mr. sanford recorded? >> mr. sanford is recorded as no. >> thank you. are there any members wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the clerk shall report. >> mr. chairman on that vote, the ayes are 14, and the nos are 18. >> the nos have it. the amendment is not agreed to. are there further amendments? >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> this is amendment number 14. the clerk will designate the amendment. the staff will distribute copies of the amendment. >> amendment number 14 offered by mr. lou expressing on the consumer financial protection bureau. >> mr. lou is recognized for six minutes. >> i offer this amendment because we cannot have a weak consumer financial bureau. and 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 opt 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 stan

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 decisi

mr. sanford? mr. sanford, no. mr. womack's? mr. lomax, no. -- mr. buchanan to echo mr. buchanan, no. mr. van hollen, aye. mr. yaar miss, aye. mr. ryan? mr. ryan aye. ms. moore? ms. moore, aye. mr. mcdermott? mr. mcdermott? ms. lee? ms. lee, aye. ms. lujan grisham? ms. lujan grisham aye. mr. lou? mr. lou, aye. mr. -- ? mr. garrick? mr. garrick, no. mr. woodall? mr. woodall? no. mr. -- ? mr. moody? mr. moody? mr. -- ? mr. mcdermott? mr. moulton? mr. chairman? mr. chairman, no. -- mr. chairman: have all members voted? all members voted. any members wish to change their vote? if not, the tally. >> on that note, the aye's are 20 and the nose -- no's are 11. mr. chairman: the next amendment is amendment number 5. the staff will distribute the copies of the amendment. >> amendment number five relating to medicaid. mr. chairman: the young lady is recognized for six minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am offering a simple amendment that would reject the 913 billion in cuts to medicaid over 10 years that is contained in the budget resolution we are considering today. my an amendment will en

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

mr. sanford -- no. mr. womack -- no. mr. brat -- no. mr. blum -- no mr. mooney -- no.. mr. grossman -- no. mr. palmer -- no. mr. moolenaar -- no. mr. westermann -- no. mr. decanted -- -- mr. buchanan -- no. mr. van hollen -- no. mr. pascrell -- aye. ms. moore -- aye. ms. castor -- aye. mr. mcdermott -- aye. ms. lee -- aye. ms. lujan grisham -- aye. mr. lieu -- aye. mr. norcross -- aye. mr. rokida- no. mr. chairman -- no. rep. price: is everyone voted? >> the ayes are 14 and the no's are 22. amendment number 25 relating to overseas contingency operations. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we have been talking about the fact that the republican budget balances on the backs of the most vulnerable despite everything that we heard during our hearings. i'm saddened though not surprised to see that another account that was subject to this committee's oversight, the overseas contingency account appears again in the budget. they included an extra 36 billion over the pentagon's request. that is $36 billion that packed the pockets of defense contractors. last year, many of our colleagues ac

mr. sanford? >> no. mr. mr. womack. >> no. >> mr. womack, no. mr. brat. >> no. >> mr. blum. >> no. >> mr. blum no. mr. mooney? >> no. >> mr. mooney no. mr. palmer. >> no. >> mr. palmer no. >> mr. pascrel. >> yes. >> mr. pascrel, aye. >> ms. moore. >> aye. >> miss lee. >> aye. >> miss lee, aye. mr. lou. >> aye. >> mr. lou, aye. mr. norcross. >> aye. >> mr. norcross, aye. mr. chairman. >> no. >> mr. chairman no. >> have all members voted? any member wish to change their vote? the clerk will report. >> mr. chairman, on that vote the ayes are 12 and the noes are 22. >> in noes have it and the amendment is non-agreed to. the next amendment and that's number ten. the staff will distribute copies. >> amendment number ten related to medicaid and medicare. >> dr. mcdermott is recognized for six minutes. >> thank you. this budget fails to address the growing primary care crisis in the country rather than building upon a proven initiatives and programs my republican colleagues have allowed our federal commitment to primary care to fall by the wayside. this is particularly harmful

mr. sanford? mr. sanford, no. mr. brett? mr. brett, no. mr. blunt? mr. blood, no. mr. modi? ester moiety, no. -- mr. moody, no. mr. palmer? mr. palmer, no. mr. westermann? mr. westermann, no. mr. buchanan? mr. buchanan, no. mr. van hollen? mr. van holick aye. mr. jan the stucco mr. llamas, -- mr. llamas? mr. llamas -- ms. moore? lismore, aye -- ms. moore aye. mr. mcdermott? mr. mcdermott, aye. ms. lee? ms. lee aye. mr. poe can? mr. pocan aye. mr. know folk? -- mr. know folk -- norcross? mr. norcross, aye. mr. chairman? mr. chairman, no. chairman rice: have all members voted? any members wish to change their vote? if not, -- > the -- >> the -- chairman rice: the amendment is not adopted. we are proceeding to amendment three. excuse me. this is amendment number three. the clerk will designate the amendment. >> amendment number three, offered by mr. norcross related to defense and nondefense spending. chairman rice: mr. norcross is recognized for six minutes. representative: thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member. what my amendment does is to eliminate self-inflicted wounds of

