tv House Budget Committee Marks Up Budget Resolution CSPAN July 19, 2017 6:07pm-10:42pm EDT
order. are there any other amendments. >> this is amendment number ten. the clerk will designate the amendment. >> this is amendment number 11. >> amendment number 11 offered by the representative related to nutrition assistance. >> they recognized for six minutes. >> thank you madam chairman. the republican budget cuts to supplemental nutrition program by $150 billion and turns it into a block grant program. i open my remarks this morning about a constituent who is trying to survive on $33 a week in benefits while raising a 9-year-old son. without that $33, she has indicated she is not able to afford the most important food
for her son. foods with meat, protein and iron that she needs to keep her child healthy. this is just one story and the cuts in this budget will harm an estimated 43 million americans who receive snap, almost half of whom are children. in fact, over 80% of snap households are living at or below the poverty line and many live in a household with the child under 18 or in individuals with disabilities. in addition, one and four children at the department of defense schools are eligible for free lunch. in 2016, $67 billion in food stamps was spent an hour, series, and 1.5 million veterans a year are on snap. although some states are slowly coming out of the recession, my home state of new mexico has been left
behind. in fact we are one of the hungriest states in the nation. in 2016 they ranked second worst for childhood hunger. one out of four children are food insecure and a quarter of our state's population was on snap. this is 471,000. not only does this budget cut snap but it has even stricter work requirements. it does nothing to increase job training, raise the minimum wage or increase funding for any other programs to help people find employment or take home a bigger paycheck. in new mexico, there are no jobs. there was no job training and we are already one of the hungriest and poorest states in the country. we have the second highest unemployment rate at 6.6%. albuquerque has lost approximately four private-sector jobs. day over the past ten years. cutting snap overstates my
state as well as many other hungry states like mississippi, texas, alaska and kentucky. my amendment rejects these deep cuts and improves access to child nutrition assistance in the summer months, and i encourage my colleagues to support it. i yield one minute to my friend congresswoman. >> thank you. i am pleased to support this amendment. this budget hurts the neediest most vulnerable americans by making drastic cuts to snap and converting the program into a block grant by 2021. snap will provide benefits to over 43 million americans this year, almost half of whom are children. over 80% of snap households are living at or below the poverty line. access to snap by pregnant women leads to healthier babies and girls who have access her 18% more likely to graduate from high school. the republican budget is
playing politics with hunger. we should focus on create jobs and not punishing our most vulnerable citizens. i strongly urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment and i yield back. >> thank you. i now yield one minute to my congressman. >> thank you. our budget should not be balanced on the back of the most vulnerable. this republican budget does just that. most snap recipients are children and the elderly and the disabled. those who can work work. either in jobs paying too little or providing too few hours to support their families. the rest includes formal populations who need support to address barriers to work like returning veterans were former foster youth. the republican blue print suggests eliminating waivers for able-bodied adults without dependents. as we have seen since the great depression, recession, these waivers are provided to
communities with chronically high unemployment snap has one of the highest stimulus of facts of any federal spending supporting economic growth and jobs. i urge support for the amendment. i yield back. >> thank you. i yield one minute to congresswoman. >> i think my colleague for her amendment. this proposed budget assumes $150 billion in cuts to the snap program over the next ten years. cutting snap would leave american families, including children unable to put food on the table and with nowhere else to turn. we cannot expect that they will be able to fill the void.
>> did you really come to congress to take food out of the mouths of hungry children? strongly urge you not to make cuts to this program. >> is there a member who would like to claim the time. >> this amendment perpetuates the spiral the democrats have put us in the past eight years. in 2002, one in 15 americans were on snap or foods stamps. today one in seven are. let me put it another way. in 2007, just before the recession hit, unemployment was 4.6%. there were 26 million americans on food stamps. unemployment is down to 4.7%.
the number of americans is now 44 million. the unemployment rate remains the same. the enrollment is nearly doubled. let me put it in family size numbers. the program consumes an average of $568 from the taxes paid by every american family. let me repeat that. the taxes paid by an average family goes to pay for the snap program. before this card was designed to blend in with debit cards, the most complaints i got were for moms and dads on tight budgets to pay those taxes, and passed over the expense of food at the grocery store and found the person ahead of them in line with the snap card purchasing the same thing. we owe it to average hard-working families who pay those $560 and then have to scrimp on luxuries for their families in order to pay those taxes.
we'll to them so that those receiving benefits and have no dependents and are capable of working that they are training for work or looking for work and they do so in return for those benefits because that's what everyone of those families are doing. i suspect we will find what 13 alabama counties found when they said that condition at the beginning of the year were able-bodied recipients with no dependents in those counties, the number declined from 538 to 831. that does not mean there cutting snap benefits. it means we are protecting them for those who truly need them. we are also recommending states take some responsibilities for these programs. the state pulls out the
benefit. this gives them a perverse incentive to overload the role and bring more money in to the state. you don't help the poor by harming the economy. at higher prices for consumers, lower wages for workers in lower earnings for investors, largely people's pensions. if we don't reform these programs now, they will outgrow the economy until the program collapses on its own weight. a yield that the balance of my time. >> thank you. i agree with the iceman. this is a program that has grown from 16 million to 44 million over 44 years,
unemployment is the lowest it's been in years and years but you have to realize something is wrong. when the economy is humming along and you have almost three times as many in the program is a few years ago, it means reform is necessary. i don't care whether you going my district or you talk to people in washington, people sell snap for 50 cents on the dollar which also indicates something is wrong. i wouldn't sell $20 of food for $10 but that's what's going on around the country and it should be reported on a little bit more. it incentivizes people not to work as much when combined with anti- poverty or grams we have in this country, one can only say discourages working or working full-time.
they will give you examples of people who have turned down wages, turndown hours because they like to keep their benefits going. the other problem i have with snap is it discourages marriage. it is one of any government antipoverty programs that you are eligible for provided there is not a hard-working full-time working person in the household. even those things, i think this is an inappropriate amendment. people want to introduce something making it easier to find work or training people in many areas were screening for more people, i think that would be a more productive use. common sense will tell you that when you have an increase of almost threefold in 16 years, and it your unemployment rate is so low
there are people taking advantage of this program who don't have to take advantage of it. i yield the remainder of my time. >> the gentleman yields back. >> thank you madam chair. i will tease a bit my colleague, mr. grossman. i've been engaged for five years and i took the snap challenge and now finally i can explain the reason i'm not married to my fiancé. i don't think we have a good understanding of the snap program. veterans, working military, the constituent i mentioned, working mom, 53 cents an hour was her raise. you can't do it. it's $33 a week. when i took the snap challenge, i couldn't afford any productive healthy food and i suffered a sports injury and i couldn't by any of the foods that the doctor told me would heal that.
fortunately i didn't have to live on $35 a week but these folks do. 38000 grocery stores. you want to grow the economy and you said the economy is humming, we don't have a good under understanding of the seniors, adult, children and military who are on this program who don't have the resources to buy the very food to exist. >> i yield back. >> the question is on agreeing to the amendment, all those in favor say i. >> those opposed they know. in the opinion of the chair, the no's have it. a recorded vote is requested and we will postpone the recorded vote until we have finished debating this batch
of seven amendments. are there other amendments? >> madam chair i have an amendment at the desk. >> this is amendment 12. >> and amendment number 12 to ensure economic growth and job creation in areas of hype poverty, unemployment, food, security and foreclosure. >> your recognized for six minutes. >> thank you madam chair. >> too many americans are still struggling, particularly in economic areas. helping people find good paying work in a high demand field is the best way to ensure that everyone has access to economic advancement. if we invest a little now in a targeted way, not only can we help the people who are still feeling left behind, but we can save the government money in the long run by making people self-sufficient. it is important to remember these investments we make not
only have an incredible impact on our economy but also on people's lives. my amendment at the deficit neutral funds to accommodate policies and programs that foster economic development and boost job creation in areas with high poverty, unemployment, food insecurity, homelessness and foreclosure rates. this could include the establishment of an interagency commission and ensure that targeted areas are receiving appropriate support or supporting pilot programs or studies to determine the most effective way for resources to assist struggling communities. this amendment could also be used in important programs such as the community development block grants. programs that help people in rural and tribal areas that have been left behind. community development block grants help states and
localities that the kinds of infrastructure investment, job creation and poverty elimination that many of our communities desperately need. community involvement block grants help drive growth and help communities leverage funds, housing needs, innovative partnerships to meet increasing public service needs and revitalizing their economies. they support local businesses, businesses and contractors and service providers who improve the neighborhoods where they worked and lived. they are great return on federal investment. every dollar leverages $3.65 of other public-private sources of capital. i know this firsthand because in 2014 in my district we receive a $1.5 million grant from the department of housing of urban development to help local communities recover from a deadly mudslide that devastated the community. promise zones establish partnerships between the federal government, local communities to comprehensively
address the neighborhoods needs. these compatibly chosen are tribal communities were local government, nonprofits, businesses and community leaders collaborate to make investments that reward hard work and expand opportunity. the federal government partners with these communities to help them secure the resources and flexibility they need to achieve their goal. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield one minute. >> i want to thank my friend from washington for the time and i am proud to support her amendment. our economy is changing. we must prepare our current and future workforce for the job of the 21st century. this proposed budget does the exact opposite of that. getting these vital programs and slashing spending don't foster economic growth but rather they harbor anxiety in
the workforce. just last week i introduced a bill that will allow academic institutions, vocational and technical schools and workforce programs across the country in partnerships to train americans for the new economy. that type of collaboration and innovation is what should be fueling our debate about the future work. it's time for politicians to stop rigging the system. we need a budget that seriously looks at how to foster growth in the modern economy and this is not that budget. the amendment will make it better. . i yield back. >> i think the congress woman for her amendment. instead of a bold investment in infrastructure, this budget and tiger grants, cut off funding for a transit project in those cuts mean fewer construction jobs and less access to jobs.
they talk about flex ability for states. community development block grants are arguably the most flexible. i've never met a mayor, democrat or republican who has said to cut it. the amendment has the right priorities to address poverty, reduce unemployment by asking the wealthiest americans to pay their fair share. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. >> thank you and i yield back. >> thank you to my colleagues from washington. we often say our budget plan share a reflection of our values and while i hear a lot about the need to grow the economy, this budget does not reflect those values. this calls for strategy to
increase economic activity. no one needs is more than my home state of new mexico. we need to increase access to affordable housing. to say that we need investment in a economic growth is an understatement. i urge my collie to take this opportunity to invest in working families across the country. >> is there a member who would like to claim time in opposition to the amendment. >> the gentleman from ohio. >> thank you madam chairwoman. this amendment asked that we reserve money, and in my world and in the real world, you reserve money when you have money. that's one of the problems we have in washington. we don't have money. we are borrowing money.
