tv House Budget Committee on 2019 Federal Budget - Day 2 Part 1 CSPAN June 22, 2018 4:55am-7:05am EDT
>> the committee will come to order. today we will continue consideration of a fiscal 2019 con current resolution on the budget before we begin i would like to note a quorum is present in reaching an agreement to ensure there is ample opportunity to offer amendments as agreed to yesterday to accommodate those. and then to all the series of roll call we will repeat the process three additional times until all 28 amendments are considered and voted upon. and then what we agreed to yesterday the markup will be considered as read and open for an amendment those
pursuant to the ranking member that debate time is 14 minutes and is evenly divided on the proponent of the amendment that by the way those that are sponsor or member opposed and then can yield support to the amendment. then the committee will resume at the beginning this morning and the amendment number number three related to nutrition assistance and related to border policy and
i have an amendment at the desk, number six. >> the clerk will designate the amendment you are recognized for six minutes. >> thank you. the goal with this amendment is simple to protect one of the most popular programs those in a lifetime of working. that two of those pillars to retire in dignity. so what does the gop tax cut have to do with an amendment? about one year ago i was
predicting in my district the $1.4 trillion to cut social security but that tax cut passed $1.4 trillion when we include servicing the debt. with a manager my best massive budget deficit. so then we have the next step in the plan that what we see in this budget from my republican friends is to to magically change medicare as we know it. so it simply says we must protect attic care specifically for those who are
65 and 66 years old and who rely on medicare. we must ensure for future five and 66 -year-olds. and really we should be talking to reach those populations in the early 60s and 60 sexual. so i will yield two minutes and then to close my further points. >> thanks to the gentleman for yielding this discussion yesterday but in this budget bill one of the possible recommendations is to raise the age of medicare.
but then a couple of points i want to make about that. it is absolutely not true all americans here the cdc reported life expectancy fell in 2016 the second decrease in a row. and not surprisingly based on income and then living 15 years longer than the poorest americans. it is also true and with that ability to do so but and then
to retire earlier, not later. and then the health care to raise age of eligibility for medicare that is a particular burden with couples with those proposals of the affordable care act. so that is so precious. so what is so precious to our constituents regardless. but to say i cannot wait until i am 65 years old. i have had the symptoms and i need to go to the doctor.
and we need to support the boyle amendment. [laughter] sorry i yield back. >> i have to tell a story that goes back to the genesis of this boucher proposal with paul ryan when he was ranking member on this committee. and then to say it is very interesting to get $5800. and then what happens if they cannot afford the rest of it? it is a 14000-dollar premium.
but if asked that case then the government will make up the difference doing away with one entitlement program doing away with another. that is exactly what he was doing. so the wholesale arbitrary we should seat seriously consider urging support. >> thank you mr. chairman. with the rising healthcare costs and demographic changes they both agree that it will be bankrupt in 2026. just in a few short years the trust fund will be unable to
pay 100% of cost. i don't know about you but this is unacceptable. the first phone call that i got from my then 83-year-old mother when i was first elected was not to congratulate me back to ask how i was going to protect her medicare and social security. i pledge to do that and i believe what we have done with this budget responsibly does that. the resolution fully supports patient centered program and that to simplify coverage and furthermore they would be adjusted for the beneficiaries
most in need have the most financial assistance as conditions worsen. and with these improvements and they will always remain an option available to the beneficiaries. and i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. >> i would just like to respond to my colleagues on the tax cuts and jobs act. and we have added 3.5 million
jobs more people paying payroll taxes that household media income is now at $59055 an increase or twice. and the numbers are only through february of this year but talked about the record revenues collected through the end of february increasing payroll taxes social security $11.4 trillion it is a record just through february and to be at record levels march and april and may.
and the tax cuts and jobs act and adding revenues. and to recognize it is changing and what we are trying to do the entitlement programs for what they were and i yield back. >> under our plan 60 million seniors or be empowered to use choice and competition to bring down costs but because of the real threat to the guaranty is to leave it like it is and don't touch it seniors are losing access to quality care and remains on a path to bankruptcy and i can tell you that's the case in rural america. it will only hasten the insolvency of medicare. we can work together on bipartisan reforms to make
sure it remains solvent for future beneficiaries by literally doing nothing is not acceptable and again i urge a no vote any other members would like to speak on this issue? >> if not i yield back. >> i will simply close with the cvo has analyzed the medicare privatization plan and has found this plan in effect in 2024 the average part premium charge that you're across the country for traditional medicare would be 57% higher than under current law. 57% increase. why in the world would we pass a law for seniors for the $1.4 trillion gop tax cut? that is just wrong.
it makes no sense. i know seniors in my district oppose it and i believe seniors all across the country oppose and i yield back. >> the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by mr. boyle. the no's have it a recorded vote is requested we will postpone until we go through this batch of amendments other other amendments? >> thank you mr. chairman. my amendment. >> offered the amendment. >> it is offered by the gentlelady it is number one the clerk will designate the amendment. >> number one with the american healthcare. >> you are now recognized.