mr. sanford no. mr. brat, no. mr. blum, no. mr. palmer, no. mr. westerman no. mr. buchanan no. mr. van hollen, aye. mr. pascrell? mr. ryan aye. ms. moore, aye. ms. caster, aye. ms. lee, >> aye. >> miss grisham? >> aye. >> miss single? >> aye. >> mr. lou? >> aye. >> mr. norcross? >> aye. >> mr. molten? mr. molten? mr. garrett? >> no. >> mr. woodall? >> no. >> mr. susman? mr. susman? mr. mooney? mr. mooney? mr. passquell mr. mcdermott? mr. chairman? >> no. >> mr. chairman, no. >> all members voted? any member wish to change their vote? if not, the clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman on that vote, the ayes are 11 and nos are 20. >> the nos 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 of the amendment. >> amendment number 5 offered by miss engel related to medicaid. >> the gentle lady is recognized for six minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am offering a simple amendment that would reject the $913 billion in custom medicaid contained in the budget resol

mr. sanford. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for three minutes. mr. sanford: i thank the chairman. i heard the budget described as draconian. i would say that doing nothing ultimately is draconian. with the number -- what the numbers show is that if we do nothing, roughly in 10 years we'll be spending about $800 billion a year in interest alone. more than we spend in all of our nation's defense. i could give any number of different indicators that say, if we do nothing, we're headed for a train wreck that will have real impact to the very constituencies that my democratic colleagues were just alluding to. it's not a perfect budget. we're having an intense debate, whether it's on the democratic side or frankly even within the republican family. i just had a conversation with my colleague, mike turner from ohio, who's really passionate about the need to spend more on defense. we're still working out those wrinkles. but what i do know in fairness to the chairman, and what he's tried to do in managing the different folks that are affected by this budget, i

mr. sanford, no. mr. mooney? mr. chairman, no. quite have all members voted? -- >> have all members voted? clerk: the eyes are 14 and the no's art 21. -- are 21. >> this court will stand recess until 5:00 p.m. >> the house budget committee approved the budget pros -- proposal. a house rules committee meets monday to set up floor debate for the measure. the senate budget committee met on thursday to mark up its version of the 2016 budget proposal. the resolution aims to balance the budget in 10 years and cuts $5.1 trillion in per -- projected spending in the next decade. dozens of amendments on friday of domestic and foreign policy issues. $3 billion is proposed to be added on war funding, which brings the blueprint for the defense spending closer to the house plan. this is one hour and 35 minutes. [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] >> i will call the committee to order and see if we can send out the inno

mr. sanford. mr. sanford: i heard the budget described as phony and -- to coney and --drakonian. if we do nothing, we would be spending more than we do in defense. if we do nothing, we are headed for a train wreck that will have real impact on the constituencies that my democratic colleagues were alluding to. it is not perfect. we are having a debate whether it is in the republican family or democratic side. i just had a discussion with mike turner who is passionate about the need to spend more on defense. we are working out those wrinkles. in fairness to the chairman, and what he has tried to do in managing the different folks affected is to say, if you are in a hole, quit digging. if you look at our nation's budget trajectory, we are going to get in a worse whole if we do not do what the chairman suggested. we are spending too much. the president's proposal goes from spending 20% of gdp up to 22% of gdp from an average of 18%. we are taxing too much. we are going to do -- go from 18% to 20%. if you take two points of the gdp, you're looking at more than $500 billion. that is mo

mr. sanford from south carolina. mr. sanford: i thank the chairman. i find it astounding that it took us about 200 years to go from zero to $5 trillion in national debt. and then over the eight years of the bush administration, we went from $5 to 10, it doubled. now the obama administration, it will double again from 10 to 20. that is geometric growth in significance in the way that the deficit and the debts that are accumulated. i find it equally startling, you look about 2025 or so and our country, our civilization, will reach a crossroads where there will only be enough money for interest and entitlements and nothing else based on the current revenue stream unless we substantially raise taxes or draconian -- bring about draconian cuts to government or go out and borrow a bunch more money. we are at a crossroads. mr. chairman, therefore, i just want to thank you for what you and other members of the committee have done in proposing this budget. to my colleague from maryland's point, it's not a perfect budget, but i think when it's compared against w

