. 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 manufacturers and

importers of the brand-name drug." cbo expects that the fee will probably increase the price of drugs purchased through medicare and the prices of the newly introduced drugs purchased through medicaid and other federal programs by about 1%. those increases will be in addition to those described above. 1% doesn't sound like a lot, but when we are talking about medications that our seniors need and in many cases are costly, just 1% is significant to them. it may be so significant that they need to make that decision about whether they have the dollars for it or whether they just decide not to take their medication. in other words the health care law spent billions of dollars on the provision that will increase drug cost for all seniors.

with this being said, i urge a no vote on this amendment. i yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back. >> i appreciate that my colleague highlighted the cbo letter and identified that they said a slight increase of about 1%. it also mentioned in that same letter that it would be recouped not by the beneficiary but as the drug manufacturers were negotiating for premium status. prescription drug companies continue to be the most profitable companies in america. the proposal, then, is instead of managing any increase in cost let's go back to the current way, which removes prescription drug protections for seniors. if you want to talk about an increase in cost, let's go back to the days when seniors were purchasing one pill because they

can't afford the whole prescription and are in the hospital, costing medicare thousands of dollars and costing the lives of the people that we love. i urge my colleagues to vote yes. it is shortsighted and completely inappropriate to provide less access to the beneficiaries who now have health care coverage. i yield back. >> the question is on agreeing to the amendment. all those in favor, say i. -- say aye. in the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. a recorded vote is requested. the clerk will call the role. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no.

>> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no.

>> no. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye.

>> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> are there any members wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, the clerk shall report. >> on that vote, the ayes are 14 in the nos are 22. >> the amendment is not agree to. >> this is amendment 17. the staff will distribute copies. >> amendment number 17 offered by mr. van hollen relating to social security. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment is straightforward. the budget resolution presented by our republican colleagues has

some language to establish a process that could fast-track social security proposals that could privatize social security cuts, social security benefits. what this legislation does is recognized that social security is a program that benefits more than 59 million americans currently, that has more americans -- that as more americans do not have access to benefit plans, social security benefits become even more important than they were before. it says very simply that we should not be cutting social security benefits. i yield a time to my colleague from new jersey. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i support the amendment and i am disappointed that this budget resolution seeks to manufacture a crisis in the social security disability trust fund by prohibiting transfers. social security is critical lifeline for the elderly and the

disabled. they are not an entitlement. you pay in over your lifetime. they are not in crisis. they do not add to our debt. i am proud to cosponsor the social security act that extends solvency beyond the 75 year window and increases benefits. does all this without raising the time and age reducing -- or privatization which i will never vote for. i yield back. >> thank you. >> the gentleman yields back. >> i thank the gentleman and i think both my colleagues from maryland and from new jersey for their opinion on this. but i think is important to remember is that what this republican budget does is recognizing that doing nothing ensures cuts within social

security. i think it is also important to recognize that it is part of a bipartisan commission so folks of all political perspectives can come together and look at ways in which we preserve social security for the long run. i think it is equally important to remember that we operate on a unified budget and as a consequence what matters in these trust funds are cash flow -- for instance, by 2040, -- excuse me, by 2020, they will be running shortfalls of $254 billion. that means and assets you set up a generational war between young folks and older on where cash gets distributed within the congress. i think that is awfully important. finally, what this budget is attempting to do in firewall and disability is awfully important because what the president is doing with his budget is borrowing from peter to pay for paul.

problems generally grow worse with time -- when you are in a hole quit digging. but that is what the president's budget does. that borrows from the survivors portion to bail out disability in the short run but causes ultimately the longer run life of those trust funds to run shorter. it also does not ask for reform which i think is important. when money was moved back in 1994 there was a cut off to folks with alcohol or drug addictions. what the president has made clear is that they want none of those caveats in transfers that might be contemplated. what it might do in the minute i have remaining is yield to either of my colleagues if they might have additional comment. >> thank you. one of the reasons the disability program is running out of money is that the

disability has been increasing at an financial rate. another reason is that disabled americans are getting back on their feet despite the fact that they are supposed to be in a 3-d review -- a three year review. as a result of social security administration's inability to supervise judges, there is $2 billion waste that was designed to protect the truly disabled. the 2013, the gao uncovered $1.3 billion. in the same year, cbs reported that there were areas were 10%-15% were on disability income. it is not just diagnosis that is driving this -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. if you look at the report from the social security trustees,

they treat the trust fund as a combined trust fund and they always have, which is why presidents on a bipartisan basis have fixed the shortfall in one fund or another exactly the same way that president obama is proposing to deal with. that was done by president nixon, by president reagan, as well as clinton and carter. to create an artificial crisis at this point doesn't make sense. finally, there are lots of proposals out there to actually extend the solvency of social security. on was introduced today by congressman john larson from connecticut, which actually takes the cap off with respect to social security payments at the higher end of the income scale. there are lots of ideas out there. we heard the debate today that immigration reform would help sustain social security. there are lots of positive ideas but an expedited process doesn't make sense. >> the question is agreement on

the amendment. the no's habit. the clerk will call the role. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no.

>> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye.

>> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no.

