tv House Budget Committee on 2019 Federal Budget - Day 2 Part 1 CSPAN June 26, 2018 5:55am-8:05am EDT
$36.3 billion and one of the things we try to do with the american health care act and that we continue to try to do this is to make medicare, get the money where it needs to go, when you're sending 36.3 in payments, fraud and other mismanagement, the money is not getting there. that's one problem. there were requirements that keeps talking about. i just want to point out that work requirement apply to able-body adults without children under 6 and half of this group is under 35 year's old and about 40% of them are men and there are others that indicate if you reach age of 30 and never had a full-time job the chances are you'll never
have one. i also want to point out something about the expansion and you may not be aware of this, it's really shocking. what's happened in expansion states that the lower reimbursement people on medicaid that were supposed to be taken care of, traditial medicaid population, disabled, children, the illinois department of health reported that 823 people died who were pushed to the back of the line waiting for care on medicaid because the healthcare providers, mr. vice chairman, gave preference to higher reimbursement level. nationwide, just in expansion states, just in expansion states, almost 22,000 of people have died waiting for care because they were pushed to the
end of the line. that's not compassion, that's dangerous. what we are trying to do reform medicaid, create a system that's intended to take care of the people that we need to take care of. i think it makes sense, it makes sense that able-body adults particularly those with 35 with no children should be given the opportunity to work and where we have applied work requirements, you take kansas as an example, it has had a dramatically positive impact and then when we look at what's happened in the aftermath of the tax cuts and job's act where we've got record unemployment, i mean, record employment levels, record low numbers of unemployment, we've got more jobs than we've got unemployed people to fill those jobs, this as the wall street journal says, new york times, they couldn't run out of positive things to say about the tax cuts and job's act, they didn't have enough positive to
talk about this is the best time if you're looking for a job to find a job. amendment and yield back.e >> thank you for yielding back. i urge my colleagues to vote no, again, for rebuttal wasn't minute to jackson. >> i ask my colleagues to vote yes and make no apologizes for those who are serving people who are in need. they never see a need that they wanted to answer unless you happen to be driving a bentley. i would argue to my friends that 87% of those who need medicaid are those who are disabled, working in school or seeking work, in this opioid epidemic, you will look at thisap see thas part in addition to medicare as part of the service, medicare and medicaid together make up 61% of rural revenues to help
those suffering from opioid epidemic. you cannot be pretend to be supporting extension of epidemic and cutting 800, a trillion dollars out of the medicaid budget here. this is unsavorily, this is impossible to believe, this is hurting rural communities, hurting urban hospitals, this is a poor response to attempting to undermine the affordable care act and also to undermine those who have preexisting conditions which the republican plan has never been able to complement, make better, health care for americans. i ask my colleagues to support the jackson lee amendment which rejects the large cuts of medicaid funding in the republican budget almost a trillion dollars, i yield back. >> question on amendment offered by jackson lee, those in favor say aye, oppose no, the no's have it.
recorded vote is requested pursuant t unanimous consent agreement, we will postpone the recorded vote until we have finished the meeting, this batch of amendments. are there other amendments in. >> yes, mr. chairman. >> ms. lee of california. you have an amendment at the desk? >> yes. >> this is amendment number 5, i guess. the clerk will designate the amendment and distribute copies of the amendment. >> amendment number 5 offered by representative lee related to funding to antipoverty programs. >> mrs. lee recognized for six minutes in support of her amendment. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, it would restore funding for basic standard of living programs critical to reducing poverty and providing opportunity for all, includes social security, medicare and snap and many more. looking at the so-called budget you would think that this is a different period of time.