>> thank you. my amendment would maintain the affordable care act and would reject the trumpcare and support the affordable care act to give deterrence to 20 million americans. repealing the aca cutting medicaid is what we see as the republican plan to give tax cuts to the rich the gop tax bill gave tax breaks to the rich and is now taking away healthcare for millions of americans. this republican repeal bill will increase cost for millions of americans with the biggest increases for seniors and working families so the bls found average taxpayers
gain $323 per year from the tax cuts. but the same families insurance premiums will increase by almost $2000. more than wiping out all the savings they would have gotten. all the while the top 1% will make more than $55,000 from the gop tax bill. this is unconscionable. repealing the ac would only further undermine our healthcare system. 20million more americans have more health insurance than they did before those that do not have to worry about getting sick were worrying that their kid will get her on the way to school million more
parents can sleep better at night knowing if they get sick they can still send their kids to college it made healthcare accessible to provide financial stability despite the unpredictable nature of getting sick. the guarantees insurance companies cannot discriminate against some people for having a pre-existing condition. one of the most popular aspects of the legislation we remember the days when insurance companies did not cover based on pre-existing conditions or charge so much more it was unaffordable. but the aca plan into that insurance companies can no longer charge women more than men because pregnancy was considered a pre-existing condition and no longer deny coverage if you have diabetes or asthma or acne with a
lifetime caps on coverage were ended before people with chronic conditions that had excessive treatments could run out of insurance quickly leaving them with large and unmanageable medical bills and despite the great progress made, congressional republicans want to strip the aca to implement trumpcare which will be devastating for america. last year's ill attempt to repeal the aca this would raise cost for seniors and low income adults and rip away healthcare from millions of americans and take away protections for 130 million people living with pre-existing conditions. we would go back to the day where you could go into bankruptcy just because you got sick.
this legislation, one the support of many organizations including the american medical association. the remaining time i have a right to yield one minute. >> thank you for introducing this amendment. i have to give my republican colleagues credit on repealing the aca it has been years we have had multiple votes on this. but the american people spoke in congress spoke and rejected trump care but yet continually my colleagues on the other side seem to want to continue to take away the benefits of the affordable care act is undesirable effects the most recent attempt to take away pre-existing coverage is crazy.
everybody understands how important that is i want to read two quick stories about the people who will benefit from this amendment. my daughter has a severe undiagnosed autoimmune disorder going into heart failure and without the aca our family will be completely unable to cover her $120,000 per month treatment and medication which keep her alive we are desperate. one year ago my 14-year-old daughter was diagnosed with a chronic condition that causes a condition in her feet and poor digestion and take some days she could barely get out of bed we need the aca. thank you to the representative and i urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment and i yield back. >> thank you for these real-life stories the american
people do not want to go back to a time where they are vulnerable to the healthcare costs they cannot afford or healthcare they cannot get i yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back her time. >> thank you mr. chairman i can hardly believe my ears that of all the amendments that could be offered that the gentlelady like to resurrect obamacare as a solution to provide affordable care. she cites 20 million americans now have what? they have a health insurance card. they don't have healthcare there have access to care. it was an abject failure. there are very few indisputable facts that we talk about in this committee
or any committee in congress but this is one the most obvious and indisputable that is the affordable care act was anything but affordable. anything. i don't want to reason resort to all the facts but skyrocketing premiums and deductibles that people cannot afford it working people cannot afford it. in fact i will give you a 20 million number that is more meaningful the 20 million people that decided they would rather pay a fine than have the government forced them to get on something they don't need and can't afford. exploit 5 million people $3 billion because they didn't want the government to tell them to do something that would break the bank for their families i know there are good intentions i'm not questioning the motives i just can't believe we are talking about obamacare as a solution we
agreed that was not the solution so let's start talking about ways that we can bend the cost curve the house had a solution that i thought was the answer which was let's have a real market in healthcare. let's have insurance providers and healthcare providers treat the american people and consumers and compete for our business and give us choice that competition is the best way to bend the cost curve. choice in-state flexibility and patient empowerment let us keep our money in tax-deductible's so on and so forth. we passed that 219 votes the senate had the opportunity to do what they promised american people for years. in fact they voted to repeal obamacare for years multiple
times that when we finally have the opportunity with the president to support the american healthcare act, one vote away it is a drag on the economy after tax. i am also scratching my head and we would try to reject -- repeal obamacare we want to take money away from people into afford care for their families? we have this economy. 2% gdp over ten years and unemployment we are now record highs all-time high business
confidence how in the world can you dispute tax reform has stimulated this economy and given working families an opportunity and hope for a better life for their kids and better quality of life. i am perplexed all the way around. mr. chairman i will yield at this time obviously i urge a no vote on this amendment and i will yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from georgia. >> i think my colleague for yielding the time we sit up here and you talk about the cbo numbers and that it
happens in a vacuum bible tell you about the affordable care act in reality in rural america. how would you like to be the single mom started a business and see her premiums skyrocket from a few hundred dollars a month to thousands of dollars a month and can no longer afford to buy health insurance. she no longer has access to care. how would you like to be the young man who started a small construction company now simply cannot afford health insurance under the affordable care act. how do you think people in rural america look at washington 21 -- washington d.c. to see once again it destroys the quality of life for rural america. you have destroyed with this plan access to healthcare as a result. the number of primary doctors is fading away actually to get
that care is going away. as a healthcare provider someone who treated every single person, i can tell you that my ability was bloated tremendously by the aca with the plan has done is continue to consolidate the healthcare industry and a vertical manner to have health insurance companies to own the pharmacies soon they will on the hospitals and the providers and the consumer will be left completely out of this conversation. it is mind-boggling to me we would vote to repeal the tax cuts and the fact that democrats would vote to resurrect obamacare. and continue to destroy the small healthcare provider in
favor of protecting the insurance companies i urge a no vote and i yield the rest of my time. >> i just want to point out the american healthcare act will cover people with pre-existing conditions and for the association of health care plans will dramatically reduce premiums i yield back. >> the gentlelady. >> i yield my time to the ranking member but i do want to say the ama opposed the american healthcare act and the republican proposal and supported the affordable care act and the continuing sabotaged by the republicans is the reason we see the healthcare premiums go up now i yield to the ranking member.