>> no. >> any member wish to change their vote? the clerk will report. >> the ayes are 14 into the nos are 21. >> the next amendment is number 18. >> amendment number 18 is offered by ms. castor relating to transportation infrastructure. >> the republican budget would have a devastating impact on our ability to fund transportation and infrastructure in america . i listened very closely to your question of the budget staff. they said they have no plan and

the problem is we are facing another cliff for the highway trust fund. highway transit system, air force and seaports drive economic growth. in this global economy, the countries with modern transportation networks will compete best and grow. the jobs often pay higher wages. in fact, the american society of civil engineers asked that -- maybe this is a bipartisan agreement we can agree on. the president proposed a detailed, six-year plan. you may not like how we funded it but at least he did it. the republican budget will send a ripple of fear and concern across his country because we are facing a cliff. the republicans have no plan on the table in their budget demonstrates that. i urge you to adopt by amendment and reject the republican cuts. let's focus on lifting wages in

america in the modern transportation network. >> the american society of civil engineers have given us a d+ on infrastructure. 16% of bridges are old enough to be eligible for medicare, although maybe we will change that in the budget. we need investment and a good paying job. we need to rebuild our comforting -- our crumbling is structure -- infrastructure. >> we do need to restore the crumbling in structure in our system with reliable transportation. it is important to families, to businesses, to the economic growth of the country. the question is how do we facilitate that? for one thing we need to reassert fiscal response ability on the federal government on how

they handle the matters. secondly, we have to restore some degree of flexibility to the state. no one knows better how to maintain the roads and bridges in your backyards that your local elected officials. we should move away from the system where we always have to go to washington to make repairs. i think the people in new jersey are in the best position to do so. perhaps the folks on the other side of the aisle don't have as much faith on their local officials. that is why i oppose your amendment and the yield one minute. >> i think my friend from new jersey. i serve on the transportation committee and i care deeply about this issue. i love the user fee that we have in place today and i am really can learn about breaking that social contract that we have had

placed very many years. i hope the transportation committee will be able to find a way to keep that user fee in place. it is so easy to always go somewhere else, to look for the tax revenue. roads and bridges are something we are all investigating on a very individual level. back home, i don't want to take the chance of breaking that connection that folks hold dear. i would also add that the testimony in the last week with the national league of cities where they said -- it is crazy that this process doesn't take 18 months to get roads approved -- it can take six years, seven years, eight years. it is an open question whether we have enough money or whether we are not adding that money wisely. six years of delay is six years of expense that drains those transportation costs. i would argue it breaks the

contract we have with the men and women who send us the dollars. >> i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. >> transportation infrastructure is so important to my republican colleagues and you have to show it. if you like the user fee, put it in the budget. happens is your budget does nothing to address crumbling infrastructure. meanwhile, the president put forward a detailed plan to make significant investment in repairing in modernizing infrastructure by closing loopholes that allow you as companies to shift profits and jobs. house republican budgets lack any plan, any plan to address the looming insolvency of the highway trust fund.

it establishes a phantom fund and that is not good enough for america. i yield back. >> all those in favor will say aye. opposed no. in the opinion of the chair, the nos habit. i will say that be ayes are much more vocal. we recorded vote is ordered and the clerk will call the role. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no.

>> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye.

>> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> no. >> all members voted -- does any

member wish to change their vote? >> on the vote, the ayes are 14 and the nos are 22. >> the amendment is not adopted. >> amendment number 19, offered by this more, relating to the -- offered by thisms. moore. >> i am so glad to offer this amendment. the earned income tax credit was enacted in 1975 by republican presidents lord, expanded by republican hero ronald reagan, it is a good welfare reform program that encourages work. you can't get this refundable tax credit without working. people attribute the 1996 "s

uccess" of the welfare program but it was the cause of the earned income tax credit. it reinforces labor force attachment and even promotes average, -- promotes marriage. i would yield time to barbara lee. >> thank you very much. i want to thank my colleagues for yielding and for continuing to keep hope alive in terms of trying to get some bipartisan support for her amendments. this amendment is important because both republicans and democrats have seen this as one of the most effective antipoverty programs. nevertheless, under current law, childless workers are the only people who can be taxed into your deeper into poverty. increasing the maximum credit amount and expanding the eligible age group to include young adults this amendment would help close that gap and

provide support during their crucial. of adulthood. -- their crucial period of adulthood. it promotes shared prosperity rather than on special tax breaks for corporations. our former chairman supported this -- it is the right thing to do and the right choice for our country. i urge our colleagues to vote for this and thank the gentleman for wisconsin -- from wisconsin. >> the gentleman from california has recognized. >> my colleagues are right that the itc -- the eitc was originated and called the reverse income tax. he also offered an alternative. budget instead of replacing the welfare system, it became one of 92 federal antipoverty programs

that now spend a total of $800 billion a year. let's get it quick lesson in billions -- divided by household, it comes to eight dollars per household. $800 billion averages taxes out of every family, $6,400 per family. let's have more fun with matt. if you remember, 46 million americans are on food stamps. you apply that into all of these welfare programs and that comes to more than $17,000 recipient -- per recipient. rthe eitc would be a good idea if it were replacing this massive welfare state. we could get more money to the poor and remove disincentives that trap people in poverty. alas, that is not the proposal before us.

instead we have another repetition of what we have heard all day. through more money at every problem under the sun. the problem is that it keeps running out of other people's money. >> we are going to go a little bit reluctantly -- when i agreed to contest i thought it would be my good friend from wisconsin. >> remember that. >> we will charge ahead anyway. it is a bad amendment. there are three problems. first, we are broke. the amount we are putting in his more than double over the last 15 years.

to me, when we are broke and you have a program you double you wouldn't update again. -- up it again. secondly, it is a fraud ridden program. the irs estimated a quarter of the payments are fraudulent. in general if you have a program trying to help people and a quarter are fraudulent, you would say that this is not the way we want to go. the final problem is that while it is true it encourages and to her the first dollar, what goes up must come down. it may encourage you to earn that first $5,000 but he soon you get to the point where you have a very high -- >> the gentleman's time -- >> for that reason, it is a bad amendment. >> the gentlelady from wisconsin is recognized for one minute. >> make you so much. -- thank you so much.

the earned income being studied saying the program was wrought with fraud was very flawed, and i don't have enough time to go into it. secondly i brought up the marriage stuff because i knew that would be attractive to you. data are very conclusive that this is something that would help family formation. paul ryan, president obama both have agreed -- they have almost an identical program and approach to expanding the eitc. it is enjoying modern bipartisan support. when we talk about we are broke -- well why don't we look at that trillion dollars a year we spent on oil companies and private jets and offshore stuff instead of a tried, tested anti-poverty program that lift people out of poverty? >> the question is on the

amendment of ms. moore. the nos have it. a rollcall vote is requested. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no.

>> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye.

>> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> no. >> have all members voted? any member wish to change their vote? the clerk will report. >> the ayes are 14 in the nose

are 22. >> the amendment is not adopted. next up is amendment 20. >> amendment 20, relating to student loans. >> thank you. this amendment does two things -- it restores the cuts you make to pell grants, and it makes sure that students can refinance their loans at the lowest available rate. the first part took before tries to get an answer out of your folks on this -- clearly was not one thing you are proud of but you are cutting hell grants. i went to school thanks to pell grants. a lot of our constituents will need it. money shouldn't be the barrier. the second part allows students to be able to refinance their loans.

this should be completely bipartisan, the idea that if you have a 6.6% interest rate you can refinance like you do your home or your car. if we do that we can have money back in the economy. with that i would like to yield time to mr. mcdermott. >> thank you. we have created a class of indentured servants in this country, they are called students. the largest death in this country is student debt. worse than that is that we are making hundred $27 billion a year -- $127 billion a year on interest. you and i are taxing the students $127 billion -- to what purpose? why can't they finance their

loans at 1% above the 10 year treasury note rate? if they did that today they would be getting loans at 2.38% -- that is only fair. i yield my time. >> i recognize mr. stutzman. >> i appreciate the concern about what our young people are facing today. i am not too far away from student loans trying to figure out how to handle education. i would like to mention -- a particular graduate who went on to cnbc and talked about lowering student debts and save the economy a billionaire investor who started out as an entrepreneur and has been very successful. he said one of the things -- the same money when you graduated he used to move out of the house,

talking about spending money student loan money. he spent the money and help to grow. he says rising tuition costs don't help the economy has increasing student purchasing power. college may use the extra cash to build a utter fitness center. this is the problem -- just like the health your situation was the problem when we saw the cost of health care going up. we are seeing the cost of education keep going up and our students are the ones paying for and now taxpayers are on the hook. this is a problem that we need to address outside the government. the government has helped create this problem and i yield to the gentleman from wisconsin. >> i don't have a lot to add but there is one thing that has altered me about hell grants program -- about the upheld grant pell grant program. the problem is it creates one of these programs where if your

parents are middle-class or have an earned average income you don't get any help. it is one of those things where if you are not working, not saving money, your kids get a tell grant- -- a pell grant. another thing i will point out is that when they set up the program they assumed that your parents are going to help out the kids for college, what a lot of parents don't. a lot of parents are you are on your own. the case like that, you have a situation in which the kid with working parents getting nothing, but the kid whose parents save money get the whole hell grant -- pell grant. it is one of those things that penalizes a child of the middle class. furthermore, it is another one of these amendments that cost

more money in a time when we are way broke. instead we have another proposal to spend more money. >> thank you for those 10 seconds. [laughter] we created a class of indentured service and -- servants and i agree. why can't they finance education? >> expiration of the 10 seconds. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. >> thank you. over the next two weeks high school students and their families will hear exciting news of where they are accepted to college. the republican budget cuts pell grants and tax credits -- over time, the republicans can't will -- --cut will dash the hopes of

students across the country. the key is a good job and a good paycheck -- it is shortsighted to yank of this ladder of opportunity for american students -- >> will the gentlelady yield? >> i yield back. >> all those in favor will say aye. opposed, no. the nos have it. a recorded vote is requested. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no.

>> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no.

>> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye.

>> no. >> have all members voted? would anyone wish to change their vote? >> on that boat, the ayes are 14 and the nos are 20. >> the next amendment is 21. the clerk will designate the amendment. >> amendment 21, expressing a sense of house relating to minimum wage. >> the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> several years ago, my brother in the barbecue restaurant business called me. he said to me, you will be happy to know that my wife and i have decided to support all democrats this year. i said, what was your pet any?

he said, i decided if nobody can afford barbecue, it doesn't matter what my tax rate was. he was always leading republican because he was concerned about paying more taxes. this is where the minimum wage argument brings robert to the row. we have an economy based on consumer spending. walmart has finally realized that working for wages where they can't afford to shop at their own stores. we need to raise the minimum wage and by raising the minimum wage we bring more people out of poverty and reduce spending for many of the programs like food stamps and earned income tax credits. this really has a positive impact on the budget. it is the moral thing to do in this budget says that we need to raise the minimum wage.

it does not stipulate a specific dollar amount. as a matter of policy we need to do it. this is great policy with the american worker for hard-working families and i urge the adoption. i yield 30 seconds to barbara lee. >> thank you very much. let me thank the gentleman for yielding. we know too many americans are struggling to find jobs, to not just pay the minimum wage but a living wage. jobs that lift people out of poverty and into the middle class. as our economy continues to recover from this recession wages remain stagnant. if you are so concerned about the amount of spending for our safety net programs, then why not have people get off government assistance -- >> time has expired. i recognize the gentleman from virginia for three minutes. >> thank you.