we see a budget that seems to ignore the fact that there are still more than 40 million americans living in poverty both in rural and in urban areas, this budget is balanced by slashing critical earned benefits, earned benefits mind you like social security and medicare, programs vital to reducing poverty and providing a decent standard of living for everyone and we know that these programs work. according to a study from the pew charitable trust additional 8 million americans would be living in poverty without our nation's program, the program kept more than 3 million americans out of poverty in 2016. these programs are there for all of us when we hard on fall times, 70% of americans will turn to main-tested assistance
program to make ends meet at some point in their lives. yet my republican colleagues once again want to slash these programs in favor of billionaires and corporations. how many times do we need to remind you, cutting proven antipoverty programs is not the same as cutting poverty. is that really what we want to budget? by doing and throwing out the pain with those with least resources while rewarding wealthiest with tax breaks and huge companies with corporate welfare we really are creating more poverty. many mental income people will all be below poverty line. make no mistake, millions of americans are being left behind and struggling to find jobs and forced to paying bills an putting food on the table. no one in the richest country 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 water should be there when they need it and really as i've said time and time again, our budget is a moral document that should make lifting people out of poverty a priority rather than cut programs that will ensure they will continue to struggle and really push them over the edge. we need to ensure that no many americans will be pushed into poverty and that is what this amendment calls for and i urge support for this amendment and i yield two minutes to congressman sheila jackson lee. >> first of all, i want to thank -- i want to express the importance, she's worked so very hard. the gop tax cuts for rich --
[inaudible] >> make everyone pay by cutting important benefits americans rely on. those benefits are programs that provide, livable wage, housing education and nutrition system. [inaudible] >> when president obama's economic adviser released report on poverty, a complete measure of poverty that catches the impact and they found that poverty had been cut by one-third since 1967. in great society, president johnson it's evident that more individuals both rural and urban were able to come out of poverty on the basis of, again, job
creating, access to food nutrition, access to education, pell grants, because poverty strikes people in both rural and urban areas. i thank the gentlelady for yielding. let me say in conclusion -- [inaudible] >> faulty notion that cutting poverty programs is the same as cutting poverty. that is not the case. they are slashing the opportunity for those in needs and i support the lady on the amendment and i yield back. >> yields back her time. >> i yield back my time. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. arrington for comments and opposition. >> i agree with the general lady that there is moral implications
for anything we do including the budget and it's immoral to trap people in a cycle of poverty and dependence on the government and that's exactly what our policies have done. it is immoral to not recognize everybody's god-giving talents and want to putolies in place that maximize, that encourage them to put those talents to use for the better man of themselves, their families and this great country and communities that they live in, that's what we are talking about in the food stamp reform. that's what we are talking about in tanf reform. we are talking about 20 hours of work of week abled body adult, not elderly or disabled folks, this should be a basic expectation, quite frankly it is. if you look at data 80% if you're able-body adult you ought to work and again, that's not just good policy, good
stewardship of taxpayer resources, that's the thing to do to respect the dignity of all people in this country and when you look at that time frame that the gentle lady outlined with respect to great society, this democrat declaration of war on poverty, we have spent since the 60's $22 trillion battling poverty. the rate of poverty in the 60's was 14.7, today it's 14.8. so if we are going measure success on inputs i'd say congratulations, the democrats have been successful, they've spent now 16 times more today than they did in the 60's, 22 trillion and we haven't moved the needle a bit. success is about achieving a desired outcome. in the republican tax reform package since we have stimulated
the economy, we've created 3 million jobs, now that's an outcome and we all know and i think everybody would agree on both sides of the aisle that the best cure to poverty is a job. just going to read a couple of things and i'm going to defer to my colleagues and yield time to them, but this is what a president, leader of our country and -- who provided very common sense and even conservative commentary on this issue. let me read you his words. this is a broken system that traps too many, talking about the welfare system in this country, traps too many people in cycle of dependence to one that emphasizes work in independence to give people on welfare a chance to draw paycheck and not welfare check. that wasn't ronald reagan, that wasn't my president that i served with george w. bush, that was bill clinton. bill clinton also said, president clinton said the current welfare undervalues work, hurting the very people it was designed to help, today we have historic opportunity to
make welfare what it was meant to be, a second chance not a way of life. william jefferson clinton. i agree with him. and i think that we need to do more to create jobs and we need to do less to trap people and claim that that's somehow helping anybody get out of poverty. now, i'm going yield to my friend, the gentleman from alabama, mr. gary palmer. >> thank the gentleman for yielding. i would like to point out to your comments, mr. arrington that we have declared the war on poverty and poverty won. when the programs began for a family to reach real gdp, reach level where they are out of poverty, it would have taken something in the range of 20 something percent, today it would be 12% but still approximately the same number of people, same percentage of the number of population in poverty still in poverty today.
