, and countless other organizations and interest groups agree that immigration reform is key to our nations huger. -- nature and future. i mentioned this in this amendment to entered his of immigration reform as part of the budget. we should take this opportunity to secure our borders, expand the size of our work force ensure that every individual working here is paying taxes and contributing fully to our society. all while we boost our economy and reduce the deficit. this amendment is the right thing to do. the dire need to address this issue is real. and it has been delayed for far too long. the majority of american people

support reform and i believe we have a moral, economic and national security mandate to act. i now yield as much time as she shall consume to the gentlelady from california, ms. lee. ms. lee: thank you very much. i want to thank the gentleman for yielding and for introducing this amendment. let me remind you, we do have a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill. we've had that legislation since 2013, it has the broad support of the american people. yet once again house republicans have refused to take it up. just last month they could barely pass a homeland security bill to protect our nation thanks to this anti-immigrant, real anti-immigrant sentiment, i would say. comprehensive immigration reform not only is the morally right thing to do, but as the gentleman from kentucky said it's the right thing to do for our economy. last year the congressional budget office found that passing the senate's bipartisan immigration bill would reduce the deficit by $900 billion over the

next two decades. the economic benefits are clear. now's the time to pass a fair immigration plan that reunites families, that helps grow our economy and provides a clear pathway to citizenship. the senate passed immigration reform two years ago. the house should act and i urge passage of this amendment. at least let's get on record in a bipartisan way in this budget on something that makes sense for our economy and for people who deserve to live the american dream here in our own country. i want to thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. yarmuth: i thank the gentlelady and i want to re-emphasize that immigration reform, aside from its humanity, will make a significant positive impact on the budget that we're all so concerned about. if we want to grow the economy if we want to reunite families if we want to reduce deficits, immigration reform is one of the most obvious steps that we can take, right in front of us. let's accept this opportunity and not pass it by. with that i yield back, mr. chairman.

mr. rokita: i thank the gentleman. mrs. blackburn: i want to yield to mr. brat of virginia. mr. brat: thank you very much. immigration reform is good if we reform it in the right way. i think all of us would agree one of the key components has to be securing the border, as a precondition for a broader package of agreements. but i think it's always good to look at the basic -- we're talking about economics here. and why this would be good for the country. it's good to look at why so many folks want to come to the united states of america. it's because we're the wealthiest nation on the earth and if you look back at that, how we get to be that way? it didn't just fall out of heaven. the reason we're the wealthiest nation on the face of the earth is roughly twofold. we have a strong commitment to the rule of law and, secondly, we have a commitment to the free market system. both of those are under severe challenge today in washington, d.c. and around the world.

so if you truly care about the poor, i think the pope came out on this matter this week, if you truly care about the poor, what you would try to do is get the rule of law going across the globe and spreading free markets across the globe. that would be your policy position. instead, last week we had the final conclusion to an illegal unconstitutional amnesty by the president of the united states. so the very reason folks want to come into the country is for the rule of law and our success and we're undermining that at present. the last thing you want to do, if you want to have economic growth in the future. when it comes to costs and economics, love everyone in the world, everyone wants to come into this country because we're a generous nation, but you can just do the basics. one family comes in from south of the border, makes maybe $20,000 a year, that's probably upper-bound. they have two kids in public school, that's $24,000. right? so do the math, make $20,000 costs $24,000, without getting into any other programs. so we need to have a discussion of that. when c.b.o. scores these things,

they score just the federal costs. they skip state and local. you're already negative $4,000 after one program. so, reform is all great. but the basic reform, i'd urge everybody first, before we get ideas of grandeur, is to first of all follow the law within our own country and if we enforce and execute those laws, then everyone can move forward in good faith. with that i'll yield. thank you. mrs. blackburn: i thank the gentleman for yielding back and appreciate his comments and i do oppose mr. yarmuth's amendment. and there are a couple of things here. as the gentleman from virginia said, we need to get it right. we need to be certain that the rule of law is followed. and what we see right now before us is a process where the rule of law is not followed and we have an immigration system that, yes, it is broken, and our laws

are not being enforced and there even has been, in the last few years, this process whereby the administration says, let's enforce that one, but let's not enforce this one. and that picking and choosing and trying to have a situational relevance is not what our constitution and the rule of law is about. so, i think what we need to do is decide that as we approach immigration, it is going to be something that is constitutionally based. and that members of the house will handle this, members of the senate will handle it, it's not going to be delegated to the senate. now, i take a little bit of issue, i don't think the reason to do immigration reform is so that we can add millions of young workers to the payroll, to pay for older workers and retirees. i think that sets up social

security -- i think that's just inappropriate. to talk about it in that regard. that's part of what is broken with social security right now. and that is why social security in and of itself needs to be addressed. and the situation needs to be stabilized. but let's not push that as a part, a reason to do immigration reform. i think that's a little bit unfair. and i will tell you, i think there's a tremendous amount of unfairness that is in the immigration system right now. in my district in tennessee, i have many constituents who have legally immigrated to this country. indeed, earlier this week mr. van hollen and i met with the kurds. i have the largest community of kurds in the country.

that are in my district. our church and others have been bringing them in. to have been accepting them as refugees over -- since the early 1980's. i mean, this is something that our community in nashville has done for quite a period of time. what i hear when i talk to those that are legally immigrating here is that they are very frustrated with what is going on with immigration services. they have people that are working i guess part-time, they're not returning phone calls, they're not processing paperwork. you can't get answers to what is happening unless you call down there and make an inquiry. that is wrong. they are paying their fees and it's taking years to legally process and get permanent residency or get citizenship. all of that is wrong.

