tv Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Markup Part 2 CSPAN July 24, 2017 1:49am-3:39am EDT
discretionary spending. the vote was along party lines and the measure heads to the full house. next, we show you a portion of the markup session. it is just under two hours. >> the committee will come to order. are there any other amendments? this is amendment number 6 and the clerk will designate the amendment. the staff will distribute conference of the amendment. >> amendment number six offered by -- preserving medicare seniors and persons with disabilities. >> mr. jeffreys isies is recognized. >> thank you, madame chair. this will help ensure does not secure tax breaks for trump's wealthy friends and special interests by cutting medicare.
congress should protect medicare for seniors and people with disabilities, not undermine it. the republican budget will eliminate guaranteed long-established health insurance benefits for seniors and the elderly as well as people with disabilities under the medicare program. the republican budget will increase costs for the elderly and disabled by establishing a medicare voucher scheme that provides insufficient payments to medicare beneficiaries in order to purchase needed health care. and the republican budget will destroy the traditional medicare program by diverting the healthiest enrollees into private plans, which would undermine traditional medicare's ability to control cost. once again, this budget omits the policy details that would allow us to engage in a full analysis of the plan. but one thing is clear, the budget utterly fails to address the root causes of growing health care costs, which is
price gouging by pharmaceutical companies. instead, it aims to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires while telling seniors to go take a hike, take on more of the cost and financial risk of their health care. i now yield a minute to representative susanville than a suzan delbene. >> thank you. i am pleased to support mr. amendment preserving the medicare guarantee for our seniors. the house republican budget spells disaster for the more than 58 million americans who rely on medicare, including 90,000 in my district. privatizing medicare, replacing comprehensive health coverage with a dangerous voucher system is yet another assault on the middle class. it is unthinkable. -- it is unacceptable.
not even president trump supports this plan. every day, 10,000 americans turn 65. and they expect medicare to be there for them just as it was for generations before. we should not be balancing the budget on the backs of seniors. instead, we should be tackling the rising costs of prescription drugs and helping more seniors get the care they need. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. and i yield back. senator jeffreys thank the : gentle lady from washington. i now recognize representative michelle lujan grisham. >> i want to thank my friend and colleague from new york for yielding, and i too want to add my support to his amendments to protect medicare. now, i'm starting to detect a pattern in the kind of health care policies republicans are putting forward. cut federal health programs and make states and consumers end then pay more. this time, it is seniors and disabled adults who will bear those costs. seniors who are living on fixed incomes and probably the least able to absorb increases in premiums or out of pocket costs
will be expected to pay 25% more to remain in traditional medicare under this plan in the -- and the notion that they are positioned to negotiate don't when insurance companies do not negotiate, frankly, to me is , ludicrous. this comes after president trump promised repeatedly during the campaign that he could save medicare and medicaid and social security without cuts. i happen to agree with him by . by continuing to work toward payment reforms that reward quality over volume and reigning reigning in prescription drug prices, we in fact can lower these costs even more and further extend the life of the medicare trust fund. i encourage my colleagues to abandon this approach and to instead work to strengthen the medicare program for america's seniors and disabled. i yield back. >> thank the distinguished
gentle lady from new mexico, and now, yield one minute to representative janikowski from the great state of illinois. >> thank you. i support the congressman's amendment. then-candidate trump bragged that he was, quote, "the first and only potential gop candidate to say there will be no cuts to social security, medicare, and medicaid," unquote. and that promise will be broken if the policies in this budget are enacted. despite what my republican colleagues will claim this this budget would end medicare , as we know it by essentially privatizing the program. however, the republican budget is very short on details. will seniors be given a voucher to pay their private insurance premiums? will costs go up for the seniors if their vouchers don't cover their entire premiums? will they be subject to higher cost sharing? seniors across the country are paying close attention and have every reason to worry. so i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and
preserve medicare for generations to come. with that, i yield back. >> thank the distinguished gentle lady from illinois. the republican budget once again seeks to balance itself on the backs of the most vulnerable amongst us, working families middle class folks, the poor, , the sick, the afflicted, rural america, and now, targeting medicare, seniors who are simply trying to live out their golden years with the dignity and respect that they not only deserve but have earned by paying in to the system. and that's why i urge support for this amendment to protect medicare here in this country. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. is there a member who would like to claim time in opposition to the amendment? mr. smucker, you are recognized for seven minutes. >> thank you, madame chair.
it's important that we strengthen, we secure, and we save medicare for current seniors and for future generations of americans. and our budget does just that. the math on this is absolutely clear. because of rising health costs and demographic changes, the 2017 medicare trustees report projected that the medicare program will be bankrupt in 2029. cbo similarly projects medicare's insolvency in 2025. this means, as soon as eight years from now, the medicare program as we know it will likely be insolvent if we do not act now to protect and preserve the program. specifically, medicare's hospital insurance trust fund will be unable to pay 100% of patient care costs, which would reduce beneficiary access to health care services. such an outcome is completely, simply unacceptable for the millions of seniors who rely on this program. to clarify any misconceptions
about our plan, let's debunk some of the political attacks on our efforts to save and strengthen medicare for the american people. number one, our budget protects the current medicare system as it is so those at or near retirement will be unaffected and experience no changes while protecting the medicare system for younger generations as well. this resolution fully supports a patient-centered medicare program that increases quality and choice for beneficiaries. medicare improvements envision in this budget would adopt the popular simplified coverage structure of medicare vantage and would allow seniors greater plan choices while reducing costs. and furthermore, the government payment would be adjusted so the sick would receive more financial assistance if their conditions worsened, and lower -income seniors would receive additional support to help cover premiums and out of pocket costs. under this improved program,
traditional medicare is saved. and it would always come and i always,-- and it would and i repeat always, be an , option for traditional medicare available to seniors. and finally, cbo determined that a medicare program following the model proposed by this budget would result in cost savings for both seniors and for the program. under our plan, 50 million seniors are empowered to use choice and competition to bring down health care costs. the real threat to the medicare guarantee is the status quo. costs continue to skyrocket, and today's seniors continue to lose access to quality care and the program remains on a quick path to bankruptcy. inaction and ignorance will not protect medicare. it will only hasten the program's demise leaving our nation's seniors in despair. our budget plan ensures solvency for the medicare program and safeguards this vital program for our nation's current seniors and future generations of beneficiaries to come.
therefore, these reasons i urge a no-vote on this amendment. i yield the balance of my time to mr. woodall. >> i thank my friend for re-yielding. i've always believed there's more that unites us than divides us. i think we can all agree that seniors in this country expect medicare to be there for them. they paid into medicare part a their entire life and do expect it to be there for them. but you said something interesting, and it was just as it has always been, certainly the confidence we want to be just has always been and that confidence is not there any longer. as trustees report after trustees report tells us bankruptcy is imminent. but more importantly, just as it has been as mr. smucker says locks us into that status quo, i remember the debates had in this body over medicare advantage. and member after member lined up
and said "i don't want to see the medicare program change." and as mr. smucker alluded to, medicare vantage is the single most popular aspect of the medicare program today and yet we see budget after budget so often from the other side trying to restrict the medicare advantage program if you want the program to continue just as it always has with no improvements and no changes, the trustees tell us that option is not available to us, bankruptcy is imminent. but more importantly, why would you? why wouldn't you want to add more choices to the system? we have done that in the past, we have done it successfully and we have done it to the delight of those members on medicare. but i'll say this to all my colleagues in great candor, we rouse --nd th end the colleagues in great candor, we need to colleagues in great candor, we need to end the ruse that folks like me in our 40s
are going to have the same medicare program that my mom and dad had. we never had enough money coming into the program to preserve the medicare program for folks in their 30s and 40s, and we still don't today. the time to act, the time to make those changes is today. while folks still have enough time looking forward into their future to plan, and i want to be clear. this budget protects every single senior on medicare today. it anticipates making sure those promises are kept. expanded, but kept. madam chair, this has been called the third rail of politics. folks have allowed the degradation of the solvency of the trust fund to come to the place it is today because they were afraid of tackling it. through your leadership on this committee, folks have had the courage to stand up and say we "we can protect medicare today. we can improve medicare tomorrow and the status quo is not an acceptable alternative." i urge my colleagues, knowing that there's more on which we agree than disagree, to reject this amendment. let's agree to fight for medicare, but let's let the fighting be against the status quo and in favor of long term solvency. >and with that, i yield back the
balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. ies isffr recognized. >> the republican budget plan for unfettered market competition is a recipe for disaster. prior to the creation of medicare in 1965, almost half of american seniors had no health insurance whatsoever. as health care costs steadily rose, the so-called market failed to respond. medicare changed that dynamic. democrats are committed to keeping and strengthening medicare for seniors and disabled workers by reducing cost growth within the health system while protecting and providing essential benefits.
