is employers still hold all the cards. a fewp bad actor employers can delay a vote by intimidating employees. they already have the phone numbers, emails and home addresses. let's face it, what's more intimidating? getting an email or saying you know where someone lives? the bottom line this isn't about the nlrb rule. this is about a process we see across the country attacking hardworking americans. whether it's through so-called right to work laws or preventing the nlrb from updating the union election process, this is more evidence that the majority party is out to hurt the very hardworking americans who want the ability to form a union. this has a substantial impact on the lives. workers covered by collective bargaining agreement are paid more on average than those not covered and more likely to have health care retirement, and paid leave benefits than nonunion workers. i would strongly urge us to vote against this political maneuvering message. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the gentleman from virginia reserves and has 14 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized and has 17 minutes remaining. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield three minutes to another new member of the committee we've got an almost embarrassment of riches of hardworking new members the gentleman from my neighboring state, wisconsin, mr. growthman, three minutes. mr. grothman: glad to speak one more time on s.j. resolution 8. i'm make two points. again. one of the things we see here is we have new rules which continue a trend and that is you're fundamentally changing the way things have been for 70 years. ok. in the past, unions have done a good job organizing. we have added union representation to things. but one of the things that business wants and america wants is consistency. one more time no big problems for 70 years, we are turning

things fundamentally around. why is that bad? the gentleman from oregon just said this is no big deal because businesses all have lawyers on staff, or whatever. two comments on that. first of all businesses don't all have lawyers on staff. and secondly i think it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how business works and why it's so difficult to go in business today and why it particularly targets small business when you come with new regulations. this would be a problem even for a big company that did have a lawyer on the staff and say it's no big deal. of course, who is less likely to have lawyer on staff? a small business. who doesn't have full-time h.r. representatives and that sort of thing. this is targeting those small businesses. and again and again and again in this country one thing that bothers me is the degree to which people don't have sympathy for small business. when you change things, they are

the ones who have to go out hire an outside lawyer, get up to speed op things, pay the big legal bills, and pay the price. that's one reason why in certain industries you do see over time big businesses continuing to grow. because little businesses can't keep up with all the little rules. i'll remind people one more time that this invades employee privacy. it's something they are not asking for. there's no reason for outside groups to be able to get somebody's home address or that sort of thing. but in any event, i really think -dirble' ask the other people present in the room to go back home and ask particularly their small employers when they have to run for -- run to a lawyer -- first of all, if they ask their small employers whether or not they have a lawyer on staff, because i think the vast majority of businesses in this country don't have lawyer on

staff. and secondly, whether they do or don't have a lawyer on staff, if they have to go run -- go run to a lawyer whether they think it's a big deal. now i yield the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from minnesota mr. ellison, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for two minutes. mr. ellison: i thank the gentleman for the time. i'd like to point out that i think the people who promote this piece of legislation and the people who oppose it basically take their positions for the same reason. and that is that labor unions improve wages, make better working conditions, promote job security, and give strength in numbers. we oppose and support this bill for the same reason. some people want to see workers get more pay. we have seen stagnant wages. and some people think that when workers make more money, it just hurts corporate profitability. which by the way is up. it has been increasing. the point is simply this.

the nlrb does its job and modernizes union elections. it proposes a rule. the republican majority comes in and says we don't like that because that might lead to more union elections and it may lead to more unionized workers, and we like it how it is. we like flat and declining wages. we want the employers to have all the poyer. we want the workers to be alone and on their own and without the strength that the numbers that a union provides. it's simple as that. so americans watching this debate today have yet another opportunity to see who is on their side and who is not. american workers get more money and get paid better when they are in unions. collective bargaining strengthens family budgets because it means that workers can say you know what that's unsafe. you know what, you're making plenty of monny, so should we. you know what? we need to have some job security in a union contract

around here an that's why we see the opposition to this nlrb rule. so it's disappointing. i think president obama was right when he said the number one problem facing the united states today is income inequality. that is the concentration of riches at the top and the stagnation for wages for everybody else. if that is the problem, then we need to do something about it. that means modernizing the right to collectively bargain. and i will say modernizing union elections is the thing that will help us achieve that equality. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: mr. speaker i intend to reserve my last speakers, i have just been informed, will not make it to the floor. i will be our last speaker and i'll reserve until -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. norcross, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. norcross: thank you. thank you, mr. speaker. certainly thank the ranking member. it's incredible. we are in this great hall of democracy, the world looks to this very building, for what it seeks is to give people a voice. what our country was founded on. and what we are having a vote on today is to clamp down and shut the mouths of those who are seeking to have a voice. very recently there was a poll conducted that said, if given the opportunity 73% of american workers want to have a voice. would vote for a union. what we are hearing today is shutting down the voice. creating predictibility. this is about democracy. this is about what we in america believe in. giving everybody an equal opportunity for a voice. at the nlrb, and i have dealt

