van hollen. mr. van hollen, aye. mr. yarmuth. mr. yarmuth, aye. mr. pascrell. mr. pascrell aye. mr. ryan. mr. ryan, aye. ms. moore. ms. moore, aye. ms. castor. ms. castor, aye. mr. mcdermott. mr. mcdermott, -- ms. lee. ms. lee, aye. mr. pocan. mr. pocan, aye. ms. lujan gri ham. ms. lujan grisham, aye. mrs. dingell. mrs. dingell aye. mr. lieu. mr. lieu, aye. mr. norcross. mr. norcross, aye. mr. mowl ton. mr. moulton, aye. mr. chairman. mr. chairman, no. mr. price: have all members voted? any member wish to change their vote? the clerk will report the tally. caller: mr. chairman, on that vote the ayes have 13 and the noes are 22. mr. price: the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. next amendment is amendment number eight and the clerk will designate the amendment and staff will distribute copies. caller: amendment number eight offered by ms. lee expressing a sense of the house relating to poverty. mr. price: ms. lee is recognized for six minutes. ms. lee: first, let me just say, looking at the budget before you it's hard to believe that many of our republican colleagues participated in the same series of poverty hearings as the rest of us on this committee last year. once again we see a budget that seems to ignore the fact that there are still more than 45 million americans living in poverty. 24 budget is balanced once again by slashing critical lifeline programs and tearing down ladders of opportunity. last year, former chair paul ryan agreed that we should expand the earned income tax credit for our childless workers and yet here we are with that conversation wiped from the table. there's -- nowhere in this intudget that provision found. my amendment today lays out the impact of our successful anti-poverty programs on reducing the poverty rate from social security and medicaid to the supplemental nutrition assistance program and the earned income tax credit. we know that these programs work. even with 45 million people living in poverty, the poverty rate has gone down more than one third since 1967 when 12 initiatives including the higher ed act under the war on poverty were passed. we have seen the poverty rates going down. we prevented, out of the -- we prevented millions of families from sliding into poverty. yet once again my republican colleagues want to cut or turn program into block grants which evidence shows are less effective. in fact this week i want to reference the c.b.o. report that shows the effects of snap cuts on those living in poverty. mr. chairman, i'd like to have this inserted into the record, i ask unanimous consent. mr. price: without objection. ms. lee: this shows once again block grants could lead to states moving money around to use money for things other than food assistance. i want to respond to the gentleman who mentioned that snap benefits continue to go up, more people continue to go on them since, what was it 2008? under the bush economic policies, thank god people did have snap to rely on because many, many people would go hungry had we not had snap in place. and so that, to me, is just totally outrageous that you would want to block grant something that gives people a lifeline just to eat in this country. also with regard to economic activity as it relates to snap, each dollar brings back $1.79 in economic activity. it's a good economic policy to have. make no mistake, no one is saying these programs are perfect. but that's why my amendment establishes a commonsense and comprehensive approach to improving programs through a coordinated and national strategy to cut poverty in half in 10 years. now that's 22 million americans lifted out of poverty in the next decade this comprehensive approach means ensuring a living wage and streamlining state, local and federal programs. let me just take a moment and yield 15 seconds to my colleague from wisconsin. congresswoman moore. ms. moore: thank you for yielding. i wanted to point out when someone talked about how much snap costs. last year, we as americans spent $61 billion on food for cats and dogs. ms. lee: thank you congresswoman. let me yield a minute to my colleague, congresswoman lujan grisham. ms. lujan grisham: i want to thank my good friend from california who has offered this amendment and actually received bipartisan support on a voice vote on the floor to cut poverty by half in a decade and now poverty has become, it wasn't even bipartisan, i would argue it's a nonparking lot san issue and it ought to be a nonpartisan issue today. according to the most recent census data, 45.3 million people were -- or 14 1/2% of the population lived in poverty in 2013. and it doesn't affect everyone in this country equally. african-americans, native americans and hispanics have poverty rates above 20%. poverty doesn't impact every state or community equally. new mexico georgia, texas, kentucky and alabama. states represented by members of this committee on both sides of the aisle have struggled with persistently high poverty levels. in my home state 22% of new mexicans live in poverty and 31% of new mexico children, the highest rate in the country. we need a national strategy to eradicate poverty in this country and extend equal opportunity to everyone. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this important amendment. thank you and i yield back. mr. price: thank the gentlelady. mr. mcclintock is recognized for seven minutes. mr. mcclintock: thank you, mr. chairman. this is a debate that's been going on in this country and in this congress and this committee for more than 50 years. in fact, in other forms it's been going on for thousands of years. it's estimated that when caesar crossed the rubicon, about 300,000 roman citizens were on some form of public relief. in 1766, benjamin franklin wrote, i'm for doing good to the poor but i differ in opinion of the means. i think the best way of doing good to the poor is not making them easy in poverty but leading or driving them out of it. in my youth i traveled much and observed in different countries that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves and of course became peer. in 1996 we put that proposition to the test. under president clinton we, in his words, ended welfare as we know it. we set time limits on welfare. we required welfare recipients to look or train for work as a condition of receiving welfare. the left wing of his own party predicted this would drive millions of families into poverty. instead the poverty rate among children in female headed households fell from 55.4% in 1996 to 39.3% in 2001. this was the single largest sustained reduction in child poverty in this group since the onset of the great society. in fact the only places where this didn't occur were states like california that essentially opted out of the federal welfare reform and the result was one of the highest poverty and unemployment rates in the country. by the way during the clinton years, federal spending was cut by amy rack louse 4% of g.d.p. the result was a profound period of economic growth and prosperity. john f. kennedy was right a rising tide drifts all boats. kennedy cut tax rates and the economy blossomed. so the good news is, we know what works. we know how to reduce poverty and grow the economy. it is prepre-sicely the policies called for in this budget. it provides stronger work incentives for programs like food stamp, reduce government borrowing that crowds out capital that would otherwise be strible small businesses seeking to provide more and better jobs, it removes the obamacare 30-hour trigger that's trapped millions of americans in part time work, reduces federal spending, which ultimately replaces private investment so we know how to grow the economy, we know how to lift people out of poverty because we have done so many times before. the problem is this administration and its shrinking band of supporters in congress continue to pursue policies that just have not worked. in fact it's estimated that if the obama recovery mirrored the reagan economy, millions more americans would be working today and average family incomes would be thousands of dollars higher than they are today. so this debate has been going on on for centuries and will continue to go on for many more until we heed the lessons of history and choose the policies that actually work. this budget does that. i know some of my colleagues have invested trillions of dollars into policies that have not worked and human nature, being what it is, the more we invest in our mistakes, the lessing with we are to admit them. . which is why we're debating this amendment once again today. with that, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to mr. grothman. mr. grothman: thank you. i guess the problem i have with this amendment is it implies that somehow we're not doing enough fight poverty. i agree with mr. mcclintock, i think a lot of the problem is we are doing so much to fight poverty that we are in essence encouraging people to behave yo ways that probably not the best for themselveses or their children. look at the amount of none we're flooding into anti-poverty programs over the last few years. look at the earned income tax credit. the amount of money we're shoveling out the door on the earned income tax credit has doubled in the last 15 years. look at the snap program. between 2000, the most recent time, over four times as much money in snap. a few years ago the congressional research service did a study not just showing the amount of money families are getting, but the amount spent, i assume some goes to government employees to oversee the program. i can't vouch for it but it seems like the congressional research people are sharp people. they're telling us we're spending $60,000 per year per family that we're helping out here $60,000 a rear if that study is right. i mean so the problem isn't that we're trying not enough. we're trying so much but despite our effort we're getting a situation