the affordable care act includes numerous cost containment tools and has contributed to record low rates of health care spending growth since 2010. it has begun medicare's transformation toward rewarding quality and value and keeping it sustainable. we need to build upon that progress, not undermine it. i yield back. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by mr. jeffries. all those in favor, say aye. all those opposed, say no. in the opinion of the chair, the no's have it. we will postpone the recorded vote until we finish the debate. are there other amendments? >> yes, madam chair. i have an amendment. this is amendment number seven,
and the clerk will designate the amendment. the staff will distribute copies of the amendment. >> amendment number seven, offered by representative schakowsky to insert a policy statement on women's health care. >> ms. schakowsky is recognized for six minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. i offer an amendment to protect women's health by ending the war on planned parenthood and allowing women to pick their own medical provider. i really find it ironic that republicans claim that they want to increase choices for people and allow them to make their own health decisions but apparently, that right does not extend to women. planned parenthood is a trusted source of health care for 2.5 million americans every single year. one in five women will visit a planned parenthood clinic in her lifetime. it offers preventive care, vaccines, screenings, contraception, and it's for men
as well as women, by the way, that can go to planned parenthood. and yet, republicans continue to do everything they can to restrict women from getting their care from planned parenthood. the republican budget proposes not only removing planned parenthood from the medicaid program but also makes it ineligible to participate in any federal program. and let's not pretend that this war on planned parenthood is anything other than a direct attack on women's health. over half of planned parenthood health centers are in professional shortage areas, rural, or medically underserved areas. these are places that desperately need more health care providers, yet republicans are trying to make it hard for women in these areas to access care. democratic women, republican women, independents. in fact, the cbo projects that about 15% of people living in those areas would lose access to care.
75% of patients of planned parenthood have incomes at or below 150% of the poverty level. this attack on planned parenthood will hurt low-income communities and families of color and family that face -- and communities that face dangerous health disparities. teen pregnancy and abortion rates are at historic lows. defunding planned parenthood and other reproductive health providers would take away the very services that have lowered those rates. let me be clear. the republican plot to defund planned parenthood is nothing more than a direct attack on women and women are simply not going to stand for it. let me say that the republicans have long contended that the federally qualified health programs, the clinics, community health centers can take up the slack if planned parenthood is eliminated. actually, those very clinics
have said that is not true. this will cause about 15% of people living in these underserved areas to lose access to care. now, i would like to yield one minute to congresswoman jiathol. >> thank you for this important amendment. by pushing the agenda to defund planned parenthood, i fear my colleagues on the republican side are using this budget resolution to punish millions of women around the country. in a single year, planned parenthood provides care for 2.4 million people at over 600 affiliate health care centers around the country. 80% of patients visit the clinics to prevent pregnancies and to get contraceptive pills , which prevented 560,000 unintended pregnancies. with more than half of the health centers in underserved areas, planned parenthood
provides crucial care to women and men who otherwise would not have access at all. defunding these clinics would mean a loss of health care access to over 40% of women who use them as primary care facilities, and community health centers, which by the way, are all across the country in rural areas, cannot absorb millions of new patients. i hope that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will actually support this amendment because cutting funding does not save us money. it's simply a tool to control women's choices and bodies. i yield back the balance of my time. >> and now, i'd like to yield one minute to congresswoman delbene. >> thank you. i strongly support ms. schakowsky's amendment to protect women's access to care through planned parenthood. the house republican budget could be devastating to women's health. not only does it undermine coverage for maternity care and birth control, but it also takes
the extreme step of defunding planned parenthood, a trusted medical provider to 2.5 million americans, something they rely on. politicians have no right to interfere in a woman's personal medical decisions. and that includes when and where she gets health care. last year, planned parenthood performed more than 600,000 cancer screenings and helped detect abnormalities in more than 72,000 women. this is life-saving care. it's time for republicans to stop their relentless crusade against planned parenthood and give women the dignity of making their own health care decisions. i urge all my colleagues who respect women's health to vote yes on this amendment. and i yield back. >> thank you. and i yield the remaining time to congresswoman jacqueline lee. >> this is a story about the devastating impact of the destruction of planned parenthood. 75% of planned parenthood patients have incomes at or
below 150% of the federal poverty level, and at least 60% of patients access care through medicaid or title x family planning. more than one third are patients -- of patients are people of color. here's a healthy mother wanting to have a healthy baby. her preventative health care comes from planned parenthood. do you want to stop this kind of life-saving health care? that is what the trumpcare, democratic -- >> the gentlelady's time has expired. >> i yield back. >> and i claim the time and decision to this amendment, yield myself seven minutes. so as paul harvey says, here's , the rest of the story. let's talk about the additional women's health funding that's in this budget. the budget supports enhanced access to women's health care services. this budget also assumes that the american health care act would provide additional funding, specifically for maternal health through patient
and state stability funds. this budget fully funds discretionary programs at the department of health and human services that focus on women's health, including the nih, office of women's health, the nih pregnancy and peri natal branch, the cdc office of women's health, the cdc efforts to prevent the spread of zika virus, which impacts pregnant women. so here are some other responses of the rest of the story. our budget does not eliminate federal funding -- or excuse me, -- does eliminate federal funding for planned parenthood. however, it promotes redirecting these funds to community health centers. the budget promotes investing in community health centers to promote greater access to care for women. the community health centers are nonprofits. the community health centers are nonprofit. they are community-based clinics that provide comprehensive care, including mammograms, which by the way, planned parenthood claims to have provided, and we
now know that they do not provide mammograms. in fact, they have not -- they do not have a single location that provides a mammogram. now, here's some other little facts. there are 9000 community health centers, which unlike planned parenthood clinics, are required -- yes, they're to be locatedw -- in a medically underserved area with high levels of poverty and infant mortality. so when others talk about oh, there's not going to be services, they're actually required to be in those very communities where women need these health care services the very most. in fact, in 2015, community health centers provided health services for more than 20 million americans. nearly 60% of those that they provided the services for were females. in contrast, planned parenthood serves less than 3 million. so let's look at that. so let us look at that. nearly 20 million or more than 20 million in community health
centers, and fewer than 3 million in planned parenthood facilities. this budget also makes efforts to insure that taxpayer dollars do not go to the nation's largest provider of abortions , but rather, supports those health care centers that truly provide comprehensive care to women. more than just mammograms, more than just prenatal care, there are other services they provide that are not provided in planned parenthood centers. the federal government should not force states to provide funding to clinics such as planned parenthood that perform elective abortions. and similarly, the government should not force taxpayers to fund clinics where they are against their own values. this budget continues this protection by proposing to eliminate all federal funding for planned parenthood and similar organizations. now, additionally, let's look at the cbo score that was mentioned in the opening remarks.