with them for over 30 years, we have won some. we have lost some. they have been independent. sometimes i haven't been happy with their decisions, but i always felt they have been fair. but what we are talking about is bringing them into the 21st century. making a voting date that is agreeable to what real people thifment you shouldn't have to wait six months, nine months to go through the appeal process. remember, the employer has had access unfeathered -- unfettered access to all these employees. all we are saying is let's make sure that workers have a voice. they say no, no harm, no fowl. you go home. this is about creating an equal playing field which certainly isn't there. that's why i'm urging my colleagues to vote against this anti-american, anti-democracy, anti-worker resolution. thank you. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia is

recognized. mr. scott: thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. boyle, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. boyle: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank mr. scott. one of the things that made the toth -- 20th century known as the american century was that the united states had the largest middle class in the history of the world. the idea that if you work hard, play by the rules you would get a fair wage and good benefits, and that your children would be even able to do a little bit better than you have been able to do. it wasn't always that way, though in the united states. we can thank to a great extent some of the great advances that we had in the 20th century as far as workers' rights to that of organized labor. without labor unions, we would not have the strength of the middle class today.

it is no accident that in the post-world war ii period when you saw average incomes rise in the 1950's, 1960's 1970's, you saw average incomes rise for workers, sure enough you saw the percentage of the american work force unionized also increase. it is also no accident that as the percentage of the american work force unionized declined, so too, did average wages. to the point where we are today where we have had a 20-year period in which the middle class wages are stagnant, in which the working class is actually falling behind, and no surprise, we actually have the lowest percentage of the work force unionized today in over 70 years. . mr. speaker, let's stand up for the middle class. let's stand up for our workers. let us reject this anti-labor anti-union, anti-worker measure and let's start fighting and

working for those who are working for america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: thank you. is the chairman prepared to close? mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for thery re-maining time. mr. scott: mr. speaker, the rule that is subject to this resolution creates no substantive change in the law, it just requires that an election be timely. we encourage this 1 -- we have heard this 11-day myth. let me go through about how you get to 11 days. fist of all, the regional office would have to issue a notice of hearing the same day the union filed an election -- the election petition. the hearing would have to be held as soon as possible and last only one day and the regional director would have to issue an opinion the same day. right now, the -- it currently takes a median of 20 dayers in

regional director to issue a decision on the hearing and there's no reason to believe it would be any shorter under this rule. the union would have to waive all its rights to get information in terms of contact lists and things like that and the region would have to schedule the election on the first day possible. the chance that all of that is going to happen to get you down to 11 days is just improbable. we need to, as the administration has indicated, the president is likely to revito his senior advisors would recommend a veto of the legislation. i would look forward to working with the chair of the committee to do what we can to create jobs and increase wages and create safe and -- create safe workplaces so i would hope that the chair would -- we can get together on that rather than waste time on this resolution. mr. chairman, i'd ask unanimous consent that the statement of

administration policy be entered into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. scott: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from minnesota, mr. kline is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. it is always interesting, isn't it, mr. speaker, to listen to the debate and claims that are made, claims that are refuted. and i found a little bit interesting listening to some of the comments on the other side of the aisle that apparently this congressional review act, s.j. 8 action and all those who support it are anti-union, anti-labor anti-worker, and i was a little shocked to hear even anti-american. i'm not called anti-american very often mr. speaker, and i do resent it a little bit but that's the way this debate kind of goes. let's get a couple of things, i think straight.

i know about, everybody can have their opinion, not their facts. there are some things that i think are pretty clear. according to the national labor relations board itself, more than 94% of election os cur in less than 56 days. less than two months, mr. speaker. and the median time is only 38 days. and unions, mr. speaker, win over 60% of those elections. so there is a voice there is a voice. for union organizers, for workers, and for employers. because there's time. there's not a rush. now we just heard some discussion about whether 11 days is probable or -- i think we all agree it's possible maybe it would be 12 or 13 or something like that but it's not in question that you only have seven days under this rule, and this is the rule by the way

this is the rule that we're talking about, the law that's affected is many times think thicker than this. -- many times thicker than this so my colleague was saying if you have a labor lawyer on staff if you're a small to middle sized company you don't, you can't afford that you have seven days to go out and find a lawyer that can help you comply with this rule and with the law, the much thinkinger district of columbia thicker law, seven days. to get through -- to get your position down in writing and then you're stuck with it. and then you could have the election four days later. that's not an opportunity for informed discussion and debate for either the workers or the employers. this is called an ambush