and it's not fair. and i tell what you else they don't see as fair. they don't think it's fair to take the fees they are paying and then pay for a program for those that are illegally entering the country. by choice. they really have a problem with that. the money they are paying for fees being used to offset a program that -- for those that are coming in. so let's agree on some things. let's agree the border does need to be secured. we need to find a way to end trafficking. we need to find a way to end illegal entry. and what we need to do is build on a system that is going to be fair to those that are legally immigrating into this -- legally immigrating into this country and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. ? mr. rokita: i thank the gentlelady. mr. yarmuth, you're recognized

to close for one minute. mr. yarmuth: thank you, mr. chairman. what we just heard was seven minutes of reasoning to do -- to approve my amendment. the speakers on the other side talked about rule of law, that we ought to pass a law. that's what this amendment asks us to do. to pass comprehensive immigration reform. not rely on executive actions of the administration. that's what the senate did in 2013, that's what our bipartisan group was working toward last year. and for mrs. blackburn to talk about not having -- not using the rationale that we need more young people to support social security, that's one of the enormous problems we have. we now have fewer people working to support too many beneficiaries. that's exactly what we need. so social security, i mean immigration reform, to get it right we all agree, as i said at the outset, we have enormous problems, mrs. blackburn mentioned some of them. i agree. let's fix them. the senate did that, we can do that in the house as well. let's make it a part of this

budget so we can reap the benefits of a sane, rational and legal immigration system. i yield back. mr. rokita: i thank the gentleman. all time is expired. the gentleman has an amendment. [laughter] tried to sneak it in there. the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by mr. yarmuth. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. mr. yarmuth: i request a recorded vote. mr. rokita: a recorded vote is requested. the clerk will call the roll. mr. rokita: no. mr. garrett: no. mr. cole: no. mr. mcclintock: no.

mr. woodall: no. mrs. blackburn: no. mrs. hartzler: no. mr. rice: no. mr. stutzman: no. mr. sanford: no. mr. womack: no. mr. brat: no. mr. blumenthal: no. mr. mooney: no. mr. grothman: no.

mr. buchanan: no. mr. van hollen: aye. mr. yarmuth: aye. mr. pascrell: in honor of my grandfather and grandmother, yes. aye. mr. ryan: aye. ms. moore: aye. ms. castor: aye. mr. mcdermott: aye. ms. lee: aye. mr. pocan: aye. mrs. dingell: aye. mr. lieu: aye. mr. norcross: aye.

mr. moulton: aye. mrs. black: no. mr. palmer: no. mr. chairman. mr. price: no. mr. rokita: are there any members wishing to vote or change their vote. if not the clerk shall report. the clerk: mr. chairman, on that vote the ayes are 13 and the noes are 21. mr. rokita: the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. are there further amendments? mr. ryan: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. mr. rokita: this is amendment number 13. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 13 offered by mr. ryan relating to manufacturing programs. mr. ryan: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. rokita: mr. ryan is recognized for six minutes.

mr. ryan: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the opportunity to offer this amendment. accelerating growth in u.s. manufacturing. i think this is an issue that i hope that we can establish some bipartisan support for this. manufacturing is critical in the united states. it's critical to our defense industrial brails. -- base. we know that one in seven u.s. private sector jobs depend on u.s. manufacturing. i think there's a general sense in the country that we need to make sure we start making things again in the united states. we cannot have an economy based solely on technology or service. we do need manufactured products. every $1 in sales of manufactured products supports $1.33 in output from other sectors. it's the largest ripple effect that we can get and our nation thrives when we are leading the world in cutting-edge technology in manufacturing. accelerating growth in u.s. manufacturing attracts the kind

of well-paying jobs that will help drive middle class economic security. i think a lot of the discussion today has been, what's that first rung on the economic ladder that somebody can grab? and manufacturing, i believe, is that rung. we talk about these other programs, we talk about suppressed wages and then obviously in this budget the other side does not want to support medicaid expansion, does not want to support credits to help people get health insurance, does not want to support supplemental nutrition, does not want to raise the minimum wage. so i don't think quite frankly there is an economic plan for -- from the other side on how we grow these kind of high-paying jobs. this amendment offers this plan. so this scaling-up manufacturing initiative ensures our nation's ideas and inventions are developed and produced here in the united states. this initiative launches a

public-private investment to help emerging manufacturing technologies reach commercial viability. and startup companies produce goods that they have developed these funds assist entrepreneurial firms to secure capital, to scale from idea to prototype and into full commercialization. manufacturing institutes like the one president obama started transform community into world leading innovation centers. they revitalize american manufacturing and innovation act passed the house with bipartisan support in december, 2014. it authorized manufacturing innovation institutes to come together in a shared network and codifies authority from the department of commerce to coordinate this multiagency initiative. by leveraging the strengths of a particular region, manufacturing institutes bring together companies universities, community colleges and the government to co-invest in the development of world-leading manufacturing technologies and capabilities

that u.s.-based manufacturers can apply in production. this helps develop our manufacturing base. this amendment builds on the success of the first manufacturing innovation institute in youngstown, ohio. the first institute is focused on reducing the cost of 3-d printing, connecting small business with new opportunities and training american workers to master these sophisticated technologies. in its third year of operation the institute has reached -- has research under way that will help accelerate the speed of 3-d printing in metals by a factor of 10. it's partnering to provide over 1,000 schools with access to 3-d printers and has launched new work force training programs that have trained over 7,000 workers in the fundamentals of 3-d printing. in addition to launching new products, and filing new patents from the research already under way, the institute is serving as a magnet for investment in the region.