what we are trying to do is plement programs that actually work and i'm a product of that. i've told my colleagues before i grew up dirt poor, my dad had eighth grade education and blind from one eye, he lived the house we build in. he only paid what we paid for, but we made it and we worked our way out of it. i know that's -- that's a bad word these days, but i want to tell you what they did in kansas when they implemented work requirements, i've got examples of a guy named jason after leaving food stamp program was earning $45,000 a year. amy, was earning 27,000, matt was earning 34,000 and i could go on and on with the people who benefited from moving able-body adults into work. that's how you fight poverty. you get -- you educate people, you fbi them employable skills and opportunity, by the way,
that's the tax cuts an job's act has tone. it has given an opportunity to get a good-paying job. median has gone up, wages have gone up. this is what we could do to help people. i want to add too, since we passed the tax cuts and job's act, the quality of life index has gone up to 54.7%, 17-year average was 49.8%. we are moving in the right direction. i want to point out in your own state, 823 people got pushed to the back of the line in medicaid dying for care because they gave preference to higher reimbursement levels, almost 22,000 died nationwide and i have a question, when you talk about single-payer system, do you have a particular sing-payer
system that you would hold up as a model for the united states? can you name one? >> i appreciate the opportunity to say so, i think we have a pretty effective single payer system right here in medicare. >> i'm talking about -- >> something that we consider. >> can you name a nation? >> all i know that in canada, for instance, when they did a survey a few years as -- >> i yield my time. >> the canadian people said the man who invented their health care system. >> reclaiming my time and i will comment on that later. i will like to -- >> i think the gentleman for yielding, the gentle lady of texas said republicans neefer seen a need that they never wanted a need only people that drive bentley, folks that are rich or bad people, i don't know anybody who drives a bentley but i guess the implication that
somebody who drives a bentley would be the same type of person that flies first class and throw somebody else out of first-class seat because they felt they were more entitled to it than another person. i don't think it would be right to demonize people as consequenc of having been successful and i certainly don't think someone's measure is based on asset and not behavior towards fellow americans and i yield back. >> i know the gentleman is not going to yield because he's an individual the most inappropriate behavior of any member of congress. thank you. i yield back. >> ms. lee one minute to close. >> i lived in great britain and far superior than the one we have because everybody has accessible affordable health care. secondly, as it relates to war on poverty, millions more, millions more would be living below poverty line had it not
been for the war on poverty which many programs you're trying to cut, thirdly, social security, medicare, earned benefits, these are programs people work for. they deserve the benefits that they work all of their lives for. fourth, let me just say when you look at jobs, yes, that's what we want, everyone to get an opportunity for god-paying job. we still haven't raised minimum wage. we should have a living wage. look at the cost of housing around the country. people need good-paying jobs and good security, many millions of americans are living working -- are living below poverty line work two jobs and still can't make it. and so by cutting these -- these important government-support programs, you're creating really a pathway back to following below poverty line. >> those in favor say yea?