election because it is indeed an ambush. and we heard one of the speakers talk about, well, would you rather have your email, have somebody have your email address or your home address? thunder rule you get it all. mr. speaker clearly there are many instances of intimidation during these exercises and often that intimidation comes from union organizers, not your fellow workers, usually, but outside union organizers that are trying to push this onto the work force. so i'm very pleased to be supporting s.j.res. 8. to provide congressional disapproval. and i'm not surprised, as i mentioned earlier, that the obama administration supports the obama national labor relations board position here. but that doesn't mean it's right. and it doesn't mean we shouldn't be standing up for the voices

that we have heard about for employers and employees so that they can make informed decisions. the nlrb's rule mr. speaker, stifles the right of employers to speak to their employees during organizing campaign cripples the right of workers of the information they need to make a decision, a very important decision about whether or not to join the union or even that union. that's a big decision. and it shouldn't be jammed into 11 days or two weeks. you need the time to be informed to make such a decision. a yes vote on the resolution will help rein in this activist national labor relations board and ensure workers, employers, unions can participate in a fair union election process. is i urge my colleagues to

>> the house approved. if the president were to sign the resolution the regulation would be repealed but the white house has said it will repeal the measure. the house is out tomorrow, next week, they are expected to take up the republican budget plan for 2016. and on the other side of the capitol, the senate approved its budget plan. the vote was along party lines and the house budget committee approving its own budget blueprint for 2016. it would turn medicare into a voucher program the senate budget would not but both would cut medicaid, food stamps. here's some of the debate from yesterday starting with a amendment.

mr. price: you are recognized for six minutes. >> the population of the united states continues to be on the verge of dramatic demographic shifts. since 2002, the number of americans aged 6 and older has increased by 21% and the aging of the baby boom generation will accelerate this growth.

pay more or skimp out on necessary medical care. based on what we know from nonpartisan analyses, there is no evidence that a voucher plan will significantly reduce medicare spending without significantly increasing costs for beneficiaries. my amendment would preserve the medicare guarantee and protects benefits for over 55 million americans. it may be convenient and easy to shift costs on to seniors on a piece of paper. the hard thing to do is to strengthen medicare to improve its essential benefits and help older americans live with the dignity that they deserve. this is what we should be doing. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. price: the gentlelady yields back.

i now recognize for seven minutes, the gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. black. mrs. black: i want to set some things straight to make sure we have the actual facts on the table. so, let's look what the c.b.o. has told us about the medicare program. they tell us that it will be bankrupt by 2030 unless there are significant reforms that are made to the program. second, let's also take a look at our failing trust fund and look at what the affordable care act and the president's rate raiding of medicare to $700 billion out of a fund that was already failing that has only worsened the problem of a fund that is not sustainable. in addition to that, as a proponent of this amendment has alluded to, there are 10,000 baby boomers that are retiring every day that are coming into this program.

we see that a fund that is already failing. it's going to have a significant number of new folks coming into it. so, let's look at what the republicans propose. first of all, i don't understand why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to call this a voucher program. a voucher program is where you give someone money, they then take the money to go out and purchase whatever the product is. this is not a voucher program but a premium support program much like what we have in the work force for those employers who provide insurance. so our plan would allow the recipients choice, which is a really good thing to be able to choose a program that best suits their needs. it then -- the government is a guaranteed program, would then take that subsidy, that payment and actually give it to the

plan. it's very much like medicare part d, which is working. so we know there is a program out there that already is similar to what we are proposing and it has worked and that tells us that this program would also work. i also want to correct something to say we are going to lose medicare as we know it. our plan actually provides for traditional fee-for-service and remains an option forever. but seniors i talk to don't want us to tell them what is best for them. they want to be able to choose and will have a choice between that premium support program or stay intraadditional fee-for-service and they make that decision. this plan has been scored and it does show, the latest report from c.b.o. shows that premium support can actually produce savings to the seniors and also to the federal government. so we're talking about a plan that goes bankrupt in on 2030

and looking at real reform, we know by the congressional budget office, we know this is a program that can work. it does slow the medicare spending and transitions to a new medicare program for future generations. those who are currently in it and those who come to the future have that choice. we also on our program make sure that those who need the most health get that health. those at the lower income will get more support with their premium assistance and those at a higher income will get less at a significantly higher income may get nothing at all to help them because they can afford that themselves. it gives our seniors more freedom and allows competition to come into the market. and any time there is competition, it drives down the costs. that's something that occurs in other programs and will work in this program as well. the real threat, the real threat