if you want economic development you need public-private partnerships. you need a strong infrastructure. you need basic investments. and you do need the government to play a role of convening and bringing people together in order to grow certain sectors of the economy. if we don't do this, in manufacturing, cutting edge, we will lose out. the chinese are putting billions of dollars into these technologies. and they're pulling together some very sophisticated operations that will leap frog us in the very, very near future. it's important that our government takes a role. i'd like to yield the balance of my time to the gentlelady from michigan. mrs. dingell: i want to commend the gentleman from ohio for introducing this and telling all that i strongly support this amendment. manufacturing's the backbone of the american economy, it's the backbone of the michigan economy. business and labor working together, we can compete with any

country in the world. but other countries have a government that helps support it. with this we were lucky to get one of these institutes in michigan, you see the innovation coming online. when universities and economic development agencies, suppliers and employees work together, it's what makes this nation successful, it's why investing in this is important, so that we continue to create jobs and we get ourselves back at the forefront of manufacturing in this world. expanding these centers nationwide will build on the success and i hope this amendment is adopted in a bipartisan manner. thank you. >> i agree with a lot of what you say. particularly i agree with the fact that we can compete with anybody else in the world. our businesses can, if only we will get out of the way. our government unfortunately with its outdated, uncompetitive

and burdensome tax code, with our overbearing regulations, stifle economic progress in this country. i think business is telling us very clearly what they want and it's not more government programs. if you look at this slide once again, this is about 35 oecd countries and you see we're on the far right with a red line. the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. if you look at the first 10 or so, they're operating at about half the rate that we are. so what you're telling our american manufacturers is, if you want to continue to operate here, you're going to have to carry double the tax burden. your government costs twice as much if you operate here as if you operated in any one of these other 10 oecd countries. next slide, please. if you look here, this is the small business index. these are manufacturers and

other businesses, small businesses create 70% of the jobs in this country. and if you look at this gallup poll from the fourth quarter of 2014, and you look at the 10 biggest concerns expressed by small business owners, number three, government regulation number four, health care obamacare, number eight, taxes and number nine, government in general. if you add all those up, it's about 30%. it's double the next highest concern, the government standing in the way. we don't need more government programs. if we want our industry to expand, if we want manufacturing to expand, if we want our businesses to employ more american people, instead of our companies deciding, hey, we can't afford to operate in america, we're going to have to

open this division in some other part of the world, we've got to get our government out of the way.a very strong beginning, lays out a policy to do that. revenue-neutral tax reform that simplifies the code and lowers the rates. economists across the board agree that this is a very viable way to make this country more competitive. government regulation, obamacare, listed as the number four concern here. we're stripping that away. government regulation, a c.b.o. study recently found that it costs $10,000 per employee per year for our small businesses to comply with our government regulation. if we expect to -- for manufacturing to come back in this country, if we expect to build new manufacturing in this country, we have got to make ourselves competitive and this budget goes a long way to do that. it does it not by creating new government programs, not by

expanding existing government programs, but getting out of way. at this point i'll yield so much time as he may consume to my friend, mr. sanford. mr. sanford: i thank the gentleman from south carolina. i too concur that the gentleman from ohio is right in the sentiment that we need more in the way of manufacturing but i concur with the gentleman from south carolina in how you get there. the prescription in many ways is very well laid out with the model we've seen in south carolina. south carolina's actually number one in the united states continental united states in direct foreign investment, based on a fairly simple formula. it's based on the right to work it's based on a reasoned regulatory load, it's based on limited government and tax load and good infrastructure. i think it's interesting, there was a plant just this last week, announced that, you have b.m.w., boeing, you have a whole host of other high-tech manufacturing facilities that

have come to south carolina based on that formula. i would also add two other things. one is, it seems to me that more money in a market-based economy is key to having those very industries make the choices in where investment allocation decisions are made, as opposed to those of us in government. and, two, there's a fair amount of, i think, reasoned research that points to the fact that when you get up around 90% debt to g.d.p. numbers, you begin to see a drag on the aggregate economy which in turn impacts manufacturing. it would seem debt load is important. tax load is important. and the fundamentals, if you will, that michael porter talks about in competitive analysis, are also key, all of which we see there in south carolina. all of which we see as contributing to elements of this republican budget. with that i'd yield back to the gentleman from south carolina. mr. rice: i yield such time as he may consume to mr. palmer.

mr. palmer: thank you, mr. rice. if we want to accelerate growth in u.s. manufacturing, we need to focus on major regulatory reform. my friend from south carolina has it exactly right. section 810 of the budget resolution points out that regulations are costing our economy over $2 trillion per year. that's about $15,000 per household. just during the obama administration, that burden has increased by $494 billion with another $88 billion on the way. i regularly talk to business owners who say that the regulatory burden has become so onerous they can't stay in business. during the obama administration, for the first time in 35 years, for the first time since the carter administration, more businesses are closing than starting up. until 2008, startups outpaced closings by 100,000 per year. now closings outpace startups by 70,000. these are small to medium sized companies. today the united states ranks 12th, 12th among developed nations in terms of business

startup activity. i'm all in for innovation, but innovation does little good unless there's an economic and regulatory environment in which people are able to start and sustain new companies. i appreciate mr. ryan's desire to do something to promote manufacturing but this amendment does not address the real challenges faced by u.s. manufacturing. therefore i cannot support this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. rice: if you'll look at this final slide, this is, again, the graph of the switchover in 2008 or 2009 from more businesses closing than starting and if you want to reverse that trend, you'll adopt this republican budget. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. rokita: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman's time has expired. mr. ryan is recognized for a minute to close. mr. ryan: first, the slides that go, the 2008 and say, oh, the world collapsed, are like that because the world collapsed. president obama wasn't even in

office at that point. you can't cut taxes enough to keep labor here in the -- and the investment here in the united states when you're competing with a country that pays people $1 an hour. you can cut taxes all you want. there's no way you're going to be able to compete with that. what i'm talking about here is how do we grow these new businesses? and it's got to be a public-private partnership. those regulations you talk about, those keep us safe. but when you look at a lot of things that many people here mentioned, you can't build a railroad with a tax cut. you cabinet build a highway with a tax cut. you can't spur new growth in these essential technologies with just a tax cut. i agree we need to probably reduce the corporate tax rate. i stand ready to be with you in order to do that. but you also need these public-private partnerships. you can't cut taxes and get to the moon. even the fracking that's happening now is a

public-private partnership that came out of the department of energy that's been 30 years in the making. and we did it because we recognized it takes that public-private partnership. mr. rokita: the gentleman's time has expired. i thank the gentleman. the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by mr. ryan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. a recorded vote is requested. the clerk will call the roll. mr. rokita: no. mr. garrett: no. mr. cole: no. mr. mcclintock: no. mrs. black: no. mr. woodall: no. mr. rice: no.