th oppose, no. the no's have it. gentleman from kentucky request vote pursuant to uc agreement, we will postpone recorded vote till finishing the batch of amendments, any other amendments? ms. debbie wasserman schultz. >> i have an amendment that will keep campaign promise. >> amendment number 7. the clerk will designate the amendment. >> amendment number 7 dye representative debbie wasserman schultz, social security benefits. >> recognized for six minutes. >> thank you, i appreciate that. mr. chairman, i am please today offer an amendment that will allow donald trump to keep campaign promise that he made to the american people, that we will not cut social security benefits. unfortunately the president's fy19 breaks his promise. while president trump has proven he cannot be trust today keep his word, my amendment provides
this committee with an opportunity to restore americans trust and benefits they have earned will be there when they need them. 62 million americans are counting ontous do the right thing. millions more are working hard to pay into the system to earn future benefits. it's time for the president and republicans friends in congress to stop saying one thing and doing another. don't tell me that we can't afford social security, my constituents will not be lectured been fiscal responsibility on those who gave trillions of dollars of tax cuts to giant corporations and top 1%. at a time of skyrocketing inequality, corporate ceo's did not need a tax handout to make them richer and widen the wealth gap. meanwhile seniors and disabled did earn social security benefits and they do need them now more than ever. while some argue that we can't afford social security benefits anymore because people are living longer, this argument while never persuasive is now
regrettably no longer factual either. life expectancy decreased in 2015 and 2016 and while the final numbers haven't been released likely decrease in 2017 as well. even before this absolute decline, u.s. life expectancy had fallen behind other wealthy nations over the past four decades. low-income americans in particular are now living longer and low-income americans in particular rely on social security and will be especially hard hit by benefit cut. i urge the committee to adopt my amendment to show to the american people that we unlike president trump can be trusted to protect the dignity that seniors have worked so hard to secure and i am now please today yield strong advocate for nation seniors the colleague the gentle lady of california barbara lee. >> thank you very much, let me first thank the gentle lady for yielding but also for this very important amendment. thank you for offering it here. this is a debate that this committee must continue to have.
this critical amendment demands really that congress not cut social security benefits now or in the future and earn beaft. social security is the single most effective antipoverty program. 22 million americans including 1 million children areifted out of poverty because of this effective program. not only is it critical for seniors, disabled, single parents, for women, people of color, it's so important for everyone in this country. of the nearly 61 million americans who receive social security today at least a quarter of these seniors rely on the program benefit for most of their income without funding in place to sustain these programs millions of americans would be living in poverty, losing the lifestyle guarantied to them through decades of contributing to the economy. what's worse, slashing social security benefits would also
disproportionately impact the most vulnerable americans especially low-income workers and communities of color so i urge my colleagues to support this important amendment and really both to social security program for current and for future generation. i thank the gentle lady for this amendment and i yield. >> the gentle lady yields. >> i'm sorry. >> excuse me. we have six minutes. >> pardon me, misunderstood the offer. >> thank you very much. i would like to yield to my colleague the gentle lady of illinois. >> so i think it's important to recognize that social security is becoming even more important today, social security benefits are becoming more critical to providing retirement income fewer and fewer workers have access to traditionally defined benefit retirement plans and future retirees more likely to
have social security benefits as their only granteed and inflation protected source of income. for many, the old three-legged stool of social security, private pension and personal savings is becoming a pairf stilts with just social security and savings and even that is lower for retirement. lower and moderate income workers that are unable to save resources in savings account that have largely replaced traditional personal pensions will increasingly find themselves relying on social security benefits and i guaranty, there is not a republican or a democrat or an independent that is approaching the retirement years who wants to see any possible cut in social security including raising the entire retirement age which is a cut and i yield back to the lady from --
>> thank you, in my remaining few seconds i want to underscore how critical it is that we make sure we preserve the social security safety net that has really been a lifeline to millio a millions of seniors and who millions of preseniors are paying into throughout their working life and deserve an opportunity that has been expected to make sure that they are able to live out their retirement years with dignity. that will not be possible if we move towards privatization of social security and certainly not possible with the language that is in this budget that is irresponsible and pull the rug out from under our seniors. thank you very much, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the gentle from oklahoma is recognized in response. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i want to begin by thanking my good friend fellow appropriator for the amendment and while i will lay out some of the reasons that i disagree with the amendment where i think it's inadequate, i think the focus on
