anybody else, to commissioners elsewhere? their answer is no. so newer favor of abdicating your responsibility as elected officials, creating an entity 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 a regulator that combine consumer protection with prudential regulations and do it in a thoughtful way that is are answerable to us, the representatives. with that i will yield now to mr. stutzman for a little under two minutes. a minute and 40. mr. stutzman: thank you to the gentleman from new jersey. thank you for your comments. we of course serve on the financial services committee together. and hear what the cfpb has been up to and what -- of course they don't share everything that they've been up to. 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 everyday lives and their frustration with washington, d.c. is so high, but where do they point the finger to? they don't understand what all the cfpb's damage has caused all of us. we don't even, as members of congress, we don't even understand the daniel 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 financial services, 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, we survived wars, world war i, world war ii, we survived the depression, we even survived the civil war. but we don't know if we're going to survive dodd-frank. that's the sort of impact that this legislation is having on businesses throughout the country. so with that -- mr. garrett: i yield to mr. mcclintock. mr. mcclintock: we hear that the financial crisis of 2008 was because of a lack of regulation. exactly the opposite is true. government regulations specifically the act compels lendsers to make loans to people who couldn't possibly pay them back and then we shifted the losses of these risky loans to taxpayers by fannie mae and freddie mac. this created a financial house of cards that collapsed catastrophically. my colleagues talk about wall street agreed. of course it was wall street agreed.

government told wall street, you reap the profits and we'll get fannie mae and freddie mac to stick taxpayers with your losses. they took us up on that and then my colleagues are shocked that they did. it used to be that if a bank made a bad loan, they ate the loss. and they went away sadder but wiser. and if a homebuyer took out a bad loan, they lost the collateral and they went away sadder but wiser, but in either 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 borrows areowers are free to negotiate their own terms analyze their own risk and make their own decisions with their own money we institutionalized every follow thatty that led to the collapse by adopting -- folly that led to the collapse by adopting dodd-frank. this is the definition of insanity. doing the same thing and expecting a different result. this budget starts to move us back toward the sensible mechanism of a free market. i yield back.

mr. rokita: does the gentleman yield back? the gentleman yields back. mr. lew, you're recognized -- mr. lieu, you're recognized. mr. lieu: the cfpb is answerable to congress, the same way any independent agency is answerable to congress. if we don't like something that an agency does, we can pass a law reversing it. so if you don't like something the cfpb does in a proposed order or an order, you can pass a law reversing it. there are multiple independent agencies that are in existence, it's not as if this is a new concept. but there's been a lot of rhetoric -- will the gentleman yield on that? isn't -- mr. garrett: will the gentleman yield on that? isn't this an entity that does not have commissioners on it? >> will the gentleman yield? listen i'm on the financial services committee too.

ms. moore: the cfpb -- mr. lieu: i yield. ms. moore: thank you. you know, it's accountables it independent, which should not be subjected to the appropriations process it has dealt with balloon payments, predatory loans excessive fees and points, negative amateurization and interest-only payments. mr. rokita: the gentleman's time has expired. thank you. i thank the gentleman. ms. moore: he consumed his time. mr. rokita: the question son agreeing to the amendment offered by mr. lieu -- question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by mr. lieu. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. a recorded vote is requested. the clerk will call the roll. no. mr. garrett: no.

mr. cole: no. mr. mcclintock: no. mrs. black: no. mr. woodall: no. mrs. blackburn: -- mrs. hartzler: no. mr. rice: no. mr. stutzman: no. mr. sanford: no. mr. womack: no. mr. brat: no. mr. blum: no. mr. mooney: no. mr. grothman: no. mr. palmer: no.

mr. moolenaar: no. mr. westerman: no. mr. buchanan: no. mr. van hollen: aye. mr. yarmuth: aye. mr. pascrell: aye. mr. ryan: aye. ms. moore: aye. ms. castor: aye. mr. mcdermott: aye. ms. lee: aye. mr. pocan: aye. ms. lujan grisham: aye. mrs. dingell: aye. mr. lieu: aye.

mr. norcross: aye. mr. moulton: aye. mrs. blackburn: no. mr. price: no. mr. rokita: are there any members wishing to vote or change their vote? hearing none the clerk shall relationship. the clerk: mr. chairman, on that vote the ayes are 14 and the noes are 21. mr. rokita: the noes have. it the amendment is not agreed to -- have it. the amendment is not agreed to. we're now about to move into tier two amendments as agreed to by the majority and minority. and further agreed to by the majority and 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 a one-minute time for

close. are there any amendments? this amendment is number 15? offered by ms. lujan grich am. the clerk: amendment number 15 offered by ms. lujan grich am relating to medicare. mr. rokita: the gentlelady is recognizes to --ed for two minutes. ms. lujan grisham: thank you mr. chairman. i've already spoken a 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 a.c.a. 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 and began the process of closing the prescription drug doughnut hole 9.4 million medicare beneficiaries have saved an average of $1,598 each. these savings will continue to grow over the next seller years and are expected -- several years and are expected to reach $2,000 per beneficiary by 2022. lastly, the budget would eliminate the affordable care act protections for up to 120 million americans livinging with pre-existing conditions. the provisions that would re-open the prescription drug doughnut hole restrict access to preventive care and allow discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, age rating and particularly hurt our nation's seniors. my opening statement i said that the poverty rate for americans age 65 and older was about 9%. and that's true. but it doesn't quite tell the whole story. the u.s. census releases a second poverty measure called

the supplemental poverty measure. this measure of poverty accounts for several nondiscretionary economic expenditures including out-of-pocket health care expenses. if you take into account these expenses, the poverty rate among older americans increases to 15%. over the next several decades, if these out-of-pocket cost anincreases as they're projected, to poverty is likely to increase because these health expenses are not optional. you know what else are considered nondiscretionary out-of-pocket expenses? taxes. that's why i see the republican budget not merely as a collection of devastating cuts, but as an imposition of new taxes on the most vulnerable americans. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. rokita: the gentlelady's time has expired. i thank the gentlelady. mrs. black, you're recognized for three minutes. mrs. black: thank you, mr. chairman. there's that little saying, now the rest of the story. the doughnut hole provision of the new health care law has the affect of raising drug prices.

so there are a lot of statistics here, but what we don't see in this statistic is what our former chairman chairman ryan, requested an analysis of, a specific provision from c.b.o., and c.b.o. confirmed that these new requirements will drive up health care costs at odds with the claims that are being at odds with the claims that are being made. the letter to chairman ryan specifies that manufacturers have an incentive to raise drug prices and as a result, health care costs will increase for seniors and for those who are uninsured. let me read you a couple highlights from the letter. "the increase in prices would make federal costs for medicare's drug benefits and the cost-based spy some beneficiary slightly higher than they would be in the absence of those provisions. the legislation also proposes an annual fee on