mr. stutzman: no. mr. sanford: no. mr. womack: no. mr. mooney: no. mr. grothman: no. mr. palmer: no. mr. moolenaar: no. mr. westerman: no. mr. buchanan: no. mr. van hollen: aye. mr. yarmuth: aye.

mr. pascrell: aye. mr. ryan: aye. ms. moore: aye. ms. castor: aye. mr. mcdermott: aye. ms. lee: aye. mr. pocan: aye. ms. lujan grisham: aye. mrs. dingell: aye. mr. lieu: aye. mr. norcross: aye. mr. moulton: aye. mr. price: no.

mr. rokita: how is mr. sanford recorded? the clerk: mr. sanford is recorded as no. mr. rokita: thank you. are there any members wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the clerk shall report. the clerk: mr. chairman, on that the ayes are 14 and the noes are 18. mr. rokita: the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed. are there further amendments? >> i have an amendment at the desk. mr. rokita: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 14 offered by mr. lieu, expressing a sense of the house on the consumer financial protection bureau. mr. rokita: mr. lieu is recognized for six minutes. mr. lieu: thank you, mr. chair. i offer this amendment because we cannot have a weak consumer financial protection bureau. let me set the stage for why this amendment is necessary. take you back to years 2008-2009. it wasn't that long ago when our

country was on the verge of economic collapse. because of the risky actions of wall street. wall street had flooded our nation with risky loans, loans that they knew couldn't be paid back, loans with no underwriting standards or lax underwriting standards and companies would push these loans on consumers and then they would sell them upstream to other wall street companies such as bear stearns and lehman brothers and those companies would just be reckless and greedy enough to buy the loans, they're why they no longer exist. this nearly collapsed our economy. as a result, congress had to bail out wall street, the american taxpayer had to bail out wall street, one of the most massive spending packages this congress ever did. in order to stabilize wall street so our economy could recover. and then congress asked, what happened? and we brought in alan greenspan and alan greenspan testified to congress and said, i believe banks can regulate themselves, i was wrong.

and he apologized to the american people. then congress said, never again. we're never going to let this happen again. we're going to create the consumer financial protection bureau so no longer will we have our nation at risk from wall street's risky practices and this bureau protects consumers from abusive lending practices it protects wall street from itself and it protects our nation from having economic collapse because of risky behavior on wall street. that's why we need to pass this amendment and i'd like to now yield my time to representative lee. ms. lee: let me first thank the gentleman for yielding and say how important this is. it was only a few years ago that the out-of-control financial institutions brought about one of the worst recessions in

history. i know that in my district and across the country, hardworking families are still recovering from the recklessness and the greed of wall street that led to our financial crisis. now, let me explain something in terms of how this great recession hit african-americans, latinos and asian americans particularly hard. millions lost their homes thanks to the predatory lending practices. these homes and what took place has devastated communities and for example, since african-americans especially hold nearly all of their wealth, 92%, quite frankly in home equity, all of this wealth was lost. because of this now african-americans' net worth is about seven cents to a dollar in terms of white americans. and this was all as a result of the greed of wall street.

yet it seems that my republican friends are not concerned about another devastating financial crisis, since their budget, this budget threatens the consumer financial protection bureau which we need desperately to make sure that consumers are protected from what took place in terms of the great recession. we need oversight agencies that protect our consumers and their finances. and so we've got to continue to protect consumers through the consumer financial bureau, protection bureau, and support dodd-frank reforms to avoid another crisis. i don't know if any of you felt the crisis and if your constituents lost all of their equity in their homes, i don't know if you all really understand what took place in communities of color, but let me tell you, we need this consumer financial protection bureau to at least be there now to provide this oversight so that sooner or later people can begin to build more wealth through home ownership, which still has not happened. it's estimated that a generation of net worth -- net wealth excuse me, has been lost as a

result of this in communities of color. thank you and want to thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. lieu: let me give you some numbers as to how effective with bureau has been already. as of march, 2015, it's received 558,000 complaints. it has helped over 15 million consumers, returning more than $5.3 billion back to consumers. and in addition, because of the continuing fraud of many institutions, civil penalties amounting to millions. this is a bureau that is effective, is protecting consumers and we absolutely need to strengthen it and make sure that our nation never again faces what happened to us just a few years ago. with that i yield back the balance of my time. mr. rokita: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. i thank the gentleman. mr. garrett of new jersey is recognized for seven minutes in response. mr. garrett: thank you.

in a moment i'll yield to mr. stutzman and then mr. mcclintock. i think we can agree on both sides of the aisle, we're concerned about consumer protection and i do not know if you know how many people in our neck of the woods suffered because of the crisis of 2008, how many people in our area suffered because of the crisis and the failures in the markets during that period of time and suffered because of the failed misregulation that led up to that. but with that being said, i have a question. since you promote the cfpb so strongly, who is the cfpb accountable to? who are they answerable to? when the cfpb, as you said in your legislation, here comes up with a new mortgage product and requires that they be sold in the marketplace, who are they answering to? under the dodd-frank and the creation of the cfpb, they separated consumer protection from prudential regulation. and so now when the cfpb passes a rule that says a certain product has to be sold, that

weakens the underlying institution that sells that product to our consumers and that means the institution will not be there when they need that, who is the cfpb in answer to? and when the cfpb puts limitations on financial institutions saying consume no longer have a choice and are limited in their choices as to what they can buy, who are they answerable to? and when the cfpb comes up with other regulations and restrictions in such that they -- your consumers in your district and my district can no longer get the mortgage products that they want, no longer get the financial products that they want, and have been used to for years and years and years, who is the cfpb answerable to? and when the cfpb engages in racial discrimination in their hiring practices, as we've heard in multiple hearings, when we hear that they promote people and give them higher and different grades because of race, who are they answerable to? and when they engage in spending