the topic is important and welcome and i thank my friend for that. in addition, to looking at the amendment, i want to also discuss the current political state of affairs with respect to social security and finally i want to offer at the end of my remarks not a solution but a bipartisan way forward that i think my friends would actually be interested in. first to the amendment itself and to my view is unnecessary because the budget resolution already deals with social security and section 508 and frankly the amendment fls short in the sense that it does nothing to deal with the long-term financial and structural challenge we face. we just had a report from the social security report, excuse me, and it said, look, social security disability is going to go bankrupt in 2032 question leave it as is and the trust fund itself will go bankrupt in either 2033 or 2034. when that happens and i don't think it will happen, i think we
will act politically to stop it from happening because i agree with my friend, it's an important program that i would want to preserve but if we did happen we would have 30% cut across the board. the longer we wait to deal with the problem the meficu it is. again, this amendment unfortunately neither acknowledges the financial weaknesses nor offers any solution to actually confront the problem. so i think we are better off honestly with what's in the budget itself but i do agree with my friend about how important this is and i am worried that we've not acted. i would refer everybody on this committee to an article brilliant piece actually written last week in washington post by distinguished economists robert samuelson and the title of this, this ought to strike on both sides of the aisle, the act, i
will quote from the record, democrats veer disproportionate responsibility for stalemate because social security and medicare are their signature programs, for decades liberals have accused anyone who suggest benefit reduction of being cruel, uncaring and immoral, actually republicans find debate on these terms unattractive and and the result make political cowardness intellectually respectable. the argument is that the progovernment democratic government is weakening by support of medicare which squeezes other programs. this also precludes any serious effort to reduce the budget deficits, yes, tax wills have to go up but some spend willing have to go down. this is virtually impossible if medicare and social security aring -- are excluded from cuts. i don't have a solution i could put in front of you today but i have a path forward that i could
offer today. i would commend to my friends on the other side and any good friends on this side, there's a good book out there by one of your colleagues john delaney called the right answer. he's in the presidential campaign right now. it's worth reading. mr. delaney and i had for several congress' a process set up to deal with social security and it's not original doves, we looked back what ronald reagan and tip o'neil did and made it fiscally sustainable and the commission was very bipartisan, we actually had twist, commission would be made 7 to 6, whoever has the presidency would get 7 and the other party 6. you would have to have 9 votes and would have to be bipartisan, congress would give straight up or down vote. that's how we fixed this thing the last time. those on my side that want to
privatize it, there would never come out of commission like. the commission would be designed simply to make the current program fiscally sustainable which is not today. this could be done, i've actually had this discussion with the white house and i said, look, this is actually popular. when they did it in 1983 ronald reagan won 49 states the next year and tip o'neil speaker of the house. if you work together to save a popular program each side will benefit politically more important the american people will win, so i would ask, again, my friends to look at that legislation, again, this is very bipartisan, the process is bipartisan, there's no guarantied outcome but i think it actually provides a mechanism where we could work together and do what i know my friend wants to do, save an important program that's critical to retirement of almost every single american. i share that goal and i suspect we could find a way to work together and get there.
so with that, i want to yield the balance of my time to my good friend from ohio, mr. renace. >> i like my colleagues on the other side, i understan how social security benefits are for both current retirees and those who receive disability insurance. this is a vital program that my constituents back in northeast ohio rely to pay for everyday expenses. i like every one of them want to secure safety net. let's do something. doing something is irresponsible. we have to make sure that we make this program solvent. just two weeks ago the chief of social security administration testified before the house ways and means committee that the old age and survivor's insurance trust fund would be insolvent, total income was less than expenditures. four years earlier than previously projected.
the longer we wait to address the problem more difficult and expensive it becomes to cut benefits to beneficiaries, it's important that democrats and republicans put aside politics and the gentle woman targeted ceo's and wealthy, one of the problems of amendment offer counterproductive to the goal of protecting social security which may result in reducing benefits for the wealthiest of americans. the budget we are considering today highlights the structure deficiencies with states that we should work in bipartisan way to protect those who are in or near retirement. individual who is quire social security the most. i'm committed to protecting social security, however, i know reforms and difficult choices will have to be made in order to do this, for that reason i encourage my colleagues to reject this amendment and i yield back.