to medicare is the guaranteed status quo. we know that by all of the reports that are done, by not doing anything, that is really the largest threat and doing nothing or worse, trying to ration the care threatens the seniors' health security. i would urge my colleagues to look at the true facts of this and urge them to vote no on this amendment. and mr. chairman, i yield back. mr. price: does the gentleman from arkansas wish to speak on this amendment? the gentleman is recognized. >> i would like to thank the gentlelady from tennessee for explaining what is in our budget proposal for medicare and how we are very much concerned about the future of medicare, my

parents are on medicare and we know people who use medicare. and we want to preserve it. and as was just stated, it is due to go bankrupt in 2030. we have to implement changes now or this is going to get worse as we move down the road. it is not a voucher program. and if people choose to stay on the fee-for-service program they can stay on it. why are we afraid to give them the choice and options to choose something different, something that's proven to work, something that's projected to save money and provide more options for seniors, which means more market competition, which means lower prices and better quality? this is a great opportunity that we have to implement the ideas that are in this budget proposal and i hope everyone will give

this a lot of consideration and a lot of positive consideration and we will adopt this. ms. lujan grisham: not only does it affect their economic security and poverty rate will go up but cause health care cost shifts in emergency rooms and hospitals to go up.

their poverty rates will go up and will cause health care cost shifts in emergency rooms and hospitals to go up. this isn't a cost savings at all in the health care system and the reality is that the $700 billion that we referred to in the affordable care act gave it back to beneficiaries. mr. price: question is on the amendment offered by ms. lujan grisham. recorded vote is requested. clerk will call the roll. >> mr. rokita, no. mr. garrett. mr. diaz-balart, no. mr. cole, no. mr. mcclintock, no.

mrs. black, no. mr. woodall? mrs. blackburn, no. mr. stutzman, mr. sanford, no. mr. womack, no. mr. brath, no. mr. blum, no. mr. palmer, no. mr. moolenaar, no. mr. buchanan, no. mr. van hollen, aye. mr. yarmouth, aye.

mr. pascrell? mr. ryan, aye. ms. moore, aye. ms. kaptur, aye. ms. lee, aye. mr. polk and, aye. mrs. dingell, aye. mr. liu, aye. plfer moulton? mr. garrett, no. mr. woodal, no. mr. stutzman? mr. mooney? mr. mooney. mr. pascrell?

mr. mcdermott? mr. moulton? mr. chairman. mr. price: no. have all members voted? all members voted. any member wish to change their votes? if not, the clerk will report the tally. the clerk: the ayes are 20 -- the ayes are 11 and the noes are 20. mr. price: gave me a heart attack. the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. the next amendment is amendment number 5. the clerk will designate the amendment and the staff will distribute the copies. the clerk: amendment number 5 offered by mrs. dingell related to medicaid. mr. price: the gentlelady is recognized for six minutes. mrs. dingell: i'm offering a simple amendment that would reject the cuts to medicaid over 10 years that is contained in the budget resolution we are considering today.

my amendment will ensure that seniors, persons with disabilities and working families do not lose access to critical health care and long-term care services by reversing the cuts to the base medicaid program contained in this resolution. medicaid is the workhorse of our health care system. it's a critical part of the safety net that provides essential health care and long-term care services to 69 million americans. it is not the most glamorous program but it has been very successful in supporting the most vulnerable among us. medicaid beneficiaries include poor children and their families, someone with cerebral palsy or m.s. or autism or a senior who needs help getting dressed in the morning or feeding themselves.

turning medicaid into a block grant, as this budget proposes is not the answer. it does not nothing to reduce health care costs but would shift burdens to the states and would lead to a dramatic cut to health care cut for the 69 million americans who depend on medicaid and imposing a serious financial hardship on them and their families. in fact, the c.b.o. analyzed a similar proposal from then chairman ryan's budget and they concluded that states would likely have to make significant cuts to their program if adopted, and i quote, cutbacks might reduce eligibility for medicaid, fewer services, lower payments to providers or increased cost sharing by

beneficiaries. all of which would reduce access to care. is this really what the american people are asking for? c.b.o. has also estimated turning medicaid into a block grant would results in states dropping between 14 million and 20 million people by the 10th year. is this right when we have seen the uninsured rate has dropped? we cannot afford to take a step backwards right when we are beginning to make so much progress. we also cannot forget the impact these medicaid cuts will have on seniors. seniors and persons with disabilities make up one quarter of the medicaid population and account for 2/3 of the spending. medicaid is the largest payer for long-term care services and support in the united states which most americans will need

at some point in their lives. medicaid pays for nearly half of all long-term care in this country when this program was designed for that purpose. let's protect those. you'll hear from me on that later. we should not be cutting medicaid, which provides such essential services to so many who need it. and i yield back. mr. price: the gentlelady yields back. i'm pleased to have the gentlelady from tennessee be recognized for seven minutes ms. blackburn. mrs. blackburn: i apologize, my mistake. i recognize the gentleman from indiana, mr. rokita, 10 minutes in opposition.