>> just to say for seven years we heard from republicans repeal and replace but there was never a plan to replace the reason it was never a plan and those efforts to repeal failed is because there are no alternatives to the affordable care act except single payer healthcare that republicans don't want to consider so talk about going back to the constitution and free marketplace that is where we were before the affordable care act when people were dying because of free-market this amendment is important we should revitalize and improve the affordable care act not repeal it. >> all time for debate has expired those in favor? those opposed? the no's have it. the recorded vote is requested
we will postpone that until we finish debating this action of amendments are there other amendments? you are recognized. >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> amendment number four offered in the clerk will designate the amendment. >> related to immigration refor reform. >> you are recognized for six minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. the facts are clear today want to start talking about immigration reform. undocumented immigrants pay an estimated $11.6 billion in billion dollars in taxes each year in a comprehensive immigration reform enacted to provide legal status for all undocumented immigrants increasing state and local tax contributions by an estimated $2.1 billion per year. this committee has previously heard from economists that
were majority witnesses who all testified to the benefits of comprehensive immigration reform. these are in line with broad support to recognize the benefits of enacting immigration reform they actually wrote a letter included six nobel laureates and members of the reagan, george h to view bush clinton and george w. bush and obama administrations. in the letter, 1470 economists recognize the benefits immigration brings to society far outweigh the cost and smart immigration policy could better maximize the benefits than single costs. reform would result in the following benefits to bring entrepreneurs who start their own businesses and hire american workers and it brings young workers who help offset the large-scale retirement and diverse skill sets to keep the
workforce flexible help companies grow and increase productivity of american workers and immigrants are far more likely to work in innovative job creative fields such as science technology, engineering and math and drive economic growth. we should be enacting common sense immigration reform instead of investing in harsh immigration measures like the family separation policies that is tearing children as young as one year old from their parents at the border i am an immigrant i came to united states at 16 years old by myself. i am offended by the words like in fast and completion of immigrants coming across the border to seek asylum in refuge with gangs and the level of frederick and the use of immigrants as a political
tool i think does shame to the history of our country, our ancestors and those of us who are first-generation. this president harsh policy ravages the family and community and businesses animal enforcement has told me that trump's crackdown crackdown made it harder to prosecute and investigate crimes. even with legal status fear contacting the police out of fear that that will lead to apprehension and detention of a loved one. lowering of admissions to the lowest level in history is a bipartisan issue with republican governors leading the charge this is a tragedy we can and must do better starting with compassionate immigration reform to promote and protect workers to be responsive to the needs of employers and implement the legalization program for
long-term friends and neighbors in every single way and with that i will yield. >> i rise enthusiastically to support this amendment. it is a contrast to the comments of the president saying that the xiong children will upset the nation this is an important statement i have offered over the years comprehensive immigration reform to boost the economy and will provide the dignity that we all want to be given as it relates to the issue of individuals seeking to calm as refugees to delete persecution and dominance. this is an economic engine that will be the effective
tool for the economy of the united states and it is noted that comprehensive immigration reform package provides upwards of $1 billion to the economy and will and the actions on the border of those who flee domestic violence and gang violence and i asked my colleague to support the amendment and i yield back. >> i yield 30 seconds to our chairperson. >> i fully support my colleagues amendment and to protect the doctor recipients because i know what that will mean the teacher and also the she and thousands of other dreamers in our state could fully contribute to the country that they love these
long-overdue reforms with employee shortages and education will boost the economy and lower deficits to ensure that and i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment and i yield back. >> with comprehensive immigration reform this is the only country that says no he should not have to live with the fear and anxiety. >> your time has expired i'm sorry. pursuant to the rules adopted by this committee the time has expired the gentlelady will
have one minute to close. no at the risk of sounding like a broken record from yesterday let me say again the amendment does raise an important dialogue and serious concerns about immigration policy we know these issues are discussed more so today than in a long time these questions are significant for the country but in may judgment it does not address the federal budget in a way that is meaningful for purposes of the markup but it seeks to change immigration policy and these changes are more appropriate consideration of homeland security or judiciary and for a full debate on the floor of the house. i know my democratic colleagues are sincere in her efforts to change these
policies but i don't believe the budget resolution or the committee is the appropriate venue for these changes have been amendment such of this would be adopted it would distract from the overall a subjective for longtime drivers of america's debt and the deficit that feeds the debt that would be an unfortunate outcome for these purposes. this week the house is considering legislation on the floor to fix the outdated and fragmented system that has manifested itself in ways that are heartbreaking to encourage members to take this debate to the floor and urge novo on the amendment now i will yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from texas. >> thank you i agree with you on the procedural perspective but the discussion points i would like to comment on as a friend and colleague but the
notion that republicans don't appreciate the benefits of immigration is false. we know the story of america and the story of the agreement long -- immigrant you cannot separate the two. because we have people from all over the world who come here for hope and freedom and opportunity. and they are committed to this country and constitution and laws of the land pledging allegiance to this country but they are vetted just like you would for your office you don't just plop somebody down because they needed a job. the unemployment line put them in your office and say if you
don't hire them your heartless. you don't care about them. we wouldn't do that for our offices no employer would run that way why do we have immigration policies that would be any different? we have standards for citizenship in this country at the highest levels. so the notion that that they pay $11 million in taxes? that's great they cost $100 billion. we are broke we've been talking about it for the last two days about the insolvency of the social safety net programs and we are trying to justify illegal immigration on the taxes that they pay? it's 10% of the cost. we cannot sustain the problems -- the programs that we have through our own people.