>> debbie wasserman schultz to close. >> i appreciate that. i thank you my friend the gentleman from oklahoma and fellow appropriator for his usually comedy. respectfully, there just isn't any trust because typically and previously the majority party has repeatedly attempted to privatize social security, has proposed privatization of social security and if there were trusts, you know, we could rely upon the gentleman's suggestion that we need bipartisan reform. all my amendment say that is we are not going to assume that we have cuts to social security and we are going to protect benefits for our social security beneficiaries. that's something that we should have bipartisan agreement on. social security under this republican budget would undermine the great progress that we've made. if we were to adopt a language here, i agree, we should have bipartisan reform. we should work together. we should also certainly be assuming that we are not going
to engage inenefit cuts for our seniors who have paid into social security for their entire working life and deserve assurance that they will have a safety net that social security has always been and not have to worry about having to invest those -- those benefits themselves in the stock market which is certainly far too risky to ensure the safety net. >> questions to the amendment offered by debbie wasserman schultz. the no's have it. gentleman from kentucky. recorded vote is requested pursuant to unanimous consent agreement, we will postpone recorded vote until we finish the meeting batch of amendments, are there other amendments? >> i have another amendment at the desk. >> amendment number 8. staff will distribute copies. >> relate today carried interest. >> recognized for six minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. my amendment would close loophole that benefits mostly ritual street insiders, wealthy
wall street asset managers treat their income as capital gains at a far lower tax rate than everyone else. that allows them not to pay their fair share. this loophole costs the federal government nearly $2 billion a year. time for the compensation of these wall street insiders to be treated as ordinary income just like the income of working families. when republicans were forcing their tax scam through congress, president trump promised to end this tax break for the wealthy, he said, quote, we will eliminate the carried interest deduction and other special interest loopholes that have been so good for wall street investors and for people like me but unfair to american workers, the president said. but to the surprise of none of my democratic colleagues when the time came to end egregious tax cut asset managers and lobbyists from wall street got republican friends to ensure this precious give away of the rich was maintained even ann
coulter was outraged saying, quote, for trump to promise to end tax loophole everywhere he went and backow is a bad look. tax rates ought to have at least some bear minimum perception of fairness she said. i don't often find myself agreeing with president trump and ann coulter but on this even they can see the unfairness in this system. i remember back during the last presidential, two presidential campaigns ago, a great deal of promotion made about rightfully so about mitt romney's paying 14% tax rate on his income from his venture capital fund and we see that repeated time and time again in these very high businesses which basically are part of the rental income of the country and not necessarily the productive economy of the country. my college classmate and friend
steve, head of black stone, i think a couple of years ago made 600 plus million dollars and paid a rate of tax basically at half of the rate of people who make the same amount of money in other areas of the economy and while i certainly don't grudge steve all of that fk, all t fact is that this is where american people feel that they are getting the shaft, they are working every day as hard as they can and you have someone who is basically using other people's money to make money, being taxed at a much smaller rate, lower rate. and, again, these are not investments, these are people who work, this is their ordinary income. if they were investing, they would be able to use the capital gains rates and so forth just like anyone else but this is their job and we are giving them
an incredible break. so i hope our republican colleagues will join in helping president trump keep his promise to the american and support my amendment to close the carried interest loophole and with that, i yield two minutes to my friend from illinois. >> i think the gentleman and i'm glad he read the quote from the president of the united states, we will eliminate the carried interest deduction and now as our distinguished ranking member has said, it comes as no surprise that politifact ranked as broken promise. here we are before you trying to help this body keep campaign promise for president trump. as many widely reviled tax breaks go, few can match the one known as carried interest which really is the hedge fund manager
tax break like renowned economist steve baker said. the tax break let's the high-earning managers in private equity venture capital and other investment funds pay a lower tax rate on their income than most working americans. now, this isn't their own money. this is money that they are managing and it's really unimaginable how they would be allowed to get tax break. president said the tax break was a loophole that let rich men, managers, quote, get away with murder. and, yet, we still see that that tax break exists. i would urge all of us to do what the president has promised, make an honest man out of him and let's get rid of that tax loophole. i yield back to the gentleman. >> i thank my colleague and in