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

so you are favor of abdicating your responsibility as elected officials, creating an entity which they admit that they are answerable to no one. well, i believe, as elected representatives, we're responsible to our constituents and if we want to make sure that consumers are protected, that we should have an entity or a regulator that combine consumer protection with prudential regulations and do it in a thoughtful way that is are answerable to us, the representatives. with that i will yield now to mr. stutzman for a little under two minutes. a minute and 40. mr. stutzman: thank you to the gentleman from new jersey. thank you for your comments. we of course serve on the financial services committee together. and hear what the cfpb has been up to and what -- of course they don't share everything that they've been up to. we've been trying to get information from them. this is -- the cfpb i would describe as the bureaucracy in washington, d.c., that people do not realize the impact that they're having on their everyday lives and their frustration with washington, d.c., is so

high, but where do they point the finger to? they don't understand what all the cfpb's damage has caused all of us. we don't even, as members of congress, we don't even understand the damage that cfpb is causing, the havoc they're causing in the economy. unfortunately most cfpb regulators and regulations accomplish just the opposite of what we are told is going to do. adding substantial new paperwork, requirements for community banks and credit unions. we had a young gentleman in to testify in financial services, fifth generation family banker in central kentucky, and as he shared with us, he said, you know, our small family bank serving rural america, rural kentucky, has survived a lot of things. we've survived the recession, we survived wars, world war i world war ii, we survived the depression, we even survived the civil war. but we don't know if we're going to survive dodd-frank.

that's the sort of impact that this legislation is having on businesses throughout the country. so with that mr. garrett: i yield to mr. mcclintock. mr. mcclintock: we hear that the financial crisis of 2008 was because of a lack of regulation. exactly the opposite is true. government regulations specifically the act, compels lenders to make loans to people who couldn't possibly pay them back and then we shifted the losses of these risky loans to taxpayers by fannie mae and freddie mac. this created a financial house of cards that collapsed catastrophically. my colleagues talk about wall street agreed. of course it was wall street greed. government told wall street, you reap the profits and we'll get fannie mae and freddie mac to stick taxpayers with your losses. they took us up on that and then my colleagues are shocked that they did. it used to be that if a bank made a bad loan, they ate the loss. and they went away sadder but

wiser. and if a homebuyer took out a bad loan, they lost the collateral and they went away sadder but wiser, but in either case they left the rest of us alone. the damage was limited to the responsible parties. rather than returning to a market system where lenders and borrows are free to negotiate their own terms, analyze their own risk and make their own decisions with their own money, we institutionalized every folly that led to the collapse by adopting dodd-frank. this is the definition of insanity. doing the same thing and expecting a different result. this budget starts to move us back toward the sensible mechanism of a free market. i yield back. mr. rokita: does the gentleman yield back? the gentleman yields back. mr. lieu, you're recognized. mr. lieu: the cfpb is answerable to congress, the same way any independent agency is answerable to congress. if we don't like something that

an agency does, we can pass a law reversing it. so if you don't like something the cfpb does in a proposed order or an order, you can pass a law reversing it. there are multiple independent agencies that are in existence it's not as if this is a new concept. but there's been a lot of rhetoric -- will the gentleman yield on that? mr. garrett: will the gentleman yield on that? isn't this an entity that does not have commissioners on it? >> will the gentleman yield? listen, i'm on the financial services committee too. ms. moore: the cfpb -- mr. lieu: i yield. ms. moore: thank you. you know, it's accountable, it's independent, which should not be subjected to the appropriations process, it has dealt with balloon payments,

predatory loans, excessive fees and points, negative amortization and interest-only payments. mr. rokita: the gentleman's time has expired. thank you. i thank the gentleman. ms. moore: he consumed his time. mr. rokita: the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by mr. lieu -- question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by mr. lieu. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. a recorded vote is requested. the clerk will call the roll. no. mr. garrett: no. mr. cole: no. mr. mcclintock: no. mrs. black: no. mr. woodall: no.

mrs. hartzler: no. mr. rice: no. mr. stutzman: no. mr. sanford: no. mr. womack: no. mr. brat: no. mr. blum: no. mr. mooney: no. mr. grothman: no. mr. palmer: no. mr. moolenaar: no. mr. westerman: no. mr. buchanan: no. mr. van hollen: aye. mr. yarmuth: aye.

mr. pascrell: aye. mr. ryan: aye. ms. moore: aye. ms. castor: aye. mr. mcdermott: aye. ms. lee: aye. mr. pocan: aye. ms. lujan grisham: aye. mrs. dingell: aye. mr. lieu: aye. mr. norcross: aye. mr. moulton: aye. mrs. blackburn: no. mr. price: no.

mr. rokita: are there any members wishing to vote or change their vote? hearing none, the clerk shall report. the clerk: mr. chairman, on that vote the ayes are 14 and the noes are 21. mr. rokita: the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. we're now about to move into tier two amendments as agreed to by the majority and minority. and further agreed to by the majority and minority, the time set for these tier two amendments will be six minutes equally divided. the proponent of the amendment will have the first two minutes, the opponent or response to the amendment will be three minutes. and then a one-minute time for close. are there any amendments? this amendment is number 15?

offered by ms. lujan grisham. the clerk: amendment number 15 offered by ms. lujan grisham relating to medicare. mr. rokita: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. lujan grisham: thank you mr. chairman. i've already spoken a bit about medicare, but this budget does more than turn it into a voucher program, it actually repeals all of the affordable care act supports and protections enjoyed by millions of americans on medicare. the a.c.a. has allowed more than 105 million americans to receive free preventive services in 2013 alone. this saves people money and it saves the federal government money by catching problems earlier and preventing costly emergency room visits. since the law was enacted and began the process of closing the prescription drug doughnut hole, 9.4 million medicare beneficiaries have saved an average of $1,598 each. these savings will continue to