mr. rokita: i hope i'm not out of the vice chairman's job. i appreciate the chairman recognizing me and i appreciate again this issue being brought to the foreflont. i want to address some of the things that have been said so far and make sure that everyone understands that what our budget does, what the flexibility in it does for medicaid is strengthen and preserve it for the future to make sure that those who really and truly need the care get it. because right now, that's not the case. as the gentlewoman alluded to. the current system, the current program is broken and that's an understatement. i want to be clear that this budget that we're proposing intends to spend $3.33 trillion over the next decade on medicaid and other health programs. medicaid spending increases over the 10-year window that this budget assumes.

according to c.b.o., current medicaid, the program is growing at 5% to 6% while the economy grows at 2.3%. this budget simply slows the growth in spending and gives states the flexibility so regardless of the slow growth in spending, they can still meet the needs of those citizens, those constituents, who truly need the care. spending growth at the rate that i just described is simply unsustainable and if it's unsustainable by definition, it's ultimately not going to be

available to anyone. the problem with medicaid is that it just too spends, it's not getting access health care to the patients. it was mentioned repeatedly, access that people need. time and time again we hear of medicaid patients who are unable to find a doctor. patients on medicaid have worst health outcomes than those who have no nurns. and doctors and nurses who want to treat these patients cannot afford their reimbursement rates which could be 70% below what private insurance would pay. the current medicaid system meets larger deficits. states are now spending more on this program than they are on education. something has to be done. when something is this broke the wrong answer is to throw more money at it, expecting a different result. and that's analogous to insanity. medicaid has one of the most highest estimated improper payments.

total spending on medicaid that combines federal and state shares is expected to total $578 billion. over the next 10 years, c.b.o. expects it to be $4.6 trillion. the solution to the medicaid program is not massive spending increases like obamacare proposes. the answer is to put states back in charge of their own medicaid programs and given the power to fit the needs of their populations. there are numerous examples already across the nation where states have used existing albeit limited flexibility found in the current medicaid programs, waiver programs, that have allowed them to achieve these results without increasing their budgets. look at rhode island, hardly a conservative state. our plan gives the flexibility needed for states so they can do frankly what this federal government has failed to do.

and chiefly among them three things. let the government closest to the people determine who actually needs the help that medicaid provides. let's let the states determine what kind of help that looks like. and finally how that help is disbursed and received. i trust the states. i trust our local officials and our local community leaders to come up with a system that they know is best for their community. i yield two minutes totality the gentleman from michigan, mr. moolenaar. mr. moolenaar: thank you very much. and i also want to speak to the issue of flexibility because as a former state legislator, one of the things we observed in our state was the opportunity to innovate. when the medicaid expansion went into effect in michigan, there was tremendous opportunity to

improve the lifestyles, choices and incentivize healthy behaviors. now the state had to go to the federal government for a waiver on that. what we are doing here is saying, let's give states the ultimate flexibility and innovate, according to their unique characteristics. in michigan in the year 2000, we had between 1-8 to 1-9 residents now with the medicaid expansion we have 1-4 citizens on medicaid. as we have noticed across the country, over 30% of physicians are not even accepting new medicaid patients and this is at the same time when federal reimbursement rates for medicaid are being cut across the country. so, it is not a sustainable program. i think what this does puts us on a far better path to innovate and to encourage healthy behaviors and get on a more

sustainable path for the future and i yield back. mr. rokita: i yield the remainder of the time. >> i will be brief and reiterate some of the things that have been said and tell you the experience in my state, not only -- we have not a fourth of the population getting medicaid services but a third of the population getting medicaid services and 30% of them are able-bodied working-age adults. medicaid is not more than k-12 education but higher education. it is a single largest expenditure in our state by far. i was told when i got here that a 3% or 4% growth is considered a cut now i realize that's the way things are perceived up here. this budget makes medicaid

sustainable over the future and i yield back. mr. price: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close. mrs. dingell: i have great respect for the gentleman, especially the gentleman from michigan. but i would say the flexibility that he talks about is exactly what does exist in this program and you're all talking about the amount of money that is being spent is because there is so much need out there and we have a real crisis in this country. every state in the nation has at least one medicaid waiver and over 350 waivers nationwide. states can already decide who they cover, what benefits they provide and how they deliver health care services. if states want to experiment with deficit models, they have the ability to do it. you say that people don't have access to doctors.