the interest of speeding this along -- i would be happy to yid to the gentleman of florida. >> i thank the gentleman and i plan to join his amendment. some will say that this maybe a good idea, may fulfill the president's promise but the budget is not the appropriate vehicle to do it. gosh, based on what i see the budget is economic on which we lay out bucket and so we if this is manager that we would like to do to fulfill the president's commitment i notice the gentleman from kentucky didn't include partisan language in the amendment and there's not any, you know, representations that the tax bill was a bad idea and something included as we review things going forward and if we have the opportunity to weigh in with substantive committee with ways and means and share that these are our values that people ought to be treated fairly that's certainly something that i will support. >> thank you, gentleman, i yield
back. >> gentleman from indiana is recognized for 7 mutes to claim time in opposition. >> i think the chairman and i urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. i wou like to remind us that we just enacted the tax cuts and job's act and are begin to go see the benefits of that bill play out. thanks to comprehensive tax reform the economy is booming and workers are already seeing real tangible gains, not wall street business necessarily but everyday working americans. we have all heard the success stories of tax reform. over 3 million americans are receiving bonuses from their jobs because of it. now the liberal elite critics of tax reform have called the bonuses, quote, unquote, crumbs, for the average american, though, these bonuses are real money that stays in their pocket. now rather than rolling back tax reform as this amendment seeks to do, i would expand it. i have introduced the crumb's act to make those bonuses in
2018 tax free. what better could we do for american people than letting them keep more of their money in their pocket? the home in indiana, businesses are expanding specifically due to the tax cuts and job's act, fedex is expanding the indianapolis hub with $1.5 billion investment. andy mark, mechanical supplier will be doubling workforce within a decade because of tax reform. and not just me claiming that, those businesses are claiming that the expansion is due to tax reform. utility rates are down for all hoosiers. this week the national federation of independent businesses are holding annual, the message on wall street that i'm getting that tax reform is working and so let's let it work. according to survey, 87% of small business owners think that new tax law will have positive
impact on the general economy. as tax reform is working more americans are working, the unemployment rate has fallen to 3.8%, lowest in nearly 20 years and in my home state unemployment is at amazing 3.2%, something we would never have 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 liberal elites. this amendment would raise taxes on americans by $19.5 billion. now with the tax cut and job's act we cut taxes for the average american by $2,000. we are here today to keep americans working. that's our main job. we need to treat this budget resolution as a serious, comprehensive effort to address long-term drivers of our debt, instead we have this amendment. we address the carried interest issue in a tax cut and job's act, the bill extended the carried interest period from one
year to three years, this amendment is unnecessary. so before we consider more taxes on the american people, let us continue to see the benefits that tax reform that we just got done voting on and passing into law is doing to help our greater economic growth. and so for those reasons, i urge a no vote on this amendment. i would like to yield the remainder of my time to the gentle lady of tennessee, former chairman, diane black. >> as member of ways and means committee and of this great committee the budget committee, golden key to allowing us to do the tax reform, very proud to be part of that. we are beginning to see the effects of that as the gentleman has referenced but thanks to tax reform we see the economy is booming and workers are already seeing some real tangible gains, in fact, over 500 businesses have announced increased wages or benefits as a result of
direct of the tax cut and job's act. cbo expects the economy to grow by 3% this year, the strongest rate of growth since 2005, wow, would we have ever expected that? forecasting model currently signaling that the real gdp growth will grow by whopping 4.7% in the second quarter of this year. we have been of less than 2% since i have been here in the last eight years. we are here today to consider the budget resolution as a serious comprehensive effort to address the long-term drivers of our debt and this issue detracts from our effort that we are seeing, bigger paychecks, small business optimism. the greatest optimism in over 30 years, so carried interest was addressed, this was said by my colleague in the tax cut and
job's act treatment from one year to three years, so really this amendment is unnecessary. let's continue to see the benefits of our tax reform realize through higher economic growth before we consider new taxes. for this reason, i urge a no vote on this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. >> gentle lady yields back to me and i yield back to the chairman. >> the gentleman of kentucky to close. >> i appreciate the comments of my two friends on the republican side. i listened for all the time and did not hear one defense of the carried interest deduction. not one defense. a lot of defense of the tax act which is fine, they are entitled to say that, we can have debate on that. the fact that mr. rakita talks about tax increase on the american people, no, this is tax
increase on a very, very small population, notably people like steven and mitt romney, people who are making enormous sums of money and are paying a very low tax rate. so i urge my replicans to join me in voting for this amendment, again, i hope that they would take this opportunity to help president trump fulfill one of his promises which raises $19.5 billion for the taxpayers over the next ten years, i yield back. >> question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kentucky, mr. yarmuth, those in favor say i, those oppose, no. the no's have it. will postpone recorded vote until this batch of amendments have been finished in their debate.