in which people are, too many of them, behaving in such a fashion in which they are not going to get out of poverty. if we want to have good, stable families. if we want to have people working as hard as they can. we have to change the approach and not just flood more money at the problem. right now if you look at the numbers, we flooded money in the past. other things that they talk about here, i think, you know, they say spend more money on education. look at the amount of money we're spending per child how much it's gone up in the last 40 years. through the roof. spending more money on education would have solved the problem, that would have solved the problem. the huge increase in the number of kids going to college. does that solve the problem in no. so i'm going to vote no on this amendment, i'm going to vote no because i think we need a new approach designed more to encourage people to work their way out of poverty and a new approach which will encourage more people to raise children in which they are providing both a good example and a more stable environment. i'm going to yield my last minute i guess i'm just a freshman, i don't know if i've been here long enough to say a really good friend, but a new friend, mr. blum i'll yield the last minute to him. mr. blum: thank you. as a career small businessman, my companies have sought out best practices in our companies. we have 50 incubate yoffers best practices in america today. they are called states. for example in wisconsin, gompor tommy thompson enacted work fair programs, cut welfare rolls by 60% and decreased poverty. in maryland they cut welfare rolls by 0% and decreased poverty this budget allows states to experiment with innovative ways to lift americans out of poverty and turn them into tax paying citizens. i yield my time. mr. price: the gentleman yields back. ms. lee is recognized for one minute to close. ms. lee: i'm not going to really demonstrate at some of the remarks that were made but first of all let me say in terms of behavior, you're talking about your budget that won't raise the minimum wage, we're talking about people making a little over $7 an hour who are working who are taking care of a family, who deserve a fair shot at the american dream. and the working poor, i mean, you're talking about people who care about their children and who want to have a living wage. this budget won't even raise the minimum wage, let alone a living wage. secondly, let me just say this economy, yes, my friend from california, it blossomed for some, but it didn't blossom for all. we're talking about one in five children living in poverty. in the african-american community, you're talking about one in three living in poverty. so when you look at the fact that we have you have in your budget now work force training funds cut, education cut, you're cutting all those pathways out of poverty and those ladders of opportunity that you're providing c.e.o.'s with the type of tax breaks and composition they don't deserve. mr. price: the question is on -- agrees to the amendment offered by ms. lee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the gentlelady requests a recorded vote, the clerk will call the roll. caller: mr. row key tasm mr. rokita, no. mr. garrett. mr. garrett, no. mr. diaz-balart. mr. diaz-balart, no. mr. cole. mr. cole, no. mr. mcclintock. mr. mcclintock, no. mrs. black. mrs. black, no. mr. woodall. mr. woodall, no. mrs. blackburn. mrs. blackburn, no. mrs. hartzler. mrs. hartzler, no. mr. rice. mr. rice, no. mr. stutzman. mr. stutzman, no. mr. sanford. mr. sanford, no. mr. schock womack. -- mr. womack. mr. womack, no. mr. brat. mr. brat, no. mr. blum. mr. blum, no. mr. mooney. mr. mooney, no. mr. grothman. mr. grothman, no. mr. palmer. mr. palmer, no. mr. moolenaar. mr. moolenaar, no. mr. westerman. mr. westerman, no. mr. buchanan. mr. buchanan, no. mr. van hollen. mr. van hollen aye. mr. yarmuth. mr. yarmuth, aye. mr. pascrell. mr. pascrell, aye. mr. ryan. mr. ryan, aye. ms. moore. ms. moore, aye. ms. castor. ms. castor, aye. mr. mcdermott. mr. mcdermott. ms. lee. ms. lee, aye. mr. pocan. mr. pocan. ms. lujan grisham. ms. lujan grisham, aye. mrs. dingell. mrs. dingell, aye. mr. lieu. mr. lieu, aye. mr. norcross. mr. norcross, aye. mr. moulton. mr. moulton. aye. mr. chairman. mr. chairman, no. mr. price: have all members voted? any member wish to change their vote? if not, the clerk will report. caller: mr. chairman, on that vote the ayes have 12 and the noes have 22. mr. price: the noes have it, the amendment is not agreed thosme next amendment is amendment number nine. the clerk will designate the amendment and staff will distribute. caller: amendment number nine offered by ms. castor relating to funding for the national institutes of health. mr. price: ms. castor is recognized for six minutes. ms. castor: my amendment bolsters the nat
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American Libraries
TV News
Understanding 9/11