but numerous studies have showed that medicaid has improved specifically the landmark medicaid setting in oregon found that people in medicaid were 40% likely to have suffered a decline -- mr. price: the gentlelady's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by mrs. dingell. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mrs. dingell: i ask for a roll call vote. the clerk: mr. rokita, no. mr. garrett. mr. diaz-balart? mr. comb -- mr. cole, no. mr. mcclintock, no. mrs. black, no. mr. woodall, no. ms. blackburn, no. mrs. hartzler, no. mr. rice, no. mr. stutzman? mr. sanford? mr. sanford, no. mr. womack, no. mr. bratt, no. mr. blum, no. mr. mooney? mr. could have man no. mr. palmer, no. mr. moolenaar, no. mr. westerman, no. mr. van hollen, aye. mr. yarmouth, aye. mr. pascrell, aye. mr. ryan, aye. ms. moore, aye. ms. cast tore, aye. mr. mcdermott? ms. lee, aye. mr. pocan, aye. ms. lujan grisham, aye. mr. liu, aye. mr. moulton? mr. moulton? mr. garrett, no. mr. diaz-balart, no.

mr. woodal, no. mr. buchanan, no.

mr. chairman. mr. price: no.

the clerk: mr. chairman, no. mr. price: have all members voted? any member wishing to change their votes? the clerk will report the tally. the clerk: mr. chairman, on that vote, the ayes are 12 and the noes are 20. mr. price: noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. the chair will make afew amounsments we will continue through the remainder of the markup without stopping. we will have a bipartisan meal lunch, supper in the room. and we ask members to partake during the time when they're not participating in debate, to be present for all votes and i apologize for the break we had before, but i think we can finish in good season if we keep rolling through this. at this point, we have amendment number 6 up. the clerk will designate the

amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 by mr. pascrell related to health care coverage. >> i want to thank the gentleman from new jersey for offering this amendment to protect tax credits to keep health coverage affordable for american families. you are always looking out for hard-working families. the affordable care act is working for americans and republicans want to throw another wrench into the mix and eliminate tax credits for families that were able to buy health coverage in the exchanges. this caught my eye because florida families will be the most impacted if the tax credits go away. despite the political opposition at home in the state of florida, we have 1.6 million sign up in the exchange and took the

personal responsibility and signed up and many are finding it affordable. the average premium is $82 per month premium, meaning life and death means better quality of life for their families and i oppose what the republicans are doing in their budget and that is to pull the rug out from under them by saying we are going to repeal the affordable care act and eliminate their tax credits. well, let me say something about nicole peterson, a single mother in my district who got divorced in the past year, you are going to hurt her and her family. she got a plan for her and her three daughters. she receives a credit of 150. what she said is phenomenal for our family and enables me not to be able to afford the policy and helps me to stay healthy and do i go to the doctor or buy groceries.

mr. pascrell: from the date it became law and i don't say it empty-handed, my friends on the other side of the aisle have done everything to repeal it. this is like the prescription drug plan. we lost and you guys won. we went back to our districts and made it work and then we made a commitment, if we ever become the majority we would fill in the doughnut hole, you don't pay premiums and don't get benefits. we were very different, mr. chairman than you were. the house has voted 56 times to repeal the a.c.a. we shouldn't be surprised that your budget assumes that the a.c.a. is appealed. today's markup is an opportunity

to put in real terms what the repeal means. my amendment would restore the a.c.a.'s premium tax credits which helps millions of americans that offset their costs. why are we against this credit but we want to defend the credit for the 1% and to those corporations in this country? i want you to be arguing on behalf of the american people. eight million people received tax credits, next year 15 million people. my home state of new jersey, 254,316 people receive a tax credit worth $306 a month. the budget is a tax hike on every single one of them. repealing the a.c.a. and taking away these tax credits will only reverse the progress that this law has made in expanding affordable and i want you to stand in front of those people

and tell them you know longer have that tax credit and if you have it, we are going to take it away and raise your taxes and hope you vote for me. reaching a low of 12.9%. the uninsured, the uninsured rate for working age adults has dropped from 20.3% to 13.2% since october ever 2013. i think that's progress. maybe you don't consider that progress. i consider that progress. when the a.c.a. marketplace has opened for business, a 3% drop in the uninsured rate. the c.b.o. projects without the a.c.a. there would be 17 million more uninsured people this year and 23 million more next year. and what is your plan to they those people? we are waiting to hear this. i said this afternoon, the

curtain is coming down after two days. this curtain doesn't go up. you have no plan. before the a.c.a., they were paying for plans that provided them coverage they didn't need. and low caps on coverage. americans were denied coverage for pre-existing conditions and insurance companies increased their premiums where they couldn't afford insurance. people were charged more because insurance companies decided they were too old, too sick or even the wrong gender. wow! what do you know about that? you just discovered that? and yet what was my republicans answer? repeal, repeal, repeal, repeal. drill, drill, drill, drill. you think republicans cobbled all the time they tried to undermine the a.c.a., they can't find anything good to say about it.