i will reclaim my time and get back to education, creating a class of indentured servant -- why can't they finance at the end of their educational period? the desire to have a minimum wage at the macro level -- you can look across the world. surely we would like to pay them all $100 an hour but you cannot do that -- why? there is a science called economics. we study this thing -- you have a supply curve and demand curve. they will not demand workers. if you give people a higher wage rate, the science of economics says it is unsafe, the reductionist people who get jobs. in this current economy i don't think you want that. the gentleman brought up the idea that minimum wage can bring

people out of poverty -- that is also false. when i started teaching economics at randolph macon i made $500 a year. today they make $10,000 per year -- how did that happen? they did not set a minimum wage. the increased productivity. if you want help kids in k-12, i encourage everyone to ask seniors in school if they know what a businesses. -- what a business is. it is morally ambiguous whether k-12 teachers teaching business is a good thing. in higher education, many teach that business is a bad thing. we're all trying to lift people up while some people on the other side of the aisle are saying it is a morally bad entity. k-12, we are working on this -- there is a monopoly there. we work very hard on that committee to have asked their mentation so -- on the barbecue

joint, that is good, but so far i am talking theory. go to practice, go to seattle. they are raising their minimum wage. $15 an hour and there have been a number of restaurant closings before the wage went up, just on the announcement. these aren't red state people. the closings have occurred across the city from upscale neighborhoods to gritty pioneer square. advocates of higher minimum wage said businesses would simply pay the mandated wage out of profit. this seems to be the biggest error that is made by people, that there are huge profits that are not there that can be used to pay endless wage rates to

anyone who wants a higher wage. i could go on and on" our seattle friends but there is no margin to pay for a higher wage rate. >> the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. >> the gentleman from virginia has mentioned one of the true red herrings of the economic argument. the fact is that when we allow companies and employers -- and i have been an employer -- to pay people less than the minimum wage, they have to rely on government support, whether it is food stamps or housing subsidies, or eitc or medicaid. we are subsidizing those businesses. if business models rely on people working for them for less than a living wage, those business models are flawed, and we have to take responsibility for making sure that we don't subsidize a whole category of businesses in this country because their business model is flawed.

it is an important amendment. >> all those in favor will say aye, those opposed no. the nos have it. a recorded vote is requested. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no.

>> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> aye.

>> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> no. >> no.

>> have all members voted? any member wish to change their vote? the clerk will report. >> the ayes are 14 and the nos are 21. >> the amendment fails is number 22. >> relating to early childhood development. >> mr. chairman, i feel like how the israelites must have felt when moses brought down the 10 commandments. we haven't been able to change a single word but i will say something about children because jesus said suffer the little children and come to me. this amendment provides money for high-quality preschool, for low income kids and middle-class games.

it provides for maternal infant and early child program and extends into four years. there is overwhelming evidence that these programs work. studies show that voluntary home visits established in the aca lead to lower infant mortality rates, less child abuse, and improve school readiness. if we are not going to invest in children in this country we are in a sad situation. when we are 28th out of 38 industrialized countries in the world in terms of education of four-year-olds, you know we are not preparing for the future. i yield to my colleague. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. mcdermott, for this amendment. i hope we remember through this discussion on this amendment at

the first three years of life are critical to the overall development of our children. that is why this amendment is so important. robust investments are important in early childhood education. our former district director, a brilliant african-american man was a head start graduate. stories like his show that these type of early investments work for our children. the long-term benefits of headstart are clear. african-american children who attend headstart show increase in school success and employment and significant declines in crime, poverty, in substance abuse. cuts in the republican budget have made it harder for us to close -- >> the time has expired. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. >> i think the chairman. as much as i enjoy the proselytizing, i must take exception, especially to the

fact -- to the claim that we don't invest in our children. perhaps i could be one of the most comical of things i have heard tonight. federal government currently supports 45 different programs costing $14.2 billion annually with the sole purpose of supporting or providing early childhood care and education programs for children under the age of five. unfortunately, this approach is built on the premise that compassion is best measured by how much we spend not have affected his programs are. our budget aims to change that. to use as much time as she may consume, i record highs congressman vicky hartzler. >> i appreciate that.

speaking as a mom and a former teacher, this is very important to me, too to care for our children and make sure they get the highest quality education possible. it is my colleague pointed out we are already investing in 45 different programs. this is just a partial list -- headstart, childcare and developmental, individuals with disabilities education act idea preschool grants, elementary and secondary -- education for homeless children and youth childcare access -- we are already at the federal level investing at a very high level. i guess the question is, like the gentleman said, what is the effectiveness of it? i would ask for the constitutionality of.

visit the federal government's role to make universal preschool all across this country or does the constitution say that she be best left up to the state and local governments? i think our budget adequately support at the federal level our kids and i think it should be a priority at our state and local level, and with that i oppose the amendment and yelled back. >> dr. mcdermott is recognized for one minute. >> since we're supposed to have our credentials -- i am a child psychiatrist. there used to be a television, and air filter. they say you pay me now or you pay me later -- if you don't invest in these kids, you are going to see them at the juvenile detention centers, in the prison. you are going to pay for them.

it is much -- it makes much more sense to deal with a kid when he is young, when he is two, three years old. help the new mother who doesn't have anyone around to tell her how to be a mother. to stop child abuse and all the things that happen to kids that lead to these other parts of their lives. you could see kids marching down the lines if they didn't have support services. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the chair says the nose haven't -- the no's have it. >> mr. ikea -- mr. garrett.

mr. cole question mark --mr. cole? ms. black? this black no --ms. black no. mr. rice? >> no. >> mr. stanford, no. mr. womack, no. mr. brat, no. mr. blum, no.

mr. mooney, no. mr. palmer, no. mr. moolenaar no. mr. westermann, no. mr. van hollen aye. mr. pascrell aye. mr. ryan, aye. ms. moore aye. ms. castor aye. mr. mcdermott aye. ms. lee aye.

ms. lujan gresham aye. mr. rep. rokita:, no. mr. chairman, no. >> have all members voted? >> mr. chairman, on that vote the eyes -- the ayes are 14 and the no's are 22. amendment 23 offered by mr. pascrell. rep. pascrell: i will yield to the ranking member for 45

seconds. >> i think my colleague. this budget is pretty straightforward. it exposes the claim that the republican budget reaches balance in 10 years. as this chart shows, you claim to be at about $30 billion in balance. that would not be the case if you did not have the aca revenues in your budget plus the online care savings -- plus the obamacare savings. and then you say, hey you have reduced the deficit so you were going to get a bonus on top of that. it is all phantom deficit savings as is your bonus claim. this put to rest this claim of balance. >> thank you mr. ranking member. we have heard the word balance used a lot this evening.