so the congressional budget office does anticipate some small costs associated with the complete elimination of funding planned parenthood. the budget committee contests the score that they have put out because it's based on cbo's faulty assumption that reducing planned parenthood's funding would result in more pregnancies from a lack of access to contraceptives. as i've already talked about, there are 20 million women that are taken care of in the community health centers, only 3 million -- less than 3 million -- in planned parenthood. but this is unreasonable. and you talk about being against women. this is a sexist assumption that women's ability to seek out care depends upon having a planned parenthood facility across the street. as we are providing additional funding for community health centers as part of our offer, it's unreasonable for cbo to assume that women are incapable of finding another provider. women are smarter than this. they're able to find other providers. planned parenthood is not -- if
it is their option, they are smart enough to find other providers, and i'm insulted to say that women are not going to be able to make that choice to find another provider. we assume that we in our budget assume that women are capable, they're smart, they're independent enough to seek contraceptives elsewhere instead of giving up and going straight home to get pregnant as cbo assumes. this is an insult to women. women don't need some paternalistic government to provide for them. our budget is pro-women, pro-girl, and it's pro-unborn baby girl. you talk about being pro-women. if we're taking little girls' lives, that doesn't seem to me to be very pro-woman. i urge a no vote on this amendment, and i yield back the balance of my time. >> now, ms. schakowsky is recognized for one minute to close. >> a couple of things. planned parenthood does screenings for breast cancer. yes, and then it will refer women where there is a mammogram
when there is something abnormal found. and these screenings are very important. as far as insulting women, are you kidding me? there are women who have to travel hundreds of miles in order to get to a clinic. they don't have a planned parenthood nearby. and so, it is not for a lack of smarts and intelligence that women have to -- that women seek, and again, it's democratic and republican women alike, that seek planned parenthood clinics. in fact, 19 national polls have shown that american people do not support defunding planned parenthood. but the republican have their -- but if the republican have their way, millions of patients will in fact lose access to cancer screening and contraception and sdi testing and well women and more. and those very community health centers you cite suggest that it would be a problem for them. they would not be able to make up the gap. so i urge my colleagues to support this pro-woman amendment, and i yield back. yields backelady
the balance of her time. all those in favor, say aye. those opposed. >> no. >> in the opinion of the chair, the no's have it. >> i request a recorded vote. >> a recorded vote is requested. we will postpone the recorded vote until we have finished debate on the batch of the seventh. just a minute. so, do we have number eight here? ok, so, mr. higgins is here. so are there other amendments? mr. higgins? >> thank you, madam chair. >> you have an amendment at the desk? >> i do. >> so this is amendment number eight. and the clerk will designate the amendment. the staff will distribute copies of the amendment. >> amendment number eight
, offered by representative higgins relates to america's , transportation infrastructure. >> thank you, madam chair. >> mr. higgins is recognized for six minutes. >> fundamental to the growth of any advanced industrial society is the investment you make in infrastructure for a couple of reasons. one is it's a massive investment that you finance publicly at very, very low rates to create jobs in the construction trades and supply and materials industry immediately, and after you make that investment, that unleashes the creativity and resources of the private sector. we see that happening in places like buffalo, new york. every place where we made federal investments in new roads, we see new investment in businesses along the roads we built. the state of the american infrastructure is pathetic.
and this is a pathetically weak response to an urgent need to rebuild our nation's roads and bridges. the 2018 budget proposes to spend less than $92 billion in outlays for american transportation infrastructure. when you compare that to the $118 billion the u.s. taxpayers pay to rebuild the roads and bridges of afghanistan, it pales in comparison. when you consider the $96 billion u.s. taxpayers paid to rebuild the roads and bridges of iraq, a $92 billion investment in 2018 in rebuilding the infrastructure of america is, again, i think a national and international embarrassment. keep in mind that both iraq and afghanistan, they are nations with a population of approximately 30 million people.
america is 325 million people. the american society of civil engineers consistently rates the quality of american infrastructure at a "d" rating. the world economic forum where where american infrastructure in , terms of quality was number years ago it's now number , 24. recently, jpmorgan chase president and ceo jamie dimond had said that the united states hasn't built a major airport in 20 years. china built 75 new airports in the past 10 years. as i mentioned previously, china announced a major infrastructure investment to open up their markets to 27 new asian countries to advance the products that they make in china. our only investment is that of $92 billion for next year and a
nebulous request for funding to build infrastructure along the southern border. we can obviously do much better. the united states chamber of commerce also says that we lose $200 billion in lost productivity because the poor quality of our infrastructure. so that's respectfully that one area where republicans and democrats clearly should be able to come together is on a robust public investment in infrastructure because of the economic activity that would result. a lot of people talk about tax cuts around here, and tax cuts don't pay for themselves. the most accurate, incredible analysis is that you could return about a third of the money that you lay out for tax cuts. infrastructure is very, very
different. it's a proven job creator, and it's a proven business investment-maker after you have made that investment. so it asks that we please consider not cutting infrastructure and adding to it considerably if in fact we hope to get anywhere near where your budget projects the economy has to grow over the next 10 years to create a surplus. and with that, madam chair, i would yield one minute to mr. carbajal. , representative higgins. i just want to address the inadequate funding for infrastructure in this budget resolution. this republican budget would reduce funding for amtrak, eliminate funding for high-speed rail, phase out capital grants for mass transit projects, and nts.inate hydrograph
communities across our nation are struggling with crumbling infrastructure after neglect and a lack of strategic investment. as a former county supervisor, i saw first-hand and worked to invest additional resources towards infrastructure at the local level. the federal government must also do its part and partner to support state and local infrastructure investments by providing additional federal resources. investing in infrastructure will not only create more jobs at a time when so many americans are hurting for work, but will also stimulate our economy. i urge my colleagues to support the higgins amendment. i yield back. >> thank you. i yield one minute to ms. delbene. >> you have 20 seconds. >> thank you. i was going to say i'm pleased to support mr. higgins' amendment. for too many years, short-sighted cuts have failed
to deliver investments and safety improvements that are desperately needed across the country and definitely my home state. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back. >> perfect. is there a member who would like to claim time in opposition to this amendment? >> madam chair. >> you're recognized for seven minutes. >> madam chairman, i'm recognized for seven minutes, but i don't think it will take that long, because as much as i appreciate my friend mr. higgins' proposal and the sentiments behind them and i , agree with the sentiments behind the need for infrastructure funding, unfortunately, they have pulled out the same kind of sad tale of what they believe are tax benefits, et cetera, to finance these expenditure increases, when in fact what we should be doing is focusing on pro-growth tax reform, not trying to just incrementally pick one item here or there in order to finance the expenditures that the gentleman
suggests. i would also point out to my friend from california that he references the president's initial budget submission, yet , the nondefense discretionary portion of the budget that the budget resolution contemplates at a level of 5-11 restores and sustains virtually all of the programs that the gentleman elaborated upon. and our colleague, mr. diaz bulart, is not here. he's the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on transportation, which would be -- he would be able to confirm that the efforts of the transportation appropriation subcommittee are restoring the programs to sufficient funding levels. are we spending enough in our country today on infrastructure? i would argue, and i think my friend mr. higgins would agree, certainly he does, that we're not. but the approach that's being taken, rounding up the usual
suspects that our friends on the other side like to point to as the funding source, is simply inappropriate and ill-advised at this time. what we need to be doing is looking seriously about long-term funding for infrastructure. ones that rely upon people that use much of the infrastructure to pay for it. and if the gentleman had been offering a proposal, that would suggest that we should have a transportation-focused infrastructure financing approach, i might be inclined to agree with him. i think we could find bipartisan agreement on much of that. but this approach that he is being suggested in the proposal is simply one that is not going to pass the smell test. it shouldn't be adopted, and i would urge a no vote on it, with with that, i would be happy to and yield to my friend mr. lewis from minnesota. >> i thank the gentleman. the whole point about government spending has a better way of
allocating resources, really needs to be addressed here. my friends across the aisle and i agree in a strong, reliable transportation system. some things the federal government has to do with regards to infrastructure. i think that's why i believe the last congress devoted about $305 billion to improve transit system, bridges, highways. this amendment, unfortunately, would be more of the same. more of the same from the last administration. from previous failed stimulus programs. it would increase taxes on american businesses in order to pay for more spending. now, when i say to talk about spending, economists will tell you, what's the best way to allocate resources. the best way to allocate resources is where you get the highest economic return. i have to admit, i have a bias here. i think market discipline allows private sector resources to actually have an economic return. we call those profits in order to service the debt. government far too often devotes their resources for a political return.