as expected at this time, knowing that we have votes on the floor of the house coming up here in about 30 minutes, the committee will now vote, proceed to vote on the rolled amendments from earlier this morning and we have 7 such amendments votes so the committee will now vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman mr. boyle relate today medicare, the clerk will redesignate the amendment clerk will call the roll. [roll call vote]
>> mr. smith votes no. >> the no's are 20. >> the no's have it. the agreement is not agreed to. the committee will vote amendment number one to reject the american health care act, the clerk will redesignate the amendment. >> offered by representative to reject the american health care act. >> the clerk will call the roll. [roll call vote] [roll call vote]
[roll call vote] [roll call vote] >> are there any members unrecorded that wish to change vote. hearing none, the clerk shall report. >> the yea's are 13 and no's are 21. >> the no's have it, the amendment is not agreed to. jackson lee related to medicare, clerk will redesignate the amendment. >> amendment number 2 offered by
>> are there members unrecorded? mr. growthman recorded as no. the clerk shall report. >> mr. chairman, the yea's are 13, the no's are 21. >> the no's have it. the amendment is not agreed to. now amendment offered by debbie wasserman schultz, clerk will redesignate amendment. >> policy statement on social security benefits. >> call the roll. [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote]
the ayes are 16, the no's are eating. >> the no's have. the amendment is not agreed to. and that concludes this series of role votes. break? as expected a house on the floor the house that would be votes called out about 11:30 so we're going to go -- >> mr. chairman? >> go going to recess at this te with a strong recommendation to the members of the committee that as soon as you voted on the last vote of this series please return to the budget hearing room so that we can begin the next batch of votes. i think where for more tier one and then get into the tier two votes. so please, upon recording your last vote on the floor of the house come back so we can get started early and ensure a timely departure today. >> mr. chairman? >> ms. jayapal? >> is it appropriate to ask for unanimous consent the wreckage i
would've voted aye on amendments six and one? >> show her vote on those amendments. any objections? so ordered. ms. wasserman schultz. >> like to dissent and ask unanimous consent that i be recognized as having voted if i were here yet on amendments one, two and three. >> any objections? mr. carbajal. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would also like to ask unanimous consent due to detainment in traffic this morning on my commute in to have reflect this on 14 and 13. >> -- 14, three and 13. >> so ordered. >> mr. chairman, i'd also like to request unanimous consent to have yes recorded or record reflect yes for the first three
amendments introduced. >> any objection? so ordered. mr. gold. >> we are going to do this that i would ask on the first three amendments that i be recorded i would've voted no had i been here. >> mr. cole would've recorded know on the first three amendments. without objection. mr. rokita. >> mr. chairman, ask unanimous consent to be recorded as no on the first three amendments this morning. >> same for mr. repeated, first three amendments. mr. sanford. >> while we're at it if i could be recorded as no on the first vote of this series, had i been here. >> the first three amendments. >> no, , no, no. >> without objection. >> i will ask unanimous consent i be recorded as a note on the first three amendments. >> first three amendments, any other questions or concerns? the chair to close the committee in recess until immediately following the vote series on the
floor of the house. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the committee will come back to order. it is now 12:35 and we'll continue and resume the budget markup 2019 budget markup, and we are in that to want amendments. we still have four remaining 211 before we moved to the tier two. at this time that you ask if there any additional amendments?