. . . . >> so, he has highlighted another broken piece of the immigration system. that's the separation of parents and kids. that's not his decision. he is just finally highlighting because he's a president who is administrating the laws of the land. if people are seeking asylum, there are some things to keep in mind. only think about the families coming over. number one, they should stop at the first safe country they come to if they fear for their lives,
but they are not or they would be in mexico. secondly, they present themselves at a port of entry they will keep their families together. the laws today will not allow kids to be detained over 20 days. meanwhile, we have a president who says you break our laws, we are going to arrest you, prosecute you and if you found to be here unlawfully we will send you back to your country. that's what i expect of my commander-in-chief and my chief executive. enforce the loss. i expect congress to pass laws into his job. so he is putting more pressure on us to deal with this. i'm for keeping families together. ted cruz put a bill and that i support all the way. keeps them together and says, the way we have done it in the past is to keep them together we did a catch and release. that's not the solution. build more detention facilities, double down on immigration
judges so we can expedite the hearing and if they're here lawfully, god bless them. if not, god bless them as they get back to their country of origin and get my like the rest of the folks that are waiting for years. this president has leaned into this. he has gone beyond what i would have done. we need to do something for the daca folks. because the president is leaning i'm leaning. i say let's give peace of mind and legal status put them to the back of the line so they don't undercoat those who have been waiting. let them become whatever path they choose even if that citizenship. i'll go there. there folks who disagree with me. i will do that if we can get with the president needs to stop the madness of having folks come
over here and exploit our broken system. we need to secure the border stop immigration and go from random to merit-based citizenship. simple. i'm proud of this president for doing that. i yelled remaining in my time. >> thank you for the point you made ten seconds. >> we appreciate your commentary. >> 15 seconds; and then i want to close. when a thank you for giving us a sense of hope that the only country that one abandonment what's going on currently in terms of the president's executive order, this executive order has not directed the reunification of 2300 children
who have been taken by their parents from our government. they need to be returned immediately. right now kids are being held in cages. parents don't know if or when they'll see their kids again. as a psychiatric social worker i know the health and mental illness consequences which are profound. the trauma will be long-standing. >> here's what i'd say. let's schedule a hearing mr. chairman on this topic. i will debate anybody any day on the benefits of immigration reform. if you make that argument that tax cuts are beneficial you can make the argument that immigration reform is beneficial. then kiefer speaking up against some of these.
all those in favor say a make those in favor say no. gentleman from kentucky recorded voters requested pursuant to the agreement. will postpone until we finish debate in the special amendments. further amendments,. >> i have an amendment. >> this is amendment number two. offered by mr. jackson lee. staff will distribute copies. this is related to medicaid. >> you are recognized for six minutes. >> mr. chairman and ranking member, thank you. let me quickly hold up a very potent usa article health costs into teacher pay. budget cuts, just take for example this teacher that is
stretched and has a disabled child. the disabled child needs medicaid. i think the child again. we recognize the central role medicaid plays and lives. today, medicaid provides coverage to more than 75 million americans including children, pregnant women, seniors on medicare, people who are too disabled to work apparent struggling to get by poverty level wages. in addition to doctor hospital visits, medicaid covers long-term services like nursing homes and community-based services that allow people with chronic conditions to live independently. i will point out that medicaid covers more than half of the nursing home resident. my amendment rejects the cuts and policies harmful to vulnerable populations to the american people. the republican budget cuts
$834 billion out of medicaid. it reflects the american healthcare which drains 1 trillion from medicaid over ten years to pay for tax cuts. that's what it reflects. republican budget, 1 trillion out of the american need by the republican budget cutting medicaid. two policies drive this funding cut, one ending the expansion into cap the federal payments. both starting in 2020. the budget goes further by imposing a mandatory work requirement and medicaid on top of these cuts. the cabs and growth in federal medicaid funding. my amendment rejects converting this to a per capita block grant. as well it reason rejects medicaid expansion. many people, are crying and
clamoring for the expansion of medicaid to provide for those in our public hospital and our regular hospitals. i reject any of the medicaid expansion. i checked the amendment of adding of work requirement on medicaid. i recognize the people of america work, their people who were crooning medicaid, the children are on medicaid and the states are begging and clamoring for medicaid to provide excellent medical coverage and hospitals were working families are need of medicaid services. with that, i reserve. >> thank you for the amendment. i support it.
medicaid is the largest health insurance program in the nation covering 75 million americans, including more than one in three children. is the lifeline for seniors and people with disabilities who reline it for nursing home care and home services. medicare covers six and ten nursing home residents and one in three adults, in my home state it has helped over 600,000 people to gain access to critical treatment for substance abuse. the amendment is critical. i you back the balance of my time. >> i want to emphasize the fact of what a disaster medicaid cuts would be for seniors and people disabilities who rely medicaid for long-term care services and support. it is so important to remember that medicaid currently pays for
nearly half of all the long-term care services in the country. including both nursing home care and home and community-based services. there is not a district in the country where people are not a need for nursing home and home care. roughly one in three people now turning 65 will require nursing home care at some point during his or her life. three quarters of long-term care nursing home residents will eventually be covered by medicaid. the house bill cuts medicaid by more than $800 billion and then cap said. the senate bill is worse. it would increase per capita more slowly than the hospital. this means that every year of funding will fall further behind. the cost of providing quality long-term care.
cap federal spending will not keep pace with increases in technology, labor cost or medicaid inflation. if you want to help your seniors, you want to make sure that medicaid is well-funded and stop the diss this disastrous problem. i'll back. >> before my time runs on the first minutes. >> the disabled child would need medicaid in your cutting almost a million dollars. >> the generally deals. i recognize myself for seven minutes in response. i urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. unfortunately, there's a lot of democratic greek surrounding this amendment.