i tried to keep a count of every time it was mention but i quickly ran out of fingers and toes. if you look at the numbers you provided, the budget does not indeed balance on paper. once you dig a little deeper, even in this tea party wish list of draconian cuts, it really doesn't balance the budget at all. while calling for the complete repeal of the affordable care act -- how could you do this with a straight face? in revenue increases and medicare savings. when we get to taxes, your budget assumes the revenue remains the same today as current law. however, -- you know better than

i that this doesn't work. >> the gentleman's time has expired. i will yield to the gentleman from south carolina and just a moment. but i do want to note that our friends on the other side of the day is here -- side of the dais here is that they would if they -- if they say it enough it will be true. our budget does repeal all of obamacare, not just because we believe they are bad for the health of the american people which they are, but because they are bad for the health of the economy. the reason that we believe the revenue line is appropriate -- and in fact i think it is probably low but we are not be able to provide a bump up because of progrowth policies -- but we breathe -- but we believe that progrowth policies will increase revenue to the government.

the growth rate over the next two years -- next 10 years is two to 3% which is below the average. if we were just to get to the 40 year average, it would get nearly $2 trillion in revenue. >> just to go through some of these fact -- some of these taxes, we are assuming revenue neutral tax reform. there will be other taxes, i'm sure, that will be done away with. a simpler and fairer taxes to movie put in place. looking at just these taxes under obamacare, the individual mandate that punishes citizens up to 2% of their income for failure to adhere to the strict mandate of the all-powerful federal government to buy a -- to buy an insurance policy

designed just for them. the employer mandate is holding back our economy and hiring and causing our economy to struggle. the 30 hour limit that forces employedrs to move people from full-time to part-time. people lose a lot of their pay and then they are forced to buy an insurance policy designed by the all-powerful federal government with coverage they don't need and high costs that they can't use. the 2% medical device tax which is a great idea, it makes america a whole lot less competitive. a really well thought out tax. it is extremely punitive and is resulting in the loss of thousands and thousands of american jobs. that will be repealed.

and the cadillac tax. the cadillac tax is what you pay if you make a great sin of getting a policy that is better than what our federal government deems necessary for your health care. the federal government knows better than you do. mr. chairman, all of those taxes would be repealed under our budget. rep. pascrell: i love what you said. let me tell you something about the medical device tax. do you know that many of those companies bribe doctors to use their utility? you have no idea. >> gentleman is suspended.

we have been here a long time. rep. pascrell: not long enough. >> the committee has done extremely well but there is no reason to have this denigrate into something -- rep. pascrell: he brought up the medical device tax, not me. >> please, i appeal to my colleagues that we keep this cordial and respectful the remainder of the way. >> mr. chairman, you are a doctor. rep. price: i would -- i have never been brought. pascal rep -- rep. pascrell: those who have been bribed should suffer some kind of

penalty. this budget with phantom revenue that may or may not exist and it assumes $760 billion in nondefense discretionary spending cuts. despite the fact that the republican house of representatives could not even past an appropriations bill with -- rep. price: the gentleman's time has expired. the no's habit -- the no's have it. >> rep. mr. rep.. rokita no. mr. garrett no. mr. cole, no.

mr. mcclintock, no. mr. woodall no. ms. blackburn, no. ms. hartzler, no. mr. wright, no. mr. sanford, no. mr. womack, no. mr. brat, no mr. blum, no. mr. mooney, no. mr. grossman, no mr. palmer, no.

mr. moolenaar, no. mr. westermann, no. mr. buchanan, no. mr. van hollen, aye. mr. yarmouth, aye. mr. pascall -- pascal rep in defense of bribery --rep. pascrell: [indiscernible] >> mr. mcdermott aye. ms. lee aye. ms. lujan grisham aye.

mr. chairman, no. rep. price: have all members voted? a members want to change their vote? >> the aye's are 14 and the no's are 22. amendment number 24 offered by mr. van hollen relating to overseas contingency operations. rep. price: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. representative van hollen: the games that this committee plays

with defense spending -- here is what the committee said last year. it said abuse of the oco adjustment is a backdoor loophole that undermines the integrity of the budget process. the budget committee will recognize the responsibilities in regards to oco and will approve increases our leaders say are needed to carry out operations. that is this committee unanimously. what this budget does is say ignore what the committee told the whole rest of the congress last year. in fact, what we're doing my putting in extra money is

precisely what we said we would not do last year. not only that, but this house went on as part of the national defense authorization bill to codify the regulations in the house version of the bill that says that we should be using these funds in this way. i know our colleagues want to do the right thing will stop this is the wrong way to do it. this undermines the credibility of this committee. this amendment quotes verbatim from the committee report from last year. it simply says that this committee will exercise its oversight responsibilities as we said we would do this year. this undermines the budget process. vote for this amendment if you care about the budget process. rep. price: we will recognize

the gentleman from arkansas. rep. womack: there has been a lot said about the military in this markup over the last several hours. the very fact is that this fund is a structured account designed to provide our war fighters with the funding and equipment necessary to carry out their mission overseas while at the same time providing funds for once they redeployed. pretty timely, i would argue, in light of the fact that we can't seem to make up our mind -- this administration -- about what we're going to do in afghanistan, as one example. we were going to be out of afghanistan, now we're going to slow down the withdrawal. it seems we learned some lessons based on the hasty withdrawal in

iraq. we left a vacuum there and now we had a big mess from baghdad to damascus. the most important reason that we should be approving this amendment is so as not to create restrictions on our military with the increased volatility around the globe. unless someone here can accurately predict what the next threat should be, we should not be tying the hands of our military to give them what they need in a timely fashion so that they can succeed on the battlefield. if we restrict oco what intern we will be doing is restricting our ability to fight overseas and defense security. i have about a minute left so i don't know if my friend from oklahoma wants to make a couple