we will be deficit neutral by reducing taxes for the top 1% and reducing just tax expenditures on corporations. my colleagues on the other side believe that if we tax the rich and then more money on federal programs we can make strides to reduce poverty. however, the results tell a much different story. there are 92 different federal programs and a poorly correlated effort to fight poverty. it is best measured by how much we spend and not how much people are lifted out of poverty. this is how we have measured the success of our program. it began with the promise by president johnson. our aim is to not only relieve the symptom of poverty but to curate and prevent it. that's just not happening today. we spend twice the amount on snap before we did in the 2007 recession and with 40000
americans still receiving snap, many of these recipients are able-bodied adults who should be participating in the workforce. it's vital that instead of setting up reserve funds we actually analyze current programs and make sure they work more efficiently. that is truly what the american people want. my colleagues on the other side talk about jobs. if you want to make sure we have jobs, reduce the regulations on
the businesses. i was a businessman for 30 years, reduce regulatory climate, reduce the tax burden which is what the burden does and it allows businesses to be able to employ more people and get people back to work. as a member of the committee, i believe in our tax code will unleash that entrepreneurial spirit of the country and will growth this might lead to growth that will help all americans. we already have so many programs and it's not something the american people want. the american people want us to use the dollars that we take from them efficiently and effectively, not set additional accounts. i will now yield sometime. >> thank you, i'd like to thank the maker of this amendment for the comment that were made today. there is much that we agree on and probably all of us agree on today. we all want everyone to have the
opportunity to succeed, to have the chance to make the most matter with a start. it's called living the american dream. unfortunately as he said, we've had a long war on poverty in our country and it's characterized by a legacy of broken promises that have failed to lift hard-working americans out of poverty and too often traps family shippin shifting them fre program to another instead of helping them break free altogether. clearly we need a better way to approach this. if more government spending, more government programs led to greater economic growth and opportunity then things should be booming and the rate of poverty should be decreasing. we know this is simply not the case. the number of americans has
risen 25% since 2007 and, in fact, median household income was 56,502,015 and that's 1.6% below its prerecession peak in 2007. i'm really proud of some of the work that is being done in the district i represent because organizations have come together to combat poverty and has set aggressive holes and have the rate of poverty in our community. they have done two things which i think are worth mentioning. too many people mistakenly believe that compassion is measured simply by how much money the federal government spends not by how many people we lift out of poverty. one of the things that this
group has had many discussions about is how to measure effectiveness and that's one of the things they have decided upon. you measure it by people who have been lifted out of poverty, not by the dollars spent. the other thing they are doing well is having agencies work together to try to create a more unified approach to addressing poverty. we must stop relieving the symptoms of poverty and rather focus our efforts on addressing the issue of property at its roots. yes, we need a safety net, we need support for families in need but we must also couple that with real opportunities through economic growth. the tax-and-spend policies of the previous administration had weighed on our nation's economy. simply there was very little accountability from the executive branch and very little correlation with stakeholders, the frontline of this fight, to identify the policies that we are working and those were not.
our budget rejects those careless policies. i mentioned earlier today as a former business owner i saw firsthand how our onerous tax system was limiting job creation and 13 economic growth. i understand that inherent in a strong, thriving economy is work ethic, dignity of work that has long defined the american dream. the federal government should no longer create a culture of dependency on government but rather is promote self-sufficiency in the value of a hard earned dollars. our budget resolution puts forth progrowth policies this fundamental tax reform, lowering the federal debt which will lead to a stronger economy and more good paying jobs. for these reasons, i urge a notebook. practically, madam chair, i yield back to the gentleman your back. he is now recognized for one minute close a long-term budget must support a competitive
workforce, encouraged operation, grow an economy that works for all americans. this requires sustained investment in areas that create environment for americans. programs like community development block grants are proven and effective and we should not be cutting these programs. if you want to truly make a difference, it's also important to note that the increased funding for community development is offset by the equal amount of revenue from reducing tax expenditures that go to top income earners, reducing corporate tax breaks and closing loopholes that allow tax inversions and encourage companies to shelter their profits in tax havens. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this important amendment and i yield back to the gentle lady yield back. all those in favor say, i. although both, no. back in the opinion of the chair, the no's habit.
we will postpone the recorded vote until we have finished the bait. are there other amendments? back this is amendment number 13. >> amendment number 13 offered by representatives molten to a policy statement to fully fund the investigation of russian interference in the 2016 presidential election back he is organized for six minutes. >> thank you for the time. when our founding fathers framed the constitution they were wary that foreign intervention could lead to the downfall of their newly founded government. in federalist paper number 68, alexander hamilton said that those foreign powers that seek to gain influence in our political institution are called the most deadly adversaries of the public and government.
i know we are going to agree on much today but there is one thing i know we all share and that is the police that free and fair elections are the cornerstone of our democracy. foreign interference in our elections undermine the public trust and cast doubt on the legitimacy of our government. our nation's intelligence agencies including the dni, nsa, fbi and the cia have all concluded that russia launched a campaign to undermine the 2016 us presidential elections which includes cyber attacks, dissemination of false information and other intelligence operations. we know that members of the trump campaign had frequent in repeated contacts with russian government officials, and oligarch and then lied about the contact in testimony to congress and in their security clearance applications. in april, we learned that jared
kushner, president trumps son-in-law and top advisor, failed to inform the fbi of meeting he had with the head of a major state owned bank, sergei was a close confident of russian president vladimir putin. and with questions ambassador to the united states during the presidential transition. since then, kushner has reportedly updated the list of contacts three times adding over 100 people including. [inaudible] the russian lawyer and former trump campaign and donald trump junior met with in 2016 provide that they would provide damaging information about hillary clinton as part of the russian government for the term campaign. let me tell you, if one of my marines had done the same thing on his security clearance application, think about that
for a second -- a young marine, someone unlike all of these members of the trump campaign actually volunteered to put his life on the line for our country, if he had had illicit contact with enemy agents -- which make no mistake this is those russians are, and lied about it on his security clearance reform, he would be in prison. this guy is in the white house with access to some of the nations most sensitive intelligence. wake up, this is insane. regardless of which party you belong to our national security must come first. that is why i am offering this amendment which will ensure adequate funding for special counsel robert muller, appointed by the department of justice so that he can perform a thorough and nonpartisan investigation of russian campaign to affect the
2016 presidential election and any individuals in the united states that may have colluded in those efforts. this is about protecting the integrity of our democracy that has thousands of active nuclear warheads aimed at us right now. as conducted, a concussive campaign to undermine democratic government around the globe. restoring faith in our electoral process should transcend party lines. as president trumps own fbi director recently affirmed this is not a political witch hunt, this is an issue of national security that we should all be committed to avoiding. did you ever ask your father or grandfather what he didn't want her to? someday our grandchildren will ask us, where did we stand when russia attacked the united states wor.
my colleagues, think about what your grandson or granddaughter will say when he or she reads about you someday. did you have the courage to stand up for our country, our constitution and our values or did you vote this down because your party bosses told you to? the pit committee should pass ts amendment to show that it still fully supports the investigation and to give the public confidence that congress has committed to finding the facts. with that, i'd like to yield my time to my colleague from new york, mr. jeffries. >> thank you. thank you for your leadership on this issue in your service. seventeen different intelligence agencies concluded that russia interfered with our election the sole purpose of helping donald trump secure the presidency during the same period of time when russia was attacking our democracy, high-level members of
the trump campaign and his allies were in regular communication with these russian spies. the campaign chairman, michael flynn, former national security advisor, carter page, foreign policy advisor, michael cohen, personal attorney, roger stone, longtime confident, jeff sessions, attorney general, jared kushner his son-in-law and senior advisor, donald trump junior, what were they talking about? we need to get to the bottom of the investigation and see the greatest coincidence on the democracy or something really wrong occurred. that's why we need to fully fund this investigation. >> the gentlemen's time has expired. is there a member who would like to claim time in opposition? >> mr. woodall is recognized. >> thank you, madam chairman. i want to be clear that i'm grateful for his service to this country.
he's a great patriot and is performed a valuable service and i'm grateful for it. i would say to my friends here today that i believe this amendment is a disservice to what we could be about, the gentleman said in his statement that restoring faith in our electoral politics should transcend party lines. if he is 100% right when he says that and i know there is not one member on this committee is not committed to getting to the bottom of this investigation but to suggest, number one that the budget committee has a role in funding investigations, is to meet mislead the american public because we don't. to suggest that we are not committed to funding those investigations is to mislead the american public because we are. i get up in the morning, madam chairman, from time to time and i'm reading the twitter feed that comes across my desk at 6:00 in the morning and this morning it was his face and came across my desk. if the first time that happened because we don't have a regular
meeting scheduled at the time. house democrats try to force gop to go on record of supporting the russian pro. in fact, they are quoting from the very powerful statement that mr. moulton case. where were you, what will you do when your grandson asks? this came from a cnn webpage and i know my colleagues don't have confidence in our atlanta-based news broadcast but i want to read from that article. after they go on to talk about the importance of the investigation and how we will get folks on record they say and i quote congressional republicans have been publicly supported of muller. house republican speaker paul ryan in senate majority mitch mcconnell have both raised his appointment as special counsel and there has been no indication on capitol hill that the gop controlled congress would attempt to undermine his efforts for withhold resources from his team. i want to say that again. there has been no indication
that the gop controlled congress would undermine his investigation or withhold resources from his team. my fear is for something that is should be nonpartisan like the integrity of the american electoral process to suggest in what often shakes up to be a fairly partisan budget committee markup to suggest that there is an opportunity that someone on this committee that someone in this congress would stand in the way flies in the face of every shred of evidence that is out there. were seeing right now as we sit in this committee room that donald trump junior and paul manafort are coming before the senate judiciary community, why because senator grassley pulled the committee hearing to meet their appointments, presentations that are coming next week. we'll have jared kushner from the senate intelligence committee next week. i know there is bipartisan commitment to get to that
confidence that every american needs in our electoral process. i caution my friends in our bipartisan pursuit to make it happen that we can do a lot of damage. this does not need to be a partisan matter, this can be an american matter and i urge the defeat of this amendment. i'd like to yield to my friend, mr. gates. >> i think the gentleman for yielding and i think it bears repeating think the amendment sponsor for his service to the country. it is evident that this amendment is offered with 30 and with a sincere desire to do what is right, to the american election system. the challenge with the amendment is that it seeks funding for something that it isn't underfunded. there's been no indication that the department of justice, the special counsel, the house intelligence committee, the senate select committee on intelligence lack resources to be able to get to the bottom of
any potential interference by russia in the 2016 election. a lot of folks in my district have voted for donald trump and i haven't met the first one yet that said they did so because vladimir putin told them to. i would suggest that because we should be focused on the issues that impact the quality of life for the american people, jobs, economic growth, opportunity, better schools, better roads, i think it's perhaps misplaced for the opposition party here to be so focused on russia and not focused on the needs of americans and that's what they sent us here for. i you back the balance of the time. >> i like to yield to my friend from indiana. >> i think the gentleman. i think the points were well made by my two colleagues and i appreciate them making them. i know they speak from the sentiment on the committee. i would indicate that i'm not sure the gentleman's amendment was sincere. the gentleman sits on this committee, gentleman knows that the issues he's bringing up this the jurisdiction of the
committee on administration, not this committee. gentleman also knows that the investigation have been fully funded. so, i would add that into the record and also say that the question that this committee should be asking about our grandchildren isn't necessarily about this amendment in the political point it is going with the liberal base. it's what are we doing to our grandchildren in terms of what will be a hundred trillion dollars in debt and no amendment that i have heard today from the democrats addresses that serious question that is in the jurisdiction of the budget committee. i yield. >> the gentleman yelled back. mr. moulton is organized for one minute to close. >> madam chairman, i like to think my colleagues from georgia, florida for their thoughtful comments in rebuttal
to this amendment. i also appreciate you following me on twitter, mr. woodall and from reading from the article this morning. you quoted the congressional republicans have been supportive of the investigation. you quoted that there's been no indication that the gop would withhold funds. if that is the case then this is a simple vote. vote to support the amendment. vote to support the sincerity of our election. vote to support the same bipartisanship that you report exists on this issue. vote to support the amendment. don't give into the party politics of the budget committee. do the right thing for our national security. with that, i yield back. >> for what purpose does the lady seek recognition?