grow over the next several years and are expected to reach $2,000 per beneficiary by 2022. lastly, the budget would eliminate the affordable care act protections for up to 120 million americans living with pre-existing conditions. the provisions that would re-open the prescription drug doughnut hole restrict access to preventive care and allow discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, age rating and particularly hurt our nation's seniors. my opening statement, i said that the poverty rate for americans age 65 and older was about 9%. and that's true. but it doesn't quite tell the whole story. the u.s. census releases a second poverty measure called the supplemental poverty measure. this measure of poverty accounts for several nondiscretionary economic expenditures, including out-of-pocket health care expenses. if you take into account these expenses, the poverty rate among older americans increases to 15%. over the next several decades, if these out-of-pocket costs

increase as they're projected to poverty is likely to increase because these health expenses are not optional. you know what else are considered nondiscretionary out-of-pocket expenses? taxes. that's why i see the republican budget not merely as a collection of devastating cuts but as an imposition of new taxes on the most vulnerable americans. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. rokita: the gentlelady's time has expired. i thank the gentlelady. mrs. black, you're recognized for three minutes. mrs. black: thank you, mr. chairman. there's that little saying, now the rest of the story. the doughnut hole provision of the new health care law has the affect of raising drug prices. so there are a lot of statistics here, but what we don't see in this statistic is what our former chairman, chairman ryan requested an analysis of, a specific provision from c.b.o. and c.b.o. confirmed that these new requirements will drive up health care costs at odds with the claims that are being 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 by 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 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 d to. >> this is amendment 17. the staff will distribute copies. >> amendment number 17 offered by mr. van hollen relating to >> 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 recognize that social security is a program that benefits more than 59 million americans

currently, 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.

it does all this without raising the retirement age or privatization which i will never vote for. i yield back. >> thank you. >> the gentleman yields back. i recognize the adjustment from south carolina for three minutes. >> i thank the gentleman and i thinkhank 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 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 -- firewalling 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 exponential 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 -- a three-year review for them to stay enrolled. 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. in 2013, the g.a.o. uncovered $1.3 billion in overpayments. in the same year, cbs reported that there were areas were 10%-15% were on disability income. it is not just medical diagnosis driving this. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland is recognized for one minute to close. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a couple of points. if you look at the report from first, the social security trustees, they treat the trust funds 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. one 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 to cut benefits doesn't make sense. >> the question is agreement on the amendment. the no's habit. -- the nos have it. the clerk will call the role. >> mr. akita.

mr. garrett, no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no.

>> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> aye. mr. yarmuth aye. : >> aye. mr. ryan aye. :ms. moore aye. :ms. castor: aye. mr. mcdermott: aye.

ms. lee aye. :mr. pumpkin: -- mr. pocan an: aye. ms. dingell: aye. mr. lieu: aye. mr. norcross aye. :mr. moulton: aye. mr. akita: no. mr. diaz-balart no. :ms. hartzler no. :mr. brat: no. mr. mooney: -- mr. chairman: no.

>> have all members voted? any member wish to change their vote? the clerk will report. clark: the ayes are 14 and the nos are 21. >> the next amendment is number 18. >> amendment number 18 is offered by ms. castor relating to transportation infrastructure. ms. castor: the republican budget would have a devastating impact on our ability to fund transportation and infrastructure in america. mr. bell holland, -- mr. van hollen 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 ports, 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 amendment 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 this country because we are facing a cliff. the republicans have no plan on the table and 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. i yelled the remaining time -- i yield the remaining time. >> the american society of civil engineers have given us a d+ on infrastructure. we have a lot of work to do. 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 the less we need to invest in this and these are good paying jobs. we need to rebuild our comforting -- our crumbling is structure -- infrastructure. i yield back. >> i recognize the gentleman from new jersey for three minutes. >> we do need to restore the crippling infrastructure in our system. reliable infrastructure 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 -- than 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 position that 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 i yield one minute to both. mr. woodall: i thank 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 concerned about breaking that social contract that we have had in place for 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 someplace else to look for tax revenue.

roads and bridges are something we are all investigating on a -- invested in on 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 don't have enough money or whether we are not adding that -- not spending 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. >> would you yield back? [laughter] go ahead. >> i yield back. [laughter]

>> the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from florida is recognized for one minute to close. >> 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. what 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 -- u.s. 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. >> the gentlelady yields back. all those in favor will say aye. opposed no. in the opinion of the chair, the nos have it.

i will say that the ayes are much more vocal. a recorded vote is ordered and the clerk will call the role. mr. garrett: no. >> no. mr. cole no. :mr. mcclintock no. :ms. black no. :mr. woodall no. :ms. blackburn no. :ms. hartzler no. :mr. rice no. :mr. sussman: 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. westerman: no. mr. buchanan no. :mr. van hollen: aye. mr. yarmuth: aye. mr. ryan: aye. ms. moore: aye. ms. castor: aye.

mr. mcdermott: aye. ms. lee: aye. mr. pocan a: aye. ms. lujan grisham aye. : >> aye. >> aye. mr. moulton: aye. mr. akita: no. mr. chairman: no. mr. chairman: all members voted -- does any member wish to change their vote? clerk: on the vote, the ayes are 14 and the nos are 22. mr. chairman: the amendment is not adopted. >> amendment number 19, offered

by ms. moore relating to the earned income credit. >> the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. >> i am so glad to offer this amendment i'm sure is going to win bipartisan support. the earned income tax credit was enacted in 1975 by republican president ford, 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 "success" of the welfare program to ending welfare as we know it, but it really was the cause of the earned income tax credit. it reinforces labor force attachment and even promotes marriage.

i now yield time to barbara lee. 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 poverty or 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 period of adulthood. it does the right choice i encouraging 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 -- gentle woman from wisconsin for continuing to try. >> the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. >> my colleagues are right. the proposal was initiated by milton friedman. he called it the negative income tax. he offered it as a vastly more efficient replacement for the bureaucratically bloated mess. 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 a 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 math. if you remember, 46 million americans are on food stamps. you divide that into $800 billion we are spending for all these welfare programs. that comes to more than $17,000 per recipient if that money was getting to the recipients, which it is not. the 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. we can save an enormous sum of money for taxpayers. but alas, that is not the proposal before us. instead we have another repetition of what we have heard all day. throw more money at every problem under the sun. the problem is that it keeps running out of other people's money. i yield the balance of my time.