mr. sanford: would the gentleman yield for one more second? mr. womack: i will. mr. nford: i love keeping strange jotted knots notes in my office. again, the number you are getting at because you are now touching on national defense spain defaulted on all of or part of its debt. pre-war revolutionary france saw 62% of its revenue going to war payments. and britain interest payments and a.m. or tiation 15% of its budget to 50% in 1875. this music has been played before with disastrous consequences and that's why i think it's relevant. lenin's quote was this no settler, no sure means of overturning the existing basis of a society than to debaunch the currency and does it in a manner that not one man in a million is diagnosing. with the chart that you have laid before the congress. i appreciate the gentleman perspective. mr. womack: i want to show you this one. i was fortunate to get elected in 2010 by a significant majority of the people in the third district of arkansas. i consider that area of our state to be the most dynamic in all of our state. it's got a lot going

mr. sanford from south carolina. >> i thank the chairman and i find it astounding that it took us about 200 years to go from 0 to $5 trillion in national debt and over the eight years that the bush administration we went from $5 trillion to $10 trillion, double now over the obama administration it will double again from $10 trillion to $20 trillion. that's geometric growth in the significance and the weight of the deficit and the debts that are accumulated. i find it equally start startling that you look about 20, 25 or so and our country, our civilization will reach a cross roads where there will be enough money for interest in entitlements and nothing else based on the current revenue stream unless we substantially raise taxes or draconian -- bring about draconian cuts to government or borrow much more money. so we are at a cross roads. mr. chairman, therefore i want to thank you you and other had beens of the committee for proposing this budget. to my colleague from maryland's point, it's not a perfect budget. but i think when it's compared against what the president proposed where he's

mr. sanford: i thank the gentleman and i would just make the point that, as we have this debate on so the called progressive budget versus the house budget, that in fact it is chairman price's committee budget that is indeed the progressive budget. i say that for this reason. if you stop and think about this notion of being progressive, it is to yield to innovation, to change, to flexibility to one's own choice in the way that one does something. and i don't think that there's anything more sacred in that regard than the way that one spends one's own money. if we were to go with this alternative, what we would see was, you know, on the tax and spending side, going from around 18% of g.d.p. up to around 22% of g.d.p. those are sort of numbers. what does that equate to in 2025? $00 billion. $800 -- $800 billion. $00 billion means you could go and -- $800 billion means you could go and fund the state of south carolina government 18 times. you could think about what we spend on transportation here at the federal level. you could fund it 60 times. i mean, it's a big number by any account. and

mr. sanford. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for three minutes. mr. sanford: i thank the chairman. i heard the budget described as draconian. i would say that doing nothing ultimately is draconian. with the number -- what the numbers show is that if we do nothing, roughly in 10 years we'll be spending about $800 billion a year in interest alone. more than we spend in all of our nation's defense. i could give any number of different indicators that say, if we do nothing, we're headed for a train wreck that will have real impact to the very constituencies that my democratic colleagues were just alluding to. it's not a perfect budget. we're having an intense debate, whether it's on the democratic side or frankly even within the republican family. i just had a conversation with my colleague, mike turner from ohio, who's really passionate about the need to spend more on defense. we're still working out those wrinkles. but what i do know in fairness to the chairman, and what he's tried to do in managing the different folks that are affected by this budget, i

mr. vasquez had been killed as a result of the traffic collision. >> last night cal athletics tweeted this photo with the message -- >>> and administrators at sanford are looking into what they're calling a troubling number of suspected cheating cases. kpix 5's kiet do is on the stanford campus with more on a potential scandal that may involve more than 100 students. >> reporter: yeah, this -- reportedly came to light after a letter from the provost saying that one teacher reported as many as 20% of the students from one class were caught cheating. it reportedly happened in one of the large introductory courses where there can be as many as 500 students. that means according to the school newspaper, more than 100 students are now under investigation. the letter from the provost calls it quote an unusually high number of troubling allegations of academic dishonesty. stanford and now reminding professors to talk to their students about cheating and the importance of the so-called honor code that each student has to sign before many exams. >> it's a pretty grave concern. i think stanford students are under a lot of pressure here to do well and this is

mr. sanford and one to 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'm really concerned about breaking that social contract that we've had in place for these very many years. i hope in the transportation committee we're going to be able to find a way to keep that user fee in place. it's so easy to always go somewhere else to look for tax revenue. roads and bridges are something that we're all invested in at an individual level and namly level. back home i don't want to take the chance of again, breaking that connection that folks hold dear. we also had testimony last week with the national league of cities. where they said, you know what? it's just crazy that this nepa process doesn't take 18 months to get approved. it can take six year, seven years, eight years. it's an open question whether we don't have enough money or whether we're not spending that money wisely. six years of delay is six years of expense that drains t