a lot of raised voices and yelling. that's unfortunate. what's happening here is that we are actually focusing these resources on people who need it. i appreciate bringing up the disabled as an example. that's what medicaid is supposed before. health care for the poor in healthcare for those who cannot otherwise provided for themselves. but, medicaid was never meant to be an insurance option for able-bodied americans. it's true, obama care severely expanded medicaid in the population it was never meant to serve. as the american people continue to reject the failed policies of a one-size-fits-all obama care program we're back to facing the reality that medicaid should
before those who truly need it. but this budget does his forces resources to be focused on people nursing homes, not cutting them off. you can't make the assumption that because we had a work requirement focusing resources on people that needed that automatically those people get cut. that's not right. it is certainly not true. medicaid was designed specifically to cover people who calfall through the cracks. low-income children, the blind disabled, the elderly. this is who they should be focused on what medicaid was a focus to do. our budget restores that promise. most said in support of this amendment can be no further from the truth. our budget does this in a way that will prove the medicaid program for decades liberals
have decided that states were unfit to decide who was poor who is disabled, who is elderly who are the citizens truly in need. the elites decided that legislators in my state and others who were elected to serve the people of their states do not care or are incapable of helping, nothing could be further from the truth. the elite decided instead that washington d.c. knows better, one-size-fits-all program is the only possible way to go because other officials and individuals must just be too stupid. how wrong, how elite sure, states consummate waivers for coverage. it would be very difficult to get these waivers approved.
our budget returns the decision-making authority to the states. the ones who truly know who is rollable and how best to cover them. government that is closest to the people is always the best. this budget gives states the option of how to structure their program. as we heard during the debate, governors have different preferences. some prefer while others prefer to block grant. what we heard almost universally was that they need flexibility to tailor their programs to best suit their citizens. the budget gives them that. that flexibility. i yelled as much time to my friend from alabama. >> i think the vice chairman for yielding. i'm opposed to this memo as well. a number of reasons for this.
i've seen my colleagues check the math on medicaid and are aware there are billions of dollars in improper payments. one thing we tried to do was to make medicaid get the money where it needs to go. the money is not getting there. that's one problem. the work requirements apply to able-bodied adults age 18 - 59 without children under six and half of this group is under 35 years old. about 40% are men. there are others out there that if you never had a full-time job chances are you'll never have one. s1 a look at the expansion. you might not be aware and it is
shocking. what's happened in the expansion states is the lower reimbursement people on medicaid that were supposed be taking care of the traditional medicaid population, the children may see my colleague from florida not a said. you may not be aware but the illinois department of health recorded their 823 people died were pushed to the back of the line waiting for karen medicaid. because the healthcare providers give preference to the higher reimbursement level. nationwide, just in the expansion states almost 22000 people had died waiting for care. they were pushed to the back of the line. that is not compassion. it is dangerous.
we're trying to reform medicaid and create a system that takes care of the people it was intended to take care. with that in mind, i'm committed to the reforms that we have articulated that makes sense. it makes sense that able-bodied adults and those with no children should be given the opportunity to work. take kansas as an example. it has had a dramatically positive impact. when you look at the aftermath of the tax cuts where we have record unemployment levels low numbers of unemployment, more jobs then we have unemployed people to fill the jobs. they said that we cannot run out of positive things to say about the tax cuts and job set. this is the best time. if you looking for a job i pose
the amendment and i yield back. >> i you my colleagues to vote no for rebuttal. >> i asked my colleagues to vote yes and i make no apologies for those of us who are passionate about serving those in need. that's the achilles' heel of the republican party. they've never seen any they wanted to answer. i would argue that 87% of those who need medicaid for those who are disabled, working in school are seeking work. in this opiate epidemic you will see medicaid is part in addition to medicare's part of the service and together they make up 61% of rural hospital revenues to help those who are suffering from the opiate epidemic. you can't pretend to support that up but it and cut almost a
trillion dollars out of the medicaid budget. this is impossible to believe. it is hurting rule communities. it's hurting wrote urban hospitals. in support response to undermining the affordable care act and to undermine those with pre-existing conditions which the republican plan has never been able to complement or make better healthcare for americans. i asked my colleagues to support the amendment which rejects the large cuts of medicaid funding in the republican budget. almost $1 trillion. >> those in favor say yes, those in favor say no. the nose. the gentleman for kentucky. a recorded vote is requested. we'll post pone until we have
finished debating the special amendments. are there other amendments? >> ms. lee of california. you have an amendment at the desk. this is amendment number five. the clerk will designate the amendment and distribute copies. >> mrs. lee's recognized for six minutes in support of her amendment. >> this is a very necessary amendment. it would restore funding for several basic programs that are critical to reducing poverty. next is social security, medicare snap and others. looking at the budget you think this is a different time. a budget seems to ignore the
fact that there still more than 40 million americans living in poverty both in rural and urban 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 everyone. we know they work. according to a study from the pew charitable trust, 8 million americans will be living in poverty without the food stamp program. the supplemental security insurance program cap more than 3 million americans out of poverty in 2016. they're there for all of us will fall on hard times. only 70% of americans will turn to the system to make ends meet at some point.
yet, my colleagues want to/lease programs in favor billionaires and corporations. cutting proven antipoverty programs is not the same as cutting poverty. is that really what we want to budget? by doling out the pains to those with the least resources by rewarding the others with tax breaks and corporate welfare we are creating more poverty. many middle income people will be below the poverty line. millions of americans are being left behind and struggling to pay jobs that pay a living wage. they're forced to choose between paying bills and putting food on the table. no one on the richest country on earth should have to make that choice. i know from personal experience that people want to work. i know people want to feed their
children. they don't want to be on government assistance. but that bridge should be there for them when they need it. i have said are budget is a moral document. it should make lifting people out of poverty a priority rather than cut programs to ensure they continue to struggle to make ends meet and push them over the edge. we need to ensure no more americans will be pushed into poverty. that's what this amendment calls for. i urge support and i yelled to sheila jackson. >> i want to express the importance of this. the budget.