hence, we spent $836 billion on a stimulus package, and we got 1.6% economic growth out of it. how many times are we going to go down this road? and in order to pay for this, and by the way, whether you tax, inflate, or borrow, all government spending comes out of the private sector, diverting those resources that could be used for productive investment into unproductive investment all too often. right now, they want to pay for it with higher taxes. but unfortunately, we already have the highest corporate income tax rate in the industrialized world, and we have the most -- and i hope my friends across the aisle are listening to this -- we have the most progressive income tax code of all oecd nations. we can't get much more progressive than we are, and yet they want to raise taxes. , look, the only way to get economic growth or the best two ways to get it -- in fact, the best way to get it is productivity increase. we can do it with a growing population as well. how do you grow productivity? by making transportation and infrastructure investments that have an economic return. but having more government
stimulus spending, hiring people to dig ditches in shovel-ready jobs and fill them back up again does not grow the economy, and , that's why this amendment is misguided and this unlimited amount of federal spending over $4 trillion now, is a drag on economic growth. therefore, i urge a no vote and yield back. >> madam chairman, in the interest of moving things along, i yield back as well. >> the gentleman yields back. the sponsor of the amendment, mr. jeffries is recognized for , one minute. if he's become mr. higgins. i apologize, mr. higgins. >> that's all right. i appreciate the thoughts of my colleagues, but when you look at infrastructure investment, every city, town, and village would
finance infrastructure. right now, you can borrow money at very favorable rates to rebuild the roads and bridges of america. half of that outlay would be eliminated all together by the economic growth that would result. the fact of the matter is, as i mentioned before, corporate leaders allover theination, including mr. dimond are talking about the lack of infrastructure growth, the lack of airports in america, when other countries we're competing with for global economic dominance are making the investments that produce 7% annual economic growth. i'm telling you a mix of market forces and government support can produce an economy that grows jobs and creates economic opportunity for future generations. thank you.
>> the gentleman yields back. the all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. >> madam chair, i request a recorded vote. >> a recorded vote is requested pursuant to the unanimous agreement, we will postpone the recorded vote until we finish this debate on the batch of seven. therefore, we're going to take a very brief recess of five minutes. the members have been called that are not currently here. they're on their way and we'll resume in five minutes to take votes on the seven amendments. committee stands in recess. >> the committee will come to order, and since we decided to roll votes today, the committee will resume with postpone votes on the following amendment. mr. wassermann schultz, mrs. jackson lee, mr. jeffries, ms. shekauky, and mr. higgins. the clerk will designate. >> amendment number one offered by representative wassermann schultz. >> the clerk will call the
role. >> mr. akita. >> no. >> mr. akita, no. mr. diaz-balart. mr. cole. mr. mcclintock. mr. mcclintock, no. mr. woodall. mr. woodall, no. mr. sanford. mr. sanford, no. mr. womack. mr. womack, no. mr. brat. mr. brat, no. mr. grossman. >> no. >> mr. grossman, no. mr. palmer. mr. palmer no. mr. westerman. mr. westerman, no. mr. aniecy. no. mr. johnson, mr. johnson, no. mr. smith. mr. smith, no. mr. lewis. mr. lewis, no. mr. bergman. mr. bergman, no. mr. schmucker.
mr. schmucker, no. mr. gase. mr. gase, no. mr. arrington. mr. arrington, no. mr. ferguson. mr. ferguson, no. mr. yarmouth. aye. ms. lee. ms. lujan grisham. ms. lujan grisham, aye. mr. molten, aye. mr. jeffries. mr. higgins. mr. higgins, aye. ms. delbene. ms. delbene, aye. ms. washerman schultz. ms. wassermann schultz, aye. mr. boyle. mr. boyle, aye. mr. cona. mr. cona, aye. mr. jaappall. aye. mr. carbahal. aye.
ms. jackson lee, aye. ms. schakowsky. ms. schakowsky, aye. mr. diaz balart, no. madam chairman. madam chairman, no. >> are there members who wish to vote or change the vote? did you vote? oh, i'm sorry. you voted. okay. i apologize. i didn't realize the members that just came in had voted. if not, the clerk shall report. >> madam chairman, on that vote, the ayes are 12 and the noes are 21. >> the noes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the committee will now vote on the amendment offered by ms. jackson lee. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. >> amendment number two offered
by representative jackson lee. >> i apologize. the amendment is not agreed to. the amendment is not agreed to. the committee will now vote on the amendment offered by ms. jackson lee. >> amendment number two, offered by representative jackson lee. >> the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. akita. >> no. >> mr. akita, no. mr. diaz bullert. no. mr. cole. mr. mcclintock. mr. mcclintock, no. mr. woodall. mr. woodall, no. mr. sanford. mr. sanford, no. mr. womack. mr. womack, no. mr. brat. in mr. bratt, no. mr. grossman. mr. grossman, no. mr. palmer.
mr. palmer, no. mr. westerman. mr. westerman no. mr. johnson. mr. johnson, no. mr. smith. mr. smith, no. mr. lewis. mr. lewis, no. mr. bergman. mr. bergman, no. mr. faso. mr. faso, no. mr. smuker. mr. smuker, no. mr. gase. mr. gase, no. mr. arrington. mr. arrington, no. mr. ferguson. mr. ferguson, no. mr. yarmouth. aye. ms. lee. ms. lujan grisham. ms. lujan grisham, aye. mr. molten. mr. molten, aye. mr. jeffries. mr. higgins. mr. higgins, aye.
ms. delbene. ms. delbene, aye. mr. boyle, aye. mr. cona, aye. ms. jayapal, aye. mr. carbajal, aye. ms. jackson lee. ms. jackson lee, aye. ms. schakowsky, aye. madam chairman. >> no. >> madam chairman, no. >> clerk will call the roll. excuse me, are there any members who wish to vote or change their vote? if not, mr. jeffries. >> mr. jeffries, aye. >> the clerk shall report. >> madam chairman, on that vote, the ayes are 13 and the noes are 21. >> the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. >> the committee will now vote on the amendment offered by mr.
boyle. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. >> amendment number three offered by representative boyle. >> clerk will call the roll. >> mr. akita. mr. akita, no. mr. diaz bullert, no. mr. cole. mr. mcclintock. mr. mcclintock, no. mr. woodall, mr. woodall, no. mr. sanford. mr. sanford, no. mr. wowack. mr. womack, no. mr. brat. mr. westerman. -- mr. johnson. mr. johnson, no. mr. smith. mr. smith, no. mr. lewis.