but then again the budget provides no alternative. we'll get to that. mr. price: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. pascrell: i yield back to you. mr. price: the gentlelady from tennessee, ms. blackburn is recognized. mrs. blackburn: i appreciate that and to my friend across the way there, i hope that mr. pascrell to me in tennessee -- i would love to have him hear the real life stories that has adversely impacted people, individuals. you know, there is a lady down in my district, an accountant. she was in a plan that was

deemed unacceptable by obamacare. you know what her insurance costs went upper month? 700%. she has been adversely impacted. you could also go with me to wayne county and you could talk to employers who will tell you that the impacts of obamacare are very, very real to them. they see them every single day and they want this off the books. you ask what is our plan. let me tell you something. last year, energy and commerce we had 162 different bills. we had 162 different -- no, sir, i will not yield to you. no, sir, i will not. we had 162 different bills that were there as replacement bills for obamacare. some great examples across state lines to open insurance. guess what happens? c.b.o. says they would end there because costs of lower.

when it comes to this issue of subsidy and i will say this, i have to say i'm glad you are looking at what will happen after the case and the decision in the courts because you know that day is coming and you know you are going to see a ruling that will probably not be in your favor. so i give you credit for coming to the table with something, because we got 36 states that didn't set up their own state-run exchanges and you know, you've's got to look at what is going to happen. this is a letter i got from the secretary. and i think this is why insurance is too expensive to afford and why we need to get this off the books. while we are confident in our position, a decision against the administration in the king case would cause massive damage. first millions of people would

lose their health insurance subsidies and therefore would no longer be able to afford health insurance. -- we've got a product too expensive to afford. this is why we need to work together to get the costs of not only health insurance but the delivery of health care, get the cost down and improve the access. that should be a goal that we share. second, without tax subsidies, healthy individuals would be far less likely to purchase health insurance, leaving a disproportionate number of sick individuals and the individual insurance marketplace. now this is from the secretary talking about the plan and you got to have the subsidies because the product is too expensive to afford. so therefore, i think it be loofs us to realize that what

we've got here is the president's law made health insurance more costly by requiring plans to include washington, d.c.determined benefits and levels of coverage, the health insurance exchange subsidies are going to cost taxpayers 1.1 trillion over the next 10 years. it is going to adversely impact the taxpayer because they are paying more. and the subsidies cost a lot more than that however, because americans lose their freedom of choice in the health coverage that they want to purchase. i at this time, want to yield to mrs. black from tennessee for her comments. mrs. black: i thank my colleague for yielding. i want to talk about what i'm hearing in my district. this past saturday i was at a birthday for my graund daughter and one of the grandmothers said this hasn't helped me at

all, even though my premiums are partially paid for me and she is lower-income, single ladies working hard in a factory, and she said this is what is happening for me. the premiums are high, but i do get some assistance with that, but my co-pays are so high that i can't afford to pay my co-pays in order to get the services that i need. she has high blood pressure and diabetes and cannot afford her medications because the co-pays are so hard. what i'm hearing throughout my district consistently is the fact is that i can't use the same doctor i used to and the hospital doesn't accept this form of insurance. i thought i was going into a good program and there are other providers such as maybe

their physical therapist that they no longer use. i would like to be able to say that this was the answer, but it's not the answer. the answer is actually having a more patient-centered program where it's not a washington down program but a program that comes from the communities and up, where there is affordability and accessibility and quality and innovation and choice. right now there is not choice. there are a limited number of programs in these states that they can choose from. their doctor is not on there and hospital is not there. what good is it to have insurance but the insurance is not providing what you need. you can't get your medicines and can't see your doctor or the hospital you are accustomed to. despite this, the reports are saying that even though maybe we have eight million report and another report, 16 million,

but that is adding in some people like the students who are in school that are on their parents, but even despite that the reports are saying we are still going to have 30 million people that are uninsured. we can do better and we can allow this not to be a washington-down program but being one where we put the patients, families and doctors in charge. mr. chairman, i yield back. mr. price: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. pascrell: i'm waiting anxiously to hear the great plan in the sky, i'm waiting to hear the alternatives. my colleagues, for their remarks and recognition for the vast importance of the affordable care act. the reality is that the republican budget would take away affordable health insurance for millions of americans and increase the number of people without health insurance and there is no plan to fix this.