[inaudible] these are programs that provide livable wage, housing. they have not significantly reduce poverty in america. with the economic advisers on the warm poverty it has an impact. they will see that poverty has been cut by one third. it is evident that more individuals were able to come out of poverty on the basis of job-training, access to food and nutrition. access to education.
anti- poverty programs, all across the country because it helps people in both rule in urban areas. i think the gentle lady for yielding. in conclusion, a faulty notion this program is the same. that is not this case. there slashing the opportunity for those in need. i yield back. >> the gentle lady has a minute remaining and yields back her time. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas for comments in opposition. >> mr. chairman, i agree there is some moral implications to anything we do legislatively including the budget. i think it is immoral to track
people in the cycle of poverty and dependence on the government. that's what our policies have done. it is immoral to not recognize everybody's not given talents and want to put policies in place that maximize and encourage them to put the talents to use for the betterment of themselves, their families the great country and the communities they live. that's what we're talking about in the foodstamp reform. we are talking about 20 hours of work per week for able-bodied adults. not elderly or disabled folks. this should be a basic expectation. it is if you look at the data. 80% of the people believe if you're able-bodied you are to work. that is not just good policy and good stewardship. that is the thing to do to
respect the dignity of all people in this country. when you look at the timeframe that was outlined with respect to the great society. this democrat declaration of war on poverty, since the 60s we have spent $22 trillion battling poverty, the rate of poverty in the 60s was 14.7, today it is 14.8. for going to measure success on inputs i would say congratulations, the democrats have spent now 16 times more today than they did in the 60s. we haven't moved the needle a bit. success is about achieving a desired outcome the republican tax reform package since we're stimulated the economy we've created 3 million jobs.
i think the best care to poverty is a job. i'm going to read them into for to my colleagues. this is what a president and leader of our country who provided some very common sense and conservative commentary on the issue. let me reach you his words. this is a broken system that traps to many, talk about the welfare system. in a cycle of dependence to one that emphasizes work to get people on welfare a chance to
or to throw someone out of a first-class because they thought there more title. it's not right to demonize people. i certainly don't think someone's measures based in the assets and not their behavior for their fellow americans. i yield back. >> i know he's not going to yield because he's an individual that has the most inappropriate behavior. >> the gentle lady is out of order. leslie one minute to close. >> to the gentleman's question, i lived in great britain for two years. the system is far superior to what we have. everyone has assessable and affordable healthcare. millions more would be living below the poverty line had it not been for the world poverty. many of these programs are trying to cut.
social security and medicare benefits. people work for these benefits and they deserve what they work for. when you look at jobs that's what we want, everyone to have an opportunity for a good paint job. we should have a living wage. people need good paying jobs. in job security. many millions of americans are living living below the poverty line working two jobs and still can't make it. by cutting off these important government support programs, you are creating a pathway back into falling below the poverty line. >> all those in favor say yes, those in favor no. the nose have it.
jelinek from kentucky asked for a vote. will postponement until finishing the special amendments. >> i'm pleased to offer an amendment that will allow donald trump to keep a campaign promise. this is amendment number seven. the clerk will designate the amendment. >> is centered the statement of social security elephants. you're recognized for six minutes. >> mr. chairman, please to offer an amendment that will allow donald trump to keep the campaign promise he made. that we will not cut social security benefits. the president's budget breaks his promise by proposing cuts to social security disability insurance. his proven he can be trusted to prove his worth my amendment will restore americans trust and
the benefits they were and will be there when they need them. 62 million americans currently receiving benefits are counting on us to do the right thing. millions are working hard and paying into the system for future benefits. it's time to stop saying one thing and doing another. don't tell me we can't afford social security. my constituents will not be lectured on fiscal responsibility who just gave huge tax cuts to the top 1%. corporate ceos do not need a standout to make them richer. meanwhile, seniors and the disabled center their social security benefits and they need them now more than ever. some argue we can afford them because people are living longer, this argument is now regrettably not factual. life expectancy decrease while
the final numbers have not yet been released but also likely decrease in 17 as well. even before this life expectancy had fallen behind. low income americans not living longer and they rely on social security be hard-hit by benefit cuts. i urge the committee to adopt the amendment to show that we might present trump can be trusted to protect the dignity or seniors. like ideal now to barbara. >> thank you. i think that similarly fruit yielding for this very important amendment. this is a debate this committee must continue to have.