>> there we are. ok. we are going to go forward a bit reluctantly. when i agreed to contest i thought it would be my good friend from wisconsin. >> very good friend. remember that. >> we will charge ahead anyway. it is a bad amendment. [laughter] there are three problems with the earned income tax credit. 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 would not up it again. secondly, it is a fraud ridden program. the i.r.s. came out the thing two years ago estimating 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 with the program is while it is true that it encourages you to earn that 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 -- marginal income tax rate. for that reason, it is a bad amendment. >> the gentlelady from wisconsin is recognized for one minute. >> thank you so much. first of all, the earned income being studied saying the program was wrought with fraud was very flawed in terms of its analysis. 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 spend on oil companies and private jets and offshore stuff instead of a tried, tested anti-poverty program that lifts people out of poverty? >> the question is on the amendment of ms. moore. the nos have it. a rollcall vote is requested. the clerk will call the roll. mr. akita: no.

mr. garrett: -- >> no. mr. cole: no. mr. mcclintock: no. ms. black: no. mr. woodall: no. mr. blackburn no. :ms. hartzler: no. mr. wright: no. mr. sussman: 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. westerman no. :mr. buchanan: no. mr. van hollen: aye. mr. yarmuth: aye. mr. pascrell: aye. mr. ryan: aye. ms. moore: aye. ms. castor: aye. mr. mcdermott: aye. ms. lee: aye. mr. pocan: aye.

ms. lujan grisham: aye. mystical: -- miss tingle: aye. mr. norcross: aye. mr. moulton: aye. mr. garrett: no. mr. chairman no. :mr. chairman: have all members voted? any member wish to change their vote? the clerk will report. >> the ayes are 14 and the nos are 22. >> the amendment is not adopted. next up is amendment 20. >> amendment 20, relating to student loans.

>> the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> 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 me tries to four get an answer out of your folks on this -- clearly was not one thing you are proud of but you are cutting hell grants. -- tell grants. -- held 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.

our closing will be ms. castor. >> thank you. we have created a class of indentured servants in this country, they are called students. the largest debt in this country is student debt. worse than that is that we are making $127 billion a year on loan interest on those loans. 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. >> the gentleman yields back.

i recognize mr. stutzman of indiana for three minutes. 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, mark cuban, 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. you went out spent that money, and helped the economy grow. he says rising tuition costs don't help the economy as much as 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 it 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. i yield to the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. grossman. mr. grossman i don't have a lot : to add but there is one thing that has always bothered me about the pell grant program. it is for lower income students. 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 another one of those things where if you are not working, not saving money, your kids get a pell grant.

it is unfair to those parents. 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. but a lot of parents don't. a lot of parents are you are on your own. in a 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 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 broke and should be spending less than the budget has proposed. instead we have another proposal , to spend more money. i yield the remainder of my time. >> thank you for those 10 seconds. [laughter] the gentleman said we created a

class of indentured servants. i do agree with him. >> expiration of the 10 seconds. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for one more minute. [laughter] >> 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 will land with a thud with these families because over time, the republicans can't will -- cut will dash the hopes of students across the country. a college education is a key to a good job and good play check. it is shortsighted to yank up

this ladder of opportunity for american students -- >> will the gentlelady yield? >> i yield back. >> the question is agreeing to the amendment. all those in favor will say aye. the nos have it. the gentleman requests a recorded vote. the clerk will call the roll. mr. akita: no. mr. garrett: -- mr. cole: no. mr. mcclintock: no. ms. black: no. mr. woodall: no. miss blackburn: no. ms. hartzler: no. mr. wright: no.

mr. sussman: no. mr. sanford: no. mr. womack: no. mr. brat no. :mr. blum: no. mr. mooney: no. mr. grossman: no. mr. palmer: -- mr. moolenaar: no. mr. westerman: no. mr. buchanan: no. mr. van hollen: aye. mr. yarmuth: aye. mr. pascrell: aye.

mr. ryan: aye. ms. moore: aye. ms. castor: aye. mr. mcdermott: aye. ms. lee: aye. mr. pocan: aye. ms. lujan grisham: aye. miss dingell: aye. mr. lieu: aye. mr. norcross: aye. mr. moulten: aye. mr. chairman: no. any member wish to change their vote?

>> the ayes are 14 and the nos are 20. mr. chairman: the amendment fails. the next amendment is 21. the clerk will designate the amendment. staff will distribute the amendment. clerk: amendment 21, expressing a sense of house relating to minimum wage. mr. chairman: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for two minutes. >> several years ago, my brother in the barbecue restaurant business called me. this was in the summer of 2008. 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 that is great, what was your tiffany? -- what was your epiphany? he said, i decided if nobody can afford barbecue, it doesn't matter what my tax rate was. he was always leading republican donors voting republican -- he

was always voting republican because he was concerned about paying more taxes. this is where the minimum wage argument brings rubber 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 and this amendment says that we need to raise the minimum wage. it does not stipulate a specific dollar amount. it says as a matter of policy we , need to do it. this is a great policy for the american worker and for hard-working families and i urge the adoption. i yield 30 seconds to barbara lee.