>> i like to say that while we may differ, we should not question each other's motivations and i feel, i personally feel resentful that the author that offering this amendment that his motivation for question. i think we can question a lot of things but not that is correct the general to a ladies time is expired. all those in favor say i. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the no's have it. a recorded vote is requested. are there other amendments? >> madam chair, have amendment at the best practices amendment number 14. the clerk will designate the amendment and distribute the copies. >> amendment number 14 offered by representatives to insert a
deficit reserve fund to improve the earned income tax credit. >> thank you, madam chair. this amendment is transcendent of the earned income trends and as a freshman member of congress i know this committee is often partisan but my hope is that we actually could come to agreement on this earning and we could get colleagues on the inside voting for it. partly because the serpentine idea. it was milton freedman's idea to have the earning tax credit and it was president richard nixon who deserves credit. in 1975 for instituting the earned income tax credit. the issue of the earned income tax credit will be elaborated that it job creates. i heard congressman talk about his concern with dependency or programs that don't create jobs
and we can debate that but there is no doubt that the earned income tax credit actually supports job creation and it does it for a very simple reason. about 80 cents to the dollar go to people who are working and provides an incentive for people to enter the workforce because they know they will make more money if they enter the workforce and 20 cents on the dollar goes to the employer and that gives them an added incentive to recruit. we know from economic study after study shows the expansion tightens labor markets, increases the amount of jobs that are being created. the second thing we know is it doesn't affect automation because it has no impact on having people substitute machines for labor and again, this is conservative and liberal economists that have looked at
this program and said that. the third thing that we know is that the people who get the credit actually spend that money often on getting a college education for the kids and studies show that seniors have higher rates going into college they get the earned income tax rate because it covers education that schools test scores have improved. again, economic studies not by liberal economists but by both liberal and conservative economists. i know there's a concern of the manipulation of earned income tax credit and overpayment and that those are legitimate concerns. no one is saying that the program is perfect. if you looked at how well the people avoid tax and there's selections there are concerns there as well. but senator orrin hatch said that the 2000 teen agreement was the strongest agreement in
cleaning up the abuse of the earned income tax credit and there are other proposals we can do, bipartisan proposals that will strengthen the enforcement that we can require commercial pairs of these tax returns to be certified. we can look at some of the over filing which comes from families that are separated or divorced and both parents are filing often innocent mistakes because of the complexity of monitoring families but because there is an issue that needs to be addressed on strengthening the ability to get the earned income tax rate doesn't mean we should broaden idea that the most prominent economist said is the best job creation efforts. the final points before i turn it over to my to distinguish colleagues is even speaker ryan is recognized that we ought to expand the earned income tax credit for people childless
workers and that's one of the this amendment to do. it's because a lot of young people want to be entrepreneurs may be in my district and other parts of the country and they would benefit by being able to go start a small business and being able to be entrepreneurs and they should be able to take advantage of the earned income tax credit and that's universally recognized as improving the program. i'm hopeful that folks on the other side would be supporting this amendment. i turn it now over to might distinguish colleagues. >> thank you, for this amendment. i'm in strong support of it and i want to emphasize that we have talked a lot on this committee today about getting people back to work and about making sure that people are actually taking care of themselves and supporting themselves. studies, very reputable studies, show that the earned income tax
credit encourages large members particularly a single parent to leave welfare for work. it does it for a very simple reason. it actually is not just a cash transfer the e itc draws workers into formal employment and it increases their market incomes. it gives them the opportunity to gain skills and continue to move through the letter of employment. it puts any person in a much better position. the e itc has also lifted 6.5 million people out of poverty including three and a half million kids and i think we can all agree that if you have a two parent family with two kids and they are working full-time that you should then be able to raise your kids but at the current federal minimum wage it is simply not possible unless you have the e itc and snap. i see that time is running out and i want to make sure
representative lee back i'll have a close. >> the gentleman time is expired. is there members would like to play time in opposition to the amendment. he recommends the settlement check thank you. as a member of the house committee i look forward to working with my colleagues across the aisle to advance legislation on the e itc. i agree that the earned income tax credit is an effective tool to encourage labor participation and fighting poverty. it's great that during a markup that has so far have been partisan for able to find policies that we agree on. however, before we discuss expansion of this program we need to look at the problems that currently exist within this program.
that's one of the things that the american tax people want us to do. it doesn't need a reserve fund, there's plenty of dollars available if we look at the improper payment rate. according to the irs in 2016, the e itc improper payment rate was 24% equaling more than $16 billion. most of those improper payments came from a false claims from taxpayers who over their income to reporting fictitious wages or self-employment income. that is simply unacceptable. hard-working american taxpayers expect for their hard earned money to be spent responsibly and we have an obligation to meet that expectation. that is why this budget proposes additional verification requirements and why i am also working on legislation which i welcome the members on the upper side of the aisle to work with me on introduction with the social security and ministration and the irs to eliminate fraudulent e itc. eliminate those fraudulent points, in 2006 alone we would have that fun you are looking for a 16 billion extra dollars. i hope to work my colleagues across the aisle on this issue to address the misuse of these
federal funds which means we would not need to be looking at a reserve fund as requested. i would urge a no vote and i would now go to the other senator for time. >> thing, i had to throw water on this on the wonderful earned tax income credit but i think it is accurate to say it encourages work but it doesn't encourage a lot of work and that's why i think it's such a poorly designed program in the first place. i have been told without confirming it that it was supposed to replace other income tax other income transfer programs instead but what it does this. let's take a parent with two kids. the numbers vary depending on the number of kids but it is true that it encourages her to make up to $14000 a year. when she makes over $24000 a
year they began to take away the substantial credit so it discourages her as soon as she gets you 24000 and says it stops, don't make more money. when you have one child it discourages you from working and making more than 19000 a year. why in the world would we come up with a program that tell someone once you hit 19 grand a year, stop working, don't look for a raise, don't look for overtime, don't look to improve yourself. these economists -- to me i want people making 35 grand, 40 grants, 65 grand a year. introducing a program that is please don't make more than 19 grand a year or please don't make 23 grand a year is a huge mistake. as pointed out, when you give checks away you invite people to use the program which they do. the final thing i'll bring up is
i try to meet people around my district and i like to pool the low income housing. i love to talk to democrats in the earned income tax program is in all it's cracked up to be. i encourage them to talk to the people who run them and asked them what they think the residents are doing. hint, it doesn't go for tuition.
earned income tax credit that if the american people actually saw the only guideline of the budget proposal is the fact that you need a social security number to get the earned income tax of the child-care tax credit? they would be astonished of the talking points of the other side to say it is an increase. no. this does anybody who actually has a child will have a social security number and will provide that for the child-care tax. they have your income-tax credit they already have to have a social security number. this is there to ensure that this program is fair to help the most needy. with that mr. chairman i yield back. >> attwood only close by a
saying this is pretty simple under the jurisdiction of the ways and means committee with the expansion of the earned income tax credit to fall within the jurisdiction i yield back. >> you are recognized for one minute. >> i yield my time. >> i think if you for your thoughtful amendment for those households that receive benefits from the e itc those that for those workers that have bipartisan support speaker wright and president obama understood the challenge working with benefits because the only deal with people who were employed so those of the only ones who could be taxed into poverty but with earned income tax they could have the improved educational outcome i can assure you that it is important to
correct that not to eliminate about had a deal but frankly you cannot win with these republicans. eitc recipients are dishonest, medicaid recipients are undeserving and people get sick because they don't eat healthy. where can we have some coming together? even bush and obama understood eitc help people to get out of cobb -- poverty. expansion is a good idea to help those troubles workers. >> your time is expired. all those in favor? opposed? in the opinion of the chair it is not agreed
to. >> we will now continue with of around two amendments. >> i have an amendment that the desk. >> this is number 15 and the staff will distribute copies. >> this is to eliminate the reconciliation obstruction. >> of four minute total time on each side. >> mr. german we will strike that reconciliation instructions that would instruct those 11 committees of mandatory spending of $103 million. as the process is undertaken for one reason and one reason only to facilitate the majority of the vote for the tax cuts for the wealthiest americans and corporations. by contrast what has been
forced by these instructions would hurt the most vulnerable citizens of our country of the agriculture committee that has been added with those cuts. almost every one of the committee's that they could save money would be benefits. the only exception is the committee on oversight and government reform to take them out on federal employees. but this is one of the most critical process that is imaginable. bettis tax cuts could be implemented to force paid on american citizens and this
is exactly what the american people don't want or expect out of their government. we would provide tax cuts for the wealthiest americans to be on the backs of people who are struggling to make their lives better. i know i will get a lot of support for this amendment but i think it is the point that has to be made. i really -- yield the remainder of my time. >> the proposed budget cuts to budget $3 billion of mandatory spending for millions of americans and with this republican budget
even with retirement benefits. with the hungry and the disabled and retirees with those wealthiest americans and the largest corporations the budgets are about priorities it is time to get our priorities straight and i yield back. >> is there a member who would like to claim time?. >> reconciliation is the of mechanism of mandatory spending to be set by the budget discretionary 11 and mandatory limits the mandatory limits are supposed to go to the authorizing committees to make those statutory changes
to make those changes within those limits we have not avail ourselves of this mechanism in decades in mandatory spending is three times faster of the ability to support it. it finally uses reconciliation has intended that is $20 billion per year one half of what the government is spending it doesn't touch spending is restrained the growth. and with those presidents will have to ask what is the alternative? and all of this current path to have $1 trillion deficits and
with a sovereign debt crisis then two years after that the interest costs alone will exceed we're currently spending for the entire defense establishment. and this would make this dire situation in even worse . already of how much tax revenue the economy can generate but there is no alternative to restrain the growth of these programs. and i yield the balance of my time. >> i appreciate the cautionary tale but it doesn't have to be that way without partisan approach but this is the tool to make these decisions and i will remind my friends and then they leave the house and
then reduce the budget by a wounded billion dollars in five years. and then with welfare republicans in the house where democrats in the white house but both processes gold to reconciliation. just a reminder president bush was in the white house passing the bill is that is a tool for mandatory spending changes. and then to move the deal to the american people it could be 65 or 76 votes it could be a voice vote and perhaps
we may get there this year. >> the gentleman yield. >> mr. chairman thank you for the comments from georgia. but the fact remains that it is almost inevitable with those that could never be passed on their own. so if you cut pensions or salaries even on the majority vote you could not pass that. that is why i think this process is so cynical love would much rather see a process because with 52
votes and 52 democrats met should be on a bipartisan basis. i certainly would welcome that atmosphere that my friend suggests but we don't have that now and i am urging my colleagues to adopt the amendment and i yield back. >> all those in favor? all those opposed?. >> the no's have it a recorded vote is requested we will postpone until the of finished debating this batch of seven amendments. >> the clerk will designate
the amendment. >> in then to associate the global war on terrorism. >> this is very straightforward to get the extra $10 billion included in this bill from oco but i've not surprised to see that that's system by leaving the oco account and a loophole opened the spending caps in the budget. this was $10 billion over the pentagon's request and in not off budget war spending past as a defense contractor over the years i am proud to say there has been bipartisan agreement over the concerns of the oco / funds --a slush fund in
that is beyond any reasonable measure in really is a box of the oversight now with more wars underway and a war that congress has yet to debate on required by the constitution the oco account in recent years that was out of the of fund from the emergency that had resolved with less urgency and higher levels but certainly in the oco account now is the time to lose -- use of people with the true cost. leaving that chair'' bin -- are open for oco with the deity from the account that lacks adequate transparency
and oversight does a disservice to the taxpayers of this country but it is beyond comprehension the pentagon has lost tens of billions of dollars to waste fraud and abuse so i hope all members of this committee that our serious about deficit reduction will support this amendment. >> is there a member who wants to claim opposition?. >> mr. chairman i agree with a gentlelady that's we can do more to move funding from overseas contingency operations but then to ruth joined fellow members of the budget committee but here is of a problem after years of
the obama administration to leave the troops about the necessary capabilities. and then to fill will temporarily. in then to go overseas to fight for america's freedom and then to be necessary to achieve the mission. and i ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment as the year able to get back to a more responsible mechanism of budgeting and i yield to of the gentlemen. >> i spent 26 and a half years in the air force i
have never seen a more answer in time in the nation but that mandate and it continued to have flexibility with current and ever changing threats. gore the horde of africa our continued operations in iraq and afghanistan. it is critical we continue the findings -- the funding line. but the harm of the of replacement to hear the examples of the armed services committee with
holes in the gaps. we have to replace equipment and to bring that to the original capability. and that was designed to do. i believe the meeting of the financially -- financial needs with the highest priority of congress. but this overseas contingency fund to fight and win of these emerging threats. if we would adopt that amendment would preclude us from those same circumstances but that is totally unacceptable
purported to urge the no vote on this amendment and i yield back. >> i conclude by saying i iman the to scariest committees in congress the budget and the armed services. to see that capabilities of the adversaries. as that consequence as the budget committee to take meaningful steps and we will be ill-equipped to deal with these adversaries. >>. >> you are recognized for one minute. >> at which of those holes of the pentagon that my colleague referred to in the base budget? mrs. is
$10 billion bid and leave the american people have transparency in the oversight because the oco account does not provide that. and so that day know where there dollars are going for with accountability in government spending it could take us in the correct direction. >> the question is agreeing to the amendment? those in favor? those opposed? the gentle lady asks for a recorded vote we will postpone until we finish this batch of seven amendments.