the demand that congress cut social security benefits now or in the future. social security is the single most effective antipoverty program. 1 million children are lifted out of poverty because of this effective program. not only is it critical for seniors for the disabled, single parents people of color. the nearly 61 million americans who receive social security at least a quarter rely on the benefits for most of their income. without the funding in place, millions of americans would be living in poverty losing the lifestyle guaranteed to them through decades of contributing to the economy. what's worse, slashing social security benefits would disproportionately impact the most vulnerable americans
especially low income. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and bolster the social security program for current and future general rations. >> mr. coal is reckless. >> we have six minutes. >> partly. i misunderstood. >> i would like to yield to my colleague from illinois. >> i think it's important to recognize social security is becoming more important today. benefits are becoming more critical to providing retirement income and fewer and fewer workers have access to the traditionally defined benefit plans. and future retirees are more likely to have social security benefits as their only
guaranteed and inflation protected source of income. for many, this three like a stool of social security and personal savings is becoming just social security and personal savings. even that is very small for retirement. low and moderate income workers who are often unable to save adequate resources have largely replaced traditional pensions will increasingly find themselves relying on social security benefits. is not a republican, democrat or independent if you want to see any possible cut social security including raising the retirement age. i yelled. >> in my remaining few seconds i want to underscore how critical
it is that we preserve the safety net that has been a lifeline to millions of seniors. millions of pre-seniors are paying into throughout their working life and deserve an opportunity that has been expected to make sure they can live out their retirement years with dignity. that's not possible if we move towards privatization and it's not possible with the language that's in this budget that's irresponsible and pulls the rug out from under our seniors. i yield back. >> the german from oklahoma's recognize. >> thank you. i begin by thinking my perpetrator for the amendment. i will lay out some of the reasons i disagree with the amendment, the focus on the topic is important. in addition, i want to discuss
the current political state of affairs. at the end of my remarks i want to offer a bipartisan way forward that i think friends would be interested in. to the amendment itself the budget resolution already deals with social security. the amendment fall short in the sense that it does nothing to do with the long-term financial instructional challenge we face. we just had a report from the social security and is said social security disability will go bankrupt in 2032 if we lose leave it as is. the trust fund will go bankrupt and 2030. i think it's in port program
that i want to preserve, if it did happen we would have a 30% cut across the board. the longer we wait to deal with that the more difficult it is. this amendment neither acknowledges the financial weaknesses nor offers a solution to confront the problem. we are better off with what's in the budget itself. i agree with my friend with how important this is. i'm worried we have not acted. i referred this committee to a a brilliant piece written last week in the washington post by robert samuelson, the cowardice of the political past. it talked about social security and unwillingness to confront. also met the article to the record if i may. it's a said democrats have a
disproportionate responsibility for the stillman because it's a signature program. they have accused anyone who suggests benefit productions of being cruel, caring and immoral. republicans find debate on this unattractive. the result has been to make political cowardice. the irony is the probe government is quietly weakening government by a staunch support of medicare which squeezes other programs. it precludes any effort to reduce the budget deficit. taxes will have to go up but some spending will have to go down. it's virtually impossible. i agree with that statement. i don't have a solution but i have a path forward. i would say there's a good book
out there by a colleague called the right hand. it's worth reading. we've had several congresses process set up to do social security. we went back and looked at what ronald reagan and tip o'neill did the last time they put this on a path forward. and made it fiscally sustainable. the greenspan commission was bipartisan. the commission would be made up 7 - 6 whoever had the presidency would get seven and the other six. you'd have to have nine votes. would have to be bipartisan. congress would get a straight up or down vote. that's how we fix this thing the last time. for those on my side that want to privatize, this would never come out of it.
it be designed simply to make the current program fiscally sustainable which it is not today. this could be done and i've had this discussion with the white house. he was popular when they did it in 83 ronald reagan 149 states and they took control and they work together to sit keep a popular program. more important, the american people would win. i asked my friends to look at that legislation. it is bipartisan there is no guarantee outcome. but i think it provides a mechanism to work together to which one i do. this is critical to the retirement of every american. i suspect we could find a way to do this. i yield the balance of my time.
>> thank you. i like my colleague and i understand how important benefits are to current retirements. this is a vital program that my constituents back rely on to pay for everyday expenses. i want to secure the safety net. let's do something. doing nothing is irresponsible. we have to make sure we make this program solvent. two weeks ago the chief testified before the house ways and means committee that the old-age and survivors trust fund will be insolvent in the next 16 years. for the first time since 82 social security total income was less than expenditures. four years earlier than previously projected. the longer we wait the more difficult and expensive it gets.
that is why it's important both democrats and republicans put aside politics and work together to assure -- one of the problems of the amendment is counterproductive of the goal by having bipartisan reforms which may result in reducing benefits for the wealthiest of americans. the budget highlights deficiencies to protect those that are in or near retirement. we all agree. i'm committed to protecting social security. reforms and difficult choices will need to be made. i encourage my colleagues to reject the amendment. >> thank you. i think my friend from oklahoma
for his collegiality and comedy. respectfully, there is no trust. typically the majority party has repeatedly attempted to privatize social security. were there trust, we could rely upon the gentleman suggested that we need bipartisan reform. all my amendment says is we're not going to assume that we have cuts to social security will protect benefits for a beneficiary. something we should have bipartisan agreement. social security under this republican budget would undermine the great progress we have made if we were to adopt the language. should have bipartisan reform and we should work together. we should also be assuming that we are not going to engage and benefit cuts for our seniors who
have paid into social security for their working life and deserve assurance that they'll have a safety net and not have to worry about investing those benefits and the stock market which is too risky. >> questions. if you are the nose have it. record of otis requested pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement. we will postpone until we finish debating. other other amendments? >> this is amendment number eight, the clerk will designate. >> this is related to the interests. >> thank you. my amendment would close the loophole that benefits mostly rich wall street insiders. they treat their income as capital gains at a far lower tax
rate than everyone else. that allows them not to pay their fair share. because the federal government nearly $2 billion per year. it's time for them to be treated as ordinary income just like the income of working families. when rate republicans were forcing this trump promise to end it. he said we will eliminate the deduction and other special-interest loopholes that have been so good for people like me. that led to the surprise of my democratic colleagues when the time came to and they got their republican friends to ensure this getaway was maintained. even ann coulter was outrage saying for trump to promise to
end this tax loophole everywhere he went in the back down is a very bad look. tax rates ought to have a fair minimum perception of fairness she said i don't often agree with president trump and ann coulter but i think they can see the unfairness of the system. i remember during the last presidential campaign there is a great commotion made about mitt romney pain 14% tax rate on his income from his venture capital fund. we see that repeated time and again in this high initial on the businesses which are basically part of the income of the country and not necessarily the productive economy of the country. my college classmate and friend the head of blackstone made 600
plus million dollars and paid attacks at half the rate of people who make the same amount of money and other areas of the economy. why don't the garage steve with that income, the fact is this is where american people feel they're getting the shaft. they are working every day as hard as they can and you have someone basically using other people's money to make money to have attacks had a smaller rate. again, this is not their investment. these are people who work. this is their ordinary income. if they were just investing there be able to use the capital gains rates and so forth like others. but, this is their job and were giving them an incredible break. i hope our republican colleagues
will join in helping president trump keep his promise to the american people in support my amendment. with that, i yield two minutes to my friend from illinois. >> i think the gentleman in and glad he read that quote from the president. we will eliminate the carried interest deduction. now, as our distinguished ranking member has said, it comes as no surprise that they rank this statement as a broken promise. here we are trying to help the spotted keep the campaign promise for president trump as many tax breaks go, if you have carried interest which is the hedge fund manager tax break.