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 a 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 help people get off of government assistance with a minimum wage? >> time has expired. i recognize the gentleman from virginia for three minutes. mr. brat: thank you. i will reclaim my time and get back to education, creating a class of indentured servants -- 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. i taught third world economics. surely we would like to pay them all $100 an hour but you cannot do that -- why? because there is a science called economics. we study this thing -- you have a supply curve and demand curve. firms will not hire them. they will not demand workers. if you give people a higher wage rate, that is what you see. the size of economics says it is not safe. 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 , the average chinese made $500 a year. today, they make $10,000 a year. how did that happen? they did not set a minimum wage.

they 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. the answer sadly is no. it is morally ambiguous whether k-12 teachers teaching business is a good thing or neutral. 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 teaching business is a morally bad entity. good luck raising our kids up. k-12, we are working on this -- there is a monopoly there. there is no experimentation going on. we work very hard on that committee to have experimentation. 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 in april. there have been a number of restaurant closings before the wage went up, just on the announcement. this is in seattle. these are not red state people revolting from higher wage rates. 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 sitting out there that can be used to pay endless wage rates to anyone who wants a higher wage. the numbers on this, i could go on and on and quote our seattle friends. but there is no margin to pay for a higher wage rate. >> the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for one minute to close. >> 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. i urge its adoption. mr. chairman: the gentleman yields back. all those in favor will say aye, those opposed, no. the nos have it.

a recorded vote is requested. the clerk will call the roll. mr. akita: no. mr. garrett: no. yesterday's alert: -- mr. cole no. :mr. mcclintock no. :ms. black no. :mr. woodall: no. ms. black one: -- ms. black print: -- ms. hartzler: no. mr. rice: no. mr. sussman: no. mr. sanford: no. mr. womack: no.

mr. brat: no. mr. blum: -- mr. blum: -- mr. mooney: no. mr. grossman: no. mr. palmer: no. mr. moolenaar: no. mr. westerman: no. mr. buchanan: no. mr. van hollen: aye. mr. yarmuth: aye. mr. pascrell: aye. mr. ryan: aye. ms. moore: aye. ms. castor aye.

:mr. mcdermott: aye. ms. lee: aye. mr. pocan: aye. ms. lujan grisham: aye. this dingell: aye. mr. lieu: aye. mr. norcross: aye. mr. moulton: aye. mr. garrett no. :ms. blackburn: no. mr. blum: mr. chairman: 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.

mr. chairman: the amendment fails. the next amendment is number 22. >> amendment 22, relating to early childhood development. mr. chairman: dr. mcdermott is recognized for two minutes. dr. mcdermott: 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 to come unto me. this amendment provides money for high-quality preschool, for low income kids and middle-class kids. it provides for maternal infant and early child program and extends chip to 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. ms. lee: thank you very much. thank you, mr. mcdermott, for this amendment. i hope we remember through this discussion on this amendment at that 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 over the last five years have made it harder for us to close -- >> the time has expired. the gentleman from indiana is is recognized for three minutes in opposition. >> i thank 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 that could be one of the most comical of things i have heard tonight. if it just was not so misinformed. federal government currently

supports 45 different programs costing at least $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 how effective these programs are. our budget aims to change that. to use as much time as she may consume, i know recognize congresswoman vicky hartzler. ms. 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. as my colleague pointed out we , are already investing in 45 different programs.

this is just a partial list -- head start from $8.6 billion. childcare and developmental individuals with disabilities education act, idea preschool grants, $353 million. education for homeless children and youth, $65 million. 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. -- of it. is it the federal government's role to make universal preschool all across this country, or does the constitution say that she be -- that should be best left up to the state and local governments? i think our budget adequately support at the federal level our

kids. i think it should be a priority at our state and local level and with that i oppose the amendment and yield back. >> dr. mcdermott is recognized for one minute. dr. mcdermott: since we are supposed to give our credentials i am a child psychiatrist. , there used to be a television, commercial put out for an 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. is it the public's responsibility? if that point, of course you take the responsibility. it makes much more sense to deal with a kid when he is young, when he is two, three years old. when you have a visiting nurse go in and help a new mother who doesn't have anyone around to tell her how to be a mother.

you stop child abuse and all the things that happen to kids that lead to these other parts of their lives. i worked in juvenile detention centers, prisons, and as a child psychiatrist. you could see kids marching down the line where they didn't have support services. that is what we are giving here, support services. >> the gentleman's time is expired. in the opinion of the chair the nos have it. request for recorded vote? >> of course i want a vote. mr. akita: -- mr. garrett: no. mr. cole: no. mr. mcclintock: no ms. black: no. mr. woodall: no.

ms. blackburn: no. ms. hartzler: no. mr. wright: no mr. sussman: -- 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. westerman: no.

mr. buchanan: no mr. van hollen: aye. mr. yarmuth: aye. mr. pascrell: aye mr. ryan: aye. ms. moore: aye. ms. castor: aye. mr. mcdermott: aye. ms. lee: aye. mr. pocan: aye. ms. lujan grisham: aye. mr. dingell: aye. mr. lieu: aye. mr. norcross: aye. mr. moulton: aye. mr. akita: no.

mr. sussman: no. mr. chairman: no. have all members voted? any member wish to change their votes? clerk: ayes 14, nos22. >> the amendment fails. >> amendment 23 offered by mr. pascrell relating to the informal care act. -- affordable care act. >> thank you. i will yield to the ranking member for 45-50 seconds whatever he wants. >> i thank my colleague. this budget is pretty straightforward. it exposes the quackery in 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 puts to rest this claim of balance. mr. chairman, 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 mentioned 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. the problem is 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. it is not even close. your budget while calling for , the complete repeal of the affordable care act, how could you do this with a straight face? you are doing it with a straight face and doing a good job. in revenue increases and medicare savings. when we get to taxes, your budget assumes the revenue remains the same today as current law. however, we passed $956 billion in unpaid for tax breaks not assumed under current law. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> is the chairman, the math does not work. >> 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

deus seem to think if they say it enough, it will make it so. 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 -- in fact we think it is probably low but we are not be able to , provide a bump up because of progrowth policies -- but we believe that progrowth policies will increase revenue to the government. the growth rate over the next 10 years is estimated to be 2.3%. that is wonderful percent below the 40 year average. if we were to just get to the 40-year average, we would senior we $3 trillion in new revenue to the federal government -- we would see nearly three to eight

dollars in new revenue to the federal government. >> we are assuming revenue neutral tax reform. there will be other taxes, i'm sure, that will be done away with. a new tax system will be put in the punitive individual mandate penalizes individuals, american citizens to adhere to the strict mandate. the insurance policies. this is holding back our economy, holding back hiring, and causing our economy to struggle. the 30 hour limit that forces