of comments. >> i want to agree very much with my friend and i want to elaborate a little bit. i would remind our friends of ebola last year which i funded out of oco. isil was not even foreseen. we didn't spend everything we appropriated last year. the mere fact that we have a figure does not mean we will use it. i do think it is a wise thing to do. >> mr. chairman, let me say this to my friend from maryland. perhaps there is a way that we could, through a broader strategy get into a solution for this thing we call sequestration. but this amendment is not the right approach to do that. rep. price: the gentleman from

maryland is recognized for one minute. are presented van hollen -- representative van hollen: this is all about playing games with the budget caps. the president said he wants to increase defense spending by $35 billion. the joint chiefs haven't asked for more money than the president is requesting for overseas contingency. they asked for in their base budget. that is what the president did. that is the straightforward way to do this. you know that. in fact, your budget after fiscal year 2016 breaks the cap for defense spending and under invests in everything else. you do it for nine of the 10 years. give me a break. we should adopt this amendment

and make sure we uphold what credibility the committee has in this area. rep. price: the questions on agreeing to the amendment offered by chris van hollen. the clerk will call a role. >> mr. rep.rokida. mr. garrett no. mr. cole, no. mr. mcclintock -- no. ms. black -- no. mr. woodall -- no. ms. blackburn -- no. ms. hartzler -- no.

mr. sanford -- no. mr. womack -- no. mr. brat -- no. mr. blum -- no mr. mooney -- no.. mr. grossman -- no. mr. palmer -- no. mr. moolenaar -- no. mr. westermann -- no. mr. decanted -- -- mr. buchanan -- no. mr. van hollen -- no. mr. pascrell -- aye.

ms. moore -- aye. ms. castor -- aye. mr. mcdermott -- aye. ms. lee -- aye. ms. lujan grisham -- aye. mr. lieu -- aye. mr. norcross -- aye. mr. rokida- no. mr. chairman -- no. rep. price: is everyone voted? >> the ayes are 14 and the no's are 22.

amendment number 25 relating to overseas contingency operations. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we have been talking about the fact that the republican budget balances on the backs of the most vulnerable despite everything that we heard during our hearings. i'm saddened though not surprised to see that another account that was subject to this committee's oversight, the overseas contingency account appears again in the budget. they included an extra 36 billion over the pentagon's request. that is $36 billion that packed the pockets of defense contractors. last year, many of our colleagues across the aisle agreed with our concern over this slush fund, and that is

what it is. oco is a slush fund and should not be the source or long-term pentagon spending. my amendment would dedicate the savings to our deficit reduction. oco has expanded beyond any reasonable measure of what a contingency fund should be and is a black box with no oversight. with another war on the way in iraq and syria, a war that has yet to be voted on by congress, the oco account continues to grow. in recent years, we have paid most of our wartime operations out of a fun that was supposed to be a small emergency fund. this results in higher levels of waste. once again, we are misleading the american public just like

the previous administration did when they told us there were weapons of mass instruction in iraq. the oco account no longer serves its purpose and it is time to close this loophole. and it is past time to audit the pentagon. rep. price: the gentleman from florida is recognized in opposition. >> at a time when we are seeing the administration having second thoughts about policy in afghanistan, at a time when we's -- when we hear the secretary of state saying he is confounded about venezuelan actions, and on and on, this is not the time to cut the funds that our military is using to fight the enemy. rep. price: presents delete

--ms. lee is recognized. rep. lee: the president and the defense department have provided congress with funding requests that they feel is justified to meet their needs. they fund the operations at a higher level -- funding the operations at a higher level than asked for and from an account without oversight does a disservice to this country and this committee. i hope that members who are serious about wanting deficit reduction, a balanced budget, and accountability in spending will support this amendment. once again, we have to look at auditing the pentagon. i urge an aye vote. rep price all those in favor, say i -- rep. price: all those

in favor say aye. >>mr. rokida? mr. cole? mr. mcclintock, no. ms. black, no. mr. woodall? ms. blackburn -- no. ms. hartzler --no. mr. wright --no. mr. sanford --no. mr. womack --no.

mr. brat -- no. mr. blum -- no. mr. mooney. mr. grossman -- no. mr. palmer -- no. mr. moolenaar- -- no. mr. westermann -- no. mr. buchanan -- no. mr. van hollen -- ? mr. yarmouth -- aye. mr. pascrell - aye . mr. ryan -- aye. ms. moore -- aye. mr. astor -- --ms. castor --

aye. ms. lujan grisham -- aye. mr. lieu -- aye. mr. norcross -- aye. mr. rokida -- no. mr. garrett? mr. cole -- no. mr. woodall -- no. mr. mooney -- no. mr. van hollen -- aye. mr. chairman -- no. rep. price: at all members voted?

does any member wish to change their vote? clerk: the ayes are 14 and the no's are 21. amendment number 26 is relating to long-term care services. >> thank you mr. chairman. we have considered a lot of contentious issues today but this is one that i hope we can all agree on. long-term care is a concern that affects all americans and i know all of us have loved ones that have or will seek the possibility of long-term care and support. as our nation continues to age the demand for long-term care is expected to double in the next 30 years. the fact is, existing programs at huge gaps in access.

in the u.s., the costs of long-term care are covered by a patchwork of insurance, public programs, and family caregivers. the systems are not integrated, difficult to navigate, and are designed for the 20th century. we spend a lot of time talking about medicare and medicaid, but the reality is that neither one is designed to help seniors deal with long-term living. medicare helps patients only for acute episodes and was not as designed -- was not designed for long-term care. it is clear that comprehensive policy changes needed.

this amendment allows but does not require the house to consider a deficit neutral bill on long-term care. this could be a pilot program, a change to medicare or medicaid, or a truly comprehensive solution. this amendment identifies long-term care is a priority for the house. rep. price: the lady's time has expired. rep. black: i would like to remind my friends on the other side that medicare is on an unsustainable path, identified by both the cms actuaries and the cbo. at the current rate, medicare will go bankrupt in 2030. i think it is irresponsible to add any benefit to a program that is not able to afford its current liability.