you cite several cases. i'm talking about the millions and millions who have insurance that didn't have it before. everybody's important and don't get me wrong. we never said a.c.a. is a perfect plan. but you said plan b is a perfect plan and of course now, it's closer to perfection because we changed it. until last year, republican efforts to repeal the a.c.a. were in many respects impactful only in the abstract. today, the major coverage expansion has gone into effect. can i finish the sentence. only 20 more words. thank you, mr. chairman. you've been most gracious. now have health insurance because of this law and many of them have premium tax credits that help them afford their insurance. i hope you'll vote for this

amendment. it makes sense. it doesn't take you off your path. mr. price: i hope my charity is not a bad omen for the future. for activity. [laughter] the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by mr. pascrell. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman requests a recorded vote. the clerk will call the role. the clerk: mr. rokita? mr. garrett? mr. garrett, no. mr. garrett, no. mr. price: the gentleman needs to be present. the clerk: mr. garrett, no. mr. diaz-balart, no. mr. cole, no. mr. mcclintock, no.

mrs. black, no. mr. woodall, no. mrs. blackburn, no. ms. hartzler, no. mr. rice, no. mr. stutzman? mr. sanford, no. mr. womack, no. mr. bratt, no. mr. blum, no. mr. mooney, no. mr. gross man, no. -- mr. grothman, no. mr. palmer, no. mr. moolenaar, no. mr. westerman, 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? mr. mcdermott? ms. lee, aye. mr. pocan, aye. ms. lujan grisham, aye. mrs. dingell, aye. mr. lieu, aye. mr. norcross, aye. mr. moulton, aye. mr. rokita? mr. rokita, no. mr. stutzman, no.

mr. chairman. mr. price: no. the clerk: mr. chairman, no. mr. price: have all members voted? any member wish to change their votes? the clerk will report the tallly. 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 supplemental nutrition program. ms. moore: i would yield time. ms. moore: i yield two minutes each to representative barbara lee, representative ryan and representative lujan, respectively in that order.

mr. price: 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. you have to do that. ms. moore: can you wind that clock back to six minutes? we got this straight. so in that order, representative lee, ryan and lujan. i will stop you. [laughter] 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 -- five million 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 tinkering 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 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 while the unemployment rate is very slowly had 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 the noes have it. mrs. ms. moore: i request a roll call. mr. price: clerk will call the roll. the clerk: mr. rokita.

no. mr. garrett, 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. moulton. 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. the clerk: 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. the clerk: amendment number 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 poorer. in 1996 we put that proposition to the test. under president clinton we, in his words, ended welfare as we know it. we set time limits on welfare. we required welfare recipients to look or train for work as a condition of receiving welfare. the left wing of his own party predicted this would drive millions of families into poverty. instead the poverty rate among children in female headed households fell from 55.4% in 1996 to 39.3% 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 -- agreeing 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. the clerk: 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. 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. the clerk: mr. chairman, on that vote the ayes are 12 and the noes are 22. mr. price: the noes have it, the amendment is not agreed the 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 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 -- john yarmuth. 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 mr. norcross. mr. norcross: 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. here we are faced with countless issues standing before us. we heard about cancer and all the 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 important contribution 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, 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. the clerk: 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. the clerk: mr. chairman, on that vote the ayes are 12, the noes are 22. mr. price: the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> today marks the anniversary of the house of representatives being televised. c-span was there when al gore was the first speaker to address the house floor. c-span was created by the cable tv industry and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. coming up tonight, house budget committee ranking member chris van hollen holds the press brief being his opposition to the g.o.p. budget proposal. then the senate budget committee marks up the g.o.p. budget proposal from chairman mike

on thursday, the ranking member of the house chris van hollen and other democratic members voiced their opposition to the budget plan. they held a press conference. it is about half an hour. rep. van hollen: i thank all of you very much for joining us. we're just coming from a meeting that representative kathy caster and representative michelle lujan grisham and i had with many of the organizations that represent americans across the country who are going to be hit hard by the republican budget that passed out of the budget committee this morning. you know, it wasn't that long ago -- in fact, right after the last election -- that speaker boehner and the republican senate leader, mitch mcconnell wrote in an op-ed piece that they were going to start looking out for the middle class. that's what they said. they were worried about wage