>> this is amendment number 17. >> offered by a representative to reserve funds to the availability of long-term care services. >> the staff has already distributed copies. you are recognized for three minutes. >> for all of our talk today about reining in spending this is addressing one of the biggest drivers on the federal balance sheet. a living crisis in this country by 2030 there will be older americans making of this population and with these long-term supports and services with more resources
required to pay for those services which to be very difficult to accept and very expensive. so to be about $92,000 the average cost of the home health aide was 31,000. so medicate is already the primary care for long-term supports and services covering 43% of all long-term care spending in 2013. so that is expected to increase by 50 percent so my amendment creates a deficit in support of the initiatives that increase access for services so this allows us to consider a broad range of solutions of the federal health programs
with long-term care insurance. and then to save the federal government money reaching middle class families who have nowhere to turn for support. >> half of the americans turning 65 and those that will need long-term care. with $44,000 on average but stated under single cost over $92,000 this makes the problem worse by slashing medicaid and in the illinois republican governor to tighten eligibility for long-term care to take those services the wayfrom those
people with disabilities and under the republican budget to cut benefits but this amendment will help resolve the problem and i urge support. >> anyone who wants to claim time in opposition?. >> the gentle lady from tennessee. >>. >>. >> i am intimately familiar with the long-term care services i appreciate the spirit of the amendment and on the a sustainable path and those actuaries and even suitor by 2025 this means
automatically if nothing is done but if you are responsible to added to the health care benefit unable to afford that current liability with those existing beneficiarieswe already tried this before as part of the aca and this was included and designed specifically to meet long-term care needs but even the obama administration and secretary sebelius said it could not be workable and took it out of the play and. this is done by the administration so adding a new benefit for structural reform only hastens the trajectory toward solvency
ensuring that medicare does not give security to the current seniors were free future seniors as well. they did improvements i invite my colleagues to ... to save and strengthen and secure the program for current and future recipients also additional flexibility for states to address these issues and we have done that with quite a number of successes as a result. so for the reasons i have already started at --- stated i urge voting no on the amendment. i yield back. >>. >> i fake you for raising this issue. medicare and medicaid and
senior services are so vitally important and if we get is important to recognize as the chairwoman pointed out it is not on a sustainable path that nothing could be worse than that catastrophic failure not only to the recipients but the huge financial impact replace of the nation placing of future generations. so those that did those populations we feel that is very important given the diversity of the state the flexibility for the medicaid they can adjust those benefits such as long-term services and this can be done without breaking the budget. knowing how to address long-term care needs much better than the folks in
washington. with special improvements to say then strengthen and preserve these programs this is not an issue that needs to be politicized. all too often every time somebody brings this topic up it is time we have an honest conversation to protect the seniors that currently receive the benefit for those who are close to the finish line to make sure that they have access and i yield back. >> i am confused because medicare does not provide for long-term care benefits medicaid is the primary source but i do appreciate. colleagues are clear that there should not be a political issue which is why the deficit neutral reserve amendment because you are burdening future generations
ina primary caregiver my mother social security's 80,000 per year and can afford then and the services without my support but i am here and i have a great family but many have to dip into their savings or go to part-time work more than $500 billion provided by an unpaid family caregivers for to we have an obligation to shore up these programs to help families provide the best quality care and if you don't do this on the front you will spend more medicare in the long term because you will make people sicker. >> all those in favor? opposed?. >> in the opinion of this chair the no's have it. a recorded vote is requested we will postpone until we are finished with this batch of seven amendments.
any of their amendments?. >> i have an amendment that the desk. amendment number 18. >> amendment number 18 to increase budget authority with international affairs. >> you are recognized three minutes. >> as a veteran and i can tell you the budget resolution we are considering will put the lives of men and women in uniform with the proposed cuts are anti-military and show a clear lack of understanding of how to keep the nation's strong and safe . that is why i am offering this amendment which provides vital stunt funding to the state department for the top 1 percent of income earners eliminating corporate tax breaks that encourage firms to ship
capital overseas and shelter profits and tax havens president chun's own secretary of defense has said before congress that if you don't find the state department fully so we have to make sure that foreign policy is led by diplomats and not the military. i would like to submit this letter for the record. 120 generals and admirals who have expressed opposition for this diplomatic program without objection. i am baffled twice of leading generals have advocated for diplomacy and director mostly and those that would pursue a budget of the exact opposite.
who do you trust more went national security? the former ceo of exxon? during the iran war there was an inverse relationship between projects and casualty is a more usaid programs in an area of the few u.s. combat troop casualties there were according to military research. i cannot tell you how sad and frustrating it is to see young americans send back to iraq and afghanistan to fight the same battle that we won years ago. there is bipartisan blame to go around for this failure but it is clear the failure to win the peace after the war has cost more than american lives. let's not make that mistake again but properly fund our state department and efforts
to keep our country and our troops as safe as they can be. i will yield my remaining time. >> i will offer this'' -- quotation we will pray for peace because they know the hardship of war and i am paraphrasing but i admire your service to our country and your perspective. general macarthur's words. >> i yelled back. >> is there a member wishing to claim time an opposition?. >> with all due respect to my fellow marines across the aisle, many of you if not all of you know, the most challenging place to be is inside of the marine corps because we don't have an
enemy to fight we will probably take on each other because steel sharpening steel is what i see across the room today i see good sharp steel because we trade to fight. and i would suggest serving withgeneral madison those generals and admirals the you have cited that they have a very unique and well-established perspective of diplomacy that is what of military does for the senior officers to allow them to leave in very challenging conditions and i would suggest that the same time that all of them knows that those resources are limited to what you have with you. they know they have to
prioritize and read prioritize those limited resources to make sure they have enough to complete the mission. but they also realize that to be overlapping or duplicative is one of the things that creates challenges and in this case with the department of defense and department of state there is a but necessary areas of those ngos or trading programs with money and education that cannot continue to roll curve because you are wasting valuable and limited dollars to support those efforts overseas which by the way are funded by this budget. the money that we spend and invest another countries to
develop our allies has to be widely done but of the national debt of $23 billion, that is our single biggest threat to is a kerry so it is in the best interest of our country and our state department and department of defense to ensure that that we as a congress give them what they need to do to fight and allow them to work out but not duplicate the efforts because if you duplicate efforts then you trip on one another and i can tell you that the general officer level that it takes away from the effectiveness of our force. i would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment because it will be the driver that allows us as
united states military to prosper around the world as we support our allies. >> your recognized for one minute. >> want to think my colleague for his comments come by to see the evidence for this duplication. of the secretary 84 the arms services committee this year and said don't cut state department funding because general petraeus nobody who is then more at the forefront even this year said do not make these cuts to this funding. . .
all those in favor say aye and all those opposed say no. the opinion of the chairs the no's have it. recorded votes requested the symbian mouse with an agreement. we will postpone the vote until we finish debating this batch of seven amendments. are there any other amendments? this would be amendment number 19. the clerk will designate the amendment. >> amendment number 19 offered by representative jeffrey stu and server policy statement limitation of the many general. >> mr. jeffries is recognized for three minutes. cy thank you mr. chairman this amendment would implement the mnuchin rule which stems from treasury secretary mnuchin's promised that quote there would be no absolute tax cut for the upper class in reference to any
administration legislation. by almost any measure in this country the rich are getting richer while the vast majority of americans are being left behind. since the early 1970s the productivity of the american worker has increased in excess of 285%. during that same period of time wages have increased by less than 10%. the productivity gains of the american worker have gone to the privileged few. hard-working americans are subsidizing the lifestyles of the wealthy and the well off. half of american households have seen no real increase in their average income for 35 years. meanwhile the willful person the top 1% has nearly quadrupled $10 million.
numbers don't lie back. the wealthy are doing much better while the middle-class and those who aspire to be part of it are being left behind. the house republican tax plan is the latest version of the failed trickle-down economic theory that tax cuts for the rich will supposedly pay for themselves. when george w. bush cut taxes for the rich what happened? this country confronted the worst economic crisis since the great depression. our tax rate under president clinton was 39.6%. yet somehow more than 20 million jobs were created and we experienced unprecedented economic growth. top tax rates under president bush work cut to 35% yet we lost approximately 650,000 jobs during his presidency. the top tax rate under president obama rose to 39.6% yet somehow
more than 14 million private sector jobs were created. there was no evidence that cutting taxes on the superrich will lead to greater job creation and economic growth. even treasury secretary mnuchin disagrees with the voodoo economic approach. we should follow the mnuchin rule and reject any effort related to tax reform that provides a net tax cut for households in the top 1%. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back is there a member in opposition? >> thank you mr. chairman to deter -- current tax code is needlessly complex filled with exclusions and deductions. it's estimated the american people spend 8.9 billion hours and four and a $9 billion a year navigating our broken system.
tax code is over 70,000 pages, 55 times the size of the king james version of the bible. it is clear we need a new tax code, one that is fair and simple for everyone. our tax code should be focused on jobs for americans and should ensure that the united states is the best place in the world to work and raise a family. on the ways & means committee we are studying this issue closely and working towards this goal. her budget proposal provides instructions for tax reform that stimulates the economy and creates jobs. my republican colleagues and i are committed to this approach and committed to a tax code that works for every american regardless of where they live or how much they earn. i urge the no vote on this amendment would like to yield to my good friend from ohio. >> tax reform should be based on the american people not the
mnuchin rule. their role should assure that the economy grows with appropriate policies allowing for more good-paying jobs. as a cpa who practice for many years in the small businessman for almost three decades before i came to congress i have concerns this amendment does not take into consideration small businesses often pay taxes under the individual income tax system therefore amendment such as this could negatively impact successful small businesses that play a vital role in our economy and veteran engine of economic growth. let's not forget the biggest driver of federal revenue is not higher tax rates of economic growth. small businesses generate 60 to 80% of net new jobs and employ about half of all private sector employees. i should know again as a businessman. most of my businesses were set up in pass through situations which mean they came on my
personal income tax return to this amendment would put small businesses at an economic disadvantage compared to its competitors and prevent them from greater future growth. this amendment would hurt economic growth or her job creation and it will hurt working americans than it will hurt the entrepreneurial spirit that makes our country great. we should be committed to reforming our broken tax code that works for a mayor -- every american of every income level regardless of where they live or how much money they earn. tax reform needs to be fair to all americans. i urge a no vote on this amendment and yield back the remaining balance of my time. >> i would like to yield to mr. lewis. >> you know it's right that the numbers don't lie. when ronald reagan took office that a marginal tax rate was -- and when he looked at was 20%. obama's tax hikes were not 70% so we are still living in an era
of economic growth or reductions in taxes but beyond the numbers and beyond the fact that the tax hikes of bill clinton that tax hikes of president obama did nothing to address income inequality and income inequality got worse. yet to be very careful in his rhetoric, this politics of envy. you know we are setting dangerous social divisions by selecting a -- focusing on a select group of americans. nancy pelosi said the republican budget stirs up violence, stirs up violence. that's just plain irresponsible. you know this year was the 100th birthday of canada and present in the economic club of new york said a complicated tax code with higher rates exerts too heavy a drag on growth and it reduces financial incentives for growth. that is what mainstream democrats used to believe about a rising economy. i yield back. >> i think the gentleman.