>> are there any members who wish to vote or change their vote? hearing none, the clerk shall report. >> mr. chairman, on that vote, the ayes are 13 and the noes are 21. >> the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. we'll vote on an amendment put forward by mr. yarmouth. >> clerk will call the roll. >> amendment number four offered by representative yarmouth. [roll call vote]
ms. jackson lee. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. >> amendment number six offered by representative jeffries. >> we'll go with number six by jeffries. i had number five. oh, that's the one we skipped. >> mr. chairman, i believe it's roll call number five but amendment number six. >> the one offered by mr. jeffries then. >> correct. >> clerk will call the roll. >> mr. akita. mr. akita, no. mr. diaz bullert. mr. diaz bullert, no. mr. cole. mr. mcclintock. mr. mcclintock, no. mr. woodall. mr. woodall, no. mr. sanford. mr. sanford, no.
mr. womack. mr. womack, no. mr. brat. mr. brat, no. mr. grossman. mr. grossman, no. mr. palmer. mr. palmer, no. mr. westerman. mr. westerman, no. mr. renecci, no. mr. johnson, mr. johnson, no. mr. smith. mr. smith, no. mr. lewis. mr. lewis, no. mr. bergman. mr. bergman, no. mr. faso. mr. faso, no. mr. schmucker. mr. schmucker, no. mr. gaetz, no. mr. arrington. mr. arrington, no. mr. ferguson. mr. ferguson, no. mr. yarmouth. mr. yarmouth, aye. ms. lee. ms. lujan grisham. ms. lujan grisham, aye. mr. molten, mr. molten, aye. mr. jeffries. mr. jeffries, aye. mr. higgins. mr. higgins, aye.
ms. delbene. ms. delbene, aye. ms. wassermann schultz, aye. mr. boyle. mr. boyle, aye. mr. khanna. aye. ms. jayapal. aye. mr. carbajal. aye. ms. jackson lee. this is amendment number six offered by representative jeffries. ms. jackson lee, aye. ms. schakowsky. ms. schakowsky, aye. >> thank you. are there any members woo wish to vote or change their vote? i'll have the gentle lady recorded. >> she's not recorded. ms. lee, aye. >> are there any members who wish to vote or change their vote?
how is the chairman recorded? >> she's not recorded. >> she votes no. >> madam chairman, no. >> are there any members who wish to vote or change their vote. hearing none, the clerk shall report. >> mr. chairman on that report, the ayes are 14 and the noes are 20. >> the committee will vote on the amendment offered by ms. schakowsky. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. >> amendment number seven offered by representative schakowsky. >> the clerk will call the roll. [roll call vote]
>> are there any other members who wish to vote or change their vote? hearing none, the clerk shall report. >> mr. chairman, on that vote, the ayes are 13 and the noes are 21. >> the noes have it, the aamendment is not agreed to. next, we'll vote on an amendment offered by mr. higgins. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. >> amendment number eight offered by representative higgins. role. clerk will call the [roll call vote]
>> thank you so very much. i believe i was in the room as the vote was being called on women's health. i would like to be registered at least in the record for voting aye for amendment number seven. ask unanimous consent. >> the clerk will report what she recorded. >> no, madam chairman. she was not recorded on the vote. >> if we can record her for the record. >> we will, yes, ma'am. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, madam chair. i yield back. >> you're welcome. okay. okay. are there any other amendments? >> thank you, madam chair. i have an amendment. >> this is the amendment number five, the clerk will designate the amendment and the staff will distribute the copies of the amendment. >> amendment number five offered by representative lee relates to funding for anti-poverty
programs. >> thank you very much. madam chair, this amendment would restore funding for several mandatory funding programs that are very critical to reducing poverty and providing opportunity for all. these programs include social security, medicare, s.n.a.p. and many more. my amendment which is necessary, would insure that we continue to invest in our communities and provide a basic standard of living for everyone. once again, we see a budget that seems to ignore the fact that there are still more than 46 million americans living in poverty. both in rural and urban areas. in fact, in rural america, it continues to face levels of poverty that are close to 3% higher than rates in urban and metro areas. this budget is balanced by slashing critical earned benefits like social security and medicare. programs vital to reducing poverty and providing a decent standard of living for all.
now, let me say that again. earned benefits. we know that these programs work. according to a study from pew charitable trust, an additional 8 million people would be living in poverty without our nation's food stamp program. and our poverty rate for senior citizens would jump from 14.6% to 52.67% without social security. again, earned benefits. this is almost four times higher. yes, once again, we see our republican colleagues wanting to cut and turn these programs into block grants despite evidence that clearly shows that that would make them much less effective. how many times do i have to remind you, cutting poverty programs is not the same as cutting poverty. is that really the way we want to budget? by doling out the pain to those with the least resources while rewarding the wealthiest with tax breaks and huge companies with corporate welfare. madam chair, this is really
shocking that once again we're seeing that a budget that really does not recognize that too many americans are still being left behind and struggling to find jobs that pay a living wage. they're forced to choose between paying their bills and putting food on the table. no one in the richest nation on earth should have to make that choice. i know from personal experience that people want to work. i know that people want to be able to feed their children. they don't want to be on government assistance, but that bridge over troubled waters should be there when they need it. i, yes, am a former public assistance recipient and s.n.a.p. beneficiary. it was a bridge over troubled water and my government helped me to get to where i am today. and i thank them for it. this is a moral document and it should make lifting americans out of poverty a priority rather than cutting programs to insure they have to struggle just to make ends meet. i would like to yield two minutes to my colleague
congresswoman sheila jackson lee. >> i think i to take just a moment to thank congresswoman lee for continued decades and certainly her time in the united states congress for enlightening us on what really happens when you provide individuals not a hand out but a hand up. i started by acknowledging the fact that this is a draconian budget. it cuts $200 billion and frankly, it goes into the forests, it takes gasoline and pours it on a camp fire and brings the whole forest down. that's what will happen to those who need a lifeline. it is well known that programs like tana, s.n.a.p., the affordable housing and the child tax credit helps americans who are facing hard times which can access food and shelter. it is also well documented that in non-metro areas, 2.6
percentage points of poverty were higher in the 1990s and 2.7 percentage points higher from 2009 compared to metro areas. this was non-metro area, so poverty particularly impacts the rural areas. i would make the argument of supporting the lee amendment for the fact that she gives a lifeline to individuals who seek a better life and who are prepared to serve their nation, some in uniform, to be able to make this country the great country that it is. i thank the gentle lady for yielding, and i yield back. >> thank you very much. >> is there a member who would like to claim time and opposition to the amendment? >> oh, i apologize. you still had time, miss lee. >> any other members? >> you still have time. >> if there are no other members on our side, i'll close. let me thank the gentle lady for
her comments and for her tremendous leadership, trying to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty. i'll close by saying that this amendment is really about equity. it's about equity of opportunity for all americans, and we know that there are tremendous disparities in poverty rates among our african-american and latino communities with 24% of african-americans and 21% of latinos living in poverty compared to 9% of whites even though the majority of those living below the poverty line, of course, are whites, and so we have to come together to try to figure out how for all of us to lift everyone out of poverty. in terms of wealth, these numbers are even more stark. the institute of policy studies found it would take the average black family 228 years to amass the same amount of wealth that white families make today if
wealth remained the same. that's in year 2241. that's how long it's going to take to make up these years in terms of amounting wealth, and so it's really a disgrace that we continue to cut our safety net and programs that really help everyone, all americans to lift themselves out of poverty into the middle class. so i hope you would support this amendment so we can make sure that more people are not pushed into poverty and so we can begin to close some of these inequities in our country. thank you again. >> the gentle lady's time has expired and is there a member that would like to claim time to in opposition to the amendment? mr. mcclintock, you are recognized. >> thank you. since 1964 we tried it the democrats' way. according to the heritage foundation, we spent $22 trillion on the war on poverty. adjusted for inflation this is three times more than all of the military wars we have ever
fought combined, put another way, it's $176,000 taken from the lifetime earnings of every family in america over those 50 years. we've created 92 different federal anti-poverty programs in this effort, and i think after 50 years of experience with these programs, we are entitled to ask how is the war on poverty coming? in 1966, the poverty rate stood at 14.7% and today it's 14.5%, $22 trillion and 50 years later, poverty has barely budged. republicans have warned for years of the poverty trap. the practical effect of these programs is to trap generations of poverty by robbing them of the incentive to succeed and denying them the dignity and the indescribable feeling of self-worth that comes with a paycheck. as the old adage says, give a a