adding this new benefit without any structural reform guarantees that the program will be insolvent faster than anticipated. as plants compete for senior citizen business, they will be able to provide values for our plans -- for their plans. nothing in our budget will preclude these plans offering these services. we see that in the free market there would be an opportunity for such plans to be offered. we also have seen from several states. under our budget, states would have the flexibility to fit the needs of their population. with state flexibility funds for medicaid, states would be able to do things like long-term care services. we know that 25 state governors

have artie written to the house and senate in january saying, "we are convinced that the states would be provided greater flexibility over the multitude of programs we would be able to better and more efficiently serve the needs of our citizens. "over the past several years, the government has passed laws that restrict the ability of states to innovate." they want the opportunity to offer these kinds of programs. i know this amendment is well-intentioned, but our budget includes reforms that would make these of -- that would make these additional benefits unnecessary. i would encourage my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. i am only going to give my colleague about 45 seconds. rep. blackburn: when ms. black

and i were in the tennessee house and state senate, we did a dual eligible program for our medicare-medicaid eligibles. they wanted to look at at home care. flexibility allowed that program to take place. tennessee saw that problem and they will do the same thing with long-term care. as we free up our states to innovate and as we get rid of some of these mandates and cost. i encourage a no vote. rep. dingell: thank you mr. chairman. rep. grisham: while i appreciate the dual eligible programs in states like tennessee, health care has been under constant litigation and has reduced services.

the issue is, it is expensive. there are 49 million caregivers spending more than $500 billion in care and support. states have the flexibility and they don't take it up because it means years of waiting for medicaid waivers or nursing home bias. nursing home bias is 100,000 per person on average. we could do the right thing here by saving money. average home care is something more like $30,000. rep. price: question is about agreeing to the amendment put forth by this dingell -- by ms. dingell. clerk: mr. garrett? mr. cole -- no.

mr. mcclintock -- no. ms. black -- no. mr. woodall -- no. ms. blackburn -- no. mrs. hartzler -- no. mr. wright -- no. mr. sanford -- no. mr. womack -- no. mr. brett did --mr. brat -- no. mr. blum -- no. mr. mooney -- no. mr. moolenaar -- no.

mr. westermann -- no. mr. buchanan -- no. mr. van hollen -- aye. mr. yarmouth -- aye. mr. pascrell -- aye. mr. ryan -- aye. ms. moore -- aye. ms. castor -- aye. ms. lee -- aye. ms. lujan grisham -- aye. ms. dingell -- aye. mr. leiu -- aye. mr. norcross -- aye.

mr. garrett -- no. mr. chairman -- no. pricerep. price: developers voted -- have all members voted? clerk: the ayes are 14 and the no's are 22. rep. price: the clerk will review them in. -- will introduce the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment would represent the commitment by congress to put people back to work and pay for it by getting rid of tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. we all agree that our nation's transportation system and

infrastructure is the backbone of our economy. infrastructure investment goes well beyond just upgrade to roads and rails. it is about our air traffic control consistent -- air-traffic control system, sewage, and water. and certainly, our electric grid. it took one sniper in california with a high-powered rifle to knock out that grid. we need to stand together. we need to put america back to work. i urge your support in your back my time -- support and yield back my time. rep. price: mr. palmer from arkansas is recognized. rep. palmer: we remember the

american recovery and reinvestment act of 2009. president obama promised that it would rebuild america's roads, rails, and bridges. he said the 830 billion dollar stimulus would improve 6000 miles of rail. do not much was actually spent on infrastructure improvement? according to its own report, it was $30 million, a little over 3%. $783,000 study on why young people consume all liquor. -- consume malt liquor. it helps drive federal outlays for less than $3 trillion in 2008 to $3.5 trillion in 2009 and it added to the interest that we are paying on the debt. when this administration had a chance to pass and

infrastructure bill that would have created thousands of good paying jobs, the president vetoed the keystone xl pipeline. the objective that we have for this budget is to move away from the idea that higher taxes and government spending is what america needs. we need to reduce the size and scope of government and get our fiscal house in order. >> i guess my only further comment would be that if we look at repatriation of funds, one thing and we should be careful about our consequences. a company like boeing would in essence be penalized for being a good corporate citizen while other countries are rewarded with repatriation processes. i would say, secondly, that i think we all in this room would agree on the need to improve our

nation's infrastructure. but as was just pointed out from my colleague from alabama is that the operative question is how. do we look at performance within the system? about a quarter of the highway trust fund drawdown is based on something that doesn't contribute but takes out of the fund. in a skip counting rule should be that those who put in to the pot should take out of the pot. rep. norcross: that is exactly what should we should be talking about, and how we can work together. why we're having this discussion comparing those two things? let's talk about how we can put

americans back to work. there is a need here. we need to pay for it and the only way to prevent it is by fixing it ahead of time. if you are prepared for mass blackouts, then do nothing. i say let's work together and try to get it done. >> let me thank you for this amendment. i think we know that we need strong investments in our nation's infrastructure and transportation to the electrical grid. this republican budget puts us forward. -- puts is no way forward. this amendment is worth supporting. rep. price: all those in favor will say aye.

a recorded vote is requested. clerk: mr. rokida -- no. mr. garrett? mr. cole -- no. mr. mcclintock -- no. ms. black -- no. mr. woodall -- no. ms. blackburn -- no. ms. hartzler -- no. mr. wright -- no. mr. sanford -- no. mr. womack -- no. mr. brat -- no. mr. blum -- no.

mr. mooney -- no. mr. grossman -- no. mr. palmer -- no. mr. moolenaar -- no. mr. westermann -- no. mr. the candidate -- -- mr. buchanan -- no. mr. van hollen -- aye. mr. pascarel -- aye. mr. ryan 0 aye. ms. moore -- aye. mr. mcdermott -- aye. ms. lee -- aye. mr. poecan -- aye.