mr. jeffries is recognized for five minutes to close. i've learned a lot of things in congress but the reagan economy is quite new. when kansas tried an experiment in trickle-down voodoo economics by cutting taxes for the rich and creating a pass through loophole of its own it was a spectacular failure, and unmitigated disaster. huge deficits lead to massive cuts in education spending the kansas economy stagnated even as neighbors experienced economic growth and the republican-controlled kansas legislature finally revolted were turning much of its reckless tax cuts. i have finally figured out what trickle-down economics means for the middle class. you may get a trickle but you are guaranteed to stay down.
i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment by mr. jeffries. all those in favor say yea i could all those opposed say no. according to the chair of the nose habit. the recorded vote is then requested. we will postpone the required vote until we postpone the debate. are there other amendments? hearing none i guess we are done. mr. higgins has an amendment. >> there is an amendment at the desk and i believe it's amendment 20. >> amendment 1 yaffer by representatives higgins to increase budget authority natural resources and the environment. >> mr. higgins is recognized. i think mr. chair be the environment protection agency -- the compromises the safety of their air and water in order to achieve small spending reductions in the budget we are considering today confirms these
cuts and threats to undermine progress. president nixon met with congress to establish the amr moussa protection agency and the clean air and clean water act. our environment was a top priority but now with the hard work by both parties to raise their air in talks with pollutants remove waste from our rivers and lakes and provide safe drinking water to our communities at risk. in my home community of buffalo new york we have seen the epa's effectiveness first-hand. 30 years ago the buffalo river was declared biologically dead and destroyed because of industrial dumping of toxic waste. today the river has been remediated and transform to recreational waterway with vastly improved water quality. the great lakes restoration initiative administered by the epa the niagara riverkeeper and corporate honeywell has invested
more than $70 million to remove 67,000 truckloads of toxic waste from the buffalo river. to resolve the buffalo river and adjacent land is helping to lead economic in life quality renaissance at the water's edge in buffalo new york. along with the great lakes restoration administration vp administers similar programs in puget sound chesapeake bay long island sound gulf of mexico and others. these programs which have marked progress improving water quality and populations are also economic drivers. more than 1.5 million jobs at $62 billion in wages are directly tied to the great lakes. our work is not completed. this summer question mark gary is expected to experience another significant harmful algae -- algae bloom which was caused by agricultural runoff that leads to compromised water quality fish kills and foul odor over an area that often spans
thousands of square miles. i urge the committee to adopt my amendment and continue the bipartisan tradition of protecting the environment or they the i thank you and i yield back. >> the gentleman time has expired producer member who wishes to claim time in opposition? mr. gates the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. >> did the amendment sponsor have three minutes and reserve one minute for closing? much appreciated. the amendment suggest we increase funding for the epa one of the most bloated ineffective bureaucratically constrained agencies the government has ever known. don't take my word for previous office of management and budget the recently rated the 30 least cost-effective regulations and government. epa created 17 of them. one deputy at the epa recently stole a million dollars. others were busted for misusing public funds to hire public relations consultants.
stanford fellow dr. henry miller referred to the epa is relentlessly ideological politicize corrupt and incompetent. look no further than flint michigan where the epa's own inspector general confirmed that the epa had information and the authority to act but did nothing prevent human rights the epa has been entirely ineffective. it was martin castro chairman of the u.s. commission on civil rights who said that the epa has failed miserably in its mandate to protect communities of color from omar mental hazards you myakka metis there are superfund sites over decimated before i was born and still have seen little or nothing happened for the benefit of people in those communities. i'm grateful for the gentleman's commitment to the environment. i share that commitment but my view is we have to get past an effective government epa run system and do far more to incentivize activity at our colleges and universities to engage our state and local
government partners that that's really the way to take the billions of dollars that we are wasted today on bureaucracy in washington and make sure that money ends up enhancing habitat and protecting our apartment and her glow for generations to come payday yield the remainder of my time to mr. -- of arkansas. >> thank the gentleman wielding. mr. chairman as we look at this i have been in congress and as the gentleman mentioned the epa was under threat from the current administration. i would submit that the u.s. economy is under threat from the epa and in fact the competitive enterprise institute calculated the federal regulations alone cost our economy roughly $1.9 trillion per year with over $40 billion in regulatory costs coming from the epa. i am seeing the epa and trying to regulate things like putting the ozone level at the levels
lower than what occurs naturally in pristine location such as yellowstone national forest or the ozark mountains in my district. the epa has manipulated public comment or the public comment process. they pushed agendas of ncos based on policies and ideology and not based on science. they try to expand their reach in their jurisdiction through programs like for policies. the epa has served an important role in our country that they are looking for things to regulate that are not regulated nearly as much anymore and certainly don't need additional funding to carry on this attack on american business and jobs and the economy and the united states. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this mailbag. >> mr. mr. chairman we yield back the remainder of our time.
>> the denominator expected the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute to close. >> i appreciate the gentleman's frustration with the epa bureaucracy. i too experience that with all federal agencies because we are frustrated by the veterans administration bureaucracy and ineffectiveness doesn't mean that we discard the programs that are important to help veterans and similarly here the epa is not the target of your budget cut. it's a symbol of it. the real target are the programs that provide real assistance to communities to clean up the rivers and clean up their lakes from industrial pollution over many many decades and i think we can separate the two. we should always promote and push hard for efficiency within the environment of protection agency. some of the programs are not very valuable to the communities
they respectively represent. i yield back my time. >> the question is on the amendment offered by mr. higgins of new york paid all those in favor say yea. all those opposed say no. no. a recorded vote has been requested pursuant to unanimous consent agreement that we will postpone it for a vote until we have finished the batch of seven amendments. are there other amendments? >> there's an amendment that at the desk. >> the gentlelady from washington has an amendment at the desk. it's amendment number 21. amendment 11 offered by representative -- to increase budget authority for functions to 50 science space and technology by the house. >> you are recognized three minutes. >> thank you mr. chair. my amendment increases strategic long-term investments in research at the national institutes of health and the national science foundation and i urge my colleagues to support it. to maintain america's role as a global leader in innovation and
groundbreaking discoveries it's essential that we avoid short-sighted cuts to these critical agencies. like the cuts included in president castro county budget which recklessly slashes money for research that we no save lives, increase jobs. unfortunately the house republican budget also neglects investments in basic research through nih, nsf and other important agencies. and though we know these investments help us push the boundaries of science and technology advance promising research and offer hope to millions of americans funding for the lifesaving work at nah also is a key economic driver supporting more than 400,000 jobs and generating over $60 billion in economic activity. it delivers an enormous return on investment today and for generations to come. for all of these reasons congress has collectively dedicated $4 billion of additional resources for nih
funded research in recent years. now is not the time to undermine our momentum. particularly as scientists pursue cutting-edge education and precision medicine immunotherapy. we should not be taking steps that hinder medical research across the country. that's why i along with more than 100 of my colleagues have called for nih to receive no less than $36 billion in the next fiscal year. funding for the national science foundation is also extremely important and it supports critical research defend our nation cybersecurity, foster innovation and develop a globally competitive workforce. the work done that nsf is a key driver of the u.s. economy and enhances our nation's security. that's why we should be forward-looking rather than always being reactive and dedicate at least $8 billion to nsf next year. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield.
>> the gentlelady yields back is there a member claiming time in opposition? mr. ferguson the gentleman from georgia is recognized for four minutes. >> thank you for the time and first did like to state i too believe basic research is important to this nation. my background at the university of georgia was in biochemistry and organic chemistry and i fully understand the importance of research and the impact they can have on the health of this nation. this budget does provide funding for the national science foundation but it's important that we focus our priorities on basic research of mathematical physical science and engineering and computer science in the biological sides but must focus on the basic research. sending in research and development of the nsa results and $60 million per year across
almost 9000 total -- the proper role of the federal government is to support basic research and distribute funding quarterly. in sf could be more transport and accountable to the taxpayers one possible example would be to require issues to be accompanied by an explanation that is product specific and how it serves a national interest in and national innovation and competitive grant. we must assure that these grant programs serve a vital studies and those should be redirected scientific research that are funded in a different arena. the funding however we must note is discretionary. it will be ultimately decided on the committee for preparations with authorizers on the committee on energy and commerce and the committee on science and space and allergy.
with that i would like to yield a couple of mins to my colleague from georgia ms. woodall. >> i think my friend for yielding and he and i share the great state.com the home of the national cancer institute, the autism institute the single finest autism research facility in the country and certainly home to the centers for disease control and prevention. it's a commitment to this basic research is something we share. one of the many things that unite us instead of divides us and it has to be said as our appropriators are busy marking up right now and increase in nih funding over last year. we are looking at an increase in disease research over last year, we are looking at increase in brain research over the last year. we are looking at an increase in line item after line item after line item.
i point out to my colleagues the entire budget is -- we fail to take on our mandatory challenges. the time of my birth this congress invested two-thirds of every dollar collected invested in america and today we spend more than 2000 -- two-thirds every dollar we collect propping up the stability of america. i don't know where we think that takes us. this is fundamental basic science research critically important to who we are as a nation and as a people and i applaud this committee for the work it's doing to ensure that those dollars continue from last year but hear my words if we do not come together and take on our mandatory spending challenges they will squeeze out every nickel of this research that we all value and are committed to complete. join us in solving this
mandatory spending issue celebrate the spending for nih next year and resist this amendment and with that idea back. >> the gentleman from georgievski at the gentlelady from washington is recognized for one minute to close. and i thank you. i also studied biology and i spent my career doing immunology research and understand how critically important it is that we invest in research because it leads to great breakthroughs. that basic research has been the foundation of key strategic growth across our country and so we get an incredible return and if we are short-sighted we will not longer get that return for future generations. on a bipartisan basis members of congress have repeatedly demonstrated our clear that on ambiguous support for medical research at the nih and short-sighted cuts to nih as well as the special foundation. whatever serious impact on our
global capacity for innovation in the 21st century. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this important amendment and i yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back. some of our members are at the appropriations committee and on their way back this is the seventh amendment and a second tier so we intend to stop your and recess until those numbers come back and then will vote on that batch of amendments. >> i don't think he finished up up. >> i guess i can ask for a voice vote. do you promise to ask for a quarter vote? >> i promise. >> the question is on the amendment. all those in favor say yea. those opposed say no.
the committee will now come back to order. since we have decided to roll the votes today the committee will resume, postpone vote on the following amendments number 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21. the committee will now vote on the amendment offered by mr. yarmuth of kentucky. the clerk will designate amendment. amendment number 15 offered by representative yarmuth. the clerk will call the roll. rolle rolle.
opposing? if not the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. chairman on that vote the ayes r. levin and the nose or 20. >> the no's have it the amendment is not agreed to. the committee will vote an amendment offered by ms. lee. the committee will now vote on the amendment offered by ms. gershom. the clerk will read designate the amendment. number 17. we are skipping offered by representative lujan grisham. >> call the roll. [roll call]
>> the no's have it. the amendment does not agreed to. we will vote on the amendment offered by mr. moulton and that's number 18. the clerk will read designate the amendment. amendment number 18 offered by represent a moulton. >> the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]
[roll call] >> are there any members who wish to float or change their vote? he or none at kircher prep mr. chairman on that vote the ayes or 12 and the nays or 20. >> the no's have it. the amendment is not agreed to pay. the committee will now vote on the amendment offered by mr. jeffries. the clerk will read designate the amendment. amendment number 19 offered by representative jeffries. >> the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]
[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] >> are there many -- any members who wish to vote or change their vote. seeing none the clerk will report. on that amendment. >> now we are going to go back to amendment 16 and vote on the amendment offered by amendment number 16 offered by representative lee. >> the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]
[roll call] [roll call] >> are there any other members who wish to vote or change their vote? he is not the clerk shall report >> mr. chairman on that vote the ayes are 16 and the no's are 19. no's have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the committee will vote on the amendment offered by mr. higgins , amendment number
madam chairman, no. >> are there any members who wish to vote or change their vote? he if not the clerk shall report. >> mr. chairman on that vote the ayes are 14 and the nays or 21. >> the no's have it. the committee will now vote on the amendment offered by ms. delvin amendment 21. >> amendment number 21 offered by representative delbene a. >> the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call]
[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] >> are there any members who wish to float or change their vote? he if not the clerk shall report. >> on that vote the ayes are 14 and the nose or 21. >> the no's have it. the amendment is not agreed to. thinking very much mr. chairman but i want to note for the record had i been here for the pirate amendment i would have voted aye on all of those. >> i recognize ms. washer men
shouts. >> i also would like say had i been here i would have corden aye vote. >> having been on the appropriations markup. >> i think the gentlelady. the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. chair i wanted to also say if i would have been here for amendment 15 i would have voted yea. >> i thank the gentleman. it's noted for the record. are there any other amendments moving to the second batch of seven. you are recognized the gentlelady from tennessee. >> mr. chairman i have an amendment. >> thank you. the gentlelady has an amendment
at the desk. >> amendment number 22 offered by representative wasserman schultz the budget authority and outlays on early childhood programs. >> the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. >> i offer an memo to provide adequate funding for early childhood development programs. overwhelming research shows that children benefit them access to high-quality early childhood or grants in society as a whole benefits from target investments in making sure every child gets these opportunities. research shows every public dollar spent on high-quality early childhood education can equal a net payoff of $8 increase productivity. we know that the best way to reduce the achievement gap is to give every child the right start from the very beginning from birth to age five. childcare is one of the biggest things families face. in some cases they can this
amendment provide $600 million in necessary services offset by increasing taxes on the top 1% of income earners. quality daycare is critical to a child's early development but according to the nih teens in high-quality daycare settings as young score higher on academic achievement and less likely to report acting up behavior. early talent tablet education can lower involvement with the criminal justice system. the success of our children cannot be a partisan issue could lead everyone in congress from both parties to help us make this investment in our next generation but i strongly urge my colleagues to do what's right and vote in favor of this amendment to increase funding for early learning programs and i yield one minute to ms. schakowsky of illinois. [inaudible conversations]
nene republican budget. [inaudible] like head start programs with a track record. [inaudible] children's education suffers. it's exactly what we need to do and one of the most important things we can do. early learning programs affect the future. i yield back. thank you when i yield 30 seconds to the lady -- gentlelady from texas. >> it's often been said that programs like the great society never worked but i would argue that there are individuals in
the united states congress some who achieve the status of president of the united states because they were exposed to early childhood education paid a fight to save head start to listen to the parents who are desperate and devastated that their child would not have a seat at head start. head start is an upstart. not a handout, to hand out. early childhood education provides the opportunity to be successful in the future and i support the gentlelady's amendment and i yield back. >> as their member who would like to claim opposition in the amendment? >> mr. chairman i seek time in opposition. >> the gentlelady is recognized for four minutes. >> i being a mother and grandmother i agree there should be accessed to choose among high-quality early education for services including good parental support and involvement. these services will work for
those that are working parents they clearly need those kinds of services. for far too many of these programs including those providing early childhood services washington measures its success not in the outcomes but how much money we spend. we continue to do that here in this town. the education workforce committee recently held hearings by the government accountability office on early childhood programs. the gao found there are 44 federal programs offering some level of early education services with duplication and inefficiencies. nine of them are for this express purpose and that nine programs cost nearly $15 billion a year duplications and inefficiencies. head start has been around. i remember when i was in nursing school in 1968. i was very excited in nursing school to find out there would be these programs that would help our children.
it's been around for a long time and spending a total of $9 billion annually. i personally read the most recent report that had star report put out by the department of health and human services in 2010 and there was a follow-up in 2012. i wasn't surprised because i've seen this over the last 40 years and that produces positive effects on children's math language and literacy skills and parenting practices. i want to be sure when we spend this money but absolutely we are taking care of children and giving them the best services that we can. in 2014 a study at the university of california the professor used the data from the hhs study and found head start effectiveness does go up and it goes up when they offer more instruction in school days that
are offered with frequent home visits where they were associated with higher effectiveness. when you are measuring you show the things you work with. let's put that in place but we are not seeing that across-the-board. the hearing on the gao report the education work or somebody also looks at ways that states are innovating to approve early childhood education services and the budget needs and inefficiencies and insurance and early childhood programs really to produce a lasting education gained for kids and their families. the budget also believes states and localities should be empowered to improve programs that are working in their own areas and innovation as a state and to show their measurement and actual process improvement. this amount would increase taxes on the american businesses, our country's job creators and the tax code does have special credit and reductions of loopholes and that's why we propose program tax reform.
it's clear these loopholes and lover taxes for all taxpayers are simpler competitive tax system will encourage investment in private-sector creation. we want to make sure that these programs are well done but throwing more money at it is not the answer. measuring them and making sure they are actually working for these children is the answer and with that i yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back. the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for four minutes. >> the gentlelady seems to think that you can add to the services that had star provides by expanding to a full day are adding to the services without more funding. the home visits cost money. a full day instead of half a day costs money and the other thing that the majority seems to believe which is inexplicable is that it is more important to provide the wealthiest 1% of americans with a tax break than to make sure we can add
$600 million to ensure that the next generation of our youngest people in america get the best possible start in life. that is outrageous and unacceptable. if members of the committee want to talk about ensuring that all of her children have a shot at success we must have a budget that reflects that because the budget is a reflection of our values and the budget telegraphs loud and clear where the majority's values are in the american people need to know and that's why we are here shining a spotlight and how egregious and outrageous their priorities are. i yield back. >> the question is on the amendment offered by ms. wasserman schultz. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. from the opinion of the chair of the no's have it. a recorded vote is requested. we will postpone the recorded vote until we have induced the dispatch of seven amendments. are there other amendments?
for a quarter of those it is only 90% of their income. this is one of the over the last 82 years one of if not the most successful program when we consider pre- 1935, 46% of seniors were mired in poverty. today that is a fraction of it. social security isn't the only reason for that, but it's a biga big reason. now i will yield one minute to the gentle lady from illinois. >> rookie tight -- retirees, half of women over 65 live in poverty. it's the only source of income for three in ten women over 65 and the older they get they realize over 4 million receive social security disability insurance and get social security disability is part of
social security. americans strongly support social security. 88% of the voters support cuts and 72% of americans think we should consider raising benefits at this out of touch republican budget takes aim at social security and while providing more tax cuts for the wealthy again misdirected priorities is this what you think your constituents want, i yield back. >> is very gentle man wishing to oppose this amendment? it assumes a one-size-fits-all washington approach to assure cuts don't occur. just so you know everything will be fine. the problem is social security is on a fiscal path. according to the report, social security will be insolvent by 2033 and recipients will see a 25% cut in benefits.
the long-term deficit increased from 2.6% of the taxable payroll in 2016 to 2.83 in 2017 and the fund obligations increase from 11.4 trillion to 8.5 trillion. think about that. the unfunded obligations increase by 1.1 trillion in just one year. this is simply unsustainable and this would make it difficult to make lasting bipartisan reforms of the program by taking any sort of reforms such as adjusting the retirement age or even cutting benefits for higher income out of consideration like my colleagues on the other side of the aisle we are all committed to protecting social security. however, i know the reforms in the difficult choices have to be made. we must work in a bipartisan way to ensure the program is solvent to update for the next generations of americans all policies for reform should be on
the table and we must find a way to work together and stop kicking the can down the road so shows all security is around for our children and grandchildren and now i would like to yield some time. >> i think the gentle man and echo his sentiment. there are three different considerations. this whole intergenerational warfare within the budget with the idea that the ethics pull more people are likely to be leaving ufos returned to america or the world. it's more often then not able to
promise a lot more than they can deliver on so we have to look at not only solvency in terms of what might happen in 2033 but we have to look at one negative casual. the unified budget that works so well when folks are coming into the system and workers are coming into the system which is the case now and increasingly as more retire they will be heavier drags to the point of insolvency in the trust fund but more significantly the point of negative cash flow each year which sets this up again but do we apply it to social security in washington or apply it to other needs and goods and services provided by washington.
i would like to request a recorded vote for the unanimous consent agreement to finish this batch of seven amendments. are there other amendment? >> this is amendment 24. the act created a the consumer financial protection bureau. the consumer bureau is focused on one goal, watching out for american consumers in the market of consumer financial products and services.
with diverse financial products whether it's student loans, credit cards, mortgages, and it's allowed consumers to make choices based on honest, accurate information. the cfp has accomplished a great deal since opening in 2011. the actions protected service members. the bureau has saved consumers over $16 billion in undisclosed credit card fees. this is a necessary gear especially after the financial crash, and it should have support of many people in the committee.
>> the gentleman yield back. is there a member in opposition to the amendment you are recognized for four minutes. >> i think that we could all agree protecting american consumers is important but there are problems in the way that the cfp is set up rather than operating like a normal program is funded from the federal reserve entirely outside of the accountability of congress and in for secrecy is also run by the director that is unaccountable to congress and cannot be removed by the president of the united states. it had appropriate oversight from the president of the united states, the case is ongoing and it's being appealed by the cfp b.. the fact that congress already acted to protect consumers and affect the structural deficiencies in the cfp through
let me say wwhat do you say we o ensure consumers are protected. the best way to do that is a robust transparent competitive market it in the incentive to do business or bank to the light of their customer good old-fashioned competition. if you don't protect the consumer, the competitor will. and their family and friends and so forth. no state can compare the match for the market. i watched as the law of the wall street reform and consumer
protection who could be against motherhood and apple pie and consumer protection. but then hundreds of rules and regulations later tens of billions per borne disproportionately by the community banks. it is duplicate if. it is unaccountable to congress and the president. a federal court already ruled that the governance was unconstitutional. we need to reign in the cfp b.. i would like to repeal it. i support the act and we need to
rein it in at a minimum for the good of consumers and main street america. i urge a no vote and i yield back to the gentleman from georgia. >> you are recognized for one minute to close. >> i disagree with my good friend. people on the other side say why do we feel like regulation and i'm very thankful that we have regulations on airline safety and the same thing is true about consumers. it's not whether you believe in the market or you don't. for markets to work, you need transparency, consumers having adequate information. and i don't think there are any americans who would believe and trust wall street bankers to provide that information. we saw what happened when there wasn't regulation and it led to one of the worst crashes in
american history since the depression. we learned that lesson in the depression and had regulation, then we started the regulating in a letter to the crisis. we tried to solve that. let's not be regulate regulatine third financial crisis area area >> the gentle means yields back on the offer. those in favor? those opposed? in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. >> record of the vote has been requested. we will postpone until we finished. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> i ask unanimous consent to insert in the record and economic people the prospects for higher economic growth. >> are there other amendment? >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> this is amendments 25 offered by the gentle lady.
the clerk will designate the amendment. >> 25 offered by the representatives to increase the budget authority and outlay for the function 300 natural resources and environment. >> you are recognized for three minutes. >> my amendment seeks to restore the place in the global fight against time and change by supporting state and local entities that wish to combat climate change. president trump's reckless withdrawal from the climate accord next month only set this up on a course that gravely harms our planet. the leadership roles to cut the carbon emission we are getting a license for 194 other signatories of the paris climate accord to shore up their responsibilities. responsibilities. withdrawing from the paris climate accord only stalls the move to the renewable sources of energy. this will create jobs but unfortunately mr. chairman this is a false choice. battling climate change and
ensuring the private sector are not compatible for example according to the energy department, nearly 370 people are employed in the solar industry and actually more than 165,000 employed in the coal industry. many noted economists agreed the chief economist put it this way. the defense secretary james maddux has called climate change in national security threat and he specifically said impacting stability in areas of the world where the troops are operating today. the consensus on greenhouse gases and global warming has been long established across the aisle. president reagan understood this and the state of the union address in 1984 said preservation of our environment is not a liberal or conservative challenge. it is common sense. the facts are greenhouse gases
like carbon dioxide are tracking key on the planet and making it warmer. second, the use of the oil and gas release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and becomes trapped into the earth becomes warmer. we are seeing this everywhere in experiencing the affected communities and receiving more regional climate change average temperatures have increased, seat levels are rising and there's ocean acidification. mr. chair, all of these have serious impacts whether it is sustained to the more frequent rooms or the destruction of coastal property or the devastation of the ecosystems that industries rely on. i would like to yield the rest of my time to the representative from the great state of illinois is a schakowsky. >> i thank my colleagues for her amendment. the noaa climate change is real and happening at an alarming
rate. we know that it's got implications for the national security. it certainly has implications for our economy. it has implications for health. i'm so disappointed that the president surrendered america's leadership when he removed the nation from the paris climate agreement. the rest of the world and our own private sector is moving. >> that lady's time has expired. >> i will yield back. >> iis there a member that would like to claim time in opposition. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the president was right to withdraw from the accord which was entered into unilaterally without being advised in the senate as is required by the constitution. the burden of compliance in the agreement fell heavily on the united states while the united states committed such significant reductions, major emitters such as china offered the same as the current
trajectories. and committed to improving the missions per unit gdp at a rate slower than they were already approving. an analysis by the mit technology found that a full client with all the pledges would reduce the temperatures by pink to decrease celsius in 2100. the deal would cost americans 9 million jobs in $3 trillion that is an extreme price to pay. american companies are already reducing the missions on their own instead of wasting anymore time on the constitutional accord, we need to focus our efforts on taking advantage of the countries resources and reducing the barriers had regulation on energy production. i would like to urge my colleagues to oppose an amendment in iowa yield.
>> it would have been frustrating if even the federal government and state part of this record because it does put the united states at a competitive disadvantage. it's something we've seen in the field of immigration us while encouraging what way does the government or individual states have their own foreign policy. it's like we are bac we're backs of the articles of confederati confederation. we don't like what the president says. each individual city or each individual state has their own foreign policy. the united states has done a great job of reducing the carbon emissions quite frankly more than the other countries that are a part of this accord record the idea that we would spend more money encouraging every state to have their own foreign policy is ridiculous and we should vote no on this amendment.
>> based on the improvements of the united states has made in reducing emissions, we were on pace to achieve every object in the climate accord anyway so it makes no sense to remain in the unconstitutional agreement. the other thing i would like to point out is the climate hysterics folk focuses around wr events. we are predicting a massive outbreak of hurricanes and had the lowest activity in a decade. the gentleman yields back. the gentle lady is recognized for one minutes to close.
let me just say if it were up to us we would love to have the federal government be involved in the paris accord. we wouldn't necessarily choose that individual states should be leading on such an important issue but unfortunately, as i have to remind my colleague, the federal government specifically president trump chose to pull out of the paris accord instead of chi 20, we had 19 around the paris climate agreement. that is unfortunate for all of us. i want to close by quoting president bush in 1990 at the remarks of the panel on climate change president bush that we all know that human activities are changing the atmosphere in unexpected and unprecedented ways. we are at an important juncture and we have the ability to translate scientific evidence into action into this amendment takes the step in returning us on the right path.
i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back. >> the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered. all those in favor? all those opposed? a recorded vote has been requested until we finish debating the batch of seven amendments. amendment 26 offered by the representative to increase budget authorities. you are recognized for three minutes. >> today's budget reduces veteran mandatory funding by nearly 50 billion over the next ten years.
the president proposed a similar amount by cutting off disability payments for veterans receiving social security. a devastating blow to veterans left unable to work due to a service connected disability. my amendment would restore funding for the critical mandatory veterans programs. living in the united states and up to 26.7 million family members who may be eligible for benefits. in the veterans health administration each year up from 5 million veterans to 2001. the va also provides mandatory benefits to veterans have earned them including disability compensation to 4.6 million veterans and over 400 survivors.
education benefits to 1 million veterans and their dependents so they can gain new degrees and skills. 2.6 million veterans so they can achieve the american dream of homeownership. also on the benefits claims backlog, more must be done and we must help make that possible. my amendment makes sure we fully fund our commitment to our veterans and offset the amount he quickly with revenue from the following categories. reducing tax breaks for the top 1% of income earners tackling the tax break, closing loopholes that encourage companies to invert and ship jobs overseas, reducing subsidies to big oil companies and restricting deductions when employees don't
get a raise. i urge my colleagues to support the veterans and support this amendment. >> the chair and yields back. is there a member that wishes to recognize for five minutes? we also hear the similar answers people will solve everything but we know that doesn't work. it's a top priority in this budget. the budget matches president prt trump's request and provides about a 6% increase in discretionary budget authority. this is an addition in the department the past six years
under the republican-controlled house. this budget grandfathers and all the current benefit. still, 25 plus years later after the gulf war, desert shield and desert storm, the va still doesn't have the proper techniques to diagnose the gulf war syndrome. they have not had a sense of urgency and the veterans affairs administration. the leadership now is committed
to making those reforms necessary, and this budget adequately funds -- and those veterans are going to be taken care of. we owe it to them and they deserve it. i will yield back to my colleague mr. johnson. >> i think my colleagu colleague yielding and i associate myself with all of mr. bergman comments. congress updates under spending cuts required by law mismanagement of funds squanders valuable resources. i have sat on the veterans affairs committee and i've seen some of the dysfunction and i agree with my colleague the new leadership is trying hard to turn this around, and i'm optimistic that we are finally beginning to see progress. but without significant reforms,
we are going to see a lot of the problems crop back up again. and some of the programs are in dire need of reform. take a look at what the government accountability office says since 2003 the va health-care mandatory benefits programs like disability compensation have appeared on the gao high-risk list because they are vulnerable to fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement. they are in need of transformation or they have the inability to assure allocated resources are being used in a cost-effective and efficient ways. those are not my words. those are the gao. we applaud the decision for example to replace its legacy system with a single electronic health record. they've been working on that for years and spent over $4 billion on it, but they still haven't quite gotten there yet.
so i would did he was my colleague we think that this supports our veterans and with that i will yield back. >> i really appreciate my colleagues comment but the fact of the matter is this budget still cuts $50 billion that infects veterans. i just want to reiterate the need to honor the commitment of the nation's veterans to fully fund. i am a veteran myself. this includes funding not only for the va but funding for all other agencies that care for the veterans and their families. we can put all this then we want and we can talk about the terrible things the va hasn't been able to get over in terms of management, but the veterans shouldn't get penalized and no matter how we characterize it, we are talking a significant cut to our veterans.
the republican budget shortchanges our commitment and of the need of our veterans. i ask my colleagues to support him and. thank you. i yield back. >> question is to the amendment agreed. all those in favor? those opposed? are there any other amendments? >> can i get a recorded vote please. >> recorded vote is requested pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement. we will postpone until we finished debating the batch of seven amendments. are there any other amendments? >> amendment 27. >> this is amendment 27. the clerk will designate. >> amendment 27 offered by
representative jackson lee to increase pell grants. >> thank you. as i have listened to the debate i believe i started off this morning by indicating that there is commitment in this room to the many positions that have been expressed, but there is certainly great divide and division on how we should invest in the american people. i do believe that there are those who benefited from the great society, many of us in this room who are now members of congress, who became president of the united states like president barack obama, and even our secretary of housing and urban development, who started in poverty, doctor ben carson. that means i am committed to investing in people and of the needs of people in particular. and so, my amendment number 27 will increase the maximum total
grant award by $50 $500.2017 an8 dean's school year and inflation after 2018. student loan debts now is $1.4 trillion. $620 billion more than credit card debt and in the 2016 graduates will graduate with a $7,000 plus in student loan debt. the pell grants help students afford college. the maximum grant of 5,92 5,920n 2017 and 2018 will cover just 29% of the cost of college at a public university compared to 40 years ago. programs will help boost college access for underserved students atthe cost of college races, low-income minority and first-generation students face even greater challenges to give them a hand and help them improve opportunities for business or jaws and when they have businesses or jobs they churn the economy by investing in the economy.
programs are good. we are boosting america's economy. the pell grant programs target students most in need of assistance as if i delete a federal primary aid program. since its inception millions of students have completed college and it strengthens our economy and america's overall competitiveness. we don't compete against each other. we compete against the world. any of us know that bright young people around the world are competing with our young people why should we leave one low-income students behind who could be the next inventor of the next generation of technology that could change the world perspective? the pell grants help these often come students get a helping hand. as soon as we are america. we believe that the red white and blue and all the stars represent those that may not have the best start in life. i've seen these young people in community colleges and historically black colleges, asian-pacific colleges and
public institutions, the young, the price, they are eager and i'm not going to say no to them because they don't say no to the united states of america when we ask them to serve. this is an important amendment and i ask my colleagues in a bipartisan manner to support the jackson-lee amendment, protect it, support it and grow our economy. with that i will reserve. >> as they remember that would like to claim time in opposition to the amendments? >> thank you chairman. the pell grant program is the largest source of federal grants for students. congress and previous administrations have made repeated decisions to raise the programs maximum award and expand eligibility but it's caused to the program itself to be on risky financial footing between fiscal years 2006 and 16, the discretionary costs
ballooned from 12.8 billion to $22.8 billion in fiscal year 15 the program provided a total of 31 million to nearly 8.2 million undergraduate student programs had their intermittently suspend it delete the -- big increases. due to the reckless increases, they now predict the program will face a multibillion-dollar global shortfall in the coming years. increasing the maximum will only exacerbate the problem and make the pell grant program even more financially sustainable putting at risk for future generations. increasing federal subsidies for college tuition will not solve the college cost problem in fact it's likely lead to larger tuition hikes in administrative costs. consider this. since 1980, told grant funding has increased 475%. since 1982 the cost of attending college has increased 439% more
than four times the rate of inflation. common sense tells us this is not a coincidence. more funding means more money colleges need and universities can capture through higher tuitions. this would increase subsidies for colleges to live and raise their tuition and demand money from the government through pell grants. as long as the federal government is willing to pay the money, tuition will continue to rise and we will get the expected results. at this time i would like to yield to my friend from minnesota for his comments and he's welcome to take the last two minutes. >> if you subsidize something you get more of it and as we subsidize college tuition, we get higher costs. the federal reserve bank of new york, the sticker prices that colleges with lots of borrowers increased after federal student loan programs and grants extended. for every additional dollar subsidized loans, grants and colleges raised their sticker price by 65 cents.
in fact if you take a look at those areas like community college where tuition is free in many states, one third of the students from the bottom income who started the community colleges in 2003 finished their degree by 2009 even though the federal government covered the price of tuition for the problem wasn't that we have that with workforce training had little to do with the lack of access to higher ed. it's more in the way we do it. a poll conducted by the research suggested 68% of the manufacturing respondents in my home state of minnesota found it difficult to attract qualified candidates to build the vacancies. and yes, as the gentleman previously noted, the pell grant funding has been skyrocketing. if you look at 1997, 8.6 billion by 2011, 40 billion from seven to 11, the real increase of 158% recipients of 80%.
now if you take a look at the discretionary funding of pell grants about $4,860 per student last year, then you look at the mandatory spending 955 it's not as though we are underfunded here. what we've got is the ability to address the fundamental workplace and workforce training problem and that is all too often we are subsidizing kids and encouraging them to go into areas in the economy that don't have a great demand. we need to rethink that and not just throw more money at it. i will yield back. >> i urge a yes vote for the amendment and all throughout this time of our debate one theme runs high, the trump tax plan. massive tax cuts for the millionaires and billionaires, tax increases for millions of people and working families. that is the crux of the opposition of my good friends on
the other side. our students are paying between four and 7% interest rates to be educated. as i indicated the money from programs now take up only 29% of the cost. we can work to bring down tuition rates and we can work to correct some of the elements that should be corrected. younyoung people want to be dird towards those in professions that are now current in the 21st century. they are not rejecting death but they simply want to go to college. but the whole theme of the budget hearing tonight and this markup is all about giving rich people taxes. otherwise we would be committed to some of the amendments offered by my friends and we would be committed to fixing the elements so that it could be a better offering to the american people. i put my money on the american people and their needs. i will not put my money on a tax plan while we go to heck in a basket. >> the question on agreeing to the amendment offered by ms. jackson lee. all of those in favor, those
opposed? in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. roll call vote is requested pursuant to the minimus consent agreement. we will postpone the recorded vote until they finish debate on the batch of the amendments. are there any other amendments? >> mr. chairman, i have amendment 28 i think it is the last. >> amendment 28, the clerk will designate. >> amendment 28 offered by representative schakowsky to insert a policy statement on reducing prescription drug costs for americans. >> mr. schakowsky is recognized for three minutes. >> this amendment is similar to one that was accepted unanimously in the energy and commerce committee decides that it's a policy of this congress to improve access to and affordability of prescription
drugs for all, every family in america has been impacted by some way by the rising cost of prescription drugs, and that's why 60% of americans believe that the cost needs to be top priority. 77% of americans believe the price of drugs is unreasonable, and nearly 25% of americans have skipped doses of medication due to the cost. it's time for all of us to work together to express real reforms to reduce the drug prices. this just states our intention to do that. i will yield one minute to the congressman. >> this budget proposal would decimate medicare, putting private insurance companies back in control and dump older americans from coverage and to charge excessive and unaffordable premiums. the amendment would use the leverage, the power of 57 million medicare enrollees to drive down the cost of prescription drugs.
according to the kaiser family foundation, medicaid, which has 74 million beneficiaries receives 24% drug discounts every year. the administration with 29 million beneficiaries would've knocked down drug prices by 24%. the department of justice also 24% and medicare with 57 million beneficiaries which would be using the leverage of the government to drive down the cost of health care and up the quality. so, i support my colleagues and i hope others will as well. >> i will yield one minute to congressman connor. >> elisabeth rosenthal wrote an outstanding book american sickness and i recommend to everyone. she talks about the things that are driving up the cost of healthcare. pharmaceutical, insurance companies and hospitals.
we all should agree that americans shouldn't be paying more for drugs than people almost anywhere else in the road. world. and there are basic things we can do. they can give medicare the ability to negotiate these prices are. they can take the cost and i will yield back my time. >> this amendment doesn't prescribe a particular solution just that we all agree we should work together to over the drug prices. and i will yield back. >> is there a number that would like to claim time in opposition to the amendments? mr. johnson is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. i actually like the title of
this amendment, reduce prescription drug costs for all americans. and i agree with my colleague who offered it needed to do significant work last session in energy and commerce to begin moving that ball forward. however it is important to remember the impact of the affordable care act on the rising cost of prescription drugs. to pay for his or her drug costs compared to 20% for someone with employer-sponsored health care. consequently, researchers have found americans with plans purchased on the exchanges, fewer perceptions were to avoid out-of-pocket costs and as a result experienced more serious medical problems and therein,
the costs go even higher over the long run. we all agree that they are essential to patients living longer and healthier and more productive lives. this budget fully supports patient access to prescription drugs. this includes supporting the reduction and burdensome regulations could stymie innovation and reduce competition. therapies by the food and drug administration this budget provides the necessary funding to invest in biomedical research. this is the key to unlocking new technology and new knowledge that can lead to better health and disease for everyone the
empowerment of innovation by removing obstacles that impede the adoption of medical technologies of the bureaucracy and red tape in washington too often hold back medical innovation come increasing rather than decreasing costs and prevent new life-saving treatments from reaching patients. so as we say in a policy statement within this budget, the nation's commitment to the discovery, development and delivery of new treatments has made the united states biomedical innovation capital of the world. the medicines to the new market have been introduced. spending on retail protection medicines grew more slowly in healthcare spending overall. and seven of the last ten years in recent years for the leading
cost for healthcare costs growth. we are making progress mr. chairman, and we believe this budget helps us to continue making progress and i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. with that i will yield back the balance of my time. >> i would like to yield 30 seconds to the ranking member. >> so many people talk about the concept of free market in health care. when you look at the prescription drug industry and the entire cycle this is where the free market is totally incapable of dealing with the reality. all prescription drugs benefit from taxpayer financed research
and then were turned over to commercial companies that are basically unrestrained and they can charge whatever they want and in many cases ten or 15 times. the recorded vote is requested for the unanimous consent agreement we will postpone until we finish debating the amendments. the committee will stand in recess subject to the call of the chair.
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the committee will come to order. >> men german. >> for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition. >> i would like to offer an amendment. >> would you like to discuss that amendment. >> yes, i recognize there has been a gentlemen's agreement at least on the republican side with regard to not amendment will not regard, my discussion of this amendment is most ungentlemanly. i offered it with the greatest of respect because it would take solomon in all of his
wisdom to get the balancing act right. there has been a series of events that have collided over the past couple of days back and tell me to want to offer this amendment. it was earlier in the week where i saw the article where they were talking about how they were both fully committed to full expensing with regard to tax reform. i don't know how you pay for that without a bat. then, in the past 24 hours, healthcare blew up and in essence that creates more than a trillion dollar whole in getting to tax reform, and i don't know how you again without a bat. i was at dinner last night with an number of the ways and means committee and their point was looking over nothing this is the best button so you can come up with another, it's the only pay for. i just think in the world of business is about probabilities. i'm not saying there's a guaranty of about going
forward, but i think recently leslie over the past couple of days were in that direction. that puts myself and others in this committee in a bad spot because there are a lot of things i don't like in this budget and i've been fairly clear with regard to economic assumptions are some of the cuts or add-ons, but i've looked past those because they believe the tax reform is vital competitiveness. i believe it's important economic growth along a list of things that haven't happened in 30 years, but at the tax reform that we get is ultimately tax reform that is against the very tax reform that i believe ought to come next, and i expect the same would be true for other members of the committee, it indeed puts us in a bad spot with regard to reconciliation. i would simply say as a conservative, government always has a way of growing. if you leave an income tax in place and you have what looks
like and smells like a tax then you end up with both and that's a problem from the conservative side. it's amazing. [inaudible] the world trade center has already said they have major concerns and for every action there's an equal and ac opposite reaction. i don't know what would come next if we were to institute this in terms of what other countries say. i would say lastly as a consumer, to my colleague from california who made the point earlier, this amounts to one point to trillion dollars tax. it would hopefull be born by the consumers. i have a range of concerns that would compel me to want to offer this amendment and that sort of where i am and i'm struggling with that. >> i think the gentleman. the amendment is not on the list of amendments that had
been exchanged with the unanimous agreement. since we have decided to do role vote calls today, the committee can resume postpone votes on the following amendments and those amendments. >> for what purpose does the german seek recognition. >> i just wanted to ask whether there is any way to have an amendment on such a major issue considered where we can all vote on it given that this is a budget committee in such a key issue or to the rules prohibit that? >> the amendment is not on the list of the unanimous consent. >> i asked that we allow mr. stanford to make an amendment. >> i object to unanimous consent and i'd like to call the roll. >> for what purpose does the
gentle lady seek recognition. >> to make an inquiry. what i am understanding is that the preceding to a roll call, i think the gentleman from south carolina was thoughtful in his discussion. i think he was primarily speaking to his colleagues. and i think he felt genuinely sincere about his thoughts about the amendment, but he did make an inquiry about moving this amendment forward. we have a ruling? isn't feasible to weigh the rules that have indicated that there's been an exchange of amendments and agreed-upon. i'm speaking for the idea that i did not hear a ruling on the gentleman from south carolina's amendment as to whether or not he would have
the ability -- all i heard was to move on to roll call. is it not feasible to weigh the rules to allow the gentleman to present his amendment. i'd be interested in the details of his amendment since this is the budget committee. >> this was not on the list of amendments. we are going to move forward. >> let me make a final point madam chair. >> mamet was not in the list of agreements. it is not on the list so we are going to move forward. >> is it ruled that he cannot submit his amendment. >> the committee is going to move forward and since we have decided to have role call votes today, the committee will resume the votes on the following amendment mr. akita
[inaudible] ms. jackson-lee, yes. miss chicago ski, yes. madame german, no. madame chairman, no. >> are there any who wish to change their vote or to vote. if not the clerk will report. >> the yes are 14 and then know is 24 and the amendment is not agreed too. the committee will vote on the amendment. the clerk will designate the amendment. >> amendment 23 offered by representative oil. >> mr. clark will call the roll.
[roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] >> are there any members who wish to vote or change the vote? >> the vote is 1422. >> the amendment is not agreed too. the committee will now vote on amendment offered. >> amendment number 25. >> the clerk will call the roll. [roll call vote] [roll call vote]
[roll call vote] >> are there any members who wish to vote or change the vote? if not the clerk shall report. >> the vote is 14 - 22. >> the amendment is not agreed too. the committee will now vote on the amendment offered by ms ms. sheila jackson lee. >> amendment number 27 offered by representative jackson-lee. >> the clerk will call the roll. [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote]
[roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] >> are there any members who wish to change their vote or vote. if not the clerk shall report. >> the vote is 14 - 22. >> the amendment is not agreed too. the committee will now vote on the amendment 28. the clerk will call the roll.
>> are there any members who wish to vote or change their vote? if not the clerk shall report. >> on that vote it is 14 - 22. >> the amendment is not agreed too. >> mr. chairman i move to aggregate functions and other appropriate matters. all those in favor say i. in the opinion of the chair, the i's have it. now to committee number nine it was identical to what was distributed yesterday morning. i recognize the gentleman from
indiana to order the road solution reported to the house. >> i move that they order the concurrent resolution on the budget report to the house with the recommendation that it be adopted. >> the question is on ordering the concurrent resolution on the budget to be favorably reported to the house, all in favor say i. all those opposed no. in the opinion of the chair, the i's have it. >> a recorded vote is requested, the clerk will call the roll. [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] in.
[roll call vote] will. [roll call vote] will. [roll call vote] the. [roll call vote] i. >> are there any members who wish to vote or change their vote? >> on that vote it is 22 - 14. >> the i's have it in the motion is agreed too. i note for the record that the form is present. i would like to ask members to remain for a few minutes for a series of emotions. i want to thank our staff. they have been a tremendous help to both majority and minority.
i will say that i've not worked -- [applause] they certainly deserve that round of applause because they have been there to answer questions, to do whatever we need them to do within the limits of what they are able to do. i also want to thank the ranking member and all of the members of his committee as well. it has been a good congenial markup and we certainly appreciate the ability to be able to work together, even if we don't agree on everything, to make our points known so i think all of the members here for participating in this important process. >> madame chairman, i asked for the requisite number of days for the minority to file its view. >> without objection.
>> i now recognize the gentleman from indiana. >> i move pursuant to rule 22 that the committee authorize such motion in the house which may be necessary to go to conference with the senate on the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018. >> without objection. >> ask unanimous consent that the staff be authorized to make technical and conforming corrections and to calculate the remaining elements required in the resolution prior to filing of the resolution. >> without objection. that concludes today's business on the house budget committee. the committee stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
overhaul of the tax code and cuts to entitlement programs. congressional quarterly quotes mark meadows, chair of the freedom caucus saying there should be more cuts in the budget as written does not have the votes to pass. at the news that congressional budget analysts expect them to repeal part of the healthcare law with no immediate plan to replace it would increase the number without health coverage by 17 million next year end 32 million at the end of the decade. the new report also said the legislation would decrease federal deficits by $473 billion over the ten year window. tonight's markup started at 10:00 a.m. this morning. here's a look at some debate from earlier