the hedge fund managers tax break leslie's hibernate managers and private equity and other investment funds pay a lower tax rate on their income the most working americans. this is of their own money. it's money they're managing. it's unimaginable how they would be allowed to get this tax break. the presence of the tax break was a loophole that let richmond get away with murder. yet we still see the tax break exists. urge us to do with the president has promised. make an honest man out of him and get rid of that tax loophole. i yield back. >> will the gentleman yield?
>> i will yield to the gentleman from florida. >> i would support this amendment. some will say that this may be a good idea to fulfill the president's promise that the budget is not the vehicle to do it. based on what i see the budget is the mechanism to which we layout our values and goals. if this is something we want to do, i noticed that some of from kentucky didn't include partisan language. there is not representation that the tax bill was a bad idea. just that it should be included. if we have the opportunity to weigh in sure that these are our values some people ought to be treated fairly and equitably that is something i would support. >> thank you.
>> thank you chairman. i urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. i wanna remind us that we just enacted the tax cuts and jobs act. were beginning to see the benefits of that play out. thanks to tax reform the economy is the workers are seen real, tangible gains. not wall street businessmen necessarily, but everyday working americans. we have heard success stories of tax reform. were 3 million americans are receiving bonuses because of it. the liberal elite critics have called this crumbs. for the average american the bonuses are real money that stays in the pocket. rather than rolling back tax reform i would expand it. i've introduce the crumbs act to make the bonuses tax-free. what better could we do to the
and in my home state unemployment is at an amazing 3.2%, something we would have never seen, not even heard of during the last eight years of the obama administration. this is what happens when we act for the american worker and not for the liberal elites. this would raise taxes on americans by $19.5 billion with the tax cut jobs act we cut by $2,000. we are here today to keep americans working. that is our main job we need to treat this as a serious comprehensive effort to address long-term drivers of our debt. instead, we have this amendment to address the issue in the tax cut jobs act th bill extended fm one year to three years and this amendment is unnecessary.
let's continue to see the benefits we just got done voting on and passing into law to help our economic growth and for those reasons i urge a no vote on this amendment. i'd like to yield of the remainder of my time to the gentle lady from tennessee, the former chairman. >> think the gentleman for yielding and as a member of the ways and means committee into this great kennedy that was the golden key to allowing us to do the budget for the tax reform very proud to have been a part of that. we just enacted this comprehensive tax reform and we are beginning to see the effect of that as the gentleman has already referenced. but we see the economy is moving into the workers are already seeing tangible gains. in fact over 500 businesses have announced increased wages as a direct result of the tax cuts jobs act. cbo expects the economy to grow
by 3% this year and that would mark the strongest rate of growth since 2005. we are seeing already the federal reserve bank that will grow by 4.7% in the second quarter of this year. less than 2% since i've been here in the last eight years. we are here today to consider this as a serious comprehensive effort to address the long-term drivers of our debt and this issue detracts from the effort we are seeing. bigger paychecks, the greatest optimism and over 30 years. so it was addressed as was said by my colleagues which extended the holding requirements for the carried interest treatment from one year to three years.
let's continue to see the benefits of the tax reform realized in higher economic growth before we consider due taxes and for this region believe the reason i urge a no vote and i will yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from kentucky has a minute to close. >> i appreciate the comments from my friend. i listened for all their time and did not hear one defense of the carried interest deduction. not one. a lot of defense of the tax act, and we can have a debate on that, but the fact remains when we talk about the tax increase on the american people, know this is a tax increase on a very, very small sliver of the population, notably people like
stevestephen and mitt romney whe making enormous sums of money paying a low tax rate. i urge my republicans to join me in voting for this amendment and again, i hope that they would take this opportunity to help president trump fulfilled why this promiseif oneof his promis. >> the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kentucky. those in favor and those oppos opposed. the gentleman requests a recorded vote person t pursuante request postponed a recorded vote on focus batch of amendments have been finished in their debate and is expected
knowing that we have boats coming up in about 30 minutes, the committee will now vote cannot proceed to vote on the role of the amendment from earlier this morning. and we have something such amendment votes, so the committee will now vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman related to medicare. the clerk will redesignate. >> to insert a policy statement preserving medicare. >> the clerk will call the roll. >> [roll call]
role votes. as expected there will be votes called at about 1130. we will recess at this time with a strong recommendation please return to the budget hearing room so we can begin the next batch of boats i think we had four more tear once and then we get into the tier two votes. mister chairman. can we ask for unanimous consent in the objections.
i like to do the same and ask unanimous consent that i would be recognize as having votedbe if i were here are there any objections. i would also ask for unanimous consent due to detainment in traffic this morning. fourteen, three and 13. i would also like to request unanimous consent to head yes recorded for any of these i would like to ask on the first