ms. dingell -- aye. mr. lieu -- aye. mr. norcross -- aye. mr. moulton -- aye. mr. garrett -- no. mr. chairman --no. rep. price: any member was to change their vote? clerk:the amendment is not adopted. the next amendment is amended over 28 -- is amendment number 28. mr. moulton is recognized for two minutes. rep. moulton: my amendment will put forth $10 million over the next two years to help prepare students for jobs in the

competitive 21st century workforce. the demand for skilled workers is increasing. a recent survey said manufacturing executives showed a shortage of qualified workers. they said they had difficulty maintaining production levels. last week, i visited the regional technical high school in my district and discussed the positive impact the classes have had on students, teachers, and the economy. like so many vocational and technical schools across the country, it aims to educate young people for new and emerging occupations. like many vocational schools across the country, limited funding has severely restricted the school's ability to meet growing demand. over the past three years, the school has been forced to accept only 50% of its applicants.

despite the desperate need for financial support, career and technical education funding is still below the 2012 level of $1.1 billion. this is about doing the right thing for our students and children. more importantly, it is about doing the right thing for our economy. it is about investing in america's competitiveness in the global economy. rep. palmer: for the record, i am from alabama. today, the united states spends more than almost every other developed nation, yet continues to trail the nations in education. the federal government was overseeing almost 20 different programs at the price of almost

$40 billion. with all due respect, we don't need increased funding for technical education, but we need to reform the current system and return control to states and localities so they can decide what is best for their own students including deciding on curriculum and crediting. the state should be able to count apprenticeships and nontraditional courses toward accreditation. a report published by the center for american progress stated that apprenticeships can help meet the demand of businesses while offering workers higher employment outcomes. the return -- the evidence for return on investment for apprenticeships is strong. they lead to significant increases in lifetime earnings. i know this from alabama, where

our workforce development program has been ranked among the best in the nation year after year. this year in alabama, for the very first time, we took the top spot in the u.s. for out of your manufacturing. this is -- for automobile manufacturing. raising taxes for a 48 job-training program is not going to do anything. for these reasons, i opposed the. -- i opposed this amendment. rep. moolenaar: i agree with many of your remarks about reform, but i don't believe --re p. moulton: so many of you, my

colleagues and friends, have looked me in the eye and told me how you want to be bipartisan in this committee. if we can't be bipartisan about found it -- about finding our veterans, i don't know where we can begin. frankly i share many of your criticisms about the administration and the current state of the v.a.. given that, i frankly expected you to request more than the president had asked for it is budget. we do need reform at the va, but spent some time there with the veterans were struggling to get the care that they deserve and need, and you will realize that we also need funding. if i can't look unique -- if i can't look you in the eye as a combat veteran and know that you have my back, we will have a serious problem with the future of our volunteer army. rep. price: all those in favor

say aye. the no's have it. clerk: mr. rokida -- no. mr. garrett? mr. diaz-balart -- no. mr. cole -- no. mr. mcclintock -- no. ms. black -- no. mr. woodall -- no. this blackburn -- no. ms. hartzler -- no. mr. wright -- no. mr. sanford -- no. mr. womack -- no. mr. brat -- mr. blum -- no.

mr. mooney -- no. mr. grossman -- no. mr. palmer -- no. mr. moolenaar -- no. mr. westermann -- no. mr. buchanan -- no. mr. van hollen -- aye. mr. yarmouth -- aye. mr. pascrell --aye. mr. ryan -- aye. ms. moore -- aye. ms. castor -- aye. mr. mcdermott -- aye. ms. lee -- aye. mr. polkkane -- aye.

ms. lujan grisham -- aye. ms. dingell -- aye. mr. norcross -- aye. mr. moulton -- aye. mr. garrett -- no. mr. chairman -- no. rep. price: have all members voted? clerk will report. clerk:the ayes are 14 and the no's are 2. rep. price: this time it is in order to call up amendment gop 1. clerk: republican amendment number one offered by representative blackburn.

blackburnn. rep. blackburn: i look at this as a clarifying amendment as to where we are when it comes to our military funding. i have to tell you. being someone that represents a major military post, it is imperative to me that we clarify and send a message to these troops that we are with them and that we are going to find what they need for the readiness, for the redeployment, for their training, and make certain that we take care of their families. this amendment, as the chairman said, is a policy statement. i want to direct your attention to a couple of things that are in it. on the third page, you are going to see after some of the appropriate designations it gets into talking about what defense

readiness and modernization fund is. that provides clarity not only to us but to our colleagues. if we work through going back and trying to get rid of some of the waste, fraud, and abuse in government. address our priorities, which is what our budget is to be about. a statement that allows for funding our priorities. as we talk about dealing with sequestration and dealing with oco, and with all of the funding for the military, then it gives a name to our fund and allows that designation and will thereby allow us to have a path for meeting our obligations in a more transparent manner. and i just appreciate this issue.

read the language. representative van hollen: this does not send the message that you support our troops. this sends the message that you are totally confused about defense spending. i am reading from the amendment. all foreign service chiefs testified that the strategy could not be executed at sequestration levels. that is why the president asked for a $35 billion in defense in his budget. next page, you say that the presidents fiscal 2016 budget irresponsibly ignores current law and requests the budget $38 billion above the cap's. the president asked for a change because the joint chiefs said the sequestration levels were not adequate to meet our defense needs.

in fact, this amendment admits that it is not the president watchful -- president's fall. it says, with no necessary statutory change, yet provided by congress, the statute would require limiting national defense to $523 million. how is that the president's fault? that is what we are proposing to do in these amendment. to do the right thing, to lift the defense cap, but also lift the cap to fund our important investments. this amendment is a really good explanation of why the president did exactly what it did. it goes on to say, since we don't really like the caps but we don't want to tell anybody that we are going to change the cap in a straightforward way, we are going to p