-- give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. teach a man a fish and he will eat for a lifetime. in return for your welfare benefits, we ask that you look for a job or train for a job and if the job's offered we expect you to take it. according to forbes when maine applied this condition, 90% of people found work and within a year their incomes rose 114%. let me repeat that. the income of these welfare recipients rose 114% in the first year once it took effect. alabama had similar results when 13 counties implemented work requirements for s.n.a.p. the reforms for this budget are specifically designed to change the incentives to get people back into the workforce so that they, too, can see their incomes soar along with their
self-respect and dignity. they also assure that you can focus more resources on those who can't fend for themselves. not only do the democrats propose keeping people trapped in poverty with their programs, but they also propose to harm the economy, robbing people of the opportunity to succeed. taxing the top 1% might make a big bumper sticker, and it hurts the very people they say they're trying to help. the vast majority of american businesses are individuals filing under sub-chapter s and most of that income is taxed in the top bracket. businesses don't pay business taxes. the only three ways that a business tax can possibly be paid is by us as consumers through higher prices, by us as employees through lower wages and by us as investors through lower earnings on our retirement savings, and as arthur laufer is often warned and my home state of california is again
discovering, there is nothing more portable in this world than money and rich people. high taxes have sent hundreds of billions of dollars of capital offshore. let me repeat this for my democratic colleagues. the only way a business tax can be paid is by consumers who higher prices, and investors who lower earnings as those taxes are passed along and that's, by the way, on the earnings line it's mainly the retirement plans. our tax plan produces higher wages and more jobs for employees and higher returns for people's retirement funds. there was a time when democrats supported these policies. that's what john f. kennedy accomplished through the tax cuts in the early 1960s reminding us that a rising tide lifts all boats. because of these failed policies of the last 50 years, our nation is now more than $20 trillion in debt. the only way that we're going to escape a fiscal and economic collapse is to restore the growth rates we had after reagan
cut the top tax rate from 70% down to 28%. when he did that, the economy grew at twice the rate it is now and tax revenues skyrocketed from $599 billion to $591 -- $991 billion, but more simply, reagan cut tax rates by more than half and tax revenues nearly doubled. history teaches us that lesson very clearly. in the last 60 years, the top income tax rates have been as high as 91% and as low as 28% and they've stayed remarkably steady with gdp. indeed, some of the lowest income tax revenues came when the top tax rate was at its highest and some of the highest revenues came when the top rate was quite low. although the tax rate within this envelope has remarkably little effect on revenues, it has a huge impact on economic
growth. the success of our anti-poverty programs is not how much we spend on them. it's how many people are lifted out of poverty. the anti-poverty program has spent $22 billion and the poverty rate has barely budged. the less willing we are to admit them. i think it's time we connected the dots between poverty and the democratic policies. has it escaped anyone's attention that the cities with the most entrenched democratic machines, the cities where democrats have had their way for generations are the very same cities where poverty and unemployment are off the charts and where kids are trapped in failing schools with no way out. this is the unbroken legacy of the democrats' policies and you see it vividly in any government they've controlled unopposed for more than a decade. i don't think there is a single exception to this rule.
this budget charts a new course for our nation using policies that have proven time and again to dramatically improve the lives of those who have been victimized by the democrats' poverty trap. the policies called forth by this budget have time and again produced economic growth and prosperity for our country. it is time that we had a rebirth of freedom. it is time for another morning to dawn in america. it's time to make this country great again. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. ms. lee is recognized for one minute to close. >> thank you very much. let me say we're talking about earned benefits in this amendment. secondly, believe you me, there will be millions more who would have fallen beneath the poverty line had it not been for the 1964-1965 bills that allowed for medicare and some of these other programs to be established. i think when you look at how our
country and the values of our country hopefully are enshrined in our constitution people should have a right to dignity and a decent standard of living, the right to work and this budget cuts workforce training and the apprenticeship programs and it cuts the very lifeline of what it takes to be able to move from poverty into a good paying job. so we can't have it both ways. we can't cut the safety net and cut earned benefits and cut workforce training and cut education and not have any job creation efforts in the budget and yet, you know, take -- put forth the budget that really harms many, many millions of americans both rural and urban. >> the gentlewoman's time has expired. >> the amendment offered by miss lee. all those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed, no. >> no.
>> in the vote, the nos have it. we will postpone the records -- the recorded vote until we have finished debating the amendment. this amendment number nine. the staff will distribute copies of the amendment. >> amendment number 9 offered representative japoll relates to border security and immigration modernization act. >> you are recognized for six minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. if this committee wants to get to the kind of growth projected in this budget, one way to get there is to enact comprehensive immigration reform. my amendment does just that. estimates from economists on both sides of the aisle project that passing immigration reform would bring $1.5 trillion to $1.8 trillion into our economy over the next 14 years.
for all of the rhetoric spread immigrants, the facts are clear. undocumented immigrants pay $11.7 billion in taxes each year and if comprehensive reform were enacted that provide legal status, it would include state and local tax contributions by an estimated $2 billion a year. just last month in this committee we heard from three economists, two of whom were majority witnesses to this committee and all of whom testified to the benefits of comprehensive immigration reform. these comments are in line with broad support among economists recognizing the benefits, and i request unanimous consent, madam chair, to enter into the record a letter from 1,470 economists calling on congress to fix our broken immigration system. >> without objection. >> thank you. >> signatories include six nobel laureates and member of the reagan, george h.w. bush,
clinton, george w. bush and obama administrations. these economists recognize and this is a quote, that the benefits that immigration brings to society far outweigh their costs and policy can maximize the benefits of immigration while reducing the costs. all of these economists agree that immigration reform would bring entrepreneurs who start new businesses and hire american workers, bring young workers who help offset the large-scale retirement of baby boomers and diverse skill sets that keep our workforce flexible and help our communities and our economy grow. moody's has estimated that every 1% increase in the immigrant population our gdp would rise by 1.15%, and at the same time, madam chair, harsh immigration policies actually hurt our economy and tear apart our communities. mr. wholesecom, testified that his institute had put out a report on the enormous costs on the proposed immigration
policies being proposed. deporting undocumented immigrants, for example, would be an $8 trillion hit to our economy, a hit that none of our states would ever recover from. just as example, eliminating in one the dairy, for example, would cause the total number of dairy farms to drop dramatically and increase milk prices by 90%. madam chair, all of us, regardless of immigration status are harmed. when i.c.e. raids sensitive locations like schools and courthouses and shelters. my republican colleagues know this themselves and they've been responding to numerous calls from families, businesses and farms in their district who know we need a real and comprehensive, humane solution, and with that, i would like to
yield a minute to my colleague from illinois, representative shakowski. our immigration system, it's hard to argue, is broken. we spent $11 million for i.c.e. to detain, few of whom who have committed serious crimes. creates fearration in our communities by rounding up mothers and fathers and tearing families apart instead of adopting comprehensive immigration reform that would reduce our budget deficit and strengthen social security. this budget would continue to build a deportation force that would send individuals back to countries they have not seen maybe in decades. my republican colleagues say they are concerned with strengthening our economy, yet they fail to see the potential for comprehensive immigration reform to deliver on that goal. we are a nation of immigrants, let's fix our broken immigration system and make comprehensive immigration reform a real priority, and i yield back.
>> thank you, ms.'s account scheme, -- ms. shakowski, and i would like to yield a minute to my colleague, susan del benning. >> i am pleased to support the amendment. we need bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform that protects workers, families and i believe given the chance to vote many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle might agree study after study have demonstrated that immigrants are critical to the u.s. economy, from helping fill agricultural positions where labor shortages can result in large crops creating start-ups to create jobs and yield growth here at home. a 2016 study by the national foundation for american policy found that 87 start-ups started by immigrants in the u.s. created over 700 jobs each and that's just a sampling. we should be supporting, not deporting these law-abiding
people who are making the country stronger and more productive. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment, and i yield back. >> thank you. i yield the remainder of the time to ms. sheila jackson-lee from the great state of texas. >> i support the gentle lady's amendment, and i'd like to indicate the cbo estimated study in the 113th congress and the democratic immigration reform bill hr-15 would have reduced the deficit by $900 billion. this budget that we're fighting over and the fact that we're not offering common-sense amendments and supporting comprehensive immigration reform because all that this republican budget does is take the money and give it to the rich, the billionaires and millionaires for a tax cut. it has no pathway to help the american people. i yield back. >> the gentle lady's time has expired. is there anyone that would like to have the opposition to this amendment? >> madam chair? >> you are recognized for seven minutes.
>> i appreciate the gentle lady's comments on this issue. i understand it's an emotionally charged issue on all sides of the immigration equation, and i acknowledge that the immigration process is not perfect in in areas it is broken and i'm committed to fixing it. i have experience in my own district in west texas where there are gaps that need to be closed, namely in agriculture where there is a shortage of labor, but before we can undertake major comprehensive immigration reform, we have to prove to the american people that we're willing and able to stop the flow of illegal immigrants and commit the necessary resources to secure our border. the last administration demonstrated just the opposite. whether it was president obama's policies on catch and release,
tolerating sanctuary cities or woefully underfunding border security, the message to the american people was clear. president obama was not interested in solving this problem. even worse, he advocated his first responsibility to keep the american people safe, in my opinion i do recognize that most of the people coming to this country do so because they want a better life for their families. 01:31:55 pramila jayapal -- for their families. america is the beacon of hope and the land of freedom and opportunity, and i think we all respect and appreciate that, but if somebody is coming here illegally, we can't reward that. we have to uphold rule of law. it is part of the basic underpinning of the american democracy. i'm proud that america is a nation of immigrants, but i'm equally proud that we're a nation of laws. i urge a no vote, and i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from georgia, mr. ferguson.
>> thank you. i am happy to address this most important issue, and like you, i would like to thank my colleague from washington for her thoughts on this important issue, but i think the first thing we've got to recognize is that our immigration system does need reforms, but it has to be done the right way. one of the things that is so vitally important in that discussion is building trust with the american people and that cannot be built until we know for sure that the border is secured and we have security from folks that wish to do us harm coming into the country. that is a tough thing to talk about because many times that paints everyone with a bad light and that is not what the intent of it is to do but there are several other issues that we've got to contend with. hr-15 prevents future removals including removals of criminal aliens. hr-15 is designed to conceal the cost of taxpayers by delaying amnesty recipients' access for
the first decade after the bill's enactment. about 13 years after passage, amnesty recipients would be eligible for over 80 federal welfare programs. i think we can all recognize that not every immigrant would be on welfare or receiving an entitlement, but right now we have a mandatory spending curve that is out of control and we must address that and we must be realistic about that. as we continue to grow, mandatory spending and it crowds out everything that we need to do. before we can expand our immigration policy, that is something that we must do because we cannot take care of anybody if this nation is in a fiscal crisis and sovereign debt crisis. i think we all recognize the great -- the great contribution that immigrants make to this nation just as all of our ancestors had, and we need to continue to welcome people into this community, but it must be done in a lawful way.
we must uphold the laws that we have and we must be sure that this nation is on sound financial footing. madam chair, i yield back. >> thank you, mr. ferguson. i yield the balance of the time. it's amazing that we're sitting here with the budget and everything to talk about immigration and confused legal immigration to illegal immigration. presidents of both parties for a variety of reasons have ignored our immigration laws, but let's face it. in this large world there are a lot of people who want to come here. there are a lot of people who want to come here legally, and the problem with this amendment, it seems to favor people who would have rather come to america illegally than people who wanted to fill out the appropriate forms and go through the waiting period and come here legally. as we look at the future of the american economy and the cost
that is involved, let's stop and think, which class of citizens is going to be more likely to be law abiding. well, the districts closest to the mexican border are five districts who are disproportionately and criminal cases filed by federal prosecutors and it would not be surprising to me if the people coming here illegally rather than legally are more likely to commit crimes. as far as taking the safety nets, only people are here illegally, but again, obviously, if we don't pick our immigrants we'll be more likely to get people who take advantage of our generous welfare benefits. as far as age is concerned, let's be honest, we do not want to take people. we have already a huge crisis in our country as far as health care costs. i don't think we want to be the country that takes in everybody in their declining years and has
to pay for their health care, but again, this is something we can take care of if we're picking immigrants rather than saying whoever comes here illegally can have a path to citizenship and common sense can tell you, as we pick our immigrants for this country, we would be better off picking people who come here legally, rather than muddling the american minds and working towards amnesty for people who come here and are breaking the law in the first place. for the long run benefit of america, whether you are looking at the income side of the equation, the most productivity is zens and the expense side of the equation and look for citizens who are least likely to take advantage of our welfare programs. the idea of at least this example of comprehensive
immigration reform should be a non-starter, and i yield my remaining two seconds. >> thank you, mr. grossman. madam chair, i yield back. >> you are recognized for one minute to close. >> thank you, madam chair. i have to say that the bill being proposed and being enacted was the same bill from 2013 that passed in the u.s. senate with 68 bipartisan votes and there was an entire border security piece of that bill that contained billions of dollars into border security, and in fact, at the time senator mccain said that it was ridiculous that they would put that much money to border security, because that isn't what would fix the situation. i recent any suggestion otherwise, immigrants are law-abiding citizens and they are helping our economy grow, and if we want to project a 3% growth that frankly, no economist has said is possible then we have got to invest in our long-term future for this country to make sure that we
have workers in the country, and to make sure that we can continue to recognize the benefits that those workers bring to our economy. i hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will vote for this amendment. this is in the interest of our districts in our economy. thank you, madam chair. i yield back. >> all those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed. >> no. >> in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. a recorded vote is requested pursuant to our unanimous consent agreement. we will postpone the vote until we finish debating the next seven amendments. are there other amendments? >> madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. >> this is amendment number ten. excuse me, yes, amendment number ten and the clerk will designate the amendment and the staff will distribute the copies of the amendment. >> amendment ten by
representative carbajal and rejecting construction of a border wall. >> mr. carbajal is recognized for six minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. before i proceed to offer the amendment, as an immigrant myself, i have to say how abhorrent i found the comments by one of my colleagues that immigrants are more likely to commit crimes. some of them actually join our military. some of them become members of congress like yours truly, so i just wanted to say that for the record. my amendment rejects the construction of an american taxpayer-funded wall on the u.s. -- the u.s. southern border which is a costly and ineffective method for dealing with our country's broken immigration system. a border wall will not stop unauthorized entry into the country and it won't fix our broken immigration system.
walls are easily circumvented and they do nothing to stop people who have overstayed their visas which is more common than unauthorized entries across the southern border. this republican budget wastes billions of dollars on an ineffective wall while doing nothing to protect undocumented immigrants who come here as children also known as dreamers, who know the u.s. as their only home. president trump promised u.s. taxpayers that they wouldn't have to pay for a wall. one of the -- one of president trump's main campaign points was to build a wall. [ inaudible ] yet as we heard earlier this budget provides $1.6 billion in 2018 to begin the construction
of a border wall and building a border wall won't curb criminal activity the way republicans say it will. 90% of the illicit drugs smuggled into our country come through our port of entry. president trump has failed to present the american public with an official cost figure for his wall. estimates range from $22 billion to $70 billion. we have no official cost figures for this unnecessary wall, yet, we are asking the american taxpayer to cover whatever that uncertain cost will be. finally, no evidence-based analysis has been completed with the physical border barriers have any impact on the undocumented immigrants. the gao has found that customs and border protection within dhs
has no metrics in place to determine whether border fencing has any significant impact on its mission. let's instead focus fixing our broken immigration system, through comprehensive immigration reform which would boost our economy and reduce the deficit. a border wall will do little to better secure america's borders and its costs are uncertain which is why i ask my colleagues to reject the construction of a new border wall by supporting my amendment. i would now like to yield one and a half minutes to the representative from washington. >> thank you for yielding. show me a 50-foot wall and i'll show you a 51-foot ladder. it will do nothing to fix the immigration system and as
recently as april our homeland security secretary said it was highly improbable that a wall would be built from sea to shining sea. as long as we continue to throw money and enforcement without providing a road map to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented men, women and children we will continue to , have people crossing the border illegally in a desperate attempt to reunite with their loved ones, no jail will crush the undesirable -- moreover, as a humanitarian crises continue in the countries of el salvador, honduras and guatemala, people will continue to seek safety on our shores. the conditions in these countries are extremely great, -- extremely grave particularly for women, and the triangle countries are among the top five countries in the world with the worst female outside rates -- unfortunately, people are forced
into the shadows and pursue more dangerous safety, and i hope that we can pass the sensible amendment to reject the wall and i yield back the balance of my time. >> i would now like to yield one minute to commissioner acosta. >> president trump has laid out his vision for a border wall. he wants to run entire border regardless of whether that is really effective. last week he said, quote, you need to be able to see through it because, quote, when they throw the large sack of drugs over and if you have people on the other side of the wall you don't see them. they hit you on the head with 60 pounds of stuff, unquote, and of course, mexico will pay for it. congress should not ask americans to pay for this incredibly expensive waste. we need real solutions like comprehensive immigration reform. we need to help the refugees
desperately facing violent conditions and let's start by adopting this amendment >> the gentlelady's time has expired. there anyone who would like to voice apple -- opposition to the amendment? chair.k you, madam i appreciate the comments from my friend from california. i am proud to serve with you. and i am sure other border states feel the same way, stopping illegal immigration and securing our border is of the utmost concern. itmy district in west texas, was the number one issue. it is not just the illegal person. the illegal activity that also comes across the border, and it
human trafficking and getting activity and other criminal activity. our citizens in texas alone have paid hundreds of millions of dollars to do the job the federal government was supposed to do, their first job, protect our sovereign borders, keep the american people state, but america -- put america first. year 2016, the united states border patrol apprehended over 400,000 illegal immigrants attempting to cross our southern border with mexico. while these of illegal entries were thwarted, we have no idea how many more undocumented immigrants were able to enter our country successfully. this is not about knowing how to solve the problem. this is about having the political will to solve it, and the last administration was clearly unwilling. more security is a comprehensive strategy.
it is significant boots on the ground, and we are short of the minimal standard. -- leveraging technology, and it is a wall or physical boundary. anyone who has visited the border knows that calling it for us is an understatement. it is wide open. , they say they need the physical barriers in order to do their jobs to keep us safe and enforce the law. it is past time our nation's leaders got serious about our public safety mission, and give this president the resources he needs to secure our borders. this president is willing.. let's give him the resources so he is able to stop illegal immigration. it is an issue of national security.
let's respect the rule of law, let's protect the american people, and let's secure our border. i urge a no vote. >> i thank the gentleman. i always found it confusing. when the democrats say they care income inequality and wages, but they are perfectly fine with adding millions of illegal immigrants to compete for entry-level jobs, which increases unemployment, adds to income inequality, and drives wages down. i also found it confusing when democrats who constantly preach for more and more government spending and infrastructure investment suddenly are appalled by the cost of the border wall, which is estimated between $8 million and $12 million. estimated $113 billion a year. estimated 11an
million dollars in taxes. the net cost is roughly $100 million. that does not include the social cost of drugs and crime, or the cost of supporting children. 0.3% ofher way, it is what the government spends. a one minute -- a one-time investment to save $100 billion of net expenditures, in short market wages for ivory american worker, and reduce crime. i think it is a very good investment. and i would remind my friend from california of a fox report from 2015 that illegal garments -- immigrants account for 3.7% of the population. 12% of all commit murders and 60% of drug trafficking. final thought, this is not a new idea. israel has a 245 border wall
that has reduced illegal crossings. i yield back. to thek you, and i yield gentleman from florida, mr. gates. >> i think the gentleman for yielding, and i believe these two amendments reveal the strategy that democrats have. they want a porous border. they don't want a wall, they don't want a circumstance where the rule of law is applied and there are mechanisms in place to ensure people are not drawn across our borders illegally. it does not stop there. if you look at the immediately preceding amendment, the strategy of inviting illegal immigration into the country is give them a welfare. the very amendment that is would say that14 illegal immigrants would be eligible to receive welfare assistance. this question was litigated in the last election. donald trump want to largely on that. that we need to put america
first. that is not to say that people don't have compassionate stories, but the american taxpayer cannot shoulder the foren -- the burden everyone who has a compelling story. we have americans with compelling stories that need our assistance, that need us to invest in economic growth and rising opportunity for everyone in this country. the construction of this border wall, which i sincerely look forward to voting for on the house floor, signifies this republican congress's commitment to stand with our president, to stand against illegal immigration, to fight for the rule of law it, and to put the interests of the american people first. that is why we won this election, and that is what i will do -- we will do. >> madam chair, i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
you are recognized for one minute to close. [indiscernible] they invested $40 billion. you don't build something just to build something. it only goes to divide us. it only goes to create division, and creates a symbol of division that our country does not have. figures mentioned earlier are --arly not from any platform those figures would be shared more often. advocating for reasonable solutions, not
ineffective solutions that cost of taxpayers billions dollars. what we should be doing is investing in comprehensive immigration reform. i yield back. >> the gentleman's time has expired. all those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed say no. >> no. >> a recorded vote is requested. recordedostpone the vote until we have finished debating on the seven amendments. there has been a vote called, so we will reset to go to the floor to vote and resume immediately after the vote. this week in congress, the houses back. of legislative centerpiece the spending package for defense , energy, water, and veterans affairs.
they are expected to take up a bill that would impose new on russia, sanctions iran, and north korea. it are holding a confirmation and for david bernhardt, mitch mcconnell says he will hold a procedural vote as early as tuesday, but details are still being worked out. as always, you can follow the house live on c-span, and the senate live on c-span 2. >> joining us, ryan mccrimmon. reporter when it comes to issues of appropriation. thanks for joining us. on your website, you have a piece along with other rollcall reporters saying that the quorum will be busy when it comes to issues, including appropriations, and one of those --ls with the on the this the omnibus